This is all well and good, if we want to keep things socially the same for the next couple hundred years. The rich, richer. The poor, devastated and powerless. In 1492, in Europe, the top 2% owned 95% of everything. Today, in America, the top 5% own 3/4's of everything. Nothing much has changed, and won't until we realize that stuff like this is only propagated by those who care not about social equality, but for keeping things the way they are, forever. Down with the money system.
@questionslp6 >>> To say that nothing much has changed between the lifestyles lived by average people living in Europe in 1492 & the lifestyles lived by the descendants of those people who live in America today is beyond ridiculous. Do you know how the average person lived in those days?
@JBourneID so because rich people live more lavishly now then they did in the 1400's, that makes the crimes of money okay? Newsflash, people are still starving in the street, disease is up, crime and drug use is up. Our world economy is operated to serve the very few, off the backs of the many. You have obvious motives.
~~> The fed incentivied... Banks are private owned corps who dictate the type of business they do... If they chose not to make the loans, what would be thier injury?? In my business, if your credit isn't good, you don't get credit... PERIOD... But the incentive must have been soo great that it would cause an upright company to do bad business... Incentive = forced at gun point to do the wrong thing... What a joke... Its the eveil will of men... Everyman wants his own hut since the begining...
The fact that you don't trust the government, means you don't trust the people, the same individuals you claim to want to offer freedom to. The inability to trust is an element of psychosis, in that you have this paranoia that some big bad imaginary threat is looming to take your freedoms away. Well that is a con. Businessmen will never rule the world with pure capitalism. It's an ideology, and the world doesn't function on ideals.
@kj6bbs "The fact that you don't trust the government, means you don't trust the people, the same individuals you claim to want to offer freedom to." Well said. Randists act as if there is some abstract entity with agency called 'The Government'.
@WhyMeMoFo Thank you. This video is just like every other message that capitalist blockheads send. It's a marketing type message to make people feel better about something that easily has the potential to corrupt. Capitalism is not moral, and has no goal to be moral. It is an economic tool, and in its ideal form it is highly imperfect. I am the government and the governed, We should not be interested in capitalizing morals in order to take advantage and take away from others for individual gain
@kj6bbs Capitalism is pure corruption. People who do the work and are directly effected by the processes thereof should be the only people in control, ie Stakeholders. Anything else is a theft and a swindle. The fact that Ayn Rand was a welfare queen only underscores the depravity of this garden variety ideology.
@WhyMeMoFo Not to make a black & white issue out of it, I would say that capitalism is not to be equated with corruption, but it leaves a lot of room for corruption to occur. If we purpose our culture, our ideas, progress, innovation, morals, or society with nothing but capital, we have become a culture of greed and that's it. Every economic concept has its strengths and weaknesses. It would be moral for us to blend the best of all ideas to sustain a virtuous economy. Besides Rand wrote FICTION!
@kj6bbs Perhaps I should expand my thought. The reason I make such a sweeping statement about Capitalism is the very foundation that it rests upon, competition. Once people are made to compete, much less compete for material gain, then theft, corruption and violence will follow. These are not simply by-products of the system, they are the cornerstones. The trick in capital run economies is to get the other guy to follow the arbitrary rules so that the they can safely cheat.
Competition is not the foundation capitalism rests upon. Voluntary cooperation is the essence of capitalism. Every trade has benefits for both parties or it would not be made. Therefore capitalism is not a zero-sum game, as government is. Voluntary cooperation leads to wealth creation, increased productivity, rising wages and falling prices. Competition is also voluntary. Capital will follow the highest profits, lowering prices and profits.
@kj6bbs And when I say "Capitalism' I mean text book stuff.
Capitalism: The means of production and distribution are privately owned and labor has no voice in its use.
As opposed to:
Socialism: The means of production and distribution are owned and operated by those who do the actual work and those who are directly effected by the workings of this institution, ie Stakeholders.
Private (not Personal) Property is a problem that we must solve, and eliminate.
Who decides who the "stakeholders" are? The socialist masters, of course. Do you contend only workers are affected by production? What about customers, neighbors and those who contribute their saved capital and their ideas so the production can take place at all?
Markets are not created or planned; they arise from the choices people make. You misunderstand the meaning of capital and buy into the myth of class warfare.
Ayn Rand left an estate and was never a "welfare queen."
@EconomicLiteracyNow 'Socialist' masters? That's as funny as it is ill informed. Is that what your capitalist masters have been telling you? huh, Wage Slave?
Stakeholders are all the members of the community who are directly effected by the processes of these institutions. I'm certain I was fairly clear on this point already.
Ayn Rand was a welfare queen and 30 odd year drug addict. Sorry to tell you. Actually, I'm not sorry, it's always a pleasure to out frauds....
@WhyMeMoFo Actually you both are splitting hairs, both of your social infrastructures are directly related to capitalism majorly in some way. This will always lead to the destruction of said social system. Will we have free energy or flying cars? No, they are not profitable. If something is not profitable, it has no relevance to capitalism and therefor must be abandoned. This means that only the procreation of the money system is valued, and not the well-being or economy of the people.throwitout
Using the words 'morality' and 'capitalism' do not fit in the same sentence.
Capitalism has no morality, nor ethics. The only thing that capitalism stands for is profits, as the highest good and meaning of life. Which explains why human life in America has little value.
Isn't capitalism more aligned with aristocrats and kingdoms from centuries ago? The ruling elites took from the working classes to build spectacular structures and live in splendor.
@visvaldisX You couldn't BE more ass-backwards in your assessment. You have determined the exact opposite of what is true. It is statism(socialism, communism, fascism, etc) that is "more aligned" with aristocrats and kingdoms from centuries ago. Capitalism takes away the ability of government to interfere is production and trade, and its ability to interfere in individuals lives.
@nathanreinhardt "It is statism(socialism, communism, fascism, etc) that is "more aligned" with aristocrats and kingdoms from centuries ago." Nice anachronism. The idea of a 'State' is barely 200 years old. Fascism is when the sine qua non of Capitalism 'corporations', control the government. There are also numerous non-state versions of Socialism, such as the only legitimate 'Libertarianism', Libertarian Socialism. Face it, Capitalism is the cancer that has effected mankind.
Capitalism had little to recommend it to the worker. He had no hope of ever getting enough cash together to loan it at interest and so retire. By definition that was all capitalism was—a system of living on interest by loaning money to more industrious people. As it is “all take and no active participation” it, of course, is a rather easily destroyed system. It had no vitality. It could only foreclose mortgages and seize property. It could not and did not operate cleverly.
@rosiertodd capitalism works for each individualist. it allows freewill to pursue ones own happiness. so im guessing your a worker. it's up to the individualist to decide what he's going to do to get him to happiness. its the individualist responsibility. if he decides to be a worker. thats his choice. capitalism isn't for any class. it just allows the freedom for each individualist
@platinum014 The fuck are you talking about? You make no sense at all. You are a happy wage slave. Ignorant fool. There are tons of other options for maximum freedom. We need to kill the state/governments, kill capitalism, kill money and institute a resource based economy. And how the FUCK can you be so selfish and heartless. You need to learn that there are billions of other people in the world. We are SOCIAL creatures, not lone wolves. It is time for you to recognize your brothers and sisters.
@koberask pure capitalism does allow maximum freedom but not anarchy. capitalism allows you to do what you want but with security and thats where the government comes into play the government gives you security. thats what there for is to protect your rights and freedom. when government starts controlling what you can do thats when it becomes a dictatorship and socialism. sorry about my comment before this i made the mistake of talking about Objectivism instead of capitalism sorry. lol
@koberask plus money is actually not bad. money only becomes the root of evil when it becomes your only way of survival or to have certain rights. in pure capitalism all money is is what you have earned from helping or volunteering to work for another person or a privately owned business. then you use the money that you earned to buy goods. in pure capitalism you keep that money that you earned only with government interference is half your paycheck gone every weak like nowadays.
Section III OT = OT3 = Incident II. 75 million years ago Xenu commits mass extermination, drops bodies in volcanoes on earth, souls are subjected to 36 days of hypnotic implants which then attach to humans. OT3 is all about auditing out these body thetans.
OT4 = more body thetans and drugs
OT5 = even more body thetans and NOTs
OT6 = how to really audit body thetans out this time
OT7 = apply what you learned in OT6
OT8 = a review of above. Not successful? Start all over again!
The main problem with sub prime loan is the wolves who got greedy with those who could not afford it. Low income people have to pay rent,had these people been give loans that were not predatory then what he speaks of would not be the case. Owning a home is much better for moral and savings then renting.
Who do you think wins the elections? Those who spend the most on campaign donations. Who donates the most money, by far, to electoral campaigns? Big business. Therefore, the governement, who this dickhead is trying to claim STOPS the free market system, is essentially bought off by that same free market he's trying to defend. Therefore, this motherfucker deserves nothing short of a steak knife in the cornea.
You completely missed the point. The corporations ARE the fucking government. They pay for the campaigns, hence they control what the election boils down to. You only have the choice to vote for two people, who were both shoved in your face by corporate funding. Here's the efficiency of McDonald's. We can all work for minimum wage, flipping burgers, with NO regulations on working conditions. That's what your suggesting. Now, own up to it.
@mussman717word Absolutley, pay everybody as little as possible to improve efficiancy, thats the cornerstone of capitalism, ill 'own up' to that happily.
What you dont understand is the other side of the trade.
If wages are squeezed to improve production you need less money to buy stuff dumbass.
Id be happy if everybody worked minimum wage.
No I havent missed the point.
I think that companies arnt in control of government enough.
Oh, God, you're still under this fucking delusion, aren't you? Or, maybe you're in the top tenth percentile of the amerikkkan population who owns 85% of the wealth? The entire point of government regulation is to force big business to cut prices and increase wages, in the process leading to competition. Isn't that what capitalism is based on? I mean, conservatives cling on this "give the little guy a chance" American Dream shit, but do the exact opposite.
@mussman717word How do think big businesses got big?YOU spent your money with them and freely 'voted' there growth because they constantly strived to give you more at a lower price - no government required.
And unlike government, they did it without 'forcing' you or anybody to do anything.
@mussman717word Incedently, Im not in the top tenth percentile who own 85% of the wealth, but I hope to get closer to it one day, and capitalism & hardwork is my (and everybody elses ticket to easy street).
Also, you seem to think that if your not in that top bracket you dont benefit from capitalism, when the reality is that most people would rather be poor(ish) now than rich a hundred years ago.
If you think people get rich at the expense of the poor you are a fool.
I don't know whether to cry for the stupidity of mankind or laugh my fucking ass off. Really, that shit's hillarious. You should take that act on the road, then maybe you'll get rich and famous. Ha! Capitalism is the top 10th percentile's ticket to easy street. It's YOUR ticket to lower wages and more hours spent in a shitty working condition. I reccommend lasek surgery, if you can afford it after 40 years in a factory, you blind motherfucker.
Well, unless you have enough money to advertise more than corporations do, then there's no fucking way you're getting a business off the ground. What else is there to do but work in a factory or a fast food restaurant or some other greasy, smoggy hellhole? And, people like you believe government should stay out of corporate business, in other words, allow them to fuck over the working class.
And, how the fuck is the WORKER, who BUILDS a product for menial wages day in day out worth "very little" ? If it weren't for him, the business would have no profit whatsoever. He's the driving force. How the FUCK is he worth "very little," as you say? You're right about one thing. There is only one blind motherfucker around here, and that motherfucker is you, sir.
If a man A can make 1 widget a day, and man B supplies a factory(capital) enabling him to make 1,000 widgets a day how the fuck is man A the driving force? When all he does all day is press a button or load material into said factory machines?
A job a babboon could do?
You dont think man B should be rewarded for his 1000% improvment in efficiancy?
You dont think everyone(including the factory worker) will benefit with lower prices?
All right, i agree with you. So you probably know that, like I. Berlin, she was born in Russia and that they both fled to the West to escape communism. You see, i was trying to get to the following point: given the cultural background they had in common, it would be interesting to analyse to what extent her thought process differed from the theory expounded by Berlin's in Two Concepts of Liberty.
@BtrdDbs5 P.S sorry for the mistake: the difference between analyzing how the thought process occurs in the mind and the interpretation of the content of ideas is part of another debate,
Joseph Goebbels: "It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism" (Anthony Read. The Devil's disciples: Hitler's inner circle. First American Edition. New York, New York, USA: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. p. 142). Also, read: Henry A. Turner's "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler," wherein he rebuts the notion that German capitalists financed Hitler's political rise.
Read R. J. Overy's "The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004," especially p. 399 - 404. It's quite obvious Hitler and the Nazis did NOT have a libertarian, laissez faire capitalist conception of property rights. Hitler's antipathy toward capitalism is undeniable.
"I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners" (Calic, Edouard (1968). Ohne Maske (Without a Mask), Frankfurter Societäts-Druckerei, pp. 11, 32–33). Libertarian view of property?
Adolf Hitler: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions" (Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225).
@blaziermissy Here's her definition of political and economic power: "Now let me define the diffrence between economic power and political power: economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tools is values; the bureaucrats's tool is fear"
@BtrdDbs5 Don't be a slave to someones ideas generated from tradition; a harsh archaic environment. We've the ability to create an environment condusive to humanity flourishing. Why should we continue to cling to systems that don't work? Watch "The Awakening" on tzmsocialevolution. You'll see where I'm coming from.
Btw, mechination is here....the service sector..the dominant area supplying jobs is slowly changing. That's just one of many reasons to transition to a resource based economy.
@blaziermissy Ideas are there for whatever purpose they serve, be it slavery ot whatever you would call it. Now, considering i quoted Rand to draw the readers' attention towards a debatable point of view, i wonder what can possibly make you think that you ought to tell me what to do. Please, do me a favor and don't make me waste my time, i could hardly care less to know what you think where you come from: otherwise stated, get lost.
@BtrdDbs5 Excuse me, retard? YOU responded to my comment, and took it upon yourself to desribe to me, what you deem to be the difference between economic and political power. I responded. If you don't like my response, that's your problem, but telling me to get lost is as I stated, retarded...b/c you opened yourself up for my response by clicking on the "reply" button that coincides with my name..capeche?
@blaziermissy Since i never said that i didn't like what you posted, if that's not what is called roles reversing, then what is it called? Talking about retarded, i think it's an accurate description of the kind of people who, like you, do not know whereof they speak and still resort to name callings to make their point. Wouldn't you have been misled into thinking that i took it upon myself to describe what i deem to be the difference between economic and political power, [...]
@BtrdDbs5 [...] you would have known that the point i was trying to make neither concerned you nor me, but the author i quoted: Ayn Rand. As it turns out, and since you have no idea what i'm alludind to when i say that ideas are there for whatever purpose they serve, be it slavery, liberty and so on, it is more than likely that you have no idea who she really was, and the whole point of this discussion is useless.
@BtrdDbs5 here's how it works: As I pointed out, If you comment to me and I respond, and then you respond back telling me to get lost, I won't care to keep the dialogue going.
And yes, I'm well aware of who Rand is b/c her thought processes and ideology has an effect on people who advocate what she speaks of. She's no regard for what altruism is and how it relates to humanity socially, and it's certainly not in the negative way she advocated. Yes, I've read her ideo.
In nuce, Marxism or any other system does not abolish property rights, it reassigns property rights. The egalitarian sentiments that give rise to your political philosophy, as noted prior, seem intuitively perverse: Why should one sacrifice one's productivity for the benefit of another? One does not own one's own production, but others do? One does not have a legitimate claim on his product, but another has a legitimate claim on him? As for wage slavery, wages are proper remuneration for labor.
@Bigmartinno1 Lose? I am not the proponent of an intellectual bankrupt political-economic philosophy. You advocate for some variant of Marxism, which, on both theoretical and empircal grounds, has evidenced itself to be wanting. Also, on your channel page, you have (an apparent) quote from Hitler wherein he (supposedly) espoused private property. Are you so intellectually irresponsible as to believe that Hitler was an advocate of a libertarian view of property?
@Paraconsistant the 'you lose' came as a righteous conclusion on your waffle-piffle below.
"Marxism, which, on both theoretical and empirical grounds, has evidenced itself to be wanting"
From those very words & the way in which it is formed I can tell you don't know what you're talking about.
& there's a lot more that Nazism and 'Libertarianism' share than respect for private property. Take for instance the social darwinism intrinsic and celebrated by both.....
@Bigmartinno1 In many respects Nazism is simply more logically consistent than 'libertarianism' which has proved itself to be theoretically and empirically bankrupt, in more senses than the literal.
@Bigmartinno1 Waffle-piffle below. I await your rebuttal. The Marxist analysis of economic phenomena is empty, premised upon horrible contortions of the ideas of the classical economists. "Social darwinism" went out of vogue in late 19th and early 20th centuries. Furthermore, Herbert Spencer, the man who coined the term, never advocated for the initiation of the use of force and violence against anyone. Moreover, he rejected European and American colonialism as antithetical to capitalism.
@Bigmartinno1 Show me where the Nazis advocated and actualized a free-market premised upon the inviolability of individual property rights, free from the initiation of force and coercion, to include, especially, the government force and coercion. Make a video that presents the evidence. As for you claim between the link between privatization and Nazism, this does not conform to the relevant historical data...
@Bigmartinno1 ... which shows privatization was an established public policy that dates back to ancient Greece and Rome, with a consistent history all through to the current day (see, for example, "International Handbook on Privatization by David Parker, David S. Saal). Also, the Nazis privatized industry? Are you serious? The Nazis nationalized German industries at an tremendous rate (read the relevant Encyl. Britannica article, for starters). Where in the world are you getting your data?
@Bigmartinno1 From my cursory investigation, the etymology of "privatization" dates back to 1959 and its cognate, "privatize" dates to 1968 (see the relevant inclusion in the OED). If you would like to debate your precious Marxist political theory, let's do it. If you wish to defend Marxian economics, let's do that as well. However, your take on the connection libertarianism and Nazism is outrageous. It is simply intellectually dishonest.
@Bigmartinno1 As for bankruptancy, it is your precious Great Britain and their expansive government spending and social redistribution of wealth that is bankrupt, literally. Your f*cking country is in negative equity, and your standard of living decreases yearly. You live in a broke country with a espouse a broke ideology. Let's go, Bigmartinno1, present your case for the wonders of communism. Show me the errors of my way.
Of course S could steal, or receive charity, from others, or have enough product to continue his existence. I did not assert: If one does not have property rights, one will immediately die. No, rather, I said: If you deny a man the product of his labor, then you deny him of life, that is, the right to his own existence as a producer and trader. What you would visit upon him is a life of slavery, either in whole or part, through the use of force, and his life would not be his own.
So, e.g., if you advocate communal ownership, you will have to argue that S can own, say, 1/10000 part of P, which compounds the problem of individual ownership by 10000. That is, why 1/10000 and not 1/1? This becomes more problematical when one considers that if you assert that you or others have a right to S's product, then you in essence say that while S may exist, he does not have the right to the means by which he exists; which, in essence, is to say he does not have a right to exist.
Ownership is unavoidable: Given the existence of material objects, there will exist some individual(s) who decides how said objects are used, disposed, traded, and allocated. The question, then, is what ownership-arrangement will obtain and why? There are practical reasons why one ought to prefer private ownership, but private ownership is logically prior to all other forms.
Of course Locke was influenced by his social context, so are all thinkers, and to make such observation is vacuous. However, you go further and attempt to invalidate Locke's philosophy therefrom, which is a paradigmatic example of a genetic fallacy. E.g., I reject Marx's analysis of real wages not because he was a poor, out of work academic and should be expected to hold antipathy towards capitalism, but because it did not conform to the phenomena.
... and therefore self-ownership is the recognition that not only is it an ontological fact that we control our bodies and (more or less) freely choose actions, but that only we ought to use, dispose, and reap the rewards, of our bodies unless we trade without coercion or otherwise freely permit another to act upon, or reap rewards from, us. Therefore, I reject P1 and the reductio does not follow.
... but we should not understand Cohen to be saying one's body belongs to a disembodied "man," or when a teacher asks a pupil to raise her hand, we should not understand the teacher to be asking a disembodied being to raise a bodily appendage, now should we? As conscious beings we recognize that our bodies can be used, voluntarily or involuntarily, coercively or not, by ourselves or others...
... which has given rise to bad metaphysics and which in turn has formed our language. E.g., "we can abstract ourselves from our bodies," as if "we" were not material "bodies." The ability for said abstraction has evolutionary uses, e.g. predicting future events and orientating one among other material objects, especially other humans. This does, however, obviate self-ownership. Indeed, Cohen often says, "We should respect another's bodily integrity,"...
P1: If there is ownership of P by S, then P must be separable from S. P2: P is not separable from S, to think otherwise is to postulate mind-body dualism, which is absurb. C: Thus, S can't own P for it would lead to an absurdity. I reject C, but I am a materialist, so I accept P2, ergo I reject P1. We are material objects, but due to our advanced brains, we can abstract our consciousness from our bodies, thus giving the illusion that we are separable from our bodies...
Look at all the communist/socialist dictators, they seems more well fed then the people they lead. Kim jong ill, castro, Chavez get a meal first then their own people.
@icemilitia Indeed. Just like the fat cats (or fat pigs) of big corporations. They always get tens of millions of dollars of bonuses, while the hardworking people in the frontline always get the same minimum wage, ever. And they do not really care about you.
Sure they don't care about me, I still make a living still and still hold a job. Not like the communist dictators dictating what I can and cannot do. Better to live under a robber barron than a omnipotent moral busybody
@icemilitia They dont care about you: when you become less and less productive, you are bound for the boot. When you work hard, you are OK. When the company is going down, they still save themselves some bonuses by kicking a lot of the employees. Truthfully, you cannot do anything under these people - just like those people who you say are dictators. You are bound in chains - socially and spiritually. Under communism, your bind is physical chain.
Socially and spiritually? I have many friends and my spirituality is in good order. I'm content with what I have, I know I won't make millions and I'm not striving for that. When did capitalism have to be about who has the biggest pie wins,?capitalism to me is taking whats I earn and enjoying what I make. I owe nothing to nobody and give out of my own goodness and convictions.
@icemilitia Your case is what many people experience, but not of the whole world. You can be contented in your situation, and you would say there is nothing wrong. I myself am contented, above-average earner.
But look into the pope's view on capitalism, and the dalai lama's, and I can name one rabbi-professor. These are top religious leaders, and they all see something wrong in capitalism. But I rely not on these people.
To me, I see evil in capitalism; I see it anti-spiritual, anti-religious.
@hyobel Capitalism is properly a mode of economic production and as such it cannot be "anti-religious" or "anti-spiritual;" unless, of course, you believe producing goods and services is anti-religious or anti-spiritual. Having said that, capitalism is premised upon individuals freely and voluntarily exchanging the products of their labor and mental abilities (i.e. goods and services) with each other.
@Dialetheia Capitalism, as a mode of economic production cannot indeed be anti-spiritual or anti-religious. To many individuals, capitalism is never harmful. In fact, they find it quite beneficial. But this is only when you never crossed the other side of the river.
'Freely and voluntarily exchanging products of their labour' - but dear, if you live in the city, people always say to couples, "You BOTH NEED to work." Is that not a sign of the absence of freedom?
@hyobel Thus, it follows that if you see evil in capitalism, you see good in the use of force and coercion against individuals by individuals or groups of individuals. However, you are right to see within capitalism a of rejection of religion, more specifically the morality of (most) religions: altruist, meekness, and subservience. I am an individual; I own myself, nobody else does (not even your god); if I am to live, I must be free to act to sustain my life through production and trade
@Dialetheia You are free to act according to your will. And no one really is stopping you with that. Everybody is entitled to his freedom, as much as me.
But there are many other ways to sustain yourself and your family.
@hyobel If you deny me this freedom, you deny me of life. In sum, if you find "evil" within capitalism, you find "evil" within individuals owning themselves and acting freely to sustain and better their lives. Note, as well, that capitalism makes no room for looters, thieves, or those who would otherwise initiate force or coercion. I am free to act insofar as I do not physically violate your life and the means by which you sustain it, property.
@Dialetheia "Capitalism makes no room for looters, thieves, etc." But dear, the biggest thieves are the legal ones - the loan sharks, so-called "banks" or "building societies". And the taxman. And they are one of the main machineries of capitalism.
@hyobel I fail to see within your responses a coherent argument. Rather, I see an impassioned, irrational reaction to the most efficient means by which man has lifted himself from abject poverty: Capitalism. Of course man must work (two jobs if need be) to exist; the alternatives are don't work and die or compel another to provide for your wants and needs. I refuse to do the former and am not morally permitted to do the latter (indeed, to do the latter is to live parasitically).
@hyobel Moreover, whether an business concern (i.e. a bank, investment firm, farmer, etc.) is a looter or thief requires investigation into their actions with respect to the property of others, not to their mere existence within a capitalist system. Such concerns provide essential services (namely the access to capital and credit that makes economic production possible) and, unlike government, they do not use force or coercion (the threat of force) to compel people to use their services.
@hyobel There are no other economic alternatives to capitalism or socialism. The various economies that have existed range between the two, usually admixtures between the two. Capitalism is the only system compatible with self-ownership, by extension, private property, and freedom of action. For one cannot freely act to sustain one's life if one does not and cannot freely own (possess, use and exchange) the means by which one sustains one's life, private property.
@hyobel Only capitalism is compatible with self-ownership and private property. To be sure, the free market is the sum total of the aggregate actions of individuals exchanging their justly held property and labor. Lastly, if you care to criticize capitalism on either moral or practical grounds, you will have to provide an argument and not empty slogans of "spirituality" and "god." Such mysticism has no use in rational discourse, and I presume you fancy yourself rational, no?
@Dialetheia lets not pretend self-ownership isn't an incoherent concept......& lets not pretend that private property stems from anything other than the State or some other coercive force putting a gun to people's heads.......
@hyobel I will continue this discourse if and only if you provide an argument for your position. If you carry on with your wooden and perfunctory emotional ejaculations, then I will leave with you the last word.
@Dialetheia There is indeed no coherence in my arguments because I was just trying to answer your arguments. Your refutation interests me. They are well-expressed, although I refuse to agree with many of your points in supporting capitalism.
There are so many points I really want to refute you with, but this space in Youtube is just too small. If this Youtube space is sufficient to cause the downfall of any system, the world will be chaotic.
@hyobel Do you have no free will to improve your own life? Crazy stuff like maybe get an education, start a business, become more important to your job so you move up. I know they all require work on your part, but you talk as if life is dictated to you... Go get your life, in America, even today you can become whatever you want if your willing to actually work...
@hyobel yes, but not taking responsibility for what happens in your life, when you have the ability to is lazy. If you make no effort to improve your life, why should I be forced to make the effort to improve your life?
Whether you like it or not economics takes place in all political systems. The question is what form of economics do you want to live under? One where you choose what is best for you, or one where others choose what is best for everyone, even if that means it is harmful to you?
@hyobel For your life that may be true, but in my life I do enjoy having a computer, an ipod, and other things that have made my life better. So, if they do not make your life better, than why is it that so many want to take my stuff and give to others?
I agree that money is not everything, but it makes my life better by allowing me to get products and services that I enjoy. If others want those same things they can go work and get them for themselves, not by demanding that I provide them.
@BringIt2TheMax I always long to prove to people that economic materialism is a sham and subtly destructive, that it draws people away from people. But indeed, Youtube is not the best place to voice out this idea.
I'll stop from here if you dont mind. I think that I will spend more time in searching (and establishing my thoughts further) than in arguing. I leave you with a virtual handshake.
TO DIALETHEIA: Sorry, mate. I thought you was a lady. Anyway, nice talking to you.
@Dialetheia You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis (which doesn't actually work as Cohen & others make clear). Tis called a circle jerk. It's political aims are laid bare when one considers that better concepts include 'personal autonomy' or 'self-determination'.
I think you'll find that in classical Marxian schemas 'exploitation' is a.....
@Dialetheia 3)technical, political economy category in connection with the LTV which is devoid of normative considerations. Marx's ethical standpoints lay elsewhere in his writings & certainly had nothing to do with the defective, political philosophy concept of 'self-ownership'. I believe it is more fruitful to look upon Cohen's work on 'self-ownership' as a send up of bourgeois political philosophy in the same way as Marx did for bourgeois political economy. Indeed, Cohen never accepted the...
@Dialetheia 4) of 'self-ownership' and, indeed, wrote a whole chapter criticising the concept in the book you mention.
You say ownership "is a necessarily abstract concept independent of cultural convention". Are our concepts independent of culture? Is culture independent of past & present material circumstances?
That's the first time I've heard Hobbes described as a constructivist, just one off-hand qualm at this portrayal surrounds his essentialist view of the human subject. But anyway....
@Bigmartinno1 Social "recognition" does not entail human convention. The average resting heart of a 20 yr old male is x. Without a social context, one could not compute x, but it does not follow that an average heart rate is a social convention; likewise for self-ownership. Alienability: If you mean the ability of the ownership of an object to be transfered to another, then no, self-ownership does not entail alienability. However, alienability is not a necessary condition for ownership.
@Dialetheia I was in two minds as to whether to respond to such a soup of equal parts muddle & hyperbole. Anyway, you have only stated, in opposition to your first posts & just about everybody else, that alienability is not a necessary condition for ownership. Explain how it is not without unilaterally redifining ownership(in opposition to convention!).....& make your mind up!
In slavery or wage slavery or whatever you still control your body & mind, you conduct a cost-benefit analysis...
@Dialetheia lets go with it, do you propose that property rights are descended from God or some such story? In any case can you honestly tell me that historically the distribution of property has not been the result of force? Go for it....
I think perhaps you misunderstand the nature of Marx's critique of Proudhon.
@Bigmartinno1 However, one's labor and productive efforts (ideas, ingenuity, etc.) could be alienated; observe slavery, indentured servitude, serfdom, etc. Also, one can give another control over one's body and mind via contract (though I would argue one can't logically voluntarily contract one's self into slavery). Indeed, when one buys goods and services of any sort (emphasis on ANY), one buys the right to a specified amount of one's labor and mind for a specified time. Shall I give examples?
@Dialetheia2)& decide to do whatever, nobody outside science fiction can actually make you do whatever, they can't think for you or they can't move for you.......I hope you see that wage labour is on the same continuum as slavery, indentured servitude, slavery etc in that if you don't do as 'they' say there will be repercussions.....& alienating the product of ones labour from someone does not mean alienating themselves from themselves. Think of it like this you can take Henry Ford's business..
@Dialetheia3) away from him but you can't become Henry Ford.......(perhaps that's a bad example as Henry ford didn't make many cars himself)
As you can see you haven't lifted the reductio one inch....
I realise you may not like a Leftist taking this particular rattle away from you so perhaps the friendly face of a fellow(?) Randite 'Objectivist' may be more soothing: watch?v=ZTACCBJyhVA
Now, average heartrate within a given population at rest is simply a statistical fact which does not require
@Dialetheia4) social recognition unlike ownership or rights in general. If someone decides not to believe what the average heartrate is it makes it no less real, however if ownership & rights are not recognised and enforced they don't exist, wanna try again....
"self ownership is an attempt to sneak....." just stick to what I said & refute the charge of circular reasoning. I don't care whether Locke was original or not his thought was a product of his circumstances, yay or nay? Did his thought
@Dialetheia5) come in a vacuum? Was he educated in a certain fashion, at a certain time, was he well off? Would one of his slaves have come up with the same tosh? Would a medieval monk have thought of it? A hunter-gatherer? Is it not both irredeemably bourgeois & poor philosophy?! I think you might call this a valuable insight quite aside from your misplaced Marxism bashing.....
Whether Cohen's arguments against 'self-ownership' are cogent is here nor there, stick to mine for now. & by 'David
@Bigmartinno1 I conclude that your attempt at a reductio failed. Do you wish to try again? (I have Marx's critique of Proudhon down.) The Marxist attempt at a genealogical analysis of ownership are premised upon question begging and simply poor philosophy. You say, "You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis." This works only if we accept...
@Bigmartinno1 I conclude that your attempt at a reductio failed. Do you wish to try again? (I have Marx's critique of Proudhon down.) The Marxist attempt at a genealogical analysis of ownership are premised upon question begging and simply poor philosophy. You say, "You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis." This works only if we accept...
@Dialetheia6) Brooks' do you mean David Gordon who merely asserts, much like yourself? (& clearly can't see that for Cohen accepting 'self-ownership' ethically does not yield 'Libertarianism')If not can you point me to the critique?
In case you're unaware but my contention is that 'self-ownership' is nonsense & rights including property are not some kind of transhistorical, ontological constant. Yes numbers etc are not socially constructed but property & rights in general are! They are the....
@Dialetheia7) stuff of political struggle! If they were like numbers etc there would be no political contestation over them, ever....
& your 2nd to last comment is just flat ridiculous. I was arguing that ownership is a matter of social convention! If u are denied the fruits of your labour you may still live, I think, they may not take all your labour or somebody else may feed & tend for you! Surely you can live using other people's property?!!(It's called theft)!!!
@Dialetheia8) that this natural rights shit is a creationist element within 'Libertarianism' (shakes head) & this pathological need to own everything, "God damn you, it has to be owned!"
As for ad hominems, replace 'circle jerk' with circular reasoning & please contest 'free market taliban'.
@Bigmartinno1 I conclude that your attempt at a reductio failed. Do you wish to try again? (I have Marx's critique of Proudhon down.) The Marxist attempt at a genealogical analysis of ownership are premised upon question begging and simply poor philosophy. You say, "You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis." This works only if we accept...
@Bigmartinno1 ... the specious complex of Marxian conceptions of base and superstructure, ideology, class consciousness, and false consciousness, all of which I reject as unfalsifiable nonsense. On this point, Marxists criticize Locke's conception of property; however, their analyses are more instances of question begging than refutations of Locke, whose theories were radical and without identifiable origin in a nascent bourgeoise class. In short, it's just bad psychology and philosophy.
@Bigmartinno1 Cohen and others do not successfully refute self-ownership. Without details, his arguments against self-ownership are at once bad and unpersuasive. Also, his notion of bodily integrity in no way "lays bare" the political genesis of self-ownership; rather, I would argue, self-ownership makes his notion of bodily integrity meaningful. On this point, read David Brooks' critique of Cohen.
@Bigmartinno1 A necessary abstract concept does not depend on social convention: sets, numbers, DeMorgan's Law, the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Necessitation, etc., are not social conventions. If you want to argue for extreme social constructivism or polylogism, I will not participate; that position has long proven itself to be intellectually impotent. Hobbes was a constructivist with respect to property rights, irrespective of his views of human nature.
@Bigmartinno1 You have not refuted my argument that ownership is unavoidable. I could extend it to show that private ownership is more primary. I do not postulate "God" to defend property rights. Rather, I argue for property rights according to the ontological fact that my body is my own and I must take actions with material objects to live. If you deny me the just fruits of my labor (not somebody else's), you deny me life. If I am to live, I must have property rights in objects and my person.
I get so tired of the people that keep saying things like "move to Somalia" I can just as easily say "move to Russia". Look up what the guy is actually saying PLEASE!
The problem is not capitalism, it is the people who either don't pay attention or are too stupid to understand that the consumer holds the power in a free market system. I blame the liberal establishment for being too lazy to educate kids and instead indoctrinating them into communism and parents for not teaching their kids economics. We should require IQ tests and republican affiliation as a prerequisite to being allowed to reproduce.
To all of you who endorse and adhere to this guy's economic philosophy...move to Somalia. It is a country that is 100% capitalistic. You can buy and sell anything you want (including people, organs, drugs, guns, etc.) with no outside governing body telling you that what you're doing is wrong. There is no sales tax or income tax. The people are the only ones who decide how much anything costs. Capitalism is a system that is only supported by immoral, greedy people.
@barifkin31 you are talking about anarchy. Capitalism isn't anarchy, it is an economic system that can easily exist within a country that has a CONSTITUTION protecting the rights of the people. Somalia is run by corrupt drug lords and murderers and no one has the right to even live. That is not what capitalism is. Capitalism demands that individual rights be respected to work, Somalia is no where close to that. Don't try to dismiss capitalism by giving it a false definition.
somalia is not capitalist it's anarchist. capitalist governments protect people. somalia was a puppet colonial state that reverted to its historical tribal society once the imperial powers abandoned it. far cry from an enlightened free society.
@Aaggonet Somalia's failed government can't govern. A country w/o government is anarchist. One guy has something another guy wants & there's no government protecting the property right of the first.
A world w/o gvmnt is possible only if ppl never do harm, but some ppl are bad and everyone makes mistakes. Anarchist politics is based on anarchist ethics which are impossible b/c of the metaphysical fallibility of human beings.
You don't leave force to the arbitrary whim of others.
@natdavi "A country w / o Government is anarchist." That is the incorrect definition of anarchism. read anarchist writers and you'll understand. That is the reason why many anarchists and libertarians have much in common. "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." Murray Rothbard (Anarcho-capitalism)
@Aaggonet Anarchy, from greek an- "without" + arkhos "leader"
capism requires the protection of rights from force by force. u know another way?
Leadership is one division of labor. Capism requires a kind of leader Prince Kropotkin didn't think of: the kind who derives authority from voluntary consent.
capism & anarchy require an enlightened culture, but anarchy forgets that we're fallible.
Rothbard believes absolutely that there are no absolutes so he's a waste. Any other suggestions?
Before I used to think that Reason is able to twist anything. I use to compare it with lawyers -to incriminate the innocent, to acquit the criminal, etc.
But then again, I find another truth -- that capitalism can buy anything, even Reason.
@hyobel Sight better than forcing businesses like Obama and company does. But to comment on you view on capitalism, your all wet on that, because were all capitalist, not just the fat cats. We all have the ability to work the system to improve our lot in life.
@Auggie56 What improvement in life? The more the common people want to improve their lives, the more they loose their time for their families (plus pay more taxes) just to pay their bills and mortgages. Capitalism destroys lives. Did you not know that people in Bangladesh are the happiest lot in the world, accdg to stats?
You might mean we all have the ability to work to improve our capitalistic ways. More work is better for capitalism. Well, I would agree on that.
@hyobel Going by you first comment, you must think all the things in life should be given to you by the government. People in Bangladesh are the happiest ? Where did you read that ?
@Auggie56 Try this on your search engine and be surprised how many info you can see: BANGLADESH HAPPIEST PEOPLE.
The government is there to ensure that its people are happy. And that is not only material happiness; Well, unless you are a capitalist, you would resort to Jacob Holyoake'sgolas of secularism: "Happiness in this life through material means."
Capitalism is a pan to mix up all human greed. To remove its regulation is to open the gates of hellish human greed, exploiting everything, all that you can consider sacred.
There is no morality in capitalism.
It makes me believe that Ayn Rand was a puppet of America to fight communism during his times.
Yes...but I thought it can still invoke Eminent Domain and take everything from you anyway if it's within the public interest say like a mall or a road. I'm not good at this stuff. But I'm finding I have to get better at it.
AnubisEye009 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
This is all well and good, if we want to keep things socially the same for the next couple hundred years. The rich, richer. The poor, devastated and powerless. In 1492, in Europe, the top 2% owned 95% of everything. Today, in America, the top 5% own 3/4's of everything. Nothing much has changed, and won't until we realize that stuff like this is only propagated by those who care not about social equality, but for keeping things the way they are, forever. Down with the money system.
questionslp6 5 months ago
@questionslp6 >>> To say that nothing much has changed between the lifestyles lived by average people living in Europe in 1492 & the lifestyles lived by the descendants of those people who live in America today is beyond ridiculous. Do you know how the average person lived in those days?
JBourneID 4 months ago
@JBourneID so because rich people live more lavishly now then they did in the 1400's, that makes the crimes of money okay? Newsflash, people are still starving in the street, disease is up, crime and drug use is up. Our world economy is operated to serve the very few, off the backs of the many. You have obvious motives.
questionslp6 3 months ago
~~> The fed incentivied... Banks are private owned corps who dictate the type of business they do... If they chose not to make the loans, what would be thier injury?? In my business, if your credit isn't good, you don't get credit... PERIOD... But the incentive must have been soo great that it would cause an upright company to do bad business... Incentive = forced at gun point to do the wrong thing... What a joke... Its the eveil will of men... Everyman wants his own hut since the begining...
sparkyj99 7 months ago
I am expanding my network to different areas of expertise. Please consider adding as a connection. Thanks for your time.
airforcemax 8 months ago
The fact that you don't trust the government, means you don't trust the people, the same individuals you claim to want to offer freedom to. The inability to trust is an element of psychosis, in that you have this paranoia that some big bad imaginary threat is looming to take your freedoms away. Well that is a con. Businessmen will never rule the world with pure capitalism. It's an ideology, and the world doesn't function on ideals.
kj6bbs 9 months ago
@kj6bbs "The fact that you don't trust the government, means you don't trust the people, the same individuals you claim to want to offer freedom to." Well said. Randists act as if there is some abstract entity with agency called 'The Government'.
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Thank you. This video is just like every other message that capitalist blockheads send. It's a marketing type message to make people feel better about something that easily has the potential to corrupt. Capitalism is not moral, and has no goal to be moral. It is an economic tool, and in its ideal form it is highly imperfect. I am the government and the governed, We should not be interested in capitalizing morals in order to take advantage and take away from others for individual gain
kj6bbs 6 months ago
@kj6bbs Capitalism is pure corruption. People who do the work and are directly effected by the processes thereof should be the only people in control, ie Stakeholders. Anything else is a theft and a swindle. The fact that Ayn Rand was a welfare queen only underscores the depravity of this garden variety ideology.
Capitalism is cancer.
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Not to make a black & white issue out of it, I would say that capitalism is not to be equated with corruption, but it leaves a lot of room for corruption to occur. If we purpose our culture, our ideas, progress, innovation, morals, or society with nothing but capital, we have become a culture of greed and that's it. Every economic concept has its strengths and weaknesses. It would be moral for us to blend the best of all ideas to sustain a virtuous economy. Besides Rand wrote FICTION!
kj6bbs 6 months ago
@kj6bbs Perhaps I should expand my thought. The reason I make such a sweeping statement about Capitalism is the very foundation that it rests upon, competition. Once people are made to compete, much less compete for material gain, then theft, corruption and violence will follow. These are not simply by-products of the system, they are the cornerstones. The trick in capital run economies is to get the other guy to follow the arbitrary rules so that the they can safely cheat.
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo
Competition is not the foundation capitalism rests upon. Voluntary cooperation is the essence of capitalism. Every trade has benefits for both parties or it would not be made. Therefore capitalism is not a zero-sum game, as government is. Voluntary cooperation leads to wealth creation, increased productivity, rising wages and falling prices. Competition is also voluntary. Capital will follow the highest profits, lowering prices and profits.
EconomicLiteracyNow 5 months ago
@kj6bbs And when I say "Capitalism' I mean text book stuff.
Capitalism: The means of production and distribution are privately owned and labor has no voice in its use.
As opposed to:
Socialism: The means of production and distribution are owned and operated by those who do the actual work and those who are directly effected by the workings of this institution, ie Stakeholders.
Private (not Personal) Property is a problem that we must solve, and eliminate.
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo
Who decides who the "stakeholders" are? The socialist masters, of course. Do you contend only workers are affected by production? What about customers, neighbors and those who contribute their saved capital and their ideas so the production can take place at all?
Markets are not created or planned; they arise from the choices people make. You misunderstand the meaning of capital and buy into the myth of class warfare.
Ayn Rand left an estate and was never a "welfare queen."
EconomicLiteracyNow 5 months ago
@EconomicLiteracyNow 'Socialist' masters? That's as funny as it is ill informed. Is that what your capitalist masters have been telling you? huh, Wage Slave?
Stakeholders are all the members of the community who are directly effected by the processes of these institutions. I'm certain I was fairly clear on this point already.
Ayn Rand was a welfare queen and 30 odd year drug addict. Sorry to tell you. Actually, I'm not sorry, it's always a pleasure to out frauds....
WhyMeMoFo 5 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Actually you both are splitting hairs, both of your social infrastructures are directly related to capitalism majorly in some way. This will always lead to the destruction of said social system. Will we have free energy or flying cars? No, they are not profitable. If something is not profitable, it has no relevance to capitalism and therefor must be abandoned. This means that only the procreation of the money system is valued, and not the well-being or economy of the people.throwitout
questionslp6 5 months ago
Using the words 'morality' and 'capitalism' do not fit in the same sentence.
Capitalism has no morality, nor ethics. The only thing that capitalism stands for is profits, as the highest good and meaning of life. Which explains why human life in America has little value.
Isn't capitalism more aligned with aristocrats and kingdoms from centuries ago? The ruling elites took from the working classes to build spectacular structures and live in splendor.
visvaldisX 9 months ago
@visvaldisX You have a better plan?
anyrandism 9 months ago
@visvaldisX You couldn't BE more ass-backwards in your assessment. You have determined the exact opposite of what is true. It is statism(socialism, communism, fascism, etc) that is "more aligned" with aristocrats and kingdoms from centuries ago. Capitalism takes away the ability of government to interfere is production and trade, and its ability to interfere in individuals lives.
nathanreinhardt 9 months ago
@nathanreinhardt "It is statism(socialism, communism, fascism, etc) that is "more aligned" with aristocrats and kingdoms from centuries ago." Nice anachronism. The idea of a 'State' is barely 200 years old. Fascism is when the sine qua non of Capitalism 'corporations', control the government. There are also numerous non-state versions of Socialism, such as the only legitimate 'Libertarianism', Libertarian Socialism. Face it, Capitalism is the cancer that has effected mankind.
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
Is it me does this guy sound like kripky from the big bang theory.
yamahaU3 1 year ago
Capitalism had little to recommend it to the worker. He had no hope of ever getting enough cash together to loan it at interest and so retire. By definition that was all capitalism was—a system of living on interest by loaning money to more industrious people. As it is “all take and no active participation” it, of course, is a rather easily destroyed system. It had no vitality. It could only foreclose mortgages and seize property. It could not and did not operate cleverly.
L Ron Hubbard
rosiertodd 1 year ago
@rosiertodd L Ron Hubbard's opinion... far from fact
platinum014 1 year ago
@platinum014 got that...now give me an example of how capitalism is for the worker.
rosiertodd 1 year ago
@rosiertodd capitalism works for each individualist. it allows freewill to pursue ones own happiness. so im guessing your a worker. it's up to the individualist to decide what he's going to do to get him to happiness. its the individualist responsibility. if he decides to be a worker. thats his choice. capitalism isn't for any class. it just allows the freedom for each individualist
platinum014 1 year ago
@platinum014 The fuck are you talking about? You make no sense at all. You are a happy wage slave. Ignorant fool. There are tons of other options for maximum freedom. We need to kill the state/governments, kill capitalism, kill money and institute a resource based economy. And how the FUCK can you be so selfish and heartless. You need to learn that there are billions of other people in the world. We are SOCIAL creatures, not lone wolves. It is time for you to recognize your brothers and sisters.
koberask 1 year ago
@koberask pure capitalism does allow maximum freedom but not anarchy. capitalism allows you to do what you want but with security and thats where the government comes into play the government gives you security. thats what there for is to protect your rights and freedom. when government starts controlling what you can do thats when it becomes a dictatorship and socialism. sorry about my comment before this i made the mistake of talking about Objectivism instead of capitalism sorry. lol
platinum014 1 year ago
@koberask plus money is actually not bad. money only becomes the root of evil when it becomes your only way of survival or to have certain rights. in pure capitalism all money is is what you have earned from helping or volunteering to work for another person or a privately owned business. then you use the money that you earned to buy goods. in pure capitalism you keep that money that you earned only with government interference is half your paycheck gone every weak like nowadays.
platinum014 1 year ago
@rosiertodd
Section III OT = OT3 = Incident II. 75 million years ago Xenu commits mass extermination, drops bodies in volcanoes on earth, souls are subjected to 36 days of hypnotic implants which then attach to humans. OT3 is all about auditing out these body thetans.
OT4 = more body thetans and drugs
OT5 = even more body thetans and NOTs
OT6 = how to really audit body thetans out this time
OT7 = apply what you learned in OT6
OT8 = a review of above. Not successful? Start all over again!
OpenComments 10 months ago
Ayn rand is getting tag teamed by Karl and Frederick right now and she loves it.
zoobly3 1 year ago
The main problem with sub prime loan is the wolves who got greedy with those who could not afford it. Low income people have to pay rent,had these people been give loans that were not predatory then what he speaks of would not be the case. Owning a home is much better for moral and savings then renting.
TheVelvetKitten1 1 year ago
Who do you think wins the elections? Those who spend the most on campaign donations. Who donates the most money, by far, to electoral campaigns? Big business. Therefore, the governement, who this dickhead is trying to claim STOPS the free market system, is essentially bought off by that same free market he's trying to defend. Therefore, this motherfucker deserves nothing short of a steak knife in the cornea.
mussman717word 1 year ago
@mussman717word Your full of shit.
Id rather government fucked of completly and let big business run the whole show.
mc donaldsfor example can feed 1 million plus people a day for three quid, id love some of that efficiancy in government.
erushbass 1 year ago
@erushbass
You completely missed the point. The corporations ARE the fucking government. They pay for the campaigns, hence they control what the election boils down to. You only have the choice to vote for two people, who were both shoved in your face by corporate funding. Here's the efficiency of McDonald's. We can all work for minimum wage, flipping burgers, with NO regulations on working conditions. That's what your suggesting. Now, own up to it.
mussman717word 1 year ago
@mussman717word Absolutley, pay everybody as little as possible to improve efficiancy, thats the cornerstone of capitalism, ill 'own up' to that happily.
What you dont understand is the other side of the trade.
If wages are squeezed to improve production you need less money to buy stuff dumbass.
Id be happy if everybody worked minimum wage.
No I havent missed the point.
I think that companies arnt in control of government enough.
Ronald Mc donald for president.
erushbass 1 year ago
@erushbass
Oh, God, you're still under this fucking delusion, aren't you? Or, maybe you're in the top tenth percentile of the amerikkkan population who owns 85% of the wealth? The entire point of government regulation is to force big business to cut prices and increase wages, in the process leading to competition. Isn't that what capitalism is based on? I mean, conservatives cling on this "give the little guy a chance" American Dream shit, but do the exact opposite.
mussman717word 1 year ago
@mussman717What the hell are you talking about?
How the hell does government regulation force business to cut prices?
How can government increase wages above the level of prouctivity that a person or business provides?
You do realise that any product you buy is inflated in price by taxation & government regulation?
"Isn't that what capitalism is based on?"
Er no.Capitalism is based on free people undergoing unforced agreement , for there own and everybody elses improvment.
erushbass 1 year ago
Comment removed
erushbass 1 year ago
Comment removed
erushbass 1 year ago
@mussman717word How do think big businesses got big?YOU spent your money with them and freely 'voted' there growth because they constantly strived to give you more at a lower price - no government required.
And unlike government, they did it without 'forcing' you or anybody to do anything.
erushbass 1 year ago
Comment removed
erushbass 1 year ago
@mussman717word Incedently, Im not in the top tenth percentile who own 85% of the wealth, but I hope to get closer to it one day, and capitalism & hardwork is my (and everybody elses ticket to easy street).
Also, you seem to think that if your not in that top bracket you dont benefit from capitalism, when the reality is that most people would rather be poor(ish) now than rich a hundred years ago.
If you think people get rich at the expense of the poor you are a fool.
erushbass 1 year ago
@erushbass
I don't know whether to cry for the stupidity of mankind or laugh my fucking ass off. Really, that shit's hillarious. You should take that act on the road, then maybe you'll get rich and famous. Ha! Capitalism is the top 10th percentile's ticket to easy street. It's YOUR ticket to lower wages and more hours spent in a shitty working condition. I reccommend lasek surgery, if you can afford it after 40 years in a factory, you blind motherfucker.
mussman717word 1 year ago
@mussman717word so are you gonna counter any of my points?
"It's YOUR ticket to lower wages and more hours spent in a shitty working conditions."
Speak for yourself, numbnuts.
If you chose to offer manual lowskilled labour in a factory all your life then you are paid what your worth.
Very Little.
And you arnt really engaging in capitalism either............So why would you feel the benefits?
There is only one blind motherfucker around here......
erushbass 1 year ago
Ps. I notice from your profile you like deep philosophical discussions.
Strange as your arguments have very little depth........
erushbass 1 year ago
@erushbass
Well, unless you have enough money to advertise more than corporations do, then there's no fucking way you're getting a business off the ground. What else is there to do but work in a factory or a fast food restaurant or some other greasy, smoggy hellhole? And, people like you believe government should stay out of corporate business, in other words, allow them to fuck over the working class.
mussman717word 1 year ago
@mussman717word
Openng a business & advertising directly against an established corp means youre
1)Confident you can provide a more efficient service(wich would benefit EVERYONE with lower prices/ better service).
2)Thick as a plank, in wich case you deseve to fail because your not helping anybody.
Thats the beauty of capitalism, to make money you must be efficiant, so people will start businesses where there is less efficiancy.
Regardless, I run a business competing against corps,Im fine.
erushbass 1 year ago
@erushbass
For goodness sake, it's efficEncy and efficiEnt!!
Sashapooch 1 year ago
Comment removed
erushbass 1 year ago
@mussman717word I can assure you, even with the best of intention, it is government that "fucks over" the working class.
erushbass 1 year ago
"What else is there to do but work in a factory or a fast food restaurant or some other greasy, smoggy hellhole?"
I see youre quite young.
These jobs are poor, but they are readily available to almost anyone who wants to start the road to capitalsm.
When I was thirteen I got my first job I was paid $1.50 an hour!!!!!
You think I had a rosy view of capitalsm & didnt think I was being exploited?
BUT
I learnt basic experiance for later.
I was the richest kid on the block.
erushbass 1 year ago
@erushbass
And, how the fuck is the WORKER, who BUILDS a product for menial wages day in day out worth "very little" ? If it weren't for him, the business would have no profit whatsoever. He's the driving force. How the FUCK is he worth "very little," as you say? You're right about one thing. There is only one blind motherfucker around here, and that motherfucker is you, sir.
mussman717word 1 year ago
@mussman717word Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard.
If a man A can make 1 widget a day, and man B supplies a factory(capital) enabling him to make 1,000 widgets a day how the fuck is man A the driving force? When all he does all day is press a button or load material into said factory machines?
A job a babboon could do?
You dont think man B should be rewarded for his 1000% improvment in efficiancy?
You dont think everyone(including the factory worker) will benefit with lower prices?
erushbass 1 year ago
lol he said cwisis. hehe
jjmdirector 1 year ago
All right, i agree with you. So you probably know that, like I. Berlin, she was born in Russia and that they both fled to the West to escape communism. You see, i was trying to get to the following point: given the cultural background they had in common, it would be interesting to analyse to what extent her thought process differed from the theory expounded by Berlin's in Two Concepts of Liberty.
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 P.S sorry for the mistake: the difference between analyzing how the thought process occurs in the mind and the interpretation of the content of ideas is part of another debate,
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
Comment removed
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER By Antony C. Sutton.
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
Joseph Goebbels: "It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism" (Anthony Read. The Devil's disciples: Hitler's inner circle. First American Edition. New York, New York, USA: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. p. 142). Also, read: Henry A. Turner's "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler," wherein he rebuts the notion that German capitalists financed Hitler's political rise.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
Read R. J. Overy's "The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004," especially p. 399 - 404. It's quite obvious Hitler and the Nazis did NOT have a libertarian, laissez faire capitalist conception of property rights. Hitler's antipathy toward capitalism is undeniable.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
"I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners" (Calic, Edouard (1968). Ohne Maske (Without a Mask), Frankfurter Societäts-Druckerei, pp. 11, 32–33). Libertarian view of property?
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
Adolf Hitler: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions" (Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225).
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
I can't believe I see these oxy moronic words in the same sentence: Ayn Rand, morality and Capitalism.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
@blaziermissy Here's her definition of political and economic power: "Now let me define the diffrence between economic power and political power: economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tools is values; the bureaucrats's tool is fear"
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 Don't be a slave to someones ideas generated from tradition; a harsh archaic environment. We've the ability to create an environment condusive to humanity flourishing. Why should we continue to cling to systems that don't work? Watch "The Awakening" on tzmsocialevolution. You'll see where I'm coming from.
Btw, mechination is here....the service sector..the dominant area supplying jobs is slowly changing. That's just one of many reasons to transition to a resource based economy.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
@blaziermissy Ideas are there for whatever purpose they serve, be it slavery ot whatever you would call it. Now, considering i quoted Rand to draw the readers' attention towards a debatable point of view, i wonder what can possibly make you think that you ought to tell me what to do. Please, do me a favor and don't make me waste my time, i could hardly care less to know what you think where you come from: otherwise stated, get lost.
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 Excuse me, retard? YOU responded to my comment, and took it upon yourself to desribe to me, what you deem to be the difference between economic and political power. I responded. If you don't like my response, that's your problem, but telling me to get lost is as I stated, retarded...b/c you opened yourself up for my response by clicking on the "reply" button that coincides with my name..capeche?
blaziermissy 1 year ago
@blaziermissy Since i never said that i didn't like what you posted, if that's not what is called roles reversing, then what is it called? Talking about retarded, i think it's an accurate description of the kind of people who, like you, do not know whereof they speak and still resort to name callings to make their point. Wouldn't you have been misled into thinking that i took it upon myself to describe what i deem to be the difference between economic and political power, [...]
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 [...] you would have known that the point i was trying to make neither concerned you nor me, but the author i quoted: Ayn Rand. As it turns out, and since you have no idea what i'm alludind to when i say that ideas are there for whatever purpose they serve, be it slavery, liberty and so on, it is more than likely that you have no idea who she really was, and the whole point of this discussion is useless.
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 here's how it works: As I pointed out, If you comment to me and I respond, and then you respond back telling me to get lost, I won't care to keep the dialogue going.
And yes, I'm well aware of who Rand is b/c her thought processes and ideology has an effect on people who advocate what she speaks of. She's no regard for what altruism is and how it relates to humanity socially, and it's certainly not in the negative way she advocated. Yes, I've read her ideo.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
In nuce, Marxism or any other system does not abolish property rights, it reassigns property rights. The egalitarian sentiments that give rise to your political philosophy, as noted prior, seem intuitively perverse: Why should one sacrifice one's productivity for the benefit of another? One does not own one's own production, but others do? One does not have a legitimate claim on his product, but another has a legitimate claim on him? As for wage slavery, wages are proper remuneration for labor.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia you lose!
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 Lose? I am not the proponent of an intellectual bankrupt political-economic philosophy. You advocate for some variant of Marxism, which, on both theoretical and empircal grounds, has evidenced itself to be wanting. Also, on your channel page, you have (an apparent) quote from Hitler wherein he (supposedly) espoused private property. Are you so intellectually irresponsible as to believe that Hitler was an advocate of a libertarian view of property?
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Paraconsistant the 'you lose' came as a righteous conclusion on your waffle-piffle below.
"Marxism, which, on both theoretical and empirical grounds, has evidenced itself to be wanting"
From those very words & the way in which it is formed I can tell you don't know what you're talking about.
& there's a lot more that Nazism and 'Libertarianism' share than respect for private property. Take for instance the social darwinism intrinsic and celebrated by both.....
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 In many respects Nazism is simply more logically consistent than 'libertarianism' which has proved itself to be theoretically and empirically bankrupt, in more senses than the literal.
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 Waffle-piffle below. I await your rebuttal. The Marxist analysis of economic phenomena is empty, premised upon horrible contortions of the ideas of the classical economists. "Social darwinism" went out of vogue in late 19th and early 20th centuries. Furthermore, Herbert Spencer, the man who coined the term, never advocated for the initiation of the use of force and violence against anyone. Moreover, he rejected European and American colonialism as antithetical to capitalism.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 Show me where the Nazis advocated and actualized a free-market premised upon the inviolability of individual property rights, free from the initiation of force and coercion, to include, especially, the government force and coercion. Make a video that presents the evidence. As for you claim between the link between privatization and Nazism, this does not conform to the relevant historical data...
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 ... which shows privatization was an established public policy that dates back to ancient Greece and Rome, with a consistent history all through to the current day (see, for example, "International Handbook on Privatization by David Parker, David S. Saal). Also, the Nazis privatized industry? Are you serious? The Nazis nationalized German industries at an tremendous rate (read the relevant Encyl. Britannica article, for starters). Where in the world are you getting your data?
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 From my cursory investigation, the etymology of "privatization" dates back to 1959 and its cognate, "privatize" dates to 1968 (see the relevant inclusion in the OED). If you would like to debate your precious Marxist political theory, let's do it. If you wish to defend Marxian economics, let's do that as well. However, your take on the connection libertarianism and Nazism is outrageous. It is simply intellectually dishonest.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 As for bankruptancy, it is your precious Great Britain and their expansive government spending and social redistribution of wealth that is bankrupt, literally. Your f*cking country is in negative equity, and your standard of living decreases yearly. You live in a broke country with a espouse a broke ideology. Let's go, Bigmartinno1, present your case for the wonders of communism. Show me the errors of my way.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Paraconsistant Did you know the etymology of the term 'privatisation' begins in Nazi Germany?
The rabbit hole awaits.....
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
Of course S could steal, or receive charity, from others, or have enough product to continue his existence. I did not assert: If one does not have property rights, one will immediately die. No, rather, I said: If you deny a man the product of his labor, then you deny him of life, that is, the right to his own existence as a producer and trader. What you would visit upon him is a life of slavery, either in whole or part, through the use of force, and his life would not be his own.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
So, e.g., if you advocate communal ownership, you will have to argue that S can own, say, 1/10000 part of P, which compounds the problem of individual ownership by 10000. That is, why 1/10000 and not 1/1? This becomes more problematical when one considers that if you assert that you or others have a right to S's product, then you in essence say that while S may exist, he does not have the right to the means by which he exists; which, in essence, is to say he does not have a right to exist.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
Ownership is unavoidable: Given the existence of material objects, there will exist some individual(s) who decides how said objects are used, disposed, traded, and allocated. The question, then, is what ownership-arrangement will obtain and why? There are practical reasons why one ought to prefer private ownership, but private ownership is logically prior to all other forms.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
Of course Locke was influenced by his social context, so are all thinkers, and to make such observation is vacuous. However, you go further and attempt to invalidate Locke's philosophy therefrom, which is a paradigmatic example of a genetic fallacy. E.g., I reject Marx's analysis of real wages not because he was a poor, out of work academic and should be expected to hold antipathy towards capitalism, but because it did not conform to the phenomena.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
... and therefore self-ownership is the recognition that not only is it an ontological fact that we control our bodies and (more or less) freely choose actions, but that only we ought to use, dispose, and reap the rewards, of our bodies unless we trade without coercion or otherwise freely permit another to act upon, or reap rewards from, us. Therefore, I reject P1 and the reductio does not follow.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
... but we should not understand Cohen to be saying one's body belongs to a disembodied "man," or when a teacher asks a pupil to raise her hand, we should not understand the teacher to be asking a disembodied being to raise a bodily appendage, now should we? As conscious beings we recognize that our bodies can be used, voluntarily or involuntarily, coercively or not, by ourselves or others...
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
... which has given rise to bad metaphysics and which in turn has formed our language. E.g., "we can abstract ourselves from our bodies," as if "we" were not material "bodies." The ability for said abstraction has evolutionary uses, e.g. predicting future events and orientating one among other material objects, especially other humans. This does, however, obviate self-ownership. Indeed, Cohen often says, "We should respect another's bodily integrity,"...
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
P1: If there is ownership of P by S, then P must be separable from S. P2: P is not separable from S, to think otherwise is to postulate mind-body dualism, which is absurb. C: Thus, S can't own P for it would lead to an absurdity. I reject C, but I am a materialist, so I accept P2, ergo I reject P1. We are material objects, but due to our advanced brains, we can abstract our consciousness from our bodies, thus giving the illusion that we are separable from our bodies...
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
Finally, in your reply, you should end with the ad hominems ("circle jerk," "taliban," etc.) and provide substantive arguments.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
"Capitalism is moral. Faith is irrational." PIGS.
Capitalism is neither moral nor rational. It is but the fertile ground of greed.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel
Look at all the communist/socialist dictators, they seems more well fed then the people they lead. Kim jong ill, castro, Chavez get a meal first then their own people.
icemilitia 1 year ago
@icemilitia Indeed. Just like the fat cats (or fat pigs) of big corporations. They always get tens of millions of dollars of bonuses, while the hardworking people in the frontline always get the same minimum wage, ever. And they do not really care about you.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel And there are a thousandfold more capitalist fat pigs than socialists and communist leaders combined.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel
Sure they don't care about me, I still make a living still and still hold a job. Not like the communist dictators dictating what I can and cannot do. Better to live under a robber barron than a omnipotent moral busybody
icemilitia 1 year ago
@icemilitia They dont care about you: when you become less and less productive, you are bound for the boot. When you work hard, you are OK. When the company is going down, they still save themselves some bonuses by kicking a lot of the employees. Truthfully, you cannot do anything under these people - just like those people who you say are dictators. You are bound in chains - socially and spiritually. Under communism, your bind is physical chain.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel
Socially and spiritually? I have many friends and my spirituality is in good order. I'm content with what I have, I know I won't make millions and I'm not striving for that. When did capitalism have to be about who has the biggest pie wins,?capitalism to me is taking whats I earn and enjoying what I make. I owe nothing to nobody and give out of my own goodness and convictions.
icemilitia 1 year ago
@icemilitia Your case is what many people experience, but not of the whole world. You can be contented in your situation, and you would say there is nothing wrong. I myself am contented, above-average earner.
But look into the pope's view on capitalism, and the dalai lama's, and I can name one rabbi-professor. These are top religious leaders, and they all see something wrong in capitalism. But I rely not on these people.
To me, I see evil in capitalism; I see it anti-spiritual, anti-religious.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel Capitalism is properly a mode of economic production and as such it cannot be "anti-religious" or "anti-spiritual;" unless, of course, you believe producing goods and services is anti-religious or anti-spiritual. Having said that, capitalism is premised upon individuals freely and voluntarily exchanging the products of their labor and mental abilities (i.e. goods and services) with each other.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia Capitalism, as a mode of economic production cannot indeed be anti-spiritual or anti-religious. To many individuals, capitalism is never harmful. In fact, they find it quite beneficial. But this is only when you never crossed the other side of the river.
'Freely and voluntarily exchanging products of their labour' - but dear, if you live in the city, people always say to couples, "You BOTH NEED to work." Is that not a sign of the absence of freedom?
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel Thus, it follows that if you see evil in capitalism, you see good in the use of force and coercion against individuals by individuals or groups of individuals. However, you are right to see within capitalism a of rejection of religion, more specifically the morality of (most) religions: altruist, meekness, and subservience. I am an individual; I own myself, nobody else does (not even your god); if I am to live, I must be free to act to sustain my life through production and trade
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia I see good in the use of force and coercion against indv by indv???
hyobel 1 year ago
@Dialetheia You are free to act according to your will. And no one really is stopping you with that. Everybody is entitled to his freedom, as much as me.
But there are many other ways to sustain yourself and your family.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel If you deny me this freedom, you deny me of life. In sum, if you find "evil" within capitalism, you find "evil" within individuals owning themselves and acting freely to sustain and better their lives. Note, as well, that capitalism makes no room for looters, thieves, or those who would otherwise initiate force or coercion. I am free to act insofar as I do not physically violate your life and the means by which you sustain it, property.
Dialetheia 1 year ago 2
@Dialetheia "Capitalism makes no room for looters, thieves, etc." But dear, the biggest thieves are the legal ones - the loan sharks, so-called "banks" or "building societies". And the taxman. And they are one of the main machineries of capitalism.
hyobel 1 year ago
@Dialetheia Capitalism's evil cannot be perceived in the individual but in the bigger picture, its harm is not in "now" but in the longer run.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel I fail to see within your responses a coherent argument. Rather, I see an impassioned, irrational reaction to the most efficient means by which man has lifted himself from abject poverty: Capitalism. Of course man must work (two jobs if need be) to exist; the alternatives are don't work and die or compel another to provide for your wants and needs. I refuse to do the former and am not morally permitted to do the latter (indeed, to do the latter is to live parasitically).
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@hyobel Moreover, whether an business concern (i.e. a bank, investment firm, farmer, etc.) is a looter or thief requires investigation into their actions with respect to the property of others, not to their mere existence within a capitalist system. Such concerns provide essential services (namely the access to capital and credit that makes economic production possible) and, unlike government, they do not use force or coercion (the threat of force) to compel people to use their services.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@hyobel There are no other economic alternatives to capitalism or socialism. The various economies that have existed range between the two, usually admixtures between the two. Capitalism is the only system compatible with self-ownership, by extension, private property, and freedom of action. For one cannot freely act to sustain one's life if one does not and cannot freely own (possess, use and exchange) the means by which one sustains one's life, private property.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@hyobel Only capitalism is compatible with self-ownership and private property. To be sure, the free market is the sum total of the aggregate actions of individuals exchanging their justly held property and labor. Lastly, if you care to criticize capitalism on either moral or practical grounds, you will have to provide an argument and not empty slogans of "spirituality" and "god." Such mysticism has no use in rational discourse, and I presume you fancy yourself rational, no?
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia lets not pretend self-ownership isn't an incoherent concept......& lets not pretend that private property stems from anything other than the State or some other coercive force putting a gun to people's heads.......
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@hyobel I will continue this discourse if and only if you provide an argument for your position. If you carry on with your wooden and perfunctory emotional ejaculations, then I will leave with you the last word.
P.S. I am not your "dear."
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia There is indeed no coherence in my arguments because I was just trying to answer your arguments. Your refutation interests me. They are well-expressed, although I refuse to agree with many of your points in supporting capitalism.
There are so many points I really want to refute you with, but this space in Youtube is just too small. If this Youtube space is sufficient to cause the downfall of any system, the world will be chaotic.
I leave you with a virtual handshake.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel Do you have no free will to improve your own life? Crazy stuff like maybe get an education, start a business, become more important to your job so you move up. I know they all require work on your part, but you talk as if life is dictated to you... Go get your life, in America, even today you can become whatever you want if your willing to actually work...
BringIt2TheMax 1 year ago
@BringIt2TheMax Being an anti-capitalist is not being lazy.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel yes, but not taking responsibility for what happens in your life, when you have the ability to is lazy. If you make no effort to improve your life, why should I be forced to make the effort to improve your life?
Whether you like it or not economics takes place in all political systems. The question is what form of economics do you want to live under? One where you choose what is best for you, or one where others choose what is best for everyone, even if that means it is harmful to you?
BringIt2TheMax 1 year ago
@BringIt2TheMax Life's improvement does not lie in material; and happiness cannot be brought about by material.
I would love to argue with Dialetheia because she has a little bit of sense.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel For your life that may be true, but in my life I do enjoy having a computer, an ipod, and other things that have made my life better. So, if they do not make your life better, than why is it that so many want to take my stuff and give to others?
I agree that money is not everything, but it makes my life better by allowing me to get products and services that I enjoy. If others want those same things they can go work and get them for themselves, not by demanding that I provide them.
BringIt2TheMax 1 year ago
@BringIt2TheMax I always long to prove to people that economic materialism is a sham and subtly destructive, that it draws people away from people. But indeed, Youtube is not the best place to voice out this idea.
I'll stop from here if you dont mind. I think that I will spend more time in searching (and establishing my thoughts further) than in arguing. I leave you with a virtual handshake.
TO DIALETHEIA: Sorry, mate. I thought you was a lady. Anyway, nice talking to you.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel I am a male.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis (which doesn't actually work as Cohen & others make clear). Tis called a circle jerk. It's political aims are laid bare when one considers that better concepts include 'personal autonomy' or 'self-determination'.
I think you'll find that in classical Marxian schemas 'exploitation' is a.....
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia 3)technical, political economy category in connection with the LTV which is devoid of normative considerations. Marx's ethical standpoints lay elsewhere in his writings & certainly had nothing to do with the defective, political philosophy concept of 'self-ownership'. I believe it is more fruitful to look upon Cohen's work on 'self-ownership' as a send up of bourgeois political philosophy in the same way as Marx did for bourgeois political economy. Indeed, Cohen never accepted the...
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia 4) of 'self-ownership' and, indeed, wrote a whole chapter criticising the concept in the book you mention.
You say ownership "is a necessarily abstract concept independent of cultural convention". Are our concepts independent of culture? Is culture independent of past & present material circumstances?
That's the first time I've heard Hobbes described as a constructivist, just one off-hand qualm at this portrayal surrounds his essentialist view of the human subject. But anyway....
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 Social "recognition" does not entail human convention. The average resting heart of a 20 yr old male is x. Without a social context, one could not compute x, but it does not follow that an average heart rate is a social convention; likewise for self-ownership. Alienability: If you mean the ability of the ownership of an object to be transfered to another, then no, self-ownership does not entail alienability. However, alienability is not a necessary condition for ownership.
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia I was in two minds as to whether to respond to such a soup of equal parts muddle & hyperbole. Anyway, you have only stated, in opposition to your first posts & just about everybody else, that alienability is not a necessary condition for ownership. Explain how it is not without unilaterally redifining ownership(in opposition to convention!).....& make your mind up!
In slavery or wage slavery or whatever you still control your body & mind, you conduct a cost-benefit analysis...
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia lets go with it, do you propose that property rights are descended from God or some such story? In any case can you honestly tell me that historically the distribution of property has not been the result of force? Go for it....
I think perhaps you misunderstand the nature of Marx's critique of Proudhon.
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 However, one's labor and productive efforts (ideas, ingenuity, etc.) could be alienated; observe slavery, indentured servitude, serfdom, etc. Also, one can give another control over one's body and mind via contract (though I would argue one can't logically voluntarily contract one's self into slavery). Indeed, when one buys goods and services of any sort (emphasis on ANY), one buys the right to a specified amount of one's labor and mind for a specified time. Shall I give examples?
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia2)& decide to do whatever, nobody outside science fiction can actually make you do whatever, they can't think for you or they can't move for you.......I hope you see that wage labour is on the same continuum as slavery, indentured servitude, slavery etc in that if you don't do as 'they' say there will be repercussions.....& alienating the product of ones labour from someone does not mean alienating themselves from themselves. Think of it like this you can take Henry Ford's business..
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia3) away from him but you can't become Henry Ford.......(perhaps that's a bad example as Henry ford didn't make many cars himself)
As you can see you haven't lifted the reductio one inch....
I realise you may not like a Leftist taking this particular rattle away from you so perhaps the friendly face of a fellow(?) Randite 'Objectivist' may be more soothing: watch?v=ZTACCBJyhVA
Now, average heartrate within a given population at rest is simply a statistical fact which does not require
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia4) social recognition unlike ownership or rights in general. If someone decides not to believe what the average heartrate is it makes it no less real, however if ownership & rights are not recognised and enforced they don't exist, wanna try again....
"self ownership is an attempt to sneak....." just stick to what I said & refute the charge of circular reasoning. I don't care whether Locke was original or not his thought was a product of his circumstances, yay or nay? Did his thought
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia5) come in a vacuum? Was he educated in a certain fashion, at a certain time, was he well off? Would one of his slaves have come up with the same tosh? Would a medieval monk have thought of it? A hunter-gatherer? Is it not both irredeemably bourgeois & poor philosophy?! I think you might call this a valuable insight quite aside from your misplaced Marxism bashing.....
Whether Cohen's arguments against 'self-ownership' are cogent is here nor there, stick to mine for now. & by 'David
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bigmartinno1 I conclude that your attempt at a reductio failed. Do you wish to try again? (I have Marx's critique of Proudhon down.) The Marxist attempt at a genealogical analysis of ownership are premised upon question begging and simply poor philosophy. You say, "You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis." This works only if we accept...
Dialetheia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bigmartinno1 I conclude that your attempt at a reductio failed. Do you wish to try again? (I have Marx's critique of Proudhon down.) The Marxist attempt at a genealogical analysis of ownership are premised upon question begging and simply poor philosophy. You say, "You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis." This works only if we accept...
Dialetheia 1 year ago
@Dialetheia6) Brooks' do you mean David Gordon who merely asserts, much like yourself? (& clearly can't see that for Cohen accepting 'self-ownership' ethically does not yield 'Libertarianism')If not can you point me to the critique?
In case you're unaware but my contention is that 'self-ownership' is nonsense & rights including property are not some kind of transhistorical, ontological constant. Yes numbers etc are not socially constructed but property & rights in general are! They are the....
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia7) stuff of political struggle! If they were like numbers etc there would be no political contestation over them, ever....
& your 2nd to last comment is just flat ridiculous. I was arguing that ownership is a matter of social convention! If u are denied the fruits of your labour you may still live, I think, they may not take all your labour or somebody else may feed & tend for you! Surely you can live using other people's property?!!(It's called theft)!!!
I'm beginning to think...
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Dialetheia8) that this natural rights shit is a creationist element within 'Libertarianism' (shakes head) & this pathological need to own everything, "God damn you, it has to be owned!"
As for ad hominems, replace 'circle jerk' with circular reasoning & please contest 'free market taliban'.
Bigmartinno1 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 I conclude that your attempt at a reductio failed. Do you wish to try again? (I have Marx's critique of Proudhon down.) The Marxist attempt at a genealogical analysis of ownership are premised upon question begging and simply poor philosophy. You say, "You see this self-ownership nonsense is an attempt to sneak in specific notions of property into the nature of being and then to justfy certain conceptions of external property on that basis." This works only if we accept...
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 ... the specious complex of Marxian conceptions of base and superstructure, ideology, class consciousness, and false consciousness, all of which I reject as unfalsifiable nonsense. On this point, Marxists criticize Locke's conception of property; however, their analyses are more instances of question begging than refutations of Locke, whose theories were radical and without identifiable origin in a nascent bourgeoise class. In short, it's just bad psychology and philosophy.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 Cohen and others do not successfully refute self-ownership. Without details, his arguments against self-ownership are at once bad and unpersuasive. Also, his notion of bodily integrity in no way "lays bare" the political genesis of self-ownership; rather, I would argue, self-ownership makes his notion of bodily integrity meaningful. On this point, read David Brooks' critique of Cohen.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 A necessary abstract concept does not depend on social convention: sets, numbers, DeMorgan's Law, the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Necessitation, etc., are not social conventions. If you want to argue for extreme social constructivism or polylogism, I will not participate; that position has long proven itself to be intellectually impotent. Hobbes was a constructivist with respect to property rights, irrespective of his views of human nature.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
@Bigmartinno1 You have not refuted my argument that ownership is unavoidable. I could extend it to show that private ownership is more primary. I do not postulate "God" to defend property rights. Rather, I argue for property rights according to the ontological fact that my body is my own and I must take actions with material objects to live. If you deny me the just fruits of my labor (not somebody else's), you deny me life. If I am to live, I must have property rights in objects and my person.
Paraconsistant 1 year ago
Comment removed
hyobel 1 year ago
I get so tired of the people that keep saying things like "move to Somalia" I can just as easily say "move to Russia". Look up what the guy is actually saying PLEASE!
bioperluc 1 year ago
Please explain how this vid is dated April 2008, when the Crash did NOT happen till Oct. 2008?
Is the date in error??
gjsterp 1 year ago
The problem is not capitalism, it is the people who either don't pay attention or are too stupid to understand that the consumer holds the power in a free market system. I blame the liberal establishment for being too lazy to educate kids and instead indoctrinating them into communism and parents for not teaching their kids economics. We should require IQ tests and republican affiliation as a prerequisite to being allowed to reproduce.
ibdugefrsh 1 year ago
To all of you who endorse and adhere to this guy's economic philosophy...move to Somalia. It is a country that is 100% capitalistic. You can buy and sell anything you want (including people, organs, drugs, guns, etc.) with no outside governing body telling you that what you're doing is wrong. There is no sales tax or income tax. The people are the only ones who decide how much anything costs. Capitalism is a system that is only supported by immoral, greedy people.
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31 you are talking about anarchy. Capitalism isn't anarchy, it is an economic system that can easily exist within a country that has a CONSTITUTION protecting the rights of the people. Somalia is run by corrupt drug lords and murderers and no one has the right to even live. That is not what capitalism is. Capitalism demands that individual rights be respected to work, Somalia is no where close to that. Don't try to dismiss capitalism by giving it a false definition.
pthompson2010 2 years ago
somalia is not capitalist it's anarchist. capitalist governments protect people. somalia was a puppet colonial state that reverted to its historical tribal society once the imperial powers abandoned it. far cry from an enlightened free society.
natdavi 1 year ago
@natdavi Somalia is in chaos. Anarchism is different. read about it
Aaggonet 1 year ago
@Aaggonet Somalia's failed government can't govern. A country w/o government is anarchist. One guy has something another guy wants & there's no government protecting the property right of the first.
A world w/o gvmnt is possible only if ppl never do harm, but some ppl are bad and everyone makes mistakes. Anarchist politics is based on anarchist ethics which are impossible b/c of the metaphysical fallibility of human beings.
You don't leave force to the arbitrary whim of others.
natdavi 1 year ago
@natdavi "A country w / o Government is anarchist." That is the incorrect definition of anarchism. read anarchist writers and you'll understand. That is the reason why many anarchists and libertarians have much in common. "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." Murray Rothbard (Anarcho-capitalism)
Aaggonet 1 year ago
@Aaggonet Anarchy, from greek an- "without" + arkhos "leader"
capism requires the protection of rights from force by force. u know another way?
Leadership is one division of labor. Capism requires a kind of leader Prince Kropotkin didn't think of: the kind who derives authority from voluntary consent.
capism & anarchy require an enlightened culture, but anarchy forgets that we're fallible.
Rothbard believes absolutely that there are no absolutes so he's a waste. Any other suggestions?
natdavi 1 year ago
bar: "Capitalism is a system that is only supported by immoral, greedy people."
1: You live in America so you benefit from Capitalism.
2: If you hate it so much quit your job and get rid of every peice of capital that your purchased from another using your own.
wormer105 1 year ago
You're dead wrong. Somalia has no rule of law and no respect for property rights.
stater68 1 year ago
Before I used to think that Reason is able to twist anything. I use to compare it with lawyers -to incriminate the innocent, to acquit the criminal, etc.
But then again, I find another truth -- that capitalism can buy anything, even Reason.
hyobel 2 years ago
@hyobel Sight better than forcing businesses like Obama and company does. But to comment on you view on capitalism, your all wet on that, because were all capitalist, not just the fat cats. We all have the ability to work the system to improve our lot in life.
Auggie56 1 year ago
@Auggie56 What improvement in life? The more the common people want to improve their lives, the more they loose their time for their families (plus pay more taxes) just to pay their bills and mortgages. Capitalism destroys lives. Did you not know that people in Bangladesh are the happiest lot in the world, accdg to stats?
You might mean we all have the ability to work to improve our capitalistic ways. More work is better for capitalism. Well, I would agree on that.
hyobel 1 year ago
@hyobel Going by you first comment, you must think all the things in life should be given to you by the government. People in Bangladesh are the happiest ? Where did you read that ?
Auggie56 1 year ago
@Auggie56 Try this on your search engine and be surprised how many info you can see: BANGLADESH HAPPIEST PEOPLE.
The government is there to ensure that its people are happy. And that is not only material happiness; Well, unless you are a capitalist, you would resort to Jacob Holyoake'sgolas of secularism: "Happiness in this life through material means."
hyobel 1 year ago
Capitalism is a pan to mix up all human greed. To remove its regulation is to open the gates of hellish human greed, exploiting everything, all that you can consider sacred.
There is no morality in capitalism.
It makes me believe that Ayn Rand was a puppet of America to fight communism during his times.
hyobel 2 years ago
sorry, "HER times." I know someone out there will pick it up, and deride my grammar instead of getting into my point.
hyobel 2 years ago
A government that can give you all you need can take it all away
addictedkoala 2 years ago
Yes...but I thought it can still invoke Eminent Domain and take everything from you anyway if it's within the public interest say like a mall or a road. I'm not good at this stuff. But I'm finding I have to get better at it.
paulturcott 2 years ago