Total posts: 80
-->
@ebuc
wait let me get this straight, you didnt answer because you were too lazy to read? wtf JHAJHAJHAJHJAH yo common, just say that and i could have made a shorter thing if thats the problem
Created:
-->
@ebuc
ok, but will you say anything about my arguments or continue to disrupt the progress?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
1} the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, ---unfair inequality does not fare well for society in long run----
................................ moderation/balance in all things is good general rule ........
2} progress over the protection of ecological environment that sustains human kind is not true progress,
................................. moderation/balance in all things is a good general rule .................................................,
3} the measure of a persons profit abilities vs the quality of their spirit and soul is not, and should never equated as ' Olympic Gold Medal Award '
............................... moderation/balance in all things is good general rule ...................................
4}.......................... ? .........................................
1} the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, ---unfair inequality does not fare well for society in long run----
................................ moderation/balance in all things is good general rule ........
2} progress over the protection of ecological environment that sustains human kind is not true progress,
................................. moderation/balance in all things is a good general rule .................................................,
3} the measure of a persons profit abilities vs the quality of their spirit and soul is not, and should never equated as ' Olympic Gold Medal Award '
............................... moderation/balance in all things is good general rule ...................................
4}.......................... ? .........................................
you said this
i said this
in capitalism, people are inequally rich not inequally poor, is a constant competition on seeing who uses its resources (not just money) better, wich leads to more innovation, creativity and overall true balance, see capitalism does have a balance an perfect one based on peoples needs and the handling of available resources wich is made by the market not the state, the state influences economy like humans do on nature, negatively. the harm of the environment is seen as a violation of the principle of non aggression wich limits freedom so it is penalized, you can hate yyour competition, your clients, and it wont matter if youre good or bad if you find it coneveniant for your own individual purposes you will colaborate with competition, and if you fail to please the demand you will fail completely. and freedom in capitalism wich is an intrinsic concept of biology, is the capacity of an individual to use its resources however conveniantly it finds them to be used. wich is why the PNA should be respected no killing, life is an asset and if youre killed your being restrained to use it therefore cutting freedom, no robbing, private property is an asset, if youre taking something away from someone your restricting their freedom over their own resources causing them to be less free. you want the most amount of freedom possible for every individual, and some may argue the richer are freer but it is because they used their resources the most efficient way possible and climbed a ladder (fair isnt everyone getting the same, fair is everyone getting what they deserve), some not all, others had heritage, but still are forced to obey the laws of the market by pleasing others and still using their resources better, if they dont, they fail and die, and just like in nature wolves are eaten by "plants", someone else will come or many else will come to replace that failed entity and use its wasted resources better, say wood, the failed enterprise bought a lot of wood, but because they went broke they dont buy any, there is more for other enterprises or enterprise that finds it more useful, and will buy more of it if people are happy with the product/outcome/result of that enterprise
and your answer was this
"I thinking your speaking in forked tongue language. Welcome to return of cult of MAFA Trumpet world trifecta"
am i actually expected to consider this?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
i answered the first things that you said and now you want me to actually consider a conspiracy cult theory, i was actually trying to have a fruitful intellectually honest discussion and this completely interrupts the process.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
do you actually have anything to say?? like a real argument perhaphs?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
"I thinking your speaking in forked tongue language. Welcome to return of cult of MAFA Trumpet world trifecta"
i find this unnecesary and useless for thinking about the subject.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
yes you understand me very well, people with money consume, and that creates growth in companys that is reinvested creating employment and better wealth distribution from the companys themselves, and my point is that the growth and societal advances were done by the fre trade market, through the natural concept of capitalism
Created:
-->
@ebuc
english isnt my primary language, yet i think you can still understand if you actually have something to say about the discussion then do so, if you dont then dont bother on replying or do as you may, just keep it respectful
Created:
-->
@ebuc
in capitalism, people are inequally rich not inequally poor, is a constant competition on seeing who uses its resources (not just money) better, wich leads to more innovation, creativity and overall true balance, see capitalism does have a balance an perfect one based on peoples needs and the handling of available resources wich is made by the market not the state, the state influences economy like humans do on nature, negatively. the harm of the environment is seen as a violation of the principle of non aggression wich limits freedom so it is penalized, you can hate yyour competition, your clients, and it wont matter if youre good or bad if you find it coneveniant for your own individual purposes you will colaborate with competition, and if you fail to please the demand you will fail completely. and freedom in capitalism wich is an intrinsic concept of biology, is the capacity of an individual to use its resources however conveniantly it finds them to be used. wich is why the PNA should be respected no killing, life is an asset and if youre killed your being restrained to use it therefore cutting freedom, no robbing, private property is an asset, if youre taking something away from someone your restricting their freedom over their own resources causing them to be less free. you want the most amount of freedom possible for every individual, and some may argue the richer are freer but it is because they used their resources the most efficient way possible and climbed a ladder (fair isnt everyone getting the same, fair is everyone getting what they deserve), some not all, others had heritage, but still are forced to obey the laws of the market by pleasing others and still using their resources better, if they dont, they fail and die, and just like in nature wolves are eaten by "plants", someone else will come or many else will come to replace that failed entity and use its wasted resources better, say wood, the failed enterprise bought a lot of wood, but because they went broke they dont buy any, there is more for other enterprises or enterprise that finds it more useful, and will buy more of it if people are happy with the product/outcome/result of that enterprise
Created:
-->
@Lemming
feel free to look at my other debate in wich i develope my explanaitions even further.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
sure im happy to have discussed with you if there is anything you want to ask then im ready to anwer away.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
. . .
Saying that monopolies only exist because of government regulation, doesn't sound right to me.
Though I think government can 'cause monopolies, or prop up monopolies, (With bailout as an example)
. . . The less laws, the less restrictions for a company to act in underhanded ways to acquire full control of their market and competition."
i explained this already and the mexico thing is actually a violation of the principle of non aggression by exploitation, and also is a rural place wich means less resources in that environment therefore less competition, the best way to fight a monopoly isnt by regulation is by making them compete with another enterprise.
"I 'do agree capitalism 'can be about the creation of new wealth,
But I think unrestricted it will often try to seize that new wealth and much of the old wealth for itself.
. . . Where does that new wealth go?
Often I suspect into new people, and into the company,
By this I mean, yes there is new wealth, and it creates more society,
But that doesn't necessarily mean society is 'richer, just bigger.
And while this can have the 'side effect at times of the people becoming richer,
I think some companies and people have bottomless pits for stomachs.
How rich does one need to be before being satisfied?
And yet. . . There are many rich individuals and companies who are 'not satisfied, who 'continue their unfair prices and wages."
wealth doesnt dissapear, it transforms, this is the magic of the system anything can be of value even trash im exagerating of course but you understand that anything that someones finds useful will have a value. and yes societys do get richer, in freer countries the gdp per capita is larger wich means poor people is richer, the us as a relatively free country even with taxes and all the government interventioon it has had, was a country where you could be poor and have a tv a fridge full of food and somewhere to live. basically poor people in free countrys are richer than poor people in oppressed countrys. where they dont let the darwinian principle of adaptation to the environment be exerted wich causes things not to be as they should. and that bottomless pit is what makes the system work, in another debate i compared nature to the market system, and the other person said the it lacked origin, it does have one and that is people needs, people always need something because they do, when food shelter and water are covered they go for unnecessary thing wich are the ones that make the status quo of life better here is where and how the system works from and for, the need of the people wich also why i say that free market capitalism is purely and at its core a democratic system wich is constantly regulated by the people. its democracy on action.
"For the companies it is being soulless husks, they often 'exist to make more money for the faceless shareholders,
CEO doesn't stay in position by moral actions, so much as I made money perhaps.
. . .
It's what pisses people off about some game companies,
Lootboxes and horse armor, bah.
Still at least game companies don't have a hold of my wallet or food.
. . .
And one 'does see game companies fail over time, when they fail to satisfy.
But it isn't always fast,
And people stomachs are not tied to their products."
yes but they know that if they dont satisfy others they will fail, the irony of the system is that you can absoulutely hate someone but you will trade with them anyways because its conveniant for you, and the other person gets beneficted either way so do you. the system relys on a "moral" action wich is fundamented by the darwin principle of best adaptation for outcomes to the context.
in the game exapmle is like the lobbying thing is about getteing privileges from someone else, if you buy everything in a game you will win beastially against anyone that doesnt and truly works for proggress in the game, while in real life if you are funded by the government it is real money thats being used peoples money, and you will have a great adantage over other competitors wether you are a company or a random person living his life this breaks the principle of equality to the law.
and yeah england wasnt bad at all economically but compare the use of resources when they were on the us and compare it to when they left, clearly freedom played a huge role on the us because when the englishmen were there they controled and centrilized economy maing it less competitive and you know the drill. either way the us cleraly surpassed them as an economic power using democracy and free trade.
i explained monopolys already in resume they are unatainable structures and are meant to collapse in themselves the best way to get rid of them is by making the compete not by regulating check the milton friedman video.
and the demand, if people wanted something and now they want something new instead of what they had before, then the resources allocate by the enterprises causing the demand to always no matter what be satisfied while the enterpises also get satisfied. is like an ecosystem where the predator is also the weed the prey feeds from. how beautiful isnt it.
"Hm where's that link to railroads? No not this one.
im not sure if i get this sorry, please explain further.
"If they want to hire a doctor that receives 0/10 reviews, and is a quack, their choice some argue."
yeah but if hes really good and no discovered him because of regulations on reviews for doctors then how many lives would have been lost, the market is insanely complex on execution, in includes in its adaptation path learning from both partys supplyers and demanders.
and the lead thing iw oldnt allow it either is a clear violation of the POA ive mentioned it too much im abreviating it now.
oh and capitalism and market laws are amoral but it makes us liv better because or the darwinian principle of better adaptation in more advantegeous ways, everything is connected.
i had to divide the thing because it was way too large see it as one message
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Throughout the 18th century, France faced a mounting economic crisis. A rapidly growing population had outpaced the food supply. A severe winter in 1788 resulted in famine and widespread starvation in the countryside. Rising prices in Paris brought bread riots.
Taxation Structure
The desire for more efficient tax collection was one of the major causes for French administrative and royal centralization. The taille, a direct land tax on the peasantry and non-nobles, became a major source of royal income. Exempted from the taille were clergy and nobles (except for non-noble lands they held in “pays d’état;” see below), officers of the crown, military personnel, magistrates, university professors and students, and certain cities (“villes franches”) such as Paris. Peasants and nobles alike were required to pay one-tenth of their income or produce to the church (the tithe).Although exempted from the taille, the church was required to pay the crown a tax called the “free gift,” which it collected from its office holders at roughly 1/20 the price of the office.
There were three kinds of provinces: the “pays d’élection,” the “pays d’état,” and the “pays d’imposition.” In the “pays d’élection” (the longest held possessions of the French crown) the assessment and collection of taxes were originally trusted to elected officials, but later these positions were bought. The tax was generally “personal,” which meant it was attached to non-noble individuals. In the “pays d’état” (provinces with provincial estates), tax assessment was established by local councils and the tax was generally “real,” which meant that it was attached to non-noble lands (nobles possessing such lands were required to pay taxes on them). “Pays d’imposition” were recently conquered lands that had their own local historical institutions, although taxation was overseen by the royal administrator.
In the decades leading to the French Revolution, peasants paid a land tax to the state (the taille) and a 5% property tax (the vingtième; see below). All paid a tax on the number of people in the family (capitation), depending on the status of the taxpayer (from poor to prince). Further royal and seigneurial obligations might be paid in several ways: in labor, in kind, or rarely, in coin. Peasants were also obligated to their landlords for rent in cash, a payment related to their amount of annual production, and taxes on the use of the nobles’ mills, wine-presses, and bakeries.
Caricature showing the Third Estate carrying the First and Second Estates on its back, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, c. 1788.
The tax system in pre-revolutionary France largely exempted the nobles and the clergy from taxes. The tax burden therefore devolved to the peasants, wage-earners, and the professional and business classes, also known as the Third Estate. Further, people from less-privileged walks of life were blocked from acquiring even petty positions of power in the regime, which caused further resentment.
well here it looks like clearly the largest portion of society was normal people (anyone that isnt a king or state) wich are the ones that truly produce anything at all, and the already existing weight of the world saw itself summed up to the state weight, plus in these times there was exploitation and constant violation of the principle of non-aggression, plus lack of social freedom wich causes resentment, hatred and division, beyond there being an societal unbalance, there was an absolute lack of freedom in every and any way, ergo the absolute lack of market logic working, wich means no competition, or the incentive for it causing less production/innovation or supply for the demand and the demand being sick of life itself, so as most of the providers, it was a mix of discontent that caused this and the absolute lack of competition.also have in mind that aristocracys are like communist governments they use the state to mantain power using politics or democracy as an excuse.
"But I'm not sure you have checks and balances for preventing companies from growing too powerful for those laws.
Allowing a single individual or company to amass too much wealth for instance,
It seems more ideal to me, to prevent them from amassing enough wealth to easily change laws or influence voters.
. . . 'And get away with it."
the market dynamics is in charge of regulating this as it does in literally anything that lives, let me explain how, a monopoly that please people and has reasonable prices is strange but if there is one it doesnt hurt anyone, but it existing, or being as i said is extremely rare, but lets say there is a monopoly like this, a good one lets call it, it is intrinsic to failure, because there is no competition, so no innovation, see consumerism always looks forward to obtaining something better and a monopoly even a "kind" one good one, doesnt really compete nor innovates, and if it handles economys as it wants to say setting high prices and people not having a choice rather than to buy, well here what happens is that consume goes down, so growth does too leading to the eventual death of the monopoly this is a hypothetical example of how a very rare and unique good kind aligned with making peoples life better doesnt really have a chance to last in time because of lack of competition, innovation, and also the lack of one of the principles of market logic, specialization, if you do everything you wont be good enough for everything, if you specialize on something your chances of survival increase, wich is why no animal in nature decided to fly crawl run and swim while being huge and omnivore, they decided to adapt to one single environment and adapt fully and completely to it to increase the better use of resources so they could thrive in that enviroment, now the reason why gave the ussr as the example is because in mankind there has never been a bigger monopoly than this one, and we all saw how in 1989 it went down, besides stating the overheard fact the capitalism beat communism that night im stating the fact the monopolys are intrinsic to fail over time.
here is milton friedman explaining why are they and why they fail in time, and the solution wich is competition or free trade
"But I'm not sure you have checks and balances for preventing companies from growing too powerful for those laws.
Allowing a single individual or company to amass too much wealth for instance,
It seems more ideal to me, to prevent them from amassing enough wealth to easily change laws or influence voters.
. . . 'And get away with it.
i do see what youre trying to say but this here proves my point and friedmans as well, it is because of the state that monopolys are ver created, and lobbying is a way for enterprises to escape the market laws and gain privileges, wich does end up creating monopolys due to them being less competitive to anyone because of the fact that they have the hgier ground this breaks the classical liberal principle of equality to the law so yeah its bad. we need to be equal and competitive while allowing everyone do as they may without exerting oppression/aggression.
"While I agree a company store 'can be fair, in practice it can result in 16 tons.
the thing here is that you create profit, obviously, and this accumulates, if you only have enough money to care about neccessitys like food shelter and water, then there is a huge problem that is bigger than the company itself, see in a healthy economy where competition thrives, money isnt printed every five seconds, and competition is what makes prices balanced, inflation its just gone, and people and their money are worth more, so they can spend more on unnecessary stuff and make economys and other enterprises grow. so that being said a man working in the lowest class should and would be able to have more capital to invest in himself or into a better condition of living or education or anyway that could help him either live better or work better. besides ideally the market is a sport not just for companys but for everything even individuals if you shovel dirt the best dirt shoveler will be valued the most so they all compete on seeing who satifies the boss or the demand wich is demanding more dirt to be shoveled, when this is done, people happen to find themselves on the ladder wich capitalism free market logic economys works on, see everthing is a capital ladder we all climb, only you know how to use your resurces better. and basically you can make capital out of anything so shoveling dirt isnt even really your only choice, there is thought capital, this means even non phsyical things can be seen as valuable, such as our debate, everything has a value that satisfies someone ergo is used or valued the way it must be or the parties included and even the ones that arent. economy isnt just about money and trade and businesses is about resource handling and human nature.
"'Ideally the company would be fair,
'Ideally the workers would just leave, but there are always desperate, poor, uneducated people.
People don't think,
I shall leave and allow my family to starve to death for my principles.
"In Mexico, during the Porfiriato period (late 1800 to early 1900), the "tiendas de raya" (company stores) were a prominent symbol of labor and peasant exploitation. These stores, operated by the owners of haciendas or factories, sold essential items to workers, often at inflated prices and typically paying with vouchers instead of cash. This kept workers in a continuous debt cycle to the hacienda or company, binding them almost like slaves to the land or industrial work without the possibility of escaping poverty."
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
ok then, think it was a great discussion, thanks for taking the time i know we might disagree but i still enjoyed the search for a fundamental truth with you, thank you
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
if i say it then youll hear or you wont care?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
here is the true final answer for your argument, if you dont believe me because supposedly im a fantasious lunatic or something, then look at this less than 4 minutes video from nobel on economy, milton friedman. do it if you want if not than its ok i can explain it. but i think i got you bored so idk.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
we can create energy from things with a higher lifespan than earth, there is solar energy there is kinetic energy if you dont think that these cant really be an alternative and that the world should shift to these then why are you even fighting for resources to last longer
and also if planned economy is the best thing ever then why did the ussr the biggest monopoly in the history of mankind fell down on its own weight
i mean your system constantly tries to emulate free market by redistributing wealth as it thinks it should, and reducing consumption means reducing growth, and reducing prices or how much something is used just makes everything scarcer and less productive or effective, and even more expensive.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
"Having a government, 'sounds like having regulation to me.
Even if a company said there was lead in their baby toys or in food, I think some people would still buy them,
People still buy cigarettes,
I'd rather have government regulate this to a degree."
it is true, but a regulation is a restriction of freedom, wich leads to the question of what is freedom, freedom is you can do whatever you want, classical liberalism freedom is you can do whatever you want as long as you dont hurt anyone, this is the principle of non-aggression and this principle enhances the amount of "progressive freedom", basically true freedom from this point of view is to do as you please but dont hurt anyone, if we increase this type of freedom then then everyones intention is valued into allocating resources where they must be at.
"French Nobility, can be seen as an example of individuals amassing wealth, and power.
One of the reasons for the French Revolution, was 'bread."
i dont really know about this or what you mean, but if it is what i think it is then again it breaks the principle of non-aggression by feudalism and besides the french revolution happened literally because of government oppression thats why when they made up their new constitution they named freedom fraternity and equality. i still think i might have misunderstood you so sorry if thats the case and please explain a bit further.
"Sometimes the only food available is in the company store, at unfair prices.
I'd rather government be allowed to regulate this."
the thing again here is that first of all the very reason why food would have unfair prices is because of government regulations not necessairly on the company that sells it there but on any other one that was forced to have a set price or suffered a tax raise that caused it to raise prices so it could mantain itself wich caused the drop of consume therefore the general growth of that company making it produce less ergo making scarcity go up along with the price of the product, so basically there is a company that became less productive by direct state intervention, and an entire market of companys wich also raised their prices due to scarcity. the more regulation there is the higher the prices will become, or the less of that product there will be, or it will be of worse quality we need to understand that companys are providers not "dirty capitalist pigs" (im not saying you siad this its just that there is a general misconception of greed in capitalism when its just interest) they care about sustaining themselves and they know that the only way to do it is by serving others with a good product at a fair price, yet because of regulation that falls apart becase companys have to decide on wether to keep raise prices, because of taxes, wich takes growth down, to reduce wages to workers so it keeps the prices, or to just make less of the product making it more expensive in the general market, in the end is the state that hurts workers and normal people, the rich will be rich whatever happens. normal people will have to find a way through
"The desert example only needs to highlight the flaw in unregulated economy.
And people's 'response to such.
Without regulations, people are able to create monopolies, and I realize I am sounding a broken record here, perhaps I lack understanding."
it is because of regulations that there is a lack of competition therefore chances of monopolys being created raise, besides when monopolys are made on non regulated economys they fall apart without intervention, because of the same reason of why they would have been created on a state, lack of competition leads to the loss of innovation or the incentive of wanting to please people better than others, wich makes consume go down, and monopolys themselves do so too, the difference is that on free economys monopolys last much less, the greatest example of all mankind is the ussr and the reason of why it went down was because it centralized all political, economic, and ideological power, suppressing competition and innovation. Its planned economy was inefficient, unable to adapt to changing needs, leading to chronic shortages and stagnation. Without competition, industries lacked incentives to innovate or improve productivity.
Internally, glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) exposed systemic flaws, weakening the state's control. Nationalist movements within Soviet republics further eroded unity. Externally, the USSR struggled to compete with more dynamic capitalist economies, especially during the arms race.
Ultimately, like any monopoly, the USSR collapsed under its inefficiency and inability to satisfy its "consumers"—its citizens. leading to the starvation of over
5.7 to 8.7 million people
"But I see a person able to buy all the land, all the means of production, and then enforce unfair trade.
'Unless they are regulated."
as i said before if that person/company doesnt satisfy anyone then it fails completely, capitalism isnt about acumulating wealth it is a heavy and dangerous misconception many believe. capitalism is about the creation of wealth from current wealth.
"I am not convinced America outgrew England through 'Free 'Market.
England is smaller, and gave up it's Empire.
Even if we had kept to England's ways, I suspect frontiers and expansion make for growth."
well yes england was smaller but when they had the united states the us didnt grow as fast as when they left because of the lack of regulation
"I am not familiar enough with the USSR to have opinions on why it collapsed.
I think monopolies can exist without government regulation.
It sounds a simple concept to me,
Someone acquires a significant portion of a resource/trade/service and leverages it."
i explained this up
"No regulation means companies are free to direct the flow of wealth as 'they like.
Just because the workers don't want to buy from the company store, doesn't mean they are not going to buy from the company store."
first of all as i said companys dont flow the wealth as they like, the market is regulated by the demand wich is why the great depression ever occured (due to a money government policy btw) having this said, when a lot of people want the same thing instead of what they wanted before resources allocate from that old place to the new one, so if enterprises fail to please others then they fail, and yes just because they dont want to doesnt meant they wont but the consume will most definitely be lower causing the enterprise to see itself forced to either grow less (make less money) or to lower the price to satisfy buyers, see lower demand higher supply lower price, higher demand lower supply higher price
Created:
-->
@Lemming
i said it before capitalism is an intrinsic part of biology, and free market competition is too, the thing is that oppression is also a real thing, the freer societys are the faster and more it will grow having everything to be more transparent to be consumers and providers. anarchy is the absoulute lack of a government of wich i dont believe, i believe in one that uses governemnt not to benefit itself but to benefit its citizens by enhancing individual freedom as much as possible. while protecting and making sure the principle of non aggression is respected
Created:
-->
@Lemming
when there was no food people decided to make food, and if there is no food today is because of government ragulations i can explain this in a million ways, and actually your first example illustrates my example of how in less regulated societys people are wealthier or freer economically, wich means they can buy more unnecesary stuff that innevitably makes economys grow, so if a government understands this it will make a freer economy because it understands that the freer more people are the more everything will grow, and the desert example doesnt highlight free markt competition, is like a country with high tariffs monopolys will be made, and people will suffer because a monopoly wont even want to grow or innovate it doesnt have the incentive to, in your example as i said no competition and not enough resources, unlike there is today, a great example of how the availabilty of resources in capitalism heavily affects how economys expand its the discovery of america and how afterwards everyone started competing much more, and another great example of what i say about how freedom made countrys grow much more its how after us gained independence it outgrew england even with the industrial revolution starting there, only for the base of their politics wich was the opposite of what the englishmen did, the us started with less then 2% taxes, they grew much more clearly since then to now, also monopolys are intrinsic to failure they will always perish because of the same fundamental fact of competition not existing in their "market", the greatest example of all is the greatest monopoly that ever existed the ussr and how it perished, besides in real life examples, the only reason why monopolys even start existing is due to state intervention, basically the regulation of competition, wealth is like water no regulations means it flows to where the people want, regulation means it flows to where the government wants it to be but the governments are made out of people that dont know or forsee the indirect events of regulations and how it causes disparities in society such as income inequality.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
@Best.Korea
the only role of the state is to make sure the principle of non aggression is never broken and that individual liberty is also never broken, this sums up to workers being protected from exploitation, dumping waste, and many more that represent a threat to these values and principles role of the state is to make sure societys are as truly free as they can, because the freer the truly freer they are the happier and more thriving they will be look at the gdp per capita of freer countries and how on average more people are rich than in closed economies, just one single example of how by being wealthier people are freer too
Created:
-->
@Lemming
exactly these examples also showcase how the principle of non aggression is violated by representing potential threats to overall well being
Created:
-->
@Lemming
@Best.Korea
you can decide to buy something from someone or not making one enterprise richer or poorer depending on your choice, you cant decide to pay taxes, is an obligation, therefore breaks free will, therefore being antidemocratic, because its not what people want, and the price of the cure for cancer isnt made out of just it being complex and unique , is a matter of resources thats how the market works, if you lower prices as a state, then you reduce growth on that company making the product way less available and rentable to produce or even it being high quality, ergo it being truly more expensive than what the government makes you make it, so in the end you wouldnt even have a cure to begin with, so basically if the cure for cancer is made for rich people at the beginning then with time these companys that produce it will grow in productivity causing the product to become more available ergo cheaper, wich has happened with literally everything in history, before having a house, medicine or education was only for a select few (that happened to gain their wealth over oppression and taxes) and now anyone can have these at least not everyone because of state intervention but most people do in comparison to back then there are a million examples of this
A focus on Capitalism,
Allows material profit,
But not moral profit.
and yes as i said capitalism and market logic are amoral and intrinsic so its our choice to get the best out of them, and when the principle of non aggression is respected and peoples will is respected, then on a capitalist society the best people pleasers will win the best need carers/givers will win, the problem solvers will win, while also gaining something for themselves, capitalism provides wealth for both parties included, while communism only provides for one while taking away from the other.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
socialism is the state using capitalism as a tool to their advantage, having
the privileges that a government has on power, power that is obtained by and through violence of free will, being antidemocratic at its core.
In the end Capitalism is an unnevitable game and states play it by taking away what everyone wins in the game, when the principle of non aggression is being put down everyone also goes down, so if financing a government requires to constantly hurt people and that is seen as good then what have we become as a society
Created:
-->
@Mall
socialism is the state using capitalism as a tool to their advantage, having
the privileges that a government has on power, power that is obtained by and through violence of free will, being antidemocratic at its core.
In the end Capitalism is an unnevitable game and states play it by taking away what everyone wins in the game, when the principle of non aggression is being put down everyone also goes down, so if financing a government requires to constantly hurt people and that is seen as good then what have we become as a society
Created:
-->
@Lemming
well here the thing is that a capitalist monopoly works off free will, wich means that once this will is gone these enterprises as well, and goverments stay wether you like it or not, besides as i say communism try to emulates capitalism by making a government that works exactly as a monopoly on capitalism, owning all the goods and doing as they will with them, but the government has the option not to care about what people want, companys dont, companys work off literally pleasing people the better you are at people pleasing the richer you will be
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
i completely agree with this, hierarchys are natural, but the difference between one and the other is that free will exists, in communism is an obligation in a free society that naturally leans to capitalism, everything is a choice that takes basis on personal needs.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
"Though it might be that you are saying it is better for capitalism to be less restricted than more restricted."
this here, is literally my point, as capitalism and market logic are intrinsic to biologic life then any try to "restrict" or slow it down only slows progress down. yet we must understand that it doesnt have moral, its just what it is, so we should use it to our advantage not avoid and hate it when its as i say part of life, if there is a governemnt it shouldnt fight the system, it should embrace it while strategically helping those that are uncompetent so they gain autonomy in society. this is why i say that the only type of governemnt is a small one that only does the necessary stuff not a mother russia of wich you live off, also if you look carefully communism trys to emulate capitalism, by doing wealth redistribution (extremely less efectively of course), by talking about voluntary cooperation (wich is intrinsic to market logic), saying it helps the people or the workers, when they are the ones that get hurt the most in closed economys.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
yes you are right, the united states isnt the best example of capitalism yet they stand for its values regardless of how much regulation they keep, however this sums up to my concept of natural capitalism and how the creation of a good from a current good exists in every single form of life wich is why even on a commuinst society capitalism is present and the market laws too because as i said instead of it being a political or economical model its just an intrinsic law of nature that rules out how life works everywhere
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
of course the us wants countrys that support freedom literally the us is the reason why freedom is an actual thing in the world
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
well actually now that ive made my research it seems singapur actually has an insane military,
United States
Economy: Highly capitalist, with a strong emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurship, and market competition.Military: One of the largest and most advanced in the world, with global reach and high defense spending.
Singapore
Economy: Known for its economic freedom, low taxes, and business-friendly environment.
Military: Small but technologically advanced and highly trained, with mandatory national service and strong defense partnerships.
Switzerland
Economy: Open and stable, with a focus on banking, finance, and trade.
Military: Neutral but well-prepared, with a robust militia system and mandatory service.
Australia
Economy: Free market-oriented, with strong natural resource exports and trade partnerships.
Military: Modern and well-funded, with regional influence and alliances like AUKUS.
South Korea
Economy: Open and competitive, driven by technology and manufacturing.
Military: Highly capable, with mandatory service and significant investment in defense due to regional threats.
Israel
Economy: Free and innovative, especially in technology and startups.
Military: One of the most advanced and efficient relative to its size, with mandatory national service.
a list of free countrys with strong militarys even tho israel was funded by the us
Created:
also not to deviate from the subject put the fact of how capitalism makes everything grow more just look at the fact of how after aristocracys came burgoise wich evolved to industrial revolution and now we see how the global gdp went skyrocketed until marxist ideas came to float due to a great depression caused by a government move on economical policys
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
besides how many times has the private sector been the main actor in wars and military?? its a lot
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
im starting to see this more from a strategic point of view but objectively free trade and free market capitalism is better for the people
Singapore's model doesn't inherently concentrate wealth among fewer people. Instead, it lifts the average standard of living, as evidenced by its low poverty rates and high HDI. Similarly, the U.S.'s free-market approach has lifted millions out of poverty worldwide through capitalist globalization, showcasing the scalability of free-market principles.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
i actually think the same here, in fact, im starting to see how governments or the state works as a form of aristocracy as if they were kingdoms competing with each other, still it is a fact that freedom overcomes control, for a reason the us gdp is stronger,and also
The United States GDP per capita was around $75,000 (in nominal terms).
The China GDP per capita was around $12,000 (in nominal terms).
so its both strong per capita and in total
Created:
- Singapore
- GDP (2023): ~$500 billion
- Among the freest economies globally, its small size belies its significant global trade and financial influence.
- GDP (2023): ~$500 billion
- Switzerland
- GDP (2023): ~$900 billion
- A highly open economy known for financial services, trade, and innovation.
- GDP (2023): ~$900 billion
- Ireland
- GDP (2023): ~$545 billion
- Benefits from a low-tax regime and open trade policies.
- GDP (2023): ~$545 billion
- Australia
- GDP (2023): ~$1.6 trillion
- Strong property rights and open markets drive growth. all countrys with almost no resources just trade
- GDP (2023): ~$1.6 trillion
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
why not comparing a small government based country to a free market capitalism based country
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
but still the people have more autonomy wich is better perhaps not for fighting wars yet it is for a society balance, also sinagpur is a small country, such as ireland or new zealand so this means that they barely have any resources compared to the us or china if countrys with more resources did these models then they would grow even more and with wealthier people
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
yes of course i believe in freedom of speech but i have the freedom to disagree and be disposed to not discuss something obvious and proved wrong, unlike our debate that is been seen for decades as a controversy
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ultimately, GDP size should not be the sole measure of economic success. Instead, the degree of individual freedom and the voluntary nature of exchanges behind the output are more meaningful indicators. By this measure, Singapore’s economic model, rooted in minimal coercion and respect for individual rights, reflects a more ethically prosperous system than the U.S., aligning closely with the principles of freedom and non-aggression.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
While the U.S. has a vastly larger GDP due to its population and market size, this metric alone fails to reflect individual well-being or the degree of freedom within the system. Singapore’s higher GDP per capita demonstrates greater efficiency and prosperity per individual, achieved through minimal government interference, low taxes, and respect for property rights they are hallmarks of a system that fosters voluntary cooperation. people are richer in sinagpur not the government
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
this also highlights how wealth distribution is superior in free and also flawless in free trade economys
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
i mean for example china gdp vs singapur gdp you will see that the chinese one is bigger yet per capita singapur is $84,734 compared to the chinese one wich is $12,597
this means that This disparity highlights Singapore's higher average economic output per person wich means more people are rich on a free economy
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
dont get me talking about the singapur gdp
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
well first the guy said nazism is a good idea if you dont think that is harsh then wtf am i even trying to do here is ridiculous i only came not to win a debate but to get to a fundamental truth based over facts not some sociopathic ignoring manipulation method from a book, secondly the principle of no aggression is violated in that example, wich leads to worst societys, basically why communism is utterly meant to fail, secondly ireland has an even bigger gdp than the american one and is a freer country, new zealand has an even bigger gdp than the us and if you even try to compare this to the rest of the countries in europe except from ireland and a few others that happen to have lived through commies, you will see how little their gdps are, you are the same person before that said that capitalism wasted more resources than ever and now you say communist like governments have bigger gdps isnt that a contradiction????
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
also in the end all communism does is to try to emulate capitalism, by redistributing wealth as people think it should people in power, not people in need, i think is funny how hipocritical communists are saying they help the poorest when in fact they cause more harm than good
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
well the state can have its function, yet the more of it there is the less everythin grows, industrial revolution made population grow not just because it got us horny but because living was more affordable and plausible due to the overall enhancing of wellbeing
Created:
-->
@WyIted
yo this site is harsh
Created:
-->
@WyIted
yes the market works on favor of the people is literally a system that strives for and by democracy
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
we can literally create energy from things that live beyond earths lifespan, for christ sake from movement itself we can create energy from and somehow you think everything comes out of a rock??
Created: