Only by the broadest, most vague semantics of the words.
It's by the basic definitions of the words, actually.
Through legal force, yes, but so is every other law that is out there. So it being based on "force" is irrelevant unless you are advocating lawless anarchy.
I advocate force being used by government to protect individuals from directly harming other individuals, from theft, from fraud, from breach of contract. Possibly a few other things. What I don't advocate is government using force to violate natural law.
Theft, well, I do not see taxation as theft. To say it is so with an expression of infallible validity, that is intellectually dishonest.
Uh, no. What is theft? It's the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. What is income tax? It's the act of taking money that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. This has nothing to do with semantics or how you choose to "see it" (rationalize it). It IS theft.
No. I was going to reply, but no. I've dealt with enough of people like you before. You just dance around, arguing ****-poor arguments and semantics, without making any real or coherent argument. It's foolishness. Nativity. Separated from how the world and how government actually operates. It's nothing more but an unarguable farce, pseduo-logic, devoid of actual rationality.
Governments need money to continue to function. They get that money through taxation. You cut out taxes, you destabilize the government itself. It's a simple truth. If you lack the ability to comprehend this, then, it's not worth me getting any more worked up that I already have gotten for the sake of someone like you.
ron paul also thinks that god exists..... (which fine and all, but you shoudnt mix politics and religion)
He has stated that he will be running alongside the rebublican way of separating church and state, even though he personally thinks church and state belong together. ****ed up man.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A man paints with his brains and not with his hands."
Michelangelo
Mod edit: Shairn used lock!
It's super effective!
Pointless thread has fainted!
More like 50 percent with the other 50% not knowing what's going on...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men." - Jean Rostand
"You have no power over me that I don't give you, and I don't have any power over you than you give me." - Vi Hart
Socialism/communism is force. It is theft. If you think of yourself as a moral person, I urge you to rethink your outlook on this.
Yes indeed because the capitalist mode of production does not base itself upon theft, exploitation, property rights (which in and of itself is restrictive), corruption, economical restriction (yes), and even the promotion of the most perverted of human 'qualities'. If you are a moral person, then I urge you to rethink your outlook on this. Socialism and communism do not engage in theft as we have it in Capitalist society whereby a person is not entitled to his own home, education, healthcare, nor even a viable source of assured income (employment). Theft is an everyday reality of Capitalist society, be it petty robbery to the theft of homes and "futures" (monopoly of education, etc. etc.).
If you believe in private property rights, and that theft is immoral, you should not support either of those systems, regardless of how they're implemented or to what degree.
Private property? But that is the very origin of theft. It is indeed funny, and quite ironic, that a supporter of Capitalism is actually speaking of "morals". So yes, since I believe in the aforementioned "qualities", I oppose Capitalism.
Money is property, and theft of property is immoral, regardless of who is doing it, and regardless of what good intentions they may profess to have with your money. Nobody has a "right" to anyone else's property.
Lol. You do realize that under a Socialist system (and even arguably in certain strands and tendencies of communism) money would certainly exist? The only thing that would change with this arbitrary monetary system would be the redistribution of this money from the hands of the rich bourgeoisie and dispersed into the hands of the workers themselves. Regardless of who is doing it? Oh no, but you do not seem to understand the very basic of socio-economical relations: the present day bourgeois-proletarian relationship and the essence of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If the redistribution of capital from the hands of a rich parasitic and passive minority to be put into the hands of the producers and workers themselves is "immoral", then I actually would judge your sanity or "morals" in another light.
But that is the case, labor power and labor themselves must not and should not become the property of any bourgeois proprietarian, nor should these workers by the least be put under such crude and pathetic conditions as they have been put under throughout history, and more precisely, in this society. Workers must manage their own workplace and receive the fruits of their labor instead of handing it to the bourgeois and receiving 1% of the profits while handing the rest to the bourgeois employer.
Capitalism is nothing more than the respect of private property rights and the idea that you own what you produce.
*facepalm*
And he does not see the irony at all. Laughable. This and the "rewarding hard work" argument in Capitalism simply make me die a little inside when it comes from Capitalists who honestly believe this. I think I should have to explain the process all over again. First things first, by "private property" communists speak of the means of production, not homes, not tooth brushes, not wives, but the very means by which production takes place. These means of production are owned by a petty insignificant minority referred to as the "bourgeoisie". These "bourgeoisie" do not produce anything, do not labor in these factories, do not process the raw material, do not extract the ore in their mine, do not can the food, etc. etc.
That labor process is left to the proletariat, i.e., the workers who do not own these means of production but who are indirectly (forcefully) hired to do these menial tasks for the bourgeoisie (note here the "alternative" of not working and submitting to the will of a minority that does not represent you or your interests: death, starvation, eviction, imprisonment, poverty, unemployment, etc. etc.) at a half-arsed pathetical pay which does not cover 1% of the "value" (in terms of exchange value of the products) of what they have produced. The rest of the profits go to the bourgeois employer who then claims these products as his own (and yet he did not produce any of them) who then pays off the various expenses of production and keeps the rest as his own. Note here that is the basic superficial view of this bourgeois-proletarian relationship, I have not gone into the very in-depth and much more complicated and intricate systems and workings that add up to this process (alienation, surplus value, etc.) as I have just started reading Marx's Capital.
Now secondly, after the process has been explained, and the false illusion that you held of "you own what you produce" in a Captialist society has been debunked, we can now proceed to explain why we do not respect private property. Private property, i.e., the ownership of the means of production by an insignificant passive and parasitical class (the bourgeoisie), is opposed by Communists and Socialists due to the aforementioned issue of exploitation and the appropriation of capital by the labor of others. What we propose instead of this unstable, unfair, unequal, and exploitative system of production is the handing of the means of production, the factories, the shops, the fields, the workplaces, etc. to the workers who run these means of production themselves, to give these workers the fruits of their labor (whenever possible: communism and near the end of the decay of the interim transitional period: Socialism), the very products which they have produced. We do not support private property because we do not support the theft of the products of the workers by private bourgeois hands and purely in the interests and goals of the bourgeoisie.
I find it strange how people chop liberty up into parts. Many people support personal liberty, yet demonize economic liberty. That's an absolute contradiction. If you support liberty, you should support it across the board. The government needs to protect individuals from aggression, theft, fraud, breach of contract, and things of that nature. Not much else.
Liberty for an insignificant minority, liberty for the bourgeoisie, is not and does not represent the liberty of the masses, of the exploited and oppressed classes. Learn that fundamental basis for class society. Workers and the oppressed masses are as free as is a dog on a leash, as free as a person with a gun to his head, as free as a chained *****: abused, exploited, oppressed, limited, restricted, and even coerced. Until a worker is capable of owning the means of production himself, capable of finding a viable alternative, capable of calling out the shots, capable of managing his own workplace, capable of receiving the products of his labor, and capable of having the most basic of economical and social rights and liberty as that of the bourgeoisie, until then, do not speak of "personal liberty", especially if it includes the proletariat and the masses. As for Capitalist economic liberty, quite related but very simplified:
"On another point, the Economic Freedom part is also quite perplexing. Communist economy, where the workplace is managed and maintained by the workers themselves who decide on what happens to the fruits
of their own labor and not by hierarchical superiors. According to "[t]he ability to trade how you want" this then means high freedom, but the option for economical "high freedom" equates Laissez-Faire in your poll."
"Not permitted to own factory and hire workers Restriction."
"Workers "own" the factories they work in. Workers
"hire" other workers to join them by council voting (direct democracy
basically).
If that (ability to own a factory and hire workers) is your mentality on
"restriction" and "freedom" of an economy then let us speak
of how a worker, in any Capitalist society regardless of its form, is unable to
own a factory and hire workers when he does not have the means or capital to do
so. Are we not to say that this is a more severe form of restriction?"
Freedom to own private property (the means of production), the freedom to personally own the labor power of others, the freedom to the exploitation of your own workers, the freedom to receive the full (most of) products of the labor of others, etc., etc. are purely bourgeois freedoms. We do not want them and nor will we respect them.
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." - Vladimir Lenin
You're misunderstanding the cause of the problems. You cannot blame it on capitalism, because we have not had real capitalism.
Lol. Capitalism can exist in multiple forms, be it statist or not, interventionist or not, it is so when the means of production are owned by a small minority, when wage labor is existent and hired by that minority (hence why the State Capitalism - Degenerated/Deformed Workers' State debate takes place in the Left), etc. To claim that the current system is not a form of Capitalism is poppycock at best. But here you seem to differentiate the current form of Capitalism from "real" Capitalism which I most certainly suppose that you are speaking of Utopian Anarcho-Capitalism or Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I leave that to the Capitalist bashing of each other on what works and what does not to determine what is "real" Capitalism and what is not. Anyway, he did not speak of "real" Capitalism but was referring to the current form of Capitalism which is referred to as Capitalism (mouth full). He does not need to refer to a specific form of Capitalism to blame this mass cluster **** on, he is doing so quite fine by speaking of the current system in which these problems are taking place.
"A society is capitalist if most production is carried on by employees working with means of production (equipment and materials) belonging to their employer, producing commodities which belong to the employer. (Employees: those whose services are treated as commodities. 'Labour is a commodity like any other', 'an article of trade'" - Edmund Burke, Thoughts on Scarcity, 1795.)
We already have a mixed economy, and it's coupled with cronyism. Government control and corruption is what's ruining this economy and this country. Government is the problem, and more government is certainly not going to fix the problem. Government needs to get out of the business of trying to "run" the economy. The idea that a small group of individuals can efficiently control and steer an entire economy is patently absurd.
Points to pro-interventionist criticism of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. A small group of individuals is not steering the economy, private property and a market (free to an extent) still do exist and run the economy. The government merely acts as a mediator.
Once again, I'd just like to reiterate that what we have in this country is not capitalism at all.
Lol. But of course! It is Socialism. You sir make me laugh beyond belief.
When the banks failed and they got bailed out with hundred of billions of dollars of our money, that should have made it loud and clear to you that we do not live in a capitalist country.
Completely irrelevant. The mode of production and the very basics of Capitalist elements still exist, private property owned by the bourgeoisie still exists and thus wage labor that is under the rule and control of the bourgeoisie still exists. See above.
Capitalism is about profit and loss; success and failure. When the government bails out the losers because they're "too big to fail", that is not a capitalist system.
Capitalism is not a zero-sum game, there have been quite a few articles on this, google them. "Bail outs" are still part of this Capitalist system, it is quite funny how you completely miss the point and the most basic of the defining features of Capitalism. Bail outs do not change the workings of Capitalist society nor do they change class relations. A bourgeois still exists and the proletarian still exists. You seem to falsely base Capitalism of government interventionism.
"If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." - Milton Friedman
"The essential notion of a capitalist society … is voluntary cooperation, voluntary exchange. The essential notion of a socialist society is force." - Milton Friedman
"Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions." - Milton Friedman
LOL, voluntarism again. See my old posts on this, search "voluntarism" or "voluntaryism". This nonsense of "voluntarism" pertains the same freedom as that of a person with a gun to your head.
Please make an effort to soak in those quotes.
Please make an effort to soak in the basics of everything which you are speaking of.
What I don't advocate is government using force to violate natural law.
Expropriation of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat is the only means by which the workers can achieve their rights, their factory, and overthrow class rule and the bourgeoisie. It is a necessary evil. See the debates of revolutionary action versus non-violent pacifist "revolution" versus Social-Democracy and political revolution.
