Anti-Capitalism Thread

david starling

Well-known member
Once the very wealthy have paid their taxes, the money belongs to the various governments. In the U.S., the Preamble to the Constitution is an excellent guide as to how the money should be spent.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
That's the best way to run the System, both in a practical sense, and morally as well. Your morality appears to be based on a defense of the greed and gluttony which make Capitalism unsustainable in the long run.
The trick is to tax just enough to keep the distribution of wealth at a reasonable level, without damaging the ambition to attain great wealth. Over-taxation would be detrimental.


You avoid answering why you think you have a right to take other people's money and threaten them with physical force. Even if it was for what you mistakenly imply to be "the greater good", you are still over-stepping over the rights of others. So, again, what gives you the moral right to take from others? My morality is based on personal liberty, which is the basis of western society. I believe each individual has a right to do whatever they want with their property. The goverment has no actual right to take more from you than from others.

High taxation is usually detrimental to most countries. In fact the biggest problem for developing countries has been high taxes that stump growth. On the other hand, most developed countries created their current wealth mostly during the decades they excersised free market economy.
 
Last edited:

Cap

Well-known member
An anti-capitalist Cap? Love it! I see some Taurus's express themselves as pretty eco, mother earth above dollars and all! Do you see aspects in your chart that reflect an anti-capitalist way of thinking and acting?

I'm a special (non-materialistic) kind of Capricorn :wink:

My motivation for fighting capitalism is purely spiritual + it would be nice to remove all unnecessary suffering from this godforsaken planet.

cap.jpg
 

david starling

Well-known member
You avoid answering why you think you have a right to take other people's money and threaten them with physical force. Even if it was for what you mistakenly imply to be "the greater good", you are still over-stepping over the rights of others. So, again, what gives you the moral right to take from others? My morality is based on personal liberty, which is the basis of western society. I believe each individual has a right to do whatever they want with their property. The goverment has no actual right to take more from you than from others.

High taxation is usually detrimental to most countries. In fact the biggest problem for developing countries has been high taxes that stump growth. On the other hand, most developed countries created their current wealth mostly during the decades they excersised free market economy.

What I want is a functional system that works to preserve individual liberty without opening the door to suffering, war, and degradation of the Environment.
Here's one for you--do we have the right to use whatever medications and recreational drugs we choose? Or, do we have to curtail that right for "the greater good"?
 

Cap

Well-known member
Lets examine this:

If what you said was true, then by definition people would be less employed today than decades before, because population has increased and (according to your numbers) there are less jobs available.

Yet, unemployment rates in the U.S. have always remained between the 4%-10% rate for over 60 years, despite multiple technological developments. In fact, for example right now, you have more people employed that you did 20 years ago in the end of the Clinton era during the 90's, despite the american population having increased by 50 million individuals since 1998.

In contrast, in less technologically developed countries, such as those in South America (including my own), we find unemployment rates that go from 15% to 30%.

So the numbers don't really support your statement regarding technological development destroying jobs faster than it creates them.

It depends which statistic you choose. Around 40% of adult population in USA doesn't work. Around 22% of population aged 25-54 doesn't work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/...e-wasnt-real-here-are-some-other-options.html


The reality is that with the advent of technology jobs are moving from being a dependant into self-employment, but they are by no means dissapearing.

This is just a beginning of robot industrial revolution. We haven't seen anything yet. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. In 10 years there will be things possible we cannot even imagine today.

This is an old video but it has very good message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

What I don't understand is the following:

If human society advances to such technological level that we could make all human labor obsolete, if we advance to such level that we could provide abundance for all humans on this planet, why would anyone in the right mind be against reorganizing society in such way to make this possible?

Why would anyone want to stick with this old inadequate system if there is a better option? If you are freed from labor and given a gift of free life why would you still insist on this dog-eat-dog world?
 

Cap

Well-known member
And what kind of 'force' do you suggest we apply to separate people from their money?

Why is it fair to do that?

The same "force" that separated the slave owners from their slaves and feudal lords from their peasants.

Fair? First people are forced to live in dog-eat-dog world by the rules of some crazy Russian psychopath writer and if that same people rise some day and say: "Enough of this madness, the game is over! We say so because we are the strongest!", then suddenly you don't want to play dog-eat-dog game anymore?
 

Oddity

Well-known member
I see. All rich people are evil, therefore you can do anything you want to them. Sure, mob rule would be a real improvement over what we have now.

The same "force" that separated the slave owners from their slaves and feudal lords from their peasants.

Fair? First people are forced to live in dog-eat-dog world by the rules of some crazy Russian psychopath writer and if that same people rise some day and say: "Enough of this madness, the game is over! We say so because we are the strongest!", then suddenly you don't want to play dog-eat-dog game anymore?
 

david starling

Well-known member
I see. All rich people are evil, therefore you can do anything you want to them. Sure, mob rule would be a real improvement over what we have now.

I'm just talking about an economic system that does the most good and the least harm, and includes maximizing individual liberty. Having a LOT of money gives one a LOT of power under Capitalism, and, unfortunately, that power CAN be abused. But, honestly, is a high but not exorbitant tax rate on the extremely wealthy equivalent to declaring them "evil" and doing "anything you want to them"? We're all in this material world together, and I'd like to think there are very rich people who would welcome the chance to help make it better or everyone.
 

rahu

Banned
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/
The wealth gap between America’s high income group and everyone else has reached record high levels since the economic recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-09, with a clear trajectory of increasing wealth for the upper-income families and no wealth growth for the middle- and lower-income families.

(the last recession in 2008 was caused by fraudulent derivatives. this has been established. but there has not been any legal action taken against this institutionalized fraud. the middle class lost over 40 trillion dollars in equity and the banks and financial institutions ended up with over 40 trillion dollars in off shore banks.
the "recovery" has been fueled by the fraudulent gain of the banks/financial institutions.
the united stes has driven the worlds economy for most of the 20th century because of consumer spending. but know with the extinction of the middle class, the economy is now driven by war. the US has been in a war economy since Obama escalated the middle east war . this means that the middle class is no longer benefiting from the economy, but rather the corporations that built instruments of death are the main benefactors

rahu)
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
Taxation without representation was a big thing in US history. Look it up.

Okay. So you charge exorbitant taxes on the rich, and imprison them if they don't pay. What if they opt out by moving their businesses, money, and themselves to a more market-friendly country? Would that be permitted?

A lot of wealthy folks help out by donating to charity, albeit that has problems, too.

Also, do you believe that the government is all-wise and benevolent, not prone to corruption and greed, and is the best vehicle for fair wealth distribution?

I'm just talking about an economic system that does the most good and the least harm, and includes maximizing individual liberty. Having a LOT of money gives one a LOT of power under Capitalism, and, unfortunately, that power CAN be abused. But, honestly, is a high but not exorbitant tax rate on the extremely wealthy equivalent to declaring them "evil" and doing "anything you want to them"? We're all in this material world together, and I'd like to think there are very rich people who would welcome the chance to help make it better or everyone.
 

david starling

Well-known member
There's a fun anecdote about Ernest Hemingway and F.Scott Fitzgerald concerning wealthy people. Fitzgerald was in awe of them, and said "The rich are DIFFERENT you know." To which Hemingway replied, "Yeah, they've got more money!"
Calvinism equates having great wealth with being in God's favor. That's the Capitalistic equivalent of Feudalism's concept of the Divine Right of royalty.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Taxation without representation was a big thing in US history. Look it up.

Okay. So you charge exorbitant taxes on the rich, and imprison them if they don't pay. What if they opt out by moving their businesses, money, and themselves to a more market-friendly country? Would that be permitted?

A lot of wealthy folks help out by donating to charity, albeit that has problems, too.

Also, do you believe that the government is all-wise and benevolent, not prone to corruption and greed, and is the best vehicle for fair wealth distribution?

No, the idea is to find a NON-exhorbitant tax-rate that works. As for the Government, it's full of people out to enrich themselves. That's why I want the distribution methods "built-in" and automatic, so politicians can't mess with them. An analogy would be an automobile engine, with both a storage battery (the wealthy) and a distributor. If you can't draw energy (money) from the battery, the engine stalls out.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
What I want is a functional system that works to preserve individual liberty without opening the door to suffering, war, and degradation of the Environment.
Here's one for you--do we have the right to use whatever medications and recreational drugs we choose? Or, do we have to curtail that right for "the greater good"?


