CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Capitalism is the reason America is what it is today. People worked for what they wanted. With what I am about to say may offend some, but it's reality. Welfare and other programs like it have HELPED many and MANY deserve it, but we ALL know and have seen those who don't deserve it. People get on these programs and lose their ambition. They get 500 bucks a month for free.. If I was on it, I wouldn't want to get rid of it. But it kills people motivation to become better, to become someone. Capitalism gives people the power to become something, to come from nothing and become everything.. You may be born poor, but can one day be rolling in money. Capitalism is what the American Dream is, to live, to prosper, and thrive, and be who ever we want to be!
Capitalism changed, America it was not what the four founding fathers have in mind. Democracy is not capitalism. The founding fathers wanted something better. Capitalists might care about others but a capitalist government is a propaganda feeding one. They make other ideologies look evil in order to get more attention. The thing that pisses me of most about capitalism is the plus value. Well, at least capitalism motivates people to work hard by greed, it's like the carrot in front of the mule. The mule is greedy and will work only for money not for the community. Money= carrot. In fact, it is in my suspicion that capitalism is designed in a way that no one knows much about it's real intentions. It tells to work hard for money so they can get taxes which give them more money that's why the rich have more rights, to motivate the to spend more as a result the economy strengthens. As for the poor, they don't care about motivation unless they get more money. The more money they have the more rights they have so they can be convinced to earn more money and then convinced to spend more money. WARNING: If you're a capitalist that doesn't mean you're all that, it's only about the government of capitalism and very few rich capitalists.
In the absence of capitalism, this would lead to barbarism and utter poverty. In fact, there would be no jobs if it were not for capitalism. Capitalism is the only reason for wealth.
The lack of poverty, starvation and disease is the result of capitalism, and that our abundance of material possessions is merely a side effect of our incredibly efficient economic system.
Wealth for who exactly? Capitalism is going to succumb its internal contradictions just as communism did you need to wake up and realise it.
"The lack of poverty, starvation and disease is the result of capitalism"
Replace "lack" with "plethora", then this sentence will accurately represent reality, somehow though i don't think you're too interested in reality.
"and that our abundance of material possessions is merely a side effect of our incredibly efficient economic system"
Our abundance of material possessions is the reults of grotesque ego driven greed, do your material possessions make you happy you small minded capitalist shill?
Just remember that nothing you own is the result of some superior system that magically fabricates your possessions out of thin fucking air, the harsh reality is that the majority of the stuff you have, 99% of which you don't fucking need, was accumulated at somebodies (i.e. poverty stricken people), or something's (i.e. ecological) expense.
Wealth for who exactly? Capitalism is going to succumb its internal contradictions just as communism did you need to wake up and realise it.
This video shows that countries with capitalism, quality of life is much better.
If capitalism is not the reason for wealth, what is? I would be interested to know.
somehow though i don't think you're too interested in reality.
Subjecting your delusional reality is not objective reality.
Our abundance of material possessions is the reults of grotesque ego driven greed, do your material possessions make you happy you small minded capitalist shill?
Actually, I am very happy that I was born in a country with freedom and capitalism with great abundance of wealth instead of tyranny and socialism with great poverty.
"This video shows that countries with capitalism, quality of life is much better."
I watched the video but i never disagreed countries with capitalism are wealthier, and thus have better quality of life.Let me ask you a very simple question, do you think the kind of freedom, and the lifestyle that goes with it is sustainable for every country in the world? I mean if your so pro capitalism surely you'd like it to spread across the whole planet, and thus grant everyone the chance to experience your lifestyle, with all its wastefulness and greed. What do you think? Do you think the planet can sustain every Chinese and Indian person drinving a fucking hummer and subisting on a meat intensive diet? Get real.
I think this adequately tackles both this and the next piont because its quite clear you live on another planet, and your just another victim of your ideology.
"If capitalism is not the reason for wealth, what is? I would be interested to know."
You can't just equate captialism with wealth, it neglects the realit of the global capitalist system, although i am hesitant to give a reason because it cannot be simplified to just one reason or even a series of reason. In my best judegment i beleive power is one of the main if not the main contributing factor. Capitalism has produced as many failed states as it has wealthy states, and the wealthy states are only wealthy cause they can successfully maninpulate a system that they forcibly impose on impoverished states, they have a set of ruels that they force other coutnries to abide by while they flaunt them, and then when that country is going broke, and going bust the repo men come knocking (e.g. IMF) , and force them to pay the "debt" ( that only exists on some computer screen) they owe by privatising every part of the country that resource rich. They force the people into an kind of neo-slavery where they must endure harsh austerity measure just in roder to pay off the interest that is slowly being ratcheted up, and up, your support for thuis system is an inditement of your indoctrination.
"Actually, I am very happy that I was born in a country with freedom and capitalism with great abundance of wealth instead of tyranny and socialism with great poverty"
Again this is not an accurate representation of reality, here ill correct it for you:
"Actually, I am very happy that I was born in a country with the illusion of freedom with great abundance from all the usurpation of resources from weaker nations that can't defend themselves from our socio-economic and military warfare, this is instead of a country with tyranny and socialism that suffer great poverty, where the rulers use coercion to control their populations, thats right i much prefer to live in a borderline facist theocracy where the rulers use cultural garbage, gratification of the ego, and greed to make its population apathetic and docile, and prevents anykind of critical thinking entering mainstream discourse by making the masses contented with their servitude"
There now the statement is accurate, don't you agree?
I'm just curious, don't you live in a capitalistic society, do you choose not to participate in it? Do you have a job? That is, if you don't mind me asking. What do you buy with the money that you've earned? Do you have a car, tv, a house, do you buy groceries, deodorant, or alcohol. DO YOU BUY TOOTHPASTE YOU GREEDY EGOTISTICAL CAPITALIST THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DON'T HAVE TOOTHPASTE!=)
One of the great things about capitalism (i think) is that it enables and encourages its participants to be extremely innovative and flexible in the way capital is achieved. From the industrial revolution to the technology age to the service industry boom. Socialism and Communism cannot be creative enough to sustain itself globally but capitalism has the potential to.
"I'm just curious, don't you live in a capitalistic society,"
Yes.
"do you choose not to participate in it?"
Depends on what you mean by participation, how many really participate, i mena your given the illusion of paticipation.
"Do you have a job? "
Not right now im currently studying for second masters degree in engineering.
"What do you buy with the money that you've earned?"
Nothing im so anti-captipalist that i starve myself as i refuse to participate in anyway with the society. No seriously i don't buy anything xcept the bare essentials, and i do mean bare,for instance, i haven't bought a new set of clothers, not even a jumper or t-shirt in over 4 years.
"Do you have a car, tv, a house, do you buy groceries, deodorant, or alcohol."
What are you trying to get at here im curious.
"DO YOU BUY TOOTHPASTE YOU GREEDY EGOTISTICAL CAPITALIST THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DON'T HAVE TOOTHPASTE!=)"
Ah yes just where i knew it was heading.
"One of the great things about capitalism (i think) is that it enables and encourages its participants to be extremely innovative and flexible in the way capital is achieved."
And what you think innovation is an exclusively capitalist trait, or you think that capitalism is unique in the way that it facilitates the flourishing of innovation?
"From the industrial revolution to the technology age to the service industry boom."
Yes thats it, you can't stop progress!!!!!!!
"Socialism and Communism cannot be creative enough to sustain itself globally but capitalism has the potential to."
I don't mean to sound condescending but really how the hell did you come to that conclusion.
If not, was it a state of barbarism and utter poverty when it was in use? Was there jobs then?
There is still poverty, starvation, and disease even with capitalism. Is it capitalism which causes charity, welfare, foreign aid, and so forth? Is it capitalism which causes investment in high risk technology and causes the undertaking of high risk projects with little chance of investor gain beyond lower risk alternatives?
If not, was it a state of barbarism and utter poverty when it was in use? Was there jobs then?
Mercantilism was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.
There is still poverty, starvation, and disease even with capitalism.
Because of government intervention creates poverty.
