Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism

[Tiberius]

An example of Capitalisms evil is the slave trade where children are stolen and sold to work on sugar cane farms with 18" machetes and razor sharp plants to deal with who subsequently suffer cuts, amputations and death with not much human comfort let alone schooling. This happens to fuel higher profits.

http://www.stopthetraffik.org/news/press/press.aspx

A pathetic attempt at an argument fr0d0...I'd usually expect better from you. Capitalism involves paying workers for the work they do in accordance to the value of the work they do. Slavery is the very antithesis of Capitalism.

And whilst I agree with you that capitalism may work better than socialism indeed - I disagree that either is fair. The world isn't fair and, realistically, I don't think it ever will be. I don't think it even can be - people are all too different in too different situations the world is just randomness+natural laws to moderate that 'randomness' (well, it's probabilistic really), and that's that.

The world isn't fair, true, but systems that we set up given the contraints we live under can be. Capitalism is fair because you are paid for the work you do. Work in a more skilled job and you'll get a higher level of pay. Supply and demand is entirely natural within the human race, and Capitalism works by rewarding those who balance the two.

I think that depends on 1. How rich they are, how much they can afford it and 2. How poor the poor are. If you get a super rich person who doesn't give anything whatsoever to those who are so much worse off than him, it is indeed his 'choice' but I think it would be moral and better for everybody overall that in such a case he/she gave a bit of their money away. It's what is best for all that matters I think.

No, it doesn't depend on anything. Either people can choose what they do with the money that *they alone* have earned, or they can't. I believe that people should be able to choose. If you get a load of super-rich people deciding not to give money to the poor, they will be considered nasty people by society (in the same way socialists view all rich people). It doesn't matter what is best for all...people obviously disagree on what that is. It should come down to a personal choice, and I think more people would choose to give to charity in a Libertarian society than any other, given the freedoms that come with such a society.

I think someone who is an ex-lifeguard and quite easily has the chance to save someone's life when they are drowning 'should' do so. And if they instead not give a fuck and let someone drown because it's not their job any more and nothing in it for them, that may not be illegal and may be a personal 'choice'. But I still think that since they can 'afford it' so easily then, morally, they should help.

Morally, but not necessarily. People have an ability to override their morals; some of us feel bad about it afterwards, some of us don't. However it still stands that forcing someone down a particular moral path is not the way to go. Part of being in a free society is the ability to choose who and what to give to everyone.

And it is. Even if it were made so he/she was 'forced' to give some money away, it's still a matter of personal 'choice'. Because one can 'choose' to disobey laws even. (Whether that 'choice' is 'free' or not is another matter of course).

That is a bullshit argument. If one wishes to live in a society, they mut abide by society's rules. The choice to follow society's rules has already been made by their wish to be a member of that society. Disobeying laws has consequences, and since I do not think many would prefer to go to jail over paying a welfare tax, it is forced upon people. The only way to avoid it is to leave the society, which in most instances cannot be done easily.

I think that it is a shame that those who give their money away to charities would end up less well off (on average) than those who do not and keep the money, greedily, to themselves. Since the greedy misers who keep it to themselves are not obligated because it is their 'personal ( at least somewhat immoral in my mind (depending on how easily they can afford it)) choice'.

A shame? Yes. A right? Yes. What you do with your money is of no business to the state.

Well the extremely wealthy can easily afford to give so much of it away (and furthermore, they've been rich so they may realize that although it's great, it's perhaps not as great as many think and maybe wealth is a little overrated. Furthermore see the Hedonic Treadmill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill). And also, such people will be surely hated by the public if they kept it all to themselves. There are plenty of super-rich people who are good people, but there are also plenty of extremely poor, unlucky (see above) people who are also good people they just don't have the cash to show such 'great sums' of generosity.

So as to "Is this unfair? Hell no." of course it is, the world is always unfair. To be fair people would have to be in exactly the same situation and be exactly the same person in fact therefore. Nothing is truly 'fair' and in fact I think it's all down to luck ultimately for reasons above.

Precisely, which is my point that if you take away institutionalised welfare, it will spring up in the form of charity. More people will give (since more people have more to give) for the sake of being human. Some won't, and they may do it for various reasons, but the difference between capitalism and socialism here is that socialism operates under the delusion that people are all nice (and so has to enforce such policies against the actual will of the people), whilst capitalism allows people to choose. Those who actually are nice (and they'd probably include all the socialists too) would give their money to charity in order to fund private welfare, and those who are nasty wouldn't.

As for the unfair question again, I covered it above. It is perfectly fair given the constraints we have to live in. If you argue that the world is always unfair, and so everything else is, then the word becomes meaningless. Use it in the proper context, and capitalism is a fair system.