"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[coloradoatheist]

Not to get sidetracked, but the program is stealing from one group of people to give money to another group of people in return that a later date some other group will be stolen from.

Paying required taxes can never be called stealing.

Doing so is rhetorical whining on a massive scale.

Social Security is an inter-generational insurance policy.

And since Reagan began a tax on Social Security, even those getting it are paying out for others.

It is a societal expression that we are all in this together.

One nation under god and all that crap.

Of course it can be stealing. You would be okay if there was a pay for Trump's gold bathrooms tax right? If that tax is passed it's okay with you?

We should label it what it is, a stupidity tax. Again the irony from an anarchist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course it can be stealing. You would be okay if there was a pay for Trump's gold bathrooms tax right? If that tax is passed it's okay with you?

We should label it what it is, a stupidity tax. Again the irony from an anarchist.

Well, if it's legal then it's not stealing. It's like how campaign contributions aren't bribes. Sure, they involve giving money to people in power to have them use this power to the benefit of the payer in a manner which they wouldn't have done without the payment, but it's been defined as "not bribery" by the people who are in the position to decide what is or is not bribery.

Similarly, the people who get to decide what is or is not stealing have defined this as "not stealing".

 

[untermensche]

Paying required taxes can never be called stealing.

Doing so is rhetorical whining on a massive scale.

Social Security is an inter-generational insurance policy.

And since Reagan began a tax on Social Security, even those getting it are paying out for others.

It is a societal expression that we are all in this together.

One nation under god and all that crap.

Of course it can be stealing. You would be okay if there was a pay for Trump's gold bathrooms tax right? If that tax is passed it's okay with you?

We should label it what it is, a stupidity tax. Again the irony from an anarchist.

First of all it is amusing you compare one of the greatest social programs in history that has benefited millions and millions of people to a gold bathroom that benefits one man.

It isn't stealing even though it does allow the presidency to resemble a monarchy.

Paying the required fees to maintain the society you live in is not stealing.

If you don't like how the fees are used, like on wars and weapons, it still isn't stealing.

Calling it stealing is nonsense.

Pathetic childish whining.

 

[KeepTalking]

Says our local anarchist.

You don't know what Anarchism is.

Don't worry, you are not alone.

The Spanish in the 1930s were a large scale example.

Yeah, it was so great it lasted almost 3 years!

 

[coloradoatheist]

You don't know what Anarchism is.

Don't worry, you are not alone.

The Spanish in the 1930s were a large scale example.

Yeah, it was so great it lasted almost 3 years!

The Articles of Confederation lasted a little longer so it must have been a great system too.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it can be stealing. You would be okay if there was a pay for Trump's gold bathrooms tax right? If that tax is passed it's okay with you?

We should label it what it is, a stupidity tax. Again the irony from an anarchist.

First of all it is amusing you compare one of the greatest social programs in history that has benefited millions and millions of people to a gold bathroom that benefits one man.

It isn't stealing even though it does allow the presidency to resemble a monarchy.

Paying the required fees to maintain the society you live in is not stealing.

If you don't like how the fees are used, like on wars and weapons, it still isn't stealing.

Calling it stealing is nonsense.

Pathetic childish whining.

and yet you don't give praise to capitalism that has brought billions out of poverty and has given us the opportunity to worry about old people not saving enough.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know what Anarchism is.

Don't worry, you are not alone.

The Spanish in the 1930s were a large scale example.

Yeah, it was so great it lasted almost 3 years!

It was attacked by greater numbers with far greater resources. The Germans, Italians, Russians, British and Americans all provided aid to their enemy.

Saying they collapsed under what no group in human history could have withstood is desperate empty criticism.

They had a functioning society not based on top down principles and morality.

That is why all those top down systems aided in their destruction.

 

[untermensche]

and yet you don't give praise to capitalism that has brought billions out of poverty and has given us the opportunity to worry about old people not saving enough.

Capitalism didn't do that. Human innovation did it.

Russia transformed much faster than the US without capitalism.

You confuse a system of top down control over the benefits of human innovation with a necessary cause.

 

[coloradoatheist]

and yet you don't give praise to capitalism that has brought billions out of poverty and has given us the opportunity to worry about old people not saving enough.

Capitalism didn't do that. Human innovation did it.

Russia transformed much faster than the US without capitalism.

You confuse a system of top down control over the benefits of human innovation with a necessary cause.

Nope. You are confusing an economic system with a method of how to organize people. Not the same. And in terms of inventions of the history of human kind, capitalism is in the top 5.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yeah, it was so great it lasted almost 3 years!

It was attacked by greater numbers with far greater resources. The Germans, Italians, Russians, British and Americans all provided aid to their enemy.

Saying they collapsed under what no group in human history could have withstood is desperate empty criticism.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that then.

Of course, you did say that in the first sentence of your post, so have fun attacking your own argument as "desperate empty criticism".

 

[untermensche]

It was attacked by greater numbers with far greater resources. The Germans, Italians, Russians, British and Americans all provided aid to their enemy.

Saying they collapsed under what no group in human history could have withstood is desperate empty criticism.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that then.

Of course, you did say that in the first sentence of your post, so have fun attacking your own argument as "desperate empty criticism".

You make a childish snide remark based on ignorance.

I responded to the inanity of it.

Now you feel the need to say absolutely nothing to defend it and pretend you didn't express the initial ignorance.

What motivates such futile behavior is beyond me.

Saying the Anarchists were crushed, therefore...... (anything) is absolute nonsense.

You don't criticize any system simply because it can be crushed by greater power.

- - - Updated - - -

Capitalism didn't do that. Human innovation did it.

Russia transformed much faster than the US without capitalism.

You confuse a system of top down control over the benefits of human innovation with a necessary cause.

Nope. You are confusing an economic system with a method of how to organize people. Not the same. And in terms of inventions of the history of human kind, capitalism is in the top 5.

Capitalism is a tiny baby step from slavery and feudalism and carries with it all the immorality of the top down nature of these systems.

It is something that exploits human innovation, not the cause of it.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that then.

Of course, you did say that in the first sentence of your post, so have fun attacking your own argument as "desperate empty criticism".

You make a childish snide remark based on ignorance.

No, the remark I made was based on the verifiable historic fact that your vaunted Spanish Anarchism lasted less than 3 years. Basing a comment on fact is quite the opposite of basing it on ignorance.

I responded to the inanity of it.

And my initial response was to the inanity you displayed by accusing us all of being ignorant to the greatest success of Anarchism. A success that lasted less than 3 years, which is a mere blip in the historical record. If that is the greatest success that you can point to, then Anarchism is the least successful form of governance in recorded history.

Now you feel the need to say absolutely nothing to defend it and pretend you didn't express the initial ignorance.

No, I was simply not allowing you to put words in my mouth (or type words through my keyboard, as the case may be).

What motivates such futile behavior is beyond me.

My motivation was to set the record straight. If the people of this forum were unlikely to know the history of Spanish Anarchism, then they were equally unlikely to know how briefly it lasted.

Saying the Anarchists were crushed, therefore...... (anything) is absolute nonsense.

Once again, I never said the Anarchists were crushed, therefore there could not have been any therefore to follow up my non-statement.

You don't criticize any system simply because it can be crushed by greater power.

I can criticize a system however I wish, so long as such criticism falls within the realm of truth. I feel it is perfectly reasonable to criticize forms of government by noting their longevity, or lack thereof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You fail to understand that the person who uses their capital to make more capital likely works very hard at doing so.

Just because it's almost all thinking rather than manual labor doesn't make it not work.

Since college I have never been more than two hops from the owners/C-level employees and until my current job I have had routine interaction with them.

They work hard, the company does well. They don't work hard, the company goes downhill.

It is not work to use capital to make capital.

It is making money without doing work. If you invest in a company that is not work. If you invest but in reality have no control over what you invest in you are not a capitalist. You are a gambler.

If they are doing work they are not capitalists.

They are merely workers who control other workers in a top down dictatorial scheme.

Then the real capitalists are the workers! They're the ones who invest without control (mostly via retirement accounts.)

- - - Updated - - -

there has always been an idea in the united states that for any given problem, if one can find a way to apply capitalism, then the problem will solve itself. i can't argue with the track record - it has worked in many situations. i have some issues with the underlying assumption that greed is the prime motivator...but then again, history. you see where this is going....

i've actually heard, several times, of trump, 'if he can run a business, he can run a government' - to which i can only be nonplussed. is this the logic behind president trump?

Trump demonstrates the weakness of capitalism. Once you're rich enough you can't really lose. The rich form a nobility. Well, that's a problem. Because it's nepotism. A form of corruption. Corruption is bad.

Capitalism only works if bad ideas are allowed to die. That's the whole justification. But if you're rich enough there's no limit to how much you can fail and still beat the system.

Sorry, I've seen the rich lose badly.

 

[untermensche]

Then the real capitalists are the workers! They're the ones who invest without control (mostly via retirement accounts.)

Investing without control, as I said, makes one a gambler and many times a sucker who loses everything.

Not a capitalist.

 

[untermensche]

You make a childish snide remark based on ignorance.

No, the remark I made was based on the verifiable historic fact that your vaunted Spanish Anarchism lasted less than 3 years.

Actually the Anarchist movement in Spain lasted decades. It didn't just spring into being in an instant.

Anarchists had control over large parts of Spain for a few years and when left alone were incredibly successful.

What is your point?

Do you have anything besides a bad understanding of history to express?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then the real capitalists are the workers! They're the ones who invest without control (mostly via retirement accounts.)

Investing without control, as I said, makes one a gambler and many times a sucker who loses everything.

Not a capitalist.

Then there are no capitalists.

You can quit blaming them for everything.

 

[untermensche]

Investing without control, as I said, makes one a gambler and many times a sucker who loses everything.

Not a capitalist.

Then there are no capitalists.

You can quit blaming them for everything.

There are plenty of capitalists. The 1%. The Donald Trumps of the world. As we can see intelligence is not a prerequisite.

They are rare however.

The progression of a capitalist system is that more and more people end up serving less and less.

They are not only immoral but continually unstable.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Then there are no capitalists.

You can quit blaming them for everything.

There are plenty of capitalists. The 1%. The Donald Trumps of the world. As we can see intelligence is not a prerequisite.

They are rare however.

The progression of a capitalist system is that more and more people end up serving less and less.

They are not only immoral but continually unstable.

Why are you definining 1% as capitalist? That's arbitrary. There are different types of capitalists. And if we discuss principled capitalists, Trump is not one.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, the remark I made was based on the verifiable historic fact that your vaunted Spanish Anarchism lasted less than 3 years.

Actually the Anarchist movement in Spain lasted decades. It didn't just spring into being in an instant.

Anarchists had control over large parts of Spain for a few years and when left alone were incredibly successful.

What is your point?

The Anarchist movement still exists, you seem to be part of it, so surely you know this. As applied as a form of government, which is the true test of a political ideology, it did not even last 3 years. That is my point. If you want to show how successful Anarchism can be as a modern form of government, you need to find a better example of that happening. Too bad that Spain is the one and only example you have, with nothing else to fall back on.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Actually the Anarchist movement in Spain lasted decades. It didn't just spring into being in an instant.

Anarchists had control over large parts of Spain for a few years and when left alone were incredibly successful.

What is your point?

The Anarchist movement still exists, you seem to be part of it, so surely you know this. As applied as a form of government, which is the true test of a political ideology, it did not even last 3 years. That is my point. If you want to show how successful Anarchism can be as a modern form of government, you need to find a better example of that happening. Too bad that Spain is the one and only example you have, with nothing else to fall back on.

I would define the Amish as anarchists, or possibly kibbutz. The actual line is a little tough.

 

[untermensche]

There are plenty of capitalists. The 1%. The Donald Trumps of the world. As we can see intelligence is not a prerequisite.

They are rare however.

The progression of a capitalist system is that more and more people end up serving less and less.

They are not only immoral but continually unstable.

Why are you definining 1% as capitalist? That's arbitrary. There are different types of capitalists. And if we discuss principled capitalists, Trump is not one.

A capitalist is somebody who gains wealth by controlling others with capital, not through labor.

The 1% are not the only people who do this, but many are a clear example of it.