NationStates Jolt Archive

[quote="Pettifog"This is why we have price. Thorugh this price mechanism, the finite supply is allocated to our unlimited wants. Scarcity will not go away with another economic system. [/quote]

Well that is a bit limited system. Reminds me of the monetist religions. Just because you have one system that works, doesn't mean there can exist no other. Creative people say try to think outside the box. What you just said was is a very good example of NOT thinking outside the box. Very understandble, and usefull sometimes. Wasting your time over other alternatives that might or might not work can be very uneconically, and would not recommend most people to do it.Why search for another solution to a problem if you already got a solution. However a small group that thinks about it might not be usufull. Because if it turns out that the side effects of the current solution make it not useable for a certain situation, it is very good to have a back up.

And afcourse you can wonder what is an other system. Is a mark II a new different product than mark I, or just an improvement?

But then I would like to add, price NEVER goes away. Why, because it is not something part of the system. It is a rule of nature. Everything has a price. And you cannot take that away. Just like you can't take gravity away. Price termed in money, that is a different matter. In my economy book of the university they actually started by explaining that this price Actually stands for something else. It stands for the second best option. A barter society has price just like any other. And as I said a communists has too in to form of waiting lines. Economy is everywhere around you, and it governs far more than you might think. If you understand economy well you find price in the most and outlandish cultures. Even in those cultures where the economy is based giving away. Even animals have price ;). They to have the concept of scarcity, that is not a human invention. It is probably more likely we have it because we are animals too ;).

Don't worry, price will not go away. But what should be thought about is, what is the best way to make the system run efficiently. And money is actually quite practical in that. Digital money even more practical. It beats gold, it beats cattle (darn animals you got to feed them, and they start kinda complaining when you want to sell of only half of them :P). And it beats a lot of other cooked up systems over the time. But just because something works good, doesn't mean something can't work better. We have unlimited demands after all ;) :P.

Why Communism Always Leads to Dictatorship [A simple logical explanation behind a historical reality]:

In communism, there is no market (and no money for that matter).

Without a market, there are no prices.

Without prices, there is no way to how much of what goods should be produced and bought.

Which means, in practice, that all economic decisions are made by a central authority and that common people have no input in it.

This leads to economic dictatorship, which in fact leads to civil dictatorship since all means of production are controlled, in effect, by a single entity, such as Josef Stalin.

Grin.....I seems that I swept away one part of your logical. argumentation. You can't take price away.

Why didn't we die off in the 100,000 years when there was no capitalism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
(S)He was wrong, plain and simple. It's a common mistake that uninformed capitalists make. (S)He is just grasping for straws in an attempt to discredit the Communistic system to no avail.

Grin, but I love that a thousand, no a milion times more than people who are just flaming each other. Straws or not, uninformed or not (I actually don't think global market is that informed. Just doesn't know everything, like you and I don't know everything either) keep it up :).

THe market (not the market economy, the market itself) existed since basically the beginning of human civlization.

"I want meat. You have club. We trade." --> A market

Let me reprhase what I said: There's no way to meet the people's needs under communism because there's no way to know what they want.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims is the most oppressive. It is better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
--CS Lewis

"I want meat. I have a club. Lets trade. I will not hit you on the head if you give me the meat" :P.

There is a price somewhere deep down in everything :).

Oke, so you accept there is a price. But about communism. There is still a price in the waiting lists. Look I am not saying that you where somewhat right in your description of the past. Just that I don't know if you should generalize it into the future.
A Decisions taken by a democracy are also possible. The democracy choices somebody who will make the decisions for a short time.
B Lets seperate communism from plan economy shall we. They are not necassery be connected. And this disconnection is rather important, since it was one of the key errors of the old communism. Ergo I rather flush this plan economy through the toilet for the coming time. Maybe somewhere later in our far future we can take another look at it :).
And with flushing it through the toilet I should also flush most of your disliking of it through the toilet. Leaving mostly only the propeganda that has been pushed in your head (mainly if you are american). Maybe time to get a little bit more immune to propeganda ;). And the fact that some well done people in this world might lose power. To which I quite well understand that they would resist, and frankly think they have the right to do so.

Always with themarket. TGM seems to worship the market, doesn't he?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I'm going to ask both of you again... in a society of more than 25 people, how do you determine what people want without prices?

I don't mean without capitalism... I mean without prices. In a market-less system, the producers are not accountable to their customers since there's no feedback mechanism. How do you determine what to produce?

Until you provide an alternate solution, then...

Actually you are on to something here. It is true, this whole system is to overcome that 25 people limit. How to get people to interact successfully when they don't know everybody personal. And I have to say we did very very successfully. The cave men people would be impressed. But I don't want to explain what I mean, right now.

I think it is 500 people by the way. If my memory serves me the human mind is trained to handle social relations with up to 500 people. That is why evolution made us such highly social beings. 500 people was also about the size of one tribe.

I'm going to ask both of you again... in a society of more than 25 people, how do you determine what people want without prices?

I don't mean without capitalism... I mean without prices. In a market-less system, the producers are not accountable to their customers since there's no feedback mechanism. How do you determine what to produce?

Until you provide an alternate solution, then...

Actually you are on to something here. It is true, this whole system is to overcome that 25 people limit. How to get people to interact successfully when they don't know everybody personal. And I have to say we did very very successfully. The cave men people would be impressed. But I don't want to explain what I mean, right now.

I think it is 500 people by the way. If my memory serves me the human mind is trained to handle social relations with up to 500 people. That is why evolution made us such highly social beings. 500 people was also about the size of one tribe.

I'm going to ask both of you again... in a society of more than 25 people, how do you determine what people want without prices?

I don't mean without capitalism... I mean without prices. In a market-less system, the producers are not accountable to their customers since there's no feedback mechanism. How do you determine what to produce?

Until you provide an alternate solution, then...

Actually you are on to something here. It is true, this whole system is to overcome that 25 people limit. How to get people to interact successfully when they don't know everybody personal. And I have to say we did very very successfully. The cave men people would be impressed. But I don't want to explain what I mean, right now.

I think it is 500 people by the way. If my memory serves me the human mind is trained to handle social relations with up to 500 people. That is why evolution made us such highly social beings. 500 people was also about the size of one tribe.

No it's 150 (Actually 147.9). Malcolm Gladwell proves it using brain neurons in The Tipping Point. The size of modern-day "tribes" such as the Amish communities all number around 150.

But that's just to keep track of who's who, not to determine production, which requires a lot more input variables.

THe market (not the market economy, the market itself) existed since basically the beginning of human civlization.

"I want meat. You have club. We trade." --> A market

Let me reprhase what I said: There's no way to meet the people's needs under communism because there's no way to know what they want.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims is the most oppressive. It is better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
--CS Lewis

"I want meat. I have a club. Lets trade. I will not hit you on the head if you give me the meat" :P.

There is a price somewhere deep down in everything :).

Oke, so you accept there is a price. But about communism. There is still a price in the waiting lists. Look I am not saying that you where somewhat right in your description of the past. Just that I don't know if you should generalize it into the future.
A Decisions taken by a democracy are also possible. The democracy choices somebody who will make the decisions for a short time.
B Lets seperate communism from plan economy shall we. They are not necassery be connected. And this disconnection is rather important, since it was one of the key errors of the old communism. Ergo I rather flush this plan economy through the toilet for the coming time. Maybe somewhere later in our far future we can take another look at it :).
And with flushing it through the toilet I should also flush most of your disliking of it through the toilet. Leaving mostly only the propeganda that has been pushed in your head (mainly if you are american). Maybe time to get a little bit more immune to propeganda ;). And the fact that some well done people in this world might lose power. To which I quite well understand that they would resist, and frankly think they have the right to do so.

The problem with a democracy making all the decisions is that the majority's will is imposed on everyone. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

We should just let people own the means of production and determine what to produce based on customer feedback through the market and monetary prices...

I'm going to ask both of you again... in a society of more than 25 people, how do you determine what people want without prices?

I don't mean without capitalism... I mean without prices. In a market-less system, the producers are not accountable to their customers since there's no feedback mechanism. How do you determine what to produce?

