Freedom... a Continued Discussion

Here is a little follow up on a discussion I had regarding freedom.... and Capitalism.


> Someone implied that people are forced to work in order to survive after I had stated that people work because they *want* to.

Don't you *want* to survive? You mentioned a "desire to live" later on, admitting that people do want to survive. "Want" and "desire" are synonymous.

Definitions:

Want: "desire: feel or have a desire for; want strongly; "I want to go home now"; "I want my own room""
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Desire: "feel or have a desire for; want strongly; "I want to go home now"; "I want my own room""
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

And the desire to live is the same as a desire for stuff. It is a selfish, motivational desire. It prompts us to do something. As I have said before: Work "...is something that we do because doing it benefits us more than not doing it."


> I was told that: "In true communism there is no government."

You're debating with the very definition of communism.

"An economic system in which the government owns all property."
wellspring.isinj.com/sample/econ/macro/glossc.htm

"An economic system in which capital is owned by private government."
www.personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/c.html

"An economic system first developed in Russia during the 19th century that believes all means of production should be owned and run by a government..." www.canadiana.org/citm/glossaire/glossaire1_e.html


>Someone also told me that: "Marxism does not deny people of their right to private property."

Did you read the quote I referenced? "The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." -Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels


> I was slightly confused when they stated that: "A slave society is actually a society where the majority of wealth of a society is produced as a result of work done by those who have very little or nothing in comparison with those they work for."

Slave: "A person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience." cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/teachers/plans/gloss_e.jsp

Society: "A society is a group of human beings distinguishable from other groups by mutual interests, characteristic relationships, shared institutions and a common culture." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

Umm... sure.


> They continued, saying: "...and sweat shops are not exclusive to China the U.S. is actually rife with them too. N.Y. and L.A. are two particularly sweat shop friendly places that I know of. Also sweatshops in China are often manufacturing goods for American based corporations."

Ok, point being? It is still up to the employee where they choose to work, and ultimately weather they work at all or not. They do because it is beneficial to them to do so. Because what they receive in trade for their time and labor is more valuable to them than what they are trading.


> And rationalized: "If I don’t exist how is it possible for someone to have power over me? Sounds like freedom to me."

As I said before, freedom is a state of being, and an expression of individual will.

Freedom: "...refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free."
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Underground%20Railroad

"Freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination, as an expression of the individual will."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)

You cannot express your will when you are dead (as you don't have any when you cease to exist), and therefore you cannot be free.


> Someone replied to my statement that "I don't seem to remember a single person dying from starvation in the US within at least the last 10 or 15 years." with: "Just because you don't remember it doesn’t mean its not happening. It is."

Statistics please? Starvation specifically. Within the US, and within the last 10-15 years.


> They also replied to my statement on finding a second or different job with: "Easier said than done, because you haven't faced this sort of hardship or witnessed it you might not understand. This is just liberal rhetoric and lacks imagination of another persons point of view."

I never said it was easy. Just that it is possible. And you incorrectly assume that I haven't faced this sort of hardship. I have. Three years ago I was barely able to pay rent. I didn't have car to get to work, I couldn't afford to buy a pair of shoes, and the only reason I was able to get new clothes is because I stole them.... And then I got pregnant to a guy who used drugs, wouldn't hold a job, and was cheating on me. You want to talk about hardship? Go ahead. But don't assume that I've never faced any, or wouldn't understand.

The reason I was in that situation is because I chose to be. I worked... but was lucky if he did. And the reason we couldn't afford shoes is because most of the money went to cigarettes and alcohol. That was the result of our, or my, choice.
Now, since I've left that situation... I am a single mother. I've started my own business. I'm contemplating hiring my first employee. I make more now in a week, than I did then in a month. I don't spend my money on cigarettes, and I saved almost 30% my gross income last month. This is the result of my choice.

You want another viewpoint? My siblings grew up in a house with dirt floors, no doors on the cupboards, no running water, and no heat. In Pennsylvania. And you know why? Because their father chose to use the money he earned on alcohol instead of food. And somehow, in this capitalist slave society, they all managed to survive and now have families of their own that are doing quite well. (Remember my nephew, with the new car?)

I'm not a liberal. Don't accuse me of spewing "liberal rhetoric" bullshit.


> In a previous message someone quoted this statistic: "In 1994, in low-income families whose family heads were under 65 years old, 20% of thefaily heads were working full-time, 35% had either partyear or parttime jobs, and only 45% were not employed."

Do you realize what you're using to support your argument? You're telling me that almost half (45%) of the family heads were not working at all, and that the majority (80%) didn't even have a full time job. And you're wondering why they’re classified as poor!? Why would you expect them to be otherwise? They're not even working!!

To quote one of my best and most respected friends: "Work is a sure-fire, time-tested money making scheme. In a free capitalist society, barring mental or physical disability (and those only in some cases), there's absolutely NO EXCUSE for not earning an adequate living."

I visited DC with my boyfriend recently, and we came across a homeless and chick begging for handouts. She said she was hungry and pregnant. She may or may not have been pregnant, but she was definitely fat. She wasn't starving by any stretch of the imagination. But even if she was... begging isn't her only option. Grab a bucket and an old rag out of some trash bin and offer to wash cars. Walla! Her own business... and worse case scenario: Say she only washes one windshield and makes $1... She can go to McDonalds and buy herself a double cheeseburger. She won't starve... she was only begging because she doesn’t *want* to work.


> They continued: "This person has obviously never heard of structured inequality. We hear stories of those who turn $1 into millions but those are exceptions."

Structured inequality? Give me a break. And as for the stories of those "who turn $1 into millions" being exceptions... Of course they are. Because the majority of people value pleasure over possessions. They value their time and labor over what they could trade their labor for. They choose not to work. That is their choice. Just don't expect them to get rich by not working.


> And told me that: "...to state that t.v. is a necessity is ignorant."

Umm, ok... But tell the insurance company that since they made that decision. "Whilst reading through a renewal notice for my household insurance policy recently I happened to notice that my television set would be replaced immediately if anything happened to it, since it is considered a necessity."
http://www.g21.net/mem27.html


> They said: "I think we should just agree to disagree... I hope that we can lay this to rest with no ill will between us."

Sure... I agree that I disagree with you. ;-)


> But admitted that: "I understand and agree with the fact that we trade labour for property, be it goods, money etc. But I still believe freedom can exist without this characteristic."

I didn't say it couldn't. But then do you agree that property can be an evidence of freedom? And that a slave is not free to trade?


> In relation to the "Image of absolute poverty." that someone sent me a url to ( http://picturenet.co.za/photographers/kc ).

So where is the line drawn exactly? It still seems a bit hazy to me... and I am still waiting for even one example
of "absolute poverty" from a capitalist nation.

Now, I would like to get back to work so I can help contribute to a prosperous capitalist economy, and my own
selfish desires. But first to summarise.
Capitalism is a free-choice society. You choose what you do with your time and labor, and the property that you acquire is the evidence of your choice... the evidence of your freedom to choose... and therefore, the evidence of freedom.