Does capitalism work?

Does capitalism work?

  • Yes

    Votes: 76 62.8%

  • No

    Votes: 45 37.2%
  • Total voters
    121
Common sense is for morons.
Such law does not make for justice.
Nobody "should" anything.
Either you can harm someone or not. It has nothing to do with the whole society losing. It has to do with the individual. Am I going to win for harming them? There is no law stating that you are not allowed to harm somebody. You cannot ethically punish an individual for a crime when the individual there was never any law provided in advance. It is a clear violation of human rights. Common sense is not justification punishing an individual for commiting an act that there is no rule against.

That having a no cursing rule in a forum, and not stating it. Then banning somebody for cursing because it is implied.


Here is a real life situation.
You walk into a government office, and take a number to be called at a window. Your number is not for a long time, so you leave to go get some food like a hotdog. You come back later, and wait for your number to be called. Finally your number is called. It is your turn to go to the window to be seen. All the people waiting claim that you just walked in, and skipped the line. You show them your number.
The office tells you that you have to take a new number, and wait all over again.
They tell you to avoid these types of problems that not allowed to leave, and get a hotdog. There is no sign of such rules anywhere. The office tells you that it is an implied rule. When you get a number, you have to sit and wait. You cannot leave, and get a hotdog. Common sense. You argue that it is not common sense, it is total common nonsense. Unfortunately, common sense has no basis in logic. It is decided by common implied stupidity.

Implying things is the most ignorant form of law on the planet. Assuming and implynig = total ignorance. The very basis of your precious "common sesne".
 
Law is something that evolves. Killing for instance, has an implicit law associated with it. We know the law. If it hurts someone, chances are that's unlawful.

Having said all that, we are not ready for implicit laws. Anarchy is only possible when you have a society that cares and respects everyone.

And as far as your hotdog example, that's a really retarded example which can't even apply at all. That "law" is simply pointless, and would never apply when it comes to an anarchist society.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Huuumm... isn't the US the most structured society and the most capitalist one?
Click to expand...

As of 2005, the country ranked with the best market system was Singapore. The US may have been 3rd. Current US administration is strongly pro-business, not pro market. This is an important distinction to make, as pro-business ends up favoring established firms. This results in reduced competition, monopolistic markets and a weaker economy.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Law is something that evolves. Killing for instance, has an implicit law associated with it. We know the law. If it hurts someone, chances are that's unlawful.

Having said all that, we are not ready for implicit laws. Anarchy is only possible when you have a society that cares and respects everyone.

And as far as your hotdog example, that's a really retarded example which can't even apply at all.
Click to expand...
It is a clear example of how utterly screwed up assuming and implying are. One should never assume or imply. Especially expect others to assume and imply things. Things should be stated clearly.
 
Laws arent as simple as whether they hurt someone or not. Sometimes someone can break a law and actually help people.

Do you believe in Utilitarianism truthseeker?

Under the implicit laws of your system, would this action be deemed as hurting society....

A doctor has a patient come in for only a minor operation and he is healthy otherwise. The doctor has 5 other termilinally ill patients who will die unless they get a liver, a pancreas, a kidney, a kidney, and a spleen respectively. Should teh doctor kill teh one patient and give his organs to teh other 5? Sacrifice one to save five. Does this action harm or help society?

Its not always so simple as whether something helps society or not. Can I steal someone's money if I am going to use it to somehow improve society? I would hope not. "Whetehr something helps society" is so ridiculously absurd and naive and vauge i dont know what to tell you.
 
Capitalism doesn't work because it slowly becomes a dictatorship as the dudes with all the money purchase their politicians to monopolize the god-damn out of everything. Take Fascist America for example. It is slowly but surely melding into something which has an overcontrolled economy... kinda fascist, AND kinda communist, its the worst combination.
 
Jeff 152 said:
Laws arent as simple as whether they hurt someone or not. Sometimes someone can break a law and actually help people.

Do you believe in Utilitarianism truthseeker?

Under the implicit laws of your system, would this action be deemed as hurting society....

A doctor has a patient come in for only a minor operation and he is healthy otherwise. The doctor has 5 other termilinally ill patients who will die unless they get a liver, a pancreas, a kidney, a kidney, and a spleen respectively. Should teh doctor kill teh one patient and give his organs to teh other 5? Sacrifice one to save five. Does this action harm or help society?

Its not always so simple as whether something helps society or not. Can I steal someone's money if I am going to use it to somehow improve society? I would hope not. "Whetehr something helps society" is so ridiculously absurd and naive and vauge i dont know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
It seems vague because it is a generalization. It may not be simply that, but that's the basics. Even in your examples it holds true. The doctor needs to find out what is better for society. The problem is to find out what exactly is the best option. But again, if you harm one of them, that's already harmful for society. No, the means are not justified by the end. As far as stealing someone's money, that harms the person you are stealing from. So no, that's no good for society....
 
manmadeflyingsaucer said:
Capitalism doesn't work because it slowly becomes a dictatorship as the dudes with all the money purchase their politicians to monopolize the god-damn out of everything. Take Fascist America for example. It is slowly but surely melding into something which has an overcontrolled economy... kinda fascist, AND kinda communist, its the worst combination.
Click to expand...
Indeed...
 
manmadeflyingsaucer said:
Capitalism doesn't work because it slowly becomes a dictatorship as the dudes with all the money purchase their politicians to monopolize the god-damn out of everything. Take Fascist America for example. It is slowly but surely melding into something which has an overcontrolled economy... kinda fascist, AND kinda communist, its the worst combination.
Click to expand...

So what sort of economy would you have?
A control economy where the government tells you what to make?
That would be fascism.

A feudal economy, maybe?
I dunno though, those tend to be sort of free market. Perhaps we should do away with money and stuff, and just take what we need from those who can't defend themselves!
 
yes truth seeker, stealing a person's money would harm them, but what if you could help hundreds of people with that money, and the person who you steal from has a ton of money anyway. Things will never be as clear as whether they help society or not. No act can eitehr help all of society or hurt all of society, there are always winners and losers, those who benefit and those who are hurt, to every action. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

I would like to see you name one action that would eitehr help everyone or hurt everyone. It doesn't exist. For your system, you would have to be a utilitarian, looking at what will provide the greatest quantitative happiness to society, so the ends do justify the means, otherwise your idea makes no sense
 
Jeff 152 said:
yes truth seeker, stealing a person's money would harm them, but what if you could help hundreds of people with that money, and the person who you steal from has a ton of money anyway.
Click to expand...

So ....you're suggesting that freedom is stealing from one group and giving those proceeds to another group? Just like that? All Americans have equal freedoms under that law ....except if they have more stuff?!!

Hmm, you have an odd idea about the ideals of freedom.

Jeff 152 said:
...what will provide the greatest quantitative happiness to society, ...
Click to expand...

How do you measure that "happiness"? And more importantly, WHO will determine it?

Jeff 152 said:
...so the ends do justify the means, ...
Click to expand...

Where and how often have we heard that comment?

Baron Max
 
Jeff 152 said:
yes truth seeker, stealing a person's money would harm them, but what if you could help hundreds of people with that money, and the person who you steal from has a ton of money anyway. Things will never be as clear as whether they help society or not. No act can eitehr help all of society or hurt all of society, there are always winners and losers, those who benefit and those who are hurt, to every action. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

I would like to see you name one action that would eitehr help everyone or hurt everyone. It doesn't exist. For your system, you would have to be a utilitarian, looking at what will provide the greatest quantitative happiness to society, so the ends do justify the means, otherwise your idea makes no sense
Click to expand...
As I said, it is not so simple...
 
TruthSeeker said:
How about acting as civilized people?
Click to expand...

What's that?? Can you give me an accurate defiinition of "civilised" that everyone could agree on?

And if everyone didn't agree, what then? War? Force of one group's ideals onto another, weaker group?

I must say, TruthSeeker, your ideals are showing! But do ideals work, ever work, in the real world? And if not, then why are you even posing the question?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
What's that?? Can you give me an accurate defiinition of "civilised" that everyone could agree on?
Click to expand...
I will give you an old example...
A bunch of hunters go in the forest and see a lion killing another animal and then eating it. They say the lion is "uncivilized". Then they go kill an elephant, take the tusks and leave the whole elephant to waste. They call themselves "civilized". Which group of animals is more civilized? The lions or the humans?

And if everyone didn't agree, what then? War? Force of one group's ideals onto another, weaker group?
Click to expand...
Huuum... maybe alternative conflict resolution?
Win-win situations are possible, did you know?

I must say, TruthSeeker, your ideals are showing! But do ideals work, ever work, in the real world? And if not, then why are you even posing the question?
Click to expand...
It's nmot just a matter of ideals. Ideals for the sake of ideals are useless. It's like waiting to cross the road in the middle of the night because the lights are red for you and there's nobody else around. The law was created to serve us- not the other way around. Unfortunately, most people blindly obey the lights and wait, despite the fact they are useless when nobody else is around! :rolleyes:
 
Americans do not have equal freedom. That is the biggest joke ever.
I guess you think that the golden rules is do unto others as you would have others do unto you?

Unfortunately, the golden rule is:
He who has the gold makes the rules.


I heard somewhere, it is illegal for anybody but select rich people to own gold. Who makes the rules now? Equal indeed.
 
lixluke said:
Americans do not have equal freedom. That is the biggest joke ever.
I guess you think that the golden rules is do unto others as you would have others do unto you?

Unfortunately, the golden rule is:
He who has the gold makes the rules.

I heard somewhere, it is illegal for anybody but select rich people to own gold. Who makes the rules now? Equal indeed.
Click to expand...
Americans have promised equal freedom of opportunity, not promised equal opportunity of result.

Even Nature doesn't promise you equal result.

You live or die according to your own personal merits, in competition with everyone else.

That fact that you whine means you're a natural loser.

I hear your mommie calling you.
 
lixluke said:
It is clear that capitalism is totally flawed, and does not work.
Every year statistics show that people that know how to work the system are taking more and more from the system. In essence, their pockets grow continuously larger while poverty and enviromental destruction continue to grow as well.


As long as the capitalist system exists the people doing the harshest labor will get the least pay. The people doing the most media manipulation will get the most pay.
Capitalism is not a system that awards great products. It is a system that awards great marketing tactics regardless of product quality.

Any system that uses the illusion of scarcity as its basis is intrinsicly corrupt. Corruption is the illusion of scarcity.

Capitalism is flawed from the inside out. No truly intellectual society would take such a primitive nonsensical corruption infected form of economics seriously. Intellects understand the the planet is the home of the life forms that occupy it. The planet has more than enough resources to support all lifeforms for generations. The planet furthermore has the ability to grow and regenerate resources. Corrupted illusions of scarcity is the ignorance of this.

Capitalism does not turn a blind eye to poverty, scarcity, and desperation. Capitalism ensures desperation exists.
Click to expand...
Does nature…”work”?
Does not nature produce inequality, and conflict and poverty and wealth?
Does not nature produce imbalances which result in temporary huge environmental upheavals?
Is not man, and all his works, a part of nature?

It is Christianity, and its political counterpart, communism, that attempt to go against human nature, by reshaping the human animal.
This too is a part of the process.


The only problem with capitalism is that it tries to maintain cohesion by disallowing too much power changes.
This allows for the offspring of the gifted to hold onto power they have not earned and do not always deserve.
Money has tilted the balances and made strength and power into an abstraction which can be inherited and passed on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top