-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
This author Frank Li seems to think capitalism is the answer to everything:
Saving America, Chinese Style
Saving America, Chinese Style
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral social system.
Here's the logic:
Premise: To be moral requires the ability to make choices.
Premise: In order for man to be able to make choices, there mustn't be physical force initiated upon him.
Premise: Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system that bans the initiation of physical force from human affairs.
Conclusion: Laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral social system.
Here's the logic:
Premise: To be moral requires the ability to make choices.
Premise: In order for man to be able to make choices, there mustn't be physical force initiated upon him.
Premise: Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system that bans the initiation of physical force from human affairs.
Conclusion: Laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral social system.
SaltGirl
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 178
We already had capitalism at its finest and it was at that time called feudalism, for feudalism is in many way the end point of capitalism(capitalism and feudalism both appeal to Divine Right in their own way, whether it is God or "survival of the fittest"). Only difference now is that due to technology and so on it will be called corporationism now.
Also, money has never been the main drive for people doing more than a slacker. Incentive based procedures have already been shown in studies to not work(which fits into the usual Peat paradigms that up is down). Then if you look at how capitalism is inherently stressful due to uncontrollable factors one can easily empathize with how the enclosed rats in rat park felt.
Only thing that provides protection to minority groups is the government. Without government then prejudice would be a free for all. Without the government I'd quite literally be dead or dying right now which some of you may think is a positive net benefit of a libertarian system. For heterosexual white cis males that might be acceptable, but for anyone who does not fit into that rather narrow window life is a much harsher reality. On the plus side suicide is always an option in a harsh system, plus it will always result in revolution due to the inherent imbalance capitalism ends up in. As a devout Discordianist I can easily see the benefit in violent revolt in systems that by their very nature reward exploitation in the short run.
I must say that I am always going to be grateful for living in a more socialist country, but that's because I like living in a less stressful environment.
Also, I feel like that those who believe in some ultimate form of capitalism are a bit naive, considering that it requires someone to absolutely ignore the context of humanity in the system, and that the free market system is a system that can only be fully applied into a game world where every cofactor is accounted for(in the scientific world that would be called a "simulation"). Hell, even libertarian games(EVE Online) are actually quite good at showing how people would really behave, and there they don't even have to contend with old age, sickness, and other things that are wild factors in our real lives. In fact, someone who believes in libertarian capitalism are most likely people who have never had to truly suffer or have been brought up in privilege. Only outliers are those who believe that all systems are binary systems( 0 or 1 only, nothing between, which seems to border on the autistic spectrum in the way of thinking) or think that if something was bad for them that the complete opposite must then be good(which is what happened to the grade A nutjob that was Ayn Rand).
However, I do not expect to sway anyone's mind with my little block of text. People will believe what they believe, so at that I bid this thread adieu. I do hope you all find peace and contentment regardless of your ideological leanings.
Also, money has never been the main drive for people doing more than a slacker. Incentive based procedures have already been shown in studies to not work(which fits into the usual Peat paradigms that up is down). Then if you look at how capitalism is inherently stressful due to uncontrollable factors one can easily empathize with how the enclosed rats in rat park felt.
Only thing that provides protection to minority groups is the government. Without government then prejudice would be a free for all. Without the government I'd quite literally be dead or dying right now which some of you may think is a positive net benefit of a libertarian system. For heterosexual white cis males that might be acceptable, but for anyone who does not fit into that rather narrow window life is a much harsher reality. On the plus side suicide is always an option in a harsh system, plus it will always result in revolution due to the inherent imbalance capitalism ends up in. As a devout Discordianist I can easily see the benefit in violent revolt in systems that by their very nature reward exploitation in the short run.
I must say that I am always going to be grateful for living in a more socialist country, but that's because I like living in a less stressful environment.