Instead of productivity, government welfare attempts to redistribute existing property rather than allowing markets to increase wealth and capital that can be reapplied in the production of new goods and services to increase the standard of living for all.
Instead of productivity, government welfare attempts to redistribute existing property rather than allowing markets to increase wealth and capital that can be reapplied in the production of new goods and services to increase the standard of living for all.
You do realize that a substantial number of the poor are the elderly, and those with mental or physical disabilities, right? Pure capitalism is not going to benefit these people.
You do realize that a substantial number of the poor are the elderly, and those with mental or physical disabilities, right?
Capitalism actually benefits the elderly and physical disabilities, it is called economic spillover or positive externalities. Private charity is economic spillover. With more charity, there is more economic spillover to support the elderly or disabled.
Capitalism actually benefits the elderly and physical disabilities, it is called economic spillover or positive externalities. Private charity is economic spillover. With more charity, there is more economic spillover to support the elderly or disabled.
Yes, and we've seen how ineffective charities are at providing for the poor. It's like giving a bullet wound victim a band-aid. They don't need charity, what they need is a reliable source of income, which they are at a severe disadvantage of obtaining.
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm wondering on how government (known for being unreliable) is a reliable source of income.
I suppose what you mean to say is a fixed source of income.
Do I agree with entitlements and handouts? Mostly, no, I do believe in charity and deregulation. However, I am not opposed to some forms of help that are legislative, but what we do now is not the answer (and in many ways, is just a part of the problem).
I am disputing PrayerFails insistence that we should leave the occupationally disadvantaged (Elderly and disabled) to fend for themselves and hope for incidental unintended and unspecified theoretical benefits bestowed upon them by certain market activities to take care of them. The market doesn't take care of these people, we know this because it has been tried the world over. To maintain any decent standard of living one needs a source of income. Relying on charity does not work.
Suffice to say that if we didn't have some of the programs meant to help the disadvantaged we would see more hungry people than we currently do. Of course some people take advantage of the programs and abuse them. That some people abuse these programs is not good reason to allow others who may legitimately need help to go hungry or to suffer in the cold. Given those two options I think the choice is obvious. If there is a better third alternative I would be in favor of that.
Rather scarcity creates poverty and starvation, capitolism is good as long as certain regulations are imposed to ensure that we do not have a repeat Gilded Age.
Considering my job provides my family with shelter and food due to capital markets whereas I see the poor in Africa suffering and dying of starvation due to the lack of capital markets, yes, anti-capitalism is equal to pro-poverty.
capital markets... the people in Africa are capital and hence their poverty. When you buy a diamond there is a good chance it is a blood diamond after all. When you buy stocks in a major gun manufacturer, part of that manufacturer's demand comes from Africa. The more wars, the less blood diamonds, etc the less revenue there is, the less capital. Capital is already-produced goods used in production of goods or services, certainly war and cheap labor constitute capital.
Also, The education in Africa can't compete with India or china so manufacturing and servicing jobs are not going to be outsourced there. Thus their only jobs are due to their populace's own demand and resources. Their resources are low. The only resource they have in abundance is labor, but the opportunity cost of using that labor is too high so international entities are not going to invest there due to how they should operate in a capitalistic economy. They lack the resources to invest in themselves, and they generally lack the appeal for others to do such.
However, we do have enough arable land to provide for the world over and then some. It isn't managed to do such due to capitalism though.
Capitalism also entitles ownership, and with each man owning his own life.
If someone is forced to work for someone else (and gangsters are coming to your village and killing and raping all your people), that is against the belief in Capitalism (the part about owning your own life).
I know this just leads to the argument that people HAVE to work somehow, but in the case of Blood Diamonds, it is against Capitalism.
The whole point of Property Rights is to show that individuals are separate from each other and must abide by a certain code (made up, the social contract). Those who have slaves are taking away someone's rights (rights seen through Capitalism).
I used to think that Anarchy would allow for Capitalism (not that I felt that Anarchy was fesible, but I used to think that a completely free market with no government is still Capitalism), but I realized that Capitalism requires the belief in private property. The belief in Private property requires the belief in the Individual rights. The belief in the individual rights requires that you be against slavery.
As stated, there's the bullshit philosophy of "in the end, we're still slaves to our ego and needs" or w/e, and that's fine. But that has nothing to do with a man forcing another man to work for him with the threat of taking away his life or raping his family.
Not a dispute to your entire argument (in fact, I agree that pointing to Africa is a shitty example, but that goes both ways). Just a dispute to some of the tactics you threw in there.
Ideally capitalism entitles ownership, but when acquiring the basics are tied up in hierarchical social and economic relationships people by definition lack some amount of ownership which should be theirs. For most people, they lack control over 40 hrs of their week.
I would prefer a system not dependent on mass acceptance and adherence to an ideology, but dependent on the more material "base" of society. The dependence of a libertarians version of capitalism on people accepting an ideology is one reason why I Generally despise it. The only way you can be sure such an ideology is wide spread enough is by doing away with the need of trade, or with government force. Both solutions conflict with other parts of the general libertarian's ideology.
No, I would say that capitalism is strongly criticized or even hated because it tends to result in the consolidation of great wealth within the hands of a few. If we want to talk about privilege, it is the wealthy who have more privilege than anyone else. Children of wealthy parents go to better schools, eat better food, have better clothes, have better doctors, go to better colleges. Tell me that is not privilege.
What I'm describing is the result of unrestricted power. Money is power. Those with money can use it to gain even more money. They can use that money to influence the socio-economic climate to their benefit. Not just a benefit to themselves but to their family and friends. We saw the same occur in ancient times, but instead of using monetary power, ancient people used military power to the same ends. Whenever and wherever you have unrestricted power there will be the few who secure it for themselves, and inevitably the majority will exist at the bottom.
Its tough to make generalizations. One of my poor high school classmates received a full scholorship to MIT, dropped out after first year, got his girlfriend pregnant and became a cook in the Army.
I also came from a lower middle class family, went to the U of I, got a degree in EE and lived happlily ever after.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were both college dropouts.
Warren Buffet's daughter is a modern day poor artist beatnick.
I don't believe in absolutist statements like this.
Capitalism has poverty, socialism has poverty.
Ideally, socialism and laissez-faire capitalism would have no poverty, but that is why they are ideals.
State Socialism, to me, is the only way to actually eliminate poverty. But that is only to spread misery across the board. As well, it ends up not working, but that's because it depends on government (which, of course, sucks at what they do).
I don't believe in absolutist statements like this.
Sad :(
Capitalism has poverty, socialism has poverty.
Capitalism has poverty because government intervention infects capitalism with a virus via social programs. Socialism is worse because government owns the means of production.
Blaming capitalism for poverty is absolutely ridiculous. Capitalism did not create poverty. Capitalism is the cure for poverty, and those who don't understand this doesn't understand what capitalism is.
Whether it is Imperialism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Stalinism, or Marxism, these political and economic ideals cause poverty, capitalism brings man out of utter poverty. Poverty exists in nations due to the lack of capital markets.
What is the difference between poverty and wealth?
Wealth is gained by trade and production of goods and services with individual rights consisting of life, liberty and property. Those who succeed are rich, and those who fail are poor.
Tyrants only gained wealth at the expense of their fellow human by exploitation.
State Socialism, to me, is the only way to actually eliminate poverty.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Please reread the above statement. This is a pathetic statement from someone who claims to be libertarian.
I don't see how Capitalism is the cure for poverty. Are you saying that magically everyone will just have a decent amount of money if we eliminate government intervention?
As for my comment on State Socialism, did you not read my entire statement? I said that it just spreads misery across the board and, as well, it relies on the entity of government which can easily fail us all.
Capitalism, the ideology, is not constructed to end poverty. State Socialism is.
And I'm Libertarian because I believe in individual liberty. I do not believe in fantasies of ending poverty or acheiving world peace. To me, Capitalism keeps power more distributed while government intervention gives power to the few.
It's about distribution of power, not distribution of wealth. Wealth will go to whoever finds opportunity and takes it. You can not guarantee that poverty will end if you completely free the market.
I don't see how Capitalism is the cure for poverty.
Really, how unfortunate? Capitalism is economic freedom while socialism is economic slavery.
Are you saying that magically everyone will just have a decent amount of money if we eliminate government intervention?
The idea of government intervention used as a tool to eliminate poverty acts more like magical thinking.
As for my comment on State Socialism, did you not read my entire statement?
Yes, but after the comment, it really became moot.
Capitalism, the ideology, is not constructed to end poverty. State Socialism is.
I guess it really depends how subjective definition. Your ideology of ending poverty is state socialism while my ideology is capitalism.
And I'm Libertarian because I believe in individual liberty.
Good. Making statements about state socialism is worrisome.
I do not believe in fantasies of ending poverty or achieving world peace.
Ending poverty or achieving world peace is not fantasy. Free markets and free minds will bring these forth, however, the real fantasy is the belief that ending poverty or achieving world peace is government filled with wars or democracy.
You can not guarantee that poverty will end if you completely free the market.
Sure, I can't guarantee that because Hong Kong and Singapore are the closest thing to a free market, and it has done a pretty good job considering it remains even in economic turmoil of close or lower than 5% unemployment but what I can guarantee that government intervention through high taxes, tariffs, regulations will not end poverty. How do I know this? It is already happening.
It's alright to say that the better alternative is to free the market, but once again, you can not guarantee that poverty will end just because we end government interference.
I have a problem with your argument, not your ideology.
Again, I can't guarantee it that poverty will end because of free markets, but I would certainly would like to try than society filled with government interference. The world we have now is because of government interference.
The world we have now is because of government interference.
Yes, and its the better for it.
What private force would of conjured up space travel, international highways, the internet, etc? If one could of done such things, would it of been a for profit organization?
You say that as if business owners are just machines that are programmed to make money.
Clearly you know nothing about what billionaires do in their spare time...
I think the problem with both you and PrayerFails is that you guys like to make assumptions about alternative universes that can never be verified. No one knows where we would be if the government didn't create NASA or the interstate systems...
As well, space travel was a result of world powers being greedy over power. It was of no modest approach, and, in fact, was a result of hostility over different ideals.
Billionaires invest, store, spend, and give in their spare time and other wise. What else do they do?
Its not an assumption, there is not a private motivation great enough to justify a private rational person or private group of people to take such a risk. Its like only having twenty one million dollars, spending twenty million on the lottery, when the total max winnings isn't much more then the original amount of money, and the winnings will be paid out in installments; while you have other options with better liquidity and better returns. A person that does that is acting against their self-interest, which despite appearances is something people just don't do(cause evolution yo).
Most of the great business achievements come from risk.
As well, once again, you're just assuming that things would be terrible if government didn't create NASA or the interstate system. Or, if things would even be different... if anything, it's fallacious to suggest something like that. I all of a sudden have to defend something that isn't real.
Yes, but they come from risk that has been filtered though numerous screening tests to lead to a green light on taking it. What screening test would of lead to a green light on the aforementioned examples?
I'm not assuming that things would be terrible in this argument.
I am stating that things would be different, and less efficient so much so that at the time the government implemented the previous examples, no business with a rational screen test of risk would of took on the projects the government did and thus we either wouldn't have the technology we do today, or it would be stunted by a late start. There are other cases but they wouldn't of happened, one of them is that technological growth would of been greater at a later time if the projects mentioned were developed by a private entity. This wouldn't happen though, because private entities behave as the MPAA and its brethren and private risk premiums would drive up the price, meaning less demand and less of a market to spur technological growth.
You're stating that if government did not create NASA and the interstate system, things would be different in a bad way. I still don't see how...
The Interstate system and NASA were created because America wanted to be big enough to be a major world power. Depending on the Private sector to just create things that the consumers are demanding would not make America as strong as it is now. Really, what you're saying is that things would be bad because America would be far less isolationist.
But in the end, we're arguing major hypotheticals.
It should be obvious. Would the world be better without interstates and NASA existing, or existing in a private form at a later date without the forms it has now previously existing?
In what way is creating a method for quick wide scale trade promoting isolationism?
