Capitalism vs. Statism

[Michael Archer]

Indulge me. Define "capitalism" in your own words.

 

Sure, no problem.

 

Capitalism is an economic system where all property is privately owned. When I say all property, I mean all property; even streets and government buildings. This means that the means of production are privately owned and the driving force behind it is profit. Prices of goods are objectively determined by supply and demand.

 

In capitalism, the initiation of force is banned from all human relationships. No human may initiate force on another; this includes the government. The only organization that is legally allowed to use force is the government and they may only use it in retaliation. To do this, they need three (and only three) departments: the police, to catch people breaking the law; the legal system, to punish these people; and the military, to defend the country's borders. Capitalism is a system that respects individual rights e.g. the right to life, liberty and property (this is the reason capitalism is the best system). Basically, you can do whatever you want under a capitalist system as long as you don't violate anyone's rights.

 

A capitalist country is a republic; this means that certain individuals are elected to positions in the state, but these individuals have very limited power and they are bound by a constitution.

 

Remember when I said even government property is owned by private individuals? In a capitalist system, government property is owned by public corporations (a corporation traded on the stock market). Elected officials will obviously decide how to use the property, but the actual physical ownership would belong to the corporation. The reason for this is that the government can not "own" anything per se; the government is just a representative of the people and despite what you've read in The Communist Manifesto, "public ownership" doesn't mean anything.

 

Keep in mind, when I talk about capitalism; I'm not talking about half-assed United States/Canada capitalism. I'm talking about pure, unregulated, lassiez-faire capitalism. Basically the economics is separate from the state kind of like how the church is separate from the state.

[Koockaburra101]

A question about the poll options.

Which definition of "Anarchy" are we going by here? And also what is meant by "Communism? Is it the ideal final stage of society as described by Marx or is it simply defined as what happened in the Soviet union? Because if it's the latter you should probably call it Stalinism just to avoid confusion.

 

I'm not necessarily in support of either btw.

[BTGBullseye]

My real actual political viewpoint is what is called "Rational Anarchist"... Read the Robert Heinlein book "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" and see the Professor's viewpoint.

[Michael Archer]

Anarchy is abolition of the state, I believe. There is no government.

 

I put Anarchy in there for the sake of completion; I didn't expect anyone to actually vote for it.

 

Anarchy has to be one of the worst ideas ever. In anarchy, the individual is subject to anyone who desires to initiate force against him. It's the rule of the jungle. The use of retaliatory force is no longer in objective hands; in Anarchy, if a man loses his wallet and suspects it's stolen, he can shoot the first man who looks at him funny. The use of force is placed in the hands of individuals who use on on whim. A society needs a government to properly function, because people will always have honest disagreements; the role of the government is just to make retaliatory force objective.

[danielsangeo]

So, in this "capitalist" system of yours, Michael, how does one "retaliate" against someone that wronged them if the other feels like they didn't? If Bob takes Steve to court because Bob feels that Steve wronged him in some way, but Steve doesn't feel like he did anything wrong, then isn't "the government" initiating force against Steve?

 

Also, I haven't read the communist manifesto. Despite what you might believe, I'm a capitalist but I don't believe that capitalism has anything to do with sociopolitical theory. It is, to me, a purely economic model. You can have capitalism in an extreme totalitarian state (probably what you'd call "statism"), for example. Capitalism, to me, is simply an economic theory in which the means of production are privately owned and you can buy and sell goods and services at a profit. That's it.

[Michael Archer]

So, in this "capitalist" system of yours

 

It's called lassiez-faire capitalism, for the record. It's French!

 

how does one "retaliate" against someone that wronged them if the other feels like they didn't? If Bob takes Steve to court because Bob feels that Steve wronged him in some way, but Steve doesn't feel like he did anything wrong, then isn't "the government" initiating force against Steve?

 

The role of the court system to objectively (capitalism is all about objectivity) determine who initiated force whom and to objectively apply retaliatory force. Bob should sue Steve, like you said, and it's not up to Steve to say if he did something; it's up for the courts to objectively determine.

 

For example, I could murder someone and they'll claim I'm initiating force against them, but I could swear by my life that I'm not. It doesn't matter what I say; it just matters what reality is.

 

I don't believe that capitalism has anything to do with sociopolitical theory. It is, to me, a purely economic model.

 

Capitalism is a system of freedom and that's exactly what man and his mind needs to survive. It is mostly an economic model, but I'm talking about about the ramifications. For example, if trade is going to be free, it makes sense that in capitalism, the initiation of force is banned.

 

You can have capitalism in an extreme totalitarian state (probably what you'd call "statism"), for example.

 

Like in China? I'm not sure what I'd call that. In capitalism, corporations exist by right. In China, corporations exist by permission. That's socialism, if anything. Capitalism is about objectivity (objective prices, objective wages, objective justice); statism is about subjectivity, like a totalitarian dictatorship. If the dictator decides to make it capitalist, then the business' are still operating by permission and not by right.

[Koockaburra101]

By what right does the state claim objectivity? The example of murder is a bad one in this case since the entire point of the original question was to suppose a situation in which the solution isn't clear-cut. In real life there is often a lot of gray area and as long as the representatives of the state are people the judgments they hand out will have an element of subjectivity to them in cases where it isn't clear where exactly the line was crossed.

The claim to objectivity is a dubious one since we can never have perfect information about the reality on which you claim we should judge everything.

[danielsangeo]

So, in this "capitalist" system of yours

 

It's called lassiez-faire capitalism, for the record. It's French!

 

Which isn't, really, capitalism at all.

 

how does one "retaliate" against someone that wronged them if the other feels like they didn't? If Bob takes Steve to court because Bob feels that Steve wronged him in some way, but Steve doesn't feel like he did anything wrong, then isn't "the government" initiating force against Steve?

 

The role of the court system to objectively (capitalism is all about objectivity) determine who initiated force whom and to objectively apply retaliatory force. Bob should sue Steve, like you said, and it's not up to Steve to say if he did something; it's up for the courts to objectively determine.

 

Why? What right does the court have to get involved in a private matter between Bob and Steve?

 

For example, I could murder someone and they'll claim I'm initiating force against them, but I could swear by my life that I'm not. It doesn't matter what I say; it just matters what reality is.

 

I don't believe that capitalism has anything to do with sociopolitical theory. It is, to me, a purely economic model.

 

Capitalism is a system of freedom

 

I disagree. Capitalism is an economic model. It has nothing to do with freedom. One can be free in a socialist or communist state.

 

and that's exactly what man and his mind needs to survive. It is mostly an economic model, but I'm talking about about the ramifications. For example, if trade is going to be free, it makes sense that in capitalism, the initiation of force is banned.

 

Okay, let's say that the "force" is not objective. Let's say it's subjective. For example, cigarette companies. Their products have an addictive quality to them and, through the use of their products, their customers negatively affect other people ("second-hand smoke"). Are the cigarette companies initiating force against the second-hand person? Is the smoker initiating force? What if I, as a non-smoker, sue the smoker? Or the cigarette company? Am I initiating force? Should it be a class action lawsuit? Are class action lawsuits allowed? What about oil companies polluting the air? What then?

 

You can have capitalism in an extreme totalitarian state (probably what you'd call "statism"), for example.

 

Like in China? I'm not sure what I'd call that. In capitalism, corporations exist by right. In China, corporations exist by permission. That's socialism, if anything.

 

Not really. Socialism is where the means of production are publically-owned. Just having corporations exist by permission doesn't necessarily mean that "the government" owns the business' means of production. And just because the government owns the means of production doesn't necessarily mean that it's socialism.

 

Capitalism is about objectivity (objective prices, objective wages, objective justice); statism is about subjectivity, like a totalitarian dictatorship. If the dictator decides to make it capitalist, then the business' are still operating by permission and not by right.

 

What right does a business have to charge money for things?

[ProHypster]

So, in this "capitalist" system of yours

 

It's called lassiez-faire capitalism, for the record. It's French!

 

Which isn't, really, capitalism at all.

 

how does one "retaliate" against someone that wronged them if the other feels like they didn't? If Bob takes Steve to court because Bob feels that Steve wronged him in some way, but Steve doesn't feel like he did anything wrong, then isn't "the government" initiating force against Steve?

