Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
That's an assumption.Baron Max said:
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
Damn Straight!
Anarchy has some serious structural issues. If society doesn't implode and the most violent takes control, and somehow people behave completely different than how people actually behave, and you end up with an idyllic little community, you face a serious problem.
Other societies that decide not to become anarchies. They will be producing more, advancing faster, and have ambitions. Your community, if it ever makes it through, you know, complete and utter chaos, will be faced with a far more disciplined force, intent on subjugating you.
Other societies that decide not to become anarchies. They will be producing more, advancing faster, and have ambitions. Your community, if it ever makes it through, you know, complete and utter chaos, will be faced with a far more disciplined force, intent on subjugating you.
Why would they be advancing faster?
And why wouldn't anachies have ambitions?
And why wouldn't anachies have ambitions?
q0101 said:
Just because it's unefficient it does not mean capitalism is the problem. It's just this form of it is not efficient and I agree with that arguement. We could be a lot more efficient.
You have no idea what anarchism is.Roman said:
Is the US in a state of anarchy right now? Who is in charge?
A society is always working towards something whether they know it or not. Whether the entire society is working towards building a pyramid or working towards war efforts, it is still working towards something. America is currently working towards the business interest of the rich, and their expanding lifestyles. My palace is not big enough. Tear it down, and rebuild it. More LMH needed. The slaves are happy because they are no longer unemployed.
A slave that is useful to the master will be fed and educated to the degree of his usefulness. As long as the slave is working towards the efforts of his master, he will be taken care of to the extent that he is useful.
When the master has enough slaves fulfilling his tasks, the rest of the slaves are put to the side. They have no provisions because they are of no use to the master. They are surplus slaves. All the work that needs to be done to keep the master living in super luxury is being done. This is known as UNEMPLOYMENT.
Unemployment is the most ridiculous primitive concept ever. It has not place in a true advanced First World society which considers employment to be what needs to be addressed. There are X jobs needed to keep the city functioning with great prosperity. If X jobs are fulfilled, it is a good thing. Nobody complains that there are not enough jobs, and we need more work. Let’s create some work out of thin air just for the sake of total stupidity. Is creating work ("jobs") where it is not necessary work not absolutely rediculous and brain damaged?
A slave that is useful to the master will be fed and educated to the degree of his usefulness. As long as the slave is working towards the efforts of his master, he will be taken care of to the extent that he is useful.
When the master has enough slaves fulfilling his tasks, the rest of the slaves are put to the side. They have no provisions because they are of no use to the master. They are surplus slaves. All the work that needs to be done to keep the master living in super luxury is being done. This is known as UNEMPLOYMENT.
Unemployment is the most ridiculous primitive concept ever. It has not place in a true advanced First World society which considers employment to be what needs to be addressed. There are X jobs needed to keep the city functioning with great prosperity. If X jobs are fulfilled, it is a good thing. Nobody complains that there are not enough jobs, and we need more work. Let’s create some work out of thin air just for the sake of total stupidity. Is creating work ("jobs") where it is not necessary work not absolutely rediculous and brain damaged?
Last edited:
Anarchy simply has no laws/rules stated in advance. With exact definition, and exact consequence.
Anarchy's are flawed for one essential reason. They do not have a well defined institutional foundation. They do not have a well defined set of laws. An individual simply cannot function correctly in a society that has nothing defined. Laws cannot be implicit. Implicit laws = injustice. Laws have to be very specific and very specifically defined.
I am not against forest dwellers who refuse to live in the mondess in order to live deep in the environment in order to care for it. But there has to be regulations in place. Especially environmental regulations. There might not be any doubt that everything they are doing is for protecting the environment, but it is not scientific to say nobody will ever dump toxic waste in the middle of the forest. It is not scientific to say that nobody will ever kill somebody. Laws must be well defined. People must be informed of the law, and the law must apply to all equally. Not unequally with immunity to the rich. Laws simply cannot be implied.
It is against the law for you to do X. These are the consequences if you are found guilty of doing X.
It might be true in some cases, but it is simply far fetched.
When an individual is in a true First World society, the society does whatever it can to take care of and educate the individual for the sake of well developed human citizens that think clearly and are solid individuals of influence.
When a society deprives an individual, and treats them like shit, the individual might not be aware of it, but begins turning towards criminal activities.
These are some notes from First World rights.
It is the individual's responsibility to refuse cooperation with any order to violate these rights.
It is the individual's responsibility (without violating these rights) to retaliate against any action in violation of these rights .
It is the community's responsibility (without violating these rights) to form a resistance against any institutional body that violates these rights.
Corruption in the institution is a violation of any natural right including the right to equal treatment from administration.
These definitions make crime less random, and hopefully bring ethical order to crime. Hitler is a result of oppression. He did not discriminate other races in a different way than other non-nazi white people of the time did. He did have a severe racist hatred of Jews because he grew up under severe Jewish oppression. He then retaliated using unethical methods. Crime is a result of oppression.
Some people would want revenge. This is a defective trait.
Some people would not want revenge. This is an effective trait.
Perhaps most people would choose the defective trait, and there are causes for such defective traits rooted along the course of this individuals defective human development. To say “most” people have this defective trait is one thing. But to say that “everybody” has this defective trait. Is this not a warped and unrealistic perception of reality?
Anarchy's are flawed for one essential reason. They do not have a well defined institutional foundation. They do not have a well defined set of laws. An individual simply cannot function correctly in a society that has nothing defined. Laws cannot be implicit. Implicit laws = injustice. Laws have to be very specific and very specifically defined.
I am not against forest dwellers who refuse to live in the mondess in order to live deep in the environment in order to care for it. But there has to be regulations in place. Especially environmental regulations. There might not be any doubt that everything they are doing is for protecting the environment, but it is not scientific to say nobody will ever dump toxic waste in the middle of the forest. It is not scientific to say that nobody will ever kill somebody. Laws must be well defined. People must be informed of the law, and the law must apply to all equally. Not unequally with immunity to the rich. Laws simply cannot be implied.
It is against the law for you to do X. These are the consequences if you are found guilty of doing X.
Strawman. All the people in Georgia do not vote on California’s bridge. All the people in the US vote on a bridge in the US.Jeff 152 said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with why people break laws.Jeff 152 said:
It might be true in some cases, but it is simply far fetched.
When an individual is in a true First World society, the society does whatever it can to take care of and educate the individual for the sake of well developed human citizens that think clearly and are solid individuals of influence.
When a society deprives an individual, and treats them like shit, the individual might not be aware of it, but begins turning towards criminal activities.
These are some notes from First World rights.
It is the individual's responsibility to refuse cooperation with any order to violate these rights.
It is the individual's responsibility (without violating these rights) to retaliate against any action in violation of these rights .
It is the community's responsibility (without violating these rights) to form a resistance against any institutional body that violates these rights.
Corruption in the institution is a violation of any natural right including the right to equal treatment from administration.
These definitions make crime less random, and hopefully bring ethical order to crime. Hitler is a result of oppression. He did not discriminate other races in a different way than other non-nazi white people of the time did. He did have a severe racist hatred of Jews because he grew up under severe Jewish oppression. He then retaliated using unethical methods. Crime is a result of oppression.
Try not to generalize your personal abnormalities on everybody.Jeff 152 said:
Some people would want revenge. This is a defective trait.
Some people would not want revenge. This is an effective trait.
Perhaps most people would choose the defective trait, and there are causes for such defective traits rooted along the course of this individuals defective human development. To say “most” people have this defective trait is one thing. But to say that “everybody” has this defective trait. Is this not a warped and unrealistic perception of reality?
cool skill said:
There is no such thing as a useful job. It's useful to just enslave everyone until they die, but this is against human rights, so instead we need full employement from birth until death to make people useful.
Take a choice, because 99% of all jobs are useless. That includes your job, all the science and technology jobs, all the teaching jobs, all the entertainment, the only useful labor is slavery.
coolskill said:
No they dont, unless that bridge is an interstate bridge. The point I was making is that in a direct democracy, everyone has to vote on every issue, and this is ridiculously impractical, inefficient, and unfair. How are the people on the eastern seaboard supposed to have any clue what is best for the people 3000 miles away? They are not informed enough and they dont care enough to make a decision. Direct democracy only works in very small, isolated communities, where every decision that is made affects everyone and votes require only a show of hands.
Do you have any idea how many decisions all of the local, state, and national government make every day? If everyone participated directly in all of these decisions we would never get anything done you can not seriosly be advocating that for our country. If you are saying maybe each state, or even county, or probably closer, community should all form their own independent direct democracies, fine I can at least see that that might work. The communities would spiral back into the 18th century, but at least theyd be functioning, but you dont seriously think the entire US could be a direct democracy do you?
Thats why we have a bureaucracy, to delgate those decisons and to make the country run smoothly and efficiently. Surely the representatives for cobb county in georgia can make a better and faster decision on what needs to be done in the county than the entire population as a whole can right?
In the forests of south america, for example.Baron Max said:
TruthSeeker said:
Bad example ....'cause all of the ones discovered and known about are not anarchies ...they're controlled by a council of elders. Which is almost exactly how the American Indians usually lived. No laws as such, but a member could be brought before the council for punishment for deeds done ...and banishment was the harshest punishment, it meant almost sure death alone in the wilderness.
Baron Max