[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Perhaps you can tell us more about your experience, then? Furthermore, can you elucidate on the rights which, according to you, can only be bought under capitalism?

Well?

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Finally, I'd like to know just how likely it is for one to "end up starving in the streets" in the United States at the present time. Thanks in advance. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/fe.../homeless.html http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/t...elessness.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeles..._United_States

Thanks. I will look into those.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos You did not answer his question. Please do so or admit that you cannot. Thanks in advance. Implied is that all those factors together create a climate of submission and exploitation.

Spare us the implication, and be explicit. Otherwise, you are simply speaking in propagandistic platitudes which accomplish nothing as far as the rest of us are concerned.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Do you have proof for such a suspicion? Are "global capitalists" really such, when managed-trade organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank exist? Such institutions exist to better uphold what corporate owners want, just like private police exist to better uphold what corporate owners want.

You failed to see my point. Free trade needs no organizations to manage it. Therefore, the fact that organizations exist to manage trade on a global level means that there is no global free trade.

Tell me this: Do you believe that using force in self-defense is morally wrong?

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Interesting. Can you share with us your proof of how the definition of "profit" implies (explicitly or implicitly) the lack of mutual benefit? Furthermore, can you explain to us exactly what you mean by "the upper hand"? Finally, is it your contention that wealth is a zero- sum game? Thanks in advance. First, one obvious point is how capitalists in this very forum call my ideas of mutual benefit naive (or whatever). Corporate rulers don't want certain demands to to get in the way of profit. When they are able to call the shots against the interests of their workers, it means they have the "upper hand," or a position of advantage and control (AKA authority).

You did not answer all of my questions -- in fact, you only answered my question about what you mean by the "upper hand". Please answer the remainder of my questions or admit that you cannot. Thanks in advance.

Quote by: grandpa Your theory must account for this, not mine.

Red herring.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos More support (i.e. proof) is required here if we are to take your position in any way seriously. Thanks in advance. The proof is simple. If a business owns the means to life, then people must rely on the chain of command in that business to survive. That is an authoritarian setting. It creates a climate of unquestioning obedience.

Wrong. People never "must" do anything. They choose to do things. Furthermore, for a business to control "the means to life" would mean implementing totalitarianism on a scale not yet seen in real life. (If you would like me to explain in more detail, I would be happy to.) Also, if a business were to have such a level of control, it would, by definition, cease to be a business and become a government.

- Rob