Reply to Civility is dead

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Civility is dead"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Capitalism doesn’t care about civility, the National character, or tradition. All that matters is competition and winning at the lowest cost possible. Life is cheap when capitalism is unconstrained. If it doesn’t make money, it’s not important. Civility is a cost to capitalism therefore it doesn’t matter.[/quote]

Unconstrained capitalism can result in humans becoming slaves or chattel, but under capitalism most life is considered valuable because it is "living capital" that can be utilized to further profits. Except for Funeral Homes and Democratic party voting rolls, dead people do not produce so keeping people alive is useful.  Communism, on the other hand, is the system which considers life cheap and expendable, an inconvenient expense and burden to the system because each person must be supported by the system rather than individuals supporting themselves.

Our current government decides how much of the surplus of capitalism can be realistically appropriated to support those who cannot support themselves, and to distribute cost among the population such as for highways and health care. But there are elements of the Democratic party (AOC for instance) who do not want to consider that by taking away all of the profits of capitalism to lavish entitlements (for votes) upon those who refuse to support themselves because they are special and oppressed, that this will "kill the golden goose".

There is a balance, somewhere, between unrestrained capitalism and unrestrained government.  So far, the U.S.A. has found a reasonable balance between the two.  Trump is in the process of restoring that balance. Trump has my vote in 2020 and maybe, if we are lucky, 2024 for a 3rd term.  [/quote]

I don't understand why stupid and ignorant people like you insist on talking at length about a topic you have no fundamental knowledge of. Voluntary exchange is one of the central characteristics of capitalism. There is nothing voluntary about slavery. Anyone who associates unrestrained capitalism with slavery is simply misinformed and should refrain from talking about capitalism. 
[/quote]

Although I am all for capitalism, it is unrestrained capitalism that the pp was talking about. UNRESTRAINED capitalism.  Here is a result of unrestrained capitalism:
[i]
Company scrip was a credit against the accrued wages of employees.  In United States mining or logging camps where everything was owned and operated by a single company, scrip provided the workers with credit when their wages had been depleted. These remote locations were cash poor. Workers had very little choice but to purchase food and other goods at a company store. In this way, the company could charge enormous markups on goods in a company store, making [b]workers completely dependent on the company,[/b] thus enforcing their "loyalty" to the company[/i]

These people were, in all respects, slaves to a company.  Sure, they could legally leave but had no means to do so because the company slave holder ensured it stayed that way.
[/quote]

Again, I implore the ignorant to not try and act smart about a topic they do not understand. The PP talked typed "humans becoming slaves or chattel" under unrestrained capitalism. This is literal slavery and owning/selling humans as property, and not the de-facto slavery you are trying to illustrate. The fact of the matter is, voluntary participation is central to capitalism. If you are describing a system where the participation is not voluntary, that's fine, but don't call it capitalism. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant and not trying to mislead people on purpose. But you've now been shown facts and logic, if you further perpetuate the claim that unrestrained capitalism leads to literal slavery and people as chattel, then you are simply being dishonest, which is far worse a character flaw than ignorance.

As for your de-facto slavery argument, we all acknowledge that there are competing wants and needs between counterparties in a capitalistic environment. There will be circumstances both natural and artificial that may give one side more power in the bargain than the other side. This is fundamentally different from literal slavery, however, and to equate the two is an insult to people who suffered through slavery. It did not take a violent revolution for workers to unionize, engage in collective bargaining, or to lobby the government to enact laws to combat abusive behavior. The workers were able to improve their condition and their position in the bargain with the employers precisely because their employment was a free a voluntary exchange.  Just because you don't like the situation you are in and do not yet have a better alternative doesn't mean you are not free.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics