Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 11:18am:


do you mean Capitalism?

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion.

What is the purpose of government under capitalism?

It is to protect rights that governments are instituted. A proper government’s only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud.

In a political context, freedom has only one specific meaning — freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man’s rights be violated.

I've got about 4 replies I'm currently writing but I'm a bit busy at the moment so have a little patience. In the mean time could I ask you guys to clarify a few terms so we are on the same page.


Value - Subjective or not? Agree or disagree?

Money - Do you guys understand the three things money represents? Scarcity, Subjective value, resource/time/energy/labour costs. Agree or disagree?

Theft - Immoral or not (there is obviously a grey area in all ideas such as someone starving stealing an apple to live etc)

Threatening people with violence to get them to do what you want involuntarily - Moral or Immoral? I say Immoral agree or disagree?

Corporations - State created state mandated state subsidized state given special privileges, limited liability, bias court system that favours the rich. Agree or disagree?

Federal Reserve Fiat/Fractional reserve banking - US government handed the control of the monetary supply to a single entity the federal reserve, no other entity may control the money supply, no competing american currency is allowed only US dollars are legal tender etc, so federal reserve is state created and competition in banking is restricted. Agree or disagree?

Current system - Current system is NOT free market capitalism, what are we going to label it? So far I'm getting crony corporate fascism will that suffice when referring to the current system? Agree/Disagree? (We need to distinguish the differences between the current system and free market capitalism to have a clear debate)

Property - Do you agree with the capitalist definition of property that you own yourself, your actions, the effects of your actions and can therefore voluntarily acquire land, factories, houses, toys, lawn mower etc or do you go with the socialist view of Private property VS Possessions? IE you can own a tooth brush but you can't own vacant land or a means of production that other people use ie employees? (If you go with the socialist view I'd like to pick two bones with you )

Anyways I'll get those replies done when I've got some more time.

EDIT: Also if you wouldn't mind just for clarification, what ideology or view you have? There's this miscommunication where I'm being accused of defending the current system and vice versa. Would I be correct in saying that we have three views atm: Free market capitalism being held to scrutiny, the current sytem (see above) and what ever view/ideology you guys hold?

So in a conversation I can note who is defending the current system and who has a different view so we can see the clear three way in a particular conversation. Cheers.

In most cases capitalism does its worst harm to people without the use of force but through fraud, deceit, power imbalance, false advertising, price fixing, wage etc. Are you saying that in your ideal system there will be laws to stop and punish all this? 

Also let me ask you these 2 questions about the morals and the laws of your ideal system.  Lets say I buy a property specifically to do fracking entirely within the boundaries of my property.  Lets say i have done studies and i know that my fracking operation will pollute the water table for say 50 miles all round and make the town water with 50,000 inhabitants undrinkable. And that thereafter, for the town to survive, it will be necessary for the inhabitants to truck in water at huge prices.  Now i know all that but I personally stand to make huge bucks out of my fracking operation.  What is the moral position in your new system.  Is this guy morally right to choose to proceed with the fracking operation.  And (2) will there be any laws to stop him or not and if so describe the laws.  These are genuine questions.  I really dont know what you are going to say.   

Yeah right!!!

Hey Igot one for you.  Define anarchy.  Hehehehe Give Grey a call I'm sure he'll have a million of them for ya. 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:


Vuk11 is right The images are a violation of both the non-aggression principle and property rights, non of which are to do with capitalism but more to do with coercive monopolies using violence to rule over others.

Your ignorance is typical of socialists and could be the reason why while capitalist system have been so successful, socialist system have failed one after the other.

Your seeing a hen (Corporatism or Cronyism) and calling it a duck (Capitalism), they are two different systems.

edit: Back before the '80s it only took one income to keep a family, buy a home, now you're lucky if you can do it with two. My mum worked part-time. Not because she had to but because she wanted to. Try that on the average wage now and remember most people don't earn anywhere near the average wage.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:


You must assume there are no laws in Ahovking's position. There should be no government according to him(anarcho-capitalism!?) or if he thinks there should be he has dropped it from his talking points. He seems to see capitalism as a political system, not a bad bad government/assembly representing the people political system but a cuddly, people and world hugging, teddybear political system.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that there will always be politics, it's part of society and society depends on it more than capitalism, it's why tribes still have it but not capitalism. It's what form that politics takes and what economic system that should realistically be talked about because one without the other will never happen. My view is that markets and capitalism heavily regulated by a polity of the people, the wealth should benefit and be shared by the people of said polity.