@AverageJoe1 saidCapitalism arises from private property and private property arises from force. In the Natural State, no one owned land and people could come and go as they pleased, free to enjoy the bounties of the Earth. Land could be used and settled on for a person and their family's use.
I suggest that you put a little more thought into what you just said, and maybe separate voluntary exchange from exploitation. You type without thought, to stir it up. Average Joe is not stirred.
You see, capitalism is not based on stealing labor. It’s based on voluntary agreements where workers trade labor for wages and investors risk capital to build businesses. (Lib ...[text shortened]... nt ,management comes from somewhere. The factory worker comes from his home to his job.
Goodnight
But then someone, somewhere said "I own this land though I cannot personally use it". And to only way to enforce such a claim was through the threat and use of violence. Thus, Man was deprived of the freedom that was his birthright and forced to labor for others.
That is still basically the system for 90% plus of the People. "Voluntary" agreements where one side has the choice of entering into it at whatever terms he can get out of the stronger side or "chose" to starve to death are a sham. True progressives reforms, that the capitalists used every means in their power to thwart until the real specter of revolution forced them to grudgingly acquiesce to, have mitigated some of the most appalling results of this economic system but at its core it remains one where the fruits of the labor of the many largely "belongs" to a relative few.
Does that answer your question?
Factories could and did exist in non-capitalist economic systems.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNo blunder.. Winnable.. five presidents before Trump would not do it. Had to be done. They have warred us for 47 years. Wgrass and MB would tell you that you keep writing the same thing over and over.
Why don't you simply read my link or are you still too stupid to figure out how to open one?
Trump actually promised to avoid foreign wars only to blunder into an unwinnable one.
It's very common for killers to excuse their killing by claiming the victims are subhuman in some way. Right wingers during the Vietnam war claimed the other side didn't value life like We ...[text shortened]... s on this board, somehow claiming you have some inside knowledge on how Iranians think gets a LMFAO!
Shall we stipulate the world is full of subhuman’s, though that is not what I would call them… that is a bit strong.
I am not thinking about discussing Vietnam.
I can say we do know how the Iranians do NOT think. They do not think like we think. They think martyr.. the word has never been spoken in this country by any of our 330 million as far as I know. They dream up heaven with 75 versions. We know they think that, don’t we. I guess they are as close to subhuman as you can get.
So that covers those topics. If you find it strong that I say we need to kill them, them are eight-year-olds kids are being taught to kill us. (they chant death to America)When they are 28 years old, they would have nuclear capabilities that we cannot even contemplate. They would be able to use the Internet to blow up all of our planes at the same moment
I say blow them up now.
We have all the ‘knowledge’ we need, we don’t need any more, we don’t need any more discussion either.
@AThousandYoung saidLord.You never ever close your posts by telling us where these factories come from
They come from the labor of workers.
Somebody else jump in here, please.
@no1marauder saidIt tells me how you think. But not an answer.
Capitalism arises from private property and private property arises from force. In the Natural State, no one owned land and people could come and go as they pleased, free to enjoy the bounties of the Earth. Land could be used and settled on for a person and their family's use.
But then someone, somewhere said "I own this land though I cannot personally use it". And t ...[text shortened]... oes that answer your question?
Factories could and did exist in non-capitalist economic systems.
Your argument assumes that all private property came purely from conquest and exploitation, but that is only “the start” of human history. People naturally developed systems of ownership because when individuals can keep the fruits of their labor, they have incentive to improve land, build businesses, invent tools, and create prosperity. Without secure property rights, there is little reason to invest or produce beyond immediate survival.
Do you truly not get this last sentence? Incentive?
You also describe employment as if workers are helpless victims, but in capitalism labor is voluntary exchange, not slavery. You need to let that go, man.
An employer needs workers just as workers need employers. Both sides negotiate because both sides benefit. The fact that some people start with more advantages than others does not make every agreement coercion. If I agree to work for you, get paid, you immediately see a negative element there.?
And get this, if you get nothing else ..the countries that most strongly protected private property and markets produced the highest living standards, longest life expectancy, great innovation… do you still deny all of that?
Meanwhile, systems that rejected capitalism often ended with shortages, repression, stagnation, and governments controlling not just property, but people themselves. Do you not get THAT?!?!?!?!
Come down out of the clouds. And you are infecting the brains of our friends on the forum.
Come on back. I prose much clearer in the AM.
@no1marauder saidOne addendum: you said this
Capitalism arises from private property and private property arises from force. In the Natural State, no one owned land and people could come and go as they pleased, free to enjoy the bounties of the Earth. Land could be used and settled on for a person and their family's use.
But then someone, somewhere said "I own this land though I cannot personally use it". And t ...[text shortened]... oes that answer your question?
Factories could and did exist in non-capitalist economic systems.
“But then someone, somewhere said "I own this land though I cannot personally use it". And to only way to enforce such a claim was through the threat and use of violence. Thus, Man was deprived of the freedom that was his birthright and forced to labor for others.”
You are treading on the old adage, survival of the fittest. You would have to really explain yourself on this one. Every country that exist now was developed by one group beating up on another period . You leavened and your subjects trying to picture the world where everyone would be just lollygagging all over the place with no controlling factors. Controlling factors,… I can’t think of another phrase to put there.
Whew. Scots vs England? Shall I spiel them all off?!?