Until you provide an alternate solution, then...

Price and the market are a new invention.
In Primitive Communism (how society started out) access was entirely social. People shared the means of production because the productivity of society was too low to be able to exploit.
The serf was self-sufficient to a point and the market influenced his life very little. Whilst his relationship with the lord was less than idyllic, serf to serf relationships were somewhat communal. The lord did not extract labour from the serf using a market. The town based artisans and merchants were a minority but the seed of the market that would bloom into Capitalism was in them. With the exception of classical times although including the ill-documented history preceeding them, only the Capitalist system has used a currency based idea to any meaningful extent.
In Communism no ONE mind (or "cadre" or oligarchy) should be responsible for the organisation of labour or for in any way telling individuals what is to be produced.
Democracy is the way forward for Communism and through the organisation of and mutual consent of all the world's labourers. One man can not understand what an entire population wants but an entire population, with the intruduction of extreme democracy, is certainly qualified. The population are not only the producers but also the consumers. For their own enrichment, they will decide for themselves what they want and how best to obtain it. The greatest level of representation is necessary. When people say "dictatorship of the proletariat" it is meant as the dictatorship of one class, not one man, and that is the class of workers.
Forget the old Leninist lie. In democracy is the means to directing the productivity of the world's workers. The producer is the customer and as such is accountable to his/her own demands.
We only need prices when we make a DISTINCTION between consumer and producer as two seperate people. When they are one and the same this tool of accountabilty is of no need to society.
Should it be proved to us that we are wrong in so doing, and that somehow the emancipation of the proletariat and of mankind could be achieved solely on the basis of private property, or could be most easily realised in the manner indicated by Proudhon, then we would throw Socialism overboard, without in the least giving up our object, and even in the interests of this object. Socialism and democracy are therefore not distinguished by the one being the means and the other the end. Both are means to the same end. The distinction between them must be sought elsewhere. Socialism as a means to the emancipation of the proletariat, without democracy, is unthinkable.

The problem with a democracy making all the decisions is that the majority's will is imposed on everyone. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

We should just let people own the means of production and determine what to produce based on customer feedback through the market and monetary prices...
When there is grass and meat though things would be fine. Generallisations though need not be made. You adjust the amount of meat/grass produced accoring to what people want in a survey of the population like R&D in these market societies. If 50% have a preference for X and 50% for the alternative Y but you (in he region) only make 40% of X and 60% of Y then you produce more of Y than you currently are. What your analogy indicates though is the idea that if 60% want Y (equally democratic in nature) you feed Y to 100% of the population.

Your suggestion of people owning the means of production but basing it upon market principles sounds like syndicalism. Whilst I'm not going to criticise these ideas now, are you a syndicalist? (just out of curiosity)

The problem with a democracy making all the decisions is that the majority's will is imposed on everyone. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

We should just let people own the means of production and determine what to produce based on customer feedback through the market and monetary prices...
When there is grass and meat though things would be fine. Generallisations though need not be made. You adjust the amount of meat/grass produced accoring to what people want in a survey of the population like R&D in these market societies. If 50% have a preference for X and 50% for the alternative Y but you (in he region) only make 40% of X and 60% of Y then you produce more of Y than you currently are. What your analogy indicates though is the idea that if 60% want Y (equally democratic in nature) you feed Y to 100% of the population.

Your suggestion of people owning the means of production but basing it upon market principles sounds like syndicalism. Whilst I'm not going to criticise these ideas now, are you a syndicalist? (just out of curiosity)

People (as in individuals) should own the means of production. I never said that THE PEOPLE (as in the collective) should. There's a huge difference. I'm a capitalist.

But based on what people want in a survey, what if everyone wants X and production is inefficient in terms of X and can't keep up with demand? With no way of lowering demand (prices), how would you determine who gets X? That leads to rationing and rationing makes your currency worthless then you get a starvation-death nightmare like in Maoist China.

And if everything is rationed what if I want, say, 10 lbs of meat but someone else only wants 2 lbs? How do the "surveys" adjust for that?

And if you let people write exactly how much they want what if I say I want 800000000000000000 lbs of meat?

