Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Most supporters of Occupy Wall Street have an inadequate understanding of Capitalism

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 6:57 p.m. EST by RossWolfe (34)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Most supporters of Occupy Wall Street have an inadequate understanding of Capitalism. I'm not saying that they don't have legitimate social grievances, or that their outrage is unfounded. The problem is that capitalism can't be "fixed" simply by raising taxes on the rich or more government oversight. Capitalism is a GLOBAL problem, and requires a GLOBAL solution. Worldwide social transformation, not just change in America, is necessary for the overcoming of capitalism:

"Reflections on Occupy Wall Street: What it Represents, Its Prospects, and Its Deficiencies"




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

The voluntary exchange of goods and services between two individuals for their mutual benefit is evil, and must be stopped.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Making sure everyone gets a job in a society that requires you to have a job and everyone gets a sufficient income in a society where everything costs money, so that the society works for everyone in it, not just the top 1%, is evil and must be stopped.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

What if somebody doesn't want a job? What if people don't want to pay with money? People should be forced to work for everyone else in society? Isn't that slavery?

I agree that evil must be stopped, though. Seems like we have a ways to go to figure out what is evil.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 12 years ago

You are a communist?

I agree that forcing people to work, with no other options, is coercion and a form of slavery. But since we still live in a world of scarcity and with limited automation, people must work and the only fair system is compensating them for that work.

If you don't want a job or money, you need to change society.

But if you live in a society that requires you to have a job and money, it is society's responsibility to make sure well paying jobs are available.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

How does society make a job available without stealing from another person? Or you mean that government should get out of the way and let people work as hard and often as they see fit?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 12 years ago

In a capitalist economy, you could use taxes to fund programs where anyone is guaranteed to get a job at. You can read through the DemandTheGoodLife.com site, if you are interested, to see one way to accomplish that.

But I think capitalism should be replaced with democracy. And in a democratic economic system you would invest whatever level you needed, to launch enough new businesses, in order to maintain full employment.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

taxes don't just appear. the gubmint knocks on your door and says "give us a piece of your earnings, or we will put you in jail."

Stealing, my friend.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Taxing is not stealing. Things in society cost money. If you want to live here, you have to pay the cost. If you live here, you use public services. And if you don't pay for them, you are stealing. If you are not interested in paying taxes or any other fees, you would have to move to a deserted island.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

Please explain to me how a person can be born into the world owing anyone (outside of the parents) anything?

What did you do to be born here? I'm going to go out on a limb and say...nothing. So how can a person be born into the world, owing you?

I can't steal money and give it to charity, which does things beneficial to "society". Where does the gubmints authority come from? A piece of paper?

Do you realize that income tax and central banking are inventions in this country within the last 100 years? The founding fathers didn't make everyone pay for "things in society that cost money". They didn't seem to think that people should "pay the cost". In fact, that's one of the things that seems to have started this country in the first place; too many taxes. IE: Too much stealing.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I don't think I owe anyone anything and I don't think anyone owes me anything.

People randomly taking money from people and using for some random purpose that they think serves the public interest is a terrible way to manage public services.

So instead, we have a system of taxation.

The government's authority comes from the endorsement of the population. If enough people did not accept their authority, they would not be in power.

Income tax is necessary to pay for things that cannot effectively be provided through the market like health care. The authority to tax is in the constitution. You are wrong.

And you are wrong about the revolution as well. It was started over taxation without representation, not over taxes being too high.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

Also, depends on what we're talking about. Income tax, I hate. Sales tax, I feel better about. Inflation is pure evil. All three combined? Ridonqlus.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 12 years ago

+1 LOL

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

After I saw your name, I wish I had signed up as FranciscoDAnconia. Ah well..

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 12 years ago

Heh. That was the best, shortest way to make the point I've seen in a long time.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

Can't be wasting time typing out a whole paragraph when most peeps can't string two logical thoughts together.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 12 years ago

Too many syllables, and the eyes glaze over.

[-] 2 points by RossWolfe (34) 12 years ago

State-interventionist capitalism is just as capitalist as free-market capitalism.

There has never historically existed a society in which laissez-faire economics was absolute. The State has always had a role to play, albeit usually in the interests of the ruling class. Capitalism is not defined by free trade, but rather by the purchase of labor-time in order to supervaluate the value of a given commodity. This is its essence, throughout any of its surface transformations.

Any true Marxist is anti-State. The main difference between Marxists and anarchists is that the former realize that the State must play a transitional role in rendering itself redundant and thus withering away.

Most people on both the Right and the Left misunderstand Adam Smith. The Left views him with contempt, while the Right is convinced that he is just another Mandeville.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

"...not just change in America, is necessary for the overcoming of capitalism:..."

ROCK ON..., ;)

[-] 1 points by recallScottWalker (20) 12 years ago

Senate republicans commit treason by killing 2 million jobs yesterday

[-] 1 points by OntologicalGlobalCreditSystem (1) from North Plainfield, NJ 12 years ago

Contrary to the theory of moral sentiments of Adam Smith's plasure and pain doctrine that later created the political economies of Marxism, Capitalism, and Socialism as dervatives of the British and European monetarist system of private central banking, and the British free trade system (1763-1943 and 1971-2011). Your U.S. Constitution is neither of these systems that were declared by Royal decree by his majesty and her majesty that money has "intrinsic" value. To make people stupid to control them. Genocide of the mind (racist multi-cultralism) precedes genocide of the body.

The fundamental law of the Christian U.S Constitution is the subjective interpretation organized by the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley's "In the Defense of Poetry" within the preamble of the U.S. Federal constitution as the General Welfare.

It is that principle of the General Welfare which defines the United States in terms of the classical poets: Shakespeare, Keats, and Shelley as a principle of dynamics, of the Pythagoreans and Plato, that created the United States to be a Credit System.[NOT] a Britsh monetarist system. And under Article 1 sections 8 and 9 of our superior U.S. credit system. Credit creation is the creation of Sovereign debt intrinsic to the state. And directed by sovereign citizens across generations. What are the examples of a true mission of the human species for Mankind? Well, under a credit system we spread our hunan DNA to other planets in our solar system beginning with Mars. Why? Because one planet is not enough.

Russia and the China have recently become converts of the American model of industrial capitalistic development that developed and built the United States into the leading industrial platform on the planet between 1860 to 1890 and 1933 to 1967. The following actions much be taken up now to prevent the world from decending into a "new" Fourteenth Century Dark Age:

  1. Impeach Obama
  2. Restore 1933 Glass Steagall Act to do away with Wall Street
  3. Provide aid to the States
  4. Return the United States back to a National Credit System
  5. Build the NAWAPA project *seven million high skilled productive jobs within 6 months
  6. Build the Bering Strait Tunnel Project
  7. Build the Land Bridge Project to connect Europe with South America

Google "seven necessary steps " without quotes for an in depth report.

[-] 1 points by e2morg (2) from West Springfield, MA 12 years ago

Here is how to do it: www.e2m.org/video.html

[-] 1 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 12 years ago

Most supporters??? Are u endowed with divinity to have attained such univeral knowledge?

[-] 1 points by takeTsquare (77) 12 years ago

HI I like the way you talk, greetings from the global branch of this revolution (take the square: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Spain/258039744238521) That is why this time round it will work, we are GLOBAL! http://15october.net/ please spread it and invite EVERY ONE thanks!

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 12 years ago

I read the title and I immediately thought to post that I agreed with you.

Now that I've read the post, yuck. Yuck. Worldwide social transformation means mass starvation on a global scale.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

if they do not understand capitalism,

how can they expect to survive in a capitalist society ?

why should they be forced to understand capitalism ?

ain't there greater endeavors than playing the numbers?

[-] 1 points by bourgeoiswallstreet (38) from Lexington, KY 12 years ago

Capitalism is about competition right. If everyone had to play by the rules the PEOPLE set up, such as a living wage etc, then there's still competition. For example, we banned tobacco companies from advertising. This boosted their balance sheets because they could not advertise and this kept the playing field fair for all the tobacco companies. All the while we protected the people from the capitalistic desire to beat their competitors with increasingly desparate means such as misleading ads. Now there's more work to be done on tobacco, but why can we use them as a model to fix the banks?

[-] 1 points by peacejam (114) 12 years ago

duly noted, fair stance

[-] 1 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 12 years ago

Of course is a Global solution, actually many countrys had evol on social capitalism, comunist capitalst, and other sorts of capitalism. So USA must change. TAX the rich is not the solution, main trouble is the FED, and the dollar as backup corruncy. Is not easy yo explain the real troubles to people around 25years old. But what can you expectd, is even worse to explain to "media" and average that if they have beer , dont even get inform. So is probably that many young just get part of message and write on paper "TAX THE RICH", is much simple that writing that try to explain. What certanly they do know, is that their is lack of jobs, lack of money, and so on....

Solutions ?? Well some ideas are going around like this one...


[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 12 years ago

Some finance student was down there baiting protestors, trying to get them to sound all uninformed and clueless into her recording device.

Her eyes quickly glazed over when I started dropping science about the history of the banking system.

[-] 1 points by RossWolfe (34) 12 years ago

Obviously one can't expect ideological clarity or an advanced theoretical understanding of capitalism from most of the individuals who are likely to be most affected by it, but still -- in general there needs to be a better understanding of the scope and complexities of the problem in order to achieve any lasting social transformation.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

I agree! I wrote this in another thread:

There isn't any way to fix the system! The system IS the problem! It's obsolete. The unemployment rate is only going to go higher. It's Economics 101. I see people constantly talking about "job creation." That's insane! Do you understand why companies create jobs? It's not because they're having a good quarter or year and have a lot of cash on hand so they can "create jobs" for the betterment of society. No! They "create jobs" because they have a demand for human labor. For the most part, the demand for human labor is declining all over society and it has been further propelled due to the recession. The reason why there isn't as much of a demand for human labor is because of advances in technology. Computers and robotics are much more efficient than humans, therefore, companies prefer automated machine labor over human labor.

This is the #1 reason for our economic difficulties. I work with the 1% and they know this is the reason, but no one wants to talk about it, because the solutions are too radical for comfort. If someone important came out and said this publicly, they would be chastised for it. Obama tried to have a conversation a while back when he said something like, "the reason there are no jobs is because of ATMs...". Google it. He was chastised by both sides of the aisle. The White House knows this, but they are afraid, rightly so, to really push the issue.

The problem is such an obvious one but most people just can't see it. Maybe because they don't want to? Look around you! Look at your Macbooks, your smartphones, self check out lines, online retail, automated customer service, paying your bills online, downloading music/movies illegally or legally, kiosks at airports, automated trains at airports, ATMs, online banking, online bill paying, automated warehouses, automated trading on Wall St., etc. etc. This list is only going to get longer with time. I just read about automated pharmacists: http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/09/robot-pharmacists-are-picking-your-medications-literally/

Here's another good link: http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/12/robotic-labor-taking-over-the-world-you-bet-here-are-the-details/

Our legitimate unemployment rate is estimated at between 16% to 21% right now. The government calculates the unemployment rate to make it look better than it is for those that don't know that. You can google that to check it out. In a decade, we may be around 35% if not higher. Some very smart folks are talking about this. Marshall Brain and Jacque Fresco are 2 that come to mind. CNN had an editorial on it not too long ago. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/07/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete/

Buuuuut, we can not fix the system! We can not end corruption! Our society has been corrupt since the beginning, people just pay more attention to it when times are bad. Maybe people just have this romantic idea of fighting good vs. evil in a sort of theatrical way. What I'm afraid is going to happen is this movement is going to push BS demands "Campaign finance reform, blah blah blah." No different than the tea party "lower taxes, blah blah blah". Same shit that's been going on for decades, just two opposing sides screaming and yelling while the elephant in the room is just growing more and more. We need a new system, perhaps a resource based economy. The change won't happen overnight, it will take decades to happen. It would be good if it was started now but I don't see that happening. Things will have to get a whole lot worse in my opinion before the majority open their eyes and begin to vacate the current system.

[-] 1 points by hannibalyuan (1) 12 years ago

hi,im from china. i think the problem is, because of the globalization, the income gap between the developed contries and developing contries are narrowing.thats the result of the capitalists move the factory from US to for example China, thats a reasonable decision on bussiness, but not politically "right" in US. US was benefit at the beginning of this process, but the result is , US can only keep the advantage at some certain area(hi-tech, if not losing it day by day), which is only benefit for the boss of the company, but not the grassroots. thats exactly the result of globalization, wages , work oppotunity is going to be average around world under "free macket". i cant give a solution to that, but i dont think blaming or occupying wallstreet won`t change anything. i wish to discuss you guys in US.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 12 years ago

I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to defeat today's Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government at:




if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above economic and political platform.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

to start with, you'd have to understand that there is no capitalism- just corporate oligarchy using "capitalism" as con scam front and mask.

Democratic capitalism? is impossible. a free market democracy is a great idea. capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

[-] 1 points by writtenbyrex (30) from Michigan City, IN 12 years ago

Yes. We need to spread the word about what true Democratic Capitalism really is! http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/708507790/protest-to-prosperity-occupy-wall-street-pamphlet

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 12 years ago

Thank you for your contribution

[-] 1 points by ERS (5) 12 years ago

They understand enough to know that things must change very soon. Our world is cruel, unforgiving, oppressive. Everywhere you turn are lies, confusion and deceit. Aren't you tired of living in a world like this?

[-] 1 points by redrosa (1) 12 years ago

I agree completely. However, this is to be expected from the unorganized masses. The major problem is that the organized sections of the working class no longer have the more advanced political consciousness they once had. It used to be the case that mass demonstrations would involve the politicization of the unorganized masses by the organized workers, with the workers' organizations gaining strength and numbers as a result. But this dialectic is no longer visible. See Rosa Luxemburg's The Mass Strike for some perspective on how much we've regressed.

[-] 1 points by andrewpatrick46 (91) from Atlanta, GA 12 years ago

Capitalism isn't a "problem". Irresponsibility is.

Saying that Capitalism is to blame for our current situation, is like blaming drunk driving on alcohol and applying no accountability to the driver. The driver is the one that irresponsibly got in the car, don't try and turn this on Alcohol—don't try and turn this on Capitalism, it's the crooks that are irresponsible, not the ideology.

[-] 1 points by 03BT (1) 12 years ago

LOL. "most" supporters of occupy wall street. Ok, I'm curious, how many people in fact support OWS? Since you know that "most" don't adequately understand capitalism, you should have an idea of at least roughly how many Americans support OWS. I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion that "most" of OWS supporters think that all that needs to happen is you have to raise taxes on the rich and want more government oversight. Did you do a poll?

[-] 1 points by wavefreak58 (134) 12 years ago

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that most people have an inadequate understanding of capitalism? Why limit it to just supporters of OWS?

[-] 1 points by alex1234 (1) from Sacramento, CA 12 years ago

I dont think america is capitalist any more than the former USSR was a marxist communist utopia. Capitalism has many meanings. Neither one of them can encompass the US system, which has so much government support and so little fair competition

[-] 0 points by WorldFreedom (62) 12 years ago

OWS has a perfect understanding of capitalism - it does not work and must go.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

Ows couldn't understand heat if it's head was on fire

[-] 0 points by nobama2012 (66) 12 years ago

Why not hold Obama accountable for his mistakes... if he did his job remotely well, this would not even be an issue. He is learning on the job (having not run any political or private entity), and not fast enough. He has no new ideas, and is channeling your anger to redistribute wealth from those who worked hard to earn it. Is this the America we want? Punish the successful when the economy he can't jumpstart stalls? If you take entrepreneurial risk and succeed honorably, will you want to be a villan?

[-] 0 points by esoteric81 (14) 12 years ago

This isn't 1776 (when the Wealth of Nations was published)

But it's not the mid-1800's either (when Marx wrote his stuff).

On a micro-economic level, Capitalism is the way to go. We want private property rights. We don't want the gov't controling every transaction between individuals and businesses.

But on a macro-economic level, yes, we have to adopt some of the more "corrective" measures that exemplify "alternative" economic models. We need to recognize that those who are "hyper-wealthy" have become so only because we have granted them the right to reorganize society's resources to benefit themselves. In exchange for that right, they need to pay a percentage back to the people in the form of taxes for non-profitable, but pro-societal endeavors, such as: education, environment, etc.

[-] 1 points by ForTheWinnebago (143) 12 years ago

"those who are "hyper-wealthy" have become so only because we have granted them the right to reorganize society's resources to benefit themselves."

Excellent point, but not all of the "hyper-wealthy" have done so. I think it's important to draw the line between wealth gained through legitimate and illegitimate (those that use the political system to alter the rules in their favor at the detriment to the tax payer) means.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 12 years ago

"On a micro-economic level, Capitalism is the way to go. We want private property rights. We don't want the gov't controling every transaction between individuals and businesses."

That's a false dichotomy.

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 12 years ago

like its not doing that already lol. ever wondered why you get a receipt?

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 12 years ago

The invisible hand dictates it ;)

[-] 0 points by LoTek (53) 12 years ago


And your postulation reflected of the protesters knowledge base in capitalism is just as potentially flawed and inadequate. Where are those figures?

Your point beyond personal opinion??

[-] 0 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

What are you crazy? We all know what capitalism is, the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few. How about that?

[-] 2 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

Sup Karl Marx, how are those communist nations such as North Korea and Cuba doing?

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

Can't you do any better than the old standard red-baiting? Come on, that one was old when Eisenhower was president.

[-] 2 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

Can you tell me where socialism/communism has actually brought prosperity?

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 12 years ago

Scandinavia's doing better than most of europe and the u.s. and they are socialist.

[-] 2 points by pariscommune (205) 12 years ago

yeah you just wait untill greece goes bankrupt and cant pay back scandinavian interest rates. should be ready in the next months.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

I don't advocate for either, just a reform of this mess we got now, a higher progressive tax rate, maintenance of SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and maybe throw a few dozen of the corporate criminals in jail where they belong. That would make me happy.

[-] 2 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

"a higher progressive tax rate"

I'm assuming you mean tax the rich more. If so, how does that exactly create more jobs? Wouldn't it make more sense to allow people to keep more of their income so that they have more money to spend or invest with which leads to more jobs?

[-] 1 points by cmr14 (2) 12 years ago

"Wouldn't it make more sense to allow people to keep more of their income so that they have more money to spend or invest with which leads to more jobs?" This is known as the trickle down theory that people have been using as an excuse to not tax the rich, but it's obviously not working. Rich people tend to just keep the money for themselves. They are miserly, and always look for ways to make more profit instead of using it for the benefit of others.

[-] 1 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

But by looking for ways to make more profit, it results in the creation of jobs. Look at how many jobs are provided by businesses that are owned by those rich people.

[-] 1 points by cmr14 (2) 12 years ago

And look at how many more jobs they've outsourced to save money. I'm not saying that they don't provide any jobs, but the fact is that they don't put enough effort into creating new jobs. I just think that the rich should at least be taxed as much as everyone else instead of always taxing the middle class more.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

It may not create more jobs, because the "job creators" want it like that. But, in the meantime, we can all keep living, with government assistance if necessary. If the work is not here, stop the tax breaks, and take care of the victims. If the jobs return , and people refuse to work, cut them off. it is that simple.

[-] 1 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

Ethically speaking, is it OK to seal from Peter to give to Paul? What makes you think that the government will not blow most of that money on bail-outs and other forms of waste that it's done in the past?

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

What makes you think that the corporatists won't blow it on a yacht, instead of "creating jobs". Why should we trust them with our tax-cut gifts, and subsidies, and bailouts? http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

Well if they "blow it" on a yacht, that creates jobs for people that design the yacht, build the yacht so by spending their cash on luxuries they are putting people to work.

[-] 1 points by NwWaterboy (1) 12 years ago

more likely to be another "residence" in a tax haven, then a yacht built offshore, etc..

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

Well, government expenditure can be seen in the same way. Take that money and rebuild the road overpass. That puts people to work, and we all have something to show for it, not just the one rich guy. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

When you start sucking an increasing percentage of income from people to give to the government, there is less incentive for people to earn more money ultimately leading to less revenue for the government for necessary things such as infrastructure. I'm not exactly going to want to earn more money if it places me in an extremely high tax bracket that forces me to shell out half or more of my income to all levels of government.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

Then don't earn too much, leave some for somebody else. It will make you feel better about yourself. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

Who is it for you or me to determine when someone earns "too much"?

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

You just said it, "I'm not exactly going to want to earn more money". Did you forget already? Time for a nap boys, lay it on down. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by GOBAMA (16) 12 years ago

Thanks for taking that out of context, that's something you liberals excel at.

When the incentive is gone for everyone to earn more money, where does government intent to get its money, borrow even more from China?

When the incentive to earn more is gone, so goes the incentive to create new technology, medical breakthroughs, improve medicine, etc. People do not work long, hard hours and invest all they have to invent new or improved products if, in doing so, they won't make any more than if they worked at a supermarket. You can thank many people who had the incentive to earn more for your current quality of life.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

I am all for a free market, with regulation. We do, indeed, need incentive, and we also need the social safety net. And, all "you right-wing radicals" have only one thing in mind, keeping everything for yourself. You are so cheap you must cry looking at your pay stub. Loosen up already, relax, go outside, take a walk.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 12 years ago

Not to mention, people move their capital out of the reach of the grabbing paws of those who think they deserve it more than those who EARNED it.

Otherwise known as 'outsourcing jobs'. The result of investing where the investment is welcome instead of letting it get stolen.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

How is the government, taking money from one person to give it to another, somehow morally better or justified over an individual entering into a voluntary exchange of goods and services with another individual for their mutual benefit? Stealing is the moral equivalent of hard work and cooperation, so long as the "intentions" are good?

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

The tax code is not about "stealing". It is a democratically determined system to finance what is deemed to be necessary. If you like small government, vote for the right-wing. Who knows, you might win, and then you can pat yourself on the back. If you lose, then not enough people agree with you, then grin and bear it, (or start your own protest). http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 12 years ago

why do you say small government when you mean small wellfare?

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

What the hell are you talking about? http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

As soon as you start talking in jargon like "right" and "left" you lose me. Political philosophy is not about the "right" and the "left" it's about the State and the Individual. What side is the "right" on? The State's. What side is the "left" on? The State's. "Right" and "Left" do not represent any ideals or moral principles beyond the State.

Can I come over to your house, stick a gun in your face, and say, "Give me all your money. I want to give it away to charity. In your name."? No, obviously I can not. So why can the government? This is taxes. Pay, or you go to jail (forfeit your life). If you want to make the argument that force is necessary, then don't complain when they come lock you up for whatever reason they choose.

Bro, seriously, I won't even tell you what to read or go learn from, but you've gotta expand beyond what the gubmint has taught you.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

So, you can opt out of paying for police and fire protection, road and sewer maintenance. etc. because you are getting held up with withholding taxes, is that right? You are the one that should expand beyond your Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, William Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Tea Party nonsense. I know all about your philosophy, it stinks. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

Judging by the names, you know nothing of my philosophy.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

Give me a break, you're not so mysterious. And, by the way,it's time for me to sign off, see you tomorrow. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

Why is it so hard for you to think outside what you think you already know? Each of us are individuals who will never exist again in the history of existence. Yet, I can be only one or the other? Expand your mind, bro!

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

Moving to the right is an exercise in brain shrinkage, not expansion. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

I'm not moving to the right. I've moved completely off your tiny political map.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

Yes, your highness.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

I'm not saying I'm right, but I am interested in what is real. Feel free to come back once you're interested in discussing reality, and not imaginary "right" and "left" paradigms.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

There is nothing imaginary about it. It is just a method of describing the different mindsets that most of us find ourselves believing in. What is so unique about yours, that hasn't been done to death already by someone else? Let's hear it.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

What I am saying is if you, and "most of us", believe in these methods, we're only cheating ourselves.

