Uhh so Capitalism in other words? You get out of it what you put into it. The difference being you get to choose where to apply yourself instead of for some authoritative group think utopian horseshit, that and we don't throw you in a gulag you're free to live and die on the streets.
I am curious, has anyone in this thread had any shift in political philosophy, if so, from what to what?
I did. From thinking these socialist nutties had some brains to knowing how rabid and entrenched in their propagandiesd ideology they are. Vigilo Confido
This is a excellent definition of money. I guess my point is Capitalism NOW seems to not require the government behind the economic system to match up philosophically. Which is why we have what we call laissez faire capitalism, and Ano Cap both representing different levels of free market societies in today's political and economic philosophical discussions. Either Capitalism can not be maintained by a written constitution which limits state intervention or it never existed in the first place and was a concept that was never fully practiced. If it is a concept that never came to practice (my belief), than we have to ask why, and it seems that a democratic republic did not produce the stated outcome and that a written constitution can not limit government. Capitalism as it was drawn up in the American Constitution never met the laissez faire definition as far as i can tell. Definition of Capitalism "Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Source: Dictionary.com This is an example of a definition by non-essentials. An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Source: Capitalism.org In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights.The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable. Because people often use the term "Capitalism" loosely, "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is sometimes used to describe a true Capitalist system. But this phrase is redundant. It is important to define "Capitalism" correctly because a proper definition is a prerequisite to a proper defense. Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis. From a rebel with no cause to a conservative business owner to a libertarian dad to an ano cap cannabis farmer. PS happy 420 brother
Yeah, certainly. From religious certainty that Scandinavian social democracy would solve all the world's problems, to an acute understanding that which politics are functional where is the tiny top of a giant pyramid of culture and history. And from that, a spiteful stance towards ideological absolutism. (Anocap included, I'm afraid xD)
I have to admit it does sound inviting. I could finally answer the question I've wondered about since I was a kid....When a person is guillotined and their head drops toward the basket, for a split second do they try to put their hands out to break their fall?
There all forms of control doesn't really matter who's control you're under it appears to be destined to be to me..
Humans have always tried to control others, I don't know why but it appears to be hardwired, whether it be slavery or religion at one extreme to mild social pressures to conform at the other. Those who refuse to be controlled are either killed, expelled from the pack, or they become the leader.
I'z watchin an actualized.org video yesterday on duality... so reminiscent of this thread. Hot vs cold, high vs. low, in vs. out, capitalism vs socialism! heh heh neat stuff. Haven't watched it all, but I will link it for those that may enjoy. makes me read more... kinda set in my thinking, man is doomed due to their power tripping destructive nature. Socrates was right... I partially thank this thread for helping me realize Will Durant. ps: this video has nothing to do with the thread... or does it?
I feel a sense of doom while at the same time long for the destruction of the present state of affairs. My favorite personal response to it all is. " I didn't ask to be here"..Control is not my thing but it is the struggle of not being in control that gets me.
The U.N. is a centralized power, perhaps they disable other centralized powers but they dont enable decentralization.
We've got it good now, Pizza Hut delivers, you can watch Japenese chicks with big tits on a box in your pocket, and your car comes with cruise control. Survival necessitates hierarchies and functional command structures, teamwork put us here and teamwork means someone giving orders and others carrying them out. It's tribal stuff, and it makes sense to me. It's not cool, in modern society, but the ordered group consumes the disordered group, 99 out of 100 times. So, having someone at the top doing the organizational thinking has made us outcompete the others. Could see a future where there is less of that, tho, for sure.