Are You Really Free Under Capitalism?
Posts
Total:
94
Well, the peak capitalism is just capitalism, except it can go 2 ways in the long term: If the government intervenes too much, it becomes authoritarianism, basically what China is right now. If the government intervenes too little, then it is anarcho-capitalism, which will furtherly turn to chaos. Since the government cannot intervene just the right amount at all times and at all places, capitalism is never perfect. So yeah, either you are not free, or you are in chaos.
However, it is still easier to regulate compared to communism.
a hell of a lot more free than the alternatives
how I imagine the video defines capitalism is corporatism thus I will be dismissing it
I didn't watch the video, but to me the question feels like,
Are You Really Free Under Gravity?
So yeah, either you are not free, or you are in chaos.
I would like to point out something: This quote only works for already-formed economies. If a new government is with very good policies, then this doesn't apply for the start, but until not long.
-->
@Intelligence_06
I don't see how what you're saying here follows. Lassiez-faire economies don't lead to ancapistan. In fact, despite there being plenty of free market economies in past and present, there's never been an ancapistan. Government intervention in the economy does not necessitate government intervention in the political systems either. Socialism doesn't neccesarily lead to authoritarianism.
-->
@ebuc
What is "free"?
-->
@ebuc
Better than communism.
-->
@zedvictor4
What is "free"?
There exists only degrees-of-freedom, not true freedom.
Two points have one line-of-relationship { connected-ness }.= ergo restrictedness.
Three points have three lines of relationship { connected-ness } ergo restrictedness.
Four points we have six lines-of-relationship { connected-ness } ergo a quantum {? } leap from 3 to 6, with the addition of only one point.
The only true freedom is that of the whole Universe being free from any lines-of-relationship, outside of itself.
Five mega-corporations control most of the media.
......2018...." While much of the commentary has focused on the message's right-leaning content, I'd much prefer to discuss something far more insidious: the fact that it happened at all. Regardless of where you stand, the merest existence of politically-motivated must-runs is troubling. Local news stations – and the news in general – bases its reputation for trustworthiness on a commitment to truth and thereby neutrality, a neutrality that has been a guiding principle of American journalism for generations, and which today's divided political environment has been sending to the dogs.
....But while the bias of networks like Fox News or MSNBC is well-known, local stations are much less likely to be considered left or right. Which makes must-runs themselves incredibly dangerous, because they're coming out of the mouths of news anchors viewers know and trust, those they could very well run into at the supermarket or PTA meetings.
...The consolidation of international media has been on the public consciousness for some time, but the consolidation at the local level has been something of a sleeper story. If Sinclair is allowed to complete its proposed merger with Tribune Media we would find ourselves in a situation where 70 percent of American households receive their local news from a Sinclair-run news station, a company which is actively meddling in local news coverage to give it a rightward tilt.'... LINK
So yeah, either you are not free, or you are in chaos.
chaos is the natural order
anarchism is the ONLY political ideology that guarantees the freedom of the people
Capitalism - ruled by the wealthy
Communism - ruled by the government
Anarchism - rules by the people
-->
@skittlez09
Capitalism is hierarchical.
Communism is hierarchical.
Anarchy is hierarchical.
You're part of a system whether you like it or not.
How you fit into a system is entirely up to you and your capabilities.
I'm pretty sure humans labor with regularity. However, I think ideological systems (i.e. communism, capitalism, anarchy) do influence humans to a certain degree. I assume the point of living in a capitalist society is to consume and produce wealth as much as possible. I'm fine with that so long as literature is abundant. Media bias is a concern and I prefer to have media that is competently varied so I can consume wealth without partisan influence. But I suppose if it's biased (preventing me from being free), I'll settle for media bias rather than book burnings, if that makes sense.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Media is as biased as you allow it to be and therein lies the issue.
If you are a certain age then you will more than likely be addicted to media technology, the ultimate goal of which is uncertain, but current goals have been achieved. I would suggest that a lot of people are slightly less free than people used to be.
And if capitalist tyranny means freedom from human tyranny, then I think that I prefer it that way....Fortunately or not I haven't been able to make comparisons.
As for technological tyranny....Well I think we have just got to run with it or get left behind....Though I think that we will eventually be out paced.
-->
@zedvictor4
If you are a certain age then you will more than likely be addicted to media technology, the ultimate goal of which is uncertain, but current goals have been achieved. I would suggest that a lot of people are slightly less free than people used to be.
I think I disagree with your opinion that "a lot of people are slightly less free than people used to be." Now I'm not sure where your opinion comes from, but I think social media (i.e. tiktok) is a useful distraction for the public. In the past, there used to be book burnings. Right now, in my town, I could go to an old, decrepit book store and find multiple copies of John Rawls' political essays. These essays are "forbidden" and possessing them could incur severe punishments. Fortunately, authoritarian third world governments and their censorship branches (i.e. China's mass surveillance, Iran's religious police) are too preoccupied with contemporary social media to the point that they don't bother to check on these things let alone schedule book burnings. I'm "free" in the sense that I need not worry about possessing banned literature.
And if capitalist tyranny means freedom from human tyranny, then I think that I prefer it that way....Fortunately or not I haven't been able to make comparisons.
