Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 24. (Read 30791 times)

This is flawed. If you want to give money and get services, trade with a business or a friend, you'll get worth your money.
Also government was never created with the intention of protecting the weak. It became like that when it was politically profitable to do it. And this is not what he should do, a government should be the only entity with the monopoly of coercion to enforce individual right, and stay at here.

People give power and money to the government to protect the weak and get services but the government sells this power and give this money to those that can afford to buy it and help them be re-elected, that is why it would be better not to give them the power and the money in the first place to avoid corruption or at least limit it

I agree that government tends to favor big industries instead of young business, thus preventing free market. It is more politically profitable to do so.

Hell no, the poor should bear the responsibility for themselves, nobody has the responsibility to take them out of misery.
However, currently, government policy prevents them to get themselves out of misery. Only free market can permit them to trade and so, attract wealth.

The definition of wealth is often mistaken to be money.
But it is not, people create wealth every time they exchange real goods without coercion.

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.
This simple act is enough to get people out of poverty, and any barrier will prevent them to get out.
Throwing money at the problem does not create wealth for the poor.

When there is poverty, we should look no farther than where is the obstacle that prevent people from trading.

I think Policies of governments and multinational businesses cause poverty. They are keeping people poor. They have the responsibilities to the poor people, but they are giving all facilities and power to only the richest people and multinational companies. We can influence the decisions

More importantly, there will gradually be an increase in the number of poor as living standards decrease over time.

By the way, if you support capitalism call it "free markets" because people tend to prefer free markets over capitalism. Also, free markets is more specific since to some people capitalism just means an economy in which money is used as opposed to the real definition where the meeting of buyers and sellers in a market to exchange goods and services for money allows the market to reach a natural price equilibrium without government intervention.

With capitalism the pool child has the chance of advancing to better himself and his economic situation. With solalism the pool child will always be poor and the rich child will likely have less wealth over time.

I read some of your link.
I am not an anarchist, but they got one point right in the "What kinds of property does the state protect?" part.

They pointed out that even if libertarian recognizes the power of state of enforcing property, most of them never consider that the listing of what can be private property is a form of statism.
I fully agree, protection of intellectual property, or artificial property like gov issued licences of any kind is a form of statism, that is against free market.

However, most people think capitalism  is equal to big business, and think that governement policies that protect big industries are in favor of capitalism.
But this is statism, not capitalism, state backed monopoly is not capitalism.
I am no more in favor of sanction from governement to big business (like anti trust law), than in favor of walls of protection. (licences, as well as intellectual property)

But I am not an anarchist, because without the concept of private property, your only way to defend against looters that claim higher utility of a piece of land than you is violence.

I am against any premise that say landlord exploits workers when both deal with each other without coercion. They chose, with their free will to be exploited if they think they are.
If they are not happy with it, they can fund a cooperative and distribute rent among them, without any landlord. The concept of state enforced private property does not prevent them from doing that.

Not only. It's usually those who have nothing that are willing to give their everything. But in an ideal world, everybody would help everybody without expecting anything in return. Maybe that way there will be less poor, less sad and less lonely people on this planet. But that's pure idealism, a concept that does not include the phenomenons of human psychology called greed and selfishness (the bad one, that usually goes along with greed).

We are lucky to be living in an era, where people discover cures for death sentences such as cancer and we are able to put our brains in something called technology that opens the doors to another world. Bitcoin is just a small proof.

Some kid is born in a poor family, another kid is born in a rich family. The rich kid will have to give some to the poor one to rebalance and have a little bit more fair situation.

Possession... that is to imply a system of property that is at odds with capitalism. I mean possession, use and occupancy in the Proudhonian and Tuckerite tradition. We are talking about, on one hand, a system of property based on "use" and on the other, one based on "absentee ownership."

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB3.html

You hurled the first insult so I threw one back but fuck that noise let's discuss 'We are currently living in the longest period of peace in our part of the world in history'. Dude the USA has been in a perpetual state of war for decades. Without the Military Industrial Complex fueling the economy the USA would collapse. That is a fact. There is no peace. There never was peace. Look at the world around you.

Read a bit of history. One of two things always happen: Population declines, and the country is overrun by more numerous neighbors. Or population goes up and war is eventually required to survive. There is no third alternative.

We are currently living in the longest period of peace in our part of the world in history. This creates a lot of people who think it will be that way forever. Unfortunately, there is always another war brewing. It's not a matter of preference. There simply is no other way.

At this point I need to point out that if you insist there is another way, yet fail to explain how (with currently available methods, not far-off theoreticals), and instead decide to insult me, there is a handy ignore button next to your name.

You are an idiot if you think that part of acting 'human' is blowing the living fuck out of each other. What is wrong with you?

This belongs in Fantasy.

Seriously, what is up with some of you people? "If humans didn't act anything like humans everything would be fine." What the shit is that? How is that helpful?

- all 'isms' are anti-humanity and are evil to the core

- if humanity stopped spending money on killing humans and turned that money loose to reduce poverty the world would have abundance

All western countries use some variation of socialism.

In many EU countries capitalism works VERY VERY BAD!!!

The USSR had virtually no private enterprise and made decisions according to the state's five year plans, so I would say it had virtually no capitalist elements. You can accurately describe the current Chinese system as state capitalism, but the Soviets were playing a very, very different game.

Anyone who is saying Capitalism is just silly that's the system which is currently in place within most countries and it is working? so how can you argue that it will work if it isn't working as of now?

Absolutely true! Mixed economy welfare states will definitely fail on the long run. Look at the EU now and compare it's economic performance to the "more capitalist" U.S., Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Taiwan.
Capital owners will simply fly away from the countries with high welfare(=tax) burden.

Therefore at some moment in the future only minarchic capitalist and pure socialist (Marxist) states will exist. And no one between them!