How does capitalism have a happy ending?

The metric that everyone becomes less wealthy in a socialist society until the people throw of the yokes of socialist tyranny. Are you incapable of understanding that human behavior precludes a status in which those who are able give their contributions and have reason to expect a proper return on their contribution? And that they get tired of carrying malingerers who don't contribute but continue to need?

So do all governments start with a social contract to create that government.

 

thank you for realizing the point i have been making all along; that government is a form of socialism based on a social contract, without which, they would not exist.

 

No! All governments have social contracts, yet most governments have nothing to do with socialism. A social contract does not imply, infer or suggest socialism. It is only a contract.

 

government is socialism in action; it starts with a social contract and extends to income transfers and a legal monopoly on the coercive use of force of a State not a capital based Firm.

 

Wow. I can't stop chuckling.

Interesting all the defensive but misdirected conservative responses, and even funnier all the socialist responses. You are talking about a general flaw with progress more than a flaw with capitalism. The biggest flaw with capitalism is scarcity, or limits so to speak. Most staunch capitalist will say the idea of limited resources is a myth, I tend to think the opposite is true. There can only be so many rulers of the universe eh?

There may be some solutions to the problem you define but to get to them people have to accept that there is a problem.

 

Wrong!

 

- - - Updated - - -



Our supreme law of the land is a social Contract, and, it is even in writing.[/QUOTE]

Ah, you mean your "supreme law of the land" in central North America, Kemosabe. Imagine there are no countries.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=BD4F9FAC1E9B3F283902BD4F9FAC1E9B3F283902

 

appealing to ignorance doesn't mean much, simply because even only the most superior liar can win by appealing to ignorance.

government is socialism in action; it starts with a social contract and extends to income transfers and a legal monopoly on the coercive use of force of a State not a capital based Firm.

No, Toronto, I mean our supreme laws of the land are that form of socialism and not capitalism.

 

Most of the terms who use the word "social" are not socialist , there is nothing socialist in the social contract ... just think that because of this you can have property claims .

 

a social contract is a form of social-ism, not capital-ism.

 

I agree with that comment Daniel. Why do you appeal so much to ignorance?

No matter how many times you claim government is socialism in action the facts don't change. Government is not socialism in the US. Government can be socialist but in every instance it has failed miserably.

Social contracts do not mean they are dealing with socialism and every reference to which I have linked you clearly shows socialism is not specified simply because there is a social contract.

 

Only in the cognitive dissonance of your special pleading; socialism creates Government through a social Contract.

 

You still miss the meaning of cognitive dissonance. It means one has two or more distinctly different opinions about the same issue, all in conflict with one another. I have always expressed one opinion about Socialism; it is a dismal failure.

Since you have presented no real argument or support for your assertions about socialism you are by definition 'special pleading.' Whereas my arguments have been cogent and supported by outside references. Maybe you should try to produce a little support for your position.

 

Socialism creates Government via a Social Contract. It really is that simple. The rest merely depends on sufficient social morals for free.

 

That would make Facebook, i.e. the social network, also socialist.

The term social contract is merely a convention used to describe certain observed universal human behaviours in interaction. If it is a form of socialism then humans are natural socialists.

Anyway, just because something has the word social in it does not automatically make it socialist despite your assertions. The social contract is such an inherent part of human behaviour that most people are unaware of it but it is something all individuals enter into when engaging in interpersonal interaction. At its most basic level a social contract is a recognition among people that there is a tacit agreement that every person you see is not out to kill you and take your stuff but will generally behave themselves so everyone can go about their lives without undue trouble.

While government tries to make sure that people are not robbed and killed and that everyone behaves themselves, since governments can be less than trustworthy in this regard it is the social contract that governs personal behaviour far more than any law or government. Capitalism is highly dependent on the social contract because it is the social contract that reduces mistrust and fear to levels that allow capitalists to interact with each other and do their cheating and lying and stealing without being hunted down and killed by every disgruntled investor.

It is entirely probable that capitalism is far more dependent on the social contract than socialism because capitalism tosses losers onto the trash heap. There is no government in the world capable of stopping a aggrieved populace from exerting its will when social constraints are lifted, i.e. the people decide that the social contract is not being upheld. It happened to the USSR and more recently in the Arab spring. In the US a hundred years ago there was a widespread rebellion against capitalism. It took government interference in the markets to bring capitalism into line with the social contract, with what people expect to be able to go about their lives in a peaceful and productive manner.

 

Good post. You are correct. A social contract does not imply, infer or suggest socialism; it is merely a compact or rights and authorities and is far more common in capitalist countries than socialist countries, the reason being socialist countries are a dismal failure and are few and far between.

 

I agree to disagree. Capitalism depends on capital contracts not social contracts.

 

Here is the difference, for your ease and convenience: A capital contract must contain the following elements to not be confused with any form of Socialism;

 

We have different "social" contracts depending on what community we are in. The most "socialist" is that with our immediate (and sometime extended) family. We have a more casual "social contract" with our neighborhood, less social with our metropolitan area, even less with our state, and even less with world as a whole. Adam Smith noted this in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" when he asked who would cut off their little finger to save several hundred in China from dying in an earthquake - silly example, but his point is valid, we just don't (indeed can't) care for everyone in the world in the same way we care about our family.

Even beyond that, the cost of doing business with those you "trust" is low, and the likelihood an injustice is righted is good. Where corruption flourishes, capitalism doesn't.

Where corruption flourishes, government is either complicit, or the source. The more powerful the government, the more likely it will become corrupt (the RoI is too high to ignore).

Did the USSR and the Arabs get what they expected, or just trade one corruption for another?

Are you are talking about the roaring 20's followed by the Great Depression? Government threw a bunch of stuff against the wall to see what stuck.

But, it was also government policies that exacerbated the Great Depression. Our unit banking regulations (bought and paid for my small, local banks) caused many bank failures (the Fed also let this happen), while Canada with 4 nation banks suffered no such failures. Our increasing tariff rates was answered by almost everyone of our trading partners increasing their tariffs, global trade crashed, with the US being a major loser.

 

I guess someone must resort to fallacy simply by not distinguishing between the socialism of a social contract and the capitalism of a capital contract.

 

An interesting quote I read in a magazine today while in a Dr's office, "you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence." I don't know who said that, but I think it very appropriate to this thread.