This is why capitalism will eventually fail

[Japanrocks12]

First, this is a little boring to start arguing about every small detail I post here.
And second, I think libertarianism can be divided into two significant factions: minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Education differs significantly from national defense because the army is a monopoly of force. Anarcho-capitalists would like to privatize it altogether, while minarchists just advocate a kind of "night-watchman" state. So there some controversy whether the state should have a monopoly of force. Minarchists preferably want the state to keep the monopoly to prevent any authoritarian movement from seizing power. Maybe you should read this introduction to libertarianism.

No, no, you're generalizing. In your opinion, this is how it is divided.

You should drop your argument, it is really beginning to make people in here angry.

 

[WillJ]

First, this is a little boring to start arguing about every small detail I post here.
And second, I think libertarianism can be divided into two significant factions: minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Education differs significantly from national defense because the army is a monopoly of force. Anarcho-capitalists would like to privatize it altogether, while minarchists just advocate a kind of "night-watchman" state. So there some controversy whether the state should have a monopoly of force. Minarchists preferably want the state to keep the monopoly to prevent any authoritarian movement from seizing power. Maybe you should read this introduction to libertarianism.

Yeah, I know.

I'm just trying to point out that, using your logic, since you're not an anarcho-capitalist, you are a socialist. Yes, you heard me, you are a socialist.

I understand you argument. And I understand that in our current system it works that way.

It doesn't mean it's RIGHT.

There is no fairness or justice in someone working hard every day while earning a poverty level wage while walmart earns billions of dollars a year. I frankly don't care about the capitalist principles behind that concept when they fundamentally put wealth above the quality of people's lives.

I can somewhat understand sympathizing with unskilled workers in general, but I still think it's illogical that you think Wal-Mart employees are especially pitiable. Wal-Mart does better than Target NOT because the shelve-stockers of Wal-Mart are better than the ones at Target, but because Wal-Mart's executives have made better decisions.

Why are these execs obligated to pay their workers more just because they've made better decisions? Perhaps, as human beings, they are obligated to care for less fortunate human beings---but that'd include Target employees, equally so with Wal-Mart ones, right?

Advocating welfare is one thing; advocating workers getting a certain share of their company's profits regardless of the work they've done is just silly.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I can begin to see the extent of controversy in this thread, and how the most innocent of people are being caught in the crossfire. Some mod should close this thread before it gets out of hand.

 

[Norlamand]

Hmmm, communism vs capitalism..........self interest vs slavery.........I'm taking capitalism all the way......

 

[Aphex_Twin]

" 'Slightly' shot-gunned computer on auction on E-bay" -> "capitalism will fail, you swines!". Am I alone in thinking this belongs in the humour forum?

 

[carniflex]

Please read the 2 following quotes, the second replying to the first.

Pure capitalism = freedom.

there isnt a clear correlation between freedom and market structure/involvement of the govt

I would bet you have not noticed that:
Paalikles seems to think that crystal said "market = freedom"
Paalikles seems to confound capitalism and market.

I think most of the posters always do.

More interesting: all the so-called pro-capitalist arguments are, in fact, pro-market arguments.

If you think you are pro-capitalist, i beg you to think about that.

Two other quotes:

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Capitalism is the worst economic system there is, excepting all the others."

Winston Churchill described democracy as the worst form of governmnent, excepting all the others. Not capitalism as the best form of economic system. And democracy and capitalism are not the same thing

To conclude, many people think that "Capitalism is the worst economic system there is, excepting all the others." because they think that:
1. capitalism is far from perfect but,
2. Market is efficient
3. Democracy is good
4. Market = Capitalism = Democracy

However, the fourth statement is false.

First, capitalism may be oligopolistic or monopolistic, that ruins the free market.

Moreover,
Democracy is "one person, one vote".
Capitalism is "one share, one vote". Big shareholders rule the world. Small shareholders dont rule much. Humanity obeys and works.
Capitalism is not democracy. Capitalism is oligarchy.

Back to the subject,
"This is why capitalism will eventually fail"

Capitalism will not fail.
Capitalism will be replaced by democracy.

 

[Paalikles]

Au contraire. As I have stated, we have been discussing different regimes under capitalism. Laissez-faire, which crystal is an advocate of is the extreme case. A mixed economy, which I am advocating, is the middle way. And a commando economy is the other extreme.

I refer to the market, because the market and the price mechanism are very good tools to achieve efficiency (the ideal case being a perfectly competitive market)

First, capitalism may be oligopolistic or monopolistic, that ruins the free market.

Really?!!?? You dont say.

You forgot another form that is commonly mentioned - monopolistic competition....

Summary, I object to your placing of myself in a booth. And in particular, I wont have you claim that I associate capitalism with free markets. You insult me by not reading what I post before you jump to conclusions.

If I had time, I would add more to this, but I am going on holiday, without wanting/being able to browse this forum. So I ll fix this later in a new post.

 

[WillJ]

Carniflex, what is your definition of capitalism?

 

[crystal]

Yeah, I know.

I'm just trying to point out that, using your logic, since you're not an anarcho-capitalist, you are a socialist. Yes, you heard me, you are a socialist.

Hell no. You're twisting my arguments. (No, I'm not saying there aren't any inconsistencies, but the majority of them are consistent.)

 

[The Capitalist]

This is funny.Listening to these armchair ideologies trying to construct a new systematic idea to combat or make sense of world.Thank God!You guys dont teach in American universities,there are plenty of that in that country allready.
But i do stress to say and agree with "Jean-Francois Lyotard",that capitalism is a result of a 'foundational myth':the idea of progress itself.From the root of English liberalism, 18th and 19th enlightenment have produced today a mafia-style economies,free market greed,and evironmental disaster on the whole global scale.

Truth,like moralities,is a relative matter.There is no facts,only interpretations-Neitzche

 

[carniflex]

Carniflex, what is your definition of capitalism?

*

Please read my post. It is in.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Carniflex
You mean:
Capitalism is the worst economic system there is, excepting all the others
or
4. Market = Capitalism = Democracy
or
Capitalism is "one share, one vote". Big shareholders rule the world. Small shareholders dont rule much. Humanity obeys and works.


What you're describing is not capitalism...

 

[WillJ]

Hell no. You're twisting my arguments. (No, I'm not saying there aren't any inconsistencies, but the majority of them are consistent.)

I'm referring to this:

So you oppose individual freedom, albeit only moderately? Either a society is free (e.g. capitalist) or not free (socialist). There are no such third way to run a society without resorting to centralist planning and infringing individual freedoms. Pure capitalism = freedom.

You do not support pure capitalism (a la anarcho-capitalism), thus you oppose individual freedom, albeit only moderately.

 

[insurgent]

It would be a fair point to say that capitalism can't exist without the existence of a small and limited government. The logic usually goes as follows:

The idea of equal rights is fundamentally the only just system of rights (you may disagree, but this is the starting point of most classically liberal theory).

In a society without a state or government, these rights would not be enforced and would thus disappear.

Therefore the prerequisite of equal rights (i.e. the system of capitalism, pure capitalism) is the existence of a small state confined only to the protection of equal individual rights.

Pure capitalism is not necessarily anarcho-capitalism by every definition.

 

[carniflex]

@Carniflex
You mean:
Capitalism is the worst economic system there is, excepting all the others
or
4. Market = Capitalism = Democracy
or
Capitalism is "one share, one vote". Big shareholders rule the world. Small shareholders dont rule much. Humanity obeys and works.

To my mind, only the third of these three statements is true.

 

[WillJ]

It would be a fair point to say that capitalism can't exist without the existence of a small and limited government. The logic usually goes as follows:

The idea of equal rights is fundamentally the only just system of rights (you may disagree, but this is the starting point of most classically liberal theory).

In a society without a state or government, these rights would not be enforced and would thus disappear.

Therefore the prerequisite of equal rights (i.e. the system of capitalism, pure capitalism) is the existence of a small state confined only to the protection of equal individual rights.

Pure capitalism is not necessarily anarcho-capitalism by every definition.

If the idea that a government is necessary to protect rights is true (and I'd be very surprised if it isn't), that just means that pure capitalism is impossible, and/or it's a useless/misleading term.

I happen to pretty much agree with dictionary.com's definition of "capitalism":

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Thus it'd only make sense that "pure capitalism" is a sytem in which this applies to ALL material wealth. The government taxing people (even if it's only a small percentage) and using this money to fund the military and the legal system, as well as not allowing anyone else to form their own legal system that'd compete with the government's within its boundaries (things that crystal supports, if I'm not mistaken) violate this. The military and legal system are not privately owned in a free market, thus this system is not "pure capitalism."

 

[thestonesfan]

If the idea that a government is necessary to protect rights is true (and I'd be very surprised if it isn't), that just means that pure capitalism is impossible, and/or it's a useless/misleading term.

I happen to pretty much agree with dictionary.com's definition of "capitalism":

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Thus it'd only make sense that "pure capitalism" is a sytem in which this applies to ALL material wealth. The government taxing people (even if it's only a small percentage) and using this money to fund the military and the legal system, as well as not allowing anyone else to form their own legal system that'd compete with the government's within its boundaries (things that crystal supports, if I'm not mistaken) violate this. The military and legal system are not privately owned in a free market, thus this system is not "pure capitalism."

Military and legal systems should not be considered as "means of production and distribution". They are both ways of protecting rights - for which the government must exist. There is no capitalism without government, because it would be anarchy. Unless people are REALLY well-behaved.

Now, there is a bit of a contradiction. How can the government maintain itself, the military, the police, and the courts without taxation, which DOES clearly interfere with means of production and distribution? But, without government, it's anarcy. So, it stands to reason that capitalism must allow for taxation.

Unless one thinks that a "voluntary tax" system might work. I'm not convinced that it wouldn't - after all, we pay voluntary taxes now. Granted, it's really nothing compared to the taxes we are forced to pay, but it's something. You don't HAVE to pay for a driver's license, because you don't HAVE to use the roads. You don't HAVE to buy stamps, you can deliver that letter yourself.

When you pay that little fee, you are paying to use a service. The government happens to provide the service.

 

[WillJ]

Military and legal systems should not be considered as "means of production and distribution". They are both ways of protecting rights - for which the government must exist. There is no capitalism without government, because it would be anarchy. Unless people are REALLY well-behaved.

So what? You are assuming protecting rights and producing and distributing are mutually exclusive; that's quite unfounded.

The military *produces* stuff (some would say way too much stuff). The legal system *distributes* justice. In this case, I see no reason to draw a fundamental distinction between the goods and services provided by the military, police, and courts, and those provided by private industry. Whether or not the goods and services involve protecting fundamental rights has nothing to do with the issue.

Now, there is a bit of a contradiction. How can the government maintain itself, the military, the police, and the courts without taxation, which DOES clearly interfere with means of production and distribution? But, without government, it's anarcy. So, it stands to reason that capitalism must allow for taxation.

Again, this just means "pure capitalism" is impossible.

Unless one thinks that a "voluntary tax" system might work. I'm not convinced that it wouldn't - after all, we pay voluntary taxes now. Granted, it's really nothing compared to the taxes we are forced to pay, but it's something. You don't HAVE to pay for a driver's license, because you don't HAVE to use the roads. You don't HAVE to buy stamps, you can deliver that letter yourself.

When you pay that little fee, you are paying to use a service. The government happens to provide the service.

Yes, voluntary taxes can work wonderfully well for funding private goods provided by the government (basically the government's just selling the good ... it's not even an actual tax).

But you'll probably win a Nobel Prize if you could think of how "voluntary taxes" would work for funding public goods, namely ... guess what ... the military and legal system.

 

[Jack the Ripper]

This is why capitalism will eventually fail

Capitalism has existed for over 7 thousand years now. Its main alternitive (communism) has not even been applied for 100 years and already its mostly dead. Good luck arguing otherwise.

 

[thestonesfan]

Capitalism has existed for over 7 thousand years now. Its main alternitive (communism) has not even been applied for 100 years and already its mostly dead. Good luck arguing otherwise.

Capitalism as an economic system has not existed for over 7000 years!