The problem of Capitalism

No. I'm seeking a society where justice prevails, so people who are harmed by injustice get just compensation for what has been taken from them by greedy, evil, privileged parasites, and consequently do not become burdens on their families.

No. I want the PRIVILEGED to no longer be legally entitled to STEAL from others, so those others are no longer in such desperate straits that they need help from caring people.

The problems I seek to solve are not of my own making, nor are they of the making of any of their other victims, nor does the solution involve "using other people's money." It involves not legally entitling greedy, privileged parasites to steal.

 

Natural resources don't need to be your property for you to have a natural right to remove them from nature and cause them to become something that didn't exist before. That thing that you extract from nature BECOMES your property through being removed from nature, because it did not exist before. What you create out of what nature provided is your property. So when you create fixed improvements to land by moving and reshaping stone, wood, soil, etc., THEY are your rightful property, not the unchanged land they are sitting on.

 

No. You are WRONG. Landowners have never had the power to make that decision. For millions of years, people never had that power until government gave it to them. It has invariably been GOVERNMENT that decided to confer ownership of land on a privileged minority, not the decision of the landowners to take it. How could they? They had no power or authority to appropriate other people's rights to liberty as their private property.

I.e., get a government-issued and -enforced title.

Without the government-created institution, it would be impossible for them to make other people's rights to liberty into their private property.

Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil. We can't stop people from being greedy, but we can stop legally EMPOWERING the greedy to take from others without contributing anything in return.

Wrong. You had to pay a landowner full market value for permission to do so.

They all paid landowners (and/or other privileged parasites) for permission.

The title to "their" land is a title to our rights to liberty. How did our rights to liberty become their private property, hmmmmmmm?

So what? The choice is compulsory: "Your money or your life." Some "choice."

Wrong. They would have stopped you if you had not paid them for permission, same as they stop any homeless person. You merely paid them for permission. That doesn't mean they weren't stopping you. Duh.

So? You were strong enough to run up the treadmill while carrying parasites on your back. Good for you. Others are not that strong, and the fact that you were that strong doesn't mean those who aren't that strong are to blame for their failure when there are parasites riding on their backs.

False. Landowners demanded you pay them for permission to access economic opportunity. You merely paid them. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have stopped you if you hadn't, or that they aren't stopping other people who can't. Duh.

Really? Is it also the businessman's responsibility to adapt to the reality of the local protection racket, and pony up every week??? Other than legality, what is the difference between the protection racketeer and a landowner?

The CHOICE is compulsory: "Your money or your life." Some choice.

 

Where? I have looked, and I have not found any.

Garbage. It is the current system that enslaves the individual for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

Like government-issued and -enforced land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, etc., etc.....?

That is a despicably dishonest Marxist conflation of those who PROVIDE others with access to opportunity that would not otherwise have been available with those who DEPRIVE others of access to opportunity that WOULD otherwise have been available.

The laws of nature DO provide men with the liberty to use what nature provided for all. It is FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION of that liberty by landowning that deprives men of their liberty to achieve prosperity unless they pay a landowner for PERMISSION to do so.

Private landowning is the quintessence of the coercive power of the state inflicted upon the innocent in the service of privilege, injustice and greed.

 

And an egregious privilege on top of that.

It is the community and only the community that can confer rights. Rights are undertakings by the community to constrain its members' actions wrt one another.

 

1) Exactly. You're seeking a society (aka, PEOPLE) which cares for the less able. You want PEOPLE to be just, and not greedy, and not abandon each other to become parasitical BURDENS upon random hardworking strangers. If we all do this, there will be far less people in need. Since you reject that obvious and readily attainable solution to reducing poverty, I wonder what your true goal is?

2) So don't steal. Build a solid foundation via your own labours, and ensure it provides for the least able in your social and familial circle. Hey presto .. a few less people with the potential to end up in desperate straits! But that isn't really your goal, is it?

3) If you 'unburden' yourself of family/friends etc who may end up in need, then YES, the problems are of your own making. To then demand that OTHER families (with their own 'burdens') pick up your slack, is outrageous.

 

Once again you are making the wrong conclusion. The right to act of the individual is subordinate to the common rights of all citizens.

Your error is common to a great many "Rightists" who think their rights are unlimited. Bulldozing entire slums must be planned beforehand by the replacement of the property-owner's living quarters. And in any large city where slums exist, that's the hard part.

But also, that is where the money should be spent! The only question remaining is "Who gets to live in those newly built quarters? If a "free-market" is called upon to rebuild living-quarters anywhere near center of large towns, sure-as-hell it's not the displaced poor who are going to benefit!

Namely the rich and super-rich who do not understand that low-taxation is "NOT A RIGHT BUT A MANIPULATION OF TAX-LAW" instrumented by Reckless Ronnie and allowed to pursue by administrations ever since. You need a course in anti-trust law. In fact, the entire nation needs one given the agglomeration of markets that are no longer really competitive.

Who is competing with Amazon - and thus limiting its hold on markets. Ditto Facebook? Who has prevented the agglomeration of markets into a limited set of competing companies? Who?*

Well, I will tell you the consequences:
*Prices that a well-functioning diverse market would provide that mean
*Lower overall costs-of-living for all buyers!

That's what! Try to remember this simple slogan: Individual personal rights end where the rights of the whole nation begin.

*In France, the "who" is the tax-authorities that have just effected a tax super-judgement against Amazon for payment of "escaped taxes-due". See the Guardian here. What internet companies have not learned is that they cannot have market-profits shifted to Ireland (where they are taxed at wholly smaller amounts than in the country of origin). Then repatriated to the US making overall revenue greater than it should have been at much lower taxation than the country of origin!

 

Let's take a second look at the chart above. Note that as a result of the Great Recession (instigated by the humongous BadDebt that the Bush2 administration allowed to linger) the number in poverty sky-rocketed during that bad-patch 2008/2009. What did America do to put those people back to work. Nothing! And whyzzat?

Because a low-turnout mid-term election in 2010 put the Replicants in control of the HofR - that systematically refused any spending to lower unemployment! Their intent was to get rid of Obama in the 2011 elections. Didn't work, did it. But imagine the suffering of those people who were dumped into abysmal poverty and are likely still there? Whyzzat?

Because something called Age Change was happening. Yes, the modern-world of developed nations was leaving the Industrial Age (where industrial-jobs flocked to China) and the Information Age was taking its place. And those jobs in China were not ever coming back!

 

Bollocks! Government-coercion was personified by Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZI).

Ayn Rand has about as much pertinence today regarding political theory as Donald Duck. Rand was the early product of a Communist State that she fled in abhorrence - and Communism has been proven for what it is worth economically. I.e., Nada, nichts, nothing, zip, rien, niente, tipota.

So, quoting Miss Rand in a modern context is simply "not on". That part of the world where Communism as a political-force was most felt (after its takeover in Russia) was Europe and not the US. The two contexts are entirely different. That is, Russia was a monarchic system of governance that privileged a certain "class of people". Like all such political-systems in Europe, it was destined to fail.

But Communism too failed when the people saw how denying the capitalist-foundation* of any economy destroys the human-will to improve one's personal situation - which is endemic to the human-being. It is the "why and how" we have survived on earth.

It was replaced in Europe by Social Democracy - which is a middle-point between pure Capitalism and ultra-pure Communism.. And has been adopted by the European Union - a "political collective" of European nations that have sworn to the principles of Social Democracy whilst keeping a "capitalist-foundation" of economic exchange.

And I happen to think - as a Yank who has lived substantially in both the US and the European Union - that Social Democracy is the better system of political-governance** ...

*And by "capitalist foundation" I mean the use of capital to (1) enhance exchange (money for labor), (2) productivity and (3) stimulate innovation. I DO NOT MEAN CAPITALISM and its manner - by means of insufficient taxation - that generates billionaires who do not know what to do with their gigabucks except pass it on to their kids who never earned it!
**Especially in a country like the US that has 40 million fellow-Americans living below the Poverty Threshold!!!

 

Hmmm. And how do I obtain the right to put that building on that land?

 

Swiss cheese.

 

Interesting to see you agreeing with Starjet that "Rand is more or less right"...then engaging in the most antagonistic/oppositional debate over 'land ownership rights', for many pages of this thread.

Something wrong there.....

For my part, I quite like owning my house that I built myself (thereby avoiding becoming a slave to a bank); however, I accepted having to buy the land in the first place.

Admittedly the land in my locality has increased 7-fold in value in 20 years, so land is more difficult for a young person to purchase now in the same area (since mean wages haven't increased as much in the same period).

I take it you are arguing for state ownership of land?

 

Thank goodness you didn’t write the constitution. Tell your Borg, they can kiss my free American backside.

 

Here it is, the true nature of a tyrant—tribute up or I’ll get the mob. Spoken like a true demagogue.

You are Jesse James, great-great grandson, perhaps?

 

Gottzilla’s and Brighton’s argument is simply this: You are free to do whatever you wish as long as you pay proper tribute to me and my gang and you don’t do something that will p!ss me off. The philosophy of a brute.

 

Bollocks! Government-coercion was personified by Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZI).

Ayn Rand has about as much pertinence today regarding political theory as Donald Duck. Rand was the early product of a Communist State that she fled in abhorrence - and Communism has been proven for what it is worth in terms of economic viability. I.e., Nada, nichts, nothing, zip, rien, niente, tipota.

So, quoting Miss Rand in a modern context is simply "not on". That part of the world where Communism as a political-force was most felt (after its takeover in Russia) was Europe and not the US. The two contexts are entirely different. That is, Russia was a monarchic system of governance (under its Tsar) that privileged a certain "class of people". Like all such political-systems in Europe, it was destined to fail - and they all did.

But Communism (in Russia) also failed when the people saw how denying the capitalist-foundation* of any economy destroys the human-will to improve one's personal situation - which is endemic to the human-being as a quality.

Communism was replaced in Europe by Social Democracy - which is a middle-point between pure Capitalism and ultra-pure Communism.. It has been adopted by the European Union - a "political collective" of European nations that have sworn to the principles of Social Democracy whilst keeping a "capitalist-foundation" of economic exchange.

And I happen to think - as a Yank who has lived substantially in both the US and the European Union - that Social Democracy is the better system of political-governance** ...

*And by "capitalist foundation" I mean the use of capital for (1) enhancing exchange (money for labor), (2) productivity and (3) stimulate innovation. I DO NOT MEAN CAPITALISM and its manner - by means of insufficient taxation - that generates billionaires who do not know what to do with their gigabucks except pass it on to their kids who never earned it!
**Especially in a country like the US that has 40 million fellow-Americans living below the Poverty Threshold!!!

 

They are called Development Rights. Read about them here - excerpt:

 

Down boy. You are letting your anger get to you.

Nobody is presuming her that you do not have full rights to exploit your land as you see fit. That is, Fit For You.

But should you decide that you don't like farming and a some company wants to buy your land to "develop it" - then the societal-equation changes significantly. Any development of such a nature in the countryside typically means the necessity to bring water, sewerage, electricity and safety. Those are all "external variables" for which the developer does not have full control. They needs a public organism to obtain them. That public organism is not there to stop the development unless it has a damn-good reason. And it often does depending upon the circumstances.

For as long as you want to farm your acreage, that is your business. But should you wish to change that fact, then it is also the business of the community in which you live - be that city, county or state ... !

 

^^^That is a mistake. That wasn't my post you quoted.

 

^^^
bringiton's user name was mistakenly in that quote instead of mine.

Declining to give your lordship free handouts is tyranny? If you decline to pay for the service by making just compensation for what you are taking, then the community will decline to provide you with exclusive tenure to the land. Being used to taking without reciprocation, and getting free handouts by charging others for what the government, community, and nature provide at that location, is no reason to continue letting this happen. The community declines to lick your lordship's boots.

 

You are free to do whatever you wish as long as its reconcilable with others community members' equal rights. Namely, their rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

If you violate others' rights by physically harming, even murdering them, then you will be put in a facility where you cannot kill members of the community.

If you violate others' rights by stealing from them, then you will be put in a facility where you cannot steal from members of the community, or at least be asked to give back what you stole or compensate the victims.

If you wish to violate others' rights by claiming ideas to be your property, then you will not get the necessary help to enact that. In fact, you will be laughed at and ridiculed for being the conman that you are and making such preposterous claims.

If you violate others' rights by gaining exclusive tenure of and depriving others of land (also natural resources), then you will be required to make just compensation for depriving others of what the government, the community, and/or nature provide in any given location.

etc.

Protecting rights and/or requiring compensation for abrogation of them is so mean, evil, tyrannical, and brutish.

 

Not buying. The Borg can kiss my free behind.

 

In an alt bizarro world maybe. The mob doesn't have to lick my boots--they can kiss my free butt. Want to find out what happens to average when the best take a walk. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand:

Ayn Rand: "A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob . . . .

The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collective_rights.html

 

By gaining a legal right to exclusive tenure. If nobody else wants the land, it's free. If more than one person wants it, it will have value, which is exactly what you should pay for your legal right to exclude others from it.

"The user of land should not be allowed to acquire rights of indefinite duration for single payments. For efficiency, for adequate revenue and for justice, every user of land should be required to make an annual payment to the local government equal to the current rental value of the land that he or she prevents others from using." -- Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics

 

You really do struggle with the concept of other humans having natural rights. That's why you have to dehumanize those morally superior to you by calling them "The Borg". You want to have legal permission to rob, enslave, rape, torture, kill, and annihilate others. It all makes sense now.