Capitalism Hampers our civilization from going past type 0 Civilization

Capitalism makes us sick.
2nd line


btw. is "capitalism" not the politics word for "greed"?

[edit on 8-6-2010 by cushycrux]

reply to post by ken10


This is the big myth though, people don't have to work with their hands. People complain about working and they say that greedy people hold them down but you work by choice.

You could work and start a business. You can save money, leave work and start a business.

It's not hard to start an LLC and build your business.

I know a guy who was homeless. He got tired of living that life so he got a part time telemarketing job, he then had a business idea and got incorporated. He sold his business for $200,000 and now he's starting another business.

I often hear people talk about the rat race or another day, another dollar and they drink their problems away while watching reality TV.

Why not use your mind? Think about a business, go to Legal Zoom and read up on LLC's and S-Corps.

This is why I say it's a mind game. The powers that be have convinced the masses that they have to be apart of the rate race.

Capitalism = freedom. If you allow governments to dictate how much you can earn or what you can do, then you will snuff the life out of the people who dare to dream.

Yeah,

What "breakthrough" has socialism shown the world? Where is the innovation? Gimme something?

Jonas Salk invented the first vaccine for Polio, then patented it to the people. Thankfully big pharma could not lay any claim, but rest assured the tried.

Nikola Tesla used the $1m funding from his A/C current discovery to work on the Tesla coil which aimed to bring free electricity to the world. When funds ran dry he was stifled by JP Morgan who backed Edison's DC current in order to achieve a profit.

In the first example Capitalism lost and we all won - did this help or hinder progress? In the second example... well, are your energy bills anywhere near free? These scientists aren't interested in money and fame, sure a lot are because that's the society we are brought up to believe in... but true pioneers would work for the benefit of the many with little personal gain - certainly we would not be 'stuck in the middle ages'. Your keyboard and the internet would have still been invented, and most likely sooner as products shelf lives are made to last longer than necessary to squeeze every last bit of profit from it.

Free energy may not be available in the form of Perpetual Motion Machines or Magnet Motors (but I've seen some examples which are getting to the crux) but certainly cooperative energy is available. Remove the dirty word 'socialism', tainted by so many dictatorships, and what the OP and many others here are talking about is a truly cooperative society where we harness only resources we truly need and distribute them evenly amongst ourselves. Wind, Solar, Tidal and GeoThermal energies are more than enough to power the entire planet forever... no more 'peak' no more demand outstripping supply... just plentiful and free, as nature intended. If we cooperate to harness it... which we will soon enough.

What is hampering our civilation is war, greed, coruption, and over consumption of our resources. By the time we get to a type 1 civ our planet will be dead because we killed it. What is needed is a spirtual awaking of some kind from man himself. We have to learn to live with each other and live with our planet without killing it. So far we have failed the test. As for a goverment that really does not matter. Even under a dictator people can live in peace as long as the dictator is at peace with himself and others. So that is where we are.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Reactor]

reply to post by masonicon


Socialism requires violence.

Violence has hampered our civilization from progressing, not free individuals acting in a voluntary market.


Let us make these assumptions:

1. That there are no weapons on the Earth

2. That all men and women are equal in strength and that any physical altercation between two people will have equal odds of outcome.


Given these two assumptions, socialism would be impossible in such a society.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

This is actually kind of fun for me.

Let us consider another example.


Suppose we assume a world where:

1. It is impossible to cause physical harm to anyone other than in defense of ones property.

That is to say, if I attempt to harm you, nothing would happen. However if you attempted to take from me that which I have not freely given you, I would be able to cause physical harm to you in order to stop you from doing this, yet you would be unable to harm me back.

In such a world, socialism would be impossible.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Let us assume a world where:

1. Any act of violence, in self-defense or in aggression, caused both parties to instantly die.

Socialism would be impossible in such a world.

Let us assume a world where:

1. Every person is armed with a gun, yet guns would only work if someone attempted to cause you physical harm first, while at the same time preventing the aggressor's gun from working.

Socialism would be impossible in such a world.

Let us assume a world where:

1. It is impossible for anyone to take a resource I have created without my consent.

Examples:

If I make a fishing pole out of a block of wood, it would be impossible for anyone to take the fishing pole from me unless I gave it to them out of my own free will.

If I dig a mine in an empty plot of land and extract some iron ore from it, it would be impossible for anyone to take that ore from me without my consent.

If I plant a field of crops in an empty plot of land, it would be impossible for anyone to take my crops without my consent.

If I chose to work for someone and he pays me a gold coin for my labor, it would be impossible for anyone to take that gold coin from me.



In such a world, socialism is impossible.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by idiot prodigy
Perpetual motion defies the second law of thermodynamics. Please show the proof of your bold claims.

Universe's expansion by Perpetual creation(where the hydrogen in the universe comes from) really debunks the law of Conservation of energy for good!

Doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply to systems in the universe, not the universe itself?

Some more experiments of thought.

If a ragged and gaunt man, along with is family in the same condition, were to show up knocking at your door asking for spare cans of food because they were too poor to eat, would you feed them?

Now.

If that same man appeared at your door without his family in a uniformed suit demanding your food or threatening you with violence, yet you had the option to kill him for his aggression, would you kill him or give him your food?



This obviously begs the question of why it is necessary to engage in violence if 99.9999% of the people would engage in voluntary charity given the situation.

reply to post by mnemeth1



Mnemet1 - let us suppose a world where posts have a purpose. Exactly what are you trying to say because if you apply your "let us suppsoe a world" blabberings to any "ism" you will get the same outcome.

Regards

reply to post by infolurker



Well how about the soviet union, the AK-47; better science education for the hard sciences. A more sensible but less romantic space programme.

Just a few to consider. The Soviet Union was in a bad way but they were no push over and were the other superpower for a long time.

However considering that there has never ever been a truly socialist country The USSR is the closest we could get to .

If you think your system is working ask someone who wants a job and can't get one!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Tiger5]

In the matter of debts

Let us assume:

1. A world in which violence is impossible

Given this assumption, as a lender, should you be tricked into giving your money to a person willingly thinking they will pay you back, you would be unable to extract payment from that person.

Since you gave them your money willingly as a lender, and since there is no possible way for you to get the money back should they decide not to pay you, I think it is safe to assume that you would investigate the persons ability to pay you back thoroughly and their history of paying people back before you actually lent them any money.

Perhaps you might only lend them a small amount at first to see how they pay you back, and perhaps you might demand an additional fee since they are an unknown risk to your finances.

However, since it is to your advantage to lend to them if they do pay you back, you will ensure that the risk is minimal and the reward appropriate before agreeing to lend him your money.

---

On the flip side of this, as a borrower, if you were to trick a person into lending you money and then not paying them back, you would now have a bad credit reputation and be an unacceptable risk to have someone lend to you in the future. This would greatly restrict your ability to leverage your assets and talents.


From this we can conclude that lending and borrowing would still take place since it is to both parties advantage, however the risks/rewards of lending would be much more vigorously investigated before any lending was done.

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Mnemet1 - let us suppose a world where posts have a purpose. Exactly what are you trying to say because if you apply your "let us suppsoe a world" blabberings to any "ism" you will get the same outcome.

Regards

Well the purpose of this thread is to demonstrate why our civilization is not progressing.

I'm demonstrating that violence is why our society is not progressing.

voluntary markets and trade has nothing to do with it.

If we assume a perfect world that is free of violence, it becomes clear that socialism is impossible since it requires the use of violence against the innocent.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

on the subject of human progress, which this thread is all about:

If we assume a world in which violence is impossible except in defense of ones property that they have originally worked or earned, the following must be true:

Since everyone would know that they either must work for sustenance (either for themselves or voluntarily for others) or depend upon the good will of others, everyone would be HIGHLY motivated to be a productive member of society.

It is only when people do not have to assume this that they become nonproductive.

Since motivated productive work furthers the progress of society, it can be demonstrated that socialism retards the progress of society.

Tribal groups enforced this by ostracizing those who were nonproductive, violent, or thieves. In a tribal system, being ostracized was nearly a death sentence. This created a highly motivated society with very minimal violence.

The tribal society is what brought man out of the stone age. It was the division of labor that allowed this to occur within a coordinated tribal system.

When one person can tend the crops and another can hunt for game, it greatly increases the survivability of both members over them having to do both tasks simultaneously on their own.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]