Forum Post: Why I believe in capitalism and free markets
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 8, 2011, 2:17 p.m. EST by onesquarelight
(60)
from Wormleysburg, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I adhere to the principle that man is unable to act contrary to what he/she perceives to be his/her best interest. Man acts. All actions are dictated by preference. The underlying preference is always revealed in outward action. As humans we are unable to do anything that is contrary to self interest. What action we choose to engage in is entirely based on the perception of what action will yield the most desired outcome. Since at any given moment we are faced with options and desires for future outcomes, and because we are all subject, at the very least, to the scarcity of time, we must arrive at a preference for present action. Some desires must take precedence given our inability to invest the time into every conceivable desire. How we as individuals choose to invest our time and resources is always dictated by what we perceive to be our most beneficial coarse of action. Who is better than the person itself to determine what is in it's best interest? What your are suggesting, by introducing the idea of collective interest, is that some in the group stop acting and allow themselves to be overtaken with indifference.
Indifference is not sustainable. It would, without doubt, manifest itself as total emotional, physical, and subconscious paralysis. Indifference is the philosophical opposite of action. Man acts. Any argument to the contrary immediately finds itself at odds with the original premise.
That is why I believe the political philosophy that best suits the character of humans is one which hinges on the principles of individual liberty. When each person is afforded, by all others, the right to act to their own advantage so long as their actions do not infringe on the same right of others, there can exist a homogenous society that supports the widest possible prosperity. Government plays an important role of protecting the individual. Constitutional government protects the individual's property from those who would wish to acquire it by force and provides justice on behalf of those who have been wronged.
It is not the responsible citizen who seeks to build up government so that it may bargain with it to wield it's sword on their behalf. Contracting the government to confiscate the property of others is theft. Acting in such a manor serves only to widen the gap between the ruler and the ruled, empower the ruling class and diminish the rights of the individual.
Our government rather than providing those basic protections, has become a monster who wishes to dictate the lives of it's subjects in every facet of life. This has been a long slow process that has been perpetrated on the people by the people. One group should not and cannot use government to instill their own personal moral values by force on others. That is why I believe the solution to our problems starts with a consensus to limit government to it's constitutionally defined role. Recognize that individual rights are the only rights and that it is no ones right to misuse the government's power to take away freedom from another and force their moral agenda on the masses.
When a small group of bankers created legislation that endowed on themselves the sole right to create money, dictate the value thereof and manipulate the rates at which they would lend it, a great right of all was concentrated into the hands of a few. That power has sapped the wealth of our currency through constant inflation. It has served to fund unjust wars without the consent of the people. It has served to confiscate great amounts of wealth out of the hands of the many into the hands of the few.
The way to correct this grave injustice is to repeal the federal reserve's charter, allow men the freedom to determine what payment to accept for their time, and to eliminate fractional reserve banking system. The bank should be nothing more than a warehouse for money. What one puts into it should remain there until withdrawn. Banks should not assume that while they are in possession of other people's property they can do with it as they wish.
Similarly it is man's right to determine for himself what he will accept as payment for his time. That is why the central banking cartel's monopoly of money creation and the government's laws that force individuals to accept only what they decree as payment are so obviously a great force against individual liberty.
A free market is one where the consumer dictates what is valued. It becomes each individual's goal to best meet the needs of their fellow citizens at the lowest cost. Those who best serve others reap the rewards of their efforts. That is capitalism. That is free markets.
the solution.
http://youtu.be/Ka1ym7S3F3w
Thank you for that video. Ron Paul 2012!
Bad Cop No Donut !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely. The problem is market interactions are the hardest to understand as they are the furthermost removed from out development as a species.
Understanding how the market works best for all players involved over time may be literally beyond the comprehension abilities of some people.
So here we are stuck arguing the point back and forth.
Bad Cop No Donut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you want free market you need a fair government, man. And you need social assistance, because people are not products to throw away. And you need a good civic society to do all these.
On the one hand it would be nice if everybody in the world had the same comfortable standard of living as we in the West.
It would be even nicer if we could all enjoy that lifestyle as it existed for us the 99% in say around 1980.
However the 1% decided it would be necessary to let alot of the air out of that Middle Class baloon, in essence bringing us all down to the level of the rest of the world, rather than bringing them up to our level.
The reason? Why the need to increase profits and 15% annual quarterly profit growth demanded by Wall Street Corporations.
Corpotations dont get hungry, they dont get sick, or tired, or grow old. But they have been able to buy themselves the designation of a "person" under the US Law with the help of some very clever and high priced lawyers.
A "person" who does not grow hungry, tired, sick, or old is a person to be feared. When that person is not a real living person, and has no soul, and is interested in nothing but profit, regardless of the human cost, we have created what may be considered a threat to the public good by some.
When that non living corporate entity has effectively bought and paid for the Government of the very people whos "public good" the government is charged with protecting, we have a dis-connected political situation that is bound to become imbalanced.
Although the 99% effectively control the major media outlets, word on the the street is a lot the folks dont really believe much of what they are being told by the 1%.
if you believe in capitalism and free markets, you should also probably also recognize that allowing our elected officials to own stock in particular companies is a HUGE conflict of interest, and a market failure (mostly asymmetric information and control over the rules of the game).
a thought... force them to divest. see thread:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/require-members-of-congress-to-divest-holdings-of-/
When the Wall Street and the World’s financial system was on the verge of collapse Main Street bailed out Wall Street. It’s time for Wall Street to repay the debt. Main Street need two things now, jobs and mortgage relief.
Proposal: Levy a 1/10th of one percent tax (0.1%) on all Wall Street transactions with one half to be used to rebuild infrastructure across the US thus creating jobs and one half to be used to reduce principal and re-structure mortgage debt for those who are upside down on their mortgages and are faced with losing their homes.
In Wall Street terms, 0.10% is ten basis points. This tax would be levied on all financial transactions normally associated with Wall Street, purchases or sales on any index that is registered with or regulated by the Security Exchange Commission (SEC), as well as those financial instruments which caused danger to the financial system such as Credit Default Swaps, Derivatives and Hedge Fund Trading.
It is time for everyone to have “skin in the game.” Wall Street can continue to make billions and billions of dollars, but they must share the wealth. Continue to get rich but pay your dues along the way. This tax must be levied on all financial products associated with US Companies or companies that do business in the US no matter what exchange they are traded on.
This tax will generate several hundred billions of dollars. Money that can be used right away to re-build roads, bridges, public buildings, water systems, sewer systems, and schools. All of these will put people to work and the multiplier affects will put even more people to work. Working people pay taxes instead of collecting unemployment payments. Everyone benefits, including Wall Street.
Re-structuring mortgages and keeping people in their homes reverses the housing depression and allows companies to start building homes again putting people back to work.
No more free ride for Wall Street. This is “a county of the people, by the people and for the people,” NOT of the people, by the people and for Wall Street.
Congress needs to enact this Wall Street tax now or every Congressman or Senator who does not act to do so should be voted out of office and replaced with representative of the people and NOT representatives of the Wall Street bankers, brokers, analysts, economists, and fat cats.
something like this was said by (Churchill?) "It's the worst system imaginable until you compare to the alternatives"
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-rally-cry-to-occupy-join-in-once-voice/
We have very free markets over a hundred years ago -- but they came with sweat shops, child labor, and monopolies. The restrictions we placed on corporations in the past 100 years have made workers safer, kept children in school rather than working in factories, and prompted better prices through competition. You can have free markets while placing restrictions on what corporations can do.
Repeal the Fed charter in favor of what? I agree that the Fed is a problem--the system is antiquated--but returning to commodity-based money seems a bit impractical for the 21st century. The gold standard did not protect against the business cycle and was deflationary. I think the issue of the Fed is a bit arcane to be a demand for this movement, which seems to me is about making our government more responsive to the entire nation and eliminating the undo influence of wealth on the creation of laws and regulations.
capitalism has never existed and does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the system we actually have. The market system in place would more exactly be called a slave or caste market system
to get serious requires a few things they don't have. like chat admins who aren't ego serving propaganda tools, a wiki, 1001 sub forums, an actual game plan, a straight up political platform... you know.. basic organizational things sane people do BEFORE protesting.. like figure out a diplomacy and logic centered metaprocess to give their chatadmins so that they don't really just drive out even more people than the trolls. Adminatrolla. trollaAdmin. Whats the difference to somebody whos got the truth facing a propaganda tool abusing admin powers to push their agenda? how can you prevent such a thing? Metaprocess. did i mention metaprocess? and science diplomacy science psychology science sociology and all those textbooks to read B4 protesting?
you can't have capitalism without a free(SLAVE) market. but you can have a free market without capitalism. And thats strangely the only way it CAN work.
Marketing 101 was fascinating. I admit thats a lot less than a bachelors but its sure more than enough to see whats really going on given the other things I know. Capitalism is not the problem since it does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the problem. capitalism has never been tried. I am a democracy guy. in order for real democracy to function a free market system is required. Thats not capitalism. thats a free market system. there is a subtle difference there which most people would miss. I will again repeat. Neither capitalism nor marxism nor communism nor socialism has ever existed. All of those governments were oligarchy pretending to be something as a con scam. Telling that simple truth gets one banned out of the Chat by either a capitalist or a socialist whos pissed you just said their pet ideology isn't real. It isn't. anybody who thinks that it is is accidentally playing for team corporate oligarchy as a tool. the ONLY system worth talking about is DEMOCRACY. how democracy HANDLES a FREE MARKET system is dynamic and interesting and NOT capitalism.
o. yes. no. yes. what? making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology. Going to a gold standard as an idea is a proof of ignorance, not a solution. Really the end game is we evolve out of money. To do that we evolve first new currencies and new economic strategies. this leads to economic singularity in about 50 years. If everyone is a millionaire how much you get depends on exactly the material valuation of that money. Which is to say that by the time money becomes obsolete everyone will live like the current millionaire. Tangible items to other tangible items? the real economy is about ideas, change the ideas and everything changes. the problem with the tangible economy is it does not change; its a static reality. you can't make a meaningful gold standard with only enough gold to represent on millionth of the economy. You can make a purely imaginal money system work; but it has to be subject to moral and ethical laws. This is about pinning down those moral and ethical laws and implementing them in new currencies; not trying to imagine a control freak impossible non solution because of the simplicity with which you go about thinking over the problem.
once again. there has never been a socialist or capitalist economy. in all instances such nations were oligarchies. using a mask and a con scam and telling their dupes and pwns that they were something other than oligarchy. the big hump to get over is that the USA oligarchy and the Soviet oligarchy are in on this lie against the rest of us TOGETHER. Neither of them was ever anything other than an oligarchy. both claimed some other system in order to have US fight over the ideals of THAT system while they secretly shafted us all playing a completely different game.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150343790359248&set=a.10150264906064248.348293.511989247&type=1&theater
"making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology."
Since you agree that the monetary system does have a direct effect on the the citizen, I will not argue with you. Although we disagree on the extent to which monetary policy can/does/will impact the everyday living standard of individuals now and in the future, I can't expend the energy to debate rating the importance of each factor of human existence.
One question I do have is who are "they" exactly?
corporate oligarchs. about 4000 persons in the inner party and 100 thousand in the outer party. The elite rich with "noble blood".
If a free market is one where the consumer dictates what is valued then there are no free markets, because corporations now dictate what would be available and for how much. These people keep crying "there's no consumer confidence in the economy." Well guess what asshole, stop laying people off, start creating and establishing well paying jobs with job security in this country and you'll be astonished how confident people start becoming in this economy.
Capitalism requires capital. Printing money is not capital. It creates debt. Debt to banks that must be repaid at interest. Money is the problem. We need monetary reform. That is the key. The fed has kept interest rates at near zero to facilitate spending and hamper savings. It's no wonder employers are not hiring. They are trying to squeeze all they can out of the fewest possible employees. Hiring a new worker in this country is one of the most dangerous things any business can do right now thanks to government regulations and workers rights lobbyists.
Government regulations also have a huge negative effect on job creation. Peter Schiff has some great information regarding this. He recently testified before congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fCHy5ixaGE
No I would not make it mandatory to join a union, but any worker who didn't want to join a union would then have to represent himself in bargaining for wages, working conditions or dealing with grievances. He shouldn't be allowed to be a parasite on the union if he refuses to join himself. If government would stay out of collective bargaining altogether, which means no police protection of any kind at factories when the owner tries to bring in goons or scabs to take workers jobs then the government can stay out of the process. If they object to union members doing ANYTHING they think necessary to protect their jobs because the owners won't bargain fairly then government has to be involved to protect the rights of the workers as well. That's why the National Labor Relations Act was enacted. Don't forget in the early days of unionization, police would side with the owners, never the workers. (It's still true in a lot of cases.) Unless you want to bring back the days of violence in labor relations then government had better take a role in regulating it for the benefit of workers not just corporations.
will you please re-post this as a reply to my comment. I won't be able to keep things strait otherwise.
That is for a vacuum, That is great but the flaw the unquantifiable factor is the human. We set up a system of checks and balances in government and even in our daily lives "he ted if i do XYZ remind me not took?". Why is the free market different?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry.
All well and good unless the system is fraudulent, we have the best capitalistic system ever devised, but unless it is regulated greed and fraud will rule.
It's not that simple. Regulations good. Deregulation bad.
The market is in essence the great regulator. It regulates those who would lie and cheat in business. - People simply opt to not do business with them.
It regulates quality. - Only the products that the consumer buys remain on the market.
When people talk about regulation they forget that the market does it better than any person or group can. That's because the market is the largest group. It's all of us. Every time we choose to purchase something it is a vote for that product from us. The same should be true of our money. The free market money that would produce the best value at the lowest cost for the consumer would surely become the favorite. You could opt out of a currency if your found that it was becoming to large or you felt that it did not properly address your needs.
Money is not regulated by the market. That is the root cause of the fraud your witnessing. It is a monopoly enforced by law. Let the market regulate money and it will/can become a powerful tool for liberty. Leave it in the hands of a small group and yes, you have a system of fraud.
In general I think markets should be as deregulated as possible. But there are limits. Monopolies / oligopolies have huge power (think of the telecoms). We saw how well deregulation worked in the California energy crisis. Regulations prevent us from being poisoned by bad food. You can argue that "eventually the market will cause people to stop buying that food" but I don't want to die before that happens
"People simply opt to not do business with them." Talk about not being that simple!
"Only the products that the consumer buys remain on the market." Right, after the con man kills thousands of people with unsafe products, maybe your not old enough to remember our autos before auto safety regulations.
The money thing, I would have to think about. But it sounds like the barter system which became extinct about 1500 years ago. Why, because it was too slow and inefficient.
There's no such thing as a free market when a small minority of the population controls that market. You say "Contracting the government to confiscate the property of others is theft." So what about the theft of my surplus labor? Do you object to the contract that corporations have made with government to break our ability to collectively organize to improve labor, wages and working conditions? If not, then you're merely being disingenuous. Capitalism stopped working for the individual working person the first day a factory owner bought himself a politician.
"There's no such thing as a free market when a small minority of the population controls that market."
Great observation. You are correct. We do not, currently have a free market society.
"Do you object to the contract that corporations have made with government to break our ability to collectively organize to improve labor, wages and working conditions?"
Not in the private sector.
At some point it seems that unions become more interested in their own status than they are of the workers they claim to support.
You certainly would not defend sectors of the economy making it manditory to join the union. Would You?
I'd generally leave these very intricate matters to the hands of those involved. In this case the workers and their employers. I don't think federal laws one way or the other are beneficial. Again it's the top-down, central planning philosophy that I despise.
?What’s YOUR occupation?!!!!
I'm a web designer
cool!
Yes, action is key, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers yourselves. Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Free markets work on paper. However humans have certain natures that will always infect the market, like entitlement, greed and preferential treatment.
You all forget! There are commodities that are not tangible. SEX, INFLUENCE, FRIENDSHIP, PERSUASION, TIME, AFFILIATION, GUILT... these will always change factors that should otherwise be simple mathematics.
Free market principles work in the real world. The United states was founded on individual liberty and free society and it became the most prosperous nation in history. We need to get back to the basic principles that this country was founded on. We have strayed so far. We have systematically destroyed or liberties.
Let's take a closer look.
If there were only one producer of corn, the farmer could simply line his pockets by decreasing corn production while demand was high. When demand is high and the commodity is scarce the price (value) of the commodity increases. Corn gets more expensive. When the the commodity is in abundance but demand remains constant the price falls.
When competition exists in the market the consumer has a choice. They will always, when available, choose the cheaper of two products of the same quality. Competition is the market mechanism by which prices are kept at a maximum quality and lowest possible price. The consumer wins in a competitive market place.
The federal reserve has a monopoly on creating the commodity we call federal reserve notes (money). The government has laws that mandate us to accept these notes for payment, and on the flip side, force us to purchase (borrow or work for) these notes to acquire the things we want and need.
Just like the corn farmer who rules the corn market, the federal reserve can choose to limit money creation or increase money creation. When they flood the market with money, all the money in existence becomes less valuable than it was before. Items we buy with it costs more.
If there existed a competitive market for money, the consumer could choose to accept the money he most believed would allow him to purchase the items he requires in the future for the least cost. This simple change in the monetary system would act as a massive protection against inflation, encourage savings(capital) and hedge against a large portion of the money flowing into the hands of one small group. Historically, when people have the right to choose what they will accept for their time/product, they have chosen gold or silver. Gold and silver make great money because of their properties. They are divisible without loosing value (1ounce is worth the same as 2 half ounce coins). They are valued as a resource in the marketplace apart from being used as money (ensures demand and long term viability as money). They are not easy (nearly impossible) to counterfeit. They are scarce and any attempt to inflate them in the market requires substantial effort and expense. They cannot simply be created in mass by a printing press. They are a natural resources.
In a free market without legal tender laws, there would certainly arise a popular money. It most certainly wouldn't be paper but it could be anything that the people agree upon. It would be determined by market demand just like any other market commodity.
H.R. 1098: Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011, is an attempt by Ron Paul "To repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1098
If demand is high, yet supply is lowered, price goes up, and therefore demand goes back down, forcing price to come back down. Basic economics.
Why do you say wrong? That is exactly what I said.
"When demand is high and the commodity is scarce the price (value) of the commodity increases."
Please re-read.
I took it to the next logical step, demand falls and price falls. You just didn't take it far enough, but left it where it would best prove your point.
But I am not incorrect. That was your assertion.
True, I just think the integrity of your conclusion is compromised by not examining the entire cycle. The problem with the federal reserve as the bad guy is that if they devalued money, it would not be in their own best interest, because they use the same money we do. In reality, what you propose is not a monetary system, but a bartering system. I think it's a great idea, but it wouldn't work in such a large and interconnected society.
All free markets arise out of barter. It's very advantageous for man to establish a medium of exchange rather than trading butter for eggs, or eggs for chairs, etc. What becomes a medium of exchange should not be coerced or forced.
The US is founded on the principles of individual liberty and free markets. We are/were/can be/ the most prosperous nation in the history of the world when we stick to the plan the founders laid out in the constitution and the bill or rights etc. These principles work.
Agreed.
I believe in everything you just very sensibly stated, as well. No one is protesting against the free market system, capitalism, free enterprise, consumerism, etc. The protest is against GREED! Greed has infected all these institutions, and there can be no argument against that without being either blind or ignorant. Everyone can see that the patient is sick with greed. OWS is simply crying out for a doctor to come help save the patient. Because, if the patient dies, from this sickness of greed, we all die with it. We are all in the same boat, my friend.
"The protest is against GREED!"
I have yet to see any protest signs that read:
Proverbs 15:27 The greedy bring ruin to their households...
Proverbs 28:25 The greedy stir up conflict, but those who trust in the LORD will prosper.
Isaiah 57:17 I was enraged by their sinful greed; I punished them, and hid my face in anger, yet they kept on in their willful ways.
Jeremiah 6:13 “From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit.
Just saying. If that is why your are protesting then it sounds like you are waging a religious war. I don't think that is why most are protesting. Or at least they would not admit it.
"No one is protesting against the free market system, capitalism, free enterprise, consumerism, etc."
No one? hmm. I've seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.
The problem with this whole movement is that they are calling for legislation to outlaw greed. In other words, to pass laws that limit our ability to make our own decisions, be it the pursuit of greed or anything else. And everyone is greedy, the protesters are demanding a redistribution of wealth - GREED. Demanding legislation to penalize people for pursuing happiness because they were more successful - ENVY.
So, if I have ten apples, and you have one, should I have the right to take your apple from you so that I can have eleven? How many apples do I need to live on? Should I have the right to have as many apples as possible? There are plenty of apples to go around for everyone. This "I got mine-you get yours" attitude is what will kill us all. Do you think that those who have no apples are going to lay down and die knowing that someone else has the means to keep them alive a thousand times over? Greed is one of the most basest of human impulses, but survival is the strongest. And those who have had their apples taken away by others, who already had plenty, will come for their apples. I don't blame anyone for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family. No man will let his children go hungry whether he has to break the law to feed them or not. The law be damned when it comes to survival. What you are defending is the pathway to TRUE class warfare. This is a very well-armed population, and if we continue down this road of inequity, that we have already well-traveled, then God help us all. Sharing the wealth is not greed - it is a process to keep us from killing each other. That's what I meant by "we are all in the same boat", my friend. Greed is a sickness that will kill those who practice it as well as those who are victimized by it. No one is safe from it's consequences. And why do you equate success with money? If you can make a living by doing what you love, be that living humble or not, then you are successful. If you hate your job, like most people do, then you will never be successful - no matter how much money it brings you. Work sucks. But if you do, for a living, something that you would do for free, then you'll never have to work a day in your life! Doesn't that seem more appealing than just being rich? Don't get me wrong - money is important, and necessary to sustaining life. But love, beauty, romance, art, music, friends and family; these are the things that we live FOR! I do not envy people who have lots of money, nor do I envy those who do not. I envy those who make a living from doing what they love - for they are truly blessed. As Joseph Campbell said, " Follow your bliss...you don't want to wake up 40 years from now and realize that your ladder's been up against the wrong wall". But, mark my words, if this malignant cancer of greed spreads any farther through our society. Then all we can do is pray that the Mayans were right.
"So, if I have ten apples, and you have one, should I have the right to take your apple from you so that I can have eleven?"
Absolutely not! That is theft. It goes the other way too.
If you have one, it is equally incorrect to assume that you can justifiably lay claim to any portion of someone's property without consent or contract.
Anyway you look at it theft has occurred. So long as you maintain that theft is a crime and legally subject to punishment then you have a principle on which you can stand. Read this very carefully. If you abandon principle you are shooting yourself in the foot.
You have tried to use relativism to prove your point... "I don't blame anyone for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family." Yet you detest the idea of theft when it goes the other way. (the bread maker stealing bread from a starving child). Either theft is always an inappropriate action or it is not. If fact you do yourself a great disservice to flip flop.
Unless you admit that stealing is theft and theft can be punished, you have in essence broken the social contract and made it impossible for theft to rightfully be prosecuted. You've now opened the doors to more of what you espouse to hate and despise; the ability of one to take from another for greed.
Principle is all we have. Throw that out and you'll always find yourself in a worse spot than you started. Ensuring that you stand on the correct principles is achieved by opening yourself up to the criticism of every other conceivable contrary idea, working through the criticism, correcting your foundation when necessary and trying it again.
I love this statement by Jon Stuart Mill...
"In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter--he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process." ~ Jon Stuart Mill
So when a business lays off a worker, while still making record profits, is that not theft? How much profit (apples) do they need? They have stolen the worker's livelihood in order to hoard more apples. Just because it's legal does not excuse it from being unjust.
"So when a business lays off a worker, while still making record profits, is that not theft?" No. Not by the definition of the word theft. For theft to occur 2 things have to be true. Someone has to have lost something by force and someone has to have gained something by force. In this example, yes, someone has lost something but no one has gained anything. At least that's how I see it.
It may be viewed as unfair or unjust perhaps but I don't think it is a criminal offense. If I was a worker at such a place, I would certainly try to find other employment if that was the way they wanted to treat their employees. That business wouldn't last too long I presume, without government assistance that is.
The market is great at relocating resources. Interference in the market via interest rate manipulation, government subsidies, and the like distort the market and make it function less efficiently. Perhaps what your identifying as problems with free market is really problems that arise out of to much government and fed oversight in the markets.
You don't feel that the business, that got rid of the worker, gained another apple? Wasn't that the reason they got rid of the worker in the first place?
Well hypothetically, we don't know why they decided to get rid of the worker. It could have been for a variety of reasons.
Do I think they gained an apple by firing the worker? Hmm. I think that if the business can perform it's function to society with less workers just as efficiently It has every right to do so. Did they gain anything when the fired the worker? Future profit did not belong to anyone at the time of the firing so I'd have to say no.
Let's say, for the point of argument, that they fired the worker so they could increase their profit margin. So by putting another member of society out of work, how does that benefit society? It only benefits the stockholders. They put stockholders first, society second, which is really what the protest is all about, don't you think? Yes, they carry signs that say "End Capitalism" and other nonsense, but their hearts are in the right place. Their real message is: Society first, profits second. And let me try another analogy: Suppose your child fell through a pane of glass and was bleeding profusely and you had to drive them to the hospital before they bled to death. Would you obey the speed limit? Or, would you break the law and drive as fast as you could to get them there as soon as possible? People break laws for different reasons. Comparing a man for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family vs. "stealing" someone's livelihood for the sake of profit margins is comparing apples to oranges. There is justifiable theft and unjustifiable theft. So, I hardly think that makes me a flip-flopper. I agree with you that theft for the sake of personal gain is wrong. If I already had a loaf of bread, and just wanted more, that is stealing. But theft for the sake of saving your family from starving is understandable. Just like disobeying the speed limit to get a bleeding child to the hospital as fast as possible is understandable. Even a cop would agree, don't you think? And if future profit didn't belong to the business at the time of firing, then who did it belong to? The worker? Listen, I've really enjoyed this debate. It's not often I get to communicate with well-spoken people. And, although you and I don't share all the same values, we are still children in the eyes of God, are we not? Thank you for your ideas and opinions; believe it or not, you have given me new things to think about, and a new hope that, maybe, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Trust me, I am not advocating murder or violence in any way, shape or form. I am merely making a prediction about the future based upon my observations of human behavior. Did you see Ken Burns new documentary on Prohibition? It makes a compelling argument that it didn't work because no one factored into the equation the willingness of human beings to break the law. Especially when they feel it is unjust. Let's hope that it doesn't come to that. By the way, I love the name, "Wormleysburg". That's just as crazy as, "Kalamazoo"!
Take care :)
Lobbying by Corporations should be Against the Law PERIOD. Anyone with an active political position that accepts lobbying should be removed and thrown into jail for life. Not the nice kind of jail, but =the bend you over kind of jail.
Lobbying by anyone? Or just by corporations? You say both above, so just trying to make sure I understand if it is everyone, or just some, who should not be allowed to lobby. Thanks.
Thanks for your thoughts. I don't see how it really pertains to this particular discussion. But thank you all the same.
I like your style.
// Government plays an important role of protecting the individual. //
Yes, I agree, and I think you should elaborate here by what "protection" constitutes. In my opinion, "protecting the individual" is synonymous with "protecting natural rights," on the contrary, the government ought to not be the grantor of rights, or be involved in the business of creating rights. What is granted by the government can be taken away just as easily.
Agreed.
Your idea may work in small populations. How would you level the field after one person owns everything or 1% owns 65% of all assets. We have to find a method to dump the monopoly board and start a new game over. How about no bank can be in more than one state and can only get and use money from that state.
I don't think you've made a sufficient argument for me to be able to respond. I think you'd have to show me how you imagine that, in a free market, without government collusion, and without the ability to use force, any small group of individuals could come to control such a large portion of all assets. I'm not saying that it cannot under any circumstance happen. I'm simply saying that until you show me how you think it could, I cannot offer a rebuttal.
Property does not exist independent of organized society. Try to lay claim to property absent an already extant government or social compact (which is what democratic government is) and watch as you are only able to "own" that which you can physically possess. Since property depends upon government, it necessarily follows that democratic government (i.e., society) cannot "steal" property.
Property is a social construct. You don't "own" something until the rest of us say you do (except to the extent you can physically possess it to the exclusion of the rest of us). That being the case, if the rest of us take something from you, it is a declaration that you do not, in fact, own it. Society determines ownership claims. It always has, and it always will. What you are selling is sophism.
What property you currently "own" is not the result of some natural process. You have never a day in your life "earned" anything in some objective sense. What property you own is, in fact, what we have socially agreed to allow you to have. But what we socially agree is yours to have can change anytime we socially agree it should.
I own my body my thoughts and my labor. When I apply my labor to something outside myself, it rightfully becomes my property so long as no one else has rightful claim to it.
That is subject to society's agreement. Luckily, I and most people would readily agree with you that people are for the most part entitled to what they produce through their labor (barring some overriding social need).
But, you should know that the proposition that people are entitled to what they produce through their labor is a socialist one and not a capitalist one. In capitalism, people who produce things (workers) have part of the value of what they produce taken by people who monopolize capital (what is called "profit").
I should clarify that the proposition that a government cannot steal property is premised on that government being a democratic one. A non-democratic government--i.e., one that is not expressing society's will--can indeed steal, but only in the sense that it is not adjudicating the property claim in accordance with social desire.
"But, you should know that the proposition that people are entitled to what they produce through their labor is a socialist one and not a capitalist one."
If your using the term socialist here to suggest that society as a whole experiences the greatest prosperity when people agree that a person's time and effort is theirs to do with as they wish and the outcome of how they spend there time and effort rightfully belongs to themselves, then yes, I agree. But if you're suggesting that somehow what I am proposing is focused on the end result of prosperity of the group over the right of the individual (communism, socialism), then I disagree.
Prosperity (in a loose sense) is a bi product of a social framework where individual rights are paramount. I say loosely because prosperity means something different to each individual. Living in a cabin in the woods with no job, living off the land, could be the ultimate in prosperity for one person, while a 2 story house in the suburbs may be prosperity for another.
"In capitalism, people who produce things (workers) have part of the value of what they produce taken by people who monopolize capital (what is called "profit")."
In capitalism people enter into agreed upon contracts with one another. When you take a job you are entering a contract that you will produce x-y-z or provide the service x-y-z for a fee that you agree upon. That means that you get 100% reimbursed for your labor. (Not counting what government takes, which is "taxation/theft" not "profit".) If you do not agree you are free to walk away and search for someone who will hire you at your agreed upon terms. Business seeks to profit, yes, but they have no power to force people to do the work for them. They have to work to find agreeable wages with their staff to maintain the ability to bring a valued service or product to market. Business profit does not equate to confiscation of workers wages. In fact without the business profit, the business would cease to exist and the workers would be making nothing. Of course, this is one of the benefits of free markets. When business does not meet the needs of the consumer, the business fails, it's assets (workers, machinery, etc) are naturally reallocated to other parts of the economy that have proven that they better serve the needs of the consumer. No propping up failed businesses by the government which is overtly wasteful as far as capital is concerned. When capital is wasted, the people suffer.
Your last statement is true but it is speaking of an entirely different social framework based on entirely different principles. Principles that I believe to be incorrect. Time has proven that when governance is structured in such a way that it seeks to control the individual for the needs of the group, it fails. It's not sustainable because there is no market to dictate what it is that people want and need. There is no basis for a pricing structure.
Thanks for chiming in here. I appreciate your thoughts.
While I mostly agree, taxation is not theft. It is a fee for a service. Whether anyone believes it or not, the government provides many services for that fee. Security from other states, protection in the form of laws and their enforcement, property ownership, to name but a few.
If I took your money but provided a service would I have stolen your money? Of course I did.
You are also overlooking the fact that government is inherently wasteful. So even if I were to agree with your premise I would certainly think that local taxation would be much more advantageous than federal taxation. The further away from the problem, the less effective and more wasteful the implementation of the solution.
So when you get a haircut(service) and the barber takes your money, you call the cops on him.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not providing you a service for your money. I'm rationalizing my theft of your money by saying that I'm going to do good with it. It's like saying that I know better than you what to do with your money.
I see how I left myself open there. You were right to point it out. good work.
Thanks, and no problem. I totally agree with the fact that federal government is largely wasteful and superfluous, and that local governments do much more to help the individual. I advocate a small federal government that only has the responsibility of representing the nation's interests on the world stage. This does require taxes to function, but if they were more efficient, they would eventually be out of debt and start to turn a profit. Unfortunately, there is too much bureaucracy for even the smartest and most trustworthy leaders to accomplish anything.
We must remember what allowed the banksters the ability to run roughshod over our economic system. The Graham-Leach-Bliley Act: "An Act To enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes." allowed investment (casino) banking institutions, insurance companies, and commercial (retail) banking institutions to consolidate, co-mingle funds, to engage in risky investment activities, to take money from you and me to fund the injustice committed upon the citizens of, not only the United States but, in large part the world. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act allowed them to create the derivatives you hear so much about which were a major factor in the debacle which destroyed our economy. Both of these acts must be repealed within our system of government or the banks will continue to use our money to fund their gambling activities. Help me by signing the petition: http://signon.org/sign/repeal-graham-leach-bliley The Glass-Steagal act separates these two types of banking institutions to keep the gambling activities separate from commercial banking activities. (commercial banking activities are the services we, as bank customers, utilize. i.e. savings, checking, loans)
I appreciate you taking the time to introduce me to these details. I certainly will take the time to research your claims.
