Do the capitalists of CD think capitalism is the final, ultimate system for humanity?
Yes
Side Score: 21
|
 |
No
Side Score: 33
|
|
|
|
|
Hello again, F: I dunno if capitalism is the best system or not.. But, if we didn't have capitalists, where does the capital come from??? Our resources?? Who converts our resources into capital? Without capital, how does the gold come out of the ground and become "capital"? If the government has the capital, where did they get it?? Curious minds wanna know. excon Side: Yes
1
point
I dunno if capitalism is the best system or not.. But, if we didn't have capitalists, where does the capital come from??? Ahahahahahahaha! Remarkable reasoning there, Ex Con. If we didn't have socialists then where does society some from? In fact, now I think about it, if we didn't have Frankfurt, then where would Frankfurters come from? Our resources?? Your resources ARE the capital, you barking mad pseudo-Jew. When the end of the world comes, see how much help numbers are on a banker's computer screen. Money was supposed to be the physical representation of an individual's resource purchasing power. However, since capitalists have been running things, this has now unfortunately changed to an abstract representation of resource purchasing power, since most of the money being traded in the world today doesn't even physically exist. Side: No
1
point
I dunno if capitalism is the best system or not.. You just said it was the best system by saying "yes" when I asked you if it was the final and ultimate system. if we didn't have capitalists, where does the capital come from??? That is literally a retarded question. It's like asking "if we didn't have dogs, where would we get our dog food?". Only it's even worse, because at least dog food is a real physical thing, whereas capital is a social construct which exists to fuel another social construct called capitalism. Without capital, how does the gold come out of the ground and become "capital"? Gold is for electrical devices, space craft and medical implants. Those are it's real scientific uses, what you are talking about is using it to represent a social construct. On top of that America's monetary system is not based on gold, it is based on fiat currency backed by debt and oil. If the government has the capital, where did they get it?? There is no government or capital, those things where made up by humans. They cannot exist in the real final ultimate system because that system would be based on objective reason and scientific methodology. Side: No
1
point
Yes Capitalists think it’s the final solution (lol). But, communism failed faster than Capitalism. So, any idiot can see that the answer is not one side or the other - IT’S THE MIDDLE!!!!! Certain things (necessities of life like medical and basic education) most definitely would be most efficient if it was SOCIALIST. Things that are simply WANTS - like size of your house, your car, your TV, etc....that’s something for the FREE MARKET!!! That keeps people COMPETITIVE.... >>>>>. That’s the way NATIONAL SOCIALISM works!!! If you don’t see what’s coming then keep your head in the sand .. Side: Yes
1
point
Yes Capitalists think it’s the final solution (lol). But, communism failed faster than Capitalism. So, any idiot can see that the answer is not one side or the other - IT’S THE MIDDLE!!!!! Certain things (necessities of life like medical and basic education) most definitely would be most efficient if it was SOCIALIST. Things that are simply WANTS - like size of your house, your car, your TV, etc....that’s something for the FREE MARKET!!! That keeps people COMPETITIVE.... >>>>>. That’s the way NATIONAL SOCIALISM works!!! If you don’t see what’s coming then keep your head in the sand .. Damn, this was lining up to be such a great post. Right until the end. That isn't the way national socialism works. The way national socialism works is that the government relieves everybody of their privilege to trade and/or work without permission, and then taxes them at rates proportionate to their ethno-religious and/or political background. Side: No
1
point
Ok, it may not. E exactly NS. But NS was somewhere between Communism and unbridled Capitalism. A Tribal Type Socialism is probably what I mean. I’m very Nationalist though bc you must control unskilled people to flood into your country.. The NS had everything down except they should have trashed the the Jew book instead of what they did. The book is still enslaving us and numbing us. Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
Yes Further proof of your incredible stupidity. The gap between rich and poor keeps widening because capitalism is unsustainable. This was proven by Marx nearly two hundred years ago. Grow the fuck up and stop ignoring everything you don't want to believe. Gap between rich and poor 'keeps growing' https://www.bbc.com/news/ Income inequality is getting wider. Side: No
2
points
fetch this stick That's what you really love about capitalism, isn't it Con? The power it gives you over other people. Never the best looking or the smartest kid, capitalism made you feel special: like you were worth something. But here's the thing: what it has really done is given you a sense of entitlement and authority over other people. It has literally Nazified you. Side: No
That's what you really love about capitalism, isn't it Con? The power it gives you over other people. Hello commie: Actually, it gives me the pleasure of employing my friends, so they can feed their family.. It gives me pleasure when my customers ENJOY my product. It gives me satisfaction by improving my community, and supplying a needed and valued service.. Personally, I'm not into power.. Now, fetch this stick.. excon Side: Yes
Yes. Now, fetch this stick.. Primitive fool. You think the ultimate system is something that was made up by people who derived it from a social context of tyranny and superstition. Why would a type one civilization use a system that was made up by dumb apes who believed in talking snakes and angels and where just barely starting to figure out that putting spoiled brats who where born into wealth and power merely due to being born into the right family into positions of dictatorial authority (monarchy) is not such a good idea? They wouldn't because it's unscientific and based in superstitious beliefs (social constructs). Side: No
Economic Freedom is the ultimate system for humanity. Economic Freedom being the legal ability to engage in any mutually voluntary economic activity that does not breach the legally protected individual rights of others (we aren't there yet). Any regulations would be enacted specifically for the purposes of ensuring and maintaining those legally protected rights. That is a framework for Liberty, and it creates laissez faire capitalism. If the nature of the world changed and we suddenly had unlimited everything, then they may not call it capitalism. But the principles that creates capitalism, such as protection of individual rights, should remain. Side: Yes
