Dislike Of Capitalism

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Thejourney318, Jul 31, 2014.

  1.  
    Yes, with limited risk.
     
    We currently assign great powers to individuals (in government) and limited to no liability (secret courts, qualified immunity, pardons, etc.). In an Anarchist society, it will be the inverse. Limited, equal powers to individuals and great liability.
     
    This is a true system of "checks and balances" - not expecting government to regulate itself (as we know is impossible).
     
  2. Out of interest does anyone here believe that there could be a system developed in which everyone is wealthy? Not just comfortable but actually quite well off...every last soul?
     
  3. #183 *ColtClassic*, Aug 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 29, 2014
     
    It depends on how we define wealth, because we typically look at what defines wealthy as how the top percentile of society are situated, so it is doubtful.
     
    Wealthy
     
    adjective, wealthier, wealthiest.1.<div>having great wealth; rich; affluent:<div>a wealthy person; a wealthy nation.

    </div>2.characterized by, pertaining to, or suggestive of wealth:<div>a wealthy appearance.

    </div>3.rich in character, quality, or amount; abundant or ample:<div>a novel that is wealthy in its psychological insights.
     
    Wealth
     
    noun<div>1.<div>a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches:<div>the wealth of a city.

    </div>2.an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount:<div>a wealth of imagery.

    </div>3.Economics.
    1. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.\t
    2. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

    4.rich or valuable contents or produce:<div>the wealth of the soil.

    </div>5.the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence:<div>persons of wealth and standing.

    </div></div> 
    --------------
     
    Because there will always be a division of labor in society, it is highly unlikely that people will belong to the same percentile of wealth. However, this brings us back to how we define wealth and what it is to be wealthy. Because the goal post is constantly moving, today's wealth can be tomorrow's poverty and so on (most of us live with commodities that kings and queens of previous centuries could have never dreamed of).
     
    I believe in the future, if the world can remain relatively stable/peaceful and that barriers to free trade can be brought down, we will see immense increases in global wealth and economic opportunity. This will require a period of lasting peace and much stabler global economy with countries permitting competing currencies and an absence of central banks.
     
    Most things in society can be represented by a bell-curve, so it is logical to assume that wealth distribution will reach equilibrium in the form a bell-curve (with the majority of wealth distributed towards the center).
     
    I know that everyone having equal wealth sounds appealing to some, but it is not economically reasonable, efficient, or attainable without using force. It simply defeats the whole point of transferring wealth when everybody is equally wealthy - no spending or borrowing will stagnate an economy into recession.
    </div></div></div>
     
  4. its called capitalism.

    We need the third world and Russia and China to stop dragging the world down if we want the lower class to disappear

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  5. Not sure I would say limited risk. There are many extreme ideologies that sway many peoples and place them under a banner. People are often striking out at others or wishing too. With the opportunity, it will happen. Many deluded individuals filled with ego and hate roam the earth. What makes you think that people won't fill the power vacuum left behind and be corrupt as well. Coercion always existed and will continue to exist.
     
  6. Darwin plays a major role in Anarchy. For anarchy is the releasing of individuals from total captivity. So some go back into it, some cause it, some stay free from it. I believe the one's who go back into it and cause it, will die by the ones who stay free from it..
     
  7. #187 *ColtClassic*, Aug 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2014
     
    "Dragging the world down" in what sense?
     
     
     
     
    I say limited risk, because without the state there will be less potential for democide, nuclear war, global wars, political assasination, civillian massacre, false flags, biological warfare, social engineering, etc.
     
    I think we see the "power vaccum" effect because society truly isn't ready for anarchy yet, just as society wouldn't be ready for atheism one or two thousand years ago (although we are now in a increasing trend towards secularism/atheism). So, of course, if tomorrow there were suddenly no state then there would be individuals looking to rebuild that structure and assume power. This has to be a paradigm shift in society where coercive rule is no longer tolerated, let alone cheered for and desired by the masses.
     
    Of course coercion will always exist, but we must reduce its utilization. We currently base our society around coercion and theft via the state. If abolish this system of violence then it will obviously lessen coercion and violence as a whole.
     

Share This Page