It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ANOK
Private property only makes wealth for the minority class of property owners, at the expense of the rest of us.
If workers owned the means of production we could produce all we need with no restrictions. That is the true and only way to peace prosperity and liberty.
The whole reason the economy is such a mess is because of the private ownership of the means to produce, capitalism. It sucks all the wealth upwards and concentrates it in the hands of a minority class. If their profits are not large enough, they remove their contribution to our economy seeking cheaper labour elsware to ensure more profit for themselves.
The Capitalist economy will never be stable, it is impossible, the business cycle is a inevitable part of capitalism.
The business cycle is the periodic but irregular up-and-down movements in economic activity, measured by fluctuations in real GDP and other macroeconomic variables. Parkin and Bade, "Economics"
How can anyone think that is a good system?
Originally posted by ANOK
“libertarian was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” Murray Bookchin The Ecology of Freedom p. 57
Murray Bookchin (January 14, 1921 – July 30, 2006)[5] was an American libertarian socialist author, orator, and philosopher. A pioneer in the ecology movement,[6] Bookchin was the founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist and ecological thought. He was the author of two dozen books on politics, philosophy, history, and urban affairs as well as ecology. In the late 1990s he became disenchanted with the strategy of political Anarchism and founded his own libertarian socialist ideology called Communalism.[7]
Murray Bookchin
Rons just another suit and tie.
I am again forced to remind everyone that Ron Paul was a Republican with Libertarian ideals. He was NOT a dyed in the wool Libertarian. he had to many social conservative positions to be a true Libertarian.edit on 11/15/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)edit on 11/15/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by RedDragon
He is pro-life for one. The Libertarian position is that it is not the place of the government or your neighbor to tell you how to handle this decision. it is between a woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she prays to. THAT is Libertarian.
I also think he was against same sex marriage. Not positive on that though. As a Libertarian, my view on same sex marriage is "I do not care"....you can marry your mailbox...it will not effect my life one way or another.
And yes, Ron did run as a Libertarian candidate back in the late 70's or early 80's...don't remember exactly when...lots of water under the bridge since then.
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by RedDragon
He is pro-life for one. The Libertarian position is that it is not the place of the government or your neighbor to tell you how to handle this decision. it is between a woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she prays to. THAT is Libertarian.
I also think he was against same sex marriage. Not positive on that though. As a Libertarian, my view on same sex marriage is "I do not care"....you can marry your mailbox...it will not effect my life one way or another.
And yes, Ron did run as a Libertarian candidate back in the late 70's or early 80's...don't remember exactly when...lots of water under the bridge since then.
What brings them together is the common belief in freedom/ tolerance. They won't use violent force of government to make other people comply with their personal beliefs.
Originally posted by RedDragon
This sounds like what a stock is. As workers become wealthier, they'll buy their companies' stocks. Increased wealth comes from increased efficiency. Increased efficiency comes from maximizing profit margins. This is actually how capitalism will evolve into communism. If you try to force it to happen too early, it will self-destruct via inefficiency. See every country that's tried to do so.
See also that most common people owned no stock in the 1800s. Now, everyone does. The trend is clear.
How would you measure efficiency without profit? How would you reinvest the excess resources created by higher efficiency into other operations without profit?
By its very definition, a profit margin is the efficiency level of the resources used relative to the end-product.
Recessions are bad ideas going bust. Booms are new ideas being tried. Booms have higher absolute value than recessions. How would you get the resources to try new ideas without reallocating the resources from the bad ones?
When you don't have profit to measure efficiency and don't have bidding to determine all the information about resources conveyed in price, you get a system with no or poor checks on how well resources are used. When you don't use resources well, you get both less out of them (less investment) and less stuff (lower efficiency). When you get less stuff, you get poor.
Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by hawkiye
I agree intolerance is one of the keys, but he has the first one dead wrong. It is not envy, but greed that inhibits our ability to achieve liberty and peace. Without greed there cannot be envy. Sadly greed has become the foundation of the United States.