Reply to top comment: People who use their liberty to undermine other people's liberty are not educated enough in the importance of liberty, what evidence is there that it is geneticly encoded? Education and intellectualism is needed. A government by force is no better than a fight between other individuals that a government would supposedly be helping.
"People are corrupt by nature. Certain people will use their liberties to undermine other peoples liberties. hence you have inequality"
You have free will only in so far as you do not circumvent or abridge other's rights. This is why you need a government: it must be created to protect individuals from initiating the use of force in between and among themselves. It performs this function because and only because it has a monopoly on the legal use of force.
@TheNateAmazing " If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." – James Madison
@TheNateAmazing Even without the use of force, isn't there still a severe lack of upward mobility in which those possessing the most wealth dominate all markets? At some point is it no longer the responsibility of the powerful, made so from prior committed injustices, to engage in programs or activities that compensate for that injustice? (just a talking point... please engage)
@sleepyeyeguy In a society that is free people have the largest opportunity to become more wealthy, why is it the United States has so many more wealthy people anywhere else in the world, why is it our poor are relatively much better off then any other nations poor. Is it better to chop the largest trees in the forest to make them the same height? or is it better to encourage growth?
@cesar333 I dont think all the "inequality" in the world is from others taking from others. I think its just dumb/low IQ people behaving and doing stuff that dumb/low IQ things...
the world works in survival of the strongest. Not survival of the most "equality".
Computers in no way give liberty. You are missing the understanding of true liberty. Liberty is not enhanced, created, or granted by any group or government. Liberty is a priori., natural, and God granted by grace. I think part of the problem is that people have lost a fundamental understanding of what liberty is.
Doesn't a society that creates the environmental conditions to have equality or access abundance creating liberty too? College campuses have many many computers that no 1 person owns but students have access to and to the utility of the computers which allows liberty. We are all born into a society that benefits from previous generations. Equality through education only benefits everyone, but you have to take government out of education.
There is no such thing as 'equality' and it's time that we stop pretending that there is. 'Equality' is nothing more than a scam to force Whites to associate with nonwhites.
@DrWPierceTV6 So true. I'm tired of explaining to people that you can only redistribute income, not wealth. The only way to effectively redistribute wealth is by killing incentive. If you want equality go to China... oh wait nevermind, they have a greater gap in equality...well pay no attention to the (real) facts.
"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1848
rofl, your links say nothing about your numbers. CIA fact book doesn't mention the tax distribution and the other link just mentions information on shopping and eating on copenhagen airports.
The real point of those links was to combine the value added tax and the tax rate (which the CIA did give) to get a general feel for what the individual tax burden was for a Dane. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I lost the link to the web page where I had a list of taxation rates and VAT right next to each other, which was my original source, and I can't seem to find it again. I tried to give you solid evidence of the rates I cited, and for the most part feel I succeeded.
Plus, I'd love to know what you mean by failure of Portugal. rofl. The government spends to much on wages, welfare and other crap, and the businesses don't produce or grow enough to compensate it. How exactly can you not see this as a failure of socialism.
Um...because you were doing it wrong? Because you overextended your welfare benefits relative to your overall national product? Because you didn't tax individuals as heavily as you needed to to maintain the welfare system?
If I write on a math test that 2 + 2 = 10, and my teacher marks it wrong, I don't say that mathematics has failed me. I say that I misapplied mathematics. If I try to establish a Social Democracy and subsequently mismanage it, Social Democracy didn't fail me.
Milton`s way of thinking has brought us a world financial mess of collapse. Liberty without equality= preemptive wars+markets based on greed & fraud. Once all realize all are equal then there would be no greed or wars. Liberty alone opens doors for old money to take over the masses. Equality puts wealth at service of all human which is the only way to real progress.
"Liberty without equality= preemptive wars+markets based on greed & fraud" - have proof for that ?
"Once all realize all are equal then there would be no greed or wars" - Man you're really stupid, rofl, and how exactly are you going to "make" people believe all are equal
"Liberty alone opens doors for old money to take over the masses" - have proof for that ?
"Equality puts wealth at service of all human which the only way to real progress" - Do you have some historical proof ?
@seppsters Proof: Old money vs the commons in every part of the world undermines their own rule when they forget about equality as 10K yrs of human civilization. btw, its just youtube man, we are exercising free speech. Wt part of liberty allows you to call people stupid? Is it the part that automatically makes you assume you are right & intelligent and I am wrong & stupid? once we all realize we are equal in having and expressing an opinion w/o calling each other names then my point is proven
Sorry, don't really understand your example, but most breakthroughs in civilization have been achieved by ambitious entrepreneurs, egothistical artists or obsessed scientists and most of those people were not thinking of the common good when they committed their contributions to society.
@seppsters U dont understand my example because you choose to ignore the global problems. Seeing the glass 1/2 full is a blessing but so is shoving ones head in sand to ignore the problems. What U might call break throughs & civilization by the so called entrepreneurs & obsessed scientists could also be seen as failures and shortcomings of a greedy bunch of obsessive morons who are labeled as scientists feeding us a line of reasoning 2 buy their flawed stories as Milton sold us 2 sell our souls
A society that puts liberty before equality need not be an adherent of free market Capitalism. In fact, some of the freest countries in the world exercise Social Democracy. Examples include Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, the UK, and Ireland.
Within these societies the people have come together and decided to pursue equality in the most reasonable fashion possible: through democratic reform of Capitalism. Reformist Socialism works, folks. Only Revolutionary Socialism failed.
Why don't you mention Portugal ? I'm confused, we have a better welfare than some of those countries.
You forgot to mention those countries are geographically isolated and have the toughest emigration laws in the world, little or nothing gets in.
And the reason those countries can afford all that free healthcare and those massive benefits is because the bill is going straight to their HUGE CORPS.
Those CORPS make money from their factories in the 3rd world.
I had already given eight examples of Social Democracy in action and there are limited characters in each comment.
Individual taxes cover the majority of the cost of social welfare initiatives in Denmark (compare the individual taxation near 70% after VAT to the 50% for corporations after VAT). The ratio is 53-49 in Finland, up to 82-51.3 in Sweden, 53-53 at the lowest individual tax in Norway (corporate goes no higher), and 23-48 in Portugal (lowest individual, highest corporate).
The reason portuguese individual taxes don't cover the welfare as well is because wages are much lower. Wages are lower because portuguese businesses don't export as well as danish businesses.
Portuguese people do however import lots of scandi crap, sadly those imports only help to contribute to the scandi welfare system and not the portuguese.
That's a whole lot to respond to, seppsters. I'm going to need a few comment boxes to do it. First things first, your completely fair demand for a link to the stats I provided:
This will provide you with the VAT and regular taxation rate for Denmark. The total tax is approximately 70% (progressive taxation prevents a hard number).
This one struck me as a bit odd. Scandinavian countries are major exporters to Portugal. As a result of Portugal's manufacturers not producing sufficient product to satisfy demand in their country and Scandinavia's production of excess which it can then trade for extra revenue to continue or even expand its base...Social Democracy is a failure.
Gonna have to help me see how this is a failure of Socialism rather than a failure for Portugal, hon.
The businesses exporting those products to portugal aren't public. Many even produce their products in the third world. They have nothing to do with social democracy. That's your proof.
Scandis have very nice wages, also because the LOW paying jobs of scandi businesses are in 3rd world. It's too bad those people don't get any nice welfare, even though it's their work that's paying for yours
That's another fallacy of your socialism you exposed
Finally on "northern europe being the most egalitarian" HAHA for local whites maybe. Northern europe is becoming the most racist place in the world, they don't allow anyone in, they still export their cheap jobs though.
The problem of wage slavery in the third world is a product of globalization of economics, an idea which has been thrust into an economic reality by free-market Capitalists. Scanindavians have those nice wages because there is a very strong trade union movement, and those other countries have low wages because they do not. If those workers would unionize, wages would escalate. But they don't.
And I think I already demonstrated that individual income tax funds Scandinavian welfare.
Those "wage slaver" businesses have increased profits, and taxes are paid based on those profits. Did it ever come to your mind that if businesses paid those high wages to 3rd world countries operatives, they'd have alot less profit and some might even go bankrupt. Many nice scandi wages would have to go down to compensate for that increase. And that would decrease both your "individual income tax" as well as your business tax.
Yes, yes, and then the social welfare initiatives would have to contract to meet budget requirements. Where are you going with this? That the Danes wouldn't be living in quite as generous a welfare state as they do now if the workers in the third world stood up for themselves? Pretty obvious line of logic, I can't believe you didn't give me enough credit to have already considered that.
The welfare state would SHRINK, not wither and die. Hell, production in Denmark might rise!
Scandinavia has had virtually no refugee emigration for centuries when compared to Portugal, Greece or America and as soon as it gets the tinyest fraction of emigration of those countries, people start immediatelly voting for far right nearly nazi parties. If you have a tiny homogenous society things are easy, but in a multi-cultural/ethnic society it's a more complicated thing
Your socialism works well, but it only works with racism and geographical isolation.
I suppose that's a stab at parties such as Dansk Folkeparti? That party is very small in comparison to the two actual powerhouses (Social Dems and Venstre). Currently they are part of a coalition with Venstre and Det Konservative Folkeparti. The former is a general Conservative party with little interest in race issues, the latter is a business party.
Is Denmark racially homogeneous? Fairly so. Is Danske Folkeparti a political powerhouse (or has it ever been)? NO. NO IT HAS NOT.
Actually I was referring to the true finns, BNP, front nationale and so many others. However the Dansk Folkpartei has been growing and I can bet any amount of money you want that it will go further in the future.
Sorry are you actually defending the far right party, this is extraordinary, please go on.
True Finns doesn't seem all that remarkable, really. They want to limit immigration and deport immigrants convicted of serious crimes. It's the damn Tea Party.
The British National Party isn't even Scandinavian, man! Come on!
Front Nationale took some digging. If you're talking about the Swedish NSF, they were NEVER a big deal and are now defunct.
As I recall, even in its early days the Nazi Party wasn't too secretive about its willingness to kill. Mein Kampf sure as hell wasn't.
Look, I never said I like Dansk Folkeparti or that I agree with its doctrines. I'm not DEFENDING them, I'm analyzing them HONESTLY. I'm simply saying that trying to draw a parallel between Dansk Folkeparti and parties like Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Bevægelse or the Nazis is an impossible feat. The Dansk Folkeparti is not a racist, Fascist party hell-bent on destroying all non-Danes and advancing Danish supremacy.
And Danske Folkeparti couldn't be described as bordering upon Nazism. They have no interest in murdering non-Danes, they're really only interested in eliminating the ideology of multiculturalism and forcing immigrants to conform to the Danish customs and language.
A party that CAN be described as racist and Fascist in nature is Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Bevægelse. Ever notice that they're NOT IN PARLIAMENT AT ALL? Like, EVER?
Yes ... to exploiters socialism is a BAD word. So is Liberty and Equality. So was emancipation to Southerns. Although most ignorance cretins that died in the civil war never owned slaves.
@mba2ceo I think history has shown your statement to be false time and time again. It is no question as to whether or not socialism is a bad idea, but what baffles me is how many people can see it tried time and time again with the same result and still yet try to support it or make excuses for why it has once again failed.
friedman point is valid coz of the thing called selfish gene. but it is also true that genes can be naturally turned off during development with natural stimuli. artificial stimuli could be disastrous!
@TheEthanwashere Chile became one of the most economically successful countries in South America. That they had a dictator called pinochet that limited human liberty (and equality) does not mean the idea of liberty in personal life and economics sense is flawed.
In this socialized system of government we have today the liberty of companies comes first over the people. In a true libertarian society the rights of the people are first and foremost protected. This was the idea that the forefathers had envisioned for the U.S.A but through political wrangling and lack of public input (ie: the people expecting the government to fix it for us) we have essentially given over to socialism. And corporations now exploit the people supported by big government.
In this socialized system of government we have today the liberty of companies comes first over the people. In a true libertarian society the rights of the people are first and foremost protected. This was the idea that the forefathers had envisioned for the U.S.A but through political wrangling and lack of public input (ie: the people expecting the government to fix it for us) we have essentially given over to socialism. And corporations now exploit the people supported buy big government.
But whose liberty comes first, the liberty of companies and corporations to exploit or the liberty of the people? Let us not forget that Friedman is a Neoliberalist; it does not matter to him whether the liberty of the common people is trampled over, so long as the liberty of powerful corporations to exploit us and the environment is upheld.
@norcofreerider604 And what makes you think that you know what you're talking about? I think I'm not the one who is blindly believing, as opposed to critically thinking about his propositions. Anyways, there are now strong reasons to believe that the well-intentioned propositions of Friedman do not work. In theory, in his books and papers, his ideas are sound; in practice, however, it has failed to realize its goals.
@alfredo11 His ideas have not been put in to practice though. Tell me, when and where have his ideas been put in to practice. How could his ideas fail if they haven't been put into practice?
@norcofreerider604 Hong Kong, where I live, is the freest economy in the world! However, a million still lives under poverty, income inequality the worse among the developed countries; liberty does not imply equality.
Reagan and Thatcher both introduced Milton Friedman's ideals, divestments, deregulation, privatization into politics and economics in the US and the UK respectively.
Friedman's ideals, Libertarianism, has been tried in Pre-Keynesian economics, as we know, failed miserably.
You're wrong, I'm afraid. In in the 1970s out of control government spending resulted in inflation and economic decline on levels we are not seeing now. The instituion that supposedly were helping the poor made their lives a lot worse; all in the drive for equality. Friedman didn't say liberity result in equality; only we would be closer to it. Hong Kong may be poor now and have been poor in the 1970s, but Communist China was a hell of a lot poorer in the 1970s than Hong Kong was.
@sircharles2012 Yes. It was catastrophic. The Carter administration was ruled by pro-socialist oligarchs such as Zbignew Brzezinski or David Rockefeller.
is there a direct correlation between strength of any given economy and the extent to which they have a free market capitalist economy? if so, what is your evidence?
So far, no experiments have been conducted to prove this point. However, since WWII, politics have divided same races of the same countries into 2 or 3 different governments of different ideologies(ex. Hong Kong+Taiwan vs China of 1949-1979, S.Korea vs N.Korea, W.Germany vs E.Germany).
@nakedBison69 Look up the economic freedom index and compare the countries at the very top with the very bottom. There is a large correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. Just because a government can point a gun at your head and force you to work does not mean you will do worth while or even useful work that helps society.
oh i agree with you. i am very much of a free market capitalist and completely opposed to socialism. and yes, i do think that economic freedom is a necessary precursor to individual freedom. in a sense, they are very much the same thing, as freedom is meaningless if we have no economic freedom
@nakedBison69 This is such bull shit!!! For most of americas history minorities were not allowed to compete in a free market because of racism! From lending instituions to distribution centers, non whites were excluded. Next, all markets are regulated, the difference is in who's favor. Free market capiltalism would not have bailed out wall street. There is not such thing as a free market system in any industrialized nation. all are regulated to a point.
@nakedBison69 A few things to consider: America is the only nation to have as a part of its constitution a means for counting human beings as livestock. 2) From 1619 to 1968 (349 years) people of african descent would second to third class citizens. 3) 45 signers of the DOI were slave owners. 4) 20 years after the holocaust and 10 years after stalin, blacks were being lynched and burned alive for crimes such as "eyeballing" looking a white man in the eye.
unREASONINFUSION treats Whitey like livestock and second class citizens. unreasonFusion hates America, yet continues to live off of all the benefits of living here. unreasonFusion lynches and burns Whitey for crimes such as looking White. putting "eyeballing" in "quotes" adds absolutely "nothing" to unreasonFusion's "arguments" or lack of them
@nakedBison69 5) Slavery did not in practice end in the USA until WWII. 6) The white dixiecrats were so outraged about blacks being given the right to vote without being charged a fee, they left the party for the first time in history in 1964. 7) Virtually every president of the united states has been quoted voicing the belief that blacks were inferior. 8) The united states senate refused to sign a bill outlawing the lynching of blacks. 9) As much as 5000 whites sat on a lawn to see a black man
unREASONINFUSION enslaves Whitey. unREASONFUSINON is so outraged at America's existence, yet continues to reap the benefits of living here in the country he hates so much. unreasonFusion is inferior. unreasonFusion lynches Whitey. unreasonFusion sits on lawns to see Whitey
@nakedBison69 The benefits I get from being here is to call you a cracker. I enjoy that too much for words, you can count on that. The rest of your comment further shows how mediocre a cracker can be in america. "unreasonfushion sits on lawns to see whitey"????? Are you the best of your race? I think even your own people would call you trash.
unREASONINFUSION the anti-White racist enjoys being a mediocre racist against Whitey. unreasonfusion sits on lawns to see Whitey. unreasonfusion is the worst of his race. unreasonfusion is trash
@nakedBison69 3) 9)get burned to death and fought over the burned souvenires with the heart going for $10. 10) A white fellon is 3 times more likely to be hired than a black with no record. 11) Blacks make up to $ 6000 less per year than whites with the same degree and experience. People who deny the savage treatment of human beings is, indeed, savage, are the definition of sociopaths. Nice try.
Another fact, HK population decupled from 1945-1981 (500K to 5million) due to the influx of Chinese refugees running away from the repressive Communist regime of China while risking their lives.. Remember, HK is no bigger than Orange County. Despite of overpopulation, Hong Kong's wealth rose substantially after WWII under an undemocratic but free society.
As another Hong Konger, I must disagree with you. It is true that Hong Kong has poor people living in "cage apartments", but even the poor of Hong Kong still have a better standard of living than the poor in China. The personal income of HK is even higher than UK, thanks to low taxes.
If HK is so poor, how can HK govt afford to a $6000 HK dollars($700 tax rebates) for its citizens, even including the HK expats?
Moreover, the reason why HKers are not as well off as they were in the late 90s is due HK dollar is pegged to the US dollar. As $US devalues, so does $HK, causing inflation. Inflation causes problems that recently introduced min. wage law cannot fixed.
And speaking of capitalism has brought poverty in HK, I think u need to go back to the late 40s and 50s to see what poverty is.
@nakedBison69 Today's capitalism is socialism, albeit, with a twist: economies are still planned; but with central planners of the private sector, instead of the government. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
“Liberty” is an unalienable Right where Life is dependent on for survival; “Equality” is an abstract concept not yet found in any metrology. Discussing Liberty and Equality is similar to Reality and Fantasy. Was Friedman answering a brain dead question from a Stanford student, or was he trying to educate some group promoting Egalitarianism?
exactly, this perfectly shows the hypocracy of the system. "i'm agianst welfare because people shouldn't get something for nothing" "i'm in favor of inheretence because...well...just because."
No hypocisy exists. You have misstated the positions. I am against welfare because property must be taken from someone without cause or justification solely for the purpose of giving it to amother (and, pragmatically, the governmnet is such a poor steward of resources they operate FAR less efficiently than private charity). I am against interfering with inheritance for the same reason - no justification exists for taking the property in the first place (and doing so is economically harmful).
What constitutes "unfair"? If someone obtains private property through work (the way the overwhelming majority obtain it), what justification does anyone have for telling him what he can do with that justly obtained property. If he wishes to spend it on himself (which in the end is economically least beneficial), give it to charity or bequeath it to his children (often in the form of economically beneficial investments) how is interfereing with that in any way "fair"?
@FletchforFreedom The point is: What have his *inheritors* achieved to deserve this property? Nothing. Fundamentally speaking, birthright doesn't seem like a valid justification for "freebies" to me.
Also, why should ownership rights be transferable IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING? As far as I know, companies are not allowed to sell at loss because it is considered unfair business practice and hurts the self-regulation of offer and demand. Well, in a way, inheritance is just that, isn't it?
@v1rtualguy (PS:) Now I understand that proceeding like this can be considered as interfering with the personal freedom of choice. However, (brutally pragmatically speaking, like I think we should), what use is it to *the individual* to be able to exercise any form of willpower beyond the limits of a lifetime?
Proceeding like this would probably also lead to individuals limit their achievements to what they can "spend" in one lifetime. However, what this implies, is another matter.
By limiting one's acheivements to one lifetime, you throw a massive monkey wrench into the engine of economic development (long term investment) and ensure less prosperity for everyone - not just the rich. Capitalism has provided more technology, more goods and services to more people (particularly the poor) than any other system ever devised by Man. Interfereing with it has never benefited anyone (and I can address any case you'd care to name).
@FletchforFreedom Secondly, I never once said I was agianst inheritence. Of course someone's house and bank account should go to one's family when you die, they're the ones who use them after all. However, I was merely pointing out that both are hypocritical. Both claim the mantra of "work is holy" both claim to be against "something for nothing" but as you've said, something for nothing is an economic imperitive.
My point was the absurdity of your position. NEITHER position has anything to do with "something for nothing" - not only is that point irrelevant but it is absurd on its face. The issue is the preservation of individual private property rights which, in and of itself, is necessary for an economy to function. In fact, history demonstrates that capitalism has been directly responsible for the masive improvement of living conditions, particularly for the poor, over the last 300 years.
The closest thing to "work is holy" that applies is that productive activity, not consumption, is the source of economic growth. One cannot grow an economy by giving away money to those who would spend it. Productive activity, including allocation of resources and financial investment yield economic growth, create job opportunities (all of them) and build the prosperity that improves the lot of everyone in the economy (which is why the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world).
@FletchforFreedom Communists also claimed that their system was enshrining productive activity, hence all the focus on "the working man's revolution" and such. Secondly, it's not absurd, merely an observation. A conclusion can be absurd, but not an observation.
Communists claimed their system eliminated expolitation of the working man and was proved to be based on a nonsensical theory of value. An observation can be absurd when it is so contrary to reality that one must wonder about the observational abilities of the one who makes it. You may choose to observe that the ocean is not wet (entirely comparable to your "observations" about capitalism, socialism and hypocrisy) and it is perfectly accurate to describe such an observation as "absurd".
The issue isn't "deserve" which takes unbeliveable hubris to weigh in on - the issue is liberty. If the individual has the liberty to dispose of his (justly acquired) property as he sees fit, then there is no basis for interference. Further restrictions upon that are economically harmful, encouraging the dissolution of investments and a reallocation of assets from production to consumption. Your reasoning would eliminate gift-giving (and CHARITY) entirely. Echnage for nothing?
In actuality, every exchand is for something of greater value (in the case of inheritance, the desire to take care of one's family is "purchased" by the property owner (no less so than buying an insurance policy). There is no "justification" for interfering.
And companies sell at a loss literally all the time (typically with the expectation of making more on some other good). That this practice has some analagous relationship to inheritance is absurd on its face.
@FletchforFreedom Well I guess we can't agree on anything then. If Liberty for the sake of it brings you satisfaction, so be it. I value equality of chances instead - and it appears that these two things seem to be incompatible.
Yes liberty is worthwhile for its own sake, but you proceed from a false assumption because, in fact, that greater freedom also creates far more chances (they are fully compatible). It is why the US has the wealthiest "poor" on the planet, why the US has a burgeoning and growing middle class whose living standards continue to rise (yes, the "stagnating middle class" nonsense is easily disposed of).
Socialism (even piecemeal) has always HARMED the general public; capitalism has always helped.
@FletchforFreedom I never once said I was in favor of state socialism. It's just a more extreme form of capitialism, only with a single corporation instead of many. To be honest I never understood why the two are treated as opposites. Hell, in unregulated capitalism a single corporation will inevitably become a universal monoply and use their resources to become a defacto socailist state.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you should not spout such absurdities as that state socialism (the only kind that can exist in reality) and capitalism are the same thing rather than polar opposites. Capitalism is the exercise of ownership powers over the means of production privately; socialism is that exercise collectively (either societally - theoretical and impossible - or by the state as proxy). Capitalism virtually obliterates monopoly - history is entirely against you.
@FletchforFreedom Thirdly, let me rephrase my point about Capitalism and Socalism being essentaly the same thing. In his book 1984, George Orwell was critical of C-ommunism. Yet he himself was a socalist. He said that the main problem with Communism is that the means of production are even more centralised, and in the hands of even fewer people, hence the problems of capitalism where intensified. Hence communism is just a more extreme form of capitalism.
Whether Orwell remained a socialist in the latter part of his life remains something of a signifcant source of debate (he showed FAR mor maturity than when he wrote "Homage to Catalonia" and was subsequently disillusioned by socialist movements. The notion that capitalism "centralizes" anything simply demonstrates a profound ignorance of the topic. Prescisely the opposite is the case. And, again, the nature of the systems is who makes the economic decisions - they are mutually exclusive.
(cont) The man who owned the land learns where the apples came from and demands all the apples and the money the poor man made selling them. However, the poor man is in the right, as the wealthy man would've let the land go to waste, and without the poor man's work the apples would never have existed.
@wikiporno He wouldn't let it goto waste, and if he wanted to, that is his choice. It is still his land. If I think your house can be built in a better way that would be good for everyone elses view, should I be able to come onto your property and build a new house? What if you grow tobacco and everyone wants some, can we raid your land? What if you could grow corn but didnt want to, you wanted a playground instead. Should we legislate that you grow corn? Your taking a lot for granted here
Here's an example for you. A wealthy man inherets land from an uncle he never knew. He visits the land and decides it's worthless, nothing grows there except a single apple tree, and it seems dead. His neighbor is a simple peasant who, following a stray goat, comes to the apple tree. He decides to tends to it, and next year it produces many large delicous apples. Everyone in town wants these apples, so the peasant becomes wealthier...
@wikiporno Nobody spends money like someone spends their own. Nobody takes care of land and utilizes it efficiently better than someone takes care of their own. Why would you let the land sit there and not utilize it? You have every reason to, the government has almost no reason to be efficient with it or even keep up on it. The most neglected pieces of land and property are government owned. Look at the projects here in NY, look at central park in the 80's. Look at every democratic city.
@wikiporno He can go grow his own apple tree. Adam Smith did not sign our constitution. I don't really care what he would have done. Like I said, I say we pass legislation to move the homeless into peoples homes, starting with yours. We are also going to build them a small rec center in your backyard, with YOUR money. How does that sound? We also legislate that you must grow dandelions and are not allowed to cut them, because kids may want to play with them. Where does it end and who says?
@wikiporno It doesn't matter, it is for the greater good. Come on, isn't that what you liberals want? It is for the general welfare. I am the politician and I am going to say that it is a law you must grow dandelions and home the homeless. You don't have to be in favor of that, the constitution doesn't matter anymore right? It's a living constitution it doesn't REALLY mean what it says. So I am going to interpret it MY way. Majority rules, 51% of people want you to house the poor.
BTW, I'm not sure where your allegory comes from but I can say definitively that it was not Adam Smith (Marx had commentary on Hegel's apple tree analogy - but that was a different story).
I too am in favor of the protection of Life Liberty and Property, however, I beleve that both Capitalism and State Socialism have failed (because they are at their heart the same system) and thus we need a new third option. As for property we have the different ideas as to just what that means. Hence my statement that you can't own land. If you're fishing, you don't own any of the fish until you reel them in the boat. Until then nobody does. They are neutral by defualt, as is land.
@wikiporno Land used to be neutral, now every piece of land is owned by someone. This isn't the age of exploration anymore. I don't know what your definition of fail is, but capitalism isn't a system. It is the absence of systems and the absence of central planning control. It is the absence of a command economy where the production is in the hands of a few. Every single person in the country would have to have a representative of their own in government for it to be efficient.
Mankind is flawed, get used to it. Capitalism puts boundaries on those flaws. Greed is irrelevant when it comes to voluntary exchange. There is no other system that works nearly as well, no other system that offers as much choice and freedom, no other system that comes close to eliminating poverty as we've seen over the past 200 years where capitalism brought prosperity to the most people the world has ever seen. Only government can coerce you, private sector can not.
(cont) You accuse me of "all or nothing" thinking, but you yourself said, (and I quote) "you either believe in individual rights and responsibilities or you don't. If you don't, then you must believe in collective rights and responsibilities. There are really no other choices." In otherwords, you accuse me of using logical fallacies you yourself are guilty of.
@wikiporno You have no alternative way of improving the lives of the ordinary people. You just have ideas, and most are failed ideas. You remind me of a college sophomore who think they can change the world because they have never had to run anything in their lives. You are losing the argument on a philosophical, legal, moral, and practical sense. My logic is not false. You either believe in freedom for the individual or you do not. We are not a collective, this is not the Soviet Union.
@wikiporno You have no alternative way of improving the lives of the ordinary people. You just have ideas, and most are failed ideas. You remind me of a college sophomore who think they can change the world because they have never had to run anything in their lives. You are losing the argument on a philosophical, legal, moral, and practical sense. My logic is not false. You either believe in freedom for the individual or you do not. We are not a collective, this is not the Soviet Union.
@wikiporno if you want to change businesses and corporations so bad, don't work for them, don't do business with them, make believe they do not exist and they will never have any effect over your life. You vote with your feet and you vote with your dollar, End of story. And yes, you can own freaking land or else Al Qaeda would be just as welcome on the American soil as we are. It also means that I could build a house in your backyard. You are a dummy.
@wikiporno Ownership of ones property through voluntary exchange and free trade. How did you buy your computer? You produced, and was given goods in exchange for your labor, which is a service. What about a house? same thing. Property? You purchase it from a previous owner. Just because you can't go back to the 16th century and see how the land was acquired does not make everyone entitled to everyone elses stuff
@AroundSun Here I must disargree. While you can own a computer, or a house because both are products of human industry, you can't own land. Land is neutral by default. It's human work that creates value, therefore land belongs to whoever happens to be using it at the time.
@wikiporno Ok, so if I am elected, I am going to decide that we MUST save the homeless! Good intentions right? Ok, now I say, we are going to start putting homeless people into other peoples houses. Ill start with yours. Is that okay? I mean hey, you don't really "own" your land right? And since we can take from some and give to other for benevolence I am now allowed to store homeless people on private property. It is the same as taxing and spending. Taking from some, giving to others.
@AroundSun Let me clarify. You can't own the land, you can own the house, or the farm, or the mine, or whatever exists on that land as a result of human industry. However, once the land falls into disuse, then I have no problem with so called "squatters" If a building is abandoned and useless, then why would it be wrong for a homeless person to live in it? Adam Smith's allegory of the apple tree is a perfect example of this.
@wikiporno I don't vote what you can do with your money, don't vote for what I can do with mine. You have the right to your life, liberty, and your property granted you do not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. You may not use force or coercion to assault, murder, kidnap, rob, vandalize or fraud people. That is as free as you can get. We are not a democracy, this is not mob rule. The constitution gives minorities rights as well, EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS. Not the maj.
Right, back to the issue of "corporations can't use force" So no corporations have security forces? Thank you for clearing that up! Also, ever hear of mercenaries? PMCs? How about back when corporations used to hire gangster to bust strikes? How about the Opium war? Or the military industrial complex? Ever hear of any of these things? So under your logic, the instant a corporation owns a weapon they become a state and should thus be hated?
@wikiporno You have a distorted world view. You seem to think money comes out of thin air or that the government and corporations creates wealth. Corporations don't get money from Santa Clause. You can be the greediest person in the world and still never make a dollar. You have to serve your fellow man in order for the voluntary exchange to exist. Greed is irrelevent. Mankind is flawed, capitalism is the only system that puts boundaries on those flaws.
@AroundSun No, I think that neither the corporation nor the state creates wealth. I think money is a fantasy and thus a stupid thing to base your life on, I see next to no difference between a state and a corporation, and fail to see why you don't hold them to the same standard (if a gang beat the shit out of you it doesn't matter if they're the crips or bloods, if a hierarchical collective is opressing you it matter if they're a state or corporation.)
@wikiporno Really? So we are NOT better off than we were in 1776? Name one way that any corporation is "oppressing" you. Please spare me the sob story. Wealth is a fantasy? If people did not strive to achieve more than their basic needs, we would all still be on farms, have no cars, planes, computers, mass production, technology, tv, etc. There is no hierarchy. You need to go back to school. If you don't get the difference between coercion and voluntary exchange I cant fix stupid
@wikiporno Force is illegal without trial by jury. You are only guilty for not contributing tax money, a corporation can not have its "mercanaries" come to your house at 3am for a debt and shoot your ass. That is illegal. You take a lot for granted.
@AroundSun Yes, it's illegal because the evil government said it is. How dare they interfere in the free market? If there's a market for rape murder and sadism how dare they interfer? After all if those people didn't want to be murdered they shouldn't have done business with that company should they have? Now do you see my point?
@wikiporno Rape and murder are laws and violate civil liberties held in the constitution. They are not fucking financial regulations. When was the last time corporations were killing and raping people on the street. You don't have a point to see, you do not get the difference between basic human rights and financial regulations put in place by people who have done nothing but advance their careers through rhetoric. Tell me how you're going to plan a perfect society for us without force
@AroundSun Civil liberties and the constitution of the very same government you seem so intent to demonize. I was simply trying to 1. point out that even you take some government regulation for granted, and 2. point out what I see as the flaw in your logic. You would not except either a government or a corporation raping and murdering people because they are morally wrong no matter who is doing it. I beleve in what I beleve in for the same reason.
@wikiporno Ok you're all over the place because you have no substance and just want to jump from one topic to the next. Nobody is demonizing the government. Under your assumption, we either have a totalitarian dictatorship, or we are anti-government and are extremists. Rape and murder will always be illegal guy, financial regulations are not rape and murder laws. You think deregulation means elimination of fraud laws and governing as a whole? I am sorry I cant sit here and teach you anymore
@AroundSun You continue to miss the point. I was merely saying we need to hold governments and coporations to the same standard, not that I think either should be done away with alltogether, just democratised. I don't beleve in state socailism, as the means of production are in less hands then under capitalism, making it just a more extreme verson. As for me "being all over the place" I told you my veiws where complex and not easily summerized when we began this discussion.
@wikiporno Ok, so if tomorrow a law were passed giving citizens the right to manage companies they didn't even know existed. As long as there is an equal share and majority rule, you would see every company leave the united states before sunrise. Literally overnight. Get it through your thick fucking scull, you do not nor will you ever have the right to vote or decide in anyway over someone elses property or business. It is not yours, go start your own you communist piece of shit.
@AroundSun I've said before, I'm not a communist. Communism is just a more extreme form of capitalism where a single corporation maintains a universal monoply. I wasn't saying people should have a vote in companies they're not a part of, only that they should have in say in their own company, because said company is using the product of their own work. Also, I must once agian point out that I have remained calm this entire discussion, where as you have once again resorted to petty name calling
@wikiporno You ARE saying that everything should be controlled democratically. You are saying businesses should be run BY THE PEOPLE. Communism is not anywhere near capitalism, there is no freedom in communism and the is total government control. The petty name calling is because you're just babbling now. Capitalism is boss, liberty is boss, small government is boss, prosperity is boss, freedom from coercion is boss, everything and anything else is FORCE. Force is involuntary
(cont) and as for my earlier question of what is the difference between a state and a corporation, perhaps to put it in other terms where do you draw the line that says "all heirarchical collectives on this side are states, and all heirarchical collectives on this side are corporations" States exist under conditions of A, B, and C and while Corporations exist under conditions, X, Y, and Z. In otherwords a list the traits of each, and their pros and cons.
plus friedman is quite the prick
p1nkAcid 3 weeks ago
Reply to top comment: People who use their liberty to undermine other people's liberty are not educated enough in the importance of liberty, what evidence is there that it is geneticly encoded? Education and intellectualism is needed. A government by force is no better than a fight between other individuals that a government would supposedly be helping.
DeanoProductionsTM 1 month ago
"People are corrupt by nature. Certain people will use their liberties to undermine other peoples liberties. hence you have inequality"
You have free will only in so far as you do not circumvent or abridge other's rights. This is why you need a government: it must be created to protect individuals from initiating the use of force in between and among themselves. It performs this function because and only because it has a monopoly on the legal use of force.
TheNateAmazing 2 months ago 3
@TheNateAmazing " If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." – James Madison
weavermama 2 months ago
@TheNateAmazing Even without the use of force, isn't there still a severe lack of upward mobility in which those possessing the most wealth dominate all markets? At some point is it no longer the responsibility of the powerful, made so from prior committed injustices, to engage in programs or activities that compensate for that injustice? (just a talking point... please engage)
sleepyeyeguy 2 weeks ago
@sleepyeyeguy In a society that is free people have the largest opportunity to become more wealthy, why is it the United States has so many more wealthy people anywhere else in the world, why is it our poor are relatively much better off then any other nations poor. Is it better to chop the largest trees in the forest to make them the same height? or is it better to encourage growth?
Mezey5 1 week ago
People are corrupt by nature. Certain people will use their liberties to undermine other peoples liberties. hence you have inequality.
cesar333 3 months ago
@cesar333 I dont think all the "inequality" in the world is from others taking from others. I think its just dumb/low IQ people behaving and doing stuff that dumb/low IQ things...
the world works in survival of the strongest. Not survival of the most "equality".
fargonbastedge 2 weeks ago
Computers in no way give liberty. You are missing the understanding of true liberty. Liberty is not enhanced, created, or granted by any group or government. Liberty is a priori., natural, and God granted by grace. I think part of the problem is that people have lost a fundamental understanding of what liberty is.
libertyhound99 3 months ago 4
@libertyhound99 liberty is a posteriori
p1nkAcid 3 weeks ago
Doesn't a society that creates the environmental conditions to have equality or access abundance creating liberty too? College campuses have many many computers that no 1 person owns but students have access to and to the utility of the computers which allows liberty. We are all born into a society that benefits from previous generations. Equality through education only benefits everyone, but you have to take government out of education.
JoeTube27 3 months ago
There's no more saying to make a living, so fall off, dead man!
GreatLoverFriendTM 3 months ago
Does he start every argument with "in my opinion"?
AlecTaylor666 3 months ago
There is no such thing as 'equality' and it's time that we stop pretending that there is. 'Equality' is nothing more than a scam to force Whites to associate with nonwhites.
DrWPierceTV6 4 months ago
@DrWPierceTV6 So true. I'm tired of explaining to people that you can only redistribute income, not wealth. The only way to effectively redistribute wealth is by killing incentive. If you want equality go to China... oh wait nevermind, they have a greater gap in equality...well pay no attention to the (real) facts.
crazy14peace 3 months ago
"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1848
mdwilliams79 4 months ago
... AND JUSTICE FOR ALL !!! i 100% SUPPORT EQUALITY !!! NO MAN SHOULD BE A SLAVE DUE TO BIRTH !!!
mba2ceo 5 months ago
rofl, your links say nothing about your numbers. CIA fact book doesn't mention the tax distribution and the other link just mentions information on shopping and eating on copenhagen airports.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
The real point of those links was to combine the value added tax and the tax rate (which the CIA did give) to get a general feel for what the individual tax burden was for a Dane. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I lost the link to the web page where I had a list of taxation rates and VAT right next to each other, which was my original source, and I can't seem to find it again. I tried to give you solid evidence of the rates I cited, and for the most part feel I succeeded.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
Plus, I'd love to know what you mean by failure of Portugal. rofl. The government spends to much on wages, welfare and other crap, and the businesses don't produce or grow enough to compensate it. How exactly can you not see this as a failure of socialism.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
Um...because you were doing it wrong? Because you overextended your welfare benefits relative to your overall national product? Because you didn't tax individuals as heavily as you needed to to maintain the welfare system?
If I write on a math test that 2 + 2 = 10, and my teacher marks it wrong, I don't say that mathematics has failed me. I say that I misapplied mathematics. If I try to establish a Social Democracy and subsequently mismanage it, Social Democracy didn't fail me.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
Milton`s way of thinking has brought us a world financial mess of collapse. Liberty without equality= preemptive wars+markets based on greed & fraud. Once all realize all are equal then there would be no greed or wars. Liberty alone opens doors for old money to take over the masses. Equality puts wealth at service of all human which is the only way to real progress.
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
"Liberty without equality= preemptive wars+markets based on greed & fraud" - have proof for that ?
"Once all realize all are equal then there would be no greed or wars" - Man you're really stupid, rofl, and how exactly are you going to "make" people believe all are equal
"Liberty alone opens doors for old money to take over the masses" - have proof for that ?
"Equality puts wealth at service of all human which the only way to real progress" - Do you have some historical proof ?
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters Proof: Old money vs the commons in every part of the world undermines their own rule when they forget about equality as 10K yrs of human civilization. btw, its just youtube man, we are exercising free speech. Wt part of liberty allows you to call people stupid? Is it the part that automatically makes you assume you are right & intelligent and I am wrong & stupid? once we all realize we are equal in having and expressing an opinion w/o calling each other names then my point is proven
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION
Sorry, don't really understand your example, but most breakthroughs in civilization have been achieved by ambitious entrepreneurs, egothistical artists or obsessed scientists and most of those people were not thinking of the common good when they committed their contributions to society.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters U dont understand my example because you choose to ignore the global problems. Seeing the glass 1/2 full is a blessing but so is shoving ones head in sand to ignore the problems. What U might call break throughs & civilization by the so called entrepreneurs & obsessed scientists could also be seen as failures and shortcomings of a greedy bunch of obsessive morons who are labeled as scientists feeding us a line of reasoning 2 buy their flawed stories as Milton sold us 2 sell our souls
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
A society that puts liberty before equality need not be an adherent of free market Capitalism. In fact, some of the freest countries in the world exercise Social Democracy. Examples include Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, the UK, and Ireland.
Within these societies the people have come together and decided to pursue equality in the most reasonable fashion possible: through democratic reform of Capitalism. Reformist Socialism works, folks. Only Revolutionary Socialism failed.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl hallelujah sister, I miaow to that
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Why don't you mention Portugal ? I'm confused, we have a better welfare than some of those countries.
You forgot to mention those countries are geographically isolated and have the toughest emigration laws in the world, little or nothing gets in.
And the reason those countries can afford all that free healthcare and those massive benefits is because the bill is going straight to their HUGE CORPS.
Those CORPS make money from their factories in the 3rd world.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
I had already given eight examples of Social Democracy in action and there are limited characters in each comment.
Individual taxes cover the majority of the cost of social welfare initiatives in Denmark (compare the individual taxation near 70% after VAT to the 50% for corporations after VAT). The ratio is 53-49 in Finland, up to 82-51.3 in Sweden, 53-53 at the lowest individual tax in Norway (corporate goes no higher), and 23-48 in Portugal (lowest individual, highest corporate).
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
I would like a link for those stats, but for now:
The reason portuguese individual taxes don't cover the welfare as well is because wages are much lower. Wages are lower because portuguese businesses don't export as well as danish businesses.
Portuguese people do however import lots of scandi crap, sadly those imports only help to contribute to the scandi welfare system and not the portuguese.
You've just proved the fallacy of your Socialism.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
That's a whole lot to respond to, seppsters. I'm going to need a few comment boxes to do it. First things first, your completely fair demand for a link to the stats I provided:
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factboook
cph.dk/CPH/UK/MAIN/Shopping+and+Eating/Shopping+Information/
This will provide you with the VAT and regular taxation rate for Denmark. The total tax is approximately 70% (progressive taxation prevents a hard number).
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@seppsters
This one struck me as a bit odd. Scandinavian countries are major exporters to Portugal. As a result of Portugal's manufacturers not producing sufficient product to satisfy demand in their country and Scandinavia's production of excess which it can then trade for extra revenue to continue or even expand its base...Social Democracy is a failure.
Gonna have to help me see how this is a failure of Socialism rather than a failure for Portugal, hon.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
The businesses exporting those products to portugal aren't public. Many even produce their products in the third world. They have nothing to do with social democracy. That's your proof.
seppsters 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Scandis have very nice wages, also because the LOW paying jobs of scandi businesses are in 3rd world. It's too bad those people don't get any nice welfare, even though it's their work that's paying for yours
That's another fallacy of your socialism you exposed
Finally on "northern europe being the most egalitarian" HAHA for local whites maybe. Northern europe is becoming the most racist place in the world, they don't allow anyone in, they still export their cheap jobs though.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
The problem of wage slavery in the third world is a product of globalization of economics, an idea which has been thrust into an economic reality by free-market Capitalists. Scanindavians have those nice wages because there is a very strong trade union movement, and those other countries have low wages because they do not. If those workers would unionize, wages would escalate. But they don't.
And I think I already demonstrated that individual income tax funds Scandinavian welfare.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Those "wage slaver" businesses have increased profits, and taxes are paid based on those profits. Did it ever come to your mind that if businesses paid those high wages to 3rd world countries operatives, they'd have alot less profit and some might even go bankrupt. Many nice scandi wages would have to go down to compensate for that increase. And that would decrease both your "individual income tax" as well as your business tax.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
Yes, yes, and then the social welfare initiatives would have to contract to meet budget requirements. Where are you going with this? That the Danes wouldn't be living in quite as generous a welfare state as they do now if the workers in the third world stood up for themselves? Pretty obvious line of logic, I can't believe you didn't give me enough credit to have already considered that.
The welfare state would SHRINK, not wither and die. Hell, production in Denmark might rise!
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
Scandinavia has had virtually no refugee emigration for centuries when compared to Portugal, Greece or America and as soon as it gets the tinyest fraction of emigration of those countries, people start immediatelly voting for far right nearly nazi parties. If you have a tiny homogenous society things are easy, but in a multi-cultural/ethnic society it's a more complicated thing
Your socialism works well, but it only works with racism and geographical isolation.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
I suppose that's a stab at parties such as Dansk Folkeparti? That party is very small in comparison to the two actual powerhouses (Social Dems and Venstre). Currently they are part of a coalition with Venstre and Det Konservative Folkeparti. The former is a general Conservative party with little interest in race issues, the latter is a business party.
Is Denmark racially homogeneous? Fairly so. Is Danske Folkeparti a political powerhouse (or has it ever been)? NO. NO IT HAS NOT.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Actually I was referring to the true finns, BNP, front nationale and so many others. However the Dansk Folkpartei has been growing and I can bet any amount of money you want that it will go further in the future.
Sorry are you actually defending the far right party, this is extraordinary, please go on.
Nazism was not about murdering anyone either.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
True Finns doesn't seem all that remarkable, really. They want to limit immigration and deport immigrants convicted of serious crimes. It's the damn Tea Party.
The British National Party isn't even Scandinavian, man! Come on!
Front Nationale took some digging. If you're talking about the Swedish NSF, they were NEVER a big deal and are now defunct.
As I recall, even in its early days the Nazi Party wasn't too secretive about its willingness to kill. Mein Kampf sure as hell wasn't.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@seppsters
Look, I never said I like Dansk Folkeparti or that I agree with its doctrines. I'm not DEFENDING them, I'm analyzing them HONESTLY. I'm simply saying that trying to draw a parallel between Dansk Folkeparti and parties like Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Bevægelse or the Nazis is an impossible feat. The Dansk Folkeparti is not a racist, Fascist party hell-bent on destroying all non-Danes and advancing Danish supremacy.
And if you think it is, you're wrong. Look again.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@seppsters
And Danske Folkeparti couldn't be described as bordering upon Nazism. They have no interest in murdering non-Danes, they're really only interested in eliminating the ideology of multiculturalism and forcing immigrants to conform to the Danish customs and language.
A party that CAN be described as racist and Fascist in nature is Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Bevægelse. Ever notice that they're NOT IN PARLIAMENT AT ALL? Like, EVER?
Try harder to understand Scandinavian politics.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
And there's alot more I could say about scandinavia lol, but I think it should be enough.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
(Grabs "boss" by his collar as he walks off and drags him back to face his mistake)
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
Comment removed
seppsters 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
— Milton Friedman
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
Yes ... to exploiters socialism is a BAD word. So is Liberty and Equality. So was emancipation to Southerns. Although most ignorance cretins that died in the civil war never owned slaves.
mba2ceo 6 months ago
Enslavement is NOT Liberty for all !!! Fact: Socialism is Liberty for ALL !!!
mba2ceo 6 months ago
@mba2ceo Are you from the USA?
xenex23 6 months ago
@mba2ceo Are you from the USA?
xenex23 6 months ago
@mba2ceo I think history has shown your statement to be false time and time again. It is no question as to whether or not socialism is a bad idea, but what baffles me is how many people can see it tried time and time again with the same result and still yet try to support it or make excuses for why it has once again failed.
thebestsumoeva 6 months ago
@mba2ceo I agree 100% with you and I don't agree with many very much.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
@mba2ceo Tony Benn On my channel makes a good point.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
friedman point is valid coz of the thing called selfish gene. but it is also true that genes can be naturally turned off during development with natural stimuli. artificial stimuli could be disastrous!
jrswordfish1 7 months ago
see the guy to the lower left of the screen at 1:05, he doesnt look happy at what is being said at all.
fudgedogbannana 7 months ago
Well said... Thanks for sharing. This kind of wisdom could have saved us a lot of trouble over the last 18 years, if we hadnt already forgotten it.
Col316Sing 8 months ago
So what does he have to say about chile? He called it a miracle...
TheEthanwashere 8 months ago
@TheEthanwashere Chile became one of the most economically successful countries in South America. That they had a dictator called pinochet that limited human liberty (and equality) does not mean the idea of liberty in personal life and economics sense is flawed.
diurdi 8 months ago
@diurdi To call it a miracle seems to value neither.
TheEthanwashere 8 months ago
Milton Freidman was one of the greatest thinkers of our lifetime.
Gendibar 9 months ago
Notice the many people in the crowd who realize Friedman it talking utter shit, and aren't clapping!!
d0ubtfu 9 months ago
In this socialized system of government we have today the liberty of companies comes first over the people. In a true libertarian society the rights of the people are first and foremost protected. This was the idea that the forefathers had envisioned for the U.S.A but through political wrangling and lack of public input (ie: the people expecting the government to fix it for us) we have essentially given over to socialism. And corporations now exploit the people supported by big government.
jartherp 10 months ago
In this socialized system of government we have today the liberty of companies comes first over the people. In a true libertarian society the rights of the people are first and foremost protected. This was the idea that the forefathers had envisioned for the U.S.A but through political wrangling and lack of public input (ie: the people expecting the government to fix it for us) we have essentially given over to socialism. And corporations now exploit the people supported buy big government.
jartherp 10 months ago
But whose liberty comes first, the liberty of companies and corporations to exploit or the liberty of the people? Let us not forget that Friedman is a Neoliberalist; it does not matter to him whether the liberty of the common people is trampled over, so long as the liberty of powerful corporations to exploit us and the environment is upheld.
We are now paying dearly for his belief.
alfredo11 10 months ago
@alfredo11 Wow, it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Read a few of his books and papers and you'll find out how wrong you are.
norcofreerider604 9 months ago
@norcofreerider604 And what makes you think that you know what you're talking about? I think I'm not the one who is blindly believing, as opposed to critically thinking about his propositions. Anyways, there are now strong reasons to believe that the well-intentioned propositions of Friedman do not work. In theory, in his books and papers, his ideas are sound; in practice, however, it has failed to realize its goals.
alfredo11 9 months ago
@alfredo11 His ideas have not been put in to practice though. Tell me, when and where have his ideas been put in to practice. How could his ideas fail if they haven't been put into practice?
norcofreerider604 9 months ago
@norcofreerider604 Hong Kong, where I live, is the freest economy in the world! However, a million still lives under poverty, income inequality the worse among the developed countries; liberty does not imply equality.
Reagan and Thatcher both introduced Milton Friedman's ideals, divestments, deregulation, privatization into politics and economics in the US and the UK respectively.
Friedman's ideals, Libertarianism, has been tried in Pre-Keynesian economics, as we know, failed miserably.
alfredo11 9 months ago
@alfredo11 Congratulations troll, lol. 9/10
norcofreerider604 9 months ago
@alfredo11
You're wrong, I'm afraid. In in the 1970s out of control government spending resulted in inflation and economic decline on levels we are not seeing now. The instituion that supposedly were helping the poor made their lives a lot worse; all in the drive for equality. Friedman didn't say liberity result in equality; only we would be closer to it. Hong Kong may be poor now and have been poor in the 1970s, but Communist China was a hell of a lot poorer in the 1970s than Hong Kong was.
sircharles2012 9 months ago 2
@sircharles2012 Yes. It was catastrophic. The Carter administration was ruled by pro-socialist oligarchs such as Zbignew Brzezinski or David Rockefeller.
MGGoblin 9 months ago
so why is Hong Kong poor now?
nakedBison69 9 months ago
Go check HK's GDP per capita and foreign reserves and tell me whether they are poor.
PAZ0619 7 months ago
so are they poor?
nakedBison69 7 months ago
GDP of HK: $30,000
Foreign reserves:$ 277 billion(10th in the world), ahead of Germany, France, Italy, UK.
PAZ0619 7 months ago
GDP per capita: $30,000
Foreign reserves: $277billion (10th), ahead of Germany, France, Italy, and UK
PAZ0619 7 months ago
is there a direct correlation between strength of any given economy and the extent to which they have a free market capitalist economy? if so, what is your evidence?
nakedBison69 7 months ago
So far, no experiments have been conducted to prove this point. However, since WWII, politics have divided same races of the same countries into 2 or 3 different governments of different ideologies(ex. Hong Kong+Taiwan vs China of 1949-1979, S.Korea vs N.Korea, W.Germany vs E.Germany).
PAZ0619 7 months ago
@nakedBison69 Look up the economic freedom index and compare the countries at the very top with the very bottom. There is a large correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. Just because a government can point a gun at your head and force you to work does not mean you will do worth while or even useful work that helps society.
thebestsumoeva 6 months ago
oh i agree with you. i am very much of a free market capitalist and completely opposed to socialism. and yes, i do think that economic freedom is a necessary precursor to individual freedom. in a sense, they are very much the same thing, as freedom is meaningless if we have no economic freedom
nakedBison69 6 months ago
@nakedBison69 This is such bull shit!!! For most of americas history minorities were not allowed to compete in a free market because of racism! From lending instituions to distribution centers, non whites were excluded. Next, all markets are regulated, the difference is in who's favor. Free market capiltalism would not have bailed out wall street. There is not such thing as a free market system in any industrialized nation. all are regulated to a point.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
rEASONINFUSION the racist injects racism into any and all conversations, thus admitting that he has absolutely no valid arguments to make
nakedBison69 6 months ago
@nakedBison69 A few things to consider: America is the only nation to have as a part of its constitution a means for counting human beings as livestock. 2) From 1619 to 1968 (349 years) people of african descent would second to third class citizens. 3) 45 signers of the DOI were slave owners. 4) 20 years after the holocaust and 10 years after stalin, blacks were being lynched and burned alive for crimes such as "eyeballing" looking a white man in the eye.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
unREASONINFUSION treats Whitey like livestock and second class citizens. unreasonFusion hates America, yet continues to live off of all the benefits of living here. unreasonFusion lynches and burns Whitey for crimes such as looking White. putting "eyeballing" in "quotes" adds absolutely "nothing" to unreasonFusion's "arguments" or lack of them
nakedBison69 6 months ago
@nakedBison69 5) Slavery did not in practice end in the USA until WWII. 6) The white dixiecrats were so outraged about blacks being given the right to vote without being charged a fee, they left the party for the first time in history in 1964. 7) Virtually every president of the united states has been quoted voicing the belief that blacks were inferior. 8) The united states senate refused to sign a bill outlawing the lynching of blacks. 9) As much as 5000 whites sat on a lawn to see a black man
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
unREASONINFUSION enslaves Whitey. unREASONFUSINON is so outraged at America's existence, yet continues to reap the benefits of living here in the country he hates so much. unreasonFusion is inferior. unreasonFusion lynches Whitey. unreasonFusion sits on lawns to see Whitey
nakedBison69 6 months ago
@nakedBison69 The benefits I get from being here is to call you a cracker. I enjoy that too much for words, you can count on that. The rest of your comment further shows how mediocre a cracker can be in america. "unreasonfushion sits on lawns to see whitey"????? Are you the best of your race? I think even your own people would call you trash.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
unREASONINFUSION the anti-White racist enjoys being a mediocre racist against Whitey. unreasonfusion sits on lawns to see Whitey. unreasonfusion is the worst of his race. unreasonfusion is trash
nakedBison69 6 months ago
@nakedBison69 3) 9)get burned to death and fought over the burned souvenires with the heart going for $10. 10) A white fellon is 3 times more likely to be hired than a black with no record. 11) Blacks make up to $ 6000 less per year than whites with the same degree and experience. People who deny the savage treatment of human beings is, indeed, savage, are the definition of sociopaths. Nice try.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
Another fact, HK population decupled from 1945-1981 (500K to 5million) due to the influx of Chinese refugees running away from the repressive Communist regime of China while risking their lives.. Remember, HK is no bigger than Orange County. Despite of overpopulation, Hong Kong's wealth rose substantially after WWII under an undemocratic but free society.
PAZ0619 7 months ago
actually, the poorest person in places like the United States, is a LOT better off than most people in socialist countries
nakedBison69 9 months ago 2
@alfredo11
Reagan expanded government.
Hong Kong, the poor'd standard of living has increased dramatically.
TheShaniqua1992 8 months ago
As another Hong Konger, I must disagree with you. It is true that Hong Kong has poor people living in "cage apartments", but even the poor of Hong Kong still have a better standard of living than the poor in China. The personal income of HK is even higher than UK, thanks to low taxes.
If HK is so poor, how can HK govt afford to a $6000 HK dollars($700 tax rebates) for its citizens, even including the HK expats?
PAZ0619 7 months ago
Moreover, the reason why HKers are not as well off as they were in the late 90s is due HK dollar is pegged to the US dollar. As $US devalues, so does $HK, causing inflation. Inflation causes problems that recently introduced min. wage law cannot fixed.
And speaking of capitalism has brought poverty in HK, I think u need to go back to the late 40s and 50s to see what poverty is.
PAZ0619 7 months ago
socialism has failed to realize its goals
nakedBison69 9 months ago
@nakedBison69 next is scientific socialism... XD experiement goes on... XD
silvermaniamania1 8 months ago
@nakedBison69 Today's capitalism is socialism, albeit, with a twist: economies are still planned; but with central planners of the private sector, instead of the government. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
alfredo11 8 months ago
alfredo11 centrally plans, albeit, with a twist: six of one, half a dozen of the other
nakedBison69 8 months ago
Comment removed
alfredo11 8 months ago
Comment removed
alfredo11 8 months ago
“Liberty” is an unalienable Right where Life is dependent on for survival; “Equality” is an abstract concept not yet found in any metrology. Discussing Liberty and Equality is similar to Reality and Fantasy. Was Friedman answering a brain dead question from a Stanford student, or was he trying to educate some group promoting Egalitarianism?
Mike10four 11 months ago 2
exactly, this perfectly shows the hypocracy of the system. "i'm agianst welfare because people shouldn't get something for nothing" "i'm in favor of inheretence because...well...just because."
wikiporno 1 year ago
No hypocisy exists. You have misstated the positions. I am against welfare because property must be taken from someone without cause or justification solely for the purpose of giving it to amother (and, pragmatically, the governmnet is such a poor steward of resources they operate FAR less efficiently than private charity). I am against interfering with inheritance for the same reason - no justification exists for taking the property in the first place (and doing so is economically harmful).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
If private property only comes through work, shouldn't inheritance be abolished to prevent unfair advantages between those starting out in life?
v1rtualguy 1 year ago
What constitutes "unfair"? If someone obtains private property through work (the way the overwhelming majority obtain it), what justification does anyone have for telling him what he can do with that justly obtained property. If he wishes to spend it on himself (which in the end is economically least beneficial), give it to charity or bequeath it to his children (often in the form of economically beneficial investments) how is interfereing with that in any way "fair"?
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom The point is: What have his *inheritors* achieved to deserve this property? Nothing. Fundamentally speaking, birthright doesn't seem like a valid justification for "freebies" to me.
Also, why should ownership rights be transferable IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING? As far as I know, companies are not allowed to sell at loss because it is considered unfair business practice and hurts the self-regulation of offer and demand. Well, in a way, inheritance is just that, isn't it?
v1rtualguy 1 year ago
@v1rtualguy (PS:) Now I understand that proceeding like this can be considered as interfering with the personal freedom of choice. However, (brutally pragmatically speaking, like I think we should), what use is it to *the individual* to be able to exercise any form of willpower beyond the limits of a lifetime?
Proceeding like this would probably also lead to individuals limit their achievements to what they can "spend" in one lifetime. However, what this implies, is another matter.
v1rtualguy 1 year ago
By limiting one's acheivements to one lifetime, you throw a massive monkey wrench into the engine of economic development (long term investment) and ensure less prosperity for everyone - not just the rich. Capitalism has provided more technology, more goods and services to more people (particularly the poor) than any other system ever devised by Man. Interfereing with it has never benefited anyone (and I can address any case you'd care to name).
That pragmatic enough for you?
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Secondly, I never once said I was agianst inheritence. Of course someone's house and bank account should go to one's family when you die, they're the ones who use them after all. However, I was merely pointing out that both are hypocritical. Both claim the mantra of "work is holy" both claim to be against "something for nothing" but as you've said, something for nothing is an economic imperitive.
wikiporno 1 year ago
My point was the absurdity of your position. NEITHER position has anything to do with "something for nothing" - not only is that point irrelevant but it is absurd on its face. The issue is the preservation of individual private property rights which, in and of itself, is necessary for an economy to function. In fact, history demonstrates that capitalism has been directly responsible for the masive improvement of living conditions, particularly for the poor, over the last 300 years.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
The closest thing to "work is holy" that applies is that productive activity, not consumption, is the source of economic growth. One cannot grow an economy by giving away money to those who would spend it. Productive activity, including allocation of resources and financial investment yield economic growth, create job opportunities (all of them) and build the prosperity that improves the lot of everyone in the economy (which is why the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Communists also claimed that their system was enshrining productive activity, hence all the focus on "the working man's revolution" and such. Secondly, it's not absurd, merely an observation. A conclusion can be absurd, but not an observation.
wikiporno 1 year ago
Communists claimed their system eliminated expolitation of the working man and was proved to be based on a nonsensical theory of value. An observation can be absurd when it is so contrary to reality that one must wonder about the observational abilities of the one who makes it. You may choose to observe that the ocean is not wet (entirely comparable to your "observations" about capitalism, socialism and hypocrisy) and it is perfectly accurate to describe such an observation as "absurd".
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
The issue isn't "deserve" which takes unbeliveable hubris to weigh in on - the issue is liberty. If the individual has the liberty to dispose of his (justly acquired) property as he sees fit, then there is no basis for interference. Further restrictions upon that are economically harmful, encouraging the dissolution of investments and a reallocation of assets from production to consumption. Your reasoning would eliminate gift-giving (and CHARITY) entirely. Echnage for nothing?
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
In actuality, every exchand is for something of greater value (in the case of inheritance, the desire to take care of one's family is "purchased" by the property owner (no less so than buying an insurance policy). There is no "justification" for interfering.
And companies sell at a loss literally all the time (typically with the expectation of making more on some other good). That this practice has some analagous relationship to inheritance is absurd on its face.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Well I guess we can't agree on anything then. If Liberty for the sake of it brings you satisfaction, so be it. I value equality of chances instead - and it appears that these two things seem to be incompatible.
v1rtualguy 1 year ago
Yes liberty is worthwhile for its own sake, but you proceed from a false assumption because, in fact, that greater freedom also creates far more chances (they are fully compatible). It is why the US has the wealthiest "poor" on the planet, why the US has a burgeoning and growing middle class whose living standards continue to rise (yes, the "stagnating middle class" nonsense is easily disposed of).
Socialism (even piecemeal) has always HARMED the general public; capitalism has always helped.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom I never once said I was in favor of state socialism. It's just a more extreme form of capitialism, only with a single corporation instead of many. To be honest I never understood why the two are treated as opposites. Hell, in unregulated capitalism a single corporation will inevitably become a universal monoply and use their resources to become a defacto socailist state.
wikiporno 1 year ago
If you wish to be taken seriously, you should not spout such absurdities as that state socialism (the only kind that can exist in reality) and capitalism are the same thing rather than polar opposites. Capitalism is the exercise of ownership powers over the means of production privately; socialism is that exercise collectively (either societally - theoretical and impossible - or by the state as proxy). Capitalism virtually obliterates monopoly - history is entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Thirdly, let me rephrase my point about Capitalism and Socalism being essentaly the same thing. In his book 1984, George Orwell was critical of C-ommunism. Yet he himself was a socalist. He said that the main problem with Communism is that the means of production are even more centralised, and in the hands of even fewer people, hence the problems of capitalism where intensified. Hence communism is just a more extreme form of capitalism.
wikiporno 1 year ago
Whether Orwell remained a socialist in the latter part of his life remains something of a signifcant source of debate (he showed FAR mor maturity than when he wrote "Homage to Catalonia" and was subsequently disillusioned by socialist movements. The notion that capitalism "centralizes" anything simply demonstrates a profound ignorance of the topic. Prescisely the opposite is the case. And, again, the nature of the systems is who makes the economic decisions - they are mutually exclusive.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@v1rtualguy That is an interesting point.
wikiporno 1 year ago
(cont) The man who owned the land learns where the apples came from and demands all the apples and the money the poor man made selling them. However, the poor man is in the right, as the wealthy man would've let the land go to waste, and without the poor man's work the apples would never have existed.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno He wouldn't let it goto waste, and if he wanted to, that is his choice. It is still his land. If I think your house can be built in a better way that would be good for everyone elses view, should I be able to come onto your property and build a new house? What if you grow tobacco and everyone wants some, can we raid your land? What if you could grow corn but didnt want to, you wanted a playground instead. Should we legislate that you grow corn? Your taking a lot for granted here
AroundSun 1 year ago
Here's an example for you. A wealthy man inherets land from an uncle he never knew. He visits the land and decides it's worthless, nothing grows there except a single apple tree, and it seems dead. His neighbor is a simple peasant who, following a stray goat, comes to the apple tree. He decides to tends to it, and next year it produces many large delicous apples. Everyone in town wants these apples, so the peasant becomes wealthier...
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Nobody spends money like someone spends their own. Nobody takes care of land and utilizes it efficiently better than someone takes care of their own. Why would you let the land sit there and not utilize it? You have every reason to, the government has almost no reason to be efficient with it or even keep up on it. The most neglected pieces of land and property are government owned. Look at the projects here in NY, look at central park in the 80's. Look at every democratic city.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@wikiporno If the stakes are high enough, the government may use eminent domain, which IS in the constitution
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun If you have a problem with the allegory of the apple tree, balme Adam Smith. He came up with it, and he also sided with the poor man.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno He can go grow his own apple tree. Adam Smith did not sign our constitution. I don't really care what he would have done. Like I said, I say we pass legislation to move the homeless into peoples homes, starting with yours. We are also going to build them a small rec center in your backyard, with YOUR money. How does that sound? We also legislate that you must grow dandelions and are not allowed to cut them, because kids may want to play with them. Where does it end and who says?
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun I never said I was in favor of any of that.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno It doesn't matter, it is for the greater good. Come on, isn't that what you liberals want? It is for the general welfare. I am the politician and I am going to say that it is a law you must grow dandelions and home the homeless. You don't have to be in favor of that, the constitution doesn't matter anymore right? It's a living constitution it doesn't REALLY mean what it says. So I am going to interpret it MY way. Majority rules, 51% of people want you to house the poor.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun I am not exactly a Liberal or a Conservative. Both have policies and ideas I consider morally reprehensible.
wikiporno 1 year ago
BTW, I'm not sure where your allegory comes from but I can say definitively that it was not Adam Smith (Marx had commentary on Hegel's apple tree analogy - but that was a different story).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
I too am in favor of the protection of Life Liberty and Property, however, I beleve that both Capitalism and State Socialism have failed (because they are at their heart the same system) and thus we need a new third option. As for property we have the different ideas as to just what that means. Hence my statement that you can't own land. If you're fishing, you don't own any of the fish until you reel them in the boat. Until then nobody does. They are neutral by defualt, as is land.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Land used to be neutral, now every piece of land is owned by someone. This isn't the age of exploration anymore. I don't know what your definition of fail is, but capitalism isn't a system. It is the absence of systems and the absence of central planning control. It is the absence of a command economy where the production is in the hands of a few. Every single person in the country would have to have a representative of their own in government for it to be efficient.
AroundSun 1 year ago
"You need a system where greed can do the LEAST harm, Capitalism is that kind of a system"
AroundSun 1 year ago
Mankind is flawed, get used to it. Capitalism puts boundaries on those flaws. Greed is irrelevant when it comes to voluntary exchange. There is no other system that works nearly as well, no other system that offers as much choice and freedom, no other system that comes close to eliminating poverty as we've seen over the past 200 years where capitalism brought prosperity to the most people the world has ever seen. Only government can coerce you, private sector can not.
AroundSun 1 year ago
(cont) You accuse me of "all or nothing" thinking, but you yourself said, (and I quote) "you either believe in individual rights and responsibilities or you don't. If you don't, then you must believe in collective rights and responsibilities. There are really no other choices." In otherwords, you accuse me of using logical fallacies you yourself are guilty of.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno You have no alternative way of improving the lives of the ordinary people. You just have ideas, and most are failed ideas. You remind me of a college sophomore who think they can change the world because they have never had to run anything in their lives. You are losing the argument on a philosophical, legal, moral, and practical sense. My logic is not false. You either believe in freedom for the individual or you do not. We are not a collective, this is not the Soviet Union.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@wikiporno You have no alternative way of improving the lives of the ordinary people. You just have ideas, and most are failed ideas. You remind me of a college sophomore who think they can change the world because they have never had to run anything in their lives. You are losing the argument on a philosophical, legal, moral, and practical sense. My logic is not false. You either believe in freedom for the individual or you do not. We are not a collective, this is not the Soviet Union.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@wikiporno if you want to change businesses and corporations so bad, don't work for them, don't do business with them, make believe they do not exist and they will never have any effect over your life. You vote with your feet and you vote with your dollar, End of story. And yes, you can own freaking land or else Al Qaeda would be just as welcome on the American soil as we are. It also means that I could build a house in your backyard. You are a dummy.
AroundSun 1 year ago
Moving on, how do you define ownership?
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Ownership of ones property through voluntary exchange and free trade. How did you buy your computer? You produced, and was given goods in exchange for your labor, which is a service. What about a house? same thing. Property? You purchase it from a previous owner. Just because you can't go back to the 16th century and see how the land was acquired does not make everyone entitled to everyone elses stuff
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun Here I must disargree. While you can own a computer, or a house because both are products of human industry, you can't own land. Land is neutral by default. It's human work that creates value, therefore land belongs to whoever happens to be using it at the time.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Ok, so if I am elected, I am going to decide that we MUST save the homeless! Good intentions right? Ok, now I say, we are going to start putting homeless people into other peoples houses. Ill start with yours. Is that okay? I mean hey, you don't really "own" your land right? And since we can take from some and give to other for benevolence I am now allowed to store homeless people on private property. It is the same as taxing and spending. Taking from some, giving to others.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun Let me clarify. You can't own the land, you can own the house, or the farm, or the mine, or whatever exists on that land as a result of human industry. However, once the land falls into disuse, then I have no problem with so called "squatters" If a building is abandoned and useless, then why would it be wrong for a homeless person to live in it? Adam Smith's allegory of the apple tree is a perfect example of this.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno I don't vote what you can do with your money, don't vote for what I can do with mine. You have the right to your life, liberty, and your property granted you do not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. You may not use force or coercion to assault, murder, kidnap, rob, vandalize or fraud people. That is as free as you can get. We are not a democracy, this is not mob rule. The constitution gives minorities rights as well, EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS. Not the maj.
AroundSun 1 year ago
Right, back to the issue of "corporations can't use force" So no corporations have security forces? Thank you for clearing that up! Also, ever hear of mercenaries? PMCs? How about back when corporations used to hire gangster to bust strikes? How about the Opium war? Or the military industrial complex? Ever hear of any of these things? So under your logic, the instant a corporation owns a weapon they become a state and should thus be hated?
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno You have a distorted world view. You seem to think money comes out of thin air or that the government and corporations creates wealth. Corporations don't get money from Santa Clause. You can be the greediest person in the world and still never make a dollar. You have to serve your fellow man in order for the voluntary exchange to exist. Greed is irrelevent. Mankind is flawed, capitalism is the only system that puts boundaries on those flaws.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun No, I think that neither the corporation nor the state creates wealth. I think money is a fantasy and thus a stupid thing to base your life on, I see next to no difference between a state and a corporation, and fail to see why you don't hold them to the same standard (if a gang beat the shit out of you it doesn't matter if they're the crips or bloods, if a hierarchical collective is opressing you it matter if they're a state or corporation.)
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Really? So we are NOT better off than we were in 1776? Name one way that any corporation is "oppressing" you. Please spare me the sob story. Wealth is a fantasy? If people did not strive to achieve more than their basic needs, we would all still be on farms, have no cars, planes, computers, mass production, technology, tv, etc. There is no hierarchy. You need to go back to school. If you don't get the difference between coercion and voluntary exchange I cant fix stupid
AroundSun 1 year ago
@wikiporno Force is illegal without trial by jury. You are only guilty for not contributing tax money, a corporation can not have its "mercanaries" come to your house at 3am for a debt and shoot your ass. That is illegal. You take a lot for granted.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun Yes, it's illegal because the evil government said it is. How dare they interfere in the free market? If there's a market for rape murder and sadism how dare they interfer? After all if those people didn't want to be murdered they shouldn't have done business with that company should they have? Now do you see my point?
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Rape and murder are laws and violate civil liberties held in the constitution. They are not fucking financial regulations. When was the last time corporations were killing and raping people on the street. You don't have a point to see, you do not get the difference between basic human rights and financial regulations put in place by people who have done nothing but advance their careers through rhetoric. Tell me how you're going to plan a perfect society for us without force
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun Civil liberties and the constitution of the very same government you seem so intent to demonize. I was simply trying to 1. point out that even you take some government regulation for granted, and 2. point out what I see as the flaw in your logic. You would not except either a government or a corporation raping and murdering people because they are morally wrong no matter who is doing it. I beleve in what I beleve in for the same reason.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Ok you're all over the place because you have no substance and just want to jump from one topic to the next. Nobody is demonizing the government. Under your assumption, we either have a totalitarian dictatorship, or we are anti-government and are extremists. Rape and murder will always be illegal guy, financial regulations are not rape and murder laws. You think deregulation means elimination of fraud laws and governing as a whole? I am sorry I cant sit here and teach you anymore
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun You continue to miss the point. I was merely saying we need to hold governments and coporations to the same standard, not that I think either should be done away with alltogether, just democratised. I don't beleve in state socailism, as the means of production are in less hands then under capitalism, making it just a more extreme verson. As for me "being all over the place" I told you my veiws where complex and not easily summerized when we began this discussion.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno Ok, so if tomorrow a law were passed giving citizens the right to manage companies they didn't even know existed. As long as there is an equal share and majority rule, you would see every company leave the united states before sunrise. Literally overnight. Get it through your thick fucking scull, you do not nor will you ever have the right to vote or decide in anyway over someone elses property or business. It is not yours, go start your own you communist piece of shit.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun I've said before, I'm not a communist. Communism is just a more extreme form of capitalism where a single corporation maintains a universal monoply. I wasn't saying people should have a vote in companies they're not a part of, only that they should have in say in their own company, because said company is using the product of their own work. Also, I must once agian point out that I have remained calm this entire discussion, where as you have once again resorted to petty name calling
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno You ARE saying that everything should be controlled democratically. You are saying businesses should be run BY THE PEOPLE. Communism is not anywhere near capitalism, there is no freedom in communism and the is total government control. The petty name calling is because you're just babbling now. Capitalism is boss, liberty is boss, small government is boss, prosperity is boss, freedom from coercion is boss, everything and anything else is FORCE. Force is involuntary
AroundSun 1 year ago
Okay WTF is up with youtube? none of my comments are showing?
wikiporno 1 year ago
Comment removed
wikiporno 1 year ago
Comment removed
wikiporno 1 year ago
(cont) and as for my earlier question of what is the difference between a state and a corporation, perhaps to put it in other terms where do you draw the line that says "all heirarchical collectives on this side are states, and all heirarchical collectives on this side are corporations" States exist under conditions of A, B, and C and while Corporations exist under conditions, X, Y, and Z. In otherwords a list the traits of each, and their pros and cons.
wikiporno 1 year ago
@wikiporno States can use force, corporations can not. End of story.
AroundSun 1 year ago
Comment removed
wikiporno 1 year ago