Just my opinion -part 2

[Derek McGowan]

Capitalism is not as free as I would like it to be

I am not saying that capitalism is a prison, nor am I saying that it isn't more free than other systems (of course it is) and I'm sure as hell not saying that we should replace it with one of these other systems which in the end can never work. I'm saying that I see some issues with the system and I do think that it can possibly be replaced in the far future with something that is more freeing (see my attempt at a solution in my book- shameless plug!)

The three points of system wide constraint/coercion that I find are as follows:

(First I must say that these points of coercion/constraint are in my opinion, not being delivered down upon us by some evil, big wig, fat cat, any other individual or any shadow conspiracy group operating like the Illuminati, but are simple realities of an environment of scarcity.)

First and simplest- There are many many people who do not like the ideas behind capitalism. Whether they are jealous of the wealth of others and want it for themselves, whether they have a genuine feeling that we as humans should all work together and take issue when others don't feel like working as a world team, whether they are against greed or egos or whatever. I'm not passing any judgment on how people feel but the fact is that there are hoards of people out there who do feel that way, therefore it is easy to see that a capitalistic society is something of a prison for them. Same as a capitalist in a socialistic society would feel. In fact it is one of capitalism's greatest strength in recognizing that the mentalities of individuals are as wide as the horizon. That is precisely why socialistic systems will never work. But that, by its definition, will also mean that there will be people who feel trapped by a capitalist society. Of course the capitalist will say that those individuals would be free to move away but it is never as simple as that and anyone who argues that it is is just not being honest about the world around them.

Second, I can't do what I want to do- What I mean by this is that A. if I don't have the resources to follow a certain dream of mine, then I can't do it and B. (and this is for me is probably the most important thing on this entire list of issues) I more than likely don't even know what my true dream is because society funnels most of us down certain paths--those that make money. Allow me to expand.

A. Let's say I have a true passion for playing video games and one, I'm not that great so I cant compete on the elite level where there is some money to be made and/or two, I play a relatively obscure game that most people ignore. Whether or not I deserve to make money at this passion is not my point (in a competitive system, of course I don't) but the fact that I can't give my full time and effort to this thing that gives me fulfillment. I have to spend 8 hours a day, more or less, doing something I'd rather not be doing in order to eat and pay my parents rent. A truly free system would allow anyone to spend ALL of their time doing whatever they so desire.

B. This one really upsets me. I, as an artist, am lucky because art is a part of (or at least was) every child's early education. Therefore I was exposed to my passion by the current system and I was then able to make decisions on how my life would come to include art. Individuals whose life purpose includes history, mathematics, or science also are lucky. Musicians are lucky. These are all standard courses for all children in elementary and middle school. But that list is far from the full array of possibilities of passions that people may have. What if I'm naturally inclined to garden? That is not a subject I would get exposed to and if I live in the city, I may never get my passion brought to the surface. There are BILLIONS of people out there that have NO IDEA what their passion is. They have no idea what work would give their lives meaning and fulfillment so they go through life in something of a blah mode feeling "is this it?" of life. The problem is that there is only so much time in the world, so many resources to expose children to different subjects. We don't have a million hours to show each child a thousand different possibilities of work in life and then it is further compounded by a capitalistic society that, for the good of the child, exposes them to a relatively few occupations, mostly those that historically have been shown to make money. Regardless of whether there may not be another solution (I think there is- a futuristic one) the fact is that this is a problem. If you know what your passion is and you are kept from doing it then you know exactly what I mean. If you don't know what your passion is then trust me, life can be much much more fulfilling than what you may currently experience.

Allow me to add a C. Even if you know your passion, we are constrained by the market. We are many times prevented from doing what we love full time because the market doesn't consider what we do to be valuable. Example, there are thousands of graduates from liberal arts colleges and those that hold degrees in psychology that will never find a job in their fields. Same as there are thousands of folks working honest hours as truck drivers who are only truck drivers because that's one of the few (relative few) industries that are hiring. Same with nurses. Its even worse when people have businesses, done all the right things, gave it all they got, got multiple years out of their business and suddenly the market taste goes the other way. You open a high class bar, operate it for years, receive letters of gratitude from loyal patrons, keep the place updated, but then your place just goes out of style and you are out of a job. And what about the sad fact that in a capitalistic society, you can literally be the greatest of all time in your certain craft, I mean literally the most skilled--the greatest. I think its sad that if your craft is not deemed valuable by the market then you are forced into another craft. Again, the point is not whether you deserve to be rich because of your skill, instead the point is that you are constrained/coerced into a line of work you did not choose.

My third and final issue deals with capitalistic coercion- This is NOT physical coercion and because it can be overcome with will power, I consider it to be my least objectionable point to make. We are assaulted daily by the mental coercion of advertisement. Again, with enough will power you will easily realize that most of the products that "you just gotta have," you really have no need for at all. But while many of use do possess this will power, there are many who do not. They think that it is perfectly normal to want $8,000 shiny rims on their cars and $300 jeans. We are told day after day that the good life includes all of these things that cost thousands of dollars. 6 dollar cups of coffee, 100 dollar bottles of wine and 2,000 dollar mac computers when all these items can be had for much less. In fact, the pull of marketing is so strong that I almost can't blame those who are jealous of the rich and who want to have their wealth redistributed to them-- its so that they can live the life they see on the TV. So, how is this a problem of coercion and not simply a dislike for marketing. It is mental coercion because it is hard to find, follow or search for your passion. The TV says that you should be like this (and the TV says that because the producer of the commercial wants to sell more products- the selling of products is itself a product of a capitalistic society) and it is hard to see otherwise. There are boatloads of teens in my community who want to play football or be a rapper. Not because they think the game is fun, not because they like to spend their time coming up with creative rhymes but simply because they are shown on TV as being successful. Keeping up with the Joneses is breed into and feed into today's youth until the point that they are merely slaves of the mind. In fact the goal of some industries is pointedly to hypnotize and brainwash people into a culture that would then make them ripe for the picking. I'm NOT placing a moral judgment on how a business gathers its customers but I am saying that because of that hypnotism, there are scores of people who are merely following the directives of others. And that does not represent freedom, and that... is my problem.

Thank you for reading (and I hope you read the whole thing before you respond so that I am not accused of something that I did not say or mean)

[Selene]

I understand your points.

I would ask you to define "free" as you used it in the following sentence:

A truly free system would allow anyone to spend ALL of their time doing whatever they so desire.

Welcome to OL. You are a good addition to Michael and Kat's madhouse.

A...

Post Script:

Chess and Spades - a man after my own heart.

[jts]

Derek, I will respond to one part per post.

First and simplest- There are many many people who do not like the ideas behind capitalism. Whether they are jealous of the wealth of others and want it for themselves, whether they have a genuine feeling that we as humans should all work together and take issue when others don't feel like working as a world team, whether they are against greed or egos or whatever. I'm not passing any judgment on how people feel but the fact is that there are hoards of people out there who do feel that way, therefore it is easy to see that a capitalistic society is something of a prison for them. Same as a capitalist in a socialistic society would feel. In fact it is one of capitalism's greatest strength in recognizing that the mentalities of individuals are as wide as the horizon. That is precisely why socialistic systems will never work. But that, by its definition, will also mean that there will be people who feel trapped by a capitalist society. Of course the capitalist will say that those individuals would be free to move away but it is never as simple as that and anyone who argues that it is is just not being honest about the world around them.

First, we should define our terms. What is capitalism? Ayn Rand defines 'capitalism' as a social system based on recognition of rights. This is the definition I use.

If someone does not like capitalism, what does that mean? Does it mean they don't like rights to be recognized? Would they prefer rights to be violated?

Jealous (envious) of the wealth of others? Wrong attitude. Perhaps they should be inspired by the wealth of others and try to achieve similar wealth. If that is not possible for them, then they should be glad that they have a good job created by their superiors, like Eddie Willers had a good job working for Dagny Taggart.

Not passing judgement? Why not?

Capitalist society is something of a prison for them? How is recognition of rights something of a prison for them? If they are imprisoned, it is not because of recognition of rights (freedom) but because of their own incompetence. Even with their incompetence, they are better off with freedom (Eddie Willers working for Dagny Taggart) than they would be in a less free world. Besides that, in a free world they have a chance of rising above their incompetence by means of education and job experience and internet, made possible by freedom.

[jts]

A. Let's say I have a true passion for playing video games and one, I'm not that great so I cant compete on the elite level where there is some money to be made and/or two, I play a relatively obscure game that most people ignore. Whether or not I deserve to make money at this passion is not my point (in a competitive system, of course I don't) but the fact that I can't give my full time and effort to this thing that gives me fulfillment. I have to spend 8 hours a day, more or less, doing something I'd rather not be doing in order to eat and pay my parents rent. A truly free system would allow anyone to spend ALL of their time doing whatever they so desire.

In a free world, you would have the freedom to spend 8 hours a day playing video games. But it might be not a good idea if you also want to pay the rent and all that. In order to be able to play video games all day and at the same time be financially comfortable, you want to live in a very affluent world where you can make plenty of money working 2 hours a day or 8 hours a week, maybe like in the Jetsons cartoons. That kind of world can be made possible only by capitalism.

[jts]

B. This one really upsets me. I, as an artist, am lucky because art is a part of (or at least was) every child's early education. Therefore I was exposed to my passion by the current system and I was then able to make decisions on how my life would come to include art. Individuals whose life purpose includes history, mathematics, or science also are lucky. Musicians are lucky. These are all standard courses for all children in elementary and middle school. But that list is far from the full array of possibilities of passions that people may have. What if I'm naturally inclined to garden? That is not a subject I would get exposed to and if I live in the city, I may never get my passion brought to the surface. There are BILLIONS of people out there that have NO IDEA what their passion is. They have no idea what work would give their lives meaning and fulfillment so they go through life in something of a blah mode feeling "is this it?" of life. The problem is that there is only so much time in the world, so many resources to expose children to different subjects. We don't have a million hours to show each child a thousand different possibilities of work in life and then it is further compounded by a capitalistic society that, for the good of the child, exposes them to a relatively few occupations, mostly those that historically have been shown to make money. Regardless of whether there may not be another solution (I think there is- a futuristic one) the fact is that this is a problem. If you know what your passion is and you are kept from doing it then you know exactly what I mean. If you don't know what your passion is then trust me, life can be much much more fulfilling than what you may currently experience.

There is a saying: Blessed is the man who has found his work.

How does one find one's work? If that's a problem, that's what they have guidance counselors and vocational counselors and interest inventories and aptitude tests for. There is nothing about capitalism (recognition of rights) that would hinder finding one's passion. I would expect that in an affluent society (which it would be), people would be living at a higher level in Maslow's hierarchy of needs and therefore would demand more from life and that therefore businesses would arise that would help with finding one's passion.

Also I suspect that in a capitalist society, there would be so many jobs (and good jobs) that people would have a problem deciding which one to accept. A wonderful problem to have. And the employers would have to make the jobs attractive, not just in the money sense.

[Selene]

Also I suspect that in a capitalist society, there would be so many jobs (and good jobs) that people would have a problem deciding which one to accept. A wonderful problem to have. And the employers would have to make the jobs attractive, not just in the money sense.

Ah, like North Dakota ...

[jts]

Allow me to add a C. Even if you know your passion, we are constrained by the market. We are many times prevented from doing what we love full time because the market doesn't consider what we do to be valuable. Example, there are thousands of graduates from liberal arts colleges and those that hold degrees in psychology that will never find a job in their fields. Same as there are thousands of folks working honest hours as truck drivers who are only truck drivers because that's one of the few (relative few) industries that are hiring. Same with nurses. Its even worse when people have businesses, done all the right things, gave it all they got, got multiple years out of their business and suddenly the market taste goes the other way. You open a high class bar, operate it for years, receive letters of gratitude from loyal patrons, keep the place updated, but then your place just goes out of style and you are out of a job. And what about the sad fact that in a capitalistic society, you can literally be the greatest of all time in your certain craft, I mean literally the most skilled--the greatest. I think its sad that if your craft is not deemed valuable by the market then you are forced into another craft. Again, the point is not whether you deserve to be rich because of your skill, instead the point is that you are constrained/coerced into a line of work you did not choose.

In a free market, you are free to follow your passion but you are not free to force people to buy what they don't want to buy.

But sometimes passion wins. There is a story about Johann Strauss senior vs his son Johann Strauss junior. The son was hell bent determined to be a composer of music like his father. The father was hell bent determined to prevent his son from becoming a composer, because it was a hard life, hard to make a living that way. So the son took music lessons on the sneak. Then one day the son decided to give a concert. The father was enraged and hired 2 musclemen to physically prevent this from happening. The son gave such a wonderful performance and the audience enjoyed it so much that the musclemen hoisted Strauss junior on their shoulders and cheered along with the audience. And the father was won over too.

[Selene]

In a free market, you are free to follow your passion but you are not free to force people to buy what they don't want to buy.

But sometimes passion wins. There is a story about Johann Strauss senior vs his son Johann Strauss junior. The son was hell bent determined to be a composer of music like his father. The father was hell bent determined to prevent his son from becoming a composer, because it was a hard life, hard to make a living that way. So the son took music lessons on the sneak. Then one day the son decided to give a concert. The father was enraged and hired 2 musclemen to physically prevent this from happening. The son gave such a wonderful performance and the audience enjoyed it so much that the musclemen hoisted Strauss junior on their shoulders and cheered along with the audience. And the father was won over too.

Nice story, thanks.

I do not think though that Derrick would argue that an individual would be forced to buy "things."

My feeling is that he is positing a "new freedom."

I'm certainly willing to listen.

A...

[jts]

My third and final issue deals with capitalistic coercion- This is NOT physical coercion and because it can be overcome with will power, I consider it to be my least objectionable point to make. We are assaulted daily by the mental coercion of advertisement. Again, with enough will power you will easily realize that most of the products that "you just gotta have," you really have no need for at all. But while many of use do possess this will power, there are many who do not. They think that it is perfectly normal to want $8,000 shiny rims on their cars and $300 jeans. We are told day after day that the good life includes all of these things that cost thousands of dollars. 6 dollar cups of coffee, 100 dollar bottles of wine and 2,000 dollar mac computers when all these items can be had for much less. In fact, the pull of marketing is so strong that I almost can't blame those who are jealous of the rich and who want to have their wealth redistributed to them-- its so that they can live the life they see on the TV. So, how is this a problem of coercion and not simply a dislike for marketing. It is mental coercion because it is hard to find, follow or search for your passion. The TV says that you should be like this (and the TV says that because the producer of the commercial wants to sell more products- the selling of products is itself a product of a capitalistic society) and it is hard to see otherwise. There are boatloads of teens in my community who want to play football or be a rapper. Not because they think the game is fun, not because they like to spend their time coming up with creative rhymes but simply because they are shown on TV as being successful. Keeping up with the Joneses is breed into and feed into today's youth until the point that they are merely slaves of the mind. In fact the goal of some industries is pointedly to hypnotize and brainwash people into a culture that would then make them ripe for the picking. I'm NOT placing a moral judgment on how a business gathers its customers but I am saying that because of that hypnotism, there are scores of people who are merely following the directives of others. And that does not represent freedom, and that... is my problem.

I have zero comprehension of the mind set of a person who has so little decision making ability that advertisements make decisions for him.

Maybe I'm a freak. Many years ago, a certain young woman was telling me some qualities of character that she thought she saw in me. She was buttering me up so much that I was getting worried about her. The general drift of what she was saying was that I am "uninfluenced by the world".

[BaalChatzaf]

Capitalism is not as free as I would like it to be

That is because we have not had capitalism in this country for over 100 years.

There are very few places where capitalism has happened in modern times.

Hong Kong is one of them.

But not the U.S. The government has had its heavy hand on the tiller and in the pockets of businessmen and now we have the Crony System which is a cartoon of capitalism.

Ba'al Chatzf

[anthony]

I understand your points.

I would ask you to define "free" as you used it in the following sentence:

A truly free system would allow anyone to spend ALL of their time doing whatever they so desire.

A...

There's Derek's central premise and fallacy. First, a "truly free system" "allows" nobody anything. It simply protects what is your's to begin with.

Second, who pays? (for your 'freedom' from cold reality). Someone has to.

Are they free, too?

[Selene]

I understand your points.

I would ask you to define "free" as you used it in the following sentence:

A truly free system would allow anyone to spend ALL of their time doing whatever they so desire.

A...

There's Derek's central premise and fallacy. First, a "truly free system" "allows" nobody anything. It simply protects what is your's to begin with.

Second, who pays? (for your 'freedom' from cold reality). Someone has to.

Are they free, too?

Correct, that would be the rebuttal argument. However, that is why "defining terms" is the first step to honest rhetoiric/argumentation/debate.

At least that has been my training and it works.

A...

[Derek McGowan]

I define freedom as my ability to spend my life doing the things that I want to do. I do not define freedom as an ability to get others to do things for me or to force them to do things for me or having to do with others in any sense unless I so choose to deal with them. My opening post takes reality into mind when I say that in an environment of scarcity, there is a limited amount of resources and thus things need to be paid for, in some way, by someone. I'm not denying that and I don't think we can do anything at all about that reality until some futuristic technological advances that place which physically change the environment from one of scarcity into one of abundance. This may never happen (which, for me, would be sad) and it definitely wont happen in my lifetime. I only make my point to show where capitalism (apparently not JTS definition) has its slight drawbacks to a vision of total freedom.

I suppose I do take issue with Jts definition of capitalism as a recognition of rights. For example, where does the privatization of the ocean become a recognition of rights? Why do humans have the self evident right to claim land? I fully understand the right of property over something I made but it seems that the idea of claiming land ( and its not like we are needed to shepard the land as that nature can take care of itself) is purely a way to gather up more and more resources for free more or less (these resources were not made by you) and then to use these resources for monetary gain. I don't pass judgement on someone who wants monetary gain but it is a definition of capitalism AS a way of monetary gain that I speak of when I say the word.

[Derek McGowan]

There's Derek's central premise and fallacy. First, a "truly free system" "allows" nobody anything. It simply protects what is your's to begin with.

Second, who pays? (for your 'freedom' from cold reality). Someone has to.

Are they free, too?

perhaps I am missing your point...

[Derek McGowan]

I have zero comprehension of the mind set of a person who has so little decision making ability that advertisements make decisions for him.

Maybe I'm a freak. Many years ago, a certain young woman was telling me some qualities of character that she thought she saw in me. She was buttering me up so much that I was getting worried about her. The general drift of what she was saying was that I am "uninfluenced by the world".

Because you are not one who falls into this category, doesn't take away from the fact that others do. Also you seem to acknowledge the fact that others ARE greatly influenced by marketing/propaganda etc when you describe your story of the certain young female

[jts]

Derek, about advertisements and marketing and propaganda:

There is probably a law somewhere against telling lies. That probably would be called 'fraud'. What more would you have?

If a new and wonderful product is invented, would you want the world to not be permitted to know about it?

For people who can't make their own decisions, what would you offer as a solution?

There is a story about Ayn Rand's sister, Nora Rosenbaum. She went to a store to buy toothpaste. The shelf had many brands of toothpaste. She asked the clerk which brand to buy. She came home upset: he refused to tell me which brand of toothpaste to buy. Maybe the solution to this problem of not being able to make decisions is to live in a world where you get to make decisions, namely capitalism.

[Derek McGowan]

Jealous (envious) of the wealth of others? Wrong attitude. Perhaps they should be inspired by the wealth of others and try to achieve similar wealth. If that is not possible for them, then they should be glad that they have a good job created by their superiors, like Eddie Willers had a good job working for Dagny Taggart.

Not passing judgement? Why not?

Capitalist society is something of a prison for them? How is recognition of rights something of a prison for them?

It may be the wrong attitude but that doesn't mean that they should be forced to think like you either.

My post was not to pass judgement, I can do that in another post. I like to stay on subject and my subject was the the slight drawbacks of a system where the accumulation of wealth is the primary goal ( the definition of capitalism I was using) and how that goal will SOMETIMES prevent individuals from doing what they really love in life.

I was not using your definition of capitalism.

[Derek McGowan]

How does one find one's work? If that's a problem, that's what they have guidance counselors and vocational counselors and interest inventories and aptitude tests for.

it is at this point that I feel that you are using yourself and your personal story as a stand in for the entire world. Anytime you would like to make a claim which is so simple reveals that you choose to ignore the real ways that the world works. Lets not be idealistic JTS. You can work out of your house today, poll 10 people (which I have done on numerous occasions) and I guarantee that 70% of them either don't know where there true passion lies, or had to leave those passions behind as the the bills came due. Those bills are a reality of the capitalism that I so forth define and so too is the hindrance of ones passions because of those bills.

[Derek McGowan]

Derek, about advertisements and marketing and propaganda:

There is probably a law somewhere against telling lies. That probably would be called 'fraud'. What more would you have?

If a new and wonderful product is invented, would you want the world to not be permitted to know about it?

For people who can't make their own decisions, what would you offer as a solution?

There is a story about Ayn Rand's sister, Nora Rosenbaum. She went to a store to buy toothpaste. The shelf had many brands of toothpaste. She asked the clerk which brand to buy. She came home upset: he refused to tell me which brand of toothpaste to buy. Maybe the solution to this problem of not being able to make decisions is to live in a world where you get to make decisions, namely capitalism.

it is becoming clear that you are purposely misrepresenting my points, I never said anything about fraud. I never said anything about offering solutions. I have nothing against letting the world know what I've produced. My issue is that people, not all but many, and by nature, are highly influenced by certain kinds of phenomena such as peer pressure, celebrity endorsements, certain colors, etc. Marketers are paid to find those things and use them to get people to buy the products. Again, I pass no judgement on that. All Im saying is that that creates a kind of slave.

I dont understand how your story has relevance to my point. In fact it seems like the sister is more satisfied in an environment where people tell her what to do. She feels that way, to the high extent that she does, BECAUSE she was raised in a society where people told her what to do. If the same is done in a commercial world, even if it is not by forced coercion, it is still not freedom of choice. Again, I stated that I find this aspect of the lack of freedom in current society to be the least objectionable because people like you and I can see past all the commercialism. But for you to simply discount the fact that many people can't see past the commercialism is a serious lack of observation. Of course people should wake up and make their own decisions, I can make that statement with full conviction. No, I don't think people should be "protected" from mental coercion--I think they should study, research, and learn to think for themselves. But I acknowledge that there are people who have not learned this skill and I merely observe that for THEM, they are not completely free.

[jts]

my subject was the the slight drawbacks of a system where the accumulation of wealth is the primary goal ( the definition of capitalism I was using) and how that goal will SOMETIMES prevent individuals from doing what they really love in life.

Now we have a definition. Capitalism is defined (by you) as a system where wealth is the primary goal.

This should not be confused with "private ownership of the means of production", the conventional definition. Not the same.

I don't think I ever heard of a social system where wealth is the primary goal except in Star Trek, the Ferengi rules of acquisition. That's where they make it into a social system. In the Human world, you can make wealth your primary goal but that is your personal choice, not a social system. And after you have achieved enough wealth, you can make something else your primary goal.

There is a video somewhere about a scientific study about what motivates people most. Is it money? Or what? The conclusion from this study was that at lower levels of wealth most people are motivated mostly by money but at higher levels of wealth most people are more motivated by other things than by wealth.

If you accept Ayn Rand's definition (not originated by me) of capitalism, "social system based on recognition of rights", you won't have any problems with capitalism. If you want to pursue something other than wealth, you would be free to do so.

[Selene]

Derek:

Working with your definition that a "truly free" society would exist when abundance would reach every person in the society with all the "basics" of life which would be declared, or, itemized.

Is that a correct statement, or, fair statement of your meaning?

A...

[anthony]

There's Derek's central premise and fallacy. First, a "truly free system" "allows" nobody anything. It simply protects what is your's to begin with.

Second, who pays? (for your 'freedom' from cold reality). Someone has to.

Are they free, too?

perhaps I am missing your point...

Perhaps. Freedom is the freedom to do what you want without intervention. It's inviolable, and cannot be granted, given or "allowed". By any person, or especially by government. The latter's only task is to protect that inherent right from interference. It is freedom of action; not the freedom to 'have' whatever you feel you want or need, at cost to another - as it must always be.

In other words, there isn't any freedom without the freedom to fail: to be wrong, to make mistakes - even to be impoverished temporarily. The person who absconds from his direct relationship with reality spreads the load on to those who don't - wherever individual rights are NOT protected. The premise of such a society is that all men are born equal.. and must be forced to remain so. In an objective society, we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Period.

(Perhaps, it is this egalitarian society you advocate.)

I highly recommend to you AR's 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

[Jonathan]

I define freedom as my ability to spend my life doing the things that I want to do.

I want fine cuisine to appear in front of me whenever I wish for it. I want to fly on private jets and magic carpets and go wherever I wish whenever I wish and see the sights of the world. I want to stay in fabulous hotel suites and be treated like a rock star. I want fashion models to throw themselves at me. I want to be the greatest professional basketball player of all time. And I want all of the above without having to do any work, or put in any effort whatsoever. That's how I want to spend my life.

Since the above is not going to happen, am I therefore not "free" by your definition? If reality doesn't conform to my wishes, I'm somehow not "free," and, not only that, but you consider it a "drawback of capitalism"?!!!!

Logically, that would suggest that you think that there is an alternative system to capitalism which does allow people to successfully wish for things.

You say that you "do not define freedom as an ability to get others to do things for me or to force them to do things for me or having to do with others in any sense unless I so choose to deal with them."

If that's true, then all political systems have the same "drawback" that you attribute to capitalism: One cannot wish for and magically acquire food, free travel, room and board, financial success, fame, etc., in any system without forcing others to produce it or pay for it.

Not being able to have one's wishes granted is not a defect of capitalism. Rather, it's a fact of reality. Our means of existence doesn't just magically appear. We have to produce it.

Let me ask it this way: Let's say that there's a guy named Charles, and he is the only person in existence. Is he free by your definition? If he wishes to continue living, he must do certain things to provide for his existence, even if he doesn't want to do them, no? He can't spend his time doing whatever he wants. If all he wants to do is dance and sing, then he's not going to live very long. Dancing and singing won't provide food of shelter.

So, what would allow Charles to be "free" by your definition?

J

[Jonathan]

This one really upsets me. I, as an artist, am lucky because art is a part of (or at least was) every child's early education. Therefore I was exposed to my passion by the current system and I was then able to make decisions on how my life would come to include art. Individuals whose life purpose includes history, mathematics, or science also are lucky. Musicians are lucky. These are all standard courses for all children in elementary and middle school. But that list is far from the full array of possibilities of passions that people may have. What if I'm naturally inclined to garden? That is not a subject I would get exposed to and if I live in the city, I may never get my passion brought to the surface. There are BILLIONS of people out there that have NO IDEA what their passion is.

One fact that you seem to be overlooking is that most people don't experience what you do: they don't have a life's passion, and never will. They don't have that burning desire to create and produce. Even when exposed to endless possible interests, and being offered a free education, they will never have the fire in the belly that you have.

J

[Selene]

Looks to me that this "totally free" society would be the Eloi society without the Morlocks...