People (as in individuals) should own the means of production. I never said that THE PEOPLE (as in the collective) should. There's a huge difference. I'm a capitalist.

But based on what people want in a survey, what if everyone wants X and production is inefficient in terms of X and can't keep up with demand? With no way of lowering demand (prices), how would you determine who gets X? That leads to rationing and rationing makes your currency worthless then you get a starvation-death nightmare like in Maoist China.

And if everything is rationed what if I want, say, 10 lbs of meat but someone else only wants 2 lbs? How do the "surveys" adjust for that?

And if you let people write exactly how much they want what if I say I want 800000000000000000 lbs of meat?
Well excuse me for not pressuming you meant people as oppose to animals. There is a huge difference but given the context you were implying, I thought it was already a given that animals weren't going to run the show. Must I really explain again what was wrong with China?
In China the society was still based mostly on feudal principles. Some societies who still have feudal traits do have some foundations.
From what I've read, the Chinese problem of starvation was that demands were made upon the farmers, failure to meet which resulted in terrible and unfair retribution. In the Industrial and semi-industrial societies though there is more than enough food. You can only consume a limited amount. When have you heard of a billionaire using capital open to him to get 8000000000000000000 lbs of meat? Communism is, after all, a movement which will come around as a way of developing productivity. In backward Socialist states though rationing would not result in collapse of the economy. You give people what they need and equally redistribute surplus to all but those who have no desire to take any more. In China, did they not (despite the low productivity) allow people to consume what they wanted to in communal canteines? China though was yet to even foster the beginings of a proletariat. Mao also invested massive amounts in obtaining iron which turned out to be too brittle to use. There was also no democracy in China (read my previous posts).
I'm not entirely sure about your idea of inefficiency but to accept your idea of inefficiency though I would need to hear of an example. The system has to be adapted to allow the general population access to it. You do not ask the population to draw up a prototype of what they want. This is done by specialists. If people want a certain sauce and not another then why would it be inefficient to make more of the favoured sauce? I am confident that if you can find an example of inefficiency of producing a product that adaptations will be made in the design to alleviate this.

People (as in individuals) should own the means of production. I never said that THE PEOPLE (as in the collective) should. There's a huge difference. I'm a capitalist.

But based on what people want in a survey, what if everyone wants X and production is inefficient in terms of X and can't keep up with demand? With no way of lowering demand (prices), how would you determine who gets X? That leads to rationing and rationing makes your currency worthless then you get a starvation-death nightmare like in Maoist China.

And if everything is rationed what if I want, say, 10 lbs of meat but someone else only wants 2 lbs? How do the "surveys" adjust for that?

And if you let people write exactly how much they want what if I say I want 800000000000000000 lbs of meat?
Well excuse me for not pressuming you meant people as oppose to animals. There is a huge difference but given the context you were implying, I thought it was already a given that animals weren't going to run the show. Must I really explain again what was wrong with China?
In China the society was still based mostly on feudal principles. Some societies who still have feudal traits do have some foundations.
From what I've read, the Chinese problem of starvation was that demands were made upon the farmers, failure to meet which resulted in terrible and unfair retribution. In the Industrial and semi-industrial societies though there is more than enough food. You can only consume a limited amount. When have you heard of a billionaire using capital open to him to get 8000000000000000000 lbs of meat? Communism is, after all, a movement which will come around as a way of developing productivity. In backward Socialist states though rationing would not result in collapse of the economy. You give people what they need and equally redistribute surplus to all but those who have no desire to take any more. In China, did they not (despite the low productivity) allow people to consume what they wanted to in communal canteines? China though was yet to even foster the beginings of a proletariat. Mao also invested massive amounts in obtaining iron which turned out to be too brittle to use. There was also no democracy in China (read my previous posts).
I'm not entirely sure about your idea of inefficiency but to accept your idea of inefficiency though I would need to hear of an example. The system has to be adapted to allow the general population access to it. You do not ask the population to draw up a prototype of what they want. This is done by specialists. If people want a certain sauce and not another then why would it be inefficient to make more of the favoured sauce? I am confident that if you can find an example of inefficiency of producing a product that adaptations will be made in the design to alleviate this.

