4 ms·

Zero. Capitalism is the system of protecting the rights of the individual to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. The extent of human flourishin

by abtinf 9y ago

Zero. Capitalism is the system of protecting the rights of the individual to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. The extent of human flourishing is the extent to which human societies adopt capitalism. Even when it is adopted in small degrees, the result is a dramatic uplifting of billions of people out of poverty. Capitalism is good and we would all be better off if we had more of it. All of the mass death and destruction of the world is caused by collectivism, from the killing fields of Cambodia to the mixed economy of the United States. Collectivism is the ideology that’s holds that your moral sanction for living comes from the group; only the leaders of that group, whether through a connection to god or the tribe, have access to the true nature of the world, and so are justified in any brutality they see fit.

mjburgess 9y ago
I can't work out if you're trollling or not. You realise, that "100 million" figure is just taken from the deaths that occurred under Communist regimes, not as a deliberate consequence of their actions. Also, you're equivocating on Capitalism and Communism with the idea in the former case, and one particular implementation in the latter. By "Communism" you mean "regimes that called themselves communist". If, more honestly by capitalism you meant, "regimes that called themselves capitalist" then we would start including Vietnam, Iraq, etc. etc. etc. And you're equivocating on "collectivism" by which you mean the both, say, Mao's agricultural policies and there being groups that have leaders. Businesses are collectives. Capitalism, as trade between businesses, is a mostly collectivised system. Humans goals are foundationally composed of all those which follow from their identity: as they conceive themselves as being part of a group, and as they conceive of their identity free of any membership. This gives rise to nations, businesses, universities, football teams, etc. AND to personal projects, individual enterprise, and so on. The difference between communism-in-practice and capitalism-in-practice has nothing to do with the existence of groups, but rather the political power structures which surround those groups: all communist regimes were dictatorships. The difference between capitalism-in-theory and communism-in-theory has, again, nothing to do with the existence of groups -- but what (economic) rights you take to be fundamental.
ivanbakel 9y ago
>All of the mass death and destruction of the world is caused by collectivism,... the mixed economy of the United States. The mixed economy is currently the main system preventing mass starvation due to poverty in the US. Capitalism, from the start of the Dustbowl and the Great Depression until the intervention of the government with the New Deal, failed to prevent death and displacement for hundreds of thousands of people despite a severe overproduction of basically every kind of foodstuff, because it simply didn't make anyone any money to do so. The free exchange of goods produced under holdover ownership from mercantile and colonial times, including the ability to withhold that exchange of necessities, is a moral evil. It is inadmissible to let people starve because it is not profitable to give them food, but that is what capitalist thought mandates.
executesorder66 9y ago
> Capitalism is the system of protecting the rights of the individual to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit. > The extent of human flourishing is the extent to which human societies adopt capitalism. I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were communist (USSR, China) > Even when it is adopted in small degrees, the result is a dramatic uplifting of billions of people out of poverty. That must explain why China is lifting more people out of poverty than any other country. > Capitalism is good and we would all be better off if we had more of it. It's better than fuedalism, but I'd rather live in a society focused on helping each other, than in one focused on exploiting others as much as I can to maximize my capital. > Collectivism is the ideology that’s holds that your moral sanction for living comes from the group; only the leaders of that group, whether through a connection to god or the tribe, have access to the true nature of the world, and so are justified in any brutality they see fit. If that's what you think it is, then yeah. That's pretty shitty. But don't you think it's better when people work together and help each other, rather than thinking only of themselves? You sound like someone who drank way to much of the Ayn Rand Cool Aid.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit. And yet, freelancers or one-employee businesses are also engaging in capitalism. Are those the ones being stolen from or the ones stealing? Socialist ideas are so confusing that I can no longer tell. > I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were communist (USSR, China) And half of them dropped it while the other is not precisely the best place to live in the world, even if it might be the only communist experiment that isn't a complete nightmare. > That must explain why China is lifting more people out of poverty than any other country. Wasn't China the place were only five years ago there were thousands starving in sweatshops? And that's assuming that isn't happening anymore, I haven't kept up to date on that. > It's better than fuedalism, but I'd rather live in a society focused on helping each other, than in one focused on exploiting others as much as I can to maximize my capital. It's not like you can't live in such a place today, where are you writing this from? I'm assuming China, given that it's the only example of communism you're using. > But don't you think it's better when people work together and help each other, rather than thinking only of themselves? Capitalism prevents this how? For that matter, this you're describing here isn't what socialism or communism are about, as history shows. > You sound like someone who drank way to much of the Ayn Rand Cool Aid. And you sound like someone who'd greatly regret his/her life choices once you see yourself in a gulag (or a gulag by any other name). Wait, did you think you'd be spared?

by abtinf 9y ago

mjburgess 9y ago

I can't work out if you're trollling or not. You realise, that "100 million" figure is just taken from the deaths that occurred under Communist regimes, not as a deliberate consequence of their actions. Also, you're equivocating on Capitalism and Communism with the idea in the former case, and one particular implementation in the latter. By "Communism" you mean "regimes that called themselves communist". If, more honestly by capitalism you meant, "regimes that called themselves capitalist" then we would start including Vietnam, Iraq, etc. etc. etc. And you're equivocating on "collectivism" by which you mean the both, say, Mao's agricultural policies and there being groups that have leaders. Businesses are collectives. Capitalism, as trade between businesses, is a mostly collectivised system. Humans goals are foundationally composed of all those which follow from their identity: as they conceive themselves as being part of a group, and as they conceive of their identity free of any membership. This gives rise to nations, businesses, universities, football teams, etc. AND to personal projects, individual enterprise, and so on. The difference between communism-in-practice and capitalism-in-practice has nothing to do with the existence of groups, but rather the political power structures which surround those groups: all communist regimes were dictatorships. The difference between capitalism-in-theory and communism-in-theory has, again, nothing to do with the existence of groups -- but what (economic) rights you take to be fundamental.

ivanbakel 9y ago

>All of the mass death and destruction of the world is caused by collectivism,... the mixed economy of the United States. The mixed economy is currently the main system preventing mass starvation due to poverty in the US. Capitalism, from the start of the Dustbowl and the Great Depression until the intervention of the government with the New Deal, failed to prevent death and displacement for hundreds of thousands of people despite a severe overproduction of basically every kind of foodstuff, because it simply didn't make anyone any money to do so. The free exchange of goods produced under holdover ownership from mercantile and colonial times, including the ability to withhold that exchange of necessities, is a moral evil. It is inadmissible to let people starve because it is not profitable to give them food, but that is what capitalist thought mandates.

executesorder66 9y ago

> Capitalism is the system of protecting the rights of the individual to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit. > The extent of human flourishing is the extent to which human societies adopt capitalism. I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were communist (USSR, China) > Even when it is adopted in small degrees, the result is a dramatic uplifting of billions of people out of poverty. That must explain why China is lifting more people out of poverty than any other country. > Capitalism is good and we would all be better off if we had more of it. It's better than fuedalism, but I'd rather live in a society focused on helping each other, than in one focused on exploiting others as much as I can to maximize my capital. > Collectivism is the ideology that’s holds that your moral sanction for living comes from the group; only the leaders of that group, whether through a connection to god or the tribe, have access to the true nature of the world, and so are justified in any brutality they see fit. If that's what you think it is, then yeah. That's pretty shitty. But don't you think it's better when people work together and help each other, rather than thinking only of themselves? You sound like someone who drank way to much of the Ayn Rand Cool Aid.

julianmarq 9y ago
> If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit. And yet, freelancers or one-employee businesses are also engaging in capitalism. Are those the ones being stolen from or the ones stealing? Socialist ideas are so confusing that I can no longer tell. > I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were communist (USSR, China) And half of them dropped it while the other is not precisely the best place to live in the world, even if it might be the only communist experiment that isn't a complete nightmare. > That must explain why China is lifting more people out of poverty than any other country. Wasn't China the place were only five years ago there were thousands starving in sweatshops? And that's assuming that isn't happening anymore, I haven't kept up to date on that. > It's better than fuedalism, but I'd rather live in a society focused on helping each other, than in one focused on exploiting others as much as I can to maximize my capital. It's not like you can't live in such a place today, where are you writing this from? I'm assuming China, given that it's the only example of communism you're using. > But don't you think it's better when people work together and help each other, rather than thinking only of themselves? Capitalism prevents this how? For that matter, this you're describing here isn't what socialism or communism are about, as history shows. > You sound like someone who drank way to much of the Ayn Rand Cool Aid. And you sound like someone who'd greatly regret his/her life choices once you see yourself in a gulag (or a gulag by any other name). Wait, did you think you'd be spared?