Uh, no. What is theft? It's the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. What is income tax? It's the act of taking money that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. This has nothing to do with semantics or how you choose to "see it" (rationalize it). It IS theft.
Oh the irony again! It actually surprises me that you do not see the irony there when it directly comes out of your own text.
"What is income tax? It's the act of taking money that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. This has nothing to do with semantics or how you choose to "see it" (rationalize it). It IS theft."
Consent of the owner, interesting concept. Are we consenting to pay taxes? You here would say no, but obviously we are paying taxes. Why? The justification to this would be that the citizens "voluntarily" choose to live in this society. But do they have an alternative? Not at all. They are forced to give up their money as tax since they live in this society. The same goes for the workers and their products, since they want to live and thus to access the means of production, they are forced to do so with a very small "wage". Did they consent? Yes, but agreeing to work. Now the question that destroys this argument: did the workers have an alternative to this wage labor? No, they did not. A job in McDonalds, Wal Mart, or a butcher's shop does not make a difference except in a few dollars difference, the concept remains the same. When there is no viable alternative, the workers is forced to submit himself to the bourgeoisie.
"What is theft? It's the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner."
The exact same thing can be said to speak of the bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat. In fact you are now supporting the Communist and Leftist notion and opinion on the nature of this bourgeois-proletarian relationship.
Socialism/communism is force. It is theft. If you think of yourself as a moral person, I urge you to rethink your outlook on this. If you believe in private property rights, and that theft is immoral, you should not support either of those systems, regardless of how they're implemented or to what degree. Money is property, and theft of property is immoral, regardless of who is doing it, and regardless of what good intentions they may profess to have with your money. Nobody has a "right" to anyone else's property.
"If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at the point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you." - William E. Simon
Capitalism is nothing more than the respect of private property rights and the idea that you own what you produce. I find it strange how people chop liberty up into parts. Many people support personal liberty, yet demonize economic liberty. That's an absolute contradiction. If you support liberty, you should support it across the board. The government needs to protect individuals from aggression, theft, fraud, breach of contract, and things of that nature. Not much else.
There's so much delusion here I don't know where to begin. Firstly I guess we should establish the fact that all people have certain inalienable rights. How we define those rights differs from person to person but I, and many people like me, believe that we all have a right to the basic needs for survival (food, shelter, medical care, education, etc). Perhaps you don't agree with that and that's your choice. Secondly this "right to private property" is awfully vague don't you think? I mean, monopolies and other forms of unfair competition should be prevented right? The term "class warfare" has been thrown around a lot lately (amusingly by the republican party) but if we take a look at where most of the capital is (this "1%" to tie us back to the OP) doesn't that make them disproportionately competitive in the market?
Regarding praising personal liberty and demonizing economic liberty: who's doing that? Yes, I'll gladly admit that I enjoy the level of personal freedom that I have but it is limited. I can't walk outside and start firing a gun into the air. I can't park my car wherever I please. And I can't walk around naked. We can't have total freedom whether it's economic, personal, or political. I don't think anyone is asking for it and if they are it is a naive argument.
You're misunderstanding the cause of the problems. You cannot blame it on capitalism, because we have not had real capitalism. We already have a mixed economy, and it's coupled with cronyism. Government control and corruption is what's ruining this economy and this country. Government is the problem, and more government is certainly not going to fix the problem. Government needs to get out of the business of trying to "run" the economy. The idea that a small group of individuals can efficiently control and steer an entire economy is patently absurd.
We have a mixed a economy but it isn't mixed enough. We're leaning too far toward capitalism and not far enough toward socialism. The actions taken by the Government in the past have been corrupt but the system is not inherently so. Corruption is avoidable with proper regulation and a policy of transparency in government. Also, the government isn't in the business of trying to "run" the economy. The government regulates the economy and that is a necessary role. The libertarian ideal of a "free market" is a lie. Without someone to look over their shoulders and reprimand them corporations would use any means necessary to gain more market control at the expense of the working class.
Once again, I'd just like to reiterate that what we have in this country is not capitalism at all. When the banks failed and they got bailed out with hundred of billions of dollars of our money, that should have made it loud and clear to you that we do not live in a capitalist country. Capitalism is about profit and loss; success and failure. When the government bails out the losers because they're "too big to fail", that is not a capitalist system.
Actually the bank bailouts were directly caused by Capitalist influence in our government. The private sector controls the public sector (see George Carlin video previously posted). Big businesses have bought and paid for their representatives in Washington. The bailouts were dividends... in a way. However you choose to look at it there are capitalistic intentions behind the actions of government, mixed economy or no. In theory it's possible to fix but when all of our elected officials have been bribed into office via campaign contributions the task seems neigh impossible.
"If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." - Milton Friedman
Yes, in simplistic terms the free market is a grand place where unicorns and leprechauns can all be traded at a fair price. The second portion (regarding the fixed pie) is true but it doesn't make "gain at the expensive of another" any less profitable. When one party enters a negotiation with a distinct advantage over the other party they will exploit it. In the "free market" all parties are not equal and therefor some parties have more freedom than others.
"The essential notion of a capitalist society … is voluntary cooperation, voluntary exchange. The essential notion of a socialist society is force." - Milton Friedman
The essential notion of any society is force. We can't have a society without social restrictions be they cultural or legal. Now clearly I understand what he's getting at, that a socialist society is inherently more restrictive than a capitalist society. But Mr. Friedman is mistaken, Libertarian Socialism is possible. Socialism does not inherently equate to authoritarianism.
"Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions." - Milton Friedman
Again, I can see what he's getting at here but the quote seems to be terribly naive. In a perfect world I could maybe get behind these words but the reality of the situation is hardly that clear cut.
I live in NYC and can tell you that most of the protestors are there for different reasons, some good, some debatable. They aren't very organized, and they aren't doing a very good job getting their points across. So far the only real reason people are paying attention to it is because the cops are handling it really badly.
I live in NYC and can tell you that most of the protestors are there for different reasons, some good, some debatable. They aren't very organized, and they aren't doing a very good job getting their points across. So far the only real reason people are paying attention to it is because the cops are handling it really badly.
Thanks for the first hand opinion. The media sometimes doesn't report accurate numbers during protests... if you had to guess how many protesters do you think you saw there? Obviously your count won't be accurate either but just guessing from what you saw.
It's by the basic definitions of the words, actually.
I advocate force being used by government to protect individuals from directly harming other individuals, from theft, from fraud, from breach of contract. Possibly a few other things. What I don't advocate is government using force to violate natural law.
Uh, no. What is theft? It's the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. What is income tax? It's the act of taking money that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. This has nothing to do with semantics or how you choose to "see it" (rationalize it). It IS theft.
Governments need money to continue to function. They get that money through taxation. You cut out taxes, you destabilize the government itself. It's a simple truth. If you lack the ability to comprehend this, then, it's not worth me getting any more worked up that I already have gotten for the sake of someone like you.
It gets a result.
George Carlin all the way across the sky!
He's right in that too.
Michelangelo
He has stated that he will be running alongside the rebublican way of separating church and state, even though he personally thinks church and state belong together. ****ed up man.
Michelangelo
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with sticking it to corrupt politicians and business owners.
Michelangelo
More like 50 percent with the other 50% not knowing what's going on...
"You have no power over me that I don't give you, and I don't have any power over you than you give me." - Vi Hart
Yes indeed because the capitalist mode of production does not base itself upon theft, exploitation, property rights (which in and of itself is restrictive), corruption, economical restriction (yes), and even the promotion of the most perverted of human 'qualities'. If you are a moral person, then I urge you to rethink your outlook on this. Socialism and communism do not engage in theft as we have it in Capitalist society whereby a person is not entitled to his own home, education, healthcare, nor even a viable source of assured income (employment). Theft is an everyday reality of Capitalist society, be it petty robbery to the theft of homes and "futures" (monopoly of education, etc. etc.).
Private property? But that is the very origin of theft. It is indeed funny, and quite ironic, that a supporter of Capitalism is actually speaking of "morals". So yes, since I believe in the aforementioned "qualities", I oppose Capitalism.
Lol. You do realize that under a Socialist system (and even arguably in certain strands and tendencies of communism) money would certainly exist? The only thing that would change with this arbitrary monetary system would be the redistribution of this money from the hands of the rich bourgeoisie and dispersed into the hands of the workers themselves. Regardless of who is doing it? Oh no, but you do not seem to understand the very basic of socio-economical relations: the present day bourgeois-proletarian relationship and the essence of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If the redistribution of capital from the hands of a rich parasitic and passive minority to be put into the hands of the producers and workers themselves is "immoral", then I actually would judge your sanity or "morals" in another light.
But that is the case, labor power and labor themselves must not and should not become the property of any bourgeois proprietarian, nor should these workers by the least be put under such crude and pathetic conditions as they have been put under throughout history, and more precisely, in this society. Workers must manage their own workplace and receive the fruits of their labor instead of handing it to the bourgeois and receiving 1% of the profits while handing the rest to the bourgeois employer.
*facepalm*
And he does not see the irony at all. Laughable. This and the "rewarding hard work" argument in Capitalism simply make me die a little inside when it comes from Capitalists who honestly believe this. I think I should have to explain the process all over again. First things first, by "private property" communists speak of the means of production, not homes, not tooth brushes, not wives, but the very means by which production takes place. These means of production are owned by a petty insignificant minority referred to as the "bourgeoisie". These "bourgeoisie" do not produce anything, do not labor in these factories, do not process the raw material, do not extract the ore in their mine, do not can the food, etc. etc.
That labor process is left to the proletariat, i.e., the workers who do not own these means of production but who are indirectly (forcefully) hired to do these menial tasks for the bourgeoisie (note here the "alternative" of not working and submitting to the will of a minority that does not represent you or your interests: death, starvation, eviction, imprisonment, poverty, unemployment, etc. etc.) at a half-arsed pathetical pay which does not cover 1% of the "value" (in terms of exchange value of the products) of what they have produced. The rest of the profits go to the bourgeois employer who then claims these products as his own (and yet he did not produce any of them) who then pays off the various expenses of production and keeps the rest as his own. Note here that is the basic superficial view of this bourgeois-proletarian relationship, I have not gone into the very in-depth and much more complicated and intricate systems and workings that add up to this process (alienation, surplus value, etc.) as I have just started reading Marx's Capital.
Now secondly, after the process has been explained, and the false illusion that you held of "you own what you produce" in a Captialist society has been debunked, we can now proceed to explain why we do not respect private property. Private property, i.e., the ownership of the means of production by an insignificant passive and parasitical class (the bourgeoisie), is opposed by Communists and Socialists due to the aforementioned issue of exploitation and the appropriation of capital by the labor of others. What we propose instead of this unstable, unfair, unequal, and exploitative system of production is the handing of the means of production, the factories, the shops, the fields, the workplaces, etc. to the workers who run these means of production themselves, to give these workers the fruits of their labor (whenever possible: communism and near the end of the decay of the interim transitional period: Socialism), the very products which they have produced. We do not support private property because we do not support the theft of the products of the workers by private bourgeois hands and purely in the interests and goals of the bourgeoisie.