Well, I'd rather enslave myself to wealth than worry about human inadequacy. When I talk about wealth, I am talking about extreme ranges (i.e. poverty). I'd rather live in poverty. I would not want to live under Duterte or Aung San Suu Kyi.
As for technological tyranny....Well I think we have just got to run with it or get left behind....Though I think that we will eventually be out paced.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Being content to live in isolation without money, in a temperate environment, would be freedom from capitalist oppression, but immediate subjection to the oppression of survival.
In terms of freedom it's a no win situation.
Contentment within a capitalist society is perhaps as good as it get's.....Which doesn't necessarily mean striving to acquire wealth....Just an easily affordable day to day routine with no greater expectations....After all a kitchen is a kitchen, so why would you need a newer one.
Sorry, but when I think about materialism, I always think of fitted kitchens for some reason.
-->
@ebuc
The author of the video has a misconception about Capitalism. First, no country--at least the Industrial countries--are Capitalistic; they're either communist or quasi-communist countries. Second, positive freedom is incoherent. There are freedoms (negative) and entitlements (positive.) Capitalism facilitates freedom and contractual entitlements, not the "feeling" of entitlement (e.g. "freedom to a 'fair' share of the economy," and "the freedom to health care.") Each government regulates the prices and supply orders of these allegedly private businesses, which for the most part are just crony corporations funded with public subsidies. Capitalism can only be experienced in a society without a centralized government, so the youtuber's premise is either incorrect or incomplete.
-->
@Intelligence_06
If the government intervenes too little, then it is anarcho-capitalism, which will furtherly turn to chaos.
No. Anarcho-capitalism is not the precursor to chaos. It simply rejects (centralized) governments as ruling mechanisms.
Capitalism can only be experienced in a society without a centralized government, so the youtuber's premise is either incorrect or incomplete.
Ahtias appears to have blocked me ergo Athias is into one way street society, ergo I'm going around the block { cube } to speak to them.
I think one way streets are a good idea, even tho they hinder communication.
-->
@ebuc
I blocked you several months ago. And there's nothing that prevents you from communicating with me; the only difference is that I'm not notified of your responses. If you wish to be unblocked, then the melodrama can be spared. You are now unblocked. Don't blow it.
-->
@zedvictor4
...immediate subjection to the oppression of survival.
Well I see that now. I suppose those unfortunate enough to live under bridges are subjected to such conditions but I don't think your idea applies to me personally.
In terms of freedom it's a no win situation.Contentment within a capitalist society is perhaps as good as it get's.....Which doesn't necessarily mean striving to acquire wealth....Just an easily affordable day to day routine with no greater expectations....After all a kitchen is a kitchen, so why would you need a newer one.Sorry, but when I think about materialism, I always think of fitted kitchens for some reason
87 days later
I guess not, but communism and socialism would be less free. If there's a economic system that's more free, can you let me know? Now I'm curious.
7 days later
No one is totally free under any economic system, but if I had to choose an economic system, capitalism wins hands down. No other economic system creates wealth. All but capitalism are based on the equal distribution of poverty while capitalism is about the unequal distribution of wealth created. Capitalism is the only economic system where the common man can become wealthy beyond their dreams without having to suck shit out of some politician or govt officials ass first.
-->
@sadolite
@Jasmine
I would suggest that wealth and freedom do not necessarily go hand in hand. Wealth has to be sustained and protected.
I would further reiterate my suggestion that affordable contentment, free from social oppression is perhaps the preferable option....And is perhaps more achievable in a capitalist system.
Though achieving contentment is sometimes just as much inner struggle against expectation, as it is a physical struggle to acquire money.
-->
@ebuc
I was turned off within 2 minutes by the definition of the positive freedom of capitalism as being a "fair" share of the economy available to the average joe. Fair? No, because too many people view"fair" as "equal," and that is contrary to the real individual contribution to a free market economy available to the average joe. Worse, it is only "fair" if it is engaged individually, and many do not. Consider: one may work at an hourly or salary wage. Working for money. But how much of that money does the average joe INVEST, i.e., putting his money to work for him? Today, roughly 55%. That's pathetic. Worse, they think they live a capitalist lifestyle, but if they're not putting money into investment, they are not participating in the free market, and will never benefit from it more than getting occasional raises in a paycheck. Working for money is not capitalism at its best. With nearly half the country not engaged at all, I'd sooner say that capitalism is not a failed system; it is, rather, a system half of America does not try. No wonder you think its a negative freedom.
11 days later
-->
@ebuc
Capitalism only gives you the freedom to own things.
Oh you simpletons, how are all of you unable to comprehend the definitive justification for far left collectivism (seen below).
I was skeptical at first, but eventually I realized that I was just another victim of motivated reasoning. Look at the above content closely, escape your echo chamber and inject yourself with pure, unadulterated KNOWLEDGE.
81 days later
-->
@ebuc
Well then you are incorrect.
What are the alternatives to Capitalism which would make you more free?
And freedom really needs to be defined as well.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" is a apt refrain for anyone failing at capitalism, written by Kris Kristofferson and made famous by Janis Joplin - the last recording she evert made just days before she checked-out. She knew, as did Kristofferson, that it was a lie.