"right" and "left" are just ways of attempting to categorize. The problem is that so much is left outside of the categorization. For example, steroids in baseball. Is that a "right" or "left" issue? The government got involved. The answer should be that it's not a government issue at all. "right" and "left" is what media, gubmint, and the education system use to keep people's brain in a box, instead of thinking outside.

Each of us is the only us that will ever exist in the history of existence. Everything I do isn't groundbreaking but the combination of all the things I do is groundbreaking. If you spend your time attempting to fit into the mold you will lose or destroy what is essentially yourself.

I would ask, what is the "right" ideal? What is the "left" ideal? You understand what a State ideal is, right? Tyranny. You understand an anarchist idea, right? Self-governance so that way government becomes obsolete.

So if "right" and "left" have no ideal, no principle, no logically coherent target, they're just manufactured ways of controlling people. Get it?

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

You see, by associating the state with tyranny you are just following the Libertarian creed. You are not that hard to figure out, and you can indeed be classified. You can run but you can't hide. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

I'm sure you'd like to cite some sort of facts to refute anything you disagree with. Government is force and control, and the opposite of that is freedom and liberty. You understand logic and non-contradiction, right?

I also notice you didn't mention any ideals of the "right" or "left"? Is that because there isn't any?

You can keep being dismissive, but you'll never arrive at anything real.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

What you are talking about is anarchy, where the government does not exist at all. I guess that is your version of utopia. The right to bear arms will be your favorite Constitutional amendment, in a society like that. Just who is going to run things, the corporations? (Oh, I forgot, they do already.) http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago

Corporations make laws now? Or corporations bribe public officials to make the laws? Those are two different things. You know what's different? The culpability. Two parties are involved instead of one. You understand why that's important, right? Because then you'd have to address two parties in the solution. Am I going too fast here?

Oh, did I say we should institute an anarchist utopia? You know what they say about assumptions?

Ideals do serve a purpose. Perfection, or the utopia, might be unattainable, but they serve to guide us in a better direction. If we can figure out what an ideal would be, then we can figure out which direction to head to get closer to the ideal.

Hey, if you think that being controlled in every aspect of your life by random taskmasters is ideal, I encourage you to advocate on the state's behalf. I won't tell you what to do, but I'd like to make you aware of what you're doing.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

Corporations do make laws now, in case you haven't heard, through their lobbyists, or maybe you aren't so well informed as you would have us believe. Of course it takes a corrupt "lawmaker" to get it through. But, the two are inseparable, in everything from diminishing their tax "burden", to lightening the regulatory oversight. It all adds up to a screwing of the working people. Because as agencies like OSHA, the NLRB, and the EEOC have their budgets, (and their missions), lightened, we lose the only protections we have, aside from the unions. http://sibob.org/wordpress/ http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 12 years ago

Lrn2economics - you may have heard about propension to spend.

[-] 0 points by pariscommune (205) 12 years ago

how would you be doing if the world was boycotting you and threatening you with war? how would you be doing if you had to prostitute yourself in competition with whores that give a blowjob for a dollar? you tell me.

[-] 1 points by RossWolfe (34) 12 years ago

In an extremely superficial way, that's correct. But that same description could be used on almost any social formation throughout history. Feudalism was the exploitation and enslavement/enserfment of the many for the benefit of the few monarchs, nobles, and clerics. Or in classical times (Ancient Rome), the exploitation of the mass of plebeians and slaves for the benefit of the patricians.

Understanding the peculiarities of the capitalist social formation is vital to any attempt to overcome it. It cannot be solved through simple reformism or in national isolation.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 12 years ago

Knowing what capitalism is and how it works is much less important that knowing how our current system works and what it is.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 12 years ago

Might not hurt to ponder the consequences of the alternatives. One involves freedom, the others, not so much.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 12 years ago

You are right, every system in history is based on the same thing. Why don't we try something different? What do you want for a blog comment anyway, a book?