Politics of the Business

http://www.nexopia.com/weblog.php?uid=329976&id=334356

UPDATE: The link is not working and neither is going to the page manually, rendering this post QUITE lame.

If a true capitalist was exposed to something he would call a perfect society, where everyone helps themselves and no one else, pure dog eat dog, he would be eaten alive.

And who would pick up the big pile of shit that would be the end of the 'looks good on paper capitalist?

The system made to protect those who could not protect themselves; foreigners, speaking with lisps, and living a questionably altern-straight lifestyle would be cruelly left behind.
Capitalism breeds in the melting pot. I'm pretty sure Cap McSmith also wrote the Capitalist Manic-festo in the bath... point made.

One who's thesis states that capitalism is the only "moral form of government" and then later speaks of cutting welfare, not helping those who have fallen, is decidedly immoral

Here's an incredibly huge gap in logic: "Economic rights like the fabled "Oh Everyone has the right to food, etc" are incompatible with individual rights, incompatible with freedom, and thus incompatible with morality." Morally, I believe everyone should be entitled to basic freedoms, not economic rights, which are left undefined in the above statement. Basic freedoms like the right to life should be upheld, not discarded, no matter the place on the specturm. To say one should be left to starve is inhumane, undesirable, disgusting.

Also argued is that family's of the working poor should be considered for private charity.....

As for this,

Your rejection of capitalism rests on the preconceived notion that the "poor" (the reason why they're poor is conveniantly ignored) will not be able to cope with themselves

Nor will they.....
Here is a sidebar on 'the cycle', quite possibly a new notion for the true capitalist. However poor, and in unending competition to eat and live, the next generation will not be able to break from the downward spiral and therefore remain in poverty.

Of course, the true capitalist, born into a priviledged family, doesn't realize that placed in the struggle that is poverty he would not do better than the average person.
Saying that capitalism makes everyone equal and being therefore fair, is a farce. When you can not get a job because some people have advantages and others do not, there goes the equality of "do-it-yourself" capitalism.

The theory is flawed, the only way it would work is if everyone started like they do in monopoly, with equal amounts of money, equal smarts and talents and therefore an equal shot at a slice of capitalist pie.

"Capitalism forces every man to work for himself, to sustain his own life by his own effort, instead of leeching off of the work of others. A leech cannot survive in a capitalist society; it is unfeeling and unrewarding to the weak. Sadly for the leech, so is reality. "

Leeches survive in capitalism all the time; heard of criminals?
This author's 'preconceived notion' of capitalism is one of no proletariat-bourgeousie, that is what scares me. It is argued that supply and demand fuel the market, sure, but if there aren't any workers? Capitalism rides the rails of exploitation and those who are unable to work are crushed in between the tracks and the wheels.

A purely capitalist market would base itself upon who could expoit the majority of the public, in the fastest time, to flood the market and then move onto another good, in high demand, due to low demand for what had previously been produced.

How can capitalism be equal? The author speaks of a feudal system with cottage industries and everyone having specialized machines to produce whatever good, whenever, when they think they can make money off of them.
Not everyone has an equal chance because someone has to do the work, and no human wants to work, touching a morally biased issue unrelated to economics.

An understanding of grassroots capitalism vs capitalism, on paper, is required before a well-planned argument takes print.

It is also offensive to any capitalist that one could deem the poor as lazy and then spew generalizations and unrealistic notions, followed by a self-glorification of massive, unbound ego.

Censorship on opinions end the article.. a true capitalist theory. The end result of a capitalist's love for exploitation.

Ayn Rand would be spinning - always to the right - in his grave. (Pending that he's a person, I didn't want to swamp my computer with capitalist internet drivle).

Further, if no one paid taxes, on what street would I drive to my nonexistant job where i would eat caviar?
It would be a society based on chaos, where no one did anything that did not benefit themselves alone. No private charity would exist. There would be no law, there would be no justice. Those premises rest on the belief of a common good. Common, not individual. No two polar opposites have ever come so dangerously close as to reverse the spin of the earth as in the rant that is capitalism.

How many people would fall into 'working poor' working at minimum wage? The rich would be such an infinitly small fraction that they would control everything, posses armies and therefore capitalism would descend into lords and serfs like the ancient days.

Law would not exist and serfdom just seems like a much too antiquated notion for this 22nd century analyst.

And if any partially aborted sea-animals would like to refute any of the aforementioned statements with a broad vocabulary and a large, large thesaurus on hand, feel free to do so.