 

The role of the court system to objectively (capitalism is all about objectivity) determine who initiated force whom and to objectively apply retaliatory force. Bob should sue Steve, like you said, and it's not up to Steve to say if he did something; it's up for the courts to objectively determine.

 

Why? What right does the court have to get involved in a private matter between Bob and Steve?

 

For example, I could murder someone and they'll claim I'm initiating force against them, but I could swear by my life that I'm not. It doesn't matter what I say; it just matters what reality is.

 

I don't believe that capitalism has anything to do with sociopolitical theory. It is, to me, a purely economic model.

 

Capitalism is a system of freedom

 

I disagree. Capitalism is an economic model. It has nothing to do with freedom. One can be free in a socialist or communist state.

 

and that's exactly what man and his mind needs to survive. It is mostly an economic model, but I'm talking about about the ramifications. For example, if trade is going to be free, it makes sense that in capitalism, the initiation of force is banned.

 

Okay, let's say that the "force" is not objective. Let's say it's subjective. For example, cigarette companies. Their products have an addictive quality to them and, through the use of their products, their customers negatively affect other people ("second-hand smoke"). Are the cigarette companies initiating force against the second-hand person? Is the smoker initiating force? What if I, as a non-smoker, sue the smoker? Or the cigarette company? Am I initiating force? Should it be a class action lawsuit? Are class action lawsuits allowed? What about oil companies polluting the air? What then?

 

You can have capitalism in an extreme totalitarian state (probably what you'd call "statism"), for example.

 

Like in China? I'm not sure what I'd call that. In capitalism, corporations exist by right. In China, corporations exist by permission. That's socialism, if anything.

 

Not really. Socialism is where the means of production are publically-owned. Just having corporations exist by permission doesn't necessarily mean that "the government" owns the business' means of production. And just because the government owns the means of production doesn't necessarily mean that it's socialism.

 

Capitalism is about objectivity (objective prices, objective wages, objective justice); statism is about subjectivity, like a totalitarian dictatorship. If the dictator decides to make it capitalist, then the business' are still operating by permission and not by right.

 

What right does a business have to charge money for things?

 

Read other pages before posting, no new material was posted in your post...

[danielsangeo]

If all this was said before, then why is he still insisting on repeating the same mistakes?

[ProHypster]

Why are you asking me that???

[danielsangeo]

I was asking anyone who cared to answer. You, Michael Archer, anyone...

[BTGBullseye]

Anarchy is abolition of the state, I believe. There is no government.

 

I put Anarchy in there for the sake of completion; I didn't expect anyone to actually vote for it.

 

Anarchy has to be one of the worst ideas ever. In anarchy, the individual is subject to anyone who desires to initiate force against him. It's the rule of the jungle. The use of retaliatory force is no longer in objective hands; in Anarchy, if a man loses his wallet and suspects it's stolen, he can shoot the first man who looks at him funny. The use of force is placed in the hands of individuals who use on on whim. A society needs a government to properly function, because people will always have honest disagreements; the role of the government is just to make retaliatory force objective.

You need to start reading the whole post instead of seeing the word "Anarchist" and immediately assuming my beliefs to be something they aren't.

 

Go read the book I mentioned and quit assuming.

 

Or better yet, read this: http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/

[danielsangeo]

I believe completely unrestrained (laissez-faire) capitalism is ultimately unpatriotic. Why do I believe that? In laissez-faire capitalism (or, let's call it "Michael Archer Capitalism"), there are no rules on business except for those against "the initiation of force". This nebulous concept however, leaves out a major problem:

 

The cost of living in, say, the United States, is much higher than the cost of living in another country. This imbalance in the cost of living (for example, it's possible to live on $2/week in one country but impossible to live on even ten times that in the United States) leads to a "race to the bottom".

 

Let's say I have a business. Let's also say that I have the ability to choose where to have the majority of my staff. I have a choice of: In America, hiring someone making $35k/year (minimum) or in Bangladesh, hiring someone making $3.5k/year (minimum). Both candidates have identical education and will bring an identical skillset to the position I'm hiring for. What would I choose? If I was a smart businessman, I'd hire the Bangladeshi person -- save $31.5k/year on a single position, who wouldn't?!