Also, I feel like that those who believe in some ultimate form of capitalism are a bit naive, considering that it requires someone to absolutely ignore the context of humanity in the system, and that the free market system is a system that can only be fully applied into a game world where every cofactor is accounted for(in the scientific world that would be called a "simulation"). Hell, even libertarian games(EVE Online) are actually quite good at showing how people would really behave, and there they don't even have to contend with old age, sickness, and other things that are wild factors in our real lives. In fact, someone who believes in libertarian capitalism are most likely people who have never had to truly suffer or have been brought up in privilege. Only outliers are those who believe that all systems are binary systems( 0 or 1 only, nothing between, which seems to border on the autistic spectrum in the way of thinking) or think that if something was bad for them that the complete opposite must then be good(which is what happened to the grade A nutjob that was Ayn Rand).
However, I do not expect to sway anyone's mind with my little block of text. People will believe what they believe, so at that I bid this thread adieu. I do hope you all find peace and contentment regardless of your ideological leanings.
SaltGirl said:
"We already had communism at its finest, it was called the Soviet Union"
SaltGirl said:
Please link these studies.
Holy ***t.
I don't even have to say anything here.
http://www.kentstate1970.org/timeline/may4th1970
http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/ ... Tears.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
Bloodbath in socialist Venezuela of students
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_o ... h_Language
The Last Jew of Vinnytsia
Life inside a North Korean prison camp
https://imgur.com/gallery/PTIPR#i6tiZJL
Shelling of ambulances
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqBZ-JoxhQY
Video ***** Riot whipped by Cossack in Sochi performance fail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrkM84jsx1w
I expect a reply saying something like "wellllllll... that government is bad... now if we just had the right people in power..."
kineticz
Member
We do need a state but it should only exist to nurture basic laws of organic life. The only regulation required by the state and collective bargaining should be basic needs, warmth, energy, food. The more competitive and class divided a society the more susceptible it is to enforcement, regulation, and risk.
There is one fundamental quality that an organic cell evolves rapidly but where as humans most people are not very good - adaptability to change. Primal instincts have become watered down. So they rely on state protection and healthcare. Humanity has become used to following rather than self-actualisation.
As pointed out above the government is human and reward systems will always skew ethics. So we cannot say that a government itself is the answer, or that no government is the answer. With burgeoning lifespans and population, the only way is a national framework but with libertarian economics, founded on the principles of sustainability rather than monetarism (not the same as capitalism, which I believe is good, but people should come before profit - and you cannot deny that profits are made at the expense of people).
I don't mean to sound harsh but if Africa or the Middle East were as populated and economic as the West the Earth would be in real trouble.
The only central policy should be the teachings of self-sustenance farming, and rather than have punishment laws on protection of private property, build a society and education system that isn't so antagonistic.
We need to be very careful in wanting 'progress' and infinite expansion while losing sight of the fact that we as humans only require basic, skilled labour in order to live prosperously. With cost pressures so high we are finding people and values are being squeezed out for so called 'increased quality of life'.
The whole world boomed in the 1980s and I don't think policy makers thought it through well enough. We can't turn back now and it isn't all rosey.
I also dread to think of a completely libertarian world. All it takes is one fine act of deception, and the whole libertarian premise fails instantly. Libertarian society would only succeed if people can be trusted - sadly they cannot and so look to leadership in the form of governments, militants, etc.
If that is your idea of success then I take the police force over that any day.
There is one fundamental quality that an organic cell evolves rapidly but where as humans most people are not very good - adaptability to change. Primal instincts have become watered down. So they rely on state protection and healthcare. Humanity has become used to following rather than self-actualisation.
As pointed out above the government is human and reward systems will always skew ethics. So we cannot say that a government itself is the answer, or that no government is the answer. With burgeoning lifespans and population, the only way is a national framework but with libertarian economics, founded on the principles of sustainability rather than monetarism (not the same as capitalism, which I believe is good, but people should come before profit - and you cannot deny that profits are made at the expense of people).
I don't mean to sound harsh but if Africa or the Middle East were as populated and economic as the West the Earth would be in real trouble.
The only central policy should be the teachings of self-sustenance farming, and rather than have punishment laws on protection of private property, build a society and education system that isn't so antagonistic.
We need to be very careful in wanting 'progress' and infinite expansion while losing sight of the fact that we as humans only require basic, skilled labour in order to live prosperously. With cost pressures so high we are finding people and values are being squeezed out for so called 'increased quality of life'.
The whole world boomed in the 1980s and I don't think policy makers thought it through well enough. We can't turn back now and it isn't all rosey.
I also dread to think of a completely libertarian world. All it takes is one fine act of deception, and the whole libertarian premise fails instantly. Libertarian society would only succeed if people can be trusted - sadly they cannot and so look to leadership in the form of governments, militants, etc.
If that is your idea of success then I take the police force over that any day.
kineticz said:
Well, I wouldn't take "the police force" over it, exactly.
But how about, say, democratic capitalism/socialism with police/armies under their control?
kineticz said:
If you pull back the curtain on all the fancy talk of Libertarianism--
Austrian economics, fiat currency, "freedom!", the Trilateral Commision, the Bilderberg Group, etc--
what appeals, in my view, to most whose heart throbs at the label is
1. stop transferring my hard-earned money to (in the US) blacks, Mexicans, poor people/losers, and artists.
2. eradicate any help for poor people so that they can do the right thing for society--die.
narouz said:
You don't understand the philosophical fundamentals for why man should be free of force.
Here it is in simple terms:
A man's mind is his basic means of survival. In order to use his mind effectively, man must be free of coercion from other men. Any initiation of force on a man who he himself has not initiated force on someone is immoral.
rdmayo21 said:
I guess so, in some ideal world.
In the real world, if there is not a government providing a dominant protective force,
then...
f**king ISIS.
Notice how Rand Paul had a lovely time crowing his Libertarian ideals to the heavens,
until he started running for President.
Then he looked like a naive fool when it came to ISIS (and the like)
and he had to think up something realistic.
narouz said:rdmayo21 said:
I guess so, in some ideal world.
In the real world, if there is not a government providing a dominant protective force,
then...
f**king ISIS.
Notice how Rand Paul had a lovely time crowing his Libertarian ideals to the heavens,
until he started running for President.
Then he looked like a naive fool when it came to ISIS (and the like)
and he had to think up something realistic.
I'm not a libertarian, so your comment got kind of lost on me. Notice that I said INITIATION of force. A government's retaliatory use of force against the initiators of force, e.g. foreign invaders, is necessary for a free society to function.
narouz said:
Mainly because libertarianism is only a political philosophy that is seriously lacking a proper philosophical base, especially a rational code of ethics. Most libertarians try to defend capitalism through arguments regarding economics. However, the only effective way to defend it is through arguments of morality, since it is mainly the moral base of capitalism with which its opponents disagree. When it comes to the essence of laissez-faire capitalism, there really is only one defining characteristic: the banishment of the initiation of physical force from human affairs. Any other proposed characteristics such as wealth production or the like are non-essential in nature. It is the defining characteristic of laissez-faire capitalism that makes it the only moral social system ever conceived.
The reasoning for this is as follows:
For a man to be moral means that he must have the opportunity to make moral choices. The most basic choice for man on which the rest of his choices depends is: to think or not to think. This basic choice is only available to man if he is free of force from other men.
rdmayo21 said:
Have you ever seen the film about Che Guevara, The Motorcycle Diaries?
I will say that I kinda hate Che Guevara and all his glamour in his later days.
But in his younger days, the days chronicled in the movie,
it shows him motorcycling the thousands of miles length of Chile.
He was a sensitive doctor in training.
He saw these poor pitiful natives who had just been ground into pathetic inhumanity
by some copper mine or something.
Run off from mine has poisoned the area.
Copper mine has all the money.
Copper mine owners pay off the government to do whatever they want.
Okay...typical capitalistic system without regulation or protections for the non-rich.
If you are the owner of that copper mine,
you are going to be protected.
Nobody is gonna hurt you because you have the police on your side.
Because of your money.
You're saying this is a morally righteous arrangement?
The owners of the copper mine are
"free of force from other men."
Everything's cool?
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
