5 ms·

Nope. Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion. We have a highly mixed economy now, not capitalism. If you consider large government bureaus (public, or "pri

by javert 13y ago

Nope. Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion. We have a highly mixed economy now, not capitalism. If you consider large government bureaus (public, or "private" via regulation, like, say, Verizon) to define "capitalism" just because there are large amounts of money involved ("capital"), you are defining the term by non-essentials. There were also large amounts of money in the USSR. Capitalism lost because of European intellectual influences in America; the existing defense of the ideas of the founding fathers was insufficient to stem the tide.

Nursie 13y ago
>> Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion I love how libertarians redefine words to mean what they want!
- javert 13y ago
  I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians have stolen 10% of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and taken it out of context. That is why they make no sense, intellectually. I am an Objectivist. Capitalism and free markets just "fall out of" a government that does not coerce people, and does not allow people to coerce people. I already provided some evidence that my account is proper. I mentioned the issue of improperly defining things by non-essentials. I don't think you have presented a viable counter-argument.
- dmix 13y ago
  "Libertarians" are not a homogenous group. What he's referring to in mainstream libertarian literature is called "anarcho-capitalism". This is well known in the libertarian sub-culture. A distinction the above commenter likely just doesn't know yet. Very similar to how everyone seems to perceive socialism to be authoritarian-communism. Fallacies are everywhere, hardly unique to libertarians.
  - javert 13y ago
    I am the accused know-nothing above commenter. In fact, I know presiely what "anarcho-capitalism" is, and I totally reject it. An actual system of freedom (which capitalism falls out of) requires people to be protected from the initiation of force by a government. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a power vacuum that will be filled (99% of the time, in a dangerous way). Moreover, I am not a libertarian, I am an Objectivist (the philosophy the libertarians stole 10% of and started taking out of context when they started their modern movement). To respond to your other point, the fundamental political axis is freedom on the one side, and authoritarianism on the other. It doesn't particularly matter if that is wrapped up as socialism, communism, fascism, or whatever.
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion Wrong. Capitalism is synonymous with free enterprise, not free markets. And free enterprise simply means that enterprises (rather than states) own the means of production.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Agreed. We can definitly have unrestricted free markets with community owned syndicates and still be able to create tailored products and respond to demans. IMO, we need to start talking about workplace democracy if we're going to continue to entertain the idea of corporate controlled society, so that the common person can at least get their vote back (indirectly, by choosing who leads the company which bribes officials...).
  - javert 13y ago
    IMO, we need to stop having people control one another. There is no self-interested reason to do it, from anyone's point of view.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      I definitely agree with you. I subscribe to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism. That said, many, many, people believe that most people are not competent, and need to be taken care of/controlled/limited. Arguments I usually have to fight against are: What to do about crime. What to do about "evil" people. What to do about property rights. What to do about control in decisions.
      - javert 13y ago
        I think "libertarian socialism" is a worse than worthless contradiction. There is a simple solution to all the problems you mention, which is to have a government that uses retaliatory force, but not initiatory force. America had one for about a century, and now there is the intellectual machinery needed to go back to that system and to define and defend it much more vigorously. Unfortunately, a majority of "advocates for freedom" are mucking around with things like "libertarian socialism" and "anarcho-capitalism" which are contradictions in terms and won't work.

by javert 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

>> Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion I love how libertarians redefine words to mean what they want!

javert 13y ago
I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians have stolen 10% of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and taken it out of context. That is why they make no sense, intellectually. I am an Objectivist. Capitalism and free markets just "fall out of" a government that does not coerce people, and does not allow people to coerce people. I already provided some evidence that my account is proper. I mentioned the issue of improperly defining things by non-essentials. I don't think you have presented a viable counter-argument.
dmix 13y ago
"Libertarians" are not a homogenous group. What he's referring to in mainstream libertarian literature is called "anarcho-capitalism". This is well known in the libertarian sub-culture. A distinction the above commenter likely just doesn't know yet. Very similar to how everyone seems to perceive socialism to be authoritarian-communism. Fallacies are everywhere, hardly unique to libertarians.
- javert 13y ago
  I am the accused know-nothing above commenter. In fact, I know presiely what "anarcho-capitalism" is, and I totally reject it. An actual system of freedom (which capitalism falls out of) requires people to be protected from the initiation of force by a government. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a power vacuum that will be filled (99% of the time, in a dangerous way). Moreover, I am not a libertarian, I am an Objectivist (the philosophy the libertarians stole 10% of and started taking out of context when they started their modern movement). To respond to your other point, the fundamental political axis is freedom on the one side, and authoritarianism on the other. It doesn't particularly matter if that is wrapped up as socialism, communism, fascism, or whatever.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion Wrong. Capitalism is synonymous with free enterprise, not free markets. And free enterprise simply means that enterprises (rather than states) own the means of production.

tokenizer 13y ago
Agreed. We can definitly have unrestricted free markets with community owned syndicates and still be able to create tailored products and respond to demans. IMO, we need to start talking about workplace democracy if we're going to continue to entertain the idea of corporate controlled society, so that the common person can at least get their vote back (indirectly, by choosing who leads the company which bribes officials...).
- javert 13y ago
  IMO, we need to stop having people control one another. There is no self-interested reason to do it, from anyone's point of view.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    I definitely agree with you. I subscribe to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism. That said, many, many, people believe that most people are not competent, and need to be taken care of/controlled/limited. Arguments I usually have to fight against are: What to do about crime. What to do about "evil" people. What to do about property rights. What to do about control in decisions.
    - javert 13y ago
      I think "libertarian socialism" is a worse than worthless contradiction. There is a simple solution to all the problems you mention, which is to have a government that uses retaliatory force, but not initiatory force. America had one for about a century, and now there is the intellectual machinery needed to go back to that system and to define and defend it much more vigorously. Unfortunately, a majority of "advocates for freedom" are mucking around with things like "libertarian socialism" and "anarcho-capitalism" which are contradictions in terms and won't work.