• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should capitalism be voluntary?

Should capitalism be voluntary?

  • It is and it should

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • It is not and it should

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • It is not and it shouldn't

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • It is and it shouldn't

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Capitalism sucks anyways

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hi, fellows! :)

We live in world where the default ideology is capitalism (well, corporatism disguised as capitalism, imho, but that's another topic).
Do you think that's right? Did you ever vote to be capitalist or socialist or whatever? What does legitimate the system for you? :confused:
 
Hi, fellows! :)

We live in world where the default ideology is capitalism (well, corporatism disguised as capitalism, imho, but that's another topic).
Do you think that's right? Did you ever vote to be capitalist or socialist or whatever? What does legitimate the system for you? :confused:

I believe in Capitalism; however the purest form which is "no limit capitalism" tends to devolve into despotism or other tyranny of some form. I believe that Capitalism with provisions to limit Monopolies, Oligopolies, and other such collusions to control the market in one or more areas should be prohibited.

With these safeguards in place I would feel confident in allowing the “open market” to take charge of almost anything.

Oh and almost forgot, to ensure that individuals can be held more responsible for theft, loss or embezzlement of “client funds” in a corporation.
 
"Greed is all right, by the way... I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself." -- Ivan Boesky (later convicted of insider trading and inspiration for movie character Gordon Gekko)

This is the attitude that has gripped those in the United States who act to undermine other people's efforts (a little simple, but I am tired). Who wouldn't like a little extra? But how far would you go to get it... what lines will you cross? A capitalist society makes the temptations too much to bear and too easy to feed, until one day, you have crossed the line and somehow committed an ill against fellow man.

There is usually no choice regarding where you are born and raised. You become used to something, it is familiar and it feels good. To have other systems proposed or implemented is scary and objectionable, which his why we take issue with those different from us. If I had a choice I would not have chosen to be in a capitalist society, it would be nice if people had options. Can a person really opt-out of it once they are grown, have financial obligations etc...? If I could find a way I would, I do not want to be part of a society that rewards greed and shuns compassion.

I find that greed, lust and envy cause serious problems and one way to start eliminating those problems is to eliminate the temptation. With income-sharing (always voluntary, never forced) and the right societal attitudes (sharing is good) we eliminate power-hungry beasts.

I see so many people everyday that have a look about them that they will never be satisfied...
"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction." -- Erich Fromm (social psychologist and philosopher)

---your resident goddamn dirty hippie
 
Hi, fellows! :)

We live in world where the default ideology is capitalism (well, corporatism disguised as capitalism, imho, but that's another topic).
Do you think that's right? Did you ever vote to be capitalist or socialist or whatever? What does legitimate the system for you? :confused:

There's a reason the world moved towards free market capitalism, including Europe even though some here would disagree with that, its because the other systems failed.
 
This is the attitude that has gripped those in the United States who act to undermine other people's efforts (a little simple, but I am tired). Who wouldn't like a little extra? But how far would you go to get it... what lines will you cross? A capitalist society makes the temptations too much to bear and too easy to feed, until one day, you have crossed the line and somehow committed an ill against fellow man.

There is usually no choice regarding where you are born and raised. You become used to something, it is familiar and it feels good. To have other systems proposed or implemented is scary and objectionable, which his why we take issue with those different from us. If I had a choice I would not have chosen to be in a capitalist society, it would be nice if people had options. Can a person really opt-out of it once they are grown, have financial obligations etc...? If I could find a way I would, I do not want to be part of a society that rewards greed and shuns compassion.

I find that greed, lust and envy cause serious problems and one way to start eliminating those problems is to eliminate the temptation. With income-sharing (always voluntary, never forced) and the right societal attitudes (sharing is good) we eliminate power-hungry beasts.

I see so many people everyday that have a look about them that they will never be satisfied...


---your resident goddamn dirty hippie

Bolding is mine. I've seen you say this before that you favor voluntary income sharing. Which is fine. You're free to do that now if you can find other like minded individuals, but I'm curious what is the incentive for this to become a system wide practice beyond small close knit associations (like family)? If I make 30K a year and a my neighbor makes 100K, what is his incentive to share a portion of his income with me, a person he hardly even knows?

As for eliminating power hungry people, I don't think that will ever happen. People are competitive and self interested by nature. And I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Competition gives us incentive to strive for improvement, for greater efficiency.
 
Bolding is mine. I've seen you say this before that you favor voluntary income sharing. Which is fine. You're free to do that now if you can find other like minded individuals, but I'm curious what is the incentive for this to become a system wide practice beyond small close knit associations (like family)? If I make 30K a year and a my neighbor makes 100K, what is his incentive to share a portion of his income with me, a person he hardly even knows?

As for eliminating power hungry people, I don't think that will ever happen. People are competitive and self interested by nature. And I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Competition gives us incentive to strive for improvement, for greater efficiency.

That is part of the idea-- like minded people would know that sharing is a good thing, altruism is a virtue and they will want to participate. There hardly seems any sense in pushing those who truly enjoy capitalism to join, they would be unhappy. You are looking for an incentive which is a capitalist idea, do you really need a reason to try something new or to support your neighbors?

The process of eliminating power hungry people begins with like-minded people coming together and devising a plan that will reduce and maybe someday eliminate the pervasiveness of greed. What if we teach our kids about finance and varying theories on the stability of certain systems instead of Essay writing for 12th grade when they just finished essay writing for the 11th grade (is there much difference). How about teaching ethics philosophies instead of music theory--which should be some sort or elective?

Competition can be an incentive yes, so make up competition that drives innovation. Show that all competition does not have to be rewarded with money or status, but with satisfaction and gratitude. All that takes is the power of thought.

Did I mis anything---? some of this is in my head, but I always have more developing...
 
Hi, fellows! :)

We live in world where the default ideology is capitalism (well, corporatism disguised as capitalism, imho, but that's another topic).
Do you think that's right? Did you ever vote to be capitalist or socialist or whatever? What does legitimate the system for you? :confused:

The default system is capitalism. The default ideology used to rationalize/put up with capitalism varies widely by time, place, family, local or regional culture, etc.

Practically no one alive today had any significant say in the arrangement of the order they live under. Most are born into a local political and economic order which doesn't open itself up to major, let alone revolutionary, changes during their lifetime.

Capitalism is not dominant because of merit, or because of popularity, of from ideological agreement with it. Capitalism is dominant today because it is a successful coercive system. It doesn't ask for or need the consent of most people; it requires only that those few who are inclined to resist it are prevented from success.

Coercive systems are especially hard to overturn because -- by their very nature as coercive systems -- their normal operation deals in forcing compliance, while cooperative systems are based upon people working WITH each other. Thus, coercive systems can always force what amounts to a "home field advantage"; the normal tools of daily life under coercive systems lend themselves far more effectively to suppression and defeat of dissidents than the tools of cooperation lend themselves to overturning an entrenched coercive regime. It's a permanent underdog situation for any genuine proponent of real freedom.
 
There's a reason the world moved towards free market capitalism, including Europe even though some here would disagree with that, its because the other systems failed.

May be, but do we have the option to opt out or we have to march altogether to the bright free market capitalism future (btw, where is that, I can't see it)?
 
I truly believe capitalism is voluntary. America is a capitalist nation for the most part, and nobody is keeping anyone here. If you dislike capitalism, I encourage you to leave and not drag everyone else down.
 
That is part of the idea-- like minded people would know that sharing is a good thing, altruism is a virtue and they will want to participate. There hardly seems any sense in pushing those who truly enjoy capitalism to join, they would be unhappy. You are looking for an incentive which is a capitalist idea, do you really need a reason to try something new or to support your neighbors?

Yeah, I do. Supporting my family comes natural. Close friends, sure. But relative strangers who happens to live near me? I don't feel compelled to look out for their well being at the expense of my own well being.

Competition can be an incentive yes, so make up competition that drives innovation. Show that all competition does not have to be rewarded with money or status, but with satisfaction and gratitude. All that takes is the power of thought.

Did I mis anything---? some of this is in my head, but I always have more developing...

I don't think satisfaction and gratitude are going to be sufficient motivators for most people. Some people do take jobs for the personal satisfaction they get from them and the monetary side is a secondary concern, but most people's primary incentive to work is to make money that they can then use to better their lives. How much personal satisfaction do you think the janitor gets from his job? Or the line cook at a chain resturant? Or check clerk at the local grocery store? Or countless other jobs that need to be done, but aren't very high on the personal satisfaction index.

People are generally self interested. That's just a basic fact of human nature. And innovation can be hard and risky work, so it needs to be incentivized. Monetary rewards can improve my standard of living and are a powerful motivator. A pat on the back for a job well done, that doesn't really do much for me in the long run.
 
The default system is capitalism. The default ideology used to rationalize/put up with capitalism varies widely by time, place, family, local or regional culture, etc.

Practically no one alive today had any significant say in the arrangement of the order they live under. Most are born into a local political and economic order which doesn't open itself up to major, let alone revolutionary, changes during their lifetime.

Capitalism is not dominant because of merit, or because of popularity, of from ideological agreement with it. Capitalism is dominant today because it is a successful coercive system. It doesn't ask for or need the consent of most people; it requires only that those few who are inclined to resist it are prevented from success.

Coercive systems are especially hard to overturn because -- by their very nature as coercive systems -- their normal operation deals in forcing compliance, while cooperative systems are based upon people working WITH each other. Thus, coercive systems can always force what amounts to a "home field advantage"; the normal tools of daily life under coercive systems lend themselves far more effectively to suppression and defeat of dissidents than the tools of cooperation lend themselves to overturning an entrenched coercive regime. It's a permanent underdog situation for any genuine proponent of real freedom.

Can you dumb that last paragraph down a bit for me please? :unsure13:
 
I truly believe capitalism is voluntary. America is a capitalist nation for the most part, and nobody is keeping anyone here. If you dislike capitalism, I encourage you to leave and not drag everyone else down.

Whether capitalism is voluntary or not is not a matter of opinion or feeling. It is coercive.

NOT because anyone likes it or doesn't like it, but because, in fact, it is based upon forcing people to work under conditions directly hostile to their own interests.

Like or don't like...is completely irrelevant.

"Should capitalism be voluntary?" is a bizarre question, because the responses to that question don't change the fact that it ISN'T voluntary. It is inherently coercive, and no number of people feeling that's a good or bad thing will change that.
 
"Should capitalism be voluntary?" is a bizarre question, because the responses to that question don't change the fact that it ISN'T voluntary. It is inherently coercive, and no number of people feeling that's a good or bad thing will change that.

How about freedom then?
 
Whether capitalism is voluntary or not is not a matter of opinion or feeling. It is coercive.

False. I don't buy the arguments of those Marxist-Leninists who toss out ignorant terms such as "wage slavery". There is no coercion involved. It's simple - work or die (or find some other source of income). This is not unique to capitalism. Vladimir Lenin himself said, "He who will not work, neither shall he eat."

NOT because anyone likes it or doesn't like it, but because, in fact, it is based upon forcing people to work under conditions directly hostile to their own interests.

Nobody forces you to do anything. If you do not like the "conditions directly hostile to their own interests", do something else. The only people it shows hardship to are the lazy and unambitious.
 
Can you dumb that last paragraph down a bit for me please? :unsure13:

Sure :p

Take two groups with different approaches to doing things...we'll call them Builders and Bullies.

Builders work with each other. They may argue (endlessly), they may not see eye to eye on everything, but at the end of the day they -- together -- figure out what to do to solve problems and take care of things by working with each other.

Bullies work against each other. When they don't agree on how to do something, they force others to yield to them by violence. This isn't just beating people up (although that's a common option); it's also things like hoarding things for themselves beyond what they can use, blocking people from supporting themselves by locking up resources, etc. They don't just strong-arm people into doing things their way; they break up alternatives as well.

Whenever Builders and Bullies come into conflict, Bullies tend to have an advantage in that they are already used to the mindset, the strategies, and the tactics associated with working against each other. Bullies are good at starting and maintaining actions which force others to comply because that's already their normal approach to doing things. Builders, on the other hand, are vulnerable to easy disruption, as they are used to working WITH each other.

Builders have the strength of collaboration; they can do many things which are difficult or impossible to do were it not for working with each other. This strength builds up over time as knowledge, experience, and resources are accumulated and shared. Builders face an ongoing challenge of dealing with their own progression of success; as they get better at doing things, the expectations and standards of access among the people rise, and new challenges in quantity and quality of production, freedom, and ethical ideals are opened up.

Bullies have the strength of not needing agreement; they just decide to do things and if others don't like it, such opposition is crushed. This strength builds up as rivals are defeated and coercive power consolidated. Bullies face an ongoing challenge of both other Bullies as well as the spiraling inefficiency of coercion itself, namely: people working against each other is inherently and dramatically wasteful and difficult (relative to people working with each other).

