Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

go1dfish wrote

There is no conflict in believing in private property rights while speaking out against the behaviors of people and how they use their property. I don't advocate State action or violence against any corporate censorship despite my vocal opposition to how pronounced it has become.

I identify as a voluntarist because I'm not primarily focused in the support of capitalism or even property rights except insofar as they are a means of reducing conflict over scarce resources.

The core of my ideology is that all interactions between people should be voluntary and without coercion. At certain monopolistic extremes private property rights can be destructive to these ends as well and represent a de-facto state.

0

ziq OP wrote

all interactions between people should be voluntary and without coercion

private property doesn't exist without coercion. It's a completely artificial construct that needs to be enforced violently.

4

go1dfish wrote

When you have finite resources and people wanting to use them in different ways it is not possible to satisfy the desires of all people.

Without some system of determining who can do conflicting things with finite resources conflict is unavoidable.

0

ziq OP wrote (edited )

What world do you live in where capitalism protects limited resources? Look around you. Everything's going fucking extinct because of capitalism and its constant depletion of resources and creation of waste. Capitalism hasn't preserved resources, it's literally depleted them to the point of creating the most destructive mass extinction event in natural history. And it did it all in just 100 years. A mere century of capitalism has doomed the whole fucking planet.

1

go1dfish wrote

What world do you live in where capitalism protects limited resources?

I didn't suggest that it did; only that property rights reduces conflict over scarce resources.

Further, much of the environmental exploitation; especially as it relates to oil resources has occurred via government intervention and violence; not property rights in the general sense.

−1

mofongo wrote

Those governments take the land and it's resources to give it to corporations as private property to the detriment of the people that already lived there.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

It's like you have no concept of basic cause and effect. You seem to think capitalism can exist in a meticulously sealed vacuum where it can do nothing but good.

It's done nothing but bulldoze everything in its path since its inception, but you somehow put your thinking cap on and decide "no, the problem is government. capitalism without government would be holy and pure".

How is capitalism without government intervention better for the environment?

If the industry doesn't need to pay taxes, get permits and licenses, follow basic environmental regulations, and refrain from murdering all the pesky indigenous people that get in the way of their perpetual expansion, this will magically result in less exploitation?

2 + 2 = 5. That's literally the level of logic you people display when you say capitalism with less restrictions will preserve the earth's ecosystems. It's like you've been indoctrinated into some brainwashing cult and just parrot the same inane nonsense all your life without actually thinking about it for a moment.

Capitalism requires constant growth to sustain itself. It doesn't magically slow down when you remove the few restrictions it has on it, it grows faster. It kills more people. Tears down more forests. Melts more icecaps. Increases the rate of mass extinction.

Capitalism minus government does not make capitalism green.

Capitalism minus government, if such a notion were even possible (it isn't) just means me and mine can beat you to death (for polluting our groundwater and removing our ability to feed ourselves by destroying our ecosystems) and not be locked up for it by the state. Except your private army would roll over us with tanks first. Which would make you the government, btw.

2

Girlsreallyrule1 wrote

The most basic freedom is the freedom to make choices. Capitalism promotes choice. It promotes the ability of people to decide what they want to buy, how much they want to buy, where they want to live, where they want to work, and so on. With statism, choices are limited. The government decides, for example, what kind of light bulb is available, how much water a toilet can use, the minimum factory efficiency of an air conditioning system, and more.

The removal of simple choices reduces freedom. The removal of all choices is slavery. The direction of statism is towards slavery. The direction of capitalism is towards freedom. Capitalism is morally superior.

0

RosaReborn wrote

What choices do you really have under capitalism?

to decide what they want to buy, how much they want to buy, where they want to live, where they want to work...

Making a lot of assumptions about the average person's buying power.

Also capitalism doesn't promote that. I agree statism is no solution either, but you seem to under the impression that Leftists support the state for some reason? Like you didn't read the thread at all

2

bloodrose wrote

property rights reduces conflict over scarce resources.

Can you provide an example of this occurring in the real world? Everything I have read seems to state otherwise. That private property leads to conflict over resources and that people tend to be more egalitarian and share more without said property rights. Is there any instance where this is not true?

2