This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Doug Casey: The Virtues of Capitalism
Originally posted at: www.capitalistexploits.at
What can be said of Doug Casey? His life and career are the stuff of legend among investors and speculators, especially in the junior resource space.
Doug is a friend and mentor to Chris and I. For over 25 years I've read his monthly missives, devoured his books and attended his workshops. I credit Doug with leading me to my first big score, and imparting enough wisdom to make me see the sense of holding onto that winner as long as it made sense to. The value of that lesson was something that can never be repaid.
Doug was one of the key people, along with my friend "Dave" ("The Tao of Dave" - http://capitalistexploits.at/2011/02/the-tao-of-dave/) with whom I credit for arming me with the confidence to leave my comfortable life in the States, family, friends and business partners to experience the broader world and invest and speculate in the frontier markets.
Although he isn't always right, and has been early on many of his calls, his viewpoints are always enlightening and entertaining!
Doug, Chris and I correspond fairly often. I rang him up a while back and asked if we could chat about my favorite subject, capitalism. I proposed that we discuss the virtues of capitalism, since these days capitalism is almost universally scorned and misunderstood. It is perceived as an evil system that creates greedy, uncaring and corrupt monsters. As part of the crowd that understands the folly in those perceptions, it's our moral obligation to right this wrong!
Thankfully, Doug graciously agreed to a back and forth on the matter. Read on...
--------
Mark: Doug, thanks so much for speaking with me!
Doug: Mark, I like people in general, and you in particular. Regrettably, most conversations are limited to subjects like the weather, sports, and the state of the roads. I can do ten minutes on those things, but that about exhausts my threshold of boredom. Trivial conversation doesn’t give you much idea about the character of the person you’re talking to—although, paradoxically, sometimes it tells you more than you care to know about them. They aren’t interested in philosophical issues in general, and absolutely don’t like to discuss practical and applied philosophy. Because that amounts to politics and religion—the two things that are anathema to polite company. I don’t expect we’ll do any riffs on religion here, but we can certainly do politics. And economics, which is, most regrettably, intimately related to politics in today’s world.
So it’s a pleasure talking to you.
Mark: Capitalism is oft-misunderstood. I've heard you say that most people tend to mis-use words because they don't truly know what they mean. I agree, and per the subject matter I want to discuss today, I'm convinced the majority have NO idea how to define capitalism. As evidence to this I refer readers to Peter Schiff's YouTube videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA) wherein he went to the Occupy Wall Street protests in NYC to defend the 1% and see if those protesting really understood what capitalism was.
I don't know if he just happened to pick the dumbest of the lot, but in general the lack of any coherent understanding of what capitalism TRULY is was shocking. So that everyone reading this is clear, can you define "capitalism" for us?
Doug: If someone can’t define a word precisely, then they actually don’t know what they’re talking about. Imprecise language leads to sloppy thinking. Which inevitably leads to pointless and unresolvable arguments.
But, yes, Peter here is somewhat reminiscent of Jay Leno in one of his “Jay Walking" skits, where he approaches normal looking people and asks them questions like “Who did we fight in the Revolutionary War?”, and gets answers like “The Germans?”. But what do you expect from people who have nothing better to do than hang out in parks and whine?
Of course capitalism got a bad rap from the very start partly because—most people don’t know this—the word was actually coined by Karl Marx. However, the fact is we don’t have capitalism, and never have. Capitalism might be defined as an unrestricted free market, one where—to use Marx’s quite correct distinction—both consumer goods and capital goods are both privately owned and privately controlled.
What almost everybody calls capitalism is actually fascism, a system where both consumer and capital goods are privately owned, but they are strictly regulated and controlled. This is a huge distinction. In socialism—which is now quite rare—capital goods, the means of production, are state owned. In communism, absolutely everything is state-owned. In any event, all the evils attributed to capitalism today are do to state intervention in the economy—regulations, monopolies, subsidies, preferences, taxes, licensing, currency inflation. In a genuine capitalist society you’d have none of these things.
Mark: I think it goes without saying that for the most part, sans inheritance (lucky), coercion (taxation) and theft (mafia), those that control any significant amount of capital are intelligent, hard-working value creators. One cannot legitimately amass wealth without producing something that other people are willing to pay for. Although many people argue that materialism is evil, including religious zealots, the desire for "stuff" is almost baked into our DNA. You've suggested this yourself.
Despite an almost rabid hatred these days of capitalists and big business, I see a lot of people walking around, Tweeting and texting on their beloved iPhones, wearing their Nike tennis shoes and Levi's, while simultaneously trying to undermine and lobby for the destruction of the very system - capitalism - that allowed them to buy those things! The hypocrisy is mind-numbing! How can we make sense of the disconnect between reality and perception here?
Doug: Well, a century ago Schumpeter predicted that capitalism’s own success at producing would lead to its overthrow. I think he was right. Maybe it’s genetic in humans. We’ve apparently always been tribal creatures, where the group held many or most things in common; perhaps that’s just the way the human brain is wired. The fact that capitalism has changed almost everything in the material world over the last 200 years doesn’t mean it’s changed the way people think.
I believe in Pareto’s Law, the 80-20 rule. In this application I’m of the opinion that although perhaps 80% of people are basically decent types, 20% are potential trouble sources, and 20% of that 20%, or 4%, are really bad actors. 20% of that minority are hard core criminals. Criminals believe in coercion, violence, and theft. Unfortunately, they are naturally drawn to the state—which is institutionalized coercion. They concentrate there, and after a while they dominate it. They undermine and corrupt society by promising f”re”e goodies to society, which are stolen from the capitalists—which is to say the innovators and producers. It’s hard for libertarians to counter that with esoteric and seemingly hard-hearted economic theories, however correct.
At this point every country in the world is headed in the wrong direction, philosophically. Most importantly the US, where more than half the people are living at the expense of the other half. And as the economy grinds down in the years to come, things will get worse. Why should the trend change?
I don’t know if that’s a good answer to your question. Maybe it’s because libertarians are a tiny mutant minority. Maybe it’s a spiritual flaw in the nature of man. Or maybe it’s because most people are stupid—stupid defined as not necessarily of low intelligence, but having an unwitting tendency towards self-destruction.
Mark: Almost every other political, religious or economic model besides capitalism supports the premise that a man's efforts and earnings are only virtuous when given to others. It's clear that the leader of the free world, Mr. Obama believes that. He has infamously said, "I just want to spread the wealth around". Doug, is capitalism itself virtuous, or is it what one does with it that is virtuous.
Doug: Capitalism, defined as an unrestricted free market, is innately virtuous. I suppose it’s possible to succeed in a free market without virtue, but it’s unlikely. People—absolutely everybody—prefer to associate with and do business with virtuous people. People who are trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful, thrifty, brave, and clean. That’s the official list of Boy Scout virtues, although I left out obedience on the grounds it’s not a virtue, and reverence, which is questionable. Irreverence is much more worthy… Add in classical virtues like courage, fortitude, generousity, honor, foresight, prudence, hospitality, thoughtfulness, and patience. Disregard the faux virtues of faith, hope and charity—they’re really moral flaws.
In a totally free market, the most productive people, the people who create the most value for others, are rewarded. The ones with bad habits live under bridges and die young. Justice is another virtue I believe in, and it means that people should get what they deserve. Fascism, which rules the world today, is unjust because the people who are politically connected—not necessarily economically productive—do best.
Capitalism brings out the best in people. Socialism encourages every possible vice. But people have been trained to believe exactly the opposite.
Mark: One of the most well-known proponents of capitalism was Ayn Rand, whom I know is one of your favorites. In her book "The Virtue of Selfishness", she says, "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."
Socialists and communists often cite the "common good" as the reason for their tyranny. That term is undefinable, as what is good for you, might not be good for me or others. Force and coercion - the things that the socialists and communists rely on - are what's really immoral, correct?
Doug: It’s absolutely perverse how the apologists for statism and collectivism have stolen the moral high ground. It’s one reason I despise Republicans and conservatives, that they accept the moral premises of the enemy, only saying that we should be more moderate in pursuing these supposedly noble goals. Conservatives think they’re being pragmatic, but are perceived—correctly—as just being confused and inconsistent hypocrites.
And, yes, I’m a huge fan of Rand, primarily because she offered a moral defense of capitalism. I’m only sorry she didn’t go far enough; unfortunately, she wound up defending the necessity of a state. It’s also unfortunate that a religious cult has formed around some of her ideas, full of dogmatic acolytes who look on her every opinion as holy scripture. But, then again, another law I believe in is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that everything degenerates over time. That would appear to apply to intellectual movements as well the material world. As further proof of that I offer the fact the pundit Glen Beck now describes himself as a libertarian. That word is now clearly on its way to perdition, like the word “liberal” before it.
Mark: Recently British MP Daniel Hannan argued at the "Occupy Wall Street Oxford Debates" that the bailouts were an "ethical crime" and a generational offense. As we've said herein, bad businesses should be allowed to fail to make way for better-run organizations to take their place. Yet, the politicians on both sides of the pond voted to bail out their campaign contributors at the expense of the taxpayer in 2008, and they continue to do it to this day.
Capitalism has been ravaged by politicians and an empowered elite that need to limit and/or eliminate competition to survive. It's only cronyism that keeps them afloat at all. So, if bailing out failing businesses is unethical, then allowing them to fail would be THE ethical thing to do. I know the answers to this, but humour our freshman readers a bit and explain why allowing bad businesses to fail is more ethical, and ultimately pro-growth for the economy, than bailing them out.
Doug: Well said, Mark. The important thing to remember is that if a business—whether it be a bank, a manufacturer, a food producer, or what-have-you—is allowed to collapse, it’s largely a financial phenomenon. The real wealth—the buildings, the factories, the technologies, the skills of the workers—still exist. They’re simply redeployed. In a capitalist society the owners of the business are punished for running it badly, which is correct and proper.
In today’s fascist societies, however, uneconomic businesses are propped up by the taxpayers. And managers and shareholders are rewarded, instead of bankrupted. So, perversely, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Mark: Doug, I've heard you and others I respect argue that amassing as much capital as one can is morally the "right thing to do". In fact, in your book, Totally Incorrect, Louis James paraphrases you, saying "...money is a positive moral good in society because the pursuit of it motivates the creation of value..." Can you explain this further?
Doug: Yes, this speaks to my thoughts on charity. I’m opposed to conventional charity, not because it doesn’t do some good, but because its major unseen consequence is to disipate capital, while it often cements poor people in bad habits. Conventional charity’s main purpose is to allow the rich to feel righteous.
If you really want to be a philanthropist, and benefit humanity, then you should create more wealth, and increase the supply of capital. That’s what separates us from our primitive ancestors living hand-to-mouth in caves. It’s the accumulation of capital, through productive activity, that raises the general standard of living.
Mark: Back to Rand for a moment. In her book "For the New Intellectual", she says, "Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value." This implies that lazy people will not, and should not succeed, and that ill-conceived and/or poorly-managed businesses will fail.
However, in this world of too big to fail, and "everyone gets a ribbon", ineptitude and laziness are almost considered maladies or handicaps that should be subsidized! We wrote a post called "The Strawberry Generation". Therein we talked about the belief among today's youth that regardless of their ability or motivation they are "entitled" to anything and everything they desire, most-specifically a high-paying job right out of college. It's almost ingrained in the DNA nowadays. Given that reality, I'm not too optimistic; how about you?
Doug: I’m of two minds on this subject. On the one hand, the longest trend in existence is the Ascent of Man, and it’s still in motion; that’s cause for optimism.
There are essentially two reasons for our upward progress. One reason is that even the average man—although especially the independent thinker—intuitively realizes that he has to produce more than he consumes, and save the difference. That;s not just how you become rich, it’s how you ensure your survival. Saving builds capital. The other reason is science and technology, which both compound because of capital, and add to it. And there are more scientists and engineers alive today than have lived in all previous history put t ogether.
On the other hand, it appears that half the people in the US, and even more in some other places, chronically consume more than they produce. They’re essentially parasites that vote for a living. Their numbers are growing, they seem to feel more entitled than ever, they control the political systems of the world, and they’re becoming bolder and more strident. Furthermore, the type of sociopaths that are attracted to government appear to have reached a critical mass. They’ve long controlled the school systems, which serve to indoctrinate kids with destructive ideas. In addition, governments seem to have co-opted many or most of the advances in technology—drones, military robots, surveillance cameras everywhere, massive communications monitoring—and this impresses me as quite destructive.
So there’s no guarantee that progress will continue.
Mark: I know how you feel about charities, and both Chris and I agree; most of them aren't worth a damn. But, it's a fact that there are those that cannot care for themselves. Those born with major disabilities, mental retardation, or those who are injured physically and can no longer work in any capacity. In a true capitalist society, how would those individuals be cared for? Who is responsible for them.
Doug: Despite the fact that no good deed seems to go unpunished I, personally, like to help people. But I’m rather discriminating. My policy is to only aid people of good moral character; the best allocation of my time, and the best thing for society, is to try to make the able more able, not fight an uphill battle for minimal returns. Further, when I help someone it’s usually through a loan, albeit one that I never expect to be repaid. That has several advantages. It allows me to assess the character of the recipient, by seeing whether he repays it. It encourages him to use it wisely. And if it’s paid back, it allows me to repeat the action, and “pay it forward”, if you will. Only an idiot tries to be a cornucopia, giving money it to the benighted to fritter away till there’s none left.
But that’s just my approach. If others want to help the halt, the lame and the retarded I’m all for it, and wish them well. I don’t want to invalidate others choices. It’s their money; they should use it as they think best. That’s what makes a market, differing desires and approaches to problems. I simply urge them to act responsibly, which means to do it themselves, instead of guiltily giving money to some massive charity bureaucracy with executives hauling down a million dollars a year. Which is a fair description of most popular charities today.
Mark: Doug, how about coming to Fiji with us to sit down with the Prime Minister and see if we can't get him to see things our way (laughs). All joking aside, I know you entertained something like that in Vanuatu...trying to turn it into a capitalist stronghold. You even told me you had a couple thousand acres picked out there for a "Galt's Gulch-like" community, years prior to Cafayate. What happened?
Doug: Well, one of my hobbies for many years has been pitching heads of state on a radical plan that would radically transform their backwater hellholes into Hong Kong on steroids. I’ve had some really fun, and weird, adventures in the process. But while it’s possible I could get lucky, it’s an extreme longshot. So I view it as entertainment.
But I also just wanted a neat place to live. So we bought 1300 acres on the edge of the wine-growing town of Cafayate in NW Argentina and have built a world-class resort there. Fantastic amenities of every type— you name it, we have it, or soon will. I did it because I wanted a place that had all the facilities and amenities a civilized person could want, but isolated. I want to watch the riots on my wide screen in the company of friends, not out my front window. I invite your readers to come down and check it out.
Mark: Doug, this has been great! I know you get asked this question a lot, but in closing what countries seem to stand a chance? And, if you were in your 20's again (ah, that would be nice for all of us...) where would you be planting your flags? Where is capitalism still understood and considered the virtuous path?
Doug: I was a big promoter of Burma a few years ago, back when nobody went there, you could get a suite in the best hotel in Rangoon for $40 a night, and you could still cut deals with the generals. But that ship has sailed; the place is now overrun with Uhuru jumpers. Mongolia is still interesting for lots of reasons. In the Western Hemisphere I’d go to Guyana, or especially Surinam. But I think Africa is the place to be. If someone with some moxie were to camp out in Windhoek, Maputo, Luanda, Kinshasa, or the capitals of the smaller countries in West Africa for a month it’s got to pay off. You have to go some place few people go, where you have a marginal advantage.
But where is capitalism understood? Basically nowhere, although people in the Orient have the best intuitive understanding of it. I’d forget about Western Europe; it will be a petting zoo for the Chinese in a couple of generations.
Mark: Chris and I agree wholeheartedly, as does our young upstart colleague, Scott. We plucked this young man from the jaws of Wall Street and are deploying him in the markets you speak of.
Thanks Doug, let's do this again soon! Enjoy wherever you're at right now!
--------
With no further comment...
- Mark
"Two things are infinite – the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
»
- advertisements -
fascism and spaghetti have the same origins and both were made to be tasted "al dente" : almost raw, near hard like.
Now that we know whats what lets ask ourselves what happened to capitalism's false financial teeth?
Lost in al dente feast?
OK, but I'm a simpleton - Occupy hippies bitched about capitalism, a system we never had, while wearing Levis provided to them by a capitalist system?
Apparently you missed the "Occupy the Fed" group. They did the precise opposite.
In New Russia, jeans wear you!
I think they bitched about corpofascism not capitalism...since post 2008 period.
As for market economies that produce levis its not the issue either today or yesterday.
We are now in another world...in first world.
Falak - I just can't get past the idiotic contradiction.
Doug Casey is a "legend?"
Who needs logic when you have earnestness?
edit: and what about all his hand wringing over the definition of "capitalism?" Pretty well established definition: private ownership of the means of production in the pursuit of profit. All kinds of capitalism, free markets not necessarily required.
Hello Spastica,
Doug Casey did not give enough information for you to understand what he means. He is an anarcho-capitalist. He believes that you can never have free market capitalism as long as there is a Government. Everything has to be a private business, including our courts, and socialized public roads, everything... to be able to actually have a free market. So, in his mind we've never seen a real free market within our lifetime.
people now in denial, between a rock and a hard place.
The gap between ideals and reality is so huge for normal people they feel lost.
Whence the hand wringing and soul searching, even amongst the illuminati and professional "with it" guys.
I think we have to keep our eyes focussed on hard facts and try and see cause and effect along the vital fault lines within society. Easier said than done!
So, how do you explain the plethora of hedge fund managers who not only pursued but achieved some of the greatest wealth in our society, yet in most cases failed to perform better than monkeys throwing darts at a board?
Define: money
Simple: Gold or other precious metals. All the other crap are just IOYs
Anything can be money but some kinds of money (gold, silver) are best over time-proven method of usage. Durable, rare, non-toxic solids tend to make the best money but all goods if traded enough, demanded enough, are money.
You are right. It was just meant in contrast what theses days is called money. And this is not "traded" it's simply printed or computed on come central banks computers. So it's a virtual IOY, just some bits in some order... That is our current "money". I do not know how ot really name it, because "money" it isn't....
28th Amendment (The Constitutional Emergency Amendment)
Corporations are not persons and shall be granted only those rights and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:
1, prohibitions against any corporation;
a, owning another corporation,
b, becoming economically indispensable or monopolistic, or
c, otherwise distorting the general economy;
2, prohibitions against any form of intervention in the affairs of government by means of;
a, congressional lobbying
b, electoral sponsorship or advocacy
c, educational sponsorship or publication
d, media news reporting
3, provisions for;
a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books
b, closing the FRB and the establishment of state-owned banks
c, civil and criminal penalties to be suffered by corporate executives et al for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.
Optional: (or possible 29th amendment)
The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is hereby repealed and Congress shall re-write the U.S. Code to reflect the changes embodied herein.
Hello Decentralized,
Please stop advocatiing the addition of laws/restrictions on everyone. they are to the advantage of the criminals, not the law abiding. Laws are an opportunity for the .gov to put a gun in your face and take what you have made. we can live and thrive without the threat of force. to Advocate .gov force and intervention is to admit that we are not smart enough to create and maintain a society unless we submit to or initiate violence.
O K . I get it ! You're all-in for the IRS and corporate corruption of constitutional government. You're apparently not smart enough to understand the basics here (or maybe you're you're a corposhill playing ignorant; no matter) so I'll not answer your comments any more.
Most readers will get it though, so I'm not deterred.
"Socialism is state ownership of means of production"
Wrong. Socialism is ownership by the people. Communism is ownership by the state.
Capitalism is the ownership of the emans of production by those with capital. Free supply and demand does not enter into it.
Funny how many people are willing to call others wrong when they don't know dick all themselves.
I'm shocked at how many ignorant people down-voted you. All collectives of owners/workres are socialist who are not individual owners of parts of the means of production, various tools, ownership of the land, etc. Workers co-ops are socialist.
