Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

Money has it's own issues. It is too easily transferable and too universal. Nobody is going to carry out assassinations for non-transferrable labour vouchers. Currency encourages crime and an environment where horribly exploitative businesses can coexist in a non-antagonistic relationship with less exploitative legal businesses. Law enforcement under Capitalism is inadequate because money can be used to pay for any service no matter how horrible.

 

Capitalism only becomes coercive when government gets involved in picking winners and losers.

I LOVE the idea of a 100% voluntary socialism. It would never work outside of a hippy commune but it's nice to dream.

 

It doesn't even work inside of a hippy commune power structures quickly develop.

 

Given that it has worked every single time it has every been tried throughout all history, throughout all the world..... No, I don't generally admit to things that are obviously wrong.

Every growing economy in the world, is only growing because of a march towards more Capitalism. India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Turkey, Nigeria. All marching towards Capitalism, and resulting in dramatic growth.

That's socialism. If you want me to agree that socialism is ruining people's lives, YES. I agree. America is no longer the bastion of Capitalism it once was. Nevertheless, the wealth we have today, that makes us the most wealthy country in the world, was built on our Capitalist based system created in the past.

You do realize that it's only because of leftist socialists like you that we have all these taxes.... right? And because of you and your socialist taxes, that's why we can have our property confiscated from us. You are pointing to a problem that *YOU* and *YOUR IDEOLOGY* created.... and claiming that Capitalism caused this destruction of our lives? Hypocrite much?

That $222 Trillion, is the debts caused by *SOCIAL-ist* Security, and Socialized Medicare and Medicaid.

You are pointing to debt caused by Socialism, and trying to say Capitalism doesn't work? Can I blame the Moon for the fact that you can't with a single logically consistent argument? Darn Moon. That's why leftists are so ignorant, is because of the moon.

You can't blame problems created by Socialism, on Capitalism which had nothing to do with them. Logic 101. Does California not have education? Go get a course in basic logic, and come back.

We pay an average of 9.6¢ per kWh of electricity. The Euro Average is over 20¢ per kWh. But some places, especially areas with "green-energy" like Denmark and Germany, pay 40¢ per kWh. The UK pays 22¢ per kWh.

Their cable bill is about the same, however most people in the UK, from what I understand, don't have cable. However, one thing I wager you, and nearly everyone in America doesn't know, is that the UK, and France, and most of Europe, all charge you a yearly tax, for everyone TV you own, with or without cable. If you happen to own 5 TV sets, and only one of them works, you have to pay a tax for each TV set, each year, whether it works or not.

By the way, one of the reasons that we in the US have not had a larger broadcast market, is again.... because of socialism. In the 1950s, the FCC provided 48 white spaces of spectrum for TV channels to use. Yet until the late 90s we only had 4 channels. NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox. Why? The government prevented new channels from getting into the market, because they controlled the spectrum. Socialism, is the cause of nearly every problem in America.

Commutes in most of Europe are horrible. Have you been to London? I have. Have you been to Paris? I have.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm
Italy: 23 minutes
Spain: 33 minutes
France: 36 minutes
EU average: 38 minutes
Netherlands: 43 minutes
Germany: 44 minutes
UK: 45 minutes

I can't speak directly about Spain, because I have never been there. I would wager that part of the reason for a smaller commute time is because the Spanish economy sucks, and 1/4th of the country is unemployed.

However, I was in Italy during rush hour, and I can tell you exactly why the commute is only 23 minutes. Everyone in that impoverish socialized country, can't afford cars. So everyone, and I mean EVERYONE... was on tiny little moped scouters. Everyone from the 12 year old boy, to the 60 year old grand mother, was riding these tiny, dirty, smelly, cruddy looking mopeds.

Now I don't know about you, and Socialist California, has some of the worst commute times in the country. But as for me, here in mild Ohio, I easily travel 25 miles, in 22 minutes flat.

Greece is cutting their pensions. UK is cutting their pensions. France is considering cutting their pensions. Spain, will likely cut their pensions. I promise you right now that all the old people in those countries *WISH* they had a 401K, that has their own privately owned assets in their own name, under their control, and not being cut to ribbons by Socialists in government.

I'll partially grant this one to you. We in America, used to have in our history, a belief in something bigger than ourselves. A belief in G-d. A belief in morals. A belief in right and wrong, and keeping something 'sacred'. Thus for 150 years, there was no need to have a government mandated law that said you had to have holidays off. You didn't need a law saying "don't work on Sunday" because no one did. You didn't need a law saying "don't work on Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Years, or the 4th of July, because...... no one.... did.

We ditched G-d, get rid of morals, made 'right and wrong' all relative, and now we have places opened up on Thanksgiving. And up till 10 PM on New Years eve.

The sad part about you people on the left is, you created this problem. You people pushed out right and wrong, and so what's wrong with working everyone on Christmas? What's wrong with working people on thanksgiving? So Yes, I will grant PART of this one too you. We need to have laws force keeping "HOLY DAYS".... Holidays.... That's what "holidays" means, we need to keep holy days holy. We need to tell people, to shut down your companies, and enjoy the national holidays we have.

Where I don't grant you is that we should have mandatory paid vacation. Nope nope nope. If I want to work, and I agree to work, then you and your jack *** leftists have no right to butt into things that are none of your business. If you don't want to work, that's your deal. Get lost. This isn't communist China, and no one has a gun to your head, telling you to get your butt out in the rice patties. You don't have to do anything. You don't want to work? Fine. Leave. But don't tell others what they must do. It's not your money. It's not your job. It's none of your business.

And FYI... it occurred to me, that you may think point 1 and point 2 contradicted either other. They don't I don't require that companies pay people for Holidays. That's up to the company. I only want to enforce that the Holidays, are in fact Holy Days that are not to be worked on. In times gone past, it was up to the individual to save money for days when they didn't work, just like a farmer saves grain for times when the harvest was bad.

It's not my money either. I'm not telling companies what to do with their money, and neither should you. But you should not be working on Holidays.

Well givin that they can't get health care.... because they die while waiting 3 years on a waiting list for surgery.... I'll much rather pay the hospital bill and live.

If you'd rather save money and die.... be my guest. Cuba is ready to welcome you.

HEY! It's free dude! Go for it!

Because we have more murder and car accidents. When you adjust life spans for fatal injuries, we have the highest life spans in the world. As for Babies, they don't count babies that are born too early. When you subtract baby fatalities, from the group most likely to die.... yeah... that tends to improve numbers.... how shocking is that.

Those jobs are for teenagers that live at home, with mommy and daddy. If you choose to waste your life away working for minimum wage... that's not the companies fault, that's your fault for being so dumb as to not advance yourself.

What about people who intentionally quit their jobs and choose not to work at all? Is that the companies fault? Of course not. Its called 'choice' and 'personal responsibility', where you actually act like an adult, and determine your own destiny. People do this all the time. I just heard about a guy who in high school, his friends got jobs at Burger King, being a Whooper Flopper, and he said.... screw that, and bought a lawn mower, and cut grass. He made 3 times the cash they did per hour.... mowing lawns.... in the hot sun..... sweating pushing a mower around.

When an individual refuses to sweat, refuses to work, instead wants to stand in one spot, flipping burgers on a grill over and over, barely burning a half of a calorie of energy...... that's his CHOICE. He's not entitled to earn more, because he's lazy, and doesn't want to push a mower in the sun.

And see that's my problem with anyone who complains about minimum wage. There are MILLIONS of jobs available that absolutely anyone can do, that will earn you more than minimum wage. But.... it requires you to work. You can get trained to drive a truck in under 4 weeks, and be earning $35K your first year. Will it be just amazingly awesome and fun? Nope.... driving truck is hard work. But you can EASILY make more than minimum wage.

