Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

I disagree with the premise. I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich. They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.

My uncle made well over six-figures for years. He didn't feel "entitled" to it. He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable. He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.

The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger. What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.

Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments. He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments. He simply got it because he invested wisely.

You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking. I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.

We're not. I don't feel 'entitled' to anything. My stock portfolio made 23% last year. Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off. Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.

Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments. Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?

Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Is that worth a 23% return to you?

parasites like the Walton heirs

Parasites? You must have a different definition of the word.

Perhaps you could share your definition?

"parasite (plural parasites)
(pejorative) A person who lives on other people's efforts or expense and gives little back. [from 16th c.]
(biology) an organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, while not contributing towards that other organism sufficiently to cover the cost to that other organism..."

Wal-Mart?s Walton family are parasites and moral pariahs and should be treated that way | Dangerous Minds

"As everyone should know by now, but it still bears repeating, the Walton family is the richest family in the world and they collectively own over 50% of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and second largest corporation.

"The family is worth a combined total of $150 billion as of August 2013 and the six most prominent members of the family have approximately the same net worth as the bottom 30% of American families combined.

"They didn’t do a goddamn thing to earn this money.

"Nothing.

"They inherited every cent of their billions..."

"If it was a sea of faceless shareholders, well, that’s harder to personify, but this is ONE family.

"Wal-Mart is America’s #1 private employer.

"And they don’t pay a living wage."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We should cure cancer:

"On the other hand, capitalism—and competition—is regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly.

"At least, capitalism at its best does that.

"But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulated—or both.

"One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain.

"One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?).

"These relentless opportunists—or corporations—frequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance.

"In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."

Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today

But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulated—or both.

Government is screwing up capitalism? That's a shocker.

There's little shocking about rich bitches screwing up government.

Or about the poor bitches who voted for liberals and whine about the results.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?

Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Is that worth a 23% return to you?

parasites like the Walton heirs

Parasites? You must have a different definition of the word.

Perhaps you could share your definition?

"parasite (plural parasites)
(pejorative) A person who lives on other people's efforts or expense and gives little back. [from 16th c.]
(biology) an organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, while not contributing towards that other organism sufficiently to cover the cost to that other organism..."

Wal-Mart?s Walton family are parasites and moral pariahs and should be treated that way | Dangerous Minds

"As everyone should know by now, but it still bears repeating, the Walton family is the richest family in the world and they collectively own over 50% of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and second largest corporation.

"The family is worth a combined total of $150 billion as of August 2013 and the six most prominent members of the family have approximately the same net worth as the bottom 30% of American families combined.

"They didn’t do a goddamn thing to earn this money.

"Nothing.

"They inherited every cent of their billions..."

"If it was a sea of faceless shareholders, well, that’s harder to personify, but this is ONE family.

"Wal-Mart is America’s #1 private employer.

"And they don’t pay a living wage."

A person who lives on other people's efforts or expense and gives little back

Sounds more like the typical Dem voter than the Waltons.

They didn’t do a goddamn thing to earn this money.

Sure they did. And they sure as hell did a lot more than the typical whiny liberal did to earn that money.

"Wal-Mart is America’s #1 private employer.

Awesome! And unlike Obama's "Green jobs" that we've wasted billions on, WalMart provides a product that hundreds of millions freely purchase, pays billions in wages, taxes and dividends.

"And they don’t pay a living wage."

If you don't make enough at your low-skill, low-wage job, stop whining on the internet and acquire a skill. Nothing worse than a whiny, poor little bitch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?


Is that worth a 23% return to you?

The Walton heirs and John Paulson are not parasites, moron. They didn't take their money from anyone. Learn the definition of the term. It doesn't mean "rich people you don't like."



Horseshit. The term "extracting" is just a pejorative term meaning "producing."

They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Corporations profit from taxation? That's news to me. How do the Waltons make use of the NSA? Your hero Obama is the one who authorized them to record all our phone calls, not the the Waltons. You can't just go around blaming corporations for everything the government does without at least posting some kind of plausible connection. Otherwise people will write you off as a kook.

Whoops1 Too late.

US corporations currently profit from paying less federal income tax than they paid fifty years ago, and directly from wars of aggression, or do you imagine Haliburton's Iraq billions did not come from taxpayers?

The NSA's corporate partners may not include Walmart, but Walton heirs still benefit from a surveillance state that's owned by the richest 1% of its citizens.

"Every day, there is new information on the shrinking of the scope of liberty and personal privacy.

"Thursday, for example, the New York Times reported:

"The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.

"In court documents filed by Google and obtained by Consumer Watchdog, the tech giant argued 'a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.'

"Basically, Google claims the right to read the e-mail of all its customers in order to push ads to them based on key words in the communications.

"Earlier, The New American reported on the participation of Facebook with government inquiries into users’ private data stored by the social-media company.

"In light of the collusion of corporate, technological, and government interests it is important to rehearse the list of those companies whose cooperation in the various NSA snooping programs is facilitating the construction of the surveillance state."

Who Are the NSA's Corporate Partners?

US corporations currently profit from paying less federal income tax than they paid fifty years ago

And they pay much much more to comply with idiotic liberal regulations.

 

[gnarlylove]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Yeah, everyone except slaves. Slaves being defined as those with extremely limited options. Turns out, most laborers are slaves in this sense (where over between half and 80% of all new jobs are low paying jobs, mostly service where you are not in control of your labor but are told what to do).

A person born in a family with a ticket to Harvard is free to apply their labor to any field, including those unrelated to the productive economy (financial speculation).

A person born in a family with 120,000 in debt is not offered the choice to apply their labor in positions they desire. They have a range of options that consist of Retail, Fast Food, Landscaping and migrant work or unemployment, food stamps and homelessness. These conditions are not the result of free choice but are indeed the result of free markets. They are the result of narrow choices made by virtue of their birth, which they had nothing to do with of course.

The core premise of free markets is that humans don't have rights except those gained on the labor market. So unless you work (or someone works for you) you don't have rights to food, clean water etc.

 

[dblack]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Yeah, everyone except slaves.

Yep.

Slaves being defined as those with extremely limited options.

Nope. "Slave" being defined as those without the freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

 

[gnarlylove]

You're telling me low-income workers with no ability to pay for college or a lucrative trade without assuming major debts is able to choose how to apply their labor? Well if they want to survive, they must apply it where it's accepted. Currently the rate of acceptance in our economy is 11% of folks who apply each month can expect to be accepted and hired. See, that isn't a choice. A person must accept whatever job there is and even then only 11% percent of people can become employed. How is that genuine free application of labor? Your idea of free application of labor sounds like any application of labor is free but then that makes the word free meaningless.

If you want truly free markets look at Sub-Saharan Africa. The restrictions on capital are near zero. Free markets are flourishing there and making a very narrow sector wealthy while slaughtering and starving millions. Even enslaving children to work to produce chocolate, like Nestle. Free market conditions are alive and well there but no one wants a society like that unless you're among the narrow sector benefiting...but that can't be the aim of an economy for it destitutes much of humanity.

 

[dblack]

Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.

 

[Andylusion]

You're telling me low-income workers with no ability to pay for college or a lucrative trade without assuming major debts is able to choose how to apply their labor? Well if they want to survive, they must apply it where it's accepted. Currently the rate of acceptance in our economy is 11% of folks who apply each month can expect to be accepted and hired. See, that isn't a choice. A person must accept whatever job there is and even then only 11% percent of people can become employed. How is that genuine free application of labor? Your idea of free application of labor sounds like any application of labor is free but then that makes the word free meaningless.

If you want truly free markets look at Sub-Saharan Africa. The restrictions on capital are near zero. Free markets are flourishing there and making a very narrow sector wealthy while slaughtering and starving millions. Even enslaving children to work to produce chocolate, like Nestle. Free market conditions are alive and well there but no one wants a society like that unless you're among the narrow sector benefiting...but that can't be the aim of an economy for it destitutes much of humanity.

Phil Robertson.
Steve Jobs.
Dave Thomas.

Lowell Hawthorne (immigrant from Jamiaca. No education. Worked in a stock room. Now runs Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery and Grill. Millionaire)

Carlos Castro. (Worked in a Factory in El Salvador during the guerilla wars. Escaped to the US, worked as a janitor, and later a cook at a restaurant. Started a new job at a construction site. Saved up money until he could pay to have his wife and kids come to the US legally. Saved up more money and opened a construction business. Millionaire.)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-self-made-immigrant-millionaires.html?page=all

Numerous other similar stories.

Michael Rubin. At age 12 was running a business in his parents basement. By high school he had a small chain of shops. Started an online business, and sold out to Ebay for 2.1 Million.

John Paul DeJoria. Never went to college. Had a job as janitor. When he started selling hair products, he was homeless, living in his car. Now a billionaire.

Chris Gardner. At one point homeless. Got a job at Dean Witter Reynolds, for a mere $1,000 a month. Later opened his own company. Now a multi-Millionaire.

Sidney Weinberg. Worked as a janitor. Promoted to "mail room". Instead of hating the executives like most dumb leftist Americans, he actually liked them, and Goldman Sachs funded his college education, and later promoted to a board member, and later CEO.

I could list you hundreds of other stories, of people who had no money, could not, or did not, go to college, and didn't buy your liberal leftard belief that they were locked into poverty for life.

They made choices that made them extremely wealthy.

And I have specifically left off the hundreds of other stories of people who while earning minimum wage, or low wages, were able to work their way through college.

I'm sorry but this mythical crap you people make up, that someone people who make choices that result in them being poor, means they are stuck in perpetual poverty with no hope of escape.... it's all crap.

And you people have to make up that crap to justify your ideology. Because the reality is, it's the poor impoverished farmers in Pre-78 China, that were truly hopeless. You were born poor, you lived poor, and you died poor. You had no hope of anything better. Equality for all... equally impoverished, with nothing to look forward to in the future, but death.

Lastly....

You are confusing free-markets, with lawlessness.

Not the same thing. In fact, Capitalism requires law. Without law to enforce property rights, there is no real free-market capitalism. That's more like Anarchy and whoever has enough force wins. That's not a free market system of voluntary exchange.

In order for people to have property, they have to have property rights. If I can enslave you, that's not property rights, because you have no rights. Automatically that isn't capitalism.

Capitalism requires laws to enforce justice. The difference is, you seemingly equate justice, with dictating what other people do with their property. I view justice, as protecting people's rights to do with their property as they see fit.

Mixing in these completely unrelated problems of people slaughtering each other, is just proof you lost this argument.

Look at all the people being slaughtered and killed in Venezuela. Well that must be a problem of socialism.... right? They have nationalized nearly everything. So obviously socialism causes people to kill each other!

That argument there, is just as valid as your argument above. They are equally stupid arguments. Singapore is one of the most Capitalistic city-states in the world, and also has the lowest crime rate of any major city (last I looked). A few years back it made number 1, on the top safest tourist destinations. Must be capitalism that caused that.

The two are not directly linked. Anyone who doesn't have their head shoved so far up their ideology, that they can't see, would know this.

 

[gnarlylove]

Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.

What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor? If that's what you mean by freedom, you're right, my idea of freedom doesn't fit. Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence. They must apply their labor according to whoever accepts them, according to an external force. In cases of the government you call this violence, in the case of capitalist enterprise you call it freedom/free market/free application of labor?

 

[georgephillip]

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

An accident of birth predetermines that people are only born equal as free citizens. Some are going to be better looking than others. A definite plus. Some are going to be born with talents. A definite plus. Some are going to have more resouces from their families. A definite plus. Others are going to be tall, short, strong, weak, smart or dumb.

The game of life is not what you started with, but how far you can get with what you have been given. The simple fact that a baby born poor, ugly, and untalented, can become a very rich person through his/her own efforts, belies all of your propaganda about how the game is rigged.

The vast majority of disadvantaged adults in this society are the products of their own bad decisions. They have rigged the system against themselves.

"President Obama’s second Inaugural Address used soaring language to reaffirm America’s commitment to the dream of equality of opportunity: 'We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.'”

Do you actually believe Obama meant what he said?

"Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and income of his parents.

"Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone born to middle-class parents with college degrees?

"Even in a more egalitarian society, the answer would be no.

"But the life prospects of an American are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced country for which there is data.

"How do we explain this?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[gnarlylove]

You are confusing free-markets, with lawlessness.

Not the same thing. In fact, Capitalism requires law. Without law to enforce property rights, there is no real free-market capitalism. That's more like Anarchy and whoever has enough force wins. That's not a free market system of voluntary exchange..

You're both right and wrong. Capitalism depends upon law. Property is a contract. However, property was never determined according to law. Whoever could create the most destructive weaponry could win land and vital access to new resources. So law becomes a law for others but not to be enforced on those in power. If you are in power and can conquer, do so and reap the rewards. Try to do that to the powerful and you'll have 3 divisions of the law descend upon you with rapacity. And we clearly see examples where the powerful are exempt from law...they ask us to forgive and to look forward, forgetting the past. But law can only be just if it is universal. So the problem with free markets is they are not applied universally. Free market principles are enforced on the poor but when it comes to the rich, they receive overwhelming subsidy, access to political policy and tax breaks, even negative effective tax rates. So how can free markets, which are not universal, be defined by law when law must be universal unless one can care less about being a moral hypocrite.

 

[georgephillip]

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

The word "freedom" does not refer to circumstances that may constrain you. It refers only to government constraints.

Changing the meaning of words is a favorite leftist propaganda technique.

You're projecting.
Again.

"free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/Submit
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
"we do have some freedom of choice"
absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
"he was a champion of Irish freedom"
synonyms: independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; More
antonyms: dependence
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
"the shark thrashed its way to freedom"
synonyms: liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge..."

https://www.google.com/search?q=freedom&oq=freedom&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i65l3.3647j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

[bripat9643]

Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.

What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor? If that's what you mean by freedom, you're right, my idea of freedom doesn't fit. Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence. They must apply their labor according to whoever accepts them, according to an external force. In cases of the government you call this violence, in the case of capitalist enterprise you call it freedom/free market/free application of labor?

I can't choose between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. Does that mean I'm not free?

What "force" does capitalist enterprise use?

Your conception of freedom means to be free from the laws of nature. No government can provide that kind of freedom. Anyone who argues that it can or should is a demagogue trying to trick you into selling yourself into slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

The word "freedom" does not refer to circumstances that may constrain you. It refers only to government constraints.

Changing the meaning of words is a favorite leftist propaganda technique.

You're projecting.
Again.

"free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/Submit
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
"we do have some freedom of choice"
absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
"he was a champion of Irish freedom"
synonyms: independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; More
antonyms: dependence
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
"the shark thrashed its way to freedom"
synonyms: liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge..."

https://www.google.com/search?q=freedom&oq=freedom&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i65l3.3647j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Your definition supports my claim.

 

[gnarlylove]

Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.

What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor? If that's what you mean by freedom, you're right, my idea of freedom doesn't fit. Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence. They must apply their labor according to whoever accepts them, according to an external force. In cases of the government you call this violence, in the case of capitalist enterprise you call it freedom/free market/free application of labor?

I can't choose between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. Does that mean I'm not free?

Your conception of freedom means to be free from the laws of nature. No government can provide that kind of freedom. Anyone who argues that it can or should is a demagogue trying to trick you into selling yourself into slavery.

What you offered is not choice. Do you have a choice of not getting a car or using public transit?

I'm not talking about choices between luxury. The choice has nothing to do with luxury, it has to do with humans having interests and being able to pursue them. Most college grads do not go into fields they studied thereby being relatively forced to seek cash from extruding debts instead of pursuing what they could be most productive in since they "choose" their field of study.

Free markets for the poor means a choice between a turd and shit for sustenance, pardon the general terms. Relative to our living standard, most Americans will dip below the poverty line in their lifetime for at least a year or more. But it isn't free choice when your offered doing what your told if you're lucky OR being demonized if you aren't so lucky meaning you are a failure and cannot achieve sustenance.

What "force" does capitalist enterprise use?

When you cannot engage in the choice of applying your labor according to your will, then you are not free. It's clear in the structure of employment that supervisors tell the majority of people what to do. Furthermore, propaganda and advertising (as it's done) undermines freedom by creating irrational consumption, implanting fiat desires and erecting a framework for what's thinkable thought--clearly it works because none of you think I have anything worthwhile to say since all my thoughts are outside the expressed spectrum of acceptable thought.

 

[dblack]

Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.

What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor?

No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.

Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence.

I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.

 

[gnarlylove]

Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.

What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor?

No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.

Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence.

I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.

I learned from this post that:
1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.

Please correct this flawed interpretation. Or please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[gnarlylove]

A important aside, dblack, is "are you critical of your views on free markets?" Like, how did you arrive to your conclusions? When did you last gather research and evidence that supports your equivocation of freedom and free markets? Did you simply choose to absorb such free market ideology because it spoke to an already existing core of beliefs (which for you is clearly "individual freedom is ultimate")? Or did you weigh the alternatives views and evidence on free markets, comparing the validity/invalidity of each and decided your current views express most accurately "objective" and empirical reality?

From my perspective you appear to be a spokesperson marketing the ideological brand you prefer best instead offering critical thoughts about economic reality. So if this is actually reflective of how you think and came to your core beliefs, that you don't care to deeply challenge your equivocation of freedom and free markets, then I'm sorry to be challenging you and wasting your time. Please let me know your purpose of engaging me (I'm very eager to learn but if you are not, then I just lost my appetite). I don't want to waste your time on challenging ideas about which you do not care much to consider.

 

[dblack]

What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor?

No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.

Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence.

I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.

I learned from this post that:
1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.

Please correct this flawed interpretation.

I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.

... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.

Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must enable you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.