Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Hey, changing to a totally different topic if I may, what do you all think of tattoos? I watched my father(ultra conservative) and my sister(ultra liberal) get into it about her tattoos and it made me wonder, what would others think.

Well, if someone wants to get a tattoo then that's their choice. But personally, I find them pretty distasteful in most cases.

I always find family political discussions very interesting.

Factoremland wrote:This isn't freedom! This is slavery forced on the poor and sick masses by the Borgoniuse rich fat cats!

Well, this "slavery" has worked out pretty well for the poor. Marx's contention that capitalism gradually impoverishes the workers is probably one of the biggest lies in the history of political science.

What is slavery, however, is statism.

Albenia wrote:...

This guy is going to be very entertaining.

Good. We don't have enough socialists here, in my opinion.

Pevvania wrote:Good. We don't have enough socialists here, in my opinion.

How many Socialists do we have besides this guy?

Also for those who didn't read the link. Some interesting facts.

Popular education under tsarism and under the Soviet Power

State expenditure upon popular education in Russia is set forth in the following table.

Year Roubles

1891 22,810,260

1911 27,883,000

1916 195,624,000

1917 339,831,687

1918 2,914,082,124

1919 (half-year) 3,888,000,000

We see that the transference of power to the proletariat was immediately followed by nearly a tenfold increase in the expenditure upon popular education.

In the year 1917 there were on 1 September, 38,387 elementary schools (in 26 provinces).

In the school year 1917-18 there were 52,274 elementary schools, with 4,138,982 pupils.

In the school year 1918-19 there were approximately 62,238 elementary schools.

As regards middle schools, in the school year 1917-18 there were 1,830, and in the school year 1918-19 there were 3,783.

Preparatory schools and similar institutions were quite unknown under the tsarist régime. In this matter the Soviet Power had to make an entirely new start. Notwithstanding the unfavourable circumstances, by 1 October 1919, in 31 provinces, the kindergartens, play schools, and homes numbered 2,615, and cared for 155>443 children. At this date, about 2.5 per cent of all the children from three to five years of age were attending such institutions. In the towns, the percentage of children cared for in this way is now low, and the proportion continually rises.

Albenia wrote:How many Socialists do we have besides this guy?

Not many. [nation=short]Pax Osca[/nation] would probably be described as a democratic socialist. Perhaps [nation=short]Ankha[/nation], but he seems to be moving to the right. And I believe that [nation=short]Space Pirates[/nation] is some form of anarcho-communist.

Pevvania wrote:

Well, this "slavery" has worked out pretty well for the poor. Marx's contention that capitalism gradually impoverishes the workers is probably one of the biggest lies in the history of political science.

What is slavery, however, is statism.

The reason for the failures of the great Communist civilizations of the past is the Fascist forces of America intervening in the progress of thriving Communist nations!

Pevvania wrote:Well, if someone wants to get a tattoo then that's their choice. But personally, I find them pretty distasteful in most cases.

I always find family political discussions very interesting.

Well, this "slavery" has worked out pretty well for the poor. Marx's contention that capitalism gradually impoverishes the workers is probably one of the biggest lies in the history of political science.

What is slavery, however, is statism.

Pevvania wrote:Well, if someone wants to get a tattoo then that's their choice. But personally, I find them pretty distasteful in most cases.

I always find family political discussions very interesting.

Well, this "slavery" has worked out pretty well for the poor. Marx's contention that capitalism gradually impoverishes the workers is probably one of the biggest lies in the history of political science.

What is slavery, however, is statism.

Pevvania wrote:Well, if someone wants to get a tattoo then that's their choice. But personally, I find them pretty distasteful in most cases.

I always find family political discussions very interesting.

Well, this "slavery" has worked out pretty well for the poor. Marx's contention that capitalism gradually impoverishes the workers is probably one of the biggest lies in the history of political science.

What is slavery, however, is statism.

I know, my father was yelling at her about how she won't be able to get a job and how she looks like someone who was on welfare, while my sister argued it was a personal choice and she was free go be herself.

Pevvania wrote:Not many. [nation=short]Pax Osca[/nation] would probably be described as a democratic socialist. Perhaps [nation=short]Ankha[/nation], but he seems to be moving to the right. And I believe that [nation=short]Space Pirates[/nation] is some form of anarcho-communist.

Ah okay.

Anarco-Communism.

The One form of Communism I like

One of the 4 forms of Anarchism I like

Democratic Socialism is a Property or Civil freedom thing.

ankha. Be a centrist.

Factoremland wrote:The reason for the failures of the great Communist civilizations of the past is the Fascist forces of America intervening in the progress of thriving Communist nations!

Partially true. This and the fact that state socialism is inherently unworkable.

Factoremland wrote:The reason for the failures of the great Communist civilizations of the past is the Fascist forces of America intervening in the progress of thriving Communist nations!

OH MY GOD IT'S THE OLD VERSION OF ME!

This is true in only one case, but the Communists won. (Vietnam War)

The one case when the Communism was better the "Democracy"

Albenia wrote:Naturally being Mormon I believe the body to be a temple. So the logic goes do you put Graffiti on a temple? Then why put it on your body?

I don't care if other's get it but it's not something I would do.

I will not do either most likely, the only tattoo I would ever consider is dark side of the moon.

Pevvania wrote:Partially true. This and the fact that state socialism is inherently unworkable.

state Socialism= A Path to Communism

State Socialism =/= Communism

However

The Path to Communism always ends up as State Socialism and never reaches Original Communism. Thus Communism is impossible and unachievable.

Pevvania wrote:Partially true. This and the fact that state socialism is inherently unworkable.

Nations like North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan, East Germany, USSR, and China all where the most powerful nations in the world as well as the most equal until the capitalists cooped the nation. They are nothing more than savage barbarians.

Factoremland wrote:Nations like North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan, East Germany, USSR, and China all where the most powerful nations in the world as well as the most equal until the capitalists cooped the nation. They are nothing more than savage barbarians.

N.K is rather weak and very unequal

Cuba is getting better as well is China because they are become Capitalists

Afghanistan whooped you asses in the USSR and then needed America to save them

USSR was strong but completely unequal.

Not to mention all the inefficient businesses protected under communism, and the fact that not everyone can be equal. In human nature, we strive to be better than one another, so belonging to the same social class and making the same wage does not allow humans to do that. Thank goodness for capitalism

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Not to mention all the inefficient businesses protected under communism, and the fact that not everyone can be equal. In human nature, we strive to be better than one another, so belonging to the same social class and making the same wage does not allow humans to do that. Thank goodness for capitalism

Yay interventionism!

Not Total Economic Freedom

Not 0 Economic Freedom

and not corporatism!

Albenia wrote:N.K is rather weak and very unequal

Cuba is getting better as well is China because they are become Capitalists

Afghanistan whooped you asses in the USSR and then needed America to save them

USSR was strong but completely unequal.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Not to mention all the inefficient businesses protected under communism, and the fact that not everyone can be equal. In human nature, we strive to be better than one another, so belonging to the same social class and making the same wage does not allow humans to do that. Thank goodness for capitalism

Both Capitalist propaganda.

which Correct me if I am wrong. On an Economic Scale would this be a fair place to put those four?

Planned Economy (Far-Left/Left)

State Capitalism (Left-Centre/Centre)

Interventionism (Centre/Right-Centre)

"Leave Alone" (Right-Far Right)

Factoremland wrote:Both Capitalist propaganda.

Capitalism is the best system we have. Everyone has equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Factoremland wrote:Both Capitalist propaganda.

Look. I don't buy into Propaganda. I go by what I see by way of Stats partaken by all countries.

I am an Interventionist not a Capitalist (Though I guess that is Capitalism)

Also Referendum: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=300214

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Capitalism is the best system we have. Everyone has equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Capitalism has lead to the death of millions of people and will reach a billion in about 10 years.

Albenia wrote:Look. I don't buy into Propaganda. I go by what I see by way of Stats partaken by all countries.

I am an Interventionist not a Capitalist (Though I guess that is Capitalism)

Yes, that is a former of capitalism, and no I don't buy into propaganda, countries have tried communism, the result is not to pretty. In communism, everyone has one uniform opinion, so if anything communism spreads propaganda and if you don't believe, then you are dealt with.

Factoremland wrote:Capitalism has lead to the death of millions of people and will reach a billion in about 10 years.

Proof?

Facts?

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Albenia wrote:state Socialism= A Path to Communism

State Socialism =/= Communism

However

The Path to Communism always ends up as State Socialism and never reaches Original Communism. Thus Communism is impossible and unachievable.

I know.

Actually, for quite a while communism was the most popular ideology on the planet. But then the tribes formed into civilizations.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Yes, that is a former of capitalism, and no I don't buy into propaganda, countries have tried communism, the result is not to pretty. In communism, everyone has one uniform opinion, so if anything communism spreads propaganda and if you don't believe, then you are dealt with.

Libertatem used to be the Exact Opposite of Communism.

They Oppressed Commies and PropagandizisedwdaDSD (some word) Capitalism

Albenia wrote:Proof?

Facts?

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Precisely, stalin and Lenin killing people in the USSR is positive. Where is your proof on your accusations of capitalism?

my proof

http://en.communpedia.org/Mass_killings_under_capitalist_regimes

Pevvania wrote:I know.

Actually, for quite a while communism was the most popular ideology on the planet. But then the tribes formed into civilizations.

That's a good one.

So it is possible! YAY! We just have to completely go back to olden times!

Factoremland wrote:my proof

http://en.communpedia.org/Mass_killings_under_capitalist_regimes

That Wikipedia though.

It tells me nothing. Unlike my list which told you something.

Albenia wrote:That Wikipedia though.

It tells me nothing. Unlike my list which told you something.

Then look at the likes at the bottom of the page.

Factoremland wrote:Then look at the likes at the bottom of the page.

Well this page has ZERO LIKES!

That does tell me something about that. Thank you.

Albenia wrote:Well this page has ZERO LIKES!

That does tell me something about that. Thank you.

no the Wiki page.

Factoremland wrote:Then look at the likes at the bottom of the page.

There is no substance to the claims. Make one statement from this Page that is valid.

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Mass_killings_under_capitalist_regimes

Is this I was when I was a Center-Leftist?

Factoremland wrote:http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Mass_killings_under_capitalist_regimes

Anarco-Biased a little?

Factoremland wrote:my proof

http://en.communpedia.org/Mass_killings_under_capitalist_regimes

That's kind of oxymoronic. There can't really be a capitalist regime, since capitalism requires protections for property rights, which cannot exist under tyrannical regimes. You could, in fact, argue that governments are inherently anticapitalist.

Also, capitalism is an economic system composed of individual interactions. Capitalism kills people as much as starvation kills people or people kill people. Because really, calling it capitalism really is a formality. Private property is the foundation of humanity itself. The voluntary exchange of goods is as natural as reproduction.

Albenia wrote:That's a good one.

So it is possible! YAY! We just have to completely go back to olden times!

If you like primitivism, disease, death, starvation and dying in your teens, then sure.

YOU PEOPLE ARE UNRESANABLE. GOOD DAY!!!!!

Factoremland wrote:YOU PEOPLE ARE UNRESANABLE. GOOD DAY!!!!!

I just wanna follow him.

at least we are not brainwashed by a system that can never work.

I'd definitely argue that governments are inherently anti-capitalistic, since their existence serves only to infringe on private property, which is at the core of capitalism. We all know how much governments like free trade (cough).

I leave for 2 hours and this happens! All I can say is ................................................................

The Amarican Empire wrote:at least we are not brainwashed by a system that can never work.

Never work? HAH! Just wait, and please, at least read about communism or the communist manifesto before you judge it.

Thank you in advance

[B]~Illhos[/B]

Capitalism isn't sustainable and it will fall, no matter how many regulations you put on it or lack thereof. The physical world and the people cannot support the free market any longer, therefore it is a utopian and idealist political theory per se. Laissez-faire capitalism creates an abstract illusion that Capitalism is forever and that the earth has unlimited resources in which businesses and corporations can exploit, trade, and sell off anything they want freely and endlessly. Capitalism with a medium state is capitalism on life support.

ok then give us an example of a successful Communist nation that is still around.

Factoremland wrote:YOU PEOPLE ARE UNRESANABLE. GOOD DAY!!!!!

Albenia wrote:I just wanna follow him.

Well run along then you parasites

Capitalism is sustainable. with further advances in technology such as fusion power we will not need oil,coal.

The Amarican Empire wrote:ok then give us an example of a successful Communist nation that is still around.

The only reason why Marxist-Leninist nations are scarce and dispersed is because of capitalist revisionism within the party. Take the U.S.S.R for example. Kushnev drastically increased the party numbers, which lead to gradual capitalist liberalism.

It also depends on what you call "successful". If you look at modern day countries that adhere to Marxism-Leninism, and their constitution, they never claim to have achieved Socialism, which means they are in a societal development stage of transitional socialism, which is the "in between" of capitalism and Socialism. In that regard, they have made several extraordinary achievements improving the standard of living.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Capitalism is sustainable. with further advances in technology such as fusion power we will not need oil,coal.

It isn't just energy resources. Its unequal distribution of the means of living (i.e food). Also, Marx noted that Capitalism is in fact a great driver of technological development, however it will collapse in on itself.

Capitalism has also helped improve the standards of living. look at medieval times vs Capitalist nations. You see far less poverty. Also look at the rich of a few centuries ago vs the "poor" of today. the "poor" of today are far more wealthy in terms of technology then the nobles of just a few centuries ago.

Feudalism is what the system was in the medieval era, then the bourgeois took control of the means of production from the noble aristocracy. In terms of development, Capitalism has done some good in renovating some areas of living standard but advancements have been slow and dispersed. You also have to remember that we have been having Capitalism as far back as the 1500's.

Communism and Socialism are even slower then Capitalism then.

Changing economic conditions necessitate a change in social organization. Economic conditions in certain places in the world have necessitated a change in social organization, and it gradually becoming world-wide. The fact that Marxism-Leninism is slower is false. We have made more advancements in a shorter amount of time than Capitalism have in multiple areas.

Post by Yrellian Confederacy suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Communal Militia suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Pevvania suppressed by a moderator.

MORE COMMIES YAY

My grand-mother had lived in a communist country, in terrible conditions. She kept many scars of her life under this political regime, that's why I don't even want to debate, and moreover this is not the proper place to do so, you are in a libertarian alliance, and WE DON'T bore you in your own commies areas with our ideology.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:My grand-mother had lived in a communist country, in terrible conditions. She kept many scars of her life under this political regime, that's why I don't even want to debate, and moreover this is not the proper place to do so, you are in a libertarian alliance, and WE DON'T bore you in your own commies areas with our ideology.

Shut up.

[quote=pevvania;6678213]Yrellian, that was uncalled for. Our Constitution protects the right to free speech, and I personally welcome socialists, even enemy socialists, for constructive debate.

This is a provocation from these commies. I'm seriously reconsidering my presence here.

Did I do something wrong?

Albenia wrote:Shut up.

Are you sure you have the necessary IQ level to be here ?

Communal Militia wrote:Did I do something wrong?

Yeah. Your a leftist.

Some people are edgy with leftists here.

Whoa...what happened with the mods?

Factoremland wrote:Nations like North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan, East Germany, USSR, and China all where the most powerful nations in the world as well as the most equal until the capitalists cooped the nation. They are nothing more than savage barbarians.

Do you hear yourself?

Liberosia wrote:Do you hear yourself?

Don't worry. I killed his arguments and sent him packing

I would like to add that the nations listed below aren't the most powerful and never was but they did achieve a large degree of equality.

Communal Militia wrote:Capitalism isn't sustainable and it will fall, no matter how many regulations you put on it or lack thereof. The physical world and the people cannot support the free market any longer, therefore it is a utopian and idealist political theory per se. Laissez-faire capitalism creates an abstract illusion that Capitalism is forever and that the earth has unlimited resources in which businesses and corporations can exploit, trade, and sell off anything they want freely and endlessly. Capitalism with a medium state is capitalism on life support.

Give me a break, capitalism will last

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Give me a break, capitalism will last

Okay. Then tell me how it will last in regards to my last argument against Capitalism.

Communal Militia wrote:The only reason why Marxist-Leninist nations are scarce and dispersed is because of capitalist revisionism within the party. Take the U.S.S.R for example. Kushnev drastically increased the party numbers, which lead to gradual capitalist liberalism.

It also depends on what you call "successful". If you look at modern day countries that adhere to Marxism-Leninism, and their constitution, they never claim to have achieved Socialism, which means they are in a societal development stage of transitional socialism, which is the "in between" of capitalism and Socialism. In that regard, they have made several extraordinary achievements improving the standard of living.

It isn't just energy resources. Its unequal distribution of the means of living (i.e food). Also, Marx noted that Capitalism is in fact a great driver of technological development, however it will collapse in on itself.

People were murdered in the USSR because they didn't support communism. What a wonderful system

Right-Winged Nation wrote:People were murdered in the USSR because they didn't support communism. What a wonderful system

The same could be said for Capitalistic systems, but more wide spread and distributed than the USSR ever did. USSR didn't kill even a quarter of what capitalism has.

Add all other communist countries to the USSR death rate

Communal Militia wrote:Okay. Then tell me how it will last in regards to my last argument against Capitalism.

Your argument fails to mention one point, human nature. Humans will always strive to be better than one another, humans will always different opinions from one another. The idea that businesses will be the same, the idea that people can be the same, the idea is that humans can have one uniform opinion, it can never happen because it contradicts human nature in terms of competition. That's why communism has never lasted, it contradicts human nature.

Communal Militia wrote:The same could be said for Capitalistic systems, but more wide spread and distributed than the USSR ever did. USSR didn't kill even a quarter of what capitalism has.

Communal Militia wrote:The same could be said for Capitalistic systems, but more wide spread and distributed than the USSR ever did. USSR didn't kill even a quarter of what capitalism has.

Really? Give me an example of how that has happened.

Humpheria wrote:'Tatem.

Humpy, what do you make of this?

In only one place would Distributive economics have stopped death.

France 1798

Albenia wrote:Add all other communist countries to the USSR death rate

Thank you

There is no such thing as "unequal distribution" of the means of living (except when the State creates its so-called "equality", costing countless lives and ruining nations (see: communism)). You do not deserve anything from me, nor do I from you. If I become rich, and you become poor, that is your fault, not mine. I quote Ayn Rand: "Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others—misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement—failure is not a mortgage on success—suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence—man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone’s altar nor for anyone’s cause—life is not one huge hospital."

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Your argument fails to mention one point, human nature. Humans will always strive to be better than one another, humans will always different opinions from one another. The idea that businesses will be the same, the idea that people can be the same, the idea is that humans can have one uniform opinion, it can never happen because it contradicts human nature in terms of competition. That's why communism has never lasted, it contradicts human nature.

A life of telling you to put all others down to only care about yourself is what is wrong. It isn't nature itself at fault, but it is humans telling you what your own nature is and what it should be. Of course, this is only told to everyone so that the big business can act on their own without any objection to make the most profit, while pulling down others. They are the ones that make it acceptable to act like a pig in modern society. Why not live like we are in a civilization and help other people instead of beating everyone else down so that the few can feast on your fruits of labor?

Snabagag wrote:There is no such thing as "unequal distribution" of the means of living (except when the State creates its so-called "equality", costing countless lives and ruining nations (see: communism)). You do not deserve anything from me, nor do I from you. If I become rich, and you become poor, that is your fault, not mine. I quote Ayn Rand: "Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others—misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement—failure is not a mortgage on success—suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence—man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone’s altar nor for anyone’s cause—life is not one huge hospital."

I think that says it all

Again, I quote Rand:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

Snabagag wrote:There is no such thing as "unequal distribution" of the means of living (except when the State creates its so-called "equality", costing countless lives and ruining nations (see: communism)). You do not deserve anything from me, nor do I from you. If I become rich, and you become poor, that is your fault, not mine. I quote Ayn Rand: "Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others—misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement—failure is not a mortgage on success—suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence—man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone’s altar nor for anyone’s cause—life is not one huge hospital."

It is regrettable when thinking like that has caused the privatization of things that should otherwise be shared by all in a society. We live in a world where one thing slips up and the rest fall, meaning we all depend on each other for our individual survival regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. We work only to nourish ourselves, but the bourgeoises do not exert any work, but continue to always win regardless and they continue to feast on our fruits of labor that we produced. It is disgusting when you have a society where a small elite control enough wealth of billions of people.

Communal Militia wrote:A life of telling you to put all others down to only care about yourself is what is wrong. It isn't nature itself at fault, but it is humans telling you what your own nature is and what it should be. Of course, this is only told to everyone so that the big business can act on their own without any objection to make the most profit, while pulling down others. They are the ones that make it acceptable to act like a pig in modern society. Why not live like we are in a civilization and help other people instead of beating everyone else down so that the few can feast on your fruits of labor?

No one is beating anyone down, I have news. Life is not fair, some will win, some will lose. Capitalism allows equal opportunity not equal outcome. Some will be above others, some will have it harder than others. Communism insures that everyone will be oppressed, that everyone will be the same. That's not equality, that's enslavement. Everyone is given a fair chance with capitalism, it what you do with it that determines how you end up. If you don't believe me, look at every country that has tried communism.

I agree with RWN. Should you, Communal Militia, be true to yourself, you would strive towards wealth so that you could help others. I find it morally repulsive that your strongest wish is to spend the money of others on those who you feel sorry for. Be the change you want to see in the world, don't coerce others into your vision of justice and equality. Those two words have no objective meaning, they are a whim of our emotions.

Communal Militia wrote:It is regrettable when thinking like that has caused the privatization of things that should otherwise be shared by all in a society. We live in a world where one thing slips up and the rest fall, meaning we all depend on each other for our individual survival regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. We work only to nourish ourselves, but the bourgeoises do not exert any work, but continue to always win regardless and they continue to feast on our fruits of labor that we produced. It is disgusting when you have a society where a small elite control enough wealth of billions of people.

Sharing finite resources is an excellent way to eliminate them entirely. Ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons?

There are two solutions: state and private ownership in order to restrict access to finite resources. The state is oppressive; the individual need not be, so the individual is the preferable solution.

I also lament the rise of a powerful elite. They are benefited by government subsidization and are unchallenged through bribery; this is an affront to a free market. We have a common enemy among the corporatists and the governments that permit them to get richer and more powerful at the expense of everyone else.

Capitalism will always produce a rich elite and corporatist control regardless of who holds control over the capitalist market. Also, individuals themselves cannot be held accountable to control the environment at their will, solely because there is nothing that can be done against them in this kind of system.

Communal Militia wrote:Capitalism will always produce a rich elite and corporatist control regardless of who holds control over the capitalist market. Also, individuals themselves cannot be held accountable to control the environment at their will, solely because there is nothing that can be done against them in this kind of system.

It's called competition, communists don't care for it.

Communal Militia wrote:Capitalism will always produce a rich elite and corporatist control regardless of who holds control over the capitalist market. Also, individuals themselves cannot be held accountable to control the environment at their will, solely because there is nothing that can be done against them in this kind of system.

Y'all need to all covert to Interventionism

Communal Militia wrote:Capitalism will always produce a rich elite and corporatist control regardless of who holds control over the capitalist market. Also, individuals themselves cannot be held accountable to control the environment at their will, solely because there is nothing that can be done against them in this kind of system.

Y'all need to all covert to Interventionism

Albenia wrote:Y'all need to all covert to Interventionism

Which is a form of capitalism.

Communal Militia wrote:Capitalism will always produce a rich elite and corporatist control regardless of who holds control over the capitalist market. Also, individuals themselves cannot be held accountable to control the environment at their will, solely because there is nothing that can be done against them in this kind of system.

That's exactly it - control of the market belongs to no one. To give it to the government produces fascism - if only on a partial level, then socialism. To give it to the companies produces corporatism. To give it - the "means of production" - to the people results in incomplete (and incapable of being completed) communism. The market is a force in and of itself; it belongs to no institution or group.

Individuals, taken as a group, indeed cannot be responsible; the Tragedy of the Commons dictates that the individual will act in their own interest even if it handicaps all people in the long run. If the state steps in to conserve a resource of this manner, everyone benefits from the limits the state invokes (thus protecting the environment, for example) but no one bears the fruit of it. However, if an individual owns this recourse, not only does everyone benefit from the limits the individual invokes (and, again, saving the environment), but the individual will also bear the fruit of setting the limit. Think of access to property, for example.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:It's called competition, communists don't care for it.

Pure competition isn't exactly healthy either; when anyone can betray anyone for their own gain without suffering the consequences, the system they do this in is truly despotic.

A balance of competition and cooperation are in order for capitalism to work; businesses must work against each other for the benefit of the consumer, and together for their own benefit. That way, everyone wins.

Except the statist who wants the government to have most of the wealth.

Well capitalism tries to do that, while it may not be perfect, it is the best we have.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Well capitalism tries to do that, while it may not be perfect, it is the best we have.

Quite so. Other systems restrict freedom, prosperity, or both.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Except the statist who wants the government to have most of the wealth.

Haha

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Quite so. Other systems restrict freedom, prosperity, or both.

Which leads to violence.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.