But how do you determine what people "need"?

And rationing WILL lead to economic collapse this day and age simply becasue the market is global. If you start rationing, your currency becomes worthless. When your currency becomes worthless, people start using currency from other nations on the black market, and that causes your economy to shrink in half in just one generation a la Cuba.

As the leader of a Democratic nation I want to express my admiration to the people involved in this argument for pointing out their views and discussing other's views rationally and peacefully. (OOC: I'm really amazed this didn't turn into a flame war)

Those of you who agree with me that this is one of the silliest proposals ever (and that's reeeeally saying something, in THIS game), please vote in my "Ban COMMUNISM Internationally?" counter-poll, at:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111617

Letila would outlaw capitalism if it had a government, but it doesn't so it will lead by example. The counterproposal is a rip-off, though. Then again, capitalism is full of rip-offs. Furbies and chilla-chillas, pokémon and digimon, etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Letila would outlaw capitalism if it had a government, but it doesn't so it will lead by example. The counterproposal is a rip-off, though. Then again, capitalism is full of rip-offs. Furbies and chilla-chillas, pokémon and digimon, etc.

If you have no government how do you deal with murderers?

If you have no government how do you deal with murderers?

Come on man! You surprise me! Government is theft! Let the private citizen hire his own bodyguard! Libertarian orgasm!

You've lost form or found some sense. Amazing.

Cheerio.

I'm going to ask both of you again... in a society of more than 25 people, how do you determine what people want without prices?

I don't mean without capitalism... I mean without prices. In a market-less system, the producers are not accountable to their customers since there's no feedback mechanism. How do you determine what to produce?

Until you provide an alternate solution, then...

Actually you are on to something here. It is true, this whole system is to overcome that 25 people limit. How to get people to interact successfully when they don't know everybody personal. And I have to say we did very very successfully. The cave men people would be impressed. But I don't want to explain what I mean, right now.

I think it is 500 people by the way. If my memory serves me the human mind is trained to handle social relations with up to 500 people. That is why evolution made us such highly social beings. 500 people was also about the size of one tribe.

No it's 150 (Actually 147.9). Malcolm Gladwell proves it using brain neurons in The Tipping Point. The size of modern-day "tribes" such as the Amish communities all number around 150.

But that's just to keep track of who's who, not to determine production, which requires a lot more input variables.

147.9....at least I knew it was more than 25. Guess I must have misplaced the 5 in memory. However if it is who is who my mind must have already overreached that number :P.

It is more like who ows whom. It is to keep track of ....well money in a time there was no money. Sort of like the bank does. Money is the invention to over come the limits of the brain. Money before it was digital, pieces of paper, gold (which is quite a useless substance as well), or cows (which are rather unpractical) was a mental subtance. It still exists. If you have a friend and you do him a favor, or a friend does you favor, it is not for free. Money might not involved, but you mind remembers and an earliest form of economy is being kept track of in your mind. And that is a form of money too. Knowing that would at least solve some problems for our economists today.

Those of you who agree with me that this is one of the silliest proposals ever (and that's reeeeally saying something, in THIS game), please vote in my "Ban COMMUNISM Internationally?" counter-poll, at:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111617

In my experience with this game, no is not the silliest polls. And it made some intresting discussions. To call it silliests is actually some genius diplomacy :P. But you have my reply in your poll.

If you have no government how do you deal with murderers?

Come on man! You surprise me! Government is theft! Let the private citizen hire his own bodyguard! Libertarian orgasm!

You've lost form or found some sense. Amazing.

Cheerio.

Grin, dissapointing to realize that The Global Market is not a psychotic evil maniac isn't it :P. That would make it far more easier.

I am sorry to dissapoint you but The Global Market is not a raving maniac. And this is not the first time he made sense.

righttttt........do you guys know anything about capitalism??? I'd say communism is the exploitation of people far more than capitalism.

that is very interesting about human relations though

If you have no government how do you deal with murderers?

Come on man! You surprise me! Government is theft! Let the private citizen hire his own bodyguard! Libertarian orgasm!

You've lost form or found some sense. Amazing.

Cheerio.

It's the lesser of two evils. Government IS robbery, but there'd be a hell of a lot more robbery without government.

But how do you determine what people "need"?

And rationing WILL lead to economic collapse this day and age simply becasue the market is global. If you start rationing, your currency becomes worthless. When your currency becomes worthless, people start using currency from other nations on the black market, and that causes your economy to shrink in half in just one generation a la Cuba.
You consider "currency" (and multiple variations of it at that) to be some constant. Take the American dollar out of the Cuban equation as you would with global Communism and your argument collapses. But why is their such limitation on what Cubans can eat? Well that would be the viscous embargo! People would not need to be told what to eat otherwise. I would say though that if you asked the average Oriente-province peasant to choose Batista or Castro then the latter would win hands down. Cuban standards of living are up for the average Cuban since those days. The Cuban economy though is poor only RELATIVE to how it used to be but still, under Castro. Remember that in the early 90's Cuba lost 80% of its trade as the Soviet Union collapsed. You might still note that after this and the tightening of the embargo, Cuba has not only maitained its sovereignty but its economy began to recover and indeed improved. It is not such a linear idea as you might like.
How to judge what peole need. A five person family needs a bigger house. A person in Siberia needs warmer clothing than an Egyptian. All people's needs vary only slightly. Medication needs can be administered through a doctor. Simple statistical sampling.


It is more like who ows whom. It is to keep track of ....well money in a time there was no money. Sort of like the bank does. Money is the invention to over come the limits of the brain. Money before it was digital, pieces of paper, gold (which is quite a useless substance as well), or cows (which are rather unpractical) was a mental subtance. It still exists. If you have a friend and you do him a favor, or a friend does you favor, it is not for free. Money might not involved, but you mind remembers and an earliest form of economy is being kept track of in your mind. And that is a form of money too. Knowing that would at least solve some problems for our economists today.
In the latter part of your arguement you suggest money to have a duel meaning. An abstract idea that represents a mutually consenting trade and the quantifiable yet ever fluctuating "money" capitalism invented. But in inventing this money the subtle difference proves to be the making of Capitalism. It now has taken on an entirely new character. A person could never make any meaningful appropriation using a currency of cows. And I would challenge that the peasants did till a few centuries ago clump together to challenge the lord legally and, as in the mir, shared land though subject to the violent means of feudal appropriation by the lord. In prehistory a "caveman" would use a club to kill food. Then when he's eaten his fill allow someone else to finish it off (being unable to preserve it). When another hunter leaves to hunt he may use the same club. But money in its modern state has been redefined to no longer represent a simple transaction. A pound/ dollar worth an 8th an ounce today may be worth a 10th tomorrow but the low(er) level of productivity in the feudal era kept this even. An interaction involving the exchange of a pound into gold was meaningless. The interaction today represents much more. Money was but advanced bartering before Capitalism.

And Nova Lox, this thread has contributed more than deciding what tastes like chicken. I believe it has been more stimulating than most.

As for anarchy, well, whilst I feel that it is workable as an organised Utopian final stage of Communism I don't feel that it is too relvent to ending Capitalsm and the discussion thereof.

But how do you determine what people "need"?

And rationing WILL lead to economic collapse this day and age simply becasue the market is global. If you start rationing, your currency becomes worthless. When your currency becomes worthless, people start using currency from other nations on the black market, and that causes your economy to shrink in half in just one generation a la Cuba.
You consider "currency" (and multiple variations of it at that) to be some constant. Take the American dollar out of the Cuban equation as you would with global Communism and your argument collapses. But why is their such limitation on what Cubans can eat? Well that would be the viscous embargo! People would not need to be told what to eat otherwise. I would say though that if you asked the average Oriente-province peasant to choose Batista or Castro then the latter would win hands down. Cuban standards of living are up for the average Cuban since those days. The Cuban economy though is poor only RELATIVE to how it used to be but still, under Castro. Remember that in the early 90's Cuba lost 80% of its trade as the Soviet Union collapsed. You might still note that after this and the tightening of the embargo, Cuba has not only maitained its sovereignty but its economy began to recover and indeed improved. It is not such a linear idea as you might like.
How to judge what peole need. A five person family needs a bigger house. A person in Siberia needs warmer clothing than an Egyptian. All people's needs vary only slightly. Medication needs can be administered through a doctor. Simple statistical sampling.