No government is required for this. If me and 3 people head into the woods to property we own together rather than individual sections and collect the yield of the land together and use it together as we please without ever defining singular ownership of any part of it, that's socialist and non-government.
Socialism is ownership by the people.
That's classroom theory. In the real world, what "everybody" owns, belongs to the oligarchs masquerading as a government.
"belongs to the oligarchs masquerading "
You ignorantly smacked yourself in the head with your own Fail-Hammer(tm)
OLIGARCH. OLIGARCHY. Not socialism.
I think you missed my point. There is no such thing as a true socialist system. They're always hijacked by the oligarchy. Remember the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics? Who owned that system, the "people"? See "Nomenklatura".
FAIL AGAIN. The name is devoid of the act. North Korea is the DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea, the Congo is the DEMOCRATIC Republic of Congo. Only the most naive buy that propaganda. The USSR didn't even try to be socialist, nor did the Nazional Ziocalists (Nazi). I can't believe so many decades later people are STILL falling for this trick.
At least you got the Bogus part right. You flunked everything else, making my point that no truly socialist regimes ever exist. The least you could do is spell Nationalsozialistische correctly. You're a waste of time.
socialism is participation in the cycle of production, owned by private or state owners, depending on whether the activity is of national or private interest; where the social contract defines certain obligations to salaried non owners who share in the fruit of production via contractually based social cost of labour that shares the profit margin between owners, managers and workers; all paid by the consumer of course. Socialism is not incompatible with capitalism or market economy. It just says the first reason to be in society is to serve the human population, not to produce for a few powerful people 'cos that is what existed before : feudal society from which we have evolved.
Its just that the state as representation of the CITIZENRY, ensures a level playing field and provides certain services via taxes levied ensuring law and social harmony by arbitrating between the capitalist and working classes (amongst others, like qualified liberal professions, aka doctors, lawyers) in society.
The current discussion in a regulated economy is level of regulation and taxation and size of safety nets; along with anti trust and consumer protection measures necessary to keep the market a level playing field. We have morphed to a corporate neo fascist type oligarchy today where the government is powerless and worse, crony to oligarchs.
Another person on ZH who understands the role of government in our society--government does not exist, it merely functions as an extension of corporate person-hood. Yet pundit after pundit blame this non-existing entity for all the ills.
Nope... his volley was mere solipsism - of the usual kind for our boy - liberally spiced with a mixture of terminological conflation, sloganeering of the special interest group kind... aall topped of with his trademark 'oligarch' sauce. One messy taco.... get your coveralls!
As a devotee of the long-failed and discredited "enlightenment" era... FP would have us believe that societies 'evolve' ...and function according to something which he calls a 'social contract' ... two metaphysical terms of the kind which he deigns to scorn when others reach outside of 'scientificism' for reference or metaphor.... but standard arrows of error in his own quill n quiver!
The confusion of 'state' with 'government' is a longstanding piece of shell-gamin which is unlikely to pass muster anywhere outside the hollow halls of witless academia. That all primates(not just ourselves!) organize themselves into forms of 'government' is an empiric fact... the advantage which accrues to our human higher level of thought is merely that we are blessed with the choice - of either 'governing' ourselves... or allowing others to do it for\against us. The "State" most assuredly exists... as a self -sanctified co-opter of our rights to self-govern... but it is not the same thing as 'government'. Which FP well knows but finds inconvenient to his 'socialism is' storyline.
Of course.... socialism is not incompatible with any other 'ism' ... since they are all of a piece, being cut from the same cloth... of bales of wooly cabbalist dialectical bafflegab. Sadly, they are all mythical creations of the febrile mind of our man and his ilk... whose universal disdain for the 'freedoms' of man as opposed to the 'rights of man' are pasted in billboard size in all of these 'defense of the molochian state' bedtime stories they spin!
Your biased understanding of freedom of man negates historical reference; like it were hatched in some ethereal world of perfection.
You just have ONE hobby horse to ride on : conspiratorial blood line decay of western man, as if he was in the image of God. Get over it. History has kicked the teeth out of that fable.
There are no pure races any more than there are perfect faces of homo sapiens. And by the same token there are NO IMPURE races either.
Perfection is not of this world. Since civilization began its a tug of war, between classes between elites.
We progress from bitter experience, liberty hard gained easily lost. Government is the expression of compromise between two forces tearing assunder the fabric of society : the logic of power and the logic of knowledge. This dichotomy is now clearly recognised in our social institutions which work according to the principle of separation of powers.
Aexander/Caesar and Plato/Aristotle, combined legacy to man. When the logic of power and logic of knowledge see eye to eye, we progress as civilization. When they are in contradiction we regress in social strife.
When reality destroys this fragile equilibrium, when Machiavelli's evil, unethical and selfish legacy triumphs over Montesquieu's selfless, ethical, virtuous circle of institutional power exercise, we ARRIVE in today's world of Pax Americana.
We've lost it; that virtuous circle.
And the Hollywoodian tinsel town meme so rightly identifies this circle jerk as : to make a good movie you need a really good BAD GUY. Yes Siree our Bankstas and crony politicians fit that definition to a T; they print the legend to serve their own interests, not the truth!
Its the logic of knowledge meme that ensures civilization's journey as the logic of power is just a typical "zero sum game", Hector vs Achilles stuff, rinsed and repeated. Only when a king establishes new rules of progress in society like Magna Carta or Constitutional change, debated and amended by a consensual elite, do we celebrate civilization; in top down logic of power which services bottom up aspirations of we the people meme; aka knowledge dissemination and level playing fields.
Our true fathers of civilization rest the continual logic/analytical experience thread from Socrates to the Enlightenment age in Western society. The Word of God now just smoke and mirrors, as totally irrelevant to the socio-political construct, and just spiritual sustainance of man's existential limbo; we never know what life is about as we stay mortal. But the Word provides no real solution apart from apeasing our entropic decay as living organisms called homo sapiens. Spirituality yes, Dogma no!
Don't chase obscurantist shadows when you can grasp the "ephemeral reality" of what politics is about : truth searching along knowledge trail, admittedly time constrained as we are by definition mutants, but nevertheless intemporally constant search for compromise between personal freedoms and collective responsibilities; dichotomous variable, essence and living heart beat of society.
Thats our REALITY. And it ain't perfect. Never will be. And Capitalism is just a means to an end in society; nothing more.
lol ... obviously in what you assumed to be my demise you thought you could slip that howler through the cracks here!.... apparently those reports were somewhat 'exaggerated' ... much like your own flourishes of C18th elitist idle riche class rhetoric... you'll prolly be able to dance pon my grave here soon nuff
hahaha! ...but till then,
Give it up Bro! ... we done whipped yur ass here.... all that's left is to send in to janitorial crew... rant on Knight Errant Dude!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/123652605/Genome-Evolution-of-Jewish-Populatio...
the freedoms we were born with are not given to us... it's only when those are stolen that the 'rights of man' are applied. I understand correctly... that's exactly the 'bias' what bugs you the most, Mr. Ghost!
Your interpretation of Socialism is lacking in justification on how the people gained ownership. It also lacks distinction of what they got ownership of. Do you mean ownership of other people's property through entitlement justification or, ownership of the means and incentives to produce? Are you proposing exclusive property rights from the efforts of personal creation because I own my own work or do I work to provide benefits for others??
Exclusive ownership of the right to create history enables an entity to direct the path of the future. It also is the means that that entity uses to declare ownership of other people. This is the reason that it's so important to G_d's Chosen People that they own and control The Media (including the one we are reading at this moment in time). (It's also the reason why it should be important to the rest of us that they don't have control of The Media.)
If one owns you, then anything you create belongs to that owner as well. A rancher owns the offspring of his livestock. Capitalism implies that the factory owner owns the production of the factory as a consequence of investing his capital in the enterprise. Why should it make any difference whether the production is biological (or human) in origin or not?
You may push this philosophy upstream a bit to conclude that God owns humanity as well if you have faith.
None of the above implies that I agree with capitalism wrt ownership of human capital, especially in my own case.
Nice to see you Al
"Do you mean ownership of other people's property through entitlement justification"
Would 'inheritance' fit into that category?
<crickets>
Inheritance is simply one family member choosing to pass HIS wealth on to another family member. If that person turns out to be less than intelligent, the capital is quickly redistributed. The old saying "rags to rags in 3 generations" isn't without evidence. See, for example, Canada's Eaton family. Grandad was a pioneer retailer, son John was reasonably bright, his four kids were all dolts, and the company is no more.
Are you suggesting that you don't have the right to a will and testament? That when you die, a bunch of moochers have some moral right to your stuff, but your loved ones don't?
<crickets>
(Appy polly logies if twenty minutes for a response seems like such an eternity to you. I was in the middle of someone.)
In any case, you didn't answer my question, you just offered up a strawman.
Pass.
I thought it was different: socialism when means of production are state owned and communism when means of production are owned by the community.
You guys are doing Marx here.. why don’t you try Smith...
“ THE CAUSES OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE PRODUCTIVE POWERS OF LABOUR, AND OF THE ORDER ACCORDING TO WHICH ITS PRODUCE IS NATURALLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE DIFFERENT RANKS OF THE PEOPLE.”
When someone applies natural law to economics I get the shivvers.
The Vultures of Capitalism and The Virtue of Greed.
What Capitalism is in the imaginations of people like Doug Casey and Ayn Rand: "free markets," "the invisible hand of the market," "free trade," etc., etc., etc.
What Capitalism is all about in practice and in reality: Privatization of profits and socialization of losses.
"What Capitalism is all about in practice and in reality: Privatization of profits and socialization of losses."
It is my belief that, anyone who believes that losses should be socialized cannot call themselves a capitalist. So to me the above is not a definition of capitalism. It's more like the opposite of what the definition of capitalism is.
Capitalism is a weasel word coined by a frustrated weasel.
Constitutional Americanism is likely a better term… it’s dead today, but it could be brought back
The correct term what all the "free market" adherents are really looking for is "entrepreneurship."
All the "ism"s are designed utopian pipe dreams.
I'll take an "ism" that is constituted protect life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness under a government that governs least/best any day.
Freedom in the marketplace is a threat to the Elites. They cannot long coexist with human rights. The rights given persons by their Designer cannot be withdrawn by the state and require no sanction by government in order to stand as our valid and irreversible birthright. MY thoughts and ideas, MY talents, MY creativity, are not a function of the state's dispensations, or the product of a required license or authentically subject to any other such expropriation by those men in high places who would seek to plunder and subvert individuality.
How long will our culture allow blessings of skill and the unique attributes of natural genius to be plagiarized by institutions and systems which lay claim to that which is holistic and indigenous? Why do we have a society which increasingly exports the light burden of individual reasoning in favor of the flawed process of collective ratification....an environment which is ripe with malfeasance and graft? How much human progress has been stifled by the boot of meritocracy upon the throat of free thought?
freedom can be answered by one question: do you owe money to an entity?
if yes, get your fucking debt slave ass to work...
darwin put you where you deserve to be.
low iq = debt slave
The overwhelming majority of humanity is BORN into debt and just like livestock, literally owe their lives/existance to their owners.
The feudal system is alive, but its rules have evolved and are still evolving.
So when you get jailed for standing up for freedom, since jail is not debt, you're actually still free; and when you need a loan to pay for uninsured medical procedures, you're saying you have a low iq and deserve a Darwin award...
sacrificial lamb would be what you describe. once again darwin at play...
Amen.
Doug Casey is taking over the hilarious Simon Black role of recommending 'investments' and residence in the world's trouble spots and somewhat ambiguous places ... like Argentina, a country now economically imploding and threatening jail for trying to preserve your own assets, as ZeroHedge has been describing.
As Doug Casey writes in the article above ... going full-on 'Simon Black Sovereign Man':
« « So we bought 1300 acres on the edge of the wine-growing town of Cafayate in NW Argentina ... Mongolia is still interesting for lots of reasons. In the Western Hemisphere I’d go to Guyana, or especially Surinam. But I think Africa is the place to be. »
Not really sure I should evacuate to Africa ... or Mongolia ... or Argentina ...
Never go 'full Simon Black' !
I had a farm in Africa...
We had a few countries...