Nostr Web Client

Replying to Be The Change

“…set by those who champion capitalism” interesting since the classics have been stricken from most curriculums over the past 30years by the captured 95+ democrat educators they’ve installed. Whole generations don’t know what capitalism is.

Free markets and capitalism are natural states. They can of course be facilitated and supported by government but they exist naturally in the absence of governments. Here are some correct definitions.

Free Markets: a system of voluntary peaceful, mutually beneficial trades between free individuals without government interference. Prices are determined by supply and demand, free from coercion or regulation. Fostering an environment where innovation, quality, variety and affordability are incentivized naturally by the preferences and choices of individuals.

Capitalism: the economic system that emerges naturally from free markets, where private property, individual liberty, and voluntary exchange are paramount. It maximizes personal freedom and economic efficiency through unrestrained production, and supply and demand. Naturally incentivizing mutual protection of property rights, agreements, and preventing monopolies. Able to exist without any state role, it is commerce with the fullest expression of individual freedom and non-aggression.

These definitions come from some of the strongest and experts and advocates of capitalism. If you disagree with them then let’s hear your definitions.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

This is copy and pasted from your last response. To be clear, I do not disagree with it. But, free markets have nothing to do with capitalism. I’m not sure how you are confused on that and I want to understand where you are not understanding.

If you have “property rights” AND need to enforce those property rights, AND need a court system to settle disputes on property rights…where do you think or how do you think that all happens? Who pays for it? Who decides who plays what roles? Surely you can see what I’m saying now.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 1

I think the only person I quoted was you, at the beginning of my post. The rest is my written definition based on 25years of following pinnacle champions of capitalism like Rothbard, Bastiat, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Freedman, and so on.

It would seem that your belief that capitalism as we defined here is dependent on government protected property rights. Why? Nature already solves for this. Free people work to create, claim and maintain valuable property as their own. As such they allow others to do the same. For the infrequent times where those who don’t respect this natural system try to violate it and steal from others, others have the ability they were born with to protect it them selves. Where disputes occur government can be a tool but isn’t required. People can go to whatever lengths they prefer to reach fair agreement. If disrespect for the system and theft becomes predominant then the system and its benefits diminish and society suffers. So it would seem that although having a procapitalism government as a protector could be helpful, it is not required. Rather, what is required is a people who respect and protect the natural capitalism system and everyone’s rights to property and ability to freely exchange. Government isn’t required and furthermore can be corrupted and become the largest hinderance. …which is where we are today.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

What’s the earliest form of property rights?

Do you know who Adam Smith is?

What period of time did capitalism operate without intervention?

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 3

Property is a natural human right so, …the earliest form possible. All of this occurs and exists naturally the moment people begin to exist and interact. If two people just appeared in the woods together they’d trade things for their own beneifit and you have one key component of capitalism—a free market. You sound, like many, stuck in the common mindset that nothing can occur without government. That’s belief is one of the most beneficial to governments and authoritarians who want control over people. …While everything actually does function before government exists. Government is introduced as an efficiency tool but comes with the danger of monopolizing the whole system till it is anything but efficient and becomes the largest problem. Everyone agrees to hire a town sheriff to make it easier to protect their properties from violators but with every amount of power the people give him, he can misuse it for his own benefit. And if he acquires a majority of power he can do whatever he pleases, essentially eliminating freedom of all people entirely. So with government comes the heavy responsibility to keep it small, in check, and subordinate to people and their natural human rights.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

Nope, I’m an anarchist. Property rights cannot exist without enforcement. It was a trick question that you somehow superseded the research of all anthropologists and historians to claim that property rights and capitalism always existed.

You should publish a paper on this and reap the accolades of such a profound discovery.

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 1

I see your points and sure I agree with Adam Smith. Much of what he wrote didn’t focus so much to natural human rights. He was more concerned with defining how an economic system could be governed and saw government as an inevitability. Which it is, like power tools are an eventual inevitability for construction.

However Smith does not make the absolute claim that property cannot exist without an empowered government intermediary or authority. Instead, he said the basis of property arises naturally from human labor, possession, and social recognition (see his discussions of early societies and moral sentiments for that).

Experts aside… truth speaks for itself. Citations are helpful sure, but especially if you are dependent on statements from an authority or expert. In the end, all individuals will disagree on something.

In summary… “Property rights cannot exist without enforcement” from who? Only government? In my example of two people in the woods naturally trading, they mutually enforce each other’s property. No government intermediary needed. However everything they are doing to self-govern that situation is inline with Adam smith. So if you simply expand your definition of government to include self-governance by the individual parties then we probably agree. But it sounds like you would restrict your definition of government to require the empowerment of an intermediary over the parties.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

Your first paragraph contradicts the last thing you wrote to me.

But hey, if it makes you happy, make capitalism into whatever you like. It’s perfectly clear that if these things are “natural”, in your eyes, there is no argument. There is nothing anyone can say. You cannot logic and reason your way out of something you did not reason your way into.

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 1

DEBATE UPDATE:

This started with my desire for you to substantiate your claims that “Bitcoin is opposed to capitalism” and “The teachings of Jesus go against capitalism.”

Farthest we got on those was that after I pointed out that Jesus participated in capitalism you wanted to get away from religion so we moved to define capitalism. After my defining and substantiation that free markets, capitalism and property rights occur naturally. You provided in your last post comments that were not specific enough to be meaningful, and seem to show you feel unwilling or unable to make further progress.

CURRENT CLAIM STATUS:

“Bitcoin is opposed to capitalism”

= UNSUBSTANTIATED

“The teachings of Jesus go against capitalism.“

= REFUTED

——

Since you show deep belief that governmental authority must be involved, I’ll assume your statement that you’re an anarchist was a joke, and that you’d like to empower an intermediary to validate this debate update.

If you need that I nominate nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wf6xcutrvyu8ydnpw4ukzae4dc6ksvmvx56ryvnyd568xunex4j85en9v56rvwfkveck2wrnxeckwatyddenwer2w3n8x0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2qgcwaehxw309ac8yetdd96k6tnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqyxwxz8 😃

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

lol, like a pigeon strutting around the chess table kicking and shitting claiming victory! Go claim your prize.

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 1

Mmmk 🤔 You can concede, forfeit, or further substantiate your claims and maintain your integrity. Ad hominem attacks are none of these. They seek to discredit opponents and retain the appearance of continued persistance while detracting from the goal of substanting your claims.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

Matthew 6:24

New International Version

24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Here you go Christian. Explain.

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 1

Your reason for choosing this could be several. I can assume but shouldn’t. Tell me how you think it supports your claim/s and I’ll respond.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

One because it was words of Jesus. Two, it’s very clear and can’t be twisted. Three, capitalism thrives of self interest motivation of profits…money.

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 1

Pretty simple really. “Serving“ money as someone “serves” their God is its own end purpose. It is worship as though the money is your God and the most important thing.

In contrast “pursuing” money can have many other purposes including being generous to others and helping the poor and needy.

Beinf “selfish” is not the same as tending to your own “self-interests” or personal needs. Same reason you have to spend time becoming healthy in order to serve others well, or put your oxygen mask on first to breathe in order to help many others breathe. It scales well too. The more fit you are and the better you can breathe the larger the masses you can help.

So the purposes of pursuing money for generosity align well with the purpose of capitalism—to provide mutual benefit and ongoing increase to all through simple free fair trade, and fostering increased freedom, agency, responsibility and mutual respect (and love :)).

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 2

So basically the ends justify any means. It’s okay to take from “here” and give to “there”?

I’m trying slow the movement of the target, so bear with with me please.

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 2

No. Oversimplifying or misrepresenting my specific statement, or generalizing it into an extreme or distorted version (suggesting “anything goes” or implying it condones something bad) to make it easier to attack would be a strawman fallacy

My statement means that specifically the pursuit of generosity justifies the means of free and fair markets to fund that generosity. …specifically.

Although free fair market capitalism is “justified” by many of it’s inherent benefits.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago 💬 1

Believe me friend, I’m not trying to misrepresent. You are making broad statements and implying they are factual just because.

Do you have examples of this accumulation for only charitable purposes?

Also, still waiting for a time period of “true” capitalism.

Be The Change 5mo ago 💬 2

To clarify… you want me to provide examples of charitable people or entities whose resources were acquired through capitalism in order to prove it is possible?

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “waiting for a time period” of true capitalism.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago

Yes.

A time period or place where “true” capitalism was able to function without any interference.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago

Hey buddy, you were strutting around claiming some kind of victory, then abandoned me cause you didn’t want to answer two simple questions.

Do another one of your cute “Debate Updates” I got a good laugh out of that.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago

It sounds like you’re saying free and fair market capitalism is a strong way to generate wealth that can fuel generosity, like philanthropy or social good, and that this outcome justifies using capitalism as a tool. I agree capitalism has benefits, like innovation and efficiency, but I’m curious, do you think the pursuit of generosity is the main justification for capitalism, or just one of many? Also, how do you define free and fair markets in this context, given issues like inequality or monopolies?

Be The Change 5mo ago

Mom: “Sure Honey that’s great if you want to use the car!”

Teenager: “Well, Mom said it would be good if I used the car to go anywhere and do anything. So it’s her fault I am in jail for robbery in Vegas.”

:) Of course not any ends by any means.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago

Not only that, but you have also told Adam Smith that he had no idea what he was talking about…the “father” of capitalism.

BlueDuckBTC 5mo ago

This is why citations are important. It gives a concrete reference point for both parties and forces both parties to read instead of posting opinions as facts.