It is more like who ows whom. It is to keep track of ....well money in a time there was no money. Sort of like the bank does. Money is the invention to over come the limits of the brain. Money before it was digital, pieces of paper, gold (which is quite a useless substance as well), or cows (which are rather unpractical) was a mental subtance. It still exists. If you have a friend and you do him a favor, or a friend does you favor, it is not for free. Money might not involved, but you mind remembers and an earliest form of economy is being kept track of in your mind. And that is a form of money too. Knowing that would at least solve some problems for our economists today.
In the latter part of your arguement you suggest money to have a duel meaning. An abstract idea that represents a mutually consenting trade and the quantifiable yet ever fluctuating "money" capitalism invented. But in inventing this money the subtle difference proves to be the making of Capitalism. It now has taken on an entirely new character. A person could never make any meaningful appropriation using a currency of cows. And I would challenge that the peasants did till a few centuries ago clump together to challenge the lord legally and, as in the mir, shared land though subject to the violent means of feudal appropriation by the lord. In prehistory a "caveman" would use a club to kill food. Then when he's eaten his fill allow someone else to finish it off (being unable to preserve it). When another hunter leaves to hunt he may use the same club. But money in its modern state has been redefined to no longer represent a simple transaction. A pound/ dollar worth an 8th an ounce today may be worth a 10th tomorrow but the low(er) level of productivity in the feudal era kept this even. An interaction involving the exchange of a pound into gold was meaningless. The interaction today represents much more. Money was but advanced bartering before Capitalism.

And Nova Lox, this thread has contributed more than deciding what tastes like chicken. I believe it has been more stimulating than most.

As for anarchy, well, whilst I feel that it is workable as an organised Utopian final stage of Communism I don't feel that it is too relvent to ending Capitalsm and the discussion thereof.

Trade embargoes are not compatible with capitalism...

But how do you determine what people "need"?

And rationing WILL lead to economic collapse this day and age simply becasue the market is global. If you start rationing, your currency becomes worthless. When your currency becomes worthless, people start using currency from other nations on the black market, and that causes your economy to shrink in half in just one generation a la Cuba.
You consider "currency" (and multiple variations of it at that) to be some constant. Take the American dollar out of the Cuban equation as you would with global Communism and your argument collapses. But why is their such limitation on what Cubans can eat? Well that would be the viscous embargo! People would not need to be told what to eat otherwise. I would say though that if you asked the average Oriente-province peasant to choose Batista or Castro then the latter would win hands down. Cuban standards of living are up for the average Cuban since those days. The Cuban economy though is poor only RELATIVE to how it used to be but still, under Castro. Remember that in the early 90's Cuba lost 80% of its trade as the Soviet Union collapsed. You might still note that after this and the tightening of the embargo, Cuba has not only maitained its sovereignty but its economy began to recover and indeed improved. It is not such a linear idea as you might like.
How to judge what peole need. A five person family needs a bigger house. A person in Siberia needs warmer clothing than an Egyptian. All people's needs vary only slightly. Medication needs can be administered through a doctor. Simple statistical sampling.

Uh... currency's not a constant, it represents ownership of part of teh economy, sort of like a deed represents ownership of a house or a stock certificate represents ownership of part of a company.

Currency is only worth what people say it's worth... that's part of market-regulation as well.

Cuba's economy has been declining since the 60s. I believe in ending teh embargo as that will bring capitalism to Cuba, but it's fair to say that the embargo is not the only reason. In fact, after we passed the Helms-Burton Act, strenghtening the embargo, Cuba's economy declined at just the same rate it was declining earlier.

Cuba's economy is now one-half what it was in 1980. You're absolutely right that most Cubans support Castro... the ones that don't are all either locked up (According to Americas Watch, Cuba imprisons more political prisoners per capita than any other country), or they live in Miami.

But how do you determine what people "need"?

And rationing WILL lead to economic collapse this day and age simply becasue the market is global. If you start rationing, your currency becomes worthless. When your currency becomes worthless, people start using currency from other nations on the black market, and that causes your economy to shrink in half in just one generation a la Cuba.
You consider "currency" (and multiple variations of it at that) to be some constant. Take the American dollar out of the Cuban equation as you would with global Communism and your argument collapses. But why is their such limitation on what Cubans can eat? Well that would be the viscous embargo! People would not need to be told what to eat otherwise. I would say though that if you asked the average Oriente-province peasant to choose Batista or Castro then the latter would win hands down. Cuban standards of living are up for the average Cuban since those days. The Cuban economy though is poor only RELATIVE to how it used to be but still, under Castro. Remember that in the early 90's Cuba lost 80% of its trade as the Soviet Union collapsed. You might still note that after this and the tightening of the embargo, Cuba has not only maitained its sovereignty but its economy began to recover and indeed improved. It is not such a linear idea as you might like.
How to judge what peole need. A five person family needs a bigger house. A person in Siberia needs warmer clothing than an Egyptian. All people's needs vary only slightly. Medication needs can be administered through a doctor. Simple statistical sampling.

Uh... currency's not a constant, it represents ownership of part of teh economy, sort of like a deed represents ownership of a house or a stock certificate represents ownership of part of a company.

Currency is only worth what people say it's worth... that's part of market-regulation as well.

Cuba's economy has been declining since the 60s. I believe in ending teh embargo as that will bring capitalism to Cuba, but it's fair to say that the embargo is not the only reason. In fact, after we passed the Helms-Burton Act, strenghtening the embargo, Cuba's economy declined at just the same rate it was declining earlier.

Cuba's economy is now one-half what it was in 1980. You're absolutely right that most Cubans support Castro... the ones that don't are all either locked up (According to Americas Watch, Cuba imprisons more political prisoners per capita than any other country), or they live in Miami.

Also, don't you think it's better if we let people decide what they need (through pricing) instead of having the government decide what people need?

But how do you determine what people "need"?

And rationing WILL lead to economic collapse this day and age simply becasue the market is global. If you start rationing, your currency becomes worthless. When your currency becomes worthless, people start using currency from other nations on the black market, and that causes your economy to shrink in half in just one generation a la Cuba.
You consider "currency" (and multiple variations of it at that) to be some constant. Take the American dollar out of the Cuban equation as you would with global Communism and your argument collapses. But why is their such limitation on what Cubans can eat? Well that would be the viscous embargo! People would not need to be told what to eat otherwise. I would say though that if you asked the average Oriente-province peasant to choose Batista or Castro then the latter would win hands down. Cuban standards of living are up for the average Cuban since those days. The Cuban economy though is poor only RELATIVE to how it used to be but still, under Castro. Remember that in the early 90's Cuba lost 80% of its trade as the Soviet Union collapsed. You might still note that after this and the tightening of the embargo, Cuba has not only maitained its sovereignty but its economy began to recover and indeed improved. It is not such a linear idea as you might like.
How to judge what peole need. A five person family needs a bigger house. A person in Siberia needs warmer clothing than an Egyptian. All people's needs vary only slightly. Medication needs can be administered through a doctor. Simple statistical sampling.

Uh... currency's not a constant, it represents ownership of part of teh economy, sort of like a deed represents ownership of a house or a stock certificate represents ownership of part of a company.

Currency is only worth what people say it's worth... that's part of market-regulation as well.

Cuba's economy has been declining since the 60s. I believe in ending teh embargo as that will bring capitalism to Cuba, but it's fair to say that the embargo is not the only reason. In fact, after we passed the Helms-Burton Act, strenghtening the embargo, Cuba's economy declined at just the same rate it was declining earlier.

Cuba's economy is now one-half what it was in 1980. You're absolutely right that most Cubans support Castro... the ones that don't are all either locked up (According to Americas Watch, Cuba imprisons more political prisoners per capita than any other country), or they live in Miami.

Also, don't you think it's better if we let people decide what they need (through pricing) instead of having the government decide what people need?