Historically, the Builders correspond to the principles, and practitioners, of cooperation, while the Bullies correspond to the principles and practitioners of competition:

cooperation: two or more sentient actors working with each other to achieve a shared goal
competition: two or more sentient actors working against each other for achievement of an exclusive goal

All coercive systems, including (but not limited to) capitalism, follow some variation of the competitive approach (the Bullies) at the highest level.
 
Nobody forces you to do anything.

Everything you've written is so much white noise and religious drivel until you muster something resembling evidence.

In this case, you've made an impossible road for yourself, since this isn't a matter of opinion, but it's fun watching doctrinaire libertarians squirm on this anyway.

If you do not like the "conditions directly hostile to their own interests", do something else.

Reality check: there's no means of opting-out short of secretly building up an interplanetary colonial expedition. You seem to be operating from the bizarre delusion that we're all born to a politico economic blank slate, and we can just choose any system we'd prefer at will. That's nonsense. We're born into an entrenched system and that system's imperatives must be appeased before/during any attempts to break free of it and build GENUINELY non coercive alternatives.

The only people it shows hardship to are the lazy and unambitious.

Would you like to retract that ridiculous statement now (to avoid embarrassing yourself further), or would you like me to drop a list of famous people who have endured hardships from capitalism and/or actively and thoroughly criticized the principles and operation of capitalism...yet are equally famous for NOT being "lazy and unambitious"??!?

If you wanted to actually present a semi-serious post and put some effort into it as a "do-over", by all means go right ahead. I won't tell anyone.
 
Last edited:
How about freedom then?

Freedom's great (so I hear). In western terms, however, This Town Ain't Big Enough for freedom and capitalism...one of them's got to go. I'm a fan of freedom sticking around and radically expanding, so of course I hope freedom wins that fight.
 
Freedom's great (so I hear). In western terms, however, This Town Ain't Big Enough for freedom and capitalism...one of them's got to go. I'm a fan of freedom sticking around and radically expanding, so of course I hope freedom wins that fight.
Capitalism is nothing more than freedom in the field of economics, or economic liberty. You dont set up or select a capitalist economy, you recognize individual liberty and capitalism is the result.
 
Capitalism is nothing more than freedom in the field of economics, or economic liberty. You dont set up or select a capitalist economy, you recognize individual liberty and capitalism is the result.

This is exactly the kind of meaningless drivel which works against recognition of basic reality on the ground.

No, capitalism is absolutely NOT "nothing more than freedom in the field of economics."

Capitalism, while having some range, is still specific:

Capitalism is any of a range of systems in which production and distribution are carried out on a competitive basis, primarily for the sake of consolidation of private profit.

There's a lot of room in there for variation and experimentation, for different flavors of capitalism, but capitalism is not just whatever the hell people decide to call capitalism, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with freedom in economics. Quite the contrary, in fact, as capitalism requires and reinforces a wide range of fundamentally coercive political and economic relationships. Once again this is all independent of anyone's FEELINGS.

The religious libertarian ideal -- of an imaginary free market and idealized buyers and sellers -- not only has never existed, but is incapable of ever existing. The basic prerequisites of a genuinely free market are among the same conditions which would preclude the capitalist (one whose primary income is from holding title to something) from existing in the first place.

The capitalism we actually have and live under is an entirely different beast.
 
May be, but do we have the option to opt out or we have to march altogether to the bright free market capitalism future (btw, where is that, I can't see it)?

If you want to opt out, I suppose you can go to North Korea. I'm sure they'd like the publicity of someone defecting to their country. And from what I understand, there's never been a "bright free market capitalism future." But if we had gone the other way, down the communist road, the world would certainly be much dimmer than it is under a capitalist system.

I almost feel like you want everyone to vote for capitalism vs. socialism, which I think is a horrible idea, because people honestly don't know what's best for them. To put the fate of humanity in the hands of the masses would be a mistake. At least under the capitalist model we have an incentive system that works, and the system in general works better than the alternative, a communist model.
 
Sure :p

Take two groups with different approaches to doing things...we'll call them Builders and Bullies.

Builders work with each other. They may argue (endlessly), they may not see eye to eye on everything, but at the end of the day they -- together -- figure out what to do to solve problems and take care of things by working with each other.

Bullies work against each other. When they don't agree on how to do something, they force others to yield to them by violence. This isn't just beating people up (although that's a common option); it's also things like hoarding things for themselves beyond what they can use, blocking people from supporting themselves by locking up resources, etc. They don't just strong-arm people into doing things their way; they break up alternatives as well.

Whenever Builders and Bullies come into conflict, Bullies tend to have an advantage in that they are already used to the mindset, the strategies, and the tactics associated with working against each other. Bullies are good at starting and maintaining actions which force others to comply because that's already their normal approach to doing things. Builders, on the other hand, are vulnerable to easy disruption, as they are used to working WITH each other.

Builders have the strength of collaboration; they can do many things which are difficult or impossible to do were it not for working with each other. This strength builds up over time as knowledge, experience, and resources are accumulated and shared. Builders face an ongoing challenge of dealing with their own progression of success; as they get better at doing things, the expectations and standards of access among the people rise, and new challenges in quantity and quality of production, freedom, and ethical ideals are opened up.

Bullies have the strength of not needing agreement; they just decide to do things and if others don't like it, such opposition is crushed. This strength builds up as rivals are defeated and coercive power consolidated. Bullies face an ongoing challenge of both other Bullies as well as the spiraling inefficiency of coercion itself, namely: people working against each other is inherently and dramatically wasteful and difficult (relative to people working with each other).

Historically, the Builders correspond to the principles, and practitioners, of cooperation, while the Bullies correspond to the principles and practitioners of competition:

cooperation: two or more sentient actors working with each other to achieve a shared goal
competition: two or more sentient actors working against each other for achievement of an exclusive goal

All coercive systems, including (but not limited to) capitalism, follow some variation of the competitive approach (the Bullies) at the highest level.

That you for that explanation, that helps me understand what you are saying. Which is always what I am thinking but you put it into better words than I could.

After redaing through the "why do people hate communism and socialism" thread and now this I am think that those builders and bullies should just exist separately. You choose what society you live in. Right now you can choose 100% income sharing communities here in the US, but you still have to participatr, to a point, in the capitalist system that exists outside the community.

If separated however, the bullies would run out of victims at some point and they woud have to turn on each other, which does happen now to an extent. Who would be left to give the Koch brothers a wedgie or two?
 
Historically, the Builders correspond to the principles, and practitioners, of cooperation, while the Bullies correspond to the principles and practitioners of competition:

The funny thing is that they switched names. The Builders are called bullies, morons and marginals, and Bullies are called Builder(berg)s. :lol: Totally in accordance with Newspeak and Doublethink.

If you want to opt out, I suppose you can go to North Korea.

No, thank you, that's a 'false dilemma'. ;)
 
Last edited:
This is exactly the kind of meaningless drivel which works against recognition of basic reality on the ground.

No, capitalism is absolutely NOT "nothing more than freedom in the field of economics."

Capitalism, while having some range, is still specific:

Capitalism is any of a range of systems in which production and distribution are carried out on a competitive basis, primarily for the sake of consolidation of private profit.

There's a lot of room in there for variation and experimentation, for different flavors of capitalism, but capitalism is not just whatever the hell people decide to call capitalism, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with freedom in economics. Quite the contrary, in fact, as capitalism requires and reinforces a wide range of fundamentally coercive political and economic relationships. Once again this is all independent of anyone's FEELINGS.

The religious libertarian ideal -- of an imaginary free market and idealized buyers and sellers -- not only has never existed, but is incapable of ever existing. The basic prerequisites of a genuinely free market are among the same conditions which would preclude the capitalist (one whose primary income is from holding title to something) from existing in the first place.

The capitalism we actually have and live under is an entirely different beast.
Actually, that is meaningless drivel. Capitalism is economic liberty. It is free people engaging in uncoerced, voluntary trade.
 
Hi, fellows! :)

We live in world where the default ideology is capitalism (well, corporatism disguised as capitalism, imho, but that's another topic).
Do you think that's right? Did you ever vote to be capitalist or socialist or whatever? What does legitimate the system for you? :confused:
You didn't define capitalism. However, it matters not, since in my opinion everything should be voluntary. So, whatever it is, this capitalism of which you speak, it should be voluntary as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom