Quote from: neofelis on June 02, 2014, 02:11:10 AM

Quote from: Birdy on June 01, 2014, 10:12:54 PM

Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint, it doesn't say anymore than "money is power, try to achieve wealth by doing stuff".
It doesn't care if you achieve it by exploiting others or by being a great inventor.
But people do.
"Then, as usual, people in power started placing restrictions on citizens[...]" , you are even saying it yourself.
Guess what will happen then. The neutral capitalism will be shifted by those who gained power first.
This will lead to some form of government/restrictions for other people.
-> true unrestricted capitalism can only exist for a short timeframe.

Quote

The only moral purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, thereby increasing freedom.

By guarding a right for someone, you are also restricting someone else.
Think about this sentence: When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else.

I have to disagree on a few points. Capitalism is based on a rational view of the nature of man. Man cannot exist and live as man in the absence of freedom. That is why the dominate philosophy of this century has led to the decay of the US and western society. That is the philosophy of altruism. Excuse me while I channel my inner Ayn RandAltruism leads men to believe that it is a virtue to sacrifice oneself for others. Even a little bit is considered noble. This leads to man feeling guilty for not "giving more" than they already do. We look at monks, who give everything to serve others and live in poverty, as the ideal to live up to. This becomes a problem when men achieve political power, the power to initiate the use of force against men. This power is given to the politicians by the very people who elect them into office. With the philosophy of altruism permeating our society, it is now very easy for these men of power to use that power to force men who "haven't given enough" to "do the right thing."

Unrestricted capitalism will only be able to exist for a short while until the philosophy of altruism is no longer taught. The correct philosophy for man to exist qua man (as a man and not a slave) is Objectivism. Objectivism teaches rational self-interest and the ultimate value and virtue. Objectivism is the only philosophy based on reason and man's use of it to guide his decisions.

Under true and unrestricted capitalism, individual rights are the most sacred (if I can use that term) asset a country can preserve. No law can be written that violates a man's natural rights and no man can violate the rights of another without breaking the law in doing so. The initiation of force is given exclusively to the government and man can only use force for self defense or the defense of others. Those in power cannot pass laws that violate rights, period. This leads to a very narrow scope of government, namely police, military and a system of courts. Any other use of government force will violate man's right to property. Everything else - education, infrastructure, social programs, etc are all immoral. To supply one little old lady with a government pension check seems like a noble deed. But that deed is based on a million tiny little uses of force to take the money from somebody else who actually earned it. I'll stop here.

"When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else." The answer is you will get a job and earn some bitcoin and buy it from somebody who wishes to sell it. You may inherit it as well. There is nothing wrong with inherited wealth. I don't fret that men like BIll Gates and Warren Buffet have loads of money. They have made our lives infinitely better through their innovations and skill. Their massive wealth was well earned and I admire them for it. But wait a few generations and see how much wealth the heirs of Bill Gates will have. I predict very little. It will get spread out through the population because few men create that kind of wealth and even fewer can keep it. Have many Kennedys and Rockefellers have the same power and money their ancestors had? None that I know of.

Are you Yaron Brook? I would have so many questions, if you are Wink

Agree a 100%, bitcoin, just as internet, and the whole idea of decentralization is against government (the tribe elite) power.