Capitalism vs. Statism

[Lord Sinister]

This thread looks really interesting, I'll definitely have to give it a thorough reading when I'm more awake (1AM here. ).

 

A little food for thought though, perhaps it is not the systems themselves that are flawed but human nature itself.

[xxxxxxxxx]

This thread looks really interesting, I'll definitely have to give it a thorough reading when I'm more awake (1AM here. ).

 

A little food for thought though, perhaps it is not the systems themselves that are flawed but human nature itself.

No... It's the systems.

Humans are flawed, and they made the systems.

[BTGBullseye]

There have been good Dictators in the past.

The Czars of pre-communist Russia would fall in that category as well I think...

[Serbdude]

"I'm worried that the world is sinking into statism, especially with election of Obama and his socialist policies. (Not a republican: just pointing that out)"

 

Obama isn't socialist. Some of the things he wanted to implement were left of center but overall he is hardly socialist.

 

"Statism is any theory that some men have the power to rule over and initiate force on other men. So, any theory but capitalism in the poll is statism, or at least some elements of statism."

 

Anarchy, Communism (in its purest form) and possible some forms of Socialism have no centralized government/power structures therefore it cannot be a form of statism.

 

"I say that if you love life, reason and mankind, and you believe reality is objective, you have no choice but to pick capitalism. Capitalism is the only system where initiating force is banned from all human relationships and all property is privately owned. The only organization that is legally allowed to use force is the government and they can only use it in retaliation. (e.g. punishing murders since they initiated force against other men by killing them. Remember: the initiation of force is banned, even by the government!)"

 

Capitalism is probably one of the sickest and most distorted economic philosophies. At least in its current manifestations like in the USA and China. Essentially what happens in Capitalism is that wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few which liberally use that wealth to corrupt government institutions and its members in order to advance their own agenda. If it was up to capitalism on how much you should work and earn we would be living in 19th century working conditions and our standards would fall. It gives people the illusion that they have a change at becoming super wealthy if they work hard enough (some do, but the vast majority don't). They might as well play the lottery.

 

Many Americans are angry that jobs are being "exported" to countries like China. Obviously they don't love life and reason as clearly they are going against Capitalism. These corporations that are moving their jobs to China are only doing so to reduce costs and (theoretically) lower costs for you! The consumer! Now its more affordable and since those corporations were competitive in the marketplace they now have a advantage over their competition. The system works (even if sometimes you have to use child labor or pay cents to your workers)!

 

Regarding the murder lets think about that for a second. Today all we do for when someone murders another is punish them. This ultimately doesn't solve the problem, it just barely mitigates. Sure that particular person probably won't be able to commit a crime (outside of prison), but that doesn't prevent other people from doing it. Lets (for sake of argument) assume this was a gang related incident and the persons involved belong to rival gangs. Lets try to figure out why are they in a organization that is so counterproductive to society. If you look close enough you will find various push/pull factors that are directly related to the socioeconomic condition and what they see as a way to better themselves (financially). Of course there are other factors like friends or being pressed to join, but ultimately they join because of their poverty. Would they still join if they had a middleclass lifestyle? Another question is how accessible is it for them to reach such a lifestyle? Most crime is in the end related to money. This is a byproduct of our current capitalist system.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqSzbrtTao

[Michael Archer]

Capitalism is probably one of the sickest and most distorted economic philosophies.

 

The only way someone can criticize capitalism is if they distort and simply make up things about the philosophy. But indulge me:

 

At least in its current manifestations like in the USA and China.

 

Are you seriously citing China as a form of capitalism?

 

I don't know where to begin. Freedom of speech is illegal, they don't respect human rights...do I really need to go on?

 

Essentially what happens in Capitalism is that wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few which liberally use that wealth to corrupt government institutions and its members in order to advance their own agenda.

 

Wealth is not a static quantity; anyone can earn wealth. There's no "national wealth". Unlike other systems; in capitalism, those who have wealth earned it justly.

 

What do you mean by "corrupt government institutions?" How would that work?

 

If it was up to capitalism on how much you should work and earn we would be living in 19th century working conditions and our standards would fall

.

 

Funny how you bring up 19th century capitalism. At that point, capitalist United States was the most advanced country on the planet. The rest of the world had horrible living conditions.

 

The reason for this is that capitalism only grows a society. If we were capitalist up until now, we would be decades ahead.

 

It gives people the illusion that they have a change at becoming super wealthy if they work hard enough (some do, but the vast majority don't). They might as well play the lottery.

 

The lottery is pure chance. Capitalism is not chance; if you create a product that's desperately needed by industry and people, there's no chance that you'll become filthy rich; you will become filthy rich.

 

Many Americans are angry that jobs are being "exported" to countries like China. Obviously they don't love life and reason as clearly they are going against Capitalism. These corporations that are moving their jobs to China are only doing so to reduce costs and (theoretically) lower costs for you!

 

"Many Americans" don't understand that they are not entitled to these jobs. The jobs do not belong to them similar to how the money that the corporation makes doesn't belong to them. They belong to whomever the corporation wants to give it. If some guy in China will work twice as hard for half the pay than someone in the United States, reason says that you'll make more money giving it to the Chinese guy.

 

Now its more affordable and since those corporations were competitive in the marketplace they now have a advantage over their competition.

 

As is the nature of capitalism. Capitalism does not support or condone mediocrity, which you want it to. If your competitor is hiring cheaper labor and selling more products than you at cheaper prices and you're not doing this for the sake of "American jobs" then you better change your business model since you're the inferior company.

 

The system works (even if sometimes you have to use child labor or pay cents to your workers)!

 

Child labor is an issue of parents not being productive enough; this is not from capitalism. Outlawing child labor would cause more harm than good.

 

Wages are determined by supply and demand. If a business owner sets the wages too high because he's kind and altruistic, he'll lose to companies that set them at the industry standard. If he sets them too low because he's stingy, people won't work for him. It's that simple. How is this a problem?

 

Lets (for sake of argument) assume this was a gang related incident and the persons involved belong to rival gangs. Lets try to figure out why are they in a organization that is so counterproductive to society. If you look close enough you will find various push/pull factors that are directly related to the socioeconomic condition and what they see as a way to better themselves (financially). Of course there are other factors like friends or being pressed to join, but ultimately they join because of their poverty. Would they still join if they had a middleclass lifestyle? Another question is how accessible is it for them to reach such a lifestyle?

 

What's your solution? Socialism and government programs? Are you saying because poverty creates crime, robbing money from an individual who's earned to give it to an individual who has not earned it is justified since it lowers crime? Using the same logic, I could say it's justified for the Mafia to extort money since if they get money, they won't blow up houses.

 

Most crime is in the end related to money. This is a byproduct of our current capitalist system.

 

People will rob each other, no matter what the system. In socialism, the money is taxed to no end, so robbing looks more appealing as you get to keep all of it.

 

In capitalism, you're free to make money and spend it as you please, as opposed to other systems.

 

In capitalism, the initiation of force is banned. The actions you described would be illegal. If you're going to talk about capitalism, at least understand what it is first.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqSzbrt ... re=related

 

Heh, that was funny! But I'm going to address the video's points as if it was being serious.

 

Captain Capitalism actually pretty much sums up my view of how Christmas should be. It should be about happiness (gift giving), celebrating the pleasures of life (turkey) and celebrating your wealth (more gifts). The child says that Christmas should be about self-sacrifice and giving away the wealth that you rightfully earned to people that did not deserve it.

 

Notice as the communist henchman spouts nonsense, he is clearly brainwashed. Captain Capitalism is also not the first one to initiate force; the statist aggressor was the first to strike. In the sequel, I imagine Captain Capitalism will strike back with everything he has.

 

And just as I predicted, the only way you can criticize capitalism is to change its meaning to something completley wrong. The only arguments you have are about aspects of capitalism that you made up. Capitalism is a system where the initiation of force is banned from all human relationships; you would have to deliberately misconstrue that if you're going to call that evil.

 

Please, read a book by Ayn Rand or something before talking to me next time.

 

It's never anarchy if someone is in charge. You need to look up the definition of anarchy.

 

"Co-ruling" implies we're social equals. That means no one is in charge.

 

Not really. Though I should have used "Dictatorship" since "tyranny" carries too many negative connotations. Most good families are benevolent dictatorships. (Or maybe co-dictatorships.)

 

The problem, as I said, is finiding a Dictator (and note I'm using the OLD meaning of "Dictator.") who actually has the best interests of the citizenry at heart, and who is wise enough to lead, or wise enough to choose advisers to guide him in decision making in the areas in which he is not knowledgeable enough to lead on his own.

 

The problem is that the dictator is not bound by a constitution. If he respects and upholds the citizen's rights, he's doing it on whim i.e. he's doing it because he feels like it. It's too easy to abuse that power, human nature being what it is.

 

Who decides the next dictator after the old dictator dies? The old dictator, of course. He can pick whoever the hell he wants and they can do whatever the hell they want.

 

The fact that they have the power to do that is scary.

[Doom Shepherd]

 

The problem is that the dictator is not bound by a constitution. If he respects and upholds the citizen's rights, he's doing it on whim i.e. he's doing it because he feels like it. It's too easy to abuse that power, human nature being what it is.

 

Who decides the next dictator after the old dictator dies? The old dictator, of course. He can pick whoever the hell he wants and they can do whatever the hell they want.

 

The fact that they have the power to do that is scary.

 

You're forgetting that I said "benevolent" dictator. This presupposes that the dictator has society's best interests at heart, he does good because he feels like it (the same reason any of us do good when we don't have to) as a matter of character, which means that he or she would seek to choose the best possible successor. I forsee a battery of tests of intelligence and character and psychology that would be applied to a number of potential candidates, even before the Dictator takes the future successor as an apprentice.

 

And of course, you're also missing that my example of an ideal dictator QUIT and returned power to the people immediately after his goals were accomplished. In that event, there isn't even a need to choose a successor. The best emergency leaders want to get the job done and get out.

[Michael Archer]

Power corrupts, Doom Shepherd.

 

My problem with that system is that there are no checks and balances. The problem is that the individual has the power to initiate force; no individual has the right to do that. Just because he can, doesn't mean he has the right.

 

It's also up to the dictator to say what's best and what's not; if he says it's ok to murder people, then it's ok. He could think that letting people murder each other is being nice and benevolent.

[BTGBullseye]

Power corrupts, Doom Shepherd.

Only if the one with the power actually wants power.

 

My problem with that system is that there are no checks and balances. The problem is that the individual has the power to initiate force; no individual has the right to do that. Just because he can, doesn't mean he has the right.

Make a Rights thread, and quit trying to shove your interpretation of Rights down everyone's throats.

 

It's also up to the dictator to say what's best and what's not; if he says it's ok to murder people, then it's ok. He could think that letting people murder each other is being nice and benevolent.

Yeah, but we don't... That's part of what makes us good candidates for the position.

 

I'm also clinically insane, so that just bumped me to the top of the list... (clinically insane is not the same as criminally insane)

[Michael Archer]

Make a Rights thread, and quit trying to shove your interpretation of Rights down everyone's throats.

 

But that's the thing. "Shoving" implies that there's only one view and everyone who looks at it a different way is wrong and that other people should be forced to believe something else.

 

I believe in a system where the initiation of force is banned, so it makes sense why this is my view of rights.

 

Any other view would advocate the initiation of force.

 

So you can believe what you want to believe; just don't force me to do anything.

 

I'm also clinically insane, so that just bumped me to the top of the list... (clinically insane is not the same as criminally insane)

 

If you thought that your statement within your parenthesis would somehow assuage my feeling of uneasiness around the sentence before the ellipsis, you're wrong.

[BTGBullseye]

Make a Rights thread, and quit trying to shove your interpretation of Rights down everyone's throats.

 

But that's the thing. "Shoving" implies that there's only one view and everyone who looks at it a different way is wrong and that other people should be forced to believe something else.

 

I believe in a system where the initiation of force is banned, so it makes sense why this is my view of rights.

 

Any other view would advocate the initiation of force.

 

So you can believe what you want to believe; just don't force me to do anything.

Yet you're the one saying there is only one way to interpret rights... You've said it in this thread, and the abortion one.

 

I'm also clinically insane, so that just bumped me to the top of the list... (clinically insane is not the same as criminally insane)

 

If you thought that your statement within your parenthesis would somehow assuage my feeling of uneasiness around the sentence before the ellipsis, you're wrong.

Good.

[albert6014]

Oh... wow... this thread is so wrong on so many levels... And stupid... Lets start from this thing -

''Statism is any theory that some men have the power to rule over and initiate force on other men. So, any theory but capitalism in the poll is statism, or at least some elements of statism.''

How can you even write something like this stupid? No, really o.o

You sir seem not to have worked in a company O.O

The owner of the company is a king. He will fire, promote etc according to his own will. Its simple as that. He doesn't like your face? Boom off you go. He didn't like you didn't break the law and didn't obey his order? Boom off you go.

And... the ultimate goal of a company in capitalism is profit. Now, you said whats wrong with that... Well, there is nothing wrong with it, only that the health of people, exploration of space, human knowledge etc etc is just down the list. The top priority is profit. So if its profitable to go and dump toxic waste in Somalia waters(cause the government just collapsed and nobody was defending the water territories, except those ''filthy pirates''), cause in European countries, you have to obey regulatories and laws to get rid of toxic waste(not profitable, too much hassle), then you choose the first option. Its a living example. Just one. I could go on.

The last thing(and most important)... In capitalism, the god is capital=money. So where is money, there is work and action. No money - people just sitting around(economy crash, another living example).

I mean, its simple as that. Those theorists and smartasses should seriously go fuck themselves.

P.S. People are retarded.

[Dan-95]

Oh... wow... this thread is so wrong on so many levels... And stupid... Lets start from this thing -

''Statism is any theory that some men have the power to rule over and initiate force on other men. So, any theory but capitalism in the poll is statism, or at least some elements of statism.''

How can you even write something like this stupid? No, really o.o

You sir seem not to have worked in a company O.O

The owner of the company is a king. He will fire, promote etc according to his own will. Its simple as that. He doesn't like your face? Boom off you go. He didn't like you didn't break the law and didn't obey his order? Boom off you go.

And... the ultimate goal of a company in capitalism is profit. Now, you said whats wrong with that... Well, there is nothing wrong with it, only that the health of people, exploration of space, human knowledge etc etc is just down the list. The top priority is profit. So if its profitable to go and dump toxic waste in Somalia waters(cause the government just collapsed and nobody was defending the water territories, except those ''filthy pirates''), cause in European countries, you have to obey regulatories and laws to get rid of toxic waste(not profitable, too much hassle), then you choose the first option. Its a living example. Just one. I could go on.

The last thing(and most important)... In capitalism, the god is capital=money. So where is money, there is work and action. No money - people just sitting around(economy crash, another living example).

I mean, its simple as that. Those theorists and smartasses should seriously go fuck themselves.

P.S. People are retarded.

 

Blunt, but true. +rep.

[ProHypster]

I have to agree with Albert's main idea that the topic is f***** up.

 

But even Albert is wrong because:

 

Capitalism isn't a social theory, just an economic one, so it has nothing to do with the way people should live and apparently half the people here think that capitalism stands for Democracy and Statism for Dictatorship. Well I hate to break it to You but it's more like choosing between aluminium and steel if anything.

 

Moving on to Social theories:

 

Obama's policies are barely socialist, even I know that and I'm a Ukrainian. A Socialist government means You are protected by the state which is representing the people in certain situations. For example in Germany, You can't be fired untill You get 3 legit Warnings, approven by the government during a time span of 3 months I believe, and You will still have to be paid by the state for the time You are looknig for another job. In USA You can get fired on Your birthday for no reason... Basically the Socialist theory means that You are supported professionally by the people/state when You are in need and that You have to provide other people with help when in need.

 

Anyway, why this topic fails:

 

You people ever considered that while a small country might benefit from one economic theory, an empire might work worst with that same economic theory????

 

It should be pretty obvious...common, think a little, and then ask more specific questions, like what would be a better economic system in the USA for example.

 

If I don't get a progressive smarter response I won't even post anything more here.

[Dan-95]

But even Albert is wrong because:

 

Capitalism isn't a social theory, just an economic one, so it has nothing to do with the way people should live and apparently half the people here think that capitalism stands for Democracy and Statism for Dictatorship. Well I hate to break it to You but it's more like choosing between aluminium and steel if anything.

might benefit from one economic theory, an empire might work worst with that same economic theory????

 

In defence of albert (whom i mostly agree with):

It is true that in theory that capitalism and statism are only economic theories, they do end up affecting socially, as does the system of government. Social choices will change depending on how you live economically, so the two are intertwined. Albert is making a point that sometimes profit will be more motive to do something rather than important issues, when ideally, important issues should almost always come first. In summary, the economic system does have something to do with the way people live but impact may vary. If a person would like to try and cure cancer or invest in the share market, would the economic system affect their choice? It may or may not, but that's still a certain amount of people gone for the money motive.

[ProHypster]

If a person would like to try and cure cancer or invest in the share market, would the economic system affect their choice? It may or may not, but that's still a certain amount of people gone for the money motive.

 

Hmmm, I can see what You mean, I'm guessing the difference between let's say 100% Democracy-Capitalism and 100 % Democracy-Statism would be that in the first You would do it Yourself (Investing in Cure of Cancer), while in the second You would have to be a democratic majority (whatever law on voting everyone agrees to in the country) , for the government to invest in the Cure of Cancer.

 

But, yes You are right, the economic theories can in fact, affect social life, my main point was that some of the guys here really took it to far with how much the word capitalism and statism means.

 

The topic of economics is actually much more complex than just Capitalism and Statism though. In fact it really is too complex I believe, for a bunch of amateurs to debate it over. I am not a certified Economist, so my opinion mostly comes from seeing what the different types of governments achieved with both economic systems. My point is, discussing Economics on a forum is like discussing surgery on forums, it takes years of university education to get a job in the field and it is wrong trying to debate it unprofessionally.

[Dan-95]

Agreed.

[Michael Archer]

The owner of the company is a king. He will fire, promote etc according to his own will. Its simple as that. He doesn't like your face? Boom off you go. He didn't like you didn't break the law and didn't obey his order? Boom off you go.

 

Your point? You're not entitled to that job, the same way that you're not entitled to the boss' money.

 

And... the ultimate goal of a company in capitalism is profit. Now, you said whats wrong with that... Well, there is nothing wrong with it, only that the health of people, exploration of space, human knowledge etc etc is just down the list.

 

Health of the people? Notice that in 20th century, the average lifespan of a poor person in even semi-capitalist United States was far longer than the average lifespan of peasant in the Soviet Union. At least the poor capitalist had enough to eat.

 

No exploration of space under capitalism? You've obviously never heard of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic

 

Human knowledge is down the list under capitalism? Wow, what an ignorant statement. Capitalism is the only system that allows and encourages human knowledge; in order to survive, man must use his knowledge of the world around him to survive. The more knowledge he gathers, the more likely he'll survive and be happy. The mind can only operate with freedom, and capitalism is the only system that frees his mind from the initiation of force. Statism is the worst offender of man's mind and his knowledge; statists like yourself believe that it's ok to initiate force on other people, rendering their mind and their knowledge useless.

 

The top priority is profit. So if its profitable to go and dump toxic waste in Somalia waters(cause the government just collapsed and nobody was defending the water territories, except those ''filthy pirates'')

 

If a company wants to dump toxins in their own land, that's their own business; you have no place to tell them how to use their land. However, if they're dumping toxins in someone else's land, or the toxins in their land are seeping through the ground and hurting other people, then they will be held responsible under capitalism. Notice that the privately owned parks in Scotland are much more beautiful and cleaner than the parks owned by the government in India.

 

The last thing(and most important)... In capitalism, the god is capital=money. So where is money, there is work and action. No money - people just sitting around(economy crash, another living example).

 

Again...what's wrong with that? If there's something that's important that needs to be done, there will be a demand. Demand=work.

 

If there's no demand, it's not worth doing.

 

P.S. People are retarded.

 

I guess that's why you think it's ok to initiate force on them; you don't view an individual as your fellow man, you view them as a tool to be used, which is statism.

 

Capitalism isn't a social theory, just an economic one,

Maybe. The only social aspect of capitalism tells humans how they can treat one another. In terms of socializing, capitalism says that no man may initiate force on another. That's it. Everything else follows.

 

capitalism stands for Democracy and Statism for Dictatorship.

 

To those people that say capitalism=democracy, you have no idea about what you're talking about. Capitalism is about the individual and no majority may initiate force on an individual. A capitalist country is a republic, not a democracy; there's a huge difference.

 

Obama's policies are barely socialist

 

And yet his deceleration that everyone has a "right" to health care, and his following health care bill say otherwise.

 

I could go on, but there's just too much to list; that's the big one, I think.

 

A Socialist government means You are protected by the state which is representing the people in certain situations.

 

Yeah...I was exaggerating a little bit. The United States is not socialist, but it's socialistic. To be fair, the United States is the most capitalistic country on the planet.

 

You people ever considered that while a small country might benefit from one economic theory, an empire might work worst with that same economic theory????

 

I don't think you're understanding me; I'm not advocating capitalism because it works the best (although, it most certainly does). Even if it meant a lower GDP, I would still advocate it. The reason I advocate is that it is the only system that exists that respects and upholds man's rational nature and it protects man against his worst enemy: force.

[ProHypster]

The reason I advocate is that it is the only system that exists that respects and upholds man's rational nature and it protects man against his worst enemy: force.

 

I'm sorry, that is.... not going to be answered by me because it's.... extremely unscientific let's just say.

 

I'm out of this topic for that reason.

 

Trying to follow rule nr. 1 in forum rules here.

[danielsangeo]

Are you seriously citing China as a form of capitalism?

 

I don't know where to begin. Freedom of speech is illegal, they don't respect human rights...do I really need to go on?

 

Indulge me. Define "capitalism" in your own words. Don't say "Look in a dictionary" or "Google it" or something similar to that. Provide a definition for "capitalism" in your own words because I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Dan-95]

@MichaelArcher

 

For some reason my forum post screws up if i type too many words, so i'm going to ask you to re-read your last post and keep some things in mind:

1.Correlation is not causation, a certain amount of correlation is decent enough evidence.

2.Look for contradictions in statements made or at least semi-contradictions.

3.Please do not draw facts from thin air. While you do provide evidence on more than one occasion, you have made large statements that i've never heard to be true.