Basic economics for Democrats/Socialists

[Curried Goats]

No. Besides you being a thin skinned pansy we have freedom of speech. Words only harm if you allow them. Also your example shows a tyranny. "Say what I like or suffer physical harm" you think that's ok?

I'm the thin skin pansy?

You're the one who seems unable to debate without getting your feelings hurt. I never said words harm me. I was trying to sus out what exactly you think tyranny is. You said it was suppressing the liberty of free people so should I not be free to punch you if I want?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Government spending was 55% of Trump's unsustainable economy.

/----/ And Dementia Joe doubles down. Hey, wasn't overspending to keep up with the US the reason the USSR collapsed?
Biden Says He Passed Bloated Spending Bill To Take China Seriously
The president sees the solution in spending trillions of debt-fueled taxpayer dollars to keep up with the communist regime.

 

[Curried Goats]

Evidence for gravity was just as strong after Newton and prior to Einstein. Yet gravity is fictitious.

Newton could only explain the effects of gravity as he observed it but could not explain what exactly caused it and admitted so.

The truth is, Newton could describe gravity, but he didn’t know how it worked. “Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws,” he admitted. “But whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.”

Gravitational Theory: Newton, Einstein & The Next Wave | AMNH

It's up to the person making the assertion to provide evidence.

And I have.

If you have evidence that temperature won't go the way of gravity, present it.

You don't know the history of the theory of gravity nor do you seem to understand that "anything is possible" is not a counter argument its just contrarianism.

Also unlike Newton you don't even have a consistent working theory on morality. At least Newtons calculations allowed us to make it to the moon. Not only can you not describe where morality comes from you can't even describe how it works.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Newton could only explain the effects of gravity as he observed it but could not explain what exactly caused it and admitted so.

The truth is, Newton could describe gravity, but he didn’t know how it worked. “Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws,” he admitted. “But whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.”

Gravitational Theory: Newton, Einstein & The Next Wave | AMNH

"material or immaterial?" What the heck does that mean? What "immaterial agent," could be acting constantly according to certain laws?

And I have.

You provided no proof whatsoever.

You don't know the history of the theory of gravity nor do you seem to understand that "anything is possible" is not a counter argument its just contrarianism.

Not liking the taste of your own medicine, eh? Stop saying things like "I have no idea what rights are," and we might have an actual debate.

Also unlike Newton you don't even have a consistent working theory on morality.

I sure do, and I explained it to you. Post # 145. I explained it in twelve paragraphs. It got a rare rating of "brilliant." You answered in two rather childish sentences that did not address anything I said. You actually used the phrase "you can't make me."

Your not liking my explanation doesn't mean that I didn't provide it.

If you want to have a legit debate on the benefits and detriments of private property, the free market, capitalism and socialism, I'll be happy to. But you'll have to step up your intellectual honesty for us to do it. I'm not going to step down and be childish with you.

I think you know what I mean, but just in case, here's an example: I think "capitalism" is just a pejorative term for way the free market works, and not an actual economic system that anyone deliberately implements. But if someone uses the term, I either accept what I know they mean by that, or I explain why I disagree. I don't say "what is this 'capitalism' you speak of? Can I see it and touch it? I don't believe it exists unless you can convince me. Where is the law that says 'we are capitalist?' How can we discuss it if you cannot prove it is real?"

If that is supposed to be some kind of Socratic teaching like your professor used on you, it falls flat with adults.

At least Newtons calculations allowed us to make it to the moon. Not only can you not describe where morality comes from you can't even describe how it works.

I described exactly how it works, you just did not like it.

Private property rights brought us from subsistance farming and feudalism to electric cars, pocket movie theaters, and robotic surgery. I'll take the benefits of the free market over all the wasted money, empty heroics, and pointless death the government's Apollo program brought us. Moon missions were fifty years ago. What has Newton done for us lately? Not that Newton had anything to do with moon missions. Rocket scientists knew about Einstein in the 60's.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It says it right there, their African slaves. But I agree actually. Stole is too much of an emotionally charged word and wrong objectively where the law was concerned. It's more accurate to say they used force to compel the labor of their African slaves and to keep the product of that labor for themselves. Thank you giving me the opportunity to be more accurate with my words and arguments.

You were right the first time. Stole was exactly what the slave owners did. The labor that a person performs in production adds value to the product. If someone uses that product or sells that product for it's increased value without compensating the person for his labor, he has stolens that value from the laborer. That's the part that Marx got right.

The part that Marx got wrong was to say that the worker was under-compensated for his labor because the capitalist kept part of the value added by the labor for himself. In a free economy, the value of the labor is determined through negotiations between buyer and seller, just as the value of the final product is determined through negotationas between buyer and seller.

The capitalist adds value to the product by coordinating the capital, the raw materials, and the labor, including assembly, packagining, sales and delivery. To say that the capitalist stole from the paid worker is Marx' greatest folly.

If the workers figured out a way to keep all the money that the work product was sold for, by a revolution or just taking it from the till, it is they who would have stolen the labor of the capital owner. Not only his labor in coordinating the process, but his labor in obtaining the capital before he could start that process.

 

[Curried Goats]

"material or immaterial?" What the heck does that mean? What "immaterial agent," could be acting constantly according to certain laws?

I'm not Newton so I'm not sure what he meant by immaterial. What I do know is that he never claimed to understand what gravity was or where it came from, he was only able to calculate what its affect would be on an object.

You provided no proof whatsoever.

I proved no proof of what specifically? I provided all sorts of proof for all sorts of things including how useful mercury is for measuring change in temperature. If you find fault with any of it be specific.

Not liking the taste of your own medicine, eh? Stop saying things like "I have no idea what rights are," and we might have an actual debate.

I'm enjoying all of this.

I sure do, and I explained it to you. Post # 145. I explained it in twelve paragraphs. It got a rare rating of "brilliant." You answered in two rather childish sentences that did not address anything I said. You actually used the phrase "you can't make me."

That 12 paragraph diatribe was your proof? Okay. I'll go back and address it point by point if I must in my next post.

Your not liking my explanation doesn't mean that I didn't provide it.

Me critiquing your explanation is not the same thing as me not liking your explanation. When I critique at least I'm specific on where I find fault with your logic and why.

If you want to have a legit debate on the benefits and detriments of private property, the free market, capitalism and socialism, I'll be happy to. But you'll have to step up your intellectual honesty for us to do it. I'm not going to step down and be childish with you.

Then refrain from the ad hominems yourself. I have yet to describe you as childish, all I've done so far is find fault with your logic.

I think you know what I mean, but just in case, here's an example: I think "capitalism" is just a pejorative term for way the free market works, and not an actual economic system that anyone deliberately implements.

I don't believe you're using pejorative correctly there but nevertheless the "free market" is not some natural phenomenon we discovered, it is an implemented system. If you don't think so then point to the capitalists systems that exist outside of government.

You can barter outside of a government system. One nomad can exhange goods with another nomad. However for capitalism to exist there needs to a regulated currency to trade instead of goods because a farmer can't go trading eggs or meat cuts for Healthcare and roof repair and car insurance and because capitalism relies on private ownership of property that too requires regulation. Otherwise how do we settle disputes over ownership or contracts? I'm not sure how you envision capitalism working with out a manufactured infrastructure, rules or currency.

But if someone uses the term, I either accept what I know they mean by that, or I explain why I disagree.

Capitalism has a definitive answer in the same way that your rationalization for natural rights do not. Again, I know where John Locke thought natural rights came from, he thought they came from, God. Now I don't find God to be a rational response to anything so I wouldn't want to assume that is your rationale as well.

I don't say "what is this 'capitalism' you speak of? Can I see it and touch it? I don't believe it exists unless you can convince me. Where is the law that says 'we are capitalist?' How can we discuss it if you cannot prove it is real?"

As you can see above I have no problem discussing capitalism, how it's structured or what is required for it to operate. I do wonder how you imagine it operates with manufacturing though.

If that is supposed to be some kind of Socratic teaching like your professor used on you, it falls flat with adults.

And your continued deflections fall flat with me.

I described exactly how it works, you just did not like it.

I assure you you did not but I'll go through your 12 paragraph explanation and detail exactly where your logic fails.

Private property rights brought us from subsistance farming and feudalism to electric cars, pocket movie theaters, and robotic surgery.

It brought you those things. It brought African slaves misery, seperation from their families, their children and eventually death.

I'll take the benefits of the free market over all the wasted money, empty heroics, and pointless death the government's Apollo program brought us. Moon missions were fifty years ago. What has Newton done for us lately? Not that Newton had anything to do with moon missions. Rocket scientists knew about Einstein in the 60's.

You mean other than Newtons calculations getting us there....

 

[Curried Goats]

Now that you have, I will be happy to explain why "moral rights" (I prefer "ethical rights" but whatev) are indeed an objective and verifiable description of something that clearly exists.

All moral rights stem from the one manifest central moral right which is the right to be left alone, conversely known as the right not to be bothered. If we want to know whether something is a moral right or not, we only need measure it against that right to be left alone, or right not to be bothered.

Okay... but how can I know the right to be left alone really exists?

This right is endowed to us by our creator. Before you spin off in another direction, that "creator" can just as easily be the forces of natural evolution as it could be some diety. Doesn't matter, we can just look at what we have that allows us to protect that right, which the creator (in whatever form) gave us.

Now you're making leaps in logic. You are a natural being with your own unique natural abilities. That I can objectively verify. You have abilities that you can use to help you protect your life. I can see that. The phrase "allows us to protect that right" is an assumption the right exists, not an explanation for how it exists, where it came from or how I can go about independently verifying this for myself.

Every animal has some form of built-in (evolved in, if you will) way of avoiding being bothered. Fast legs, sharp horns, thick armor, strong jaws, or something. Few animals will just lie down when approached by a predator.

I'd reword that and say every animal is born with abilities to help them survive. Those who aren't die. That's an observation. Proving that these abilities exist to protect a right to not be bothered is something you've yet to do.

Very few, and the ones who do, appear to have evolved it (or been designed with it) as a defensive mechanism against predators who avoid eating carion.

A natural right is "a right to do things," but rather the right not to be bothered when we do.

Where does the right come from? How do I know that it is real? I can know you have the ability to do something if I can see you do it. How do I know you have the right to do things or a right not to be bothered when you do?

Thus, the natural "right to free speech" is really the right to not be hindered when we do speak. The right to bear arms is the right not to be infringed on when we do bear arms.

Those are just a list of rights. I still don't see any explanation of where they come from or how they operate or how to independently verify they exist objectively.

Libertarians often speak of "negative rights" and "positive rights." The negative rights are some form of the right to be left alone, and positive rights are some form of "if I need it, you have to give it to me." The second clearly violate the right to be left alone, so it is just as clearly not a description of moral rights.

What right to be left alone? You have yet to prove it exists. Your argument can't rest on a premise you have yet to prove is real.

"Positive rights" means such ideas as "a hungry person has a right to eat, even if means that another person must work for that person's sustenance," or "a sick person has a right to medical care, even if it means that another person must work to pay the doctors." No such thing. No basis in the central moral right to be left alone for that.

Again, you have yet to prove such a thing even exists. This is why I didn't go paragraph by paragraph the first time. You got ahead of yourself and started arguing on the basis of something we have yet to agree on.

I have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't give me the right to require someone to buy me a gun. "A right to water" exists, of course. The Earth is covered about seventy percent with water and it very regularly falls out of the sky. Literally. Drink up, no one has a moral right to stop you. But a right to clean, potable water pumped directly to my house and available in very hot, very cold or anything in between? I have a right to create that for myself, but not for others to provide it for me.

See I don't know how to test if you have a moral right to do anything. I know how to test if you have the ability to do something but that isn't the same thing is it. You think I'm being facetious but I honestly don't know what morality means to you or where you think it comes from. Like I said I know Locke thought they came from God. He believed some things where right and some things were wrong according to God. That isn't a rational explanation. It's an explanation for why he believe what he did but it is not a rational explanation of events that we can witness and verify.

What does me not having the moral right to stop you drinking water mean? I can have the ability to stop you from drinking water can't I? If I can stop you from drinking water and there is no law or government to hold me accountable what does it mean that you believe my actions to be wrong? Isn't that the very definition of subjective? Your belief that I'm wrong is countered by my subjective belief that I'm right. Who's the objective arbiter? With temperature it was nature. You or I could be hot or cold but there is definitive level of kinetic energy in any given volume of air molecules and the level of that is what we call temperature. Who's the arbiter opposing morals?

"Legal rights," such as the right to have someone be our slave, or the right to kill other people, do not exist in the form you claim, that is rights which come into existence by law, and can be taken out of existence by law.

At least I can explain where they come from (legislation) and who's the arbiter (the judicial system). You can't provide any for moral rights.

Something that subject to sudden non-existance cannot be said to have existed in the first place as something so fundamental as a right.

Government cannot grant rights. It can protect rights, it can fail to protect rights, and it can interfere with rights. Rights cannot be created or destroyed by government. The Nazis had no right to kill the Jews, because the Jews had a right to not be killed.

They do in fact create legal rights. Try suing anyone for a violation of your rights without government.

What you call "legal rights" are actually protection of existing rights, or granting of powers that have nothing to do with rights.

So the legal right for the Founders to own slaves was simply a protection of their existing rights?

That is how powers come into existance. You may wish that government powers were the same as rights, but your wishing does not make it true. I'm not going to say, "ok, let's use a completely different definition of 'rights' and debate from there."

I have not argued in wishes, hopes or dreams. Only logic.

"Would have" but it would not be solely a matter or prudence. It was not particularly prudent of our founders to sign the Declaration of Independence, which was a literal death warrant for some and could have been for all the signers. They signed it in order to preserve their right to be left alone. People die for that right, they don't die so that they can have more money by not paying taxes.

Let's not imagine noble thoughts from slavers, that's just silly. They wanted to be left alone to profit off of slavery without having to pay taxes to a King half a world away who wouldn't give them a seat at the table.

Well now I have proven it.

Have you? Did I lose the proof in there somewhere?

There are no legal rights, there are only moral rights which can either be protected, or not protected, by law.

This is a statement, not an argument and not proof.

So did they give themselves the "right" to own slaves or not? You seem to be more afraid of that question than of Nazis.

Where have I been afraid? Yes they gave themselves the legal right to own slaves. Any child who's taken an elementary school history class should have learned that one.

Resistance to force and violence, I assume you mean?

No I spoke correctly. Resistance to violence against the British and acts of force and violence against their slaves. They really do a number on American children to get them to so easily gloss over and forget that part even if they were just talking about it a paragraph ago.... That's some real indoctrination right there.

The ones that do not interfere with the right to be left alone.

Which you have yet to prove exists.

Point away, then! I order you to!

Done.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm enjoying all of this.

I know. You're trolling and it's fun for you.

That 12 paragraph diatribe was your proof? Okay. I'll go back and address it point by point if I must in my next post.

Me critiquing your explanation is not the same thing as me not liking your explanation. When I critique at least I'm specific on where I find fault with your logic and why.

You were not specific in answering my 12 paragraph diatribe. You don't "must," address my points. You will address them if you want a legit debate.

Then refrain from the ad hominems yourself. I have yet to describe you as childish, all I've done so far is find fault with your logic.

When you're being childish instead of presenting rational arguments, I will point that out. Let's see if you can.

I don't believe you're using pejorative correctly there but nevertheless the "free market" is not some natural phenomenon we discovered, it is an implemented system.

Who implemented the free market?

If you don't think so then point to the capitalists systems that exist outside of government.

It depends on what you mean by "outside of government." If you mean "in a place in which no government exists," then of course I can provide no examples. Government exists everywhere people exist, as far as I know. By that logic, everything that ever happens anywhere is then "implemented" by government. That's the kind of fake logic I was talking about.

The free market exists in areas where the government exercises less control. Before you make another non-argument, I don't mean "totally and absolutely free market where anyone can do anything that they want at all times, and government never notices." I mean an economy in which the government doesn't try to manage producers and production, and therefore market forces - which are a function of psychology - determine what is produced and how.

You can barter outside of a government system. One nomad can exhange goods with another nomad. However for capitalism to exist there needs to a regulated currency to trade instead of goods because a farmer can't go trading eggs or meat cuts for Healthcare and roof repair and car insurance and because capitalism relies on private ownership of property that too requires regulation.

Regulated currency is helpful to people operating within a free market, but it is not a requirement. Regulated currency and government coins are not the only kind of money. People have traded in many different kinds of money, including copper, silver, gold, arrowheads, whiskey, horses and cows. Those can be usesd for money because they are each widely agreed on as valuable, and they are portable due to their small size in relation to their value, or their ability to walk.

georgephillip made an interesting case that the first money may have actually been IOU's. I don't know that IOU's were the first money, but they were the basis of banknotes printed by private banks in exchange for their depositors raw gold or government minted coins. Those banknotes were used for free trade, without the need for government to wave any magic wand to make them be money.

You are talking about fiat money, which helps government to be powerful, not the market to be free. By implementing fiat money instead of money backed by precious metals, governments gain power over the economy. Often enough power to do severe damage to the economy as was done to ancient rome by debasing the coins, and in the Weimar Republic by printing money to pay miners.

Capitalists trade in government money because the government requires them to accept it. It would be foolish to contract for payment in gold when government can force you to accept paper dollars instead, so capitalists use fiat money. For proponents of government control to give government credit for the implementation of capitalism based on capitalists being forced to use government money is not logical.

As to this:

a farmer can't go trading eggs or meat cuts for Healthcare

Teachers and doctors in Uzbekistan are paid with chickens

News and analytical articles about Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

akipress.com

You might also be interested in story of The Chicken Ranch in LaGrange, Texas.

Otherwise how do we settle disputes over ownership or contracts? I'm not sure how you envision capitalism working with out a manufactured infrastructure, rules or currency.

Capitalism thrives when government prevents people from simply stealing the products that the capitalists produce. If I were arguing for anarchy, rather than a free market, you would have a point.

Capitalism has a definitive answer in the same way that your rationalization for natural rights do not. Again, I know where John Locke thought natural rights came from, he thought they came from, God. Now I don't find God to be a rational response to anything so I wouldn't want to assume that is your rationale as well.

I explained my rationale in the twelve paragraphs that you will soon be picking apart. Spoiler: My rationale had nothing to do with any gods, karma, or unicorns.

As you can see above I have no problem discussing capitalism, how it's structured or what is required for it to operate. I do wonder how you imagine it operates with manufacturing though.

I'm not sure that is really the question that you mean to ask, unless you're trying to be Socrates again, so I'm going to give a short answer.

"Capitalism" (which I find an inaccurate term) is the hiring of labor by the owner of "capital" which is a means of production such as a factory, a farm, or a fishing boat, and the profiting from that labor. Marx said that "capital is a social relationship" in other words, not just the ownership of means of production as private property, but the employer-laborer relationship. Thus, a cobbler who owns his own bench and tools, but works alone to make and sell shoes is not a capitalist.

If he hires an apprentice and teaches his craft and provides room, board and maybe a stipend in exchange for the apprentice's work in the shop, he is taking a step toward capitalism. If he hires several workers for pay with the trade learning not as the key compensation, and works them in shifts on his one-person bench or owns multiple benches and tools, he is then operating as a capitalist.

He and his workers manufacture, package, market, transport and collect payment for his goods. He keeps part of the revenue from sales for himself, whether he works side-by-side with his men and stays up nights keeping the books, or hires a management team and lives a life of leisure supported by the difference between what it costs to produce the goods and what they are sold for.

As I said, I think you know that, so what is the next question?

And your continued deflections fall flat with me.

I assure you you did not but I'll go through your 12 paragraph explanation and detail exactly where your logic fails.

Please do. Better late than never.

It brought you those things. It brought African slaves misery, seperation from their families, their children and eventually death.

The free market did not bring slavery to Africa. Kidnapping, beatings, imprisonment for no crime and forced labor are no part of the free market. Slavery can only exist when government supports it, or in areas in which their is no government. When government protects manifest natural rights, instead of claiming that it is the creator of rights, slavery does not exist.

You never answered: Did the slave traffickers have a right to traffic slaves, so were therefore right to do it? Yes or no, then explain all you like.

You mean other than Newtons calculations getting us there....

NASA incoporated General Relativity in its calculation for rocket trajectories well before the Apollo Program.

What exactly are the benefits we have now from that expensive government boondoggle? Other than beating them Ruskies to it?

 

[Ringo]

The main road of capitalism of the 21st century is getting rid of all "unnecessary expenses", minimizing any obligations to society. Therefore, with capitalism will inevitably come:
- creation of rigid caste societies at a new technical level
-depopulation (euthanasia, dominance of the "rainbow")

"In 2021, 3% of all deaths in Canada (10 thousand cases) occurred using euthanasia"

 

[Seymour Flops]

Okay... but how can I know the right to be left alone really exists?

I didn't say that you could "know" it. On a philosophical level, nothing is "knowable," and on a rhetorical level, nothing is knowable to a person who thinks that "I don't know," wins arguments.

I argued that the right to be left alone exists, I didn't seek to "prove" it. Make a counter argument if you can. Asking how you can "know" that I'm right is . . . not mature.

Again, your argument relies on defining "rights" only as the legal protection that government provides for certain activities. That is not the standard definition, it is your own or maybe someone told it to you. I'm going to endulge you on this one. I know you know, but here it is:

If you want to invent your own language, you are welcome to do so, but you can't expect everyone else to learn it and speak it in order to have a conversation with you. Sorry, I only debate in English.

Now you're making leaps in logic. You are a natural being with your own unique natural abilities. That I can objectively verify. You have abilities that you can use to help you protect your life. I can see that. The phrase "allows us to protect that right" is an assumption the right exists, not an explanation for how it exists, where it came from or how I can go about independently verifying this for myself.

I'd reword that and say every animal is born with abilities to help them survive. Those who aren't die. That's an observation. Proving that these abilities exist to protect a right to not be bothered is something you've yet to do.

Where does the right come from? How do I know that it is real? I can know you have the ability to do something if I can see you do it. How do I know you have the right to do things or a right not to be bothered when you do?

Those are just a list of rights. I still don't see any explanation of where they come from or how they operate or how to independently verify they exist objectively.

What right to be left alone? You have yet to prove it exists. Your argument can't rest on a premise you have yet to prove is real.

Again, you have yet to prove such a thing even exists. This is why I didn't go paragraph by paragraph the first time. You got ahead of yourself and started arguing on the basis of something we have yet to agree on.

See I don't know how to test if you have a moral right to do anything. I know how to test if you have the ability to do something but that isn't the same thing is it. You think I'm being facetious but I honestly don't know what morality means to you or where you think it comes from. Like I said I know Locke thought they came from God. He believed some things where right and some things were wrong according to God. That isn't a rational explanation. It's an explanation for why he believe what he did but it is not a rational explanation of events that we can witness and verify.

What does me not having the moral right to stop you drinking water mean? I can have the ability to stop you from drinking water can't I? If I can stop you from drinking water and there is no law or government to hold me accountable what does it mean that you believe my actions to be wrong? Isn't that the very definition of subjective? Your belief that I'm wrong is countered by my subjective belief that I'm right. Who's the objective arbiter? With temperature it was nature. You or I could be hot or cold but there is definitive level of kinetic energy in any given volume of air molecules and the level of that is what we call temperature. Who's the arbiter opposing morals?

At least I can explain where they come from (legislation) and who's the arbiter (the judicial system). You can't provide any for moral rights.

They do in fact create legal rights. Try suing anyone for a violation of your rights without government.

So the legal right for the Founders to own slaves was simply a protection of their existing rights?

I have not argued in wishes, hopes or dreams. Only logic.

Let's not imagine noble thoughts from slavers, that's just silly. They wanted to be left alone to profit off of slavery without having to pay taxes to a King half a world away who wouldn't give them a seat at the table.

Have you? Did I lose the proof in there somewhere?

This is a statement, not an argument and not proof.

More of your "proof" mantra. No, I can't "prove" that moral and ethical rights exist, because philosophically nothing can be "proven." You certainly cannot "prove" something to someone willing to say "that's not proof!" over and over instead of having a real debate.

Where have I been afraid? Yes they gave themselves the legal right to own slaves. Any child who's taken an elementary school history class should have learned that one.

Dodging the question again. I asked whether they gave themselves the "right" to own slaves. I did not ask if they gave themselves teh "legal right" to own slaves. Look:

Still running, I see. It's just yes, or no.

No, I said "or granting of powers that had nothing to do with rights." The "legal right," as you call it, for the founders to own slaves was an example of granting of powers that have nothing to do with any right of any kind.

Owning slaves is not a right, and the constitution did not claim it was. It uses the word "right" several times, but not in the part about the slave trade.

So where is your proof that the Constitution granted the "right" to continue the slave trade?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The main road of capitalism of the 21st century is getting rid of all "unnecessary expenses", minimizing any obligations to society. Therefore, with capitalism will inevitably come:
- creation of rigid caste societies at a new technical level
-depopulation (euthanasia, dominance of the "rainbow")

"In 2021, 3% of all deaths in Canada (10 thousand cases) occurred using euthanasia"

Why would capitalists be interested in euthenasia? A capitalist only want a person who is unable or unwilling to work to leave them alone.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

I'm the thin skin pansy?

You're the one who seems unable to debate without getting your feelings hurt. I never said words harm me. I was trying to sus out what exactly you think tyranny is. You said it was suppressing the liberty of free people so should I not be free to punch you if I want?

Says the guy ready to punch anyone who disagrees with him. Nothing to "sus" out

Violence or the threat of violence to conform people to your way of thinking is tyranny. How do you not understand that?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Says the guy ready to punch anyone who disagrees with him. Nothing to "sus" out

Violence or the threat of violence to conform people to your way of thinking is tyranny. How do you not understand that?

This is how Progressives "protect rights:"



If anyone is triggered by it being a Foxnews story, tell your preferred media to cover stories in which Feminists are attacked violently for protesting peacefully.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

This is how Democrats "protect rights:"



If anyone is triggered by it being a Foxnews story, tell your preferred media to cover stories in which Feminists are attacked violently for protesting peacefully.

Tyranny is all these people know. It all starts with their "victimhood" status and grows from there. They want everyone as miserable as they are

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government spending was 55% of Trump's unsustainable economy.

Liar.

 

[Curried Goats]

Says the guy ready to punch anyone who disagrees with him. Nothing to "sus" out

Violence or the threat of violence to conform people to your way of thinking is tyranny. How do you not understand that?

Wouldn't that make all laws tyranny?

 

[Seymour Flops]

How Capitalism (Actually just the free market) led to Democracy

Somewhere along the way, as part of the transition to the free market that led to the industrial revolution, some form of democracy or republicanism took hold. It was nearly always a top-down evolution, rather than a grass-roots revolution. It was never a benevolent grant of a new right bestowed by unelected rulers.

Kings came to depend on their vassals' willingness to fund their government's efforts, particularly in conquering and defense. Those became more and more expensive as armies combined with navies to make invasion a constant opportunity and constant threat. The vassals demanded more and more power in exchange for their wealth, and that power was often formalized in parliaments and other representative bodies ostensibly approved by the rulers, but staffed at the pleasure of the nobles.

Government, meaning the ministers who served the rulers, enlarged their numbers and became more bureaucratic. That required even more money, and the nobels had little interest in paying for that. Inbred as they were, they could see no benefit in a bunch of overpaid bookkeepers, license issuers, sewer inspectors, and municipal code enforcers. So the bureaucrats (in the name of the rulers) had to go to the growing source of wealth, the producers of goods. The producers also demanded a say in return for their money and soon were included in representative bodies as well.

At some point, someone noticed that ordinary workers did not get to vote, and how unfair that was. Those first noticers of that injustice were invariably politicians who believed they could get the workers' votes. Once the vote became universal, it was inevitible that Ben Franklyn's warning that a Republic would only last as until the voters realized they could vote themselves money from the treasure would be realized.

So Democracy Led to Socialism

The key lesson of the history of the industrial revolution is that the more the government allows participants in the free market to operate unrestrained, the more wealth will be produced and that such wealth cannot be hoarded by even the most powerful operators.


The wealthy will always get more wealthy, unless by incompetence or very bad luck, they lose their wealth. But the part of the free market in which they got wealthy is now open to another person to become wealthy, or often wealthier.

The workers will also gain. They have to. If workers do not have money to spend, the producers would have no one to sell their products to. Mass production is not profitable without a mass market.

Even if they hold wages to a certain level, say one dollar an hour, increased production means more goods available and soon enough eight or ten dollars per day will buy much more than it used to. The products available will be much more conducive to a higher quality of life. Either the same pay will buy more and better products, or the products will cost the same per unit, but the workers will be paid more and thus be able to buy more of the products.

Either way, the owner/operators of the factory get richer and richer, with the workers also growing richer, albeit at a much slower pace than the owners.

This is good for almost everyone.

One type of person that it is not good for are those who prefer envy to effort, people who don't care that they can now own much more by working, they are entirely focused on the fact that others have more than they.

Working in a factory to afford a heated apartment, three meals a day, clean serviceable clothes, and affordable entertainment such as saloons, beaches, and popular theater will not appeal to them so long as the factory owner has a large house, fine clothes, steak and egg breakfast, grand balls and cruises to Europe. It is the trait of wanting to have what others have that led people to copy the early builders of dwellings taken to an extreme.

Another type of person who will resent this arrangement are people who get no pleasure from productive work, but rather seek to dominate and control others. They often work in government, where they can exercise this desire.

In a government such as a monarchy, they can find work as tax collectors and other enforcers of the ruler's will. They won't make much more money than the peasants, if any, but they will enjoy their work far more than they would any extra wealth from the increased production of the free market.

In a democracy, the second type of person (let's call him the wannabe tyrant) can find much more fulfillment of his desire to dominate and control. He can find it by appealing to the first type of person who resents anything that another person has that he does not. By convincing them to vote for him, he can acheive domination and control of not only the wealthy employer, but of the resentful workers that elected him. In fact it is the worker who will be most dominated, because the wealth producers will outsmart Wannabe at every turn.

Such workers never seem to notice that they are no better off unter the wannabe tyrant than before. The next election, they will still be held in thrall by the ranting of the WT, especially the part where he blames the evil wealthy for both the plight of the workers and for his failure to help them.

In this post, I use a definition of "socialism" that is unique to me. "Socialism" in this context is when the goverment uses its power supposedly for the benefit of the people, but most often to buy votes from the people through taxing the few to provide benefits to the many. Some call it "Democratic Socialism" to distinguish it from socialism brought about by revolutions. I also call it "statism."

If you don't want to use my definition, I won't complain. Call government's use of its power in that way, whatever you want, and I will understand what you mean.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Wouldn't that make all laws tyranny?

We need laws to keep degenerates like you from punching people you don't agree with. Those same laws keep shitbags like you from being hung from a tree.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Curried Goats]

We need laws to keep degenerates like you from punching people you don't agree with. Those same laws keep shitbags like you from being hung from a tree.

So laws restricting some freedoms, like the freedom to punch people are good?