Liberty is based on our presumption that we are beings capable of rational thought, which is our defining trait as humans, and can co-exist in a free society. When an individual is not capable of rational thought, society needs to ensure this individual will not harm others or himself.

This reason is, for example, why young children are under the legal care of their parents, because their rational thinking capabilities have not yet fully developed and can't make decisions by themselves.

I believe you have a right to consume whatever drug/medication you want. However, while under the effects of drugs, your cognitive abilities are impaired, and if you become incapable of rational thought, society has a right to take measures to prevent you harming others.

I'm fine with you getting high in your own home having fun. What you can't do is drive, hurt or harras other people under the effects of drugs, or sell that drugs to others specially to minors. I mean, you don't want people selling cocaine to 10 year olds right david?
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Lock that liquor cabinet! We're in agreement on self-medication and recreational drugs--adults should have a right to use them. There are laws against harming others, and whether it's because of alcohol or drugs, or mental imbalance of any sort, including fatigue and PTSD, those laws should be enforced.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
It depends which statistic you choose. Around 40% of adult population in USA doesn't work. Around 22% of population aged 25-54 doesn't work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/...e-wasnt-real-here-are-some-other-options.html

This is just a beginning of robot industrial revolution. We haven't seen anything yet. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. In 10 years there will be things possible we cannot even imagine today.

This is an old video but it has very good message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

What I don't understand is the following:

If human society advances to such technological level that we could make all human labor obsolete, if we advance to such level that we could provide abundance for all humans on this planet, why would anyone in the right mind be against reorganizing society in such way to make this possible?

Why would anyone want to stick with this old inadequate system if there is a better option? If you are freed from labor and given a gift of free life why would you still insist on this dog-eat-dog world?


We've heard that for the past 150 years, and it still hasn't happened. As I explained you before, the more technology advances, people simply move into other areas, or venture into new industries. Technology makes some jobs obsolete, but it also creates new ones.

What you are failing to realise is the capacity for humans to adapt and interact. I used the entertainment industry as an example of a growing market.

The system is the best there has been in the entire human history. ALL other systems have utterly failed. And marxists usually say capitalism is failing... based on what? capitalist countries are the wealthiest countries on earth, and there is no evidence to the contrary. In fact the more that capitalist countries have moved to the left with policy the worse they have been.

What human beings need is opportunity to do things. You do that by allowing them to freely interact with others, not by giving them money.

--------------------------------


The unemployment statistics are what they are in every period. Currently, in the world the rate of unemployment is around the same it was 20, 30, 40 years ago, despite massive technological improvements, always jumping between and around 5%-10%.

My mention of unemployment rates today wasn't to push some Trump propaganda, but to show you that the rates remain the same, despite population increasing, which means that people still get jobs at an equal rate. According to your logic, the U.S. should have a 40%-50% unemployment due to technology replacing this jobs. It hasn't.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
The same "force" that separated the slave owners from their slaves and feudal lords from their peasants.

Fair? First people are forced to live in dog-eat-dog world by the rules of some crazy Russian psychopath writer and if that same people rise some day and say: "Enough of this madness, the game is over! We say so because we are the strongest!", then suddenly you don't want to play dog-eat-dog game anymore?

No, the idea is to find a NON-exhorbitant tax-rate that works. As for the Government, it's full of people out to enrich themselves. That's why I want the distribution methods "built-in" and automatic, so politicians can't mess with them. An analogy would be an automobile engine, with both a storage battery (the wealthy) and a distributor. If you can't draw energy (money) from the battery, the engine stalls out.


You can have a flat tax rate, in which every person in society pays the same rate (lets say 20%). The rich are still paying more in any case.

The problem is when you presume that because someone has more money, he has to pay for everyone else. Lets work it out with an example:

Lets say I write a book. Lets say that you guys (cap, david, odd) each buy a copy from me for $100 each. Now I'm $300 wealthier, while each of you is $100 poorer. But now because I have more money, cap and david want me to pay more taxes than them.

- Why should I pay more taxes? you exchanged your money to me freely.
- Did I force you to buy the book from me, as if I was an overlord with power over you? no
- Should I give you the book for free because you think you are entitled to read my book? no

I mean, what the hell? why am I suddenly the bad guy because I have more money?
 
Top