Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

The problem is with the statement "run them any way they like" because that reflects an absence of regulation.

I'm a laissez-faire capitalist and many mistakenly believe that under laissez-faire capitalism we would have less regulation than today but that is false IMO.

For example we would have far more environmental regulation because no one has a Right to Pollute and pollution violates the Rights of the Person to clean air, land and water. Any pollution must be supported by arguments based upon a pragmatic necessity for the pollution. Instead of today's requirement where the pragmatic arguments must be made to stop pollution under laissez-faire capitalism the shoe is on the other foot and pragmatic arguments must be made to allow any pollution.

Laissez-faire capitalism is based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person and the entire landscape of the economy changes based upon that foundation.

For example the Right of Property is established by "labor" which would establish that a person can't actually "own land" because "labor" does not create the land. There is arguably a "Right of Use of the Land" based upon labor but even with that criteria a person would only have claim of the "Right of the Use of the Land" based upon labor being expended related to it so "unused land" becomes public land as no individual could claim the "Right of the Use of the Land" established by labor.

Laissez-faire capitalism introduces a lot of factors that we tend to ignore today because we live under crony capitalism instead.

 

Nope. Any way they like within the law, OF COURSE.

 

That doesn't imply that the laws are correct and if enterprise actually was complying with the laws and regulations then why has there bas been a recent requirement to dramatically increase the number of "compliance officers" that enforce the regulatory laws?

 

LOLOL!!! We are talking about a hypothetical worker operated business so not sure what you are babbling on about now.

 

Not all forms of socialism subscribe to communism simply because we are simply unable to muster enough morals even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge to help make it work.

In our political-economic reality, socialism bails out capitalism all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

Private charity is a form of capitalism, not necessarily socialism.

 

Regulation by a public sector is socialism.

 

No it isn't. Socialism refers to the ownership of the means of production and distribution by the workers and not to whether there are regulations affecting the enterprise.

Regulation need not even infringe upon the liberty or rights of the person. For example a complete prohibition of any forms of pollution, while not pragmatically possible, does not infringe upon the rights or liberty of the person because no person has a Right to Pollute.

 

What silliness.You really dont have a clue.

 

Your special pleading while having no solutions is duly noted. Socialism doesn't just mean communism.

 

Sure I do; I even have a good a good argument instead just silliness claiming something is silly.

 

No

isnt an argument. Its a baseless claim.

 

Yep. I'd submit that the Constitution itself is highly socialistic.

 

I cant think of a single aspect of it that is "socialistic". What part do you think best demonstrates your point.

 

Let's start with "We the People". The Constitution could have started with "Me the Individual".

 

What nonsense. Nothing socialist about that. Nothing whatsoever to do with economics and is instead democracy.

 

How about "form a more perfect UNION". Still nothing socialist about it? hehe. Sounds like the Communist Manifesto.

 

Correct. Nothing about a union of states that contradicts capitalism or that is inherent to socialism. Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term. Might I suggest you access a dictionary for starters.

 

What do you suppose the founders intended when they organized this system of states if not for socialistic control over the means and manner of production? Face it, my man, we're just a giant commune and you've been foolin' yourself all these years with your drivel about capitalism and the individual. Btw, socialism also runs on capital. For that matter, so does collectivism.

 

On what basis do you not have the right to pollute on your own property?

 

Well aren't you the bees knees of COMMUNALIST reaction,1000's die every year in COMMUNALIST violence every year in INDIA alone.

See ,the differences in SPELLING tells the story ,Communalist[middle class trash] and Communist[Working Class emancipation] see the difference ,Chalk and cheese.

PS ,stop saying Obama is "Socialist " the word you are looking for is IMPERIALIST [Capitalist Class,Wall street]

And Socialism has "been around " well before the 19th Century .The first Communist \Socialist modern expression ,was in the 18th Century ,the French Revolution actually!

Babeuf and the "Conspiracy of Equals " its ok ,I understand the decline of Intellectual thought !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Equals

Always steer clear of the COMMMUNNITY of Stupidity ,as I call the Liberals!

 

We know its hard for you to raise your thinking from total ,individualistic form ,SOCIAL PROPERTY ,which also includes individual ,as NO its against the Law to Pollute a river or stream "SOCIAL resource,that may run thru ,Your "property"!

No human exists outside the SOCIAL ,not even You!

 

You would be wrong ,Socialism will be a coercive against the Capitalists ,its called the Expropriation of Wealth .

Yep ,if the Multi-Billionaires won't cough up their ENTIRE wealth ,then hey under force of Arms the Workers government will TAKE it ,and if they form armed resistance ,CRUSH Them mercilessly!

Never in history hasn't a ruling Class ,just given up without a fight ,and go Voluntarily into the Dustbin of History !

See ,American civil War and the Expropriation of Humans as Property!

See ,French Revolution .,American Revolution ,Russian Revolution .

Revolution is the process by which Property is Transferred between the Haves and the Have Nots!

Revolution=Democracy!

 

No it isn't. Ownership of the means of production by the public sector is socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

Daniel Palos can't do Arguments. he makes baseless claims, normally in impenetrable nonsense jargon then endlessly repeats the Phrase 'non sequiters are normally thought of as a fallacy' if you dare to question his nonsense.

 

There is no mention of the means of production at all. there is nothing socialist about the US constitution.

 

Ahhhhhh What a Glorious Utopian vision you have sir, and the end result is a wonderful "organization of things" where tinkerbell magically appears and sprinkles fairydust on your castle and Mickey and Minny sing you a lullaby at bedtime . What a wonderful world it shall be !