Was not saying Jesus was against proof of stake, that pertained only to bitcoin and capitalism.
I can tell you rely on Christianity for a large portion of who you areā¦good for you.
Letās take religion out of the equation and just say free markets and capitalism are not synonymous. Capitalism relies on State coercion and enforcement to exist.
Sounds like youāre not talking about free market capitalism then are you? The masses believe actual capitalism is correctly represented by the corporate led economy we see today. Is that your belief as well?
I can only rely on the parameters set by those who champion capitalism. Capitalism can NOT exists without government intervention, therefore, there is no free market capitalismā¦unless you want to change the definition of free markets.
āā¦set by those who champion capitalismā interesting since the classics have been stricken from most curriculums over the past 30years by the captured 95+ democrat educators theyāve installed. Whole generations donāt 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 letās hear your 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.
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. Iām not sure how you are confused on that and I want to understand where you are not understanding.
If you have āproperty rightsā AND need to enforce those property rights, AND need a court system to settle disputes on property rightsā¦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 Iām saying now.
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 donāt 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 isnāt 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 everyoneās rights to property and ability to freely exchange. Government isnāt required and furthermore can be corrupted and become the largest hinderance. ā¦which is where we are today.
Whatās the earliest form of property rights?
Do you know who Adam Smith is?
What period of time did capitalism operate without intervention?
Property is a natural human right so, ā¦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 theyād trade things for their own beneifit and you have one key component of capitalismāa free market. You sound, like many, stuck in the common mindset that nothing can occur without government. Thatās belief is one of the most beneficial to governments and authoritarians who want control over people. ā¦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.
Nope, Iām 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.
I see your points and sure I agree with Adam Smith. Much of what he wrote didnāt 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 asideā¦ 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 summaryā¦ āProperty rights cannot exist without enforcementā from who? Only government? In my example of two people in the woods naturally trading, they mutually enforce each otherās 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.
Your first paragraph contradicts the last thing you wrote to me.
But hey, if it makes you happy, make capitalism into whatever you like. Itās perfectly clear that if these things are ānaturalā, 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.
DEBATE UPDATE:
This started with my desire for you to substantiate your claims that āBitcoin is opposed to capitalismā and āThe teachings of Jesus go against capitalism.ā
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:
āBitcoin is opposed to capitalismā
= UNSUBSTANTIATED
āThe teachings of Jesus go against capitalism.ā
= REFUTED
āā
Since you show deep belief that governmental authority must be involved, Iāll assume your statement that youāre an anarchist was a joke, and that youād like to empower an intermediary to validate this debate update.
If you need that I nominate nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wf6xcutrvyu8ydnpw4ukzae4dc6ksvmvx56ryvnyd568xunex4j85en9v56rvwfkveck2wrnxeckwatyddenwer2w3n8x0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2qgcwaehxw309ac8yetdd96k6tnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqyxwxz8 š
lol, like a pigeon strutting around the chess table kicking and shitting claiming victory! Go claim your prize.
Mmmk š¤ 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.
Matthew 6:24
New International Version
24 āNo 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.
Your reason for choosing this could be several. I can assume but shouldnāt. Tell me how you think it supports your claim/s and Iāll respond.
One because it was words of Jesus. Two, itās very clear and canāt be twisted. Three, capitalism thrives of self interest motivation of profitsā¦money.
Pretty simple really. āServingā money as someone āservesā their God is its own end purpose. It is worship as though the money is your God and the most important thing.
In contrast āpursuingā money can have many other purposes including being generous to others and helping the poor and needy.
Beinf āselfishā is not the same as tending to your own āself-interestsā 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 capitalismāto provide mutual benefit and ongoing increase to all through simple free fair trade, and fostering increased freedom, agency, responsibility and mutual respect (and love :)).
So basically the ends justify any means. Itās okay to take from āhereā and give to āthereā?
Iām trying slow the movement of the target, so bear with with me please.
No. Oversimplifying or misrepresenting my specific statement, or generalizing it into an extreme or distorted version (suggesting āanything goesā 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. ā¦specifically.
Although free fair market capitalism is ājustifiedā by many of itās inherent benefits.
Believe me friend, Iām 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 ātrueā capitalism.
To clarifyā¦ 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, Iām not sure what you mean by āwaiting for a time periodā of true capitalism.
Yes.
A time period or place where ātrueā capitalism was able to function without any interference.
Hey buddy, you were strutting around claiming some kind of victory, then abandoned me cause you didnāt want to answer two simple questions.
Do another one of your cute āDebate Updatesā I got a good laugh out of that.
It sounds like youāre 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 Iām 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?
Not only that, but you have also told Adam Smith that he had no idea what he was talking aboutā¦the āfatherā of capitalism.
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.
If you are going to quote please reference sources, if not, I will think you are using AI on a bias and thatās just sad.
