And capitalism doesn't have any underlying philosophical principles?
Capitalism is based on the ideas of free trade between individuals. Its underlying philosophy is individualism.
That's hyperbola, Shingen. You're sounding like one of those militia guys again. You'd be paranoid if you think that "statist" governments set out to coerce and enslave their citizens. In fact, the thinking behind these governments is to try and make life for the average citizen (and yes, that can be taken in the mathematical sense here) better. Naturally an average is higher than the low numbers, and lower than the high ones in a distribution.
You have been fooled by the talk and not looked at what is happening, Apeman. Governments power comes from coercive threat of force. No matter which way you look at it, Governments in statist countries always reduce individual liberties. When your liberties consist of 'freedom from want', ie. the freedom to buy the bare necessities of life, you have become quite enslaved.
You will have to back that up with some hard evidence. Even economically (as if that was all that mattered?? are all capitalists that one-dimensional?) Europe leads in some, though of course not all, fields.
You have yet to back one thing up with hard evidence.
For each Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie success story, there are hundreds, maybe thousands who are never able to break free from their long hard low-wage job, and who remain hot dog sellers on the streets of Manhattan all their lives.
Untrue. Anyone can break away, some dont. This is stifled by non-capitalistic laws.
That is true; at the same time though, we have less people living under the existence minimum. You know, those drug-users who are too lazy to get a job and just steal your hard-earned bucks instead.
You have less people living under the so called existence minimum at the cost of everyone. And yes, poverty can be caused by laziness, addiction, drinking, gambling or other self destructive behaviors. It could be caused by being widowed or orphaned. And yes, what occures in social welfare programs is government theft through threat of force of your wages, which is given to whoever the government deems 'needy'.
No, only you libertarians see it as robbing. I see it as, "where is your provision for ensuring everyone is able to live at a certain standard of existence? How can we ENSURE [note voluntary donations are not the way to do this] that if people fall on hard times and need help, there will be means to help them get back on their feet again?"
Shingen, suppose you lost your leg in an accident or something, God forbid, and were no longer be able to go out to work. Under your "capitalist" system, you would be left to your own devices, hoping some kind-hearted millionaire would give you some of his money. Have you ever considered that?
First, i am not a libertarian. I beleive shingen has stated he was not also. Voluntary donations and charities that promote independancy are THE way to do this, apeman. The US has donated more charity than the rest of the world 4x over in recent years, and donations to charities are at an all time high. What do you think the rish do with their money? It is impossible to spend it on self consumption. Thus, many donate it to charities. But one thing that has been indoctorinated into your mind is that the government should ensure that people give money. It is not the governments right to ensure anything. People are not 'entitled' to welfare, or a standard of living. You must earn your success.
Losing a leg doesnt cause you to miss work in this country. Actually, most of the highest paying jobs are in the tech industry, and legs arent usually required for that. Your statement is unrealistic. But, if he was paralyzed from the next down, his situation would be more grim. Fortunately, there are many charity organizations that would help him. While he is hurt, in a pure capitalist/individualist country, maybe someone will come up with a way to cure him faster since they are unhindered by government. it is only necessary to protect an individual from having his/her right to speech removed by the initiation of force (if force isn't used to do such, then freedom of speech exists). This same concept applies to every other individual right.
So you think there should be no limits to freedom of speech?
Stuff like defamation laws should be abolished?
Freedom requires tolerance of foolishness. No limits to free speech.
Defamation, slander, etc are not free speech as such, it is a lie told to harm someone. You raise an interesting point here. I remember reading about the Spanish merchants of a few hundred years ago. When someone refused to pay for services done, or acted in another way, such as slander, there was no government there to threaten them with force. Rather, they lost all of their reputation and integrity. In a well educated society, as it would be without the government monopoly, such slander and libel would be fairly apparent, and they offender would lose all standing. This would in effect drive them out of business for their immoral actions.
Bastiat defined the state as,"the great fictitious entity through which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else." I have come to realize that that is painfully true. Once people believe they are entitled to something, it is very hard to change the system, or even to consider changing it.
Good night. Or rather, good morning now.
"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin