The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Whos Ya Daddy
Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • PS

    I don't mind debating with you because you are somewhat opened minded. So yeah my question was a bit trollish but I was interested in your response.

    I do troll a lot of the time but I do like to create debate. I don't always have nefarious means with my trolling if you understand my meaning.
    Obviously both of us want to move the economic system to the left. You just less so than I do.

    So you honestly believe that this is not a flaw with capitalism. A system that allows you to well gather capital and hoard it gives rise to plutocratic narrowing of the means of production. Perfect capitalism isn't a bad system but in the real world it seems to descend into monopolies and power narrowing significantly. Tell me what you would propose to stop such flaws ?

    Sorry it took so long to respond I forgot all about the debate until I checked my visitor page for some reason.
    I don't think you are an idealist any more than anyone who is a true believer in something. I am certainly not an idealist. I mean come on. I am if anything cynical. I consider myself a critic of pretty much everything. I turn on the leftism in this forum because its filled with reactionary swine.

    The problem with progressives is not that its unworkable. It certainly could be. Most progressives despite your beliefs are not communists they are if anything social democrats. They are more Tony Benn than Joe Stalin. It wouldn't be that hard to make a fairly even society. The Scandinavian countries managed it. It does mean you need to keep society fairly homogeneous and controlled so there would need to be pretty tight immigration control but its still fairly possible imo

    No the problem is that its hypocritical. It to me is like a more even cut of a pie between bandits. They might be fairer bandits but they are still stealing the resources from the third world.
    hahah calm down you lunatic. Just having a discussion.

    You are not free to go around punching people in the face, so how are you free to profit from an exploitive system. It seems to me that there is a greater burden socially (which is fine. We should not hurt others with our actions) then there is economically.

    Perhaps there are inherent flaws in capitalism that means that it will ALWAYS become "international corporatism". Resource inequality seems to lead towards plutocracy historically with power becoming isolated in the hands of those who hold the resources. I am not trying to trap you or anything. Just thought a discussion on capitalism would warm me up on the cold summer evenings.

    Philosophically do you not think capitalism (and especially capitalism as we know it) fails the harm principle. Surely, our desire to have cheap, cheap chocolate interferes with the liberty of starving African children. Why then do libertarians support an even less restrained version of capitalism when it would become even more exploitative.

    While I can understand the desire for economic liberalisation it runs counter to the belief that one can do as he pleases until it hurts another human. If its for the common good than would that not justify social restrictions like gay marriage bans and drug laws ?

    I do not believe its possible to hold social liberal views and economic liberal (and I use the non US version of the word liberal here) views and claim that liberty is your goal when capitalism is exploitive ?
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…