And further.... do you realize that a married couple both earning minimum wage today, places them in the TOP ONE PERCENT OF WAGE EARNERS WORLD WIDE? Two people, flipping burgers for minimum wage, you are the top 1%.

And honestly, even people flipping burgers can.... if they CHOOSE TOO, earn way way more. Do you know that 75% of all McDonald's store franchise owners, started out as low-wage crew members? Cashiers and Burger Flippers? 75%. You know what they did? They worked their way up. They didn't b!tch and moan, about how horrible minimum wage was, they worked hard, moved up the ladder, became shift manage, worked extra hours, and enrolled in management classes that McDonald's offers, and eventually owned their own McDonald's.

You know where the b!tchy people are? They are still earning minimum wage, crying about how little they earn.

 

Here's my problem. Empathy on the street, is in fact 'charity'. When I personally, help someone else... that is real charity. Not because of me...... but because of 'choice'. Charity is only charity, if it's by choice.

The moment you remove choice, it's no longer charity, nor empathy. If I come to your home, and shove a gun in your face, and demand money from you, and then as I leave the area, give the money to a beggar... is that charity? Did you empathize? Of course not.

I being the guy who gave the money, also didn't feel empathy, or charity, because I didn't do it. It was your money, not mine, that I gave.

This is the difference between the left and the right. Right wing people actually engage in charity. I give of my own money. Not by force, but by choice.

Leftists, never give of their own money. They only demand that others give, and they use the force of theft by the government, to do it.

 

That's a strawman, I never mentioned force. I was talking about feelings not actions, which you should not be able to turn off at will. Do you hurt inside when you see a homeless person?

 

And how will the people who choose not to participate in the socialist government do to survive on?

Like workers in Russia or China?

And who decides what I can "fairly" earn?

And how will they raise the capital to build the business and keep it operating?

Like, let's cut the workweek to three 6 hour days and double our pay?

I bet it is.

What you said is. There is mutual coerciviness and if want more coercive power then make your labor more valuable.

Speak for yourself I always have.

No you can go off into the wilderness alone ala Ted Kaczinski or a commune.

And capitalism allows the most variety within a system so what is your complaint.

Again speak for yourself, I made my way into a very nice living.

Become a investor if you want to have such a say, other than that you have no right to have a say in how it is run other than the responsibility the owners endow upon you. I have owned businesses and had complete say so, I have manage operations for a corporation and had a free say in how my operation ran, I am full time sales now and oversee my territory as I see fit as long as increase my sales and bring in revenue.

Your world is what you make it not some government.

And you'd rather have the government say if you don't like then tough, this is where you work and this is what you will paid whether you like it or not and you have no choice.

Again speak for yourself if you worked at a place where they demeaned and put you down and you stood for that's your problem not someone else.

So start your own business and hire people to work for you and let them decide how many hours they will work and how much you will pay them. Let me know how long you stay in business.

 

Upside down world today?

You are free to form an employee owned business and live communally right now in America along side the capitalists. That is the beauty of capitalism. Go do whatever you want and make a living however you want. No one is forcing you to do anything. Only leftists force people to do what they want and sacrifice what they consider "fair" etc...and of course the requisite police state to keep track of it all.

 

Commies will give up all economic freedom just for the chance to get back to the security of mama teat.

 

The socialist dream depends on all the socialist movers, shakers, and manipulators on the inside being honest men and woman of unshakable integrity with nary a single one of them ever being out to feather his or her own nest. So it depends on saints to create it and then an unending successions of saints to monitor and maintain it forever and ever. So . . . it . . . doesn't . . . work.

 

Workers have a right to ownership over their own workplaces, regardless of what a piece of paper says. People seeking to create employee owned businesses are at a disadvantage under capitalism, but if they can make it work then good for them. People may be able to find a more equitable niche in the system but the real problem is the destructive effects of self-multiplying capital. There's a reason why labour movement hierarchy posters put capital above the capitalists.

 

And that's a strawman too. *I* did mention force, and that is part of my argument. The fact you didn't, doesn't change my point.

That said, yes, generally I do. Not always though. For example, I have great father. He's a really good man.

A few years back, a former student of his, came into town. He'd made some mistakes, was homeless, and broke. No job, no car, no clothes. He came with nothing more than a bus ticket.

My father got him an apartment, and paid for 3 months rent. He got him a car.... free. He got him clothes, and then got him a job, and not just any job, but hired him on as a manager at a lumber company, and even bought him the button down shirt, and tie needed for that position.

He went to work, and in his first week, he quit. Said he didn't like wearing a tie. I know that sounds absolutely insane.... but that's what the guy said. Over the next 4 months, he bounced around from minimum wage job to minimum wage job (obviously my father wasn't going to waste any more time getting him higher paying jobs he refused to do), and eventually, he lost insurance on the car, and it was towed away by police when he was caught, he couldn't pay the rent after the pre-paid rent ran out, and end up homeless again.

Do I have empathy for him? Not really. It's sad, but it was his choice. Similarly, when I was working at Wendy's there was a lady there that on her first day, told us she was working just long enough to get back on welfare, and sure enough when the qualified for welfare again, she quit. Do I empathize with her? Nope.

But I do have empathy, and that's why I do the things I do for the poor.

The problem again, is actions. Empathy, for empathy sake.... is fake. If you "empathize" but do absolutely nothing, then it does not matter.

Which leads back to the difference between the left and the right.

Right-wing people actually want to help. Left-wing people tend to only enable.

If you have a broke alcoholic brother-in-law, and he comes to ask for money to pay his mortgage.... do you give it to him? You might have empathy, but if you pay his mortgage, he'll have even less reason to moderate his drinking. As a result, he'll drink even more, and need even more money next month. Eventually either you'll end up reaching the point you have no money to help him, or he drinks enough to kill himself.

Did you help him? No. Did you empathize? Yes, but you harmed him. All the empathy in the world, didn't change the fact that your policy killed your brother.

Same is true of Mao. All the empathy for the poor, didn't change the fact that socialist policies caused millions of people to starve. Soviet Russia. All the empathy for the poor, that fueled the revolution, didn't change the fact that a hundred million were killed by socialist policies.

Hugo Chavez ran on a populist, socialist, empathy for the poor of Venezuela platform. Now they have nation wide food shortages, and power outages, and unemployment is higher than ever, and crime is high enough that Mexico's narco wars are having a hard time keeping up.

All the Empathy in the world doesn't change this. Right and morale actions do. And having government forcibly take money from those who work, and dishing it out to those who don't, while leftists themselves give little to nothing of themselves, while they take from everyone else, does not end up with a good result. It never has, never does, and never will.

 

You can post that picture all you want, it's still a lie. Moving on....

No workers do not have "ownership over their own workplace", unless.... they own the work place.

If I start making widgets in my garage, and I decide that I want to hire someone to make widgets with me, and I post and offering to make widgets for a given wages... if someone agrees to that wage... Does that mean they instantly own my garage?

That's dumb dude. That is a stupid claim.

I know a guy that made custom painted coffee mugs. He had a friend help him, for a wage, to prep the cups so he could paint them. He did this in his house. Does his friend suddenly OWN this dudes house? "Workers have a right to ownership over their own workplaces" Bull CRAP. No they don't, unless they OWN the property.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. You don't own anything except what you rightfully pay for, purchase and own. If you didn't buy that manufacturing plant, then you don't own it, whether you work there are not. If you want to own it, save up money, and buy your own. And by the way, people do that all the time.

Again, this is the difference between the right and the left. A right-wing capitalist, works at the restaurant, saves up money, and then opens his own restaurant, and now he owns his work place. We have a guy right near where I live, who used to work a tiny shop called Starliner Diner. He worked as a cook, saved up money from his wage, and opened up a much better restaurant called Louis Fusion Grill.

http://www.louiesgrillfusionrestaurant.net/ordereze/Menu/0/Menus.aspx
And by the way... anyone who happens to live in the Hilliard Ohio area, this is an excellent restaurant.

Back to the point. Now he owns his work place.... because he bought it. That's how that works. And here's the equal opposite kicker.... Would Louis have saved up and spent all the money to open that restaurant, if the first worker he hired now owned his work place, which was Louis restaurant? Answer.... No, louis would not have done that. Thus there would be no jobs, no new restaurant with great service and good food, no investment, no growth to the economy, no employees making money at the restaurant.

And the same is true of every business. No one would invest into anything, if the moment they hired an employee, the employee had "a right to ownership over their own workplaces". No one would do that.

This is why every single country that moves towards socialism, universally results in poverty.

 

That's a good long post with a lot of points that unfortunately I have not te time to answer. Firstly a general note: You may generalize with "most left wingers" but that is not me. I am not a wishy washy liberal or blind conservatve who only follows his emotions with no evidence. I am an intelligent person who's life experiences and reading of much varied texts had led him to hold left-wing views. I am capable of having my own arguments and defending them rationally, I have no interest in defending left-wingers with incorrect opinions. I am also capable of conceding defeat where it is due. Ok?

That was a good real life story and morality tale. Of course I would never defend that guy. If someone takes advantage of charity but fails to use it under the implicit expectations (in this case take your chance to be productive and provide for yourself) then they do not deserve the charity, and the giver is entitled to be upset. If someone is reasonably capable of providing for themselves and contributing to society while maintaining a good quality of life then they should do so. People who take advantage of charity rile me up. I do not empathise with those people because I don't identify with them - if in a situation where I required charity I would maintain the same honour regarding charity which I expect of other people.

For te question of force, I maintain that capitalist society was created with force (commons forcibly enclosed to force independant subsisting peasants to become dependent on the wages of a capitalist) and is only maintained with force (striking workers get evicted by police). In europe this often goes further - striking workers occupy factories and actually resume production under dmocratic control, unsupervised and uncontrolled by a capitalist until they are evicted by force. I do not think capitalist law holds much more moral weight than feudal law did, so the argument between us is if workers have a moral right to the means of production. As the producers in society I truly believe that they do have the moral right.

 

EVEN THEN........ even if you could find some mythical 'saints' to create, run, and monitor the socialist system..... EVEN THEN... it still doesn't work! Because the people in the system also have to be perfect saints as well.... and they are not. Socialism goes against fundamental human nature.

We have records from the founding colonies of the US. They had a socialized system. Everyone worked in the fields for the good of the colony. The production of the fields was collected, and distributed for the good of the colony.

The result was people didn't work, production declined, food end up scarce, and the administrators of the colony faced certain starvation.

Now these were the puritans. They had the good of the colony at the top of their duty. They didn't take anything for themselves. Yet it STILL DID NOT WORK.

They changed the system, and assigned every family of the colony, a plot of land. Suddenly all the people who said "I'm too weak to work", all the people who said "I'm sick, and can't work", all the women who it was considered 'barbaric' to have them work, even the children, hobbled on out to the fields, and started planting, and hoeing the fields. All the 'sick' people got up and worked. All the children got out and worked. All the women, got out and worked. All the older, weaker, younger, all hobbled on out to the fields and worked.

On the verge of socialist starvation, the entire colony was saved..... as we've seen throughout all the ages, and all the world.... by capitalism. Of course, now that everyone had their own land, their own property, their own earnings.... some earned a lot, because they worked harder and smarter, and some earned little, because they worked little. So the equality was gone, but over all, the entire colony was saved and flourishing now.

Socialism..... does not work.... period. It can't work. It will never work. Not only does it require perfect saintly selfless rulers, but it also requires perfectly saintly subjects. Neither have ever existed in all human history, and neither will ever exist in the future. The left needs to get over it. Their system can't work, and never will.

 

Well this is an illustration of the hypocrisy of the left.

They KNOW they can make an employee owned business. They KNOW they can live communally right now.

Yet even while they know it, they refuse to do it. Why? Because even the leftists know that living in a commune sucks. Even leftists know, that once they themselves put in the money, the effort, the time, the blood sweat and tears, into building a business, there's no way in hell they are going to give it up to the employees.

it reminds me of Steve Jobs of Apple. Before he created Apple, he was a pinko commie hippy commune person. Most people don't know Steve Jobs actually lived on a Commune for a year or two. But like nearly all people across the entire planet, Steve figured out that Communes suck, and left.

As what happen to all that sharing ownership crap? Sounds good until you spend 2 full years, sitting in a garage year round, fiddling with circuit boards and soldering irons, and SHOCKINGLY giving away the company you poured yourself into for years, with incalculable man hours and sweat, suddenly doesn't seem so appealing. As all leftists do when they make their company, he refused to give it up to socialistic belief. He remained, as he really was, a true capitalist, and look at what benefit the entire world has had from it? Steve Jobs has created more wealth to benefit more people, than likely in other man in the last 100 years.

And what would we have if he had actually been brain washed into Socialism, and remained on the Commune? Likely nothing.

 

And that's the big problem. When you walk down the street, that "homeless guy" is likely someone who is simply taking advantage. Most of them are. Here in Down Town Columbus Ohio, we had a reporter who decided to track one of these homeless guys. He had a sign on the street, will work for food, homeless vet, 'god bless you', the whole bit. At a specific time, he started walking away. About a block or two down the road, another guy coming the opposite way, stopped with him, and talked, and he handed the sign "homeless vet" blaw blaw blaw, to the other man, who walked to the same corner he was at, and stood there holding the sign, collecting donations. Meanwhile the now sign-less man walked another block, got into a car. The report then followed the car, to an apartment.

The whole thing was a sham. Most of these people are shams.

The people who don't want to be homeless, are the ones who actually seek help. They are the ones at the shelters, getting job placement help, and looking through the classified. The people who sit on the street with a cup, are doing it because that's typically what they want to do.

[video=youtube_share;uti_PkR3hn0]http://youtu.be/uti_PkR3hn0[/video]

This guy has a college degree, and is not mentally handicapped. He's doing this, because it pays. Big dollars.

Before capitalism, peasants were not able to own property. Thus they were automatically at the mercy of those in authority over them. Peasants depended on those in authority for protections from marauders and highway men. Without the castle, or the king's army, unprotected villages were at the whim of the criminals and thieves. The King, and his castle, and protection, were the only way to have a safe life.

At the same time, that safe life, came at the price of being peasants, owning nothing, working for the King.

The problem with your striking workers crap, is that it's not their factory. Someone else worked hard to make that place. If *YOU* worked hard to make that place, should the employees be allowed to evict you from your place, that you built?

Can I come to your home, and evict you from it, because I want it and I'm poor?

You say that workers have a moral right to the means of production.... but then who is going to build the means of production, if you can lose it? Would Steve Jobs have built Apple? He was a poor hippy school drop out, remember? He worked to make that company.

If you deny him the right to his own production, because of some theory that workers have a moral right to their means of production..... Walmart doesn't exist. Apple Doesn't exist. HP, Dell, GM, Chysler, Ford, all of these companies would never have existed, and we'd all be poor and impoverished, with no jobs.

See you are looking at a snap shot of time. At X point in time, all these workers should own their means of production. The problem is, the capitalist who created that means of production, at a time before X, was in fact the worker.

At what point did the worker of time past, cease to have a right to his means of production he created? I say, he never lost that right. We are all entitled to what we created, which in includes the people who created Walmart, have a right to owning Walmart, or GM, or Apple, or any business.