Yes, every system besides one in which rights are maximized is unfair.anomaly said:Ok well by that logic, every and any system is 'unfair' (I don't like capitalism, and yet it is being forced down my throat every day. Your proposed system would violate my 'individual rights', so we could never do it, right?). The majority of people would benefit under socialism, so I just assume the majority would want it. Democratic socialism usually succeeds capitalism. It is democratic meaning that the majority of people want it. If the majority feel they don't like it, they can vote leaders out. The power rests solely in the people.
And the reason its unfair is because people do not have equal, maximized rights.
But under a system of true capitalism, everyone DOES have equal rights, and those rights have no limits, so long as you respect the equal rights of others.
Democracy is chosen because the system is democratic.
The MAJORITY votes on what government we get.
So, the MAJORITY controls the lives of everyone.
This is unfair to every minority in existence.
In my proposal, everyone only controls themselves, so there is no 'unfairness'.
Freedom for all is possible when EVERY person is in control.anomaly said:And if that gov't is itself dominated by the people, what does that mean? The people are free to dispose of their leaders. Are you saying that freedom is impossible? Even when the people control everything?
It only makes sense that every person should control themselves.
Then their lives will truly be their own, not something for higher-ups to throw around and alter at will.
You say minority rights are important... but then you propose a majority rules system....anomaly said:Well, here it is shown how important the type of gov't is. Proportional representation is needed. I know you aren't so ignorant of that idea as Fant is, so you probably know that it can work. Minority rights are, of course, important.
Those two beliefs are contradictory.
In my proposal, everyone is a representative of themselves, and themselves only.
Nobody makes decisions for other people, as it isn't their decision to make.
You are misunderstanding influence with FORCE.anomaly said:Someone ultimatly ends up with more capital than someone else, so they have more power than someone else. This means they can exert a bit of control over someone else. And, in capitalism, a 'large group' or 'small group' does control many things. Monopolies, businesses, corporations. These are controlling groups.
When one group controls someone through FORCE (like all governments do),
it does not reflect the interests of the person who is being FORCED.
However, when one uses influence to persuade someone (like companies do),
it reflects the interests of the person which are amplified by influence.
Under influence, the ultimate choice is still for THAT PERSON to make.
This is different than control, where the person has no say in the matter.
The use of FORCE or FRAUD is illegal because it violates a person's rights.
If you don't know this yet, capitalism and anarchism are quite similar.anomaly said:You have advanced beyond capitalism, you don't even speak of capitalism anymore. You speak of anarchism.
But anarchism allows for something capitalism does not.
And that is the initiation of FORCE to meet an end.
The use of FORCE in anarchism is what makes the system unfair.
Capitalism eliminates this use of FORCE, which is what makes it fair.
Because our government does not practice real capitalism.anomaly said:The Zapatistas had to fight to gain an autonomous zone. Again, why can't communes exist today is capitalism is all volntary and righteous?
Those that would try to create a commune would be put down by our many unnecessary government rules and regulations.
-People would not be allowed to run their own community, as government has designated itself sole provider of that role.
-People would not be able to contribute all labor towards the betterment of the community, because government imposes taxes and the minimum wage.
-People would not be free to maintain such a community, because government has zoning laws, property taxes, owns much of our land, controls our transportation system, and tells everyone what they can and cannot do.
Under a completely free society, people would be allowed to act peacefully however they chose. Communes would be free to prosper, as there would be nobody telling you how to live your life and what is right and wrong.
And the capitalists could do nothing about it.anomaly said:Capitalism is dominated by competition and the accumulation of capital, how could a communist zone exist in the middle of such a system? Communists have no need for capital, and yet to the capitalist, the commune is wasting their labor force. To the capitalist, the commune would be using land otherwise being used to accumulate a profit.
The only thing that lets them do something about it is government (thank you, abusive eminent domain laws!).
The capitalists might get antsy because you aren't using capital, but they would have to respect your rights to live how you see fit.