RE: Capitalism: The Foundation of Human Life and Morality
July 30, 2013 at 1:38 am
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2013 at 1:56 am by genkaus.)
(July 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Koolay Wrote: -A reasonable man would quickly ask: "But if Capitalism is wrong because humans are imperfect, then why are we giving a group of humans near infinite power to rule over us in a monopoly?"
A reasonable man would quickly answer: "We don't".
(July 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Koolay Wrote: I'm sorry, but you do realise organised crime and drug dealers only exist because those drugs are made illegal by the government? Without the government, none of these drug wars, etc would even exist.
I'm sorry, but you do realize that this statement is insanely stupid - ofcourse you don't. Without the government, these drug wars would be the way of life for all of us.
(July 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Koolay Wrote: Because when an industry is made illegal by the government, very few people want to get involved with it because of the risks involved- which naturally creates a void in demand which means higher margins. And if you are some kid growing up in a ghetto/welfare estate (which is caused by the government again), making a few hundred dollars in a day selling drugs is quite appealing to those that have nothing to lose. That's why you get so many outlandish and violent people in drug trade, rather than Joe Shmo businessmen.
Otherwise it would be an Amsterdam coffee shop, rather than some creepy guy in the back of an alley.
But I'm sure you know all this already.
Right idea - wrong, wrong conclusion. It is not that only a violent person would get into drug trade, it is that for those who do, violence is the only option left. If you are trading legal goods, then that means that the rules of the land automatically apply. Which means that in case of any dispute or conflict of interests, you go to the courts - an objective authority. In trading illegal goods, this recourse is not available to you - which is why you resort to violence.
Your dream of buying drugs in an Amsterdam coffee shop can only come true with the presence of the government. Otherwise, you'd be buying coffee from a creepy guy in the back alley.
(July 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The United States made its greatest advances when capitalism was controlled by government regulation on one hand and labor unions on the other.
Then...the pigs got greedy. What we have now is hardly an "advance." Unless you think going down the shitter is "advancement."
On the other hand:
The United States made its greatest advances with capitalism despite it being controlled by government regulation on one hand and labor unions on the other. Now the effects of all that control is catching up to them.
(July 29, 2013 at 7:05 pm)MikeTheInfidel Wrote: Koolay displays a fervent, devout faith in the goodness of the invisible hand of the market. One might even say he seems to think it is a god with our best interests at heart.
Koolay displays a fervent, devout faith in his insane belief that all government is evil. If he is somehow convinced that the "invisible hand" needs the government to work, he'd drop his support for capitalism faster than a turd.
(July 29, 2013 at 8:00 pm)Koolay Wrote: Well okay, if you think I made a logical error I would like to hear it.
You've made too many to count. Starting with the assumption that government is evil and all it does is control, enslave and steal from people.
(July 29, 2013 at 8:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Rand Paul - a US senator (showing how far that title has gone down the shitter) thinks "private property" means that white store owners should be able to only serve whites if they want to. I do not.
I don't know anything about this guy, but I do agree with him here.
(July 29, 2013 at 8:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: But I will go anyway. Private property is valid because we all own our bodies by definition, as private property, nobody else can own our bodies, physically, morally, mathematically. So when people say "private property is wrong" or immoral, or exploitative or whatever, they are literally contradicting their own principle infinitely, and rejecting their very being.
How is it possible to "mathematically" own anything?
And your explanation here is ridiculous. You cannot justify ownership by presupposing the concept of ownership.
Private property does have a valid, logical justification for it, but the one you have given is not it.
Besides, I don't see anyone here actually saying that "private property is wrong".
(July 29, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Koolay Wrote: eBay is an example of a DRO service in the private sector. They solve millions of disputes between people across different parts of the world, without government involvement.
Wrong. Government is involved.
