Many people with only bank or investment accounts, without any enterprise (and thus employees), would fit this.

You are no one's employee if you make all of your annual funds off of capital gains and never need to work.

Yes. But same as one capitalist could put in a million dollars, a million workers could put in one dollar. That's my point.

It requires considerably more than a mere million dollars to purchase a functional factory that would enable one to start a big business. Thousands of workers are not able to put up with just one or two capitalists can, and even if they did, under capitalism it would just create another competitive business enterprise competing with other businesses, only these few thousand workers would be in-fighting to become the boss and to be getting the greatest share of the profits.

Yes. And this still changes their game, being able to control their labor and income better than as employees, even if they cannot quit working completely. In any case, no business was born big. All started small.

Yet most of them started ages ago, when the machinery needed were much simpler and less expensive, and most small businesses created both then and now do not become big, but are pushed out of business by the Wal-Marts of the world. Even if small business owners can control their labor and income better, they most often do not make a sizable amount of it and still live in impoverished conditions. I'm speaking here not only from extensive observation, but also from too much painful experience.

You know? It is the same with the state and citizens. Citizens already run all of society (and of course, the economy, as a part of society) with no need for the state.

Which is why I support a moneyless and stateless society. However, the state serves the interests of the capitalist class while capitalism exists, in part by regulating it so it doesn't become so onerous that it collapses and possibly sparks a mass worker rebellion. In a capitalist system with a minimalist state, the workers would be receiving even less from the capitalists, who would have privatized virtually everything and now had no minimum wage requirements. Things would really get bad when it got to the point that workers wouldn't have sufficient disposable income to purchase products anymore from the capitalists, so the latter would have no choice but use nothing but force to keep them in their place, thus instituting an industrial feudal system (read: overtly fascist).

How would we know how many steaks my 100 cars were the same work as?

You would have no need to over-consume to such an irrational extent. Attempts to do so in a Marxian system would make you look ridiculous rather than high status, because wanting and having more than what is needed or desirable in a moneyless economy would not be seen as a symbol of power as it is in a capitalist system. People would quickly learn to consume rationally and quickly realize there was no longer any need to have a hundred of something if one was more than sufficient.

But I thought it was technologically possible for doctors to be available anywhere!

But they aren't in a capitalist system, was my point if you were reading me clearly. We do not make full use of what modern technology makes possible in a capitalist system, which is why doctors so constantly gravitate to high class suburban locations, and rarely to rural areas. There would be no "image" issue for doctors operating in rural areas in a Marxian system, and with superior forms of public transportation that would make commuting from one area to another much easier than it is now, when the fiscal cost of doing so is considerable.

And with a public system, the price tag for the transportation doesn't exist anymore. Why would some area not have doctors?

In a Marxian system, there would quite possibly be a doctor located in almost every neighborhood. There would be no such thing in such a society as a "bad" or "low class" place to live and/or work.

Euh?

You still do this when you're baffled?

Perhaps you've never heard about the vaccine industry?

I guess not. Any chance info on it has gone viral?

And it works both ways. If you know you're going to receive medical attention no matter what, and that you won't (directly) pay anything for it, why take care to prevent it?

Which is why new vaccines haven't been created with regularity since polio was cured... too much profit to be lost. And why take care to prevent it? Because preventing it saves a lot of pain and a lot of work for physicians that is not necessary. Such work is only desirable in a capitalist system where doctors require being paid money, and thus actually depend on a constant supply of sick people to treat.

The reason for overworked is right in the article. Most other First World countries outright ban or very seriously limit overtime.

Overwork is not a good thing in essence, because it leads to a lot of stress and less time spent on needed relaxation, time with family, etc. It's only seen as desirable under capitalism because you need to work because you get paid by the hour and thus need to work a certain number of hours to get a certain amount of money, and thus you try to work as many hours as you can to get as much access to the tiny fraction of the wealth that paycheck will enable you to purchase. And this no matter how necessary your labor is to simply get the job done. In a Marxist system, everyone would be working, and thus work time would be reduced to only the amount of work absolutely necessary to each person every day and every week to get their share of the required work done. This would mean considerably more leisure time and no need to overwork, or attempts to work as many hours per week as possible.

The reason for wages stagnating is the drive for exhanging existing jobs for automation, outsourcing or illegal immigration, leaving only few and comparatively bad jobs to be performed across many industries, in particular among low qualified segments.

All features of capitalism, Captain.

Hate on the US government all you want.

As if I needed your permission to do this? :-P And I thought Libertarians hate the government too?

Chile in 1970 had hungry people. Chile in 1990 did not. Chile today is so prosperous that it has an illegal immigration problem from Peruvians and Bolivians, and that Argentines cross the border to buy things in Chile that they don't have in Argentina or are too expensive there.

Why do I get the feeling this prosperity does not trickle down to the Chilean working class? Or are you using the Libertarian definition of "prosperity" again, that only measures "wealth" and "success" on the basis of what the small ruling class has in their bloated bank accounts (offshore or otherwise)? No doubt Kissinger and Nixon sabotaged the Allende administration so they could help feed the people better, which always happens when you charge an arm and a leg for food, huh?

Mmm-hmm, thought so. Excerpt: "In Chile “está mal repartida la torta” (the pie is poorly distributed), says Gonzalo Durán, an economist and researcher at Fundación Sol, a non-profit organization that focuses on labor issues. Regarding Chile’s 8.4 percent growth in the first half of 2011, Durán explains, “75% of that went to the richest 10%. That growth is much lower for the average Chilean.” When the media and politicians report on Chile’s growth they tend to omit where that growth is taking place and who reaps its benefits; the statistics are without a doubt positive, but the majority of Chileans are not represented by that growth."

These are facts. You may think this was in spite of pro market reforms; I say it was because of them. But whichever the reason, Chilean poor are better off now than they were before the coup.

I guess that opinion depends on whether or not you actually live in Chile.

Such as the Kindle made by Amazon?

Stop it.