 

However, if the majority of my support staff are in other countries, that means that people inside the United States are going without a job. "Dey durk yerrr jerbs!" in South Park parlance. This ultimately harms America. Laissez-faire capitalism harms America. Or any other country where this happens. Isn't this an "initiation of force"? Unless the cost-of-living is identical in every country or region in the world (I don't see this happening any time soon and isn't that "socialism" or "communism"; the redistribution of wealth?), then you're going to have this problem.

[Koockaburra101]

However, if the majority of my support staff are in other countries, that means that people inside the United States are going without a job. "Dey durk yerrr jerbs!" in South Park parlance. This ultimately harms America. Laissez-faire capitalism harms America. Or any other country where this happens. Isn't this an "initiation of force"? Unless the cost-of-living is identical in every country or region in the world (I don't see this happening any time soon and isn't that "socialism" or "communism"; the redistribution of wealth?), then you're going to have this problem.

 

While I'm not at all a "believer" in that idea of capitalism I feel tempted to play devils advocate here. I think the most common reply to arguments of that kind are that since every company will want to take advantage of this cheap labor they'll all move there and the competition for workers will start "driving up" salaries which will eventually make the difference between the two countries much smaller (or non-existent).

 

Again, not my conviction but I've heard arguments of this kind a lot from people who call themselves capitalists

[BTGBullseye]

While I'm not at all a "believer" in that idea of capitalism I feel tempted to play devils advocate here. I think the most common reply to arguments of that kind are that since every company will want to take advantage of this cheap labor they'll all move there and the competition for workers will start "driving up" salaries which will eventually make the difference between the two countries much smaller (or non-existent).

I have yet to see any pay increase reports concerning any non-American workforce that produces goods/services for America-based companies/markets...

[danielsangeo]

However, if the majority of my support staff are in other countries, that means that people inside the United States are going without a job. "Dey durk yerrr jerbs!" in South Park parlance. This ultimately harms America. Laissez-faire capitalism harms America. Or any other country where this happens. Isn't this an "initiation of force"? Unless the cost-of-living is identical in every country or region in the world (I don't see this happening any time soon and isn't that "socialism" or "communism"; the redistribution of wealth?), then you're going to have this problem.

 

While I'm not at all a "believer" in that idea of capitalism I feel tempted to play devils advocate here. I think the most common reply to arguments of that kind are that since every company will want to take advantage of this cheap labor they'll all move there and the competition for workers will start "driving up" salaries which will eventually make the difference between the two countries much smaller (or non-existent).

 

But, should that be our job? To drive up the wages of the rest of the world? (Just asking from a laissez-faire capitalism stance.)

[Michael Archer]

By what right does the state claim objectivity? The example of murder is a bad one in this case since the entire point of the original question was to suppose a situation in which the solution isn't clear-cut. In real life there is often a lot of gray area and as long as the representatives of the state are people the judgments they hand out will have an element of subjectivity to them in cases where it isn't clear where exactly the line was crossed.

The claim to objectivity is a dubious one since we can never have perfect information about the reality on which you claim we should judge everything.

 

Are you implying certainty is not possible and that we can't know anything?

 

Which isn't, really, capitalism at all.

 

Heh, because of the French thing?

 

Why? What right does the court have to get involved in a private matter between Bob and Steve?

 

Bob has the right to defend his property; in Anarchy, he would shoot Steve if Steve looked at him funny. But Bob wants to live in a peaceful society, so he delegates his right to defend his property to a government so the government can look at it objectively.

 

One can be free in a socialist or communist state.

 

Both systems are based on the premise that some men have the right to initiate force on others; if force is being initiated on you, you're not free to think and to choose how you live your life.

 

Okay, let's say that the "force" is not objective. Let's say it's subjective. For example, cigarette companies. Their products have an addictive quality to them and, through the use of their products, their customers negatively affect other people ("second-hand smoke"). Are the cigarette companies initiating force against the second-hand person? Is the smoker initiating force? What if I, as a non-smoker, sue the smoker? Or the cigarette company? Am I initiating force? Should it be a class action lawsuit? Are class action lawsuits allowed? What about oil companies polluting the air? What then?

 

The use of force can be subjective or objective; it depends who's using it and for what reasons.

 

The evidence that second-hand smoke is bad for you is shaky and exaggerated (although it may very well be true), but let's say that you're right:

 

You don't have to be around the second-hand smoker. Unless he's in your house, you have no more of a right to be there than he does. Whether he can smoke or not is up to the owner of the property.

 

Suing someone is never initiating force; it doesn't get any more peaceful or civilized than the court of law. Men will have honest disputes; that's what the courts are for.

 

As for class action, that's really something best left up to the legal professionals.

 

For oil companies: if you can objectively prove that their pollutants are harming you, then they shall forced to stop.

 

Not really. Socialism is where the means of production are publically-owned. Just having corporations exist by permission doesn't necessarily mean that "the government" owns the business' means of production. And just because the government owns the means of production doesn't necessarily mean that it's socialism.

 

Socialism, communism...it's all statism and it's all evil.

 

What right does a business have to charge money for things?

 

They produced it and it's rightfully theirs. They get to decide who they give it to and under what conditions.

 

The cost of living in, say, the United States, is much higher than the cost of living in another country. This imbalance in the cost of living (for example, it's possible to live on $2/week in one country but impossible to live on even ten times that in the United States) leads to a "race to the bottom".

 

The United States is a mixed economy and is not a capitalist state. You'd be surprised how many issues there are actually caused by the government.

 

However, if the majority of my support staff are in other countries, that means that people inside the United States are going without a job.

 

There is no such thing as a right to a job. In a capitalist society workers compete for jobs. If the man in Bangladesh will work twice as hard for a fraction of the price, you better find a way to be better than him; the same thing goes for corporations: they compete for consumers and try to make products as high quality at the lowest cost. This is what keeps prices low.

 

This ultimately harms America. Laissez-faire capitalism harms America.

 

You sound like a Fox News anchorman. I think you mean "would harm.", but not important.

 

I don't know what you mean by "harm America." Are you implying that an individual (the corporation or the Bangledesh man) should be working for the country? Are you implying that it's wrong for individuals to work for themselves?

 

But, should that be our job? To drive up the wages of the rest of the world? (Just asking from a laissez-faire capitalism stance.)

 

Your job, as a lassiez-faire capitalist, is to work for your pleasure and your own happiness. If happiness means helping other people then do that.

[ProHypster]

I'm not going to debate you since you are one stubborn denier but you got me pissed when you said statism is evil, I really love my country which tries to be socialist.

 

I will try to clear your mind about this capitalism thing though just so you know what you are defending, this is capitalism:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBkbj_S3etY

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gIxuOabGBE

 

If you agree with this, please continue defending capitalism.

 

But from now on if you watched the videos and agreed with them I will understand you are really actaully a greedy guy.

[Michael Archer]

Thatsmartguy, was your first video an attempt to show me how capitalism is bad? All it did was convince me that capitalism is the best system. The only thing with which I disagree with Mr. Friedman is why capitalism is the best system. He says that capitalism is the best system because it "benefits all"; I side with Ayn Rand, when she says that capitalism is the only system consonant with man's rational nature.

 

I got about half way through the second video that I realized that you're pulling the old Guilt By Association fallacy. Just because I share my opinion for the best system with some retard religious redneck (ooh, nice alliteration) does not make the idea any worse. His reasons for it are horrible; I think he's more of a disservice to capitalism than the statists.

 

Man, I loved that third video. Thanks for sharing! I always thought of Reagan as a uneducated redneck; you sure proved me wrong! All these years, I just realized what a great message The Little Red Hen had! If I ever have children, I'll read that to them; right after I'm done reading them Atlas Shrugged .

 

If it's greedy to want to own a private jet, two yachts, my own island, and a couple of multi-billion dollar corporations, then yes, I'm greedy. In what universe is that a bad thing?

 

Now watch some videos of my own please:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k (Yeah, she sounds like communist with the accent at all; she couldn't be farther than that)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7CjdJ1QyxI (Same person.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8y6DJAeolo (Gecko is a great character. That's why Wall Street 2 was so bad: not enough Gecko. This video is just for entertainment, mostly.)

 

If you can watch these videos and still be a statist, then I consider you on the same moral level as slaveholders and people who support government taxes.