The Libertarian Nook

[RedDenver]

7 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

They celebrate the meritocracy of the free market and the CEOs could be heroes in their own Ayn Rand novel, but they also play every advantage the government gives them and the nature of corporations tends to discourage individualism. 

I always think of this whenever anyone mentions Ayn Rand:

[Archy1221]

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-case-capitalism

Edited June 22, 2023 by Enhance
Unnecessary language

[RedDenver]

On 6/20/2023 at 7:24 PM, Archy1221 said:

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-case-capitalism

The first 3 words of the first key point at the beginning of the article shows what BS it is:

Quote

Capitalism benefits all

 

Edit to add:

Holy crap, the title of the last section - I mean, who buys this s#!t?

Quote

Capitalism is About Human Flourishing, Not Greed

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Enhance
Edited to remove confrontational language.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Edit to add:

Holy crap, the title of the last section - I mean, how dumb do you have to be to buy this s#!t?

Ya, maybe you are right.  Maybe it’s socialism or possibly communism that has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world….

 

 

Well, nope, never mind.   You are just horrifically wrong about capitalism.  

 

 

btw….who does capitalism not benefit?  Do you even have a clue on how many first generation millionaires there are in the US?  How many first generation to the US millionaires there are?   Lordy.  This is kinda too easy.  

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Ya, maybe you are right.  Maybe it’s socialism or possibly communism that has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world….

 

 

Well, nope, never mind.   You are just horrifically wrong about capitalism.  

 

 

btw….who does capitalism not benefit?  Do you even have a clue on how many first generation millionaires there are in the US?  How many first generation to the US millionaires there are?   Lordy.  This is kinda too easy.  

Yeah, capitalism is totally about humans flourishing and not greed. I've read some stupid takes about capitalism, but that might be the stupidest.

 

I doubt you even see the irony of pointing out how many millionaires capitalism has created while saying it's not about greed. 

[Lorewarn]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

btw….who does capitalism not benefit? 

 

 

Well, all of the folks that provided and continue to provide the free or distinctly non-livable capital to fuel it, for starters.

 

Capitalism is certainly good at defining the terms in order to win the argument. If your system pathologizes an idea such as 'poverty' that wasn't treated as such in the world before it, then yeah, capitalism lifts immense amounts of people out of poverty in a way akin to me saving your life from the conditions I caused for it to be endangered.

[Lorewarn]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Maybe it’s socialism or possibly communism that has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world….

 

 

Sorry forgot to respond to this part.

 

Your 'maybe' is actually right, at least to a quite notable extent, as socialist/communist China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty on its own in the last 40 years, accounting for about 70% of the world totals over that time frame.

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Well, all of the folks that provided and continue to provide the free or distinctly non-livable capital to fuel it, for starters.

 

Capitalism provides those people (though who works for free??) the best possible way out of a poverty situation into a middle class or above lifestyle.  No other economic system I is even close to providing the same opportunity.  
 

6 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Your 'maybe' is actually right, at least to a quite notable extent, as socialist/communist China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty on its own in the last 40 years, accounting for about 70% of the world totals over that time frame.

Any guess on what happened in 1978?   Any guess on why those 800 million people suddenly are starting to flourish since that point after so many years of a straight socialist system??   Free market principals have been mixing into their system.   It’s no coincidence and thanks for helping prove my point even further

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Yeah, capitalism is totally about humans flourishing and not greed. I've read some stupid takes about capitalism, but that might be the stupidest.

 

I doubt you even see the irony of pointing out how many millionaires capitalism has created while saying it's not about greed. 

[Lorewarn]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Capitalism provides those people (though who works for free??) the best possible way out of a poverty situation into a middle class or above lifestyle.

 

By free labor I meant that people have no other commodity to sell than their labor (free to work or free to starve), but in terms of actual no-cost free and untenable labor, we can start with slaves, people incarcerated in the prison system, low-wage earners or specialty contractors who are trapped in non-compete clauses, and the tens of millions working 80-90 hour weeks making our jeans and phones and bags for <$5/day.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Any guess on what happened in 1978?   Any guess on why those 800 million people suddenly are starting to flourish since that point after so many years of a straight socialist system??   Free market principals have been mixing into their system.   It’s no coincidence and thanks for helping prove my point even further

 

Your claim is the talking point that capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world.

 

Your claim was not that a healthy mixture of elements and ideas from all sorts of different economic frameworks are the most conducive to human flourishing. You said capitalism only. Free market principles mixing into a communist system isn't capitalism.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Enhance
Edited to remove confrontational language.

[Archy1221]

46 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

but in terms of actual no-cost free and untenable labor, we can start with slaves, people incarcerated in the prison system, low-wage earners or specialty contractors who are trapped in non-compete clauses, and the tens of millions working 80-90 hour weeks making our jeans and phones and bags for <$5/day.

Do slaves still exist if free market first world societies?  
 

prisoners who work so get paid and tough shut for them on how much.  Don’t break the law and go to prison.  And if that’s the segment you have to go to in order to argue against capitalism, you’ve already lost the argument.   btW…..They also get free room and board

 

What low-wage earners are trapped in non compete clauses that compromise their ability to further their income?   Can a McDonalds worker not move to Wendy’s for a shift manager job?   Or start a housecleaning company, or a lawn mowing service, or a carpentry business?  
 

Your last sentence is bogus when it comes to modern capitalism.   How many of those people strive to immigrate to the US because of their current working conditions?   
 

50 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

Free market principles mixing into a communist system isn't capitalism.

The free market principals are what changed the dynamic of China into an economic super power.   The more they embrace it, the stronger the country it will be.  
 

It wasn’t the Maoism economic standard that changed their economic status, that’s for sure.   

[BigRedBuster]

Capitalism, industry and innovation is a huge part of what has built America.

 

However, to ignore the fact that there has always been a fairly healthy mixture of capitalism and socialism here in the US where the capitalism benefited from the socialism, (and vice versa)  is either being naive or nothing more than promoting an agenda.

 

Finding the right mixture of the two and debating where each should have more or less influence is what the conversation should be about.  Not that one is evil and the other is utopian.  

 

I really don't want a society that is strictly dominated by either one.

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Capitalism, industry and innovation is a huge part of what has built America.

 

However, to ignore the fact that there has always been a fairly healthy mixture of capitalism and socialism here in the US where the capitalism benefited from the socialism, (and vice versa)  is either being naive or nothing more than promoting an agenda.

 

Finding the right mixture of the two and debating where each should have more or less influence is what the conversation should be about.  Not that one is evil and the other is utopian.  

 

I really don't want a society that is strictly dominated by either one.

 

Thanks. This saved me some time.

 

Does anyone really want to refute BRBs perfectly sensible take?

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Any guess on what happened in 1978?   Any guess on why those 800 million people suddenly are starting to flourish since that point after so many years of a straight socialist system??   Free market principals have been mixing into their system.   It’s no coincidence and thanks for helping prove my point even further

 

Yep. When China started leaning West and opening its markets, it became an economic superpower. Don't think you'll find many people arguing that Mao brand Marxism is the better way to go, but pretending that's the alternative is how Capitalists can ignore the excesses of pure Capitalism. It also requires giving a lot of credit to the very large and powerful Chinese government for orchestrating and controlling its capitalists, and suddenly you're into Big Government. 

 

Likewise, a United States system, not unlike our European and First World allies, features robust support of free market capitalism, while at the same regulating its more insatiable qualities and using big government to ensure some stability, justice, safety, and community good in the public sphere. The notion that if we just left Capitalists alone they would lift all ships at sea always sounds pretty but it's bulls#!t, with zero historical precedent. 

 

Is this article suggesting Capitalists are getting a bad rap?

 

Boo-f#&%ing-hoo. There's a reason they call them One Percenters. 

 

 

 

[Lorewarn]

27 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Thanks. This saved me some time.

 

Does anyone really want to refute BRBs perfectly sensible take?

 

No. It's a unanimous conclusion of anyone who appreciates and enjoys critical thinking and conversation and openness.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Yep. When China started leaning West and opening its markets, it became an economic superpower. Don't think you'll find many people arguing that Mao brand Marxism is the better way to go, but pretending that's the alternative is how Capitalists can ignore the excesses of pure Capitalism. It also requires giving a lot of credit to the very large and powerful Chinese government for orchestrating and controlling its capitalists, and suddenly you're into Big Government. 

 

Likewise, a United States system, not unlike our European and First World allies, features robust support of free market capitalism, while at the same regulating its more insatiable qualities and using big government to ensure some stability, justice, safety, and community good in the public sphere. The notion that if we just left Capitalists alone they would lift all ships at sea always sounds pretty but it's bulls#!t, with zero historical precedent. 

 

Is this article suggesting Capitalists are getting a bad rap?

 

Boo-f#&%ing-hoo. There's a reason they call them One Percenters. 

 

It seems like it really should be a common sense level comprehension that any pure economic system will and does result in dramatic excesses of harm, and none of them stand out to a notable level as being inherently better or worse at their capacities for inflicting that harm. 

 

But I guess if the argument is that free market principles mixing into China's communism leading to economic growth and improved quality of life = capitalism is good, then archy is also admitting that protective socialist principles mixing into 1930's free market Amerca leading to economic growth and improved quality of life = socialism is good.