@AverageJoe1 saidIf you ever get out of 9th grade, you'll discover that the fittest groups of humans were the ones that were most cooperative and empathetic not the ones based on internal force and threat of violence. The latter were inherently unstable and wouldn't have survived in competition with the former in the Natural State.
One addendum: you said this
“But then someone, somewhere said "I own this land though I cannot personally use it". And to only way to enforce such a claim was through the threat and use of violence. Thus, Man was deprived of the freedom that was his birthright and forced to labor for others.”
You are treading on the old adage, survival of the fittest. You would hav ...[text shortened]... ’t think of another phrase to put there.
Whew. Scots vs England? Shall I spiel them all off?!?
@AverageJoe1 saidWe already have one psychopath insisting on waging a Holy War against Muslims, but it's even more imbecilic to insist on one because they won't bow down to the old fool you worship.
No blunder.. Winnable.. five presidents before Trump would not do it. Had to be done. They have warred us for 47 years. Wgrass and MB would tell you that you keep writing the same thing over and over.
Shall we stipulate the world is full of subhuman’s, though that is not what I would call them… that is a bit strong.
I am not thinking about discussing Vietnam. ...[text shortened]... have all the ‘knowledge’ we need, we don’t need any more, we don’t need any more discussion either.
@no1marauder saidYou are wrong. The ‘fittest won their spoils with force and violence. Ask Robert the Bruce, maybe Alex the Great.
If you ever get out of 9th grade, you'll discover that the fittest groups of humans were the ones that were most cooperative and empathetic not the ones based on internal force and threat of violence. The latter were inherently unstable and wouldn't have survived in competition with the former in the Natural State.
Do you really think your comment here makes any sense?
@no1marauder saidYou skew our ‘reasons’ once again.
We already have one psychopath insisting on waging a Holy War against Muslims, but it's even more imbecilic to insist on one because they won't bow down to the old fool you worship.
And you say our president is a psychopath? What in the hell?
@no1marauder saidI just read this a 4th time to get it.
If you ever get out of 9th grade, you'll discover that the fittest groups of humans were the ones that were most cooperative and empathetic not the ones based on internal force and threat of violence. The latter were inherently unstable and wouldn't have survived in competition with the former in the Natural State.
You’re saying that cooperative empathetic groups would have prevailed (.?) when competing with groups that were unstable, if the 2 groups found themselves sharing the same Natural State.
Is that correct?
You will get my attention if you would like to present a practical scenario of that sort of relationship between the2 groups with your projected result.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou need to read an Anthropology text esp. the chapters on Early Man.
You are wrong. The ‘fittest won their spoils with force and violence. Ask Robert the Bruce, maybe Alex the Great.
Do you really think your comment here makes any sense?
@no1marauder saidBut I am talking with you. Trying to learn from you. You suggest Forum close down and we all go to library. No fun. I’m sure there are books written about what you call natural law. We all want to hear a layman’s definition , and you just cannot give it to us in readable practical terms…. you know, with a beginning of middle and an end. The word practical keeps standing out.! So does the drive to library. And, They don’t allow coffee.
You need to read an Anthropology text esp. the chapters on Early Man.
(Anthro-what?.?))
@AverageJoe1 saidIt's child's play to show that a group of hunter gatherers who cooperate, share roughly equally, take care of the sick and injured, etc. etc. Will have both survival advantages and stability as compared to a group run by a tyrant who takes 90% of the food and resources for himself and a crony or two leaving the rest to barely survive on the scraps.
I just read this a 4th time to get it.
You’re saying that cooperative empathetic groups would have prevailed (.?) when competing with groups that were unstable, if the 2 groups found themselves sharing the same Natural State.
Is that correct?
You will get my attention if you would like to present a practical scenario of that sort of relationship between the2 groups with your projected result.
And small groups of hunter gatherers is how Man organized itself for 90%+ of its existence and the traits that aided survival then evolved into the dominant traits now.
@no1marauder saidWell, you’re giving me no choice, but to ask my old worn out question. What if some of those Hunter gatherers work hard harder than other Hunter gatherers?
It's child's play to show that a group of hunter gatherers who cooperate, share roughly equally, take care of the sick and injured, etc. etc. Will have both survival advantages and stability as compared to a group run by a tyrant who takes 90% of the food and resources for himself and a crony or two leaving the rest to barely survive on the scraps.
And small groups of ...[text shortened]... 90%+ of its existence and the traits that aided survival then evolved into the dominant traits now.
Of course, this would have to be addressed. What would happen is they would decide that the people that worked the hardest might enjoy the fruits of their labor, a little bit more. That, my friend, would lead to… You guessed it, capitalism.
I would love for you to try to defeat this argument.
And be honest, surely you know that the constant practice of some working harder than others would not stand.
Lord, I always wish I would get a normal response from you. It ain’t gonna happen.
@AverageJoe1 saidIt's comical that you honestly believe that what determines the amount of wealth you have in capitalism is how hard you work.
Well, you’re giving me no choice, but to ask my old worn out question. What if some of those Hunter gatherers work hard harder than other Hunter gatherers?
Of course, this would have to be addressed. What would happen is they would decide that the people that worked the hardest might enjoy the fruits of their labor, a little bit more. That, my friend, would lead to… ...[text shortened]... ld not stand.
Lord, I always wish I would get a normal response from you. It ain’t gonna happen.