Welcome to theory and modeling, but theories and models can be useful.
The interstate system and NASA were created for government purposes. Those purposes relied heavily on expanding the Military so that we could flex our muscles around the world.
If alternate methods were created through the private sector, we would see a less interventionist America who concern themselves with trade more often than power.
Big government doesn't only effect the citizens, it effects the world.
Being Interventionist and being isolationist are mutually exclusive.
The interstate system in question is local to the united states, not world wide. It helps the military distribute resources locally and it is also used by private entities. The military and the private sector would still use the system for the same purposes as they have been, no matter who developed it. The local distribution helps to keep the military expenses lower, and grants a more reliable means of transportation then other means. It isn't essential or really even beneficial to an effective interventionist policy.
I care not about the size of government, but about its utility.
A stronger military is needed for interventionist goals, and government finding ways to build up the military is needed for a stronger military.
As stated, my goal isn't to attack militarism or anti-communist sentiments, it's to attack the argument that some will bring up about "government projects are good, look at NASA and the interstate system". It's not an end-all, since many don't even see those things as good (or properly used).
The only way the interstate builds up the military as a tool of interventionist policy is by increasing trade amongst the private sector and the government, there for contributing to the military-industrial complex.
Good or properly used is irrelevant, its better or worst that is.
If you drastically cut military spending, it doesn't really matter what the private sector does. If you cut means of transporting military goods... same shit.
Trains and planes existed before the interstate system, the interstate is just an alternative transportation system which is only more efficient in a few unlikely situations. How much has or does the military actually use it? The interstate system, doesn't really effect our capability to implement militarism.
"bout one-third of all miles driven in the country use the Interstate system (2003 figures)" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Or in other words, it was a major boost to the economy.
Once again, you're asking me to argue a hypothetical by saying "the interstate system was used a lot once it was made", as if I all of a sudden have to create this alternate world to dispute you.
The Nuclear bomb was created for numerous reasons, and we can argue what it would be like if it wasn't made, but that just requires history revision.
Those are the methodologies used to come to my conclusion, if you have a problem with the conclusion then you have a problem with the methodologies...or the studies or argument. However you seem to specifically have a problem with the entire set of methodology because of its conclusion.
Oh please. I'm merely pointing out the problem with using the interstate system as an example as to why government projects are good and necessary. Just because they created it doesn't mean that nothing good would have happened if they didn't. It's a fallacy.
I have argued before and I will argue again, the most successful states have some mixture of both Socialism and Capitalism. Certain things should be run by the government and certain things should be run by the private sector. Absolutist positions typically don't work out very well in practice. You need productivity but more importantly you need to look out for the well being of your people, and sometimes the free market isn't very good at doing that.
I agree Laissez Faire capitolism has historically led to the few ruling the many, with certain regulations this can be controlled, as long as businesses are free to invest and spend money largely where they choose they will make money, this will increase total productivity while keeping the population out of poverty to a far greater extent than either Communism or Capitalism alone. Although I definitely lean towards less regulation more freedom.
Not really because in a true Communist society there would be no word for poverty or rich. There would be no money not because we are poor but because we would recognize money is only an idea that is only given power when you give credence to it. Inventions and food are things to be created or grown by the people and for the people. There is no reason to have a price tag placed on them.
Anyone who is educated and can think for themselves is not "Anti-Capitalism". The reason for the recent financial crisis is due to loosening of the regulatory commissions grip on the financial sector. Pure laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work, and neither does pure socialism, or communism. There is a delicate balance that must be maintained and it has been dismantled in the past 30 or so years starting with the Reagan administration. We should be on a system similar to that of the 50's.
Actually, I am anti-capitalist. I believe all people should be self sufficient. If you are in control of your own means, property, create your own resources, grow your own food, etc. What do you need capitalism for? So you can buy a house, get sold a fraudulent loan, have your house, money, job, retirement fund, and social security taken away? Yeah- it's working awesome.
Oh I work at a fabulous job that hands me fiat notes worth nothing- paper currency that means jack. People would stay honest if they did their own work and went back to trade and barter without a middle man.
