What do you think of Capitalism?

[Nue Cascadia]

If you have the *thing* then yes, you have a moral need to raise that child. In any other case, the child can simply leave the household and start a life of his own and learn what it means to be an individual in a modern society.

Without enforcement not all parents will follow moral need. Newborns cannot leave the household

Why would somebody abuse an infant?

[Umeria]

Without enforcement not all parents will follow moral need. Newborns cannot leave the household

Why would somebody abuse an infant?

Mental illness or something. It happens.

[Washington Resistance Army]

By this logic, then, we can also remove a great many of the deaths you attribute to socialism. While there are examples you can point to where poor policy exacerbated the problems, there's an equal or greater amount where natural disaster and such things was the root cause of the problems.

Many of which are government caused, ironically. Aral sea was one of them, Mao trying to kill bird because he hated them was another crisis caused. Much the same, the number behind socialism was the total death count that these governments caused via famines, ethnic cleansing, mass killings, purges, and etc.

Following that logic capitalist Britain alone beats out the socialists of the 20th century then due to its actions in India and Burma which, under this logic, caused many tens of millions of deaths. You're being very selective in how you apply these things.

[Nue Cascadia]

Many of which are government caused, ironically. Aral sea was one of them, Mao trying to kill bird because he hated them was another crisis caused. Much the same, the number behind socialism was the total death count that these governments caused via famines, ethnic cleansing, mass killings, purges, and etc.

Following that logic capitalist Britain alone beats out the socialists of the 20th century then due to its actions in India and Burma which, under this logic, caused many tens of millions of deaths. You're being very selective in how you apply these things.

Because those deaths were caused by the government as well?

You do realize that capitalism is separate from the government, right?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Without enforcement not all parents will follow moral need. Newborns cannot leave the household

Why would somebody abuse an infant?

Horrifyingly enough, there's a market for it where people will pay exorbitant sums of money to see such abuse. Peter Scully sold his abuse videos for something like $10,000 per copy.

That, frankly, is capitalism at its truest form. Anything can be monetized and sold to the right person.

[Transsibiria]

Without enforcement not all parents will follow moral need. Newborns cannot leave the household

Why would somebody abuse an infant?

Human nature leads sometimes to some pretty fucked up shit.

In a way right-libertarians and utopian communists are similiar in their highly optimistic assumptions of human nature.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Following that logic capitalist Britain alone beats out the socialists of the 20th century then due to its actions in India and Burma which, under this logic, caused many tens of millions of deaths. You're being very selective in how you apply these things.

Because those deaths were caused by the government as well?

You do realize that capitalism is separate from the government, right?

As I said, you're being remarkably selective to avoid applying criticism to your own system. "It's the fault of the government, it's the fault of regulations, it's the fault of the WTO" etc etc etc. Even if we go to times where most of these things didn't exist, capitalism fucking sucked and didn't do much for the average person. There's a reason we look back on the Gilded Age as a bad thing.

[Picairn]

This is the entire quote that he said:

"There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.1 But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?...

Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)"

You know that he still says parents have the right to let their child starve to death with no consequences, right?

[Picairn]

Why would somebody abuse an infant?

And this is why you should spend less time in Rothbardian child labor world and more in reality. Newborn babies get abused or neglected a lot.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec ... amid-covid
https://local12.com/news/nation-world/f ... infant-son

[Risottia]

Personally, I like Capitalism, it lets people make money
-snip-
eventually all the money accumulates in a few hands

Absolutely no contradiction here.

[Sordhau]

By ending it.

[United Eastern Vodia]

I'd say completely free the market no regulations, no subsidies, and no government intervention into the market in any way other than suppressing unions and strike, I'd also like to see a return to the gold standard and have taxes set as minimally as possible. Capitalism is just God's way of determining who's smart and who's poor

[Tmezestos]

who's smart and who's poor

So, where do the Kardashians come on your list?

[United Eastern Vodia]

who's smart and who's poor

So, where do the Kardashians come on your list?

There are some extreme exceptions to that

[Tmezestos]

So, where do the Kardashians come on your list?

There are some extreme exceptions to that

So God is not doing a very good job?

[United Eastern Vodia]

There are some extreme exceptions to that

So God is not doing a very good job?

I'm pretty sure god letting them exist in the first place is proof he's not doing a very good job

[East Mindoor]

I'll reconfigure the whole ideology of capitalism
I call my brand new ideology Communism what is yours was never yours and is now ours
So yeah, Capitalism=Communism

[Tmezestos]

So God is not doing a very good job?

I'm pretty sure god letting them exist in the first place is proof he's not doing a very good job

So, I'm guessing you're in the poor camp? Especially since banning unions and strikes is definitely the best way to achieve socialist revolution in our lifetimes.

[Galactic Powers]

How many iterations of the same thread do we need? Commies and fascists just brigade these threads and they all turn into a circlejerk.

[United Eastern Vodia]

I'm pretty sure god letting them exist in the first place is proof he's not doing a very good job

So, I'm guessing you're in the poor camp? Especially since banning unions and strikes is definitely the best way to achieve socialist revolution in our lifetimes.

Nah I wouldn't really say I'm exceedingly poor or rich, that last line in my post was just a joke I'm not delusional enough to actually believe that.

[Tmezestos]

So, I'm guessing you're in the poor camp? Especially since banning unions and strikes is definitely the best way to achieve socialist revolution in our lifetimes.

Nah I wouldn't really say I'm exceedingly poor or rich, that last line in my post was just a joke I'm not delusional enough to actually believe that.

I mean, if you believe anything in that post, that's kinda scary.

[Picairn]

How many iterations of the same thread do we need? Commies and fascists just brigade these threads and they all turn into a circlejerk.

Occasionally the Ancaps show up with their own entertainment though

[United Eastern Vodia]

Nah I wouldn't really say I'm exceedingly poor or rich, that last line in my post was just a joke I'm not delusional enough to actually believe that.

I mean, if you believe anything in that post, that's kinda scary.

The first part was all unironic but like I said that last line was a joke

[Tmezestos]

I mean, if you believe anything in that post, that's kinda scary.

The first part was all unironic but like I said that last line was a joke

lol

I'd say completely free the market

We did that in the 1800s. Look where that got us.

no regulations

Yes, I too love children working in unsafe factories for scraps of cash, having to resort to theft instead of, y'know, actually getting educations. No regulations? Brilliant plan.

no subsidies

Something you and I agree on.

and no government intervention into the market

I have a feeling most modern capitalists would hate that. But, of course, all it would mean is that government intervention would just go underground.

in any way other than suppressing unions and strike

Communist revolution speedrun strat here.

I'd also like to see a return to the gold standard

Mmm, yes, love it when volatile economies get even more volatile...

and have taxes set as minimally as possible

So, like modern corporations currently "chafe" under? Or even less?

Capitalism is just God's way of determining who's smart and who's poor

And you said that only this part was the joke... Lol

[The New Rio Grande]

I see no problem with capitalism. So far, it works. The only people who say there’s anything wrong with it are communists who’s ideology has the same exact problem as capitalism. That being people are quite greedy and corrupt and there isn’t much you can do about it. That would have to be the only problem with capitalism.