You got it wrong. What's your empirical evidence to support your statement?
I don't really understand this. You claimed that it is impossible. Saying something is impossible is different than saying that it hasn't happened. To claim that something is impossible is a final statement where certain rules can never be satisfied. As such, you certainly can provide an argument for your claim. That being said, my counterargument would be a simple example: Person 1 wants an apple, and Person 2 wants money. Person 1 and Person 2 agree that 1$ is a fair price for an apple. Person 2 gives the apple to Person 1 in exchange for Person 1 giving 1$ to Person 2. Person 1 is happy because they have an apple, which they wanted, and Person 2 is happier because they received money, which they wanted. The net satisfaction is greater than zero — both sides received something that they wanted.
If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.
Not at all. This is capitalism.
I can use one simple example to counter that: If one can find an example of a monopoly then the market in which that monopoly exists is not capitalist — one example to prove that point is private utilities.
That not how science works. You don't get to posit a theory without falsification and declare it as true until someone else comes up with a falsification force it and tests it.
You have no evidence you just have wild theories based on of "perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum" .
And monopolies prove the non existence of Capitalism. They're it's natural end result.
Depends on how you see it, a hole or a tube. I prefer a hole.
A common joke is that a topologist can't see the difference between a donut and a coffee mug because you can mould a mug into a donut (assuming it has a handle).
For every 10 full size snickers you collect, I give you one loose m&m.
I also put a couple of your siblings up for adoption right before Halloween to let you know you're expendable.
If it bothers you, you can always go talk to your mom, who empathises, so that you feel good enough to get back to collecting my our candy. But she will immediately come tell me everything you said.
You ungrateful worm... After all I've done for you?
You collected 36 pieces of candy.
Coincidentally due to forces beyond my control your rent this month is 35 pieces of candy. You understand I’ve got bills to pay too, right?
Well, lets see, I make my company about 3 orders of magnitude more money than they pay me every year, so I suppose if my kids gather 1000 pieces of candy, I'll give one back to them as payment.
And in a communist society, the candy belongs to everyone in the neighborhood, so they have to go around passing it out until it's equally distributed...
You're committee did, or if they didn't then they're just gov bosses over everyone since they dictate what people are worth. So you're back at capitalism...just with a voted in committee telling people their worth, or we're talking about a committee that dictates what people are going to do. Which is it?
You don't seem to understand basic concepts of democracy, Capitalism, or Socialism.
Workers democratically deciding policy and electing leaders is fundamentally different from Capitalism, where they have no say over production, nor what they are worth.
I don't, you all do. The majority will always overrule the minority and you will have leadership that represents some but not all. Someone is going to get screwed always in your little utopia.
Yeah it's even worse...if you don't like your boss you have no option of moving to a different job to get rid of them. The same people you all hate in this government are the same people who will now be bossing you around.
No, the buckets would be communally owned, and those who were luckier - perhaps they got to the good houses earlier - would be made to give some of their surplus to Jimmy, who fell ill just that morning and couldn't go trick-or-treating to not infect others. They'd still have enough, but Jimmy wouldn't be left out just because he was unlucky.
I don't even have a car, because I can't afford one, nor do I have a spare bedroom because I live in a small apartment, paying a chunk of my monthly earnings to a person whose only contribution is having a piece of paper that says they're allowed to charge for the fundament necessity of having a place to live.
My neighbour has a big house, three cars in their driveway and most of the time, at least two of them are standing around unused. He probably could afford to share. That's the meaning of "everyone, according to their needs" - that guy most likely doesn't need as much as he has, so it won't hurt him to give some away to people that do need it.
But the issue isn't him having something nice. He can have his house for all I care. I want him to have a nice house. I want Jimmy to have a nice house, and you too! I want all of us to have nice things, because a bit of luxury isn't the problem, and covering a symptom won't cure the disease. And the disease is the belief that property rights matter more than human welfare.
You wouldn't achieve anything by taking a little from those that have a little more than the rest. You'd have to take away the systems that constrain us.
There's an empty flat? Great, let's give it to Jimmy! What do you mean, if he can afford the rent? Man needs a place to live, for fuck's sake. Jimmy needs medical care? Get him to a doctor. The community carries the cost, because we all would want the same if we needed care.
How do we reach that? That's a tough one. Eventually, a concerted effort to uproot that system will have to take place. I'm not positive that'll succeed on ballots alone and as has become increasingly evident, peaceful protests tend to meet violence all the same.
But whether through coordinated civil action like protests and disobedience or through outright revolution, awareness is the first step. Informing people of the injustice done to us all, that it doesn't have to be this way, and that together, we're strong enough to change it.
The only people that don't profit from it are the ruthlessly selfish ones that think "I'd rather have a second car than let someone else have one" is a reasonable sentiment.
Because yes, if I had a car I didn't need, and Jimmy needed it, I'd let him use it. What good would it do standing around?
Teach them about statism and tell them you own the bucket and all the candy they gathered and all the candy all their friends gathered. Give them a welfare of a few pieces of candy you gathered. Then tell them to go gather more candy otherwise they're grounded.
It'd be more correct to say that they all own the totality of the candy gathered, because they share the bucket, and as such can democratically allocate the candy.
I like this, I felt like I learned your view better. Unfortunately I'm an individual not a collective. I own my own body and therefore I own the fruits of the labors I endure. I dont think this theoretical democratic "they" should have any say over my body or the products I generate with my efforts.
Dad owns the bucket and you get 1 piece for every 1000 you collect. Sure Dad's gonna take 99.9% of the candy, and working together we'd end up each taking home way more candy, but then I'd have to work collectively with "they"! No thanks. /s
Is statism some term that uneducated Americans with a "gubment bad"-complex uses when they can't figure out their -isms?
EDIT: Yup. Some neolib "hey why am I not free to exploit people the way I want to? fuck the gubmint!" bullshit that "anarchists" apparently swallow whole. I swear anarchists, anarchocapitalists and neoliberals are the dumbest fuckers around.
It must be nice to live somewhere where the individuals who make up the government are completely altruistic and not selfish or corruptible at all so you can give them extensive power over your life without worry. Unfortunately I have less faith in the unchecked goodness of government workers. I prefer a system built on individuals and free exchange.
