The problem of Capitalism

That's what we call 'wages'. You can use those wages to buy property. Everyone wins.

If that's not sharing and caring enough for you, you can share that property with a few local homeless folk.

 

How can individual ownership amount to monopoly?

And how can sovereign (aka, The King, or The Govt) 'administration' of all lands NOT be monopoly?

 

Neither do I, so let's see if we can nail our disagreement (assuming you might have something to offer other than mere repetition of your "truncheons and guns" theory.

You said: "I am arguing for societal prohibitions against violence ...."
So do I: aka rule of law.

Obviously you have a different conception of "societal prohibitions against violence ", based on your simplistic conception of the human condition, so that you can posit a theory of Anarchy via voluntary agreement between individuals...the natural state of Man.

Now lets look at some real world examples

1.Chile. A Right Wing democracy (following the Pinochet R/W dictatorship) with entrenched disadvantage among 50% of the population, and very high wealth amongst a few.

This is what what happens when poverty and inequality reach society-wide levels, the police become an enforcement mechanism to protect the privileged.

So we need an economic system that avoids extreme wealth inequality and entrenched poverty, otherwise we will see the police truncheons in force.

​

 

You'll need to take that up with Progressive Leftists (you know, those people who say they're all about the small man), since they have controlled and dominated the least equitable cities for years, throughout the Western World. Their cities consistently show the greatest wealth divide in a given nation.

I know how/why that happened, so it will be interesting to see if you do.

 

Examples please.

For your assistance:

https://www.therichest.com/poorest-list/10-countries-with-the-worst-income-inequality/

Re the US (on the list with Mexico and Chile)

It's hard to imagine the United States being so high on this list, but truthfully, the US hasn't seen such large income disparity since 1928. And if you thought some of the other countries had it bad in regards to numbers, these numbers will no doubt serve to shock: From 2009 to 2012, the top 1% in the U.S. claimed 95% of gains from the economic recovery. And the rest of country, the other 99%? They only saw income growth of 0.4% while their richer counterparts saw their incomes rise by over 30%. While the economy is superficially showing recovery from the Global Financial Crisis, the reality is that the lower classes are not recovering nearly as fast as that top 1%.

I expect your theory about "Progressive Leftists" will be as ...mis-construed.... as this empty-headed Fox News anchor's comments about the Danes



(The Danes have a social democracy cf. the US's capitalist democracy).

Enjoy.

 

It's not theory. Progressive cities are increasingly the motherlode of wealth divide. You need to check the stats, Dear. Again, have you considered why this is happening? Let's see if you do.

The Danes are a tiny monoculture (and a capitalist democracy). IOW, something America will never be. Forget them. You can't be them.

 

[Note: there are plenty of 'conservative right' cities eg, Santiago (Chile) with its terrible entrenched poverty and massive inequality, which is in the grips of Right Wing ideologues (aided and abetted by the anti-worker US, historically, like most S.American countries). Hence the current protests].

Now as for your elusive progressive Left cities, you still have not provided examples (and as soon as you do, I will refute your "poverty is the fault of the individual" nonsense.

Eg Detroit?, Pittsburgh? - victims of competition from the post WW2 rise of Asia on the back of initially low 3rd world wages.
The same applies for the rest of the 1st world "rustbelt" throughout the West, as firms closed, or moved to chase low wage costs in Asia.

Johannesburg? Unemployment c.30%.

Sydney? Millennials, increasingly forced to find employment in the insecure gig economy - and low mean wages growth - and are locked out of the over priced housing market.

Is New York a "Progressive Left" city? Crime rates have declined in recent years. Same for Los Angeles.

Copenhagen - unemployment currently around 5% but with very high unemployment benefits.

I pointed out Longshot's error, namely his/her simplistic Anarchist "voluntary agreement" delusion, which is supposed to enable an alternative to state-managed rule of law.​

Meanwhile you are persisting with your simplistic "all can make rational choices" as the solution to eradicating poverty (a variation on the individualist theme), completely ignoring the huge macro economic events noted above (assuming you are even interested in the eradication of poverty). Not to mention the complexity of the human condition, as it applies to all individuals.

But feel free to name your cities, if you wish..

 

What does crime rate have to do with it? Nice try, but no banana. This is about WEALTH DIVIDE. Beans, and the gap between those with many, and those with few. Come back to that and we'll keep talking.

And I never said free choice is a "solution to poverty" for anyone but a given individual. Did you change it to suit your inability to refute the truth of my assertion?

 

You said all are free to make rational choices, and hence (I assume that means) all can avoid poverty, if they make the rational choice. That assumption is logical, because no-one who is 100% free would actually choose poverty.

[I suppose you will pull Longshot's trick now and accuse me of drawing the wrong conclusion. But I showed in logic that Longshot's "societal prohibition of violence" amounts to acceptance of rule of law, which he/she has not been able to refute].

Are you still ashamed to name your fantasy Progressive Left cities ie those showing increasing divide between rich and poor? I offered 7 (Left or Right) to get the debate rolling.

And btw, crime is related to poverty:

''You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken. your young men are in prison.....".

I'm beginning to doubt you even know when that was said, and by whom....

 

Cool, so you've given up on your idea of taking other people's property? I can get on board with that.

 

Patently untrue. Many people in the First World do indeed prefer 'poverty', to the effort and self-discipline required to escape it. The evidence is in every 'poor' First Worlder who spends money on luxuries (fast food, meat, alchohol, tobacco, drugs, smartphones, cars, new clothes, hair stylists, nail salons, tattoos, vacations, convenience foods, massive tvs, massive refrigerators, clothes dryers, air conditioners, leaves all their appliances switched on 24/7. etc etc etc etc). More evidence is in every 'poor' First Worlder who refuses to pool resources to strengthen financial position. And in every 'poor' First Worlder who chooses to live in a city they can't afford. Would you like me to go on? Because I can do this all day.

 

Yes it is, well spotted. Both are the product of a particular problem. The impulsive, self-indulgent, poorly disciplined individual.

 

You have either turned into an unthinking robot, as anyone who has followed our posts would agree, or more likely haven't the intelligence to address the contradictions in your "societal prohibition of violence" stance

I have never argued for "stealing others property", I am arguing for the elimination of systemic poverty in a world with sufficient resources to achieve that goal.

I won't repeat that, and since you are proving yourself to be common garden-variety RW ignorant (or worse), I will exit the debate unless you can directly address the contradictions in your "societal prohibition on violence"/Anarchist stance.

 

So state ownership of all land?

 

No you're not. You're arguing for the protection of a non-working elite, at the expense of the worker. You want the unproductive supported by the productive.

If you were actually arguing for First Worlders to sacrifice our immense wealth and laziness for the good of Third Worlders, it'd be easier to take you seriously.

 

All covered before. Your attachment to the simplistic dogma that lack of personal responsibility is the sole cause of poverty, is like that of an ISIS theologian who believe the Koran is the actual word of God- and thereby commits much violence while believing he is God's warrior.

No, they have many causes, with crime more prevalent in poor regions/cities, a reality you which you are incapable of examining in depth.
eg, I see you won't name your "progressive Left" failed cities: I should accuse you of simple fraud in this debate*. ​

I watched Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 11/9" last night. The story of the contamination of the water supply of the town of Flint (Michigan) by a profit-seeking republican governor (Snyder) is astounding.

As astounding as your ignorance and refusal to consider in depth the complex realities facing each one of us.

*and, as with Longshot who is incapable of debate when the contradictions in his stance are revealed for all to see, I will exit the debate with you unless you name those cities.

( I notice he/she is continuing to ask new questions unrelated to what I'm arguing; and I now notice you saying I'm not arguing what I'm arguing for....).

 

Ah, so one person may subjugate their fellow man? Why, exactly?

 

I don't agree with your stance that it's okay for one person to initiate violence against their fellow person.

 

It is the sole cause of poverty IN THE FIRST WORLD. You have to spend your life making bad choices to remain poor in the First World (or be that one in a million struck down by a cascade of 'unfortunate events' you have no control over). Ever single fast food meal, and tattoo, and item of new clothing, and use of a clothes dryer, etc etc is the evidence that people choose their poverty. You choose the action, you choose the consequences.

Exactly. Crime and poverty go together because they're both caused by the same thing.

I don't deny 'complexity', I say it's used as an excuse. There is nothing more 'complex' (and far FAR more challenging than that experienced by Americans) than the personal history of those refugees who came to the West and made good in a single generation - purely via self-discipline and good choices.

 

If the supply cannot be increased and each item is unique, that's a monopoly.

It is. Land is always inherently a monopoly, as Adam Smith observed:

“The rent of land considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price.”

The question then becomes how to administer exclusive possession and use of this inevitable monopoly to safeguard society's interests against greedy, evil parasites.

 

No. Wages are what is left of your production after the landowner and every other greedy, privileged parasite charges you full market value just for permission to work. Then government taxes those wages and gives the proceeds of that extortion to landowners, too.

No, the landowner wins and I lose, because my rights -- and thus my bargaining power vis-a-vis employers -- have been stripped from me by force and given to the landowner as his private property. Why would I have to buy "property" that consists of my rights?

I'm interested in liberty and justice, not sharing and caring.

 

You and every other landowner and privilege owner are the ones doing the stealing, and I will thank you to remember it.

 

Thank you for agreeing that your actual goal was to enrich yourself unjustly at the expense of killing innocent people.

 

And reality is that owning land forcibly abrogates everyone else's rights to liberty without just compensation.

I have proved in several different ways that it is valid and informative, and you have never even attempted to refute those proofs because you know you can't.

]
That was puerile, disingenuous filth the first time you said it, and it will be puerile, disingenuous filth every other time you say it.

I have a right to my rights whether or not anyone else thinks they own them.

Is that what happened when the abolitionists came to take slave owners' property?

 

I know. You want to be the one doing the stealing, and you want it to be legal, and you want the government to stop your victims from defending themselves against you. I get it.