Current Events > Second Thought: "Are You Really 'Free' Under Capitalism?"

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xqouhMCJBI

I'm not sure full socialism is the answer, either. But American capitalism as it is now is objectively not working anymore, because the powers that are supposed to keep it regulated have been bought out.

---

I wish we could just look at policy on a case by case basis and see what works without clashing with other policy too badly. Not everything needs to be solely capitalist or socialist.

---

If there are people who have power over you, then you are not free.

---

No. It's capitalism, so you're not "free" but instead cost money, just like everything else.
Your skills, labor, and time are yours to sell, to whomever wants to buy it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

No. It's capitalism, so you're not "free" but instead cost money, just like everything else.
Your skills, labor, and time are yours to sell, to whomever wants to buy it.

This is probably one of the best posts you've ever made, and you don't really make bad posts. I mean what's IN the posts is bad, yes, but that's not really your fault.

If you can't afford to go to the doctor, you are not free.
If you can't afford to miss a single paycheck, you are not free.
If you can't afford to have a child, you are not free.
If your survival depends on your employment, you are not free.

---

Free to die homeless and starving if you don't give away your life to a faceless corporation.

The best kind of freedom. Just so American.

---

America isn't even a capitalist country. Leftists literally try to argue China is a capitalist country so I guess it is understandable for them to achieve that level of dishonesty.

Questionmarktarius posted...

No. It's capitalism, so you're not "free" but instead cost money, just like everything else.
Your skills, labor, and time are yours to sell, to whomever wants to buy it.

Under capitalism yes that's true. But the concept of value and property is something we made up. It's not inherent to a person or society, and we have the power to change those meanings.

---

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

America isn't even a capitalist country.

Then what would you call it?

---

closetjpopfan posted...

and you don't really make bad posts

just how long have you been here?

Under Socialism healthcare is free, housing is free, reeducation is free, food is free. Which would you prefer?

---

Imagine thinking anyone in America is free

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

just how long have you been here?

Here in CE? You've been in CE your whole Gfaqs life? Wow.

Garioshi posted...

If you can't afford to go to the doctor, you are not free.
If you can't afford to miss a single paycheck, you are not free.
If you can't afford to have a child, you are not free.
If your survival depends on your employment, you are not free.

This. I mean, full socialism or communism isn't a correct answer either, but it doesn't have to be what we have now or the USSR. We can easily just do things like "hey, lets all have healthcare"

No one is truly free, it's just how we define freedom and what's important to us.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

This. I mean, full socialism or communism isn't a correct answer either, but it doesn't have to be what we have now or the USSR. We can easily just do things like "hey, lets all have healthcare"

That's called social democracy, it's a capitalist ideology popular in much of Europe.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

This. I mean, full socialism or communism isn't a correct answer either, but it doesn't have to be what we have now or the USSR. We can easily just do things like "hey, lets all have healthcare"

USSR was an autocratic state with the illusion of communism to pacify the masses, but wasn't really communist. And we definitely need some form of universal healthcare.

---

Pure capitalism isn't freedom imo.

A concept in gaming is a soft-cap.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bloodborne/comments/3j33eo/what_is_soft_cap_and_hard_cap/

Or being given the illusion of choice, between 2 bad choices.

A mixture of capitalism and fair regulation is best imo (more than the US currently has). More government can mean more freedom if it allows us to break out out of limited choices. (mostly choices where you are risking your survival, and therefore safety nets allow you to walk the tightrope more freely)

Such is the folly of Libertarianism.
---

I see this guy ditched being a science/hypothetical channel to chase that sweet sweet breadtube money

---

Delirious_Beard posted...

I see this guy ditched being a science/hypothetical channel to chase that sweet sweet breadtube money

Yeah, I subscribed to him a while back when his stuff was more science-related, but it looks like his output as of late has been much more political-oriented and critical of America/capitalism.

---

He says at the end that this video is probably going to get demonetized because of the different political content.

Notti posted...

Pure capitalism isn't freedom imo.

A concept in gaming is a soft-cap.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bloodborne/comments/3j33eo/what_is_soft_cap_and_hard_cap/

Or being given the illusion of choice, between 2 bad choices.

A mixture of capitalism and fair regulation is best imo (more than the US currently has). More government can mean more freedom if it allows us to break out out of limited choices. (mostly choices where you are risking your survival, and therefore safety nets allow you to walk the tightrope more freely)

Such is the folly of Libertarianism.

I dunno. I question the notion that the government providing for all your needs means you are more free. That sounds less like freedom and more like being a glorified pet.

True freedom, I think, involves independence, which necessitates a significant risk of failure and negative consequence.

Not to say I think true freedom is the ideal situation.

Esrac posted...

I dunno. I question the notion that the government providing for all your needs means you are more free. That sounds less like freedom and more like being a glorified pet.

That's what a lot of people seem to want

Esrac posted...

I question the notion that the government providing for all your needs means you are more free. That sounds less like freedom and more like being a glorified pet.

So is a homeless guy more free?

look up the definition of "government"
look up the definition of "freedom"
come back and lets talk

---

Are we REALLY free under capita- oh wait we are that's literally how it works

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Cobalt_Wasps posted...

look up the definition of "government"
look up the definition of "freedom"
come back and lets talk

Who are you talking to?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

what is the first country on the list without a capitalist economy

---

ButteryMales posted...

Who are you talking to?

TC
governments by definition are not free
freedom is chaos....beautiful savory chaos

---

also i ask this all the time but when the fuck did we go from making fun of conservatives for getting their opinions from dumb people on youtube to doing the exact same thing?

AlephZero posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

what is the first country on the list without a capitalist economy

No one is advocating for a system that has no capitalism. Hong Kong is in the top 5 btw.

ButteryMales posted...

So is a homeless guy more free?

As much as anyone else, I suppose. Like I said, part of being truly free means you're free to fail. I dont believe it means everyone has equivalently successful outcomes or has everything they need handed to them, if that is what you're trying to get at.

Esrac posted...

As much as anyone else, I suppose.

What about someone born into a wealthy family?

They say freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and that's how it works in capitalism. You are free to do what you choose, but consequences will exist for laziness, lack of adaptability, and other issues. It has it's problems, like how we let snake oil salesmen in suits tell us they're worth everything and workers are worth nothing, but that's a fault in capitalists, not capitalism.

People wanting socialism have a child's idea of it: everyone does what they want and somehow food, medicine, electricity and other necessities just happen. Since it doesn't work that way government, now in control of the means of production (which includes labor), now has to control it and tell it what it needs, not give it a choice. We need to feed everyone, so you don't get to be a blogger, you get to till the fields. We need doctors to heal the sick, you don't get a choice to stay home, you get to go to med school, and you will do well. Systems that don't do this or have a population that can't be forced find needs aren't met because, surprise, we aren't so noble as to make sure needs are being met before we look to leisure time and luxuries.

Rarely will most of us have much in the way of consequence free choice, so do you want some choice knowing you can't act irresponsibly, or a system where you won't be allowed to for the good of the country.

---

ButteryMales posted...

What about someone born into a wealthy family?

Sure, I suppose.

They have more monetary resources and will probably have a more successful outcome, but I dont believe that makes them more free.

As I tie more freedom with more independence, I would say the most free person would be someone who lives in the wild. Entirely self reliant. But I would also say that person has less potential when it comes to monetary success.

Like, what I'm getting at is the more you rely on or are entangled within the system, the less free you are. But you can have a lot of benefits by working within the system. If that makes sense.

I'm not someone who thinks more freedom is always better.

Living in the wild is still living in a system. Personally, I would hate being confined to it.

coh posted...

That's what a lot of people seem to want

If they want it so bad then they can just voluntarily send themselves to prison. Lmao.
*Free food/water
*Clothes
*Shelter
*Healthcare
*Security
All that good stuff they so desperately desire and all it will cost is their freedom. Which they probabaly never cared for in the first place so nothing of value is lost.

---

ButteryMales posted...

Living in the wild is still living in a system. Personally, I would hate being confined to it.

Capitalism is just a man-made wilderness, where we make up our own rules, which are stupid and useless. I would rather we try not to live in any kind of a wilderness, because the wilderness bites, unless you're like a golden eagle or something, and then it probably rules but I'm not one of those so.

---

ButteryMales posted...

Living in the wild is still living in a system. Personally, I would hate being confined to it.

this is an interesting perspective
i had always considered systems and organization to be a human-created thing
ill have to re-evaluate this

---

ButteryMales posted...

Living in the wild is still living in a system. Personally, I would hate being confined to it.

Sure. But it would be the one with the most independence and freedom, with the fewest restrictions on the individual.

You would be able to do anything you are capable of. But you would only be able to do what you are capable of.

I can't blame you if don't want to exchange so much security for so much independence.

Esrac posted...

Sure. But it would be the one with the most independence and freedom, with the fewest restrictions on the individual.

I disagree. Ever see movies like "Cast Away", "Into the Wild", "127 hours", and so on.

The wild has its own restrictions.

ButteryMales posted...

I disagree. Ever see movies like "Cast Away", "Into the Wild", "127 hours", and so on.

The wild has its own restrictions.

As I said:

You would be able to do anything you are capable of. But you would only be able to do what you are capable of.

There is no existence that doesnt have some degree of restriction, which is why we say fewer or more.

I dont know that citing movies is a great option. I could just as well cite Swiss Family Robinson.

Esrac posted...

As I said:

You would be able to do anything you are capable of. But you would only be able to do what you are capable of.

There is no existence that doesnt have some degree of restriction, which is why we say fewer or more.

I dont know that citing movies is a great option. I could just as well cite Swiss Family Robinson.

2 of the movies are based on true stories.

lightwarrior78 posted...

They say freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and that's how it works in capitalism. You are free to do what you choose, but consequences will exist for laziness, lack of adaptability, and other issues. It has it's problems, like how we let snake oil salesmen in suits tell us they're worth everything and workers are worth nothing, but that's a fault in capitalists, not capitalism.

People wanting socialism have a child's idea of it: everyone does what they want and somehow food, medicine, electricity and other necessities just happen. Since it doesn't work that way government, now in control of the means of production (which includes labor), now has to control it and tell it what it needs, not give it a choice. We need to feed everyone, so you don't get to be a blogger, you get to till the fields. We need doctors to heal the sick, you don't get a choice to stay home, you get to go to med school, and you will do well. Systems that don't do this or have a population that can't be forced find needs aren't met because, surprise, we aren't so noble as to make sure needs are being met before we look to leisure time and luxuries.

Rarely will most of us have much in the way of consequence free choice, so do you want some choice knowing you can't act irresponsibly, or a system where you won't be allowed to for the good of the country.

Except the vast majority of people are not free to do what they choose in capitalism. They can only do what they're allowed to do, what is valued by people who have money, at whatever rate they value it at. And if that rate is not enough for people to survive, the system doesn't care. That's the life most regular people who are not doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc actually live. They just do something to scratch out a living and live paycheck to paycheck, while those at the top reap most of the benefits. Any gains experienced by regular people are almost entirely due to improved and cheapened technology, not meaningful increases in income, rights, or opportunity. That's cheaper flatscreen tvs and smartphones, not more money for a college fund or retirement or a union job.

Not having that free choice isn't just a result of laziness. The vast majority of people under capitalism have never had the type of freedom you're talking about, even when people worked much longer hours under harsher conditions and there was absolutely no safety net to speak of. Were they lazy or unadaptable? And who gets to decide who has to adapt and who is working properly? Certainly not most people.

---

ButteryMales posted...

2 of the movies are based on true stories.

So?

What are you getting at, really? That being in the wild would be difficult to survive in? Yeah, true independent freedom is hard, because you give up a lot of security provided by government. Freedom doesn't mean a life without suffering.

But living in civilization still has a lot of those same restrictions of, I guess, existence, plus whatever restrictions are manufactured by that particular society.

Like, you can still easily have a freak accident and lose a limb, regardless of social structure. But, really, we generally try to place what most might agree are sensible restrictions on freedom, to make our lives more secure.

I'm not saying we should try to be more wild, I'm saying more freedom isn't always the sensible choice.

Esrac posted...

What are you getting at, really?

The wild isn't more free.

Freedom

The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

The wild has more hindrances to how I want to act.