Liberty for an insignificant minority, liberty for the bourgeoisie, is not and does not represent the liberty of the masses, of the exploited and oppressed classes. Learn that fundamental basis for class society. Workers and the oppressed masses are as free as is a dog on a leash, as free as a person with a gun to his head, as free as a chained *****: abused, exploited, oppressed, limited, restricted, and even coerced. Until a worker is capable of owning the means of production himself, capable of finding a viable alternative, capable of calling out the shots, capable of managing his own workplace, capable of receiving the products of his labor, and capable of having the most basic of economical and social rights and liberty as that of the bourgeoisie, until then, do not speak of "personal liberty", especially if it includes the proletariat and the masses. As for Capitalist economic liberty, quite related but very simplified:
"On another point, the Economic Freedom part is also quite perplexing. Communist economy, where the workplace is managed and maintained by the workers themselves who decide on what happens to the fruits
of their own labor and not by hierarchical superiors. According to "[t]he ability to trade how you want" this then means high freedom, but the option for economical "high freedom" equates Laissez-Faire in your poll."
"Not permitted to own factory and hire workers
Restriction."
"Workers "own" the factories they work in. Workers
"hire" other workers to join them by council voting (direct democracy
basically).
If that (ability to own a factory and hire workers) is your mentality on
"restriction" and "freedom" of an economy then let us speak
of how a worker, in any Capitalist society regardless of its form, is unable to
own a factory and hire workers when he does not have the means or capital to do
so. Are we not to say that this is a more severe form of restriction?"
Freedom to own private property (the means of production), the freedom to personally own the labor power of others, the freedom to the exploitation of your own workers, the freedom to receive the full (most of) products of the labor of others, etc., etc. are purely bourgeois freedoms. We do not want them and nor will we respect them.
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." - Vladimir Lenin
Lol. Capitalism can exist in multiple forms, be it statist or not, interventionist or not, it is so when the means of production are owned by a small minority, when wage labor is existent and hired by that minority (hence why the State Capitalism - Degenerated/Deformed Workers' State debate takes place in the Left), etc. To claim that the current system is not a form of Capitalism is poppycock at best. But here you seem to differentiate the current form of Capitalism from "real" Capitalism which I most certainly suppose that you are speaking of Utopian Anarcho-Capitalism or Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I leave that to the Capitalist bashing of each other on what works and what does not to determine what is "real" Capitalism and what is not. Anyway, he did not speak of "real" Capitalism but was referring to the current form of Capitalism which is referred to as Capitalism (mouth full). He does not need to refer to a specific form of Capitalism to blame this mass cluster **** on, he is doing so quite fine by speaking of the current system in which these problems are taking place.
"A society is capitalist if most production is carried on by employees working with means of production (equipment and materials) belonging to their employer, producing commodities which belong to the employer. (Employees: those whose services are treated as commodities. 'Labour is a commodity like any other', 'an article of trade'" - Edmund Burke, Thoughts on Scarcity, 1795.)
Points to pro-interventionist criticism of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. A small group of individuals is not steering the economy, private property and a market (free to an extent) still do exist and run the economy. The government merely acts as a mediator.
Lol. But of course! It is Socialism. You sir make me laugh beyond belief.
Completely irrelevant. The mode of production and the very basics of Capitalist elements still exist, private property owned by the bourgeoisie still exists and thus wage labor that is under the rule and control of the bourgeoisie still exists. See above.
Capitalism is not a zero-sum game, there have been quite a few articles on this, google them. "Bail outs" are still part of this Capitalist system, it is quite funny how you completely miss the point and the most basic of the defining features of Capitalism. Bail outs do not change the workings of Capitalist society nor do they change class relations. A bourgeois still exists and the proletarian still exists. You seem to falsely base Capitalism of government interventionism.
LOL, voluntarism again. See my old posts on this, search "voluntarism" or "voluntaryism". This nonsense of "voluntarism" pertains the same freedom as that of a person with a gun to your head.
Please make an effort to soak in the basics of everything which you are speaking of.
Expropriation of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat is the only means by which the workers can achieve their rights, their factory, and overthrow class rule and the bourgeoisie. It is a necessary evil. See the debates of revolutionary action versus non-violent pacifist "revolution" versus Social-Democracy and political revolution.
Oh the irony again! It actually surprises me that you do not see the irony there when it directly comes out of your own text.
"What is income tax? It's the act of taking money that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. This has nothing to do with semantics or how you choose to "see it" (rationalize it). It IS theft."
Consent of the owner, interesting concept. Are we consenting to pay taxes? You here would say no, but obviously we are paying taxes. Why? The justification to this would be that the citizens "voluntarily" choose to live in this society. But do they have an alternative? Not at all. They are forced to give up their money as tax since they live in this society. The same goes for the workers and their products, since they want to live and thus to access the means of production, they are forced to do so with a very small "wage". Did they consent? Yes, but agreeing to work. Now the question that destroys this argument: did the workers have an alternative to this wage labor? No, they did not. A job in McDonalds, Wal Mart, or a butcher's shop does not make a difference except in a few dollars difference, the concept remains the same. When there is no viable alternative, the workers is forced to submit himself to the bourgeoisie.
"What is theft? It's the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner."
The exact same thing can be said to speak of the bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat. In fact you are now supporting the Communist and Leftist notion and opinion on the nature of this bourgeois-proletarian relationship.
There's so much delusion here I don't know where to begin. Firstly I guess we should establish the fact that all people have certain inalienable rights. How we define those rights differs from person to person but I, and many people like me, believe that we all have a right to the basic needs for survival (food, shelter, medical care, education, etc). Perhaps you don't agree with that and that's your choice. Secondly this "right to private property" is awfully vague don't you think? I mean, monopolies and other forms of unfair competition should be prevented right? The term "class warfare" has been thrown around a lot lately (amusingly by the republican party) but if we take a look at where most of the capital is (this "1%" to tie us back to the OP) doesn't that make them disproportionately competitive in the market?
Regarding praising personal liberty and demonizing economic liberty: who's doing that? Yes, I'll gladly admit that I enjoy the level of personal freedom that I have but it is limited. I can't walk outside and start firing a gun into the air. I can't park my car wherever I please. And I can't walk around naked. We can't have total freedom whether it's economic, personal, or political. I don't think anyone is asking for it and if they are it is a naive argument.
We have a mixed a economy but it isn't mixed enough. We're leaning too far toward capitalism and not far enough toward socialism. The actions taken by the Government in the past have been corrupt but the system is not inherently so. Corruption is avoidable with proper regulation and a policy of transparency in government. Also, the government isn't in the business of trying to "run" the economy. The government regulates the economy and that is a necessary role. The libertarian ideal of a "free market" is a lie. Without someone to look over their shoulders and reprimand them corporations would use any means necessary to gain more market control at the expense of the working class.
Actually the bank bailouts were directly caused by Capitalist influence in our government. The private sector controls the public sector (see George Carlin video previously posted). Big businesses have bought and paid for their representatives in Washington. The bailouts were dividends... in a way. However you choose to look at it there are capitalistic intentions behind the actions of government, mixed economy or no. In theory it's possible to fix but when all of our elected officials have been bribed into office via campaign contributions the task seems neigh impossible.
Yes, in simplistic terms the free market is a grand place where unicorns and leprechauns can all be traded at a fair price. The second portion (regarding the fixed pie) is true but it doesn't make "gain at the expensive of another" any less profitable. When one party enters a negotiation with a distinct advantage over the other party they will exploit it. In the "free market" all parties are not equal and therefor some parties have more freedom than others.
The essential notion of any society is force. We can't have a society without social restrictions be they cultural or legal. Now clearly I understand what he's getting at, that a socialist society is inherently more restrictive than a capitalist society. But Mr. Friedman is mistaken, Libertarian Socialism is possible. Socialism does not inherently equate to authoritarianism.
Again, I can see what he's getting at here but the quote seems to be terribly naive. In a perfect world I could maybe get behind these words but the reality of the situation is hardly that clear cut.
Thanks for the first hand opinion. The media sometimes doesn't report accurate numbers during protests... if you had to guess how many protesters do you think you saw there? Obviously your count won't be accurate either but just guessing from what you saw.