Socialism vs Capitalism

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Socialism vs Capitalism
Author Message
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 9, 2017 at 6:22 Quote
Aiden-Gowans wrote:
I would say that investing in stocks is not immoral. It is baisically loaning someone money so they can advance thier buisness. In turn, they give you a share of thier buisness. No one is ripped off and both the company and the investor agree on the terms. How is that immoral?
Of course it is moral. A capitalist investing is him/her making thier own private deciosion with their private property. If it was all owned by the "people" (nice way of saying owned by the state) then you woudn't be able to make your own decisions about your property, because technically you have noe private property.
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 9, 2017 at 13:08 Quote
harriieee wrote:
Oh, and you are treating the issue of ownership as either-or. There is such a thing as co-operative ownership, in which capital is owned by all people who take part in the enterprise, and does not involve state control.
All people owns control? That could very quickly turn to anarchy. Tell me, would you rather own your bike, our would you rather have all mountain bikers own your bike. Now when I take about private property I’m talking about people’s money or their house our car our land. Usually company’s don’t have just one sole owner. They have stockholders. I can’t really think of any successful ways that your “socialism” works. Your version of socialism is like communism and what early English colonists used. How’d that work out for them?
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 9, 2017 at 13:20 Quote
harriieee wrote:
I don't think your point answers mine, which is that it would be possible to have a system where it is necessary to work to live, and where goods and services are traded on a market, without the private ownership of capital, therefore your definition is not an accurate one of what capitalism is.

However, coming back to this idea that it's wrong to take things from people who work and give them to people who don't, my question is: Why should everyone have to work? Why do you consider that a moral imperative?
Why should everyone have to work? No offense but that is a very millennial thing you said. And I’m not meaning that as a compliment. Everyone should work for themselves, and their families. Would you want to work your butt off, only to have some money go to the guy that doesn’t work. So I guess what I’m getting at is that you don’t have to work, but you’ll starve if you don’t.
My definition of capitalism was pretty spot on. Have you ever been involved in the business world? Everything I said was spot on. I haven’t had experiences with stock or shares but I talk about it to people that have, so I’d say I have a pretty good idea.
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 10, 2017 at 5:30 Quote
harriieee wrote:
gunnerMTB wrote:
harriieee wrote:
Oh, and you are treating the issue of ownership as either-or. There is such a thing as co-operative ownership, in which capital is owned by all people who take part in the enterprise, and does not involve state control.
All people owns control? That could very quickly turn to anarchy. Tell me, would you rather own your bike, our would you rather have all mountain bikers own your bike. Now when I take about private property I’m talking about people’s money or their house our car our land. Usually company’s don’t have just one sole owner. They have stockholders. I can’t really think of any successful ways that your “socialism” works. Your version of socialism is like communism and what early English colonists used. How’d that work out for them?

Co-operatives are not some fantasy of an unreachable utopian future. They exist in the world, in the marketplace. For instance, the Mondrgaon corporation is the tenth-biggest company in Spain. It regularly outperforms privately-held companies; last year it had profits of about $16 billion. It allows all its members to vote on issues such as executive-to-worker wage ratio. Does it descend into anarchy? Nope. Exactly the same arguments about a descent into anarchy were used in centuries gone by by monarchists arguing against one-citizen-one-vote democracy. They proved unfounded, just as fears about democratisation of labour and enterprise are, in my view, and in the experience of successful cooperatives the world over, unfounded.
Yes, I know that company's usally have more then one owner. A company with only one owner is a sole propriter, which is very risky. And I mentioned in the paragraph you quoted. I am O.K. with companys having more then one owner. It is when everyone starts to own personal things, like money, land, and property that I have a problem.
You say democracy, did you know that democracy is mob rule. And no, the U.S. is not a democracy. In a democracy the majority always wins, and that makes the minority suffer.
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 10, 2017 at 5:33 Quote
harriieee wrote:
gunnerMTB wrote:
Why should everyone have to work? No offense but that is a very millennial thing you said. And I’m not meaning that as a compliment.

You are misunderstanding me here, I think. I am not saying 'not everyone should have to work'. I am asking you to justify your position. Your statement about the moral correctness of capitalism is based on the idea that it is immoral for some people to live off the work of others. I am now going to try and drill deeper into the moral schema behind this philosophy.


gunnerMTB wrote:
Everyone should work for themselves, and their families.

Now it gets a little more interesting in terms of philosophy. Let's say, as a thought experiment, I have a child. I decide that I don't want to give my child anything anymore. Am I within my rights to stop feeding, clothing and providing for my child?
So yes, I think it is moral to say, "you and your family get what you earn." And no, I don't think that a parent shoudl, or would, just stop feeding a child. Although once children turn 22 I think they should be kicked out of the house to go make their own living.
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 10, 2017 at 13:53 Quote
harriieee wrote:
So do the immediate family of an individual – for example, a child under the age of 16 or 18, or a non-working husband, wife or partner – have a right to the working person's money, shelter, etc? (The word 'right' is important here, as will become clear soon).
Um, it isn't really a problem that the providers of a family don't provide for thier family. If you are married, are taking care of an older realative or have kids you automatically provide for them. Have you ever heard of somebody that gets married and has kids that doesn't want to take care of them. So why even spend time on this issue if it isn't a problem?
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 11, 2017 at 8:18 Quote
harriieee wrote:
Supporting family is certainly not automatic. It is a choice which an individual makes, and some choose not to. Many people all over the world choose, for various reasons, to leave their families, children etc. and stop supporting them. In the USA and many other countries (basically all the countries we would describe as being western), people who make a choice to leave their families are in many cases forced by law to continue financially supporting them. The non-working spouse and children are generally considered to have a right to a continuing share of the earner's income.

This is important because economic systems are based on competing philosophies – for example, conceptions of human choice, motivation, rationality or lack thereof, morality, etc. One of the key aspects of the philosophy underpinning modern capitalism seems to be that it is morally wrong for a system to force someone to give the money they have earned to someone who doesn't work. You and another person on this thread have advocated this position as a reason why capitalism is right.

My question is this: If that is the case, and the individual should have the absolute right to decide who to give their money to, doesn't it logically follow that an individual should have the right to abandon their family if they decide that is what they want to do with their money and resources?
My bad, I didn’t take into account divorces or people leaving their family. But I think it is fine that law requires someone to keep providing. Maybe that will encourage stronger family’s. If you start a family, you should stay with them and provide for them. That is how it has been all the history of the world. But you don’t need to help provide for someone you don’t even know (or want to.) my point is that redistribution of income is morally wrong. Someone can chose to stop taking care of their family, which I believe is wrong. But you should be able to chose if you want to give money to someone or not. Tell me, do you want to give money to a lazy guy that plays video games all day? So the real question is, should government force you to “help” somebody else out?
flag gunnerMTB
Posted: Oct 11, 2017 at 8:20 Quote
I’m trying to steer the argument away from redistribution of income to the business side.
In a socialist economy businesses are heavily regulated or out right owned by the government. Me, being a business owner, thinks that this would be trouble in the long run. I trust myself more then the government. I trust the average citizen more then the government. Do you trust the government?

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.015951
Mobile Version of Website