you keep using the word legal and legally but laws are created by governments Laws are statements of consequences for certain actions. Freedom requires that there be consequences for actions that limit freedom. Rule of Law (rather than a kings whim) has created the freest conditions of humanity to date. governments are the opposite of freedom Government is a necessity for freedom You cannot have power without corruption That's why good government is structured to pit power against power with a mechanism for an occasional reset button. Side: Yes
1
point
Economic Freedom is the ultimate system for humanity But economic freedom is exactly like perpetual motion in that it does not exist, and cannot exist because the very principle upon which it is based contradicts itself. If you have to trade in order to meet your basic needs then you are not free. You are subservient to the person who has what you need. Your entire ideology is self-contradictory and stupid. That is why you rely on cute little buzzwords like "economic freedom" instead of reasoning and logic. Side: No
But economic freedom is exactly like perpetual motion in that it does not exist You’re thinking of Utopia. Not really a Capitalist thing. If you have to trade in order to meet your basic needs then you are not free. The fact that your stuff isn’t free does not mean that you aren’t. What definition of freedom are you operating on? You are subservient to the person who has what you need. This cannot be unless they are simoultaniously subservient to you. Two people being slaves to each other is an incoherent notion. Side: Yes
|
1
point
The final system will be based on unlimited resources. There will always be scarcity in some capacity, but the thing is the necessities of life can be made available to everyone if we approach it on a technical basis rather than within the framework of our current system which creates artificial scarcity because even when there are resources you can't have them unless you can pay for them. The way that we use resources in capitalist societies is retarded because we are giving yachts to people like Kim Kardashian (who's very existence is proof that capital has nothing to do with merit or hard work in many cases) while children starve in the streets because they where born into poverty and people can't afford decent healthcare. If you think the rich kids are entitled to their yachts just for being born then why aren't poor children entitled to food and health care? Because capitalism has it's priorities entirely backwards and is fundamentally flawed. Socialism might be great if we had unlimited resources and an infallable leader. The thing you don't realize is that socialism doesn't require unlimited resources as I've just demonstrated and it doesn't require a leader. My philosophy is that ideally people themselves wouldn't actually be making decisions (meaning people in positions of authority or people making decisions democratically, on a personal level people would still be free to do what they want) but rather decisions would be arrived at through methodology. There would be no leader in my way of doing things, there would only be the method of coming to fair and logical conclusions. In that way we would be governed by reason itself, not by an institution or the opinions of individuals. Side: Yes
the necessities of life can be made available to everyone Do you live in the US? if we approach it on a technical basis rather than within the framework of our current system What technical basis is currently lacking? which creates artificial scarcity There is less scarcity now than ever before. If we keep freeing economies, the trend will continue. even when there are resources you can't have them unless you can pay for them Allowing people to have limited resources when they can’t pay is how you end up with shortages. This is how famines have occurred. Requiring payment limits the tragedy of the commons, maximizes the incentive to provide said resource, and thus maximizes availability. The way that we use resources in capitalist societies is retarded because we are giving yachts to people like Kim Kardashian You are overlooking the advantage at the bottom and middle because you dislike advantage at the top. That’s an emotional outlook, not a rational one. while children starve in the streets because they where born into poverty Look up people of Walmart and you will see that the poor in a free market aren’t starving. If you think the rich kids are entitled to their yachts just for being born It’s not that they are entitled to yachts, it’s that you aren’t entitled to take someone’s yacht away. Because capitalism has it's priorities entirely backwards and is fundamentally flawed. Institutions that protect individual rights, including property rights are the institutions that bring about capitalism. Capitalism wasn’t a goal of the people who brought about these institutions over time, freedom was. Capitalism is the result. It’s priorities are what people make of it. The thing you don't realize is that socialism … doesn't require a leader Human hierarchies can not be leveled but by a stronger hierarchy. The incentive to act outside of your rational methodology for personal gain will require a strong enough leadership to provide appropriate disincentive. Unless you believe that people won’t act in the interest of short term personal gain. My philosophy is that ideally people themselves wouldn't actually be making decisions (meaning people in positions of authority or people making decisions democratically, on a personal level people would still be free to do what they want) but rather decisions would be arrived at through methodology. What methodology? How do you distinguish the people in positions of authority or the people voting from the people who are free to do what they want on a personal level? There would be no leader in my way of doing things Would there be leadership? there would only be the method of coming to fair and logical conclusions If there is more than one person, then there is more than one set of interests at play, which means there is more than one logical conclusion. I've weighed in on your debate aimed at CD Capitalists. Will you weigh in on my debate aimed at the Leftists? Side: Yes
At least I hope not. It HAS to be a PART of an ultimate system, but, a CONTROLLED part. Democracy, with a "touch" of socialism and a "healthy" serving of capitalism and a government CONTROLLED by WE, the people, sounds good! None of this communism, fascism, racism, evangelism or authoritarianism and we're home free! OOps! Forgot Trumpism! ;-) Side: No
|
