- Capitalism and Alternatives -

North America was not one big love commune, far from it.

Posted by: David ( USA ) on November 10, 1999 at 00:13:37:

In Reply to: And getting what we deserve posted by Stoller on November 09, 1999 at 10:42:14:

: Stoller:
: Well... how about telling that to the Native Americans. Are you prepared to return to them the North American continent? Or do you only wish to respect property relations AS THEY STAND NOW?

: David:
: Now, I have not studied in depth the Native American cultures, but as I understand it, they had no concept of property (which raises the question, how can you steal something from someone who does not recognize it as being owned?)...

: If the Native Americans did not 'recognize' they were being robbed of their land, why then did they fight the 'White Devil'? Or are you suggesting that the 'White Devil' simply KILLED THEM OFF for the hell of it?

They probably fought the Europeans because the first colonists were a bunch of pig-headed men looking for wealth at whatever cost. Both the settlers and the Natives had very poor senses of individual rights.

: :...and engaged in many inter and extra tribal wars for the land that they did not 'own.'

: The 'savages had it coming' thesis. How 1950.

I was merely pointing out that it was not all peachy keen. North America was not one big love commune, far from it.

: : Should I be able to tell you what you can grow in your garden?

: Let's get down to it, David.

: What if I had the only garden in the world?

Then I would say you were a wealthy man.

: What if I had the only garden in the world---and you were hungry.

Well, I would first try to find an alternative means. If no other existed, I would open negotiations with you. Provide you with a service you need.

: What if I had the only garden in the world, you were hungry, and I said you could have, say 10% of my garden's yield (enough food for you to survive)---BUT, in turn, you had to do all the work on my garden FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?

That would be your perogative. I would obviously not be happy and probably spend the remaining free time in my life to find an alternative.

: : [T]here is a strong association between socialism and dictatorships and corruption and starvation.

: There is an even stronger association between capitalism and dictatorships and corruption and starvation. First 200 years of capitalism (1600 - 1800), anyone?

Other than the U.S, what capitalist nations existed between 1600 and 1800? That time period was when the discussion on Capitalist theory began.

: Care to live in Russia now?

No. Besides, Russia is not a capitalist nation. Not by a long shot. It is mob rule. There is no regard for individual rights and the only kind of wealth is looted wealth.

: : My justification for Capitalism is not in that it makes most of the people affluent, but in that it is a just, moral system. It makes people responsible for their own actions and basically gives them what they deserve.

: Tell me, David: is a newborn child born into poverty 'getting what it deserves'? When it is damaged from lead paint and hunger is it 'getting what it deserves'? When it grows up and goes to run-down schools that cannot offer decent education, is it 'getting what it deserves'? Etc., etc.

No. Children are dependants. They require a host to support them. It is the responsibilty of the parents to provide for them. It may seem unfair that one child has super attentive parents who work hard for their well being, while another has neglectful parents, however, that is just the way the cards fall sometimes.

: 'Getting what one deserves.'

: You simply MUST escape the supremacist banalities of Ayn Rand.

Yeah, if you really want to be avant garde and cutting edge you can always say something like "give people what they don't deserve! That is fair."

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup