Originally posted by kmax87Capitalism goes hand in hand with the commodification of labour. Ogs paradise was a simple barter system where each one had their needs serviced through a simple exchange. Property was hardly ever recognized in this sort of free trade market.
Capitalism goes hand in hand with the commodification of labour. Ogs paradise was a simple barter system where each one had their needs serviced through a simple exchange. Property was hardly ever recognized in this sort of free trade market.
Capitalism exists because of industrialization. Once factories became the norm labour became a commodity like any o ...[text shortened]... ile compliance, because the crud you are offered as a worker is still better than starving.
First off apologies if I somehow portrayed a cavemans lot as being a paradise. Surely stocken is out there by himself when he claims he wants to wander around as a caveman stocken: Isn't it my birth given right to take whatever food and shelter I can find in the forests to maintain my own survival which is a straight contradiction of his later claim that the origin of rights is democracy.
Whether it is a straight trade or money is used as a tool, in both cases the right to property (aka capitalism) is recognized. It is precisely the recognition of private property that makes the exchange possible. The alternative; Og looks at the stone/stick assembly in Ugs hand and – takes it. The cavemen have also commodified their labour, probably not formally with a timesheet but they have assessed what each of their effort is worth.
No definition of capitalism; excludes barter, includes a requirement of a certain number of factories of a certain size, specifies that money must be used in every trade.
As for the advice to join a union, from experience I have spent about half my working life in a union environment and the other half standing on my own two feet, and I will never go back to the union. But that's neither here nor there, capitalism does not exclude the right to join a union nor do I think kmax is advocating compulsory unionism, so no worries eh.
I don't believe we are off subject talkng of capitalism on this thread, it is the only philosophical system that recognises your right to ownership over ones own self and all the implications of that. A right that stocken would like to violate.
Originally posted by WajomaThe idea that other economic systems besides capitalism don't recognize private ownership of personal property is flat out wrong. Please actually read something regarding comparative economic systems as your assertions are just plain dumb.
[b]Capitalism goes hand in hand with the commodification of labour. Ogs paradise was a simple barter system where each one had their needs serviced through a simple exchange. Property was hardly ever recognized in this sort of free trade market.
First off apologies if I somehow portrayed a cavemans lot as being a paradise. Surely stocken is out there ...[text shortened]... r ones own self and all the implications of that. A right that stocken would like to violate.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't believe we are off subject talkng of capitalism on this thread, it is the only philosophical system that recognises your right to ownership over ones own self and all the implications of that.
The idea that other economic systems besides capitalism don't recognize private ownership of personal property is flat out wrong. Please actually read something regarding comparative economic systems as your assertions are just plain dumb.
Would capitalising, italicsing and bracketing with emoticons help also?
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaNo, because that's even stupider.
I don't believe we are off subject talkng of capitalism on this thread, it is the only philosophical system that recognises your right to ownership over ones own self [b]and all the implications of that.
Would capitalising, italicsing and bracketing with emoticons help also?[/b]
Anyway, you also said: the right to property (aka capitalism).
That is wrong.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou had missed reading those last six words which gives a different meaning to a flat out assertion that only capitalism recognises your sovereignty over yourself. That you have posted again on the same point was even "stupider" on your part.
No, because that's even stupider.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaYou continue to be hopelessly confused. Exchanges of property occur in ALL economic systems, not just capitalism. And you are confusing Natural Rights philosophy with capitalism.
You had missed reading those last six words which gives a different meaning to a flat out assertion that only capitalism recognises your sovereignty over yourself. That you have posted again on the same point was even "stupider" on your part.
EDIT: This what YOU said: Whether it is a straight trade or money is used as a tool, in both cases the right to property (aka capitalism) is recognized. It is precisely the recognition of private property that makes the exchange possible. The alternative; Og looks at the stone/stick assembly in Ugs hand and – takes it.
According to you, there is capitalism or there is forcible transfer. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Exactly my point all along. Those who don't have money have no real
Capitalism does imply freedom of action with respect to Your Money.
freedom, and those who have money is not about to give it up. It's a selfish
game where if you have money you can easily make more whereas if you
don't you have but one choice: work your butt off and hope that one day it
will pay. Usually it never really pays off (depending on where in the world
you live and what people you get in contact with), or you get rich when you're
too old to enjoy it anyway.
3 edits
Originally posted by WajomaThis actually humours me. How we're born into nature and everything is
stocken: "Isn't it my birth given right to take whatever food and shelter I can find in the forests to maintain my own survival?" which is a straight contradiction of his later claim that the origin of rights is democracy.
fine (as far as freedom goes). We have everything we need and no one
can tell us where we can and cannot be other than for small areas, our
territories. Now, someone comes up with the idea that one person can
actually "own" more than he can ever use, meaning others will have to
"own" less then they need. To protect the freedom and well-being of
those unfortunate buggers you have to create laws. We actually create
laws to guarantee that which was already a natural given. Ah, it
cracks me up every time.
Now, democracy is the idea that you have one vote to choose the leader
of your group, society, country, whatever. What is democracy then if not
a protection of freedom? It may not work, as nothing really works when
faced with human stupidity, but it is meant to protect your freedom
of choice in leader, ultimately your freedom in every aspect as the
leading party decides these things to a large extent (through laws and
political authority). Capitalism gurantees no such thing. It requires
personal freedom, but at the same time hinders it for others. If we have
a capitalistic society of two persons and one makes it "rich", the other is
sure to live in servitude and poverty. That is the way of nature
which you're so reluctant to go back to, however I would prefer a more
civilised way of dealing with things.
Originally posted by kmax87Dear Dr Wajomite,
Property was hardly ever recognized in this sort of free trade market.
The term property used here, specifically flags the idea of land as property, something that can be owned at the expense of someone else using it to make an ordinary living off it.
To talk of the protection of property, ie- the security of ones possessions or the safeguarding of the produce of ones own individual labor is intrinsic and dare i say it, guaranteed by all forms of society whether they are civilized or not.
The rights of property over land, however, is a totally different kettle of beeswax altogether, as my grandpa used to say. I think you can make an incontrovertible arguent that its only when the right's to own land are enshrined, defended and protected by law, that disproportionate inequalities within any given society are given room(no pun intended) to develop, and its only a matter of time before layers of class are established, that essentially ensure that a certain arbitrary group within the whole, will become an underclass who will suffer the fate of being part of the many who will always be exploited, because they are denied access to the one resource which is the only long term solution to the creation of independence, wealth and wellbeing.
Land.
Originally posted by stockenFreedom is not the same thing as privilege. I am free to fly to the moon if I can manage it. Bill Gates is not only free to do so, but may actually manage it because he invented something that >99% of the world wanted to buy from him.
Exactly my point all along. Those who don't have money have no real
freedom, and those who have money is not about to give it up. It's a selfish
game where if you have money you can easily make more whereas if you
don't you have but one choice: work your butt off and hope that one day it
will pay. Usually it never really pays off (depending on where ...[text shortened]... t people you get in contact with), or you get rich when you're
too old to enjoy it anyway.
The amount of money you have and the freedom to do what you want with it are not related.
Under your proposal, no on would fly to the moon because no one actually needs to go. And furthermore what Bill Gates would have spent on his ticket will go to provide kidney transplants for needy persons.
People who don't understand the implications might even say, "That's a great idea! Who likes Bill Gates anyway?" But replicate that philosophy throughout a society and you will create a repressive place without any freedoms of any kind that no one will want to live in.
It's been tried.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Freedom is completely useless unless you can... well use it. So, when I
Freedom is not the same thing as privilege. I am free to fly to the moon if I can manage it. Bill Gates is not only free to do so, but may actually manage it because he invented something that >99% of the world wanted to buy from him.
The amount of money you have and the freedom to do what you want with it are not related.
speak of freedom I'm talking about everyone having the same ability
to use their freedom, naturally. Otherwise we're into meaningless and
completely insane semantics.
Everyone is free to use the loo to poo in. Because you don't have
access to the loo, doesn't mean that if you had you couldn't use
it. 🙄
Stupid. 😞
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenBut we don't all have the same abilities. There is no way to legislate that.
Freedom is completely useless unless you can... well use it. So, when I
speak of freedom I'm talking about everyone having the same ability
to use their freedom, naturally. Otherwise we're into meaningless and
completely insane semantics.
Everyone is free to use the loo to poo in. Because you don't have
access to the loo, doesn't mean that if you had you couldn't use
it. 🙄
Stupid. 😞
The best -- and fairest -- thing we can do is give everyone the freedom to use their abilities to their own best advantage.
Your abilities + Freedom = Your Accomplishments
You don't need to drag someone down to lift others up. Give everyone the freedom to lift themselves up, and it will happen. But if you keep whacking the head off anyone who sticks up a little higher than the rest -- guess what? Pretty soon, everybody has their heads down.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358By ability I meant asset. And you're equation is so wrong. You can spend
But we don't all have the same abilities. There is no way to legislate that.
The best -- and fairest -- thing we can do is give everyone the freedom to use their abilities to their own best advantage.
Your abilities + Freedom = Your Accomplishments
You don't need to drag someone down to lift others up. Give everyone the freedom to lift thems ...[text shortened]... ittle higher than the rest -- guess what? Pretty soon, everybody has their heads down.[/i]
a lifetime working hard and accomplish a lot of things only to realise that
you never really had a chance to do what you really wanted to. In fact,
that's life for most people. And then you can be born into a wealthy
family in the right country, never accomplish anything in your whole life
and still enjoy your "freedom" on levels that most people can't even
begin to fantasise about. That's capitalism. The one with assets has the
ability to enjoy his/her freedom. Freedom is meaningless without assets.
Sure, there are the occasional success stories about this or that person
who worked hard and finally became the vice president of a successful
company, or started his/her own and became successful. But those are
rare cases when looking at the big picture. Simple calculus here. Say you
have fifty employees at a company, all striving to make a career within
the company. Only one of them can make vice-president and then
there's a handful of other jobs that make enough to guarantee a good
life (freedom-wise).
You don't have to be Einstein to understand that people favour their own,
so unless you have the right connections, you're absolutely brilliant in
what you do or you're the best at manipulating people around you,
you're not going to make it.
Abilities (as in physical or mental) and accomplishments has nothing
more to do with it in a capitalistic model than in any other. What you've
done is replace the monarch with the ridiculously wealthy, the dictator
with the greedy businessman. The motto is not: "Do as I say or die", but
rather: "Take it or leave it", which if not taken results in poverty which
results in starvation which... well, you get the idea. So, now the majority
of people don't do as the "dictator" says because their afraid of an
immediate death, but because they're afraid of a slow, humiliating and
shameful death. It's called hope for better days.