You're a brilliant, rational, ethical person. Your words are among the clearest and relevant I've read so far. May I use your insightful views to help my students understand the complexities of capitalism (free markets - if they exist?), social justice, and this movement?
Leslie
Sure. Look up Murray Rothbard as well.
Thank you!
Welcome. See also: Austrian Economics
While I agree with many of your points, I find the following incredibly naive: "The bank should be nothing more than a warehouse for money. What one puts into it should remain there until withdrawn. Banks should not assume that while they are in possession of other people's property they can do with it as they wish."
And where is the pay of the bankers supposed to be coming from? Where will they get the money to buy the buildings where they store all that paper?
Exactly. Banks pay interest to savers, and earn interest from borrowers. If banks only held money, there would be no incentive on either side. Just keep your money at home and stop whining about it. Of course, with the abolition of lending, everyone would be forced to live within their means. Most of America couldn't handle that prospect.
Net interest margins, the difference between interest paid on deposits and interest gained from interest on lending.
Bank warehousing fee of course. The benefit of safe storage is worth a nominal fee. The market would determine the rate. I should have mentioned that. This is a books worth of knowledge in a forum post. Forgive me if there are omissions. It's not meant to educate completely, rather, whet your appetite.
Whet
thanks.
No worries, bud.
Many good points, but how do you exact those changes upon the banking industry, or any other, without first reforming the government into one we'd be proud to build up, not one we must "bargain" or "contract" with?
You seem to have accepted as immutable the fact that they do not represent us.
The wonderful thing about a representative form of governance is that if the voters are so inclined they can replace their leaders. I support Ron Paul. Voting in a candidate whom I share a common set of values is not easy when media works around the clock to push their horse. Anyone who does not take a vested interest in their leaders and their policies is doomed. This Republic is created in such a way that allows for self correction, but it demands active participation on the part of those who are under it's law.
I disagree. What makes us human, as opposed to other "social animals" such as apes, whales and dolpins, is that we have the ability to rise above our own self interest by an act of "free willl." Or, to put it another way, the only way to prove that free will exists is to do something you really don't want to do...
As for the "Free Market," it is based, I think on Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations;" or "greed 101", where by catering to the selfish ambition of the individual (greed), somehow through a mysterious process called "the invisible hand of competition" individual greed would cancel out through competition for the benefit of all. At least that was the theory as I understand it. The reality that I see is that the more powerful few are controlling the resources to their own benefit at the expense of those less able to compete, "he who owns the gold makes the rules," which explains why there is such disparity and inequality in our nation today. I believe we need to seperate the financial incentive from the political process, don't even know if that's possible, but the only way to secure a true representative government would seem to be to make the people vote matter more than the "dollar vote."
Try to do something you don't want to do. I'll show you that you wanted to do it try and prove a point. You cannot not act and all action is determined by the underlying preference. Free will is alive and well in my proposal. You choose all the time what actions to act on and what one to pass buy. But each and every action is a result of the underlying preference. And as I said, preference is always based on the perception of the most desired outcome.
I disagree. What makes us human, as opposed to other "social animals" such as apes, whales and dolpins, is that we have the ability to rise above our own self interest by an act of "free willl." Or, to put it another way, the only way to prove that free will exists is to do something you really don't want to do...
As for the "Free Market," it is based, I think on Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations;" or "greed 101", where by catering to the selfish ambition of the individual (greed), somehow through a mysterious process called "the invisible hand of competition" individual greed would cancel out through competition for the benefit of all. At least that was the theory as I understand it. The reality that I see is that the more powerful few are controlling the resources to their own benefit at the expense of those less able to compete, "he who owns the gold makes the rules," which explains why there is such disparity and inequality in our nation today. I believe we need to seperate the financial incentive from the political process, don't even know if that's possible, but the only way to secure a true representative government would seem to be to make the people vote matter more than the "dollar vote."
Hello William,
So, what does it really mean to be a "Free Market" economy? Must a truly free market be supported by policy, practice and accountability based on just application of law for all? When corporations gain political, economic or legal advantage based on favored legal, political, or fiscal treatment, can we still claim to be a "free market system?"
That's beautiful - you're an academic? Now put some teeth into it! Bank of America is a corporate bully. If you don't have an account at BofA (I salute you!) then line up in solidarity and ask as many questions of the tellers as they have time for as to why their bosses deceived the American people for a quick buck? Take their time up and question their judgement.
Take a bite out of corporate crime! Line up and close those accounts.
NEXT THRUSDAY OCTOBER 13, CLOSE YOUR BofA ACCOUNTS
Very well said!!