Hi, I am Harry Felker and I am new to the community here, I write literature for a constitutional movement, and am expanding not only my audience, but my knowledge of Capitalism, as I view it as a moral foundation to essential Liberty. I have been using the site as a reference to my work in relation to economics for a little while now, and I felt it was probably time for me to actually become a participating member.
I am looking for people who are more intricately educated in the capitalist theory, not that I am asking for a teacher, just people I can keep my eyes on to help educate myself better on the subject.
Thank you for your time,
Harry Felker
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Welcome Harry. You'll just have to observe or feel free to start a conversation and sort through the answers by asking more questions. Generally the knowledge level here is quite high relative to most other patriot/constitutional/political forums and communities.
Re: capitalism. Capitalism is simply the system of private property ownership, without which liberty cannot exist. Some might say that all rights are built upon a foundation of property rights.
liberty student:Re: capitalism. Capitalism is simply the system of private property ownership, without which liberty cannot exist. Some might say that all rights are built upon a foundation of property rights.
I wholeheartedly agree, but this is really only the tip of the iceberg, and I wish to know everything, yes I am that guy...
There is one small correction in my honest opinion, all rights are built upon sentience, that is as Descartes put it "A thinking thing that thinks", or a Human Being, recognition of those rights is rooted in property rights.
Thank you for taking the time out to say hi, I am sure we will be meeting again in the forums...
Hi Harry, I am pretty new to the forums as well, but I think I might be able to point you in the right direction. You seem to be looking for alot of complete and specific information regarding the concept of capitalism so it seems appropriate to suggest George Reisman's Capitalism to you. http://www.mises.org/store/Capitalism-P188.aspx
I am working on some more introductory texts that are not quite as large in size, so I have no first hand experience with this particular book, but I am very familiar with George Reisman from his articles frequently posted on mises.org and he seems to be brilliant. Hope you enjoy the forums, there seems to be alot of very knowledgeable posters on here as well. Take care,
Robert
Robert:You seem to be looking for alot of complete and specific information regarding the concept of capitalism
Like I said to Liberty Student, I am looking to know everything, and I admit I am coming from an elementary understanding, so any and all information is helpful, even if I know it now, I only know it from my own research, and if one begins with a false premise on their research, one fails at understanding.
Thank you for taking the time to reply
Harry,
Capitalism. "The end result is an integrated understanding of the theory and ethics of the capitalist economy."
There's the link for the Capitalism book, I don't think I posted it correctly in my previous post. Enjoy!
Thanks for the link... I will pick up the book when I have the available funds...
Harry is a poor white boy LOL....
Harry Felker: There is one small correction in my honest opinion, all rights are built upon sentience, that is as Descartes put it "A thinking thing that thinks", or a Human Being, recognition of those rights is rooted in property rights.
Welcome.
Yes it is human nature to think. What you say here has to do with pursuit of happiness, and as the rational animals we are, it is human nature to pursue happiness, in other words, to be able to morally flourish (pursue happiness). Our reasoning thus flourishes and thereby the natural rights of liberty, life, and property are honored. So pursue happiness, in other words, act with moral excellence.
Good to see you here!
A free and full pdf is available online from Reismans own website www.capitalism.net. I have read 2 thirds of it now and would recommend it to others. There are some small parts that as an informed layman I think are wrong (based on information I have gleaned from other notable economists), and larger sections that are challenging/demanding, but overwhelmingly the book is insightful education and really terrific.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Would that be because he ain't no Austrian economist?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
He studied under Mises, and he owes a great debt to the Austrian School, he has some great lectures here on mises.org
he has put a lot of effort into going back to the Classical economists, and getting insights from them and making a fusion with
austrian insights. He has original theory to offer.
no, the biggest problems I have would stem from his relationship to Rand and Objectivism, since he favours IP and Minarchy. no ones perfect?
wilderness:So pursue happiness, in other words, act with moral excellence. Good to see you here!
Therefore, Liberty, which provides the best chance for said happiness, is moral.
Glad to be here, thanks for taking time
Thank you for the link, I have it bookmarked and will check it out...
Can you explain this? I am sure I will pick up why you say this, but I would like to hear your opinion, if you do not mind.
Thanks for taking the time...
I'd be happy to explain if i can, what are you interested to know?
Harry Felker: wilderness:So pursue happiness, in other words, act with moral excellence. Good to see you here! Therefore, Liberty, which provides the best chance for said happiness, is moral. Glad to be here, thanks for taking time
Yeap Liberty is moral, and by pursuing happiness Liberty exists, in other words, human nature flourishing is a human being excellent in his or her nature. Our nature includes being the rational animals we are. So one could say good reasoning is an aspect of being excellent in our individual nature, in other words, pursuing happiness in reason.
Liberty is also a right thus a consideration of law. And as the argument goes, as provided by those links back to Aristotle, virtues or morals give rise to such rights as Liberty. Rights are an extension of being virtuous whether as an individual and/or a society.
Looking forward to your contributions in the forum.
I know this is not a reply to me, but seeing as I am seeking understanding can you explain some of this to me...
nirgrahamUK: He studied under Mises, and he owes a great debt to the Austrian School, he has some great lectures here on mises.org he has put a lot of effort into going back to the Classical economists, and getting insights from them and making a fusion with austrian insights. He has original theory to offer.
Where exactly is the line, in your opinion, between Austrian Economic Theory and Reisman?
nirgrahamUK: no, the biggest problems I have would stem from his relationship to Rand and Objectivism, since he favours IP and Minarchy. no ones perfect?
I suppose now would not be the time to say that I have agreements with Objectivism? Though I am a little young to have had a "relationship with Rand" per se, but I do not see her as too far off base in regard to Individual Liberty.
IP, I assume is Intellectual Property, exactly what is the issue with this concept?
Minarchy, I think Thomas Paine said it best, "That government which is best governs least." Government in some form is necessary, not in economics, but in a sense of the defense of rights. The notion of live and let live may work on a community, even on a national level, but once you leave the nation in particular, you cannot expect the people and governments of other nations to respect this notion. As silly as it sounds I believe the notion of minarchism, or limited government, is basically related to an Eddie Izzard joke...
Thanks for taking the time, I truly appreciate it...
What Thedesolateone meant by this
"Would that be because he ain't no Austrian economist?"
Harry Felker:I suppose now would not be the time to say that I have agreements with Objectivism? Though I am a little young to have had a "relationship with Rand" per se, but I do not see her as too far off base in regard to Individual Liberty.
Rand has some great memes and ideas. I draw a lot of inspiration from her, specifically in understanding movements and the motives of the entrepreneur. On some other topics, she and I go our separate ways. It's a lot of very fine, very nuanced stuff, like IP. You could say I am 80% Objectivist, and I think most everyone here probably agrees with various degrees of Objectivism from maybe being 50% in agreement, up to 100%.
On this forum, you will find a lot of diversity within understanding what liberty is. We don't normally discuss all of the things we agree upon, so it might seem like cat fights at times over particularly minor points to someone approaching this fresh. Just a heads up.
Harry Felker:IP, I assume is Intellectual Property, exactly what is the issue with this concept?
Recent Austrian work by Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella have lead to opposition to Intellectual Property law as administered by the state.
Harry Felker:Minarchy, I think Thomas Paine said it best, "That government which is best governs least." Government in some form is necessary, not in economics, but in a sense of the defense of rights.
That's generally the biggest split here. Mises, Rand, Reisman, Hayek and many others are minarchists (small government). Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, DiLorenzo, Rockwell are anarcho-capitalists (market anarchists/voluntarists). Ron Paul and Tom Woods do a good job of walking a fine line between both camps publicly.
Harry Felker: What Thedesolateone meant by this "Would that be because he ain't no Austrian economist?"
I was talking about Reisman. He's about as close as you can be to an Austrian without actually being an Austrian.
But yeah, minarchism and IP would be points of disagreement for me as well.
liberty student:On this forum, you will find a lot of diversity within understanding what liberty is. We don't normally discuss all of the things we agree upon, so it might seem like cat fights at times over particularly minor points to someone approaching this fresh. Just a heads up.
If you saw the place I came from before I created my own project, you would know argument does not phase me...
liberty student:Recent Austrian work by Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella have lead to opposition to Intellectual Property law as administered by the state.
I will have to look them up, but as I see it IP is a natural right of man, and covered in the Constitution as such in the 9th Amendment...
liberty student:That's generally the biggest split here. Mises, Rand, Reisman, Hayek and many others are minarchists (small government). Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, DiLorenzo, Rockwell are anarcho-capitalists (market anarchists/voluntarists). Ron Paul and Tom Woods do a good job of walking a fine line between both camps publicly.
Well then what would you call a small government advocate that is against government involvement in the market...
Basically I advocate all voluntarism, in regard to market, but would prefer to have that flag to keep other governments at bay...
Thank you for taking the time to explain....
Harry Felker: Basically I advocate all voluntarism, in regard to market, but would prefer to have that flag to keep other governments at bay...
lol Is that what you meant by that video you posted. I watched the video and thought he was making fun of the "flag people", but then you said you agree with small government "flag people", so, I fell into a paradox waiting to see how this would be explained in time. It's amazing how perspective plays a huge role, at times, in the same event.
Basically the thought that the flag mentality is silly, but necessary to ensure the liberties of the individuals here are respected by other nations...
A free market anarchistic society with perfect liberty would be optimal, but as Utopian as Marx's classless Communist society...
In Short, relevance to reality requires working with the real issues of the world, not the Utopian ideal
Harry Felker: Well then what would you call a small government advocate that is against government involvement in the market...
Me 16 months ago.
Security and law can be provided by the market.
This is a frequent discussion here. People working through a reconciliation of liberty with nationalism.
liberty student: Harry Felker: Well then what would you call a small government advocate that is against government involvement in the market... Me 16 months ago.
Same here. If you stay long, you will probably end up rejecting all government that does not have consent of the governed. Otherwise, it is just rule by those in power over those not in power, and is completely arbitrary and tyrranical.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
liberty student: Security and law can be provided by the market. This is a frequent discussion here. People working through a reconciliation of liberty with nationalism.
I am at odds in my own web page with a member on the same subject...
I do not like the notion of nationalism, it is not a matter of believing in national superiority, rather a matter of sovereignty and giving people the liberty to chose...
Let us face facts, there are people who prefer government involvement, granted they are misguided into believing it will stop with social programs, but any case these people exist, so to have freedom that cannot be so easily effected by these people, giving them the option to live outside the market system is necessary, but then there is the issue of what those governments will do to a place that puts all value in the free market. This is the necessary role I see in government, and quite frankly, The only role.
Liberty can only work world wide if all the people actively choose it, but for that to happen, there has to be a place for those who refuse it as well...
Spideynw: Same here. If you stay long, you will probably end up rejecting all government that does not have consent of the governed. Otherwise, it is just rule by those in power over those not in power, and is completely arbitrary and tyrranical.
Already at the point of rejecting government without consent of the governed, just making my point that my aspect of consensual governance is to avoid the "we have a flag" notion of imperialism. I am for voluntary involvement in government, that is only voluntary taxation, and the inherent right of man to not financially support a government that he does not agree with, which in turn give true power to the governed...
I'm not sure that is coherent. We need a government because some people want it?
I'll agree with you that real liberty is all or nothing, but at an individual, not a collective level.
Darn it, I was trying like heck to not challenge your minarchism! lol
Hello Harry....
Maybe we are both going to learn...for me it is more a question of language...
Capitalism is the only social system which recognizes the Individual and his Rights...but you already know that....
Hello, and welcome!
Schools are labour camps.
Harry Felker: liberty student:Recent Austrian work by Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella have lead to opposition to Intellectual Property law as administered by the state. I will have to look them up, but as I see it IP is a natural right of man, and covered in the Constitution as such in the 9th Amendment...
I just have a couple of simple question for you. If intellectual property exists, how does one steal it? And copying is not a synonym of stealing. Also, if IP really exists, then would you be OK with someone being able to "own" it indefinitely? Meaning they can sell it or pass it on to someone else? Lastly, can you provide an actual definition as to what IP is? Is a letter of the alphabet IP? If not, why not? What is the arbitrary line that says once there are 5 or 500 letters strung together it becomes IP?
Spideynw:Is a letter of the alphabet IP? If not, why not? What is the arbitrary line that says once there are 5 or 500 letters strung together it becomes IP?
A letter of the alphabet can not be considered intellectual property, but a common one......I would draw an arbitrary line to a sentence who makes sense...lolz...
Spideynw:Also, if IP really exists, then would you be OK with someone being able to "own" it indefinitely? Meaning they can sell it or pass it on to someone else?
If someone is going to purchase a painting or a book, then, yes, those IP would be his indefinitely....and one can do whatever he wishes with his acquisition, sell it or pass it on to someone else...property right.... once released, an IP does not belong only to you anymore, this is obvious.....
Spideynw:Lastly, can you provide an actual definition as to what IP is?
I am unsure what you mean by actual definition...
liberty student: Darn it, I was trying like heck to not challenge your minarchism! lol
If I did not want a challenge would I be posting on the topic still, challenges are what prove the stance...
We need a government because in the event of other governments existence, or I should say inevitability, it protects the sovereignty of the individual from external sources, the challenge is then on the individuals to defend their sovereignty from their own government, as they are not beset on by external forces, delegating that responsibility upon the general government....
Harry Felker: liberty student: Darn it, I was trying like heck to not challenge your minarchism! lol If I did not want a challenge would I be posting on the topic still, challenges are what prove the stance... We need a government because in the event of other governments existence, or I should say inevitability, it protects the sovereignty of the individual from external sources, the challenge is then on the individuals to defend their sovereignty from their own government, as they are not beset on by external forces, delegating that responsibility upon the general government....
Are you saying, clarify so I understand you correctly, that the individual can't protect his or her sovereignty against governments but must do so against their own government? Is that what you said here?
This is kind of backwards... Intellectual property is not only the concepts of the mind, it is the product of the concepts of the mind, copying for the purpose of production when such property is protected is a violation of the right of the originator. We must remember our markets are not all cogs and widgets, but also Art, Literature and the like. One is not saying that there cannot be versions that are similar (copies) but duplication (plagiarism), or theft of the schematics that are in line for production (which would be stealing) is stealing intellectual property.
Proprietary formulas come to mind when you say this and yes I think that is perfectly acceptable
Intellectual property is the creation of the mind for the means of production, or an idea that has commercial value, IP ranges in example from literature and art to architectual drawings and "widget" schematics. The moment it is to exchange hands for value, it leaves the realm of IP and enters the realm of property...
Sort of...
We must really look toward the founding of this country to understand where I am coming from...
The real reason we left ways with England, was that we had no representation, they were not accountable to the people here in the colonies, to form that government here made that government well within reach of the people, therefore accountable and able to better act against...
I will explain further, I have to go now...
marquise:If someone is going to purchase a painting or a book, then, yes, those IP would be his indefinitely
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Harry Felker :theft of the schematics
Harry Felker: Sort of... We must really look toward the founding of this country to understand where I am coming from... The real reason we left ways with England, was that we had no representation, they were not accountable to the people here in the colonies, to form that government here made that government well within reach of the people, therefore accountable and able to better act against... I will explain further, I have to go now...
Well this is the largest Empire (with a military stationed in over 170 countries and a fiat currency that is currently the world reserve but who knows how much longer that will be, etc...) that humans on earth have been able to record that we know about today. If that's what we have been "able to better act against...".
I think the government steals and murders and is immoral and unlawful. I can't voluntarily succeed (individual succession) and keep my liberty, life, and property without the government violating these rights with coercion, but I'll wait til you explain further.