An argument against capitalism

[The Sage of Main Street]

Actually, being picky is an assertion. I've looked over what you use it to refer to, and you're lying. When you put forth an objective claim, you are also claiming that there's such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. What happened here was that YOU put this forth as a standard and then maligned somebody for holding you to that standard.

 

When you say "anyone who fits description X," you are collectivizing and exaggerating. Collectivizing isn't useful in the pursuit of truth and exaggeration is a confession that one believes their argument isn't meritous enough on it's on, so one must overstate it if they are to convince others.

 

This and the constant RP'ing, I would say that not knowing how to talk to others as if they're human beings is a fair assessment. Rejection of that feedback indicates either that you have no interest in speaking to others as if they're human being, or you reject your own capacity for error as a human being and therefore know, before consideration, that's it's not worth considering.

Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought by Making It Disconnect

 

Conformists today use collectivist grammar when they insist on using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular antecedent, as you and other pseudo-individualists do, e.g., "a confession that one believes their argument isn't meritorious."  See, I can even do Anti-Statist conspiracy theories better than the flunkies.  I could have been a great sheep!  Your gurus would have petted me and ignored you.

[David Ottinger]

 

http://www.mikraite.org/file/n230/case4wd.doc

 

This is not the usual Leftist garbage, it is quite intelligent.  I partially agree with it.

 

 

 

The author is so close to having it fully thought through.  And, I'm glad to see he identified various forms of slavery.  Unfortunately, he failed to identify the tool that leads to this particular slavery he identified which is otherwise known as bondage slavery.  That tool that enforces the bondage is the state.  But, instead of considering the state's influence on the distribution of wealth, he instead focused on the owners of capital because it is true that the owners of capital have the power to influence the way in which resources are allocated.  

 

It's like that prank where you're walking with your buddies and you're in the middle, and the left guy sneakingly taps you on the right shoulder so you think the guy on your right did it.  In other words, this socialists, like many others, falsely accuse the owners of capital because they're not dealing with all the facts.  

 

The author was correct in pointing out that there is a form of slavery we face today.  The author is also correct in pointing out that the wage labor is correlated to the slave status, but again, he is incorrect in holding that wage labor is a form of slavery.   Wage labor is not the cause of this bondage slavery.  

 

What is the cause is that we have a hyperization of the Cantillon Effect due to state intervention which is two fold.  On one side you have the expansion of the money supply and on the other end you have taxation.   The expansion of the money supply debases the currency thereby affecting the buying power of each unit of exchange.  And, the taxation withdraws any excess which is then redistributed among the lower classes under social welfare programs.  The first receivers of the new money pumped into the economy get to purchase everything at a discounted rate.  And, by the time it gets to the wage earners, it is nearly dried out (if you will).  Hence, why trickle down economics is a sham. 

 

In short, the reason why you have this sort of slavery is because the principle of equal consideration is being violated, and the reason that is being violated is because the medium of exchange being used is corrupt.  And, in short, the medium of exchange is corrupt because there is a monetary monopoly being imposed upon us all. 

 

And, if there is any myth that ought to be addressed here, it is that monopolies can arise via trade alone.  No, all monopolies are either directly or indirectly caused by state intervention in the market place. 

 

The whole socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy.  Socialism simply promotes ownership in common.  Capitalism embraces all forms of ownership, i.e. sole proprietorship; partnership; or, ownership in common.  This is why in a voluntary society you can achieve the socialist ideal.   This divide was created due to false associations -- the one I expressed above.  I ask that we grow beyond it so we can deal with the real threats -- which isn't even the state really because, again, it's just a tool, and a fictitious one at that.  The issue is the belief in the state, or more specifically: That there can be no governance without the state.  A false dilemma as there is always self governance, and we exercise it by exercising our right of contract with one another.  i.e. Agorism is how we will overcome this monopoly and the oppression it imposes.