Originally posted by: Train
Natural economies are not propaganda. If you really understood, you wouldnt spew complete garbage.
How do you think we advanced from a 100% agriculture species to now less than 50% agr worldwide? It wasnt socialism.
Drivel. The propaganda is evident in your own use of the jargon 'natural economy', as you parrot it. That is propaganda, at least a reference to it.
The answer to how our economy has evolved away from agriculture is a large topic about which you add nothing, and about which you disprove nothing in what I said.
You have a child's level opposition to 'socialism'. You fail it appears to me to clearly even have any idea that socialism is not a boolean attribute, how our society is and isn't socialist.
There's an old saying that a little knowledge is dangerous. You personify it.
Your rantings about the economic situation if all government disappeared is more drivel.
Want to know what would happen? Power, never staying in a vacuum, would be obtained by people organizing into groups to dominate others, as they always have.
Your 'acpitalism' would be you being put into slavery, or robbed, or indentured into combat, at the point of a gun by a superior force. Period.
Over very long periods of time, society would re-invent itself as it has before, as societies stabilize and the same economic lessons are re-learned - oppression of labor versus rebellion of labor. Just maybe at some point in time, freak circumstances would again occur leading the powerful to re-create democracy and labor rights could expand.
There's nothing new under the sun here, and nothing good about the fantasy system you worship.
As for your tiny littlepoint bout wealth not being static, I'll repeat what I've said before here:
Wealth has both static and non-static aspects. At anymoment, the wealth has a static distribution - it is a certain amount in certain people's hands. It's non-static over time - it plays a role of incenting various behaviors among other things, which in turn cause various levels and types of productivity.
In a balanced economy, wealth is partially concentrated, and used to incent productivity. As you unbalance the economy one way, productivity is less incented and falls. As you unbalance the economy the other way, the wealth is overly concentrated and too many resources are in too few hands and less available for incenting productivity, used for misguided priorities to serve the few wealthy, and there is more suffering and less productivity benefitting society. See any oligarchy for examples.
Your tiny little point adds nothing to the discussion; it simply imprisons you by making you say liberals don't know wealth isn't static as you refuse to learn much.
Facebook
Twitter