Gentlemen...

[TheDivineBoss]

Let's discuss.

 

[Ghan_04]

Basically, Capitalism wins because it allows people to fully exercise their rights up to the extent that whatever they do does not cause direct harm to other.
Out of rational self-interest, it doesn't make sense to shoot people because you yourself would not want to be shot in turn. This then forms the basis of what would be the most just type of government. The best government is one that protects only these rights of the people and does nothing else.

Capitalism does not treat you like a baby. The government is not your mother. It will prevent people from stealing your property and beating you, but it is not going to give you free stuff.

So, that about covers it in a broad sense. I think this is the best way to run a society.

 

[Samuraid]

As with every single political and economic ideology in existence, capitalism depends on people living as moral, responsible, self-governed individuals.
In capitalism, no assumptions are made as to an individual having any sort of outside financial support; thus, it makes one far more directly responsible for one's resources, not to mention far more apt to work hard and to the best of one's abilities.

 

[Samuraid]

Likewise, a socialistic society has the potential to succeed just as effectively given a moral, responsible, and self-governed population; however, the individual's resources remain far more abstracted. In many cases in the non-ideal world, this causes laziness and lack of motivation on the part of individuals and allows an imbalance to form in the proportions of work each person performs and the amount of compensation he/she receives as a result. In the worst case, this "fiscal abstraction" allows authority figures far too much leeway to "plunder" from the collective resource pool, causing deficit and an ultimate failure of the system if no compensation is made.

 

[Samuraid]

Conclusion: I support an economic and social system that directly rewards people for dedication and hard work. Each earns his or her due. Furthermore, I support the responsibility of individuals to live generously and in a manner supportive of others. Ultimately, any system lives or dies based on the morality and work-ethic of the individuals that comprise it.

 

[Hakeem]

Sounds like an argument for agalmic anarchy to me, but neither of those are relevant here. In a society that uses money, capitalism is the best route because any form of regulation is a form of control. As we learn from anarchy 101: Control is never justifiable.


I'm not sure where this will go with everyone agreeing about it.

 

[Ghan_04]

Well, I still agree that a government should exist to prevent your neighbor from shooting you and taking your property. But that government should NOT provide any social services to you beyond what directly protects your rights from being taken away by others.
Government regulation of the economy should be at a minimum - I would probably be in favor of the government preventing companies from directly lying to you - for example, if some company tried to knowingly sell you pills that they claimed were good for ailment X, but really were fake or even dangerous, I think the government would be ok in stopping that, but I don't think they should stop that stuff from just being sold as long as the seller doesn't lie to the consumer about it. If the consumer is stupid enough to go by the "Buy This!" label without knowing what they were buying, then too bad for them.

 

[Ghan_04]

If you have not, I recommend you all take a look at this:

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/f478/divorce-agreement-126338/

It makes me happy.

 

[Ricardo Irving]

... I believe in a different way of Capitalism. Ultimately, a murderer comes and stabs you when sleeping. Will you dedicate yourself to staying awake, until collapsing being awake for 48 hours?

 

[Ghan_04]

What? I don't get that at all, really. It is the government's job to protect its citizens from their rights being denied by others. So the government would be justified in stepping in to prevent someone from murdering you, because that would be denying your rights.
I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[Ricardo Irving]

Australia gets free-health care. Is the right to live...a right? If so, then... damnit, I can't go further because you said others, so that means disease can't be...oh...maybe it... can be. I'm not sure why I do this weird...stuff...like...this.

 

[Ghan_04]

You do not have the right TO life. You have the right FROM being harmed by other people. If we had the right to life, then that would mean that dying is illegal. This is the difference between what are called Positive Rights and what are called Negative Rights. There ought not be any Positive Rights, but only negative ones, as I have stated. The negative right is that you have the right to not be harmed by other members of society. Society should not have to go out of its way for you. That would be a Positive Right.

Anyway, that's some of the philosophy behind it.

 

[bw59]

To me, you do have the right to live because you have the right to not have your freedoms opressed by people. That is how it should work but you are not meant to have society stop everything to make sure you have a doctor when you break your leg. That's not how it is meant to work. In a book, they sum up how the government handles everything. "Everything gets the attention that is seen required, fit, and proper. The more complaints we get, the more attention we say we are giving it." The government isn't supposed to spend a trillion dollars over the coarse of ten years to help out fifty million people...per say.

 

[bw59]

You have the right to live but the way Ghan is saying it, it is like a law. In the Constitution, it says you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It never said dieing is illegal, but killing someone is since you are taking away their most basic right, life.

 

[bw59]

A communist plan is terble for all people. Even most hobos live beter than people during Mao's or especially, Stalin's reign. Winnin the lotto isn't an option, only in the moves.

 

[izaiphovias]

Gentlemen, i only know one thing: you are confusing capitalism and communism with democracy and socialism. Look, i'm not insinuating what you said is wrong, but capitalism and democracy are two diferent things - capitalism is the economic politic of a country and democracy it's government tipe, so the rights are most relationed with democracy, don't you think? Anyway, i agree with "bw59", the right to life don't make dying a crime, the right to life is most like a right to live, to avail you life, without have your other rights been opressed by anyone, die would be not a crime, but murder would.

 

[leet.firefox]

So is that it?

 

[izaiphovias]

it... what?

 

[leet.firefox]

Is that all there is to say about Capitalism?

 

[FadedLeveling]

Im republican. SOI SOI SOI

 

[N00B5600]

Capitalism is when profit is distributed to the owners who invest in businesses. It does not affect us directly (it does indirectly) but rather makes those who invest more richer and therefore invest more (not always the case). This encourages economic growth as more businesses will spring up, but will create a class-based system, where the rich grow richer, but the poor stay more or less the same unless the gap widens, placing them lower in society.

 

[Evillizard]

depends on people living as moral, responsible, self-governed individuals

Atleast what we've been talking about, the government IS NOT based on morals, it based on FREEDOM. Example?
Liberty
Life
Pursuit of happiness
As long as you do not defy someoen else your rights, you have these rights. If you enjoy killing people, as in Persuit of hapiness, you are defying someone's rights to life. These 3 rights have nothing to do with morals, because everyone in a society such as america has different morals, and the ENTIRE WORLD. Nazis hating jews was a MORAL, it wasn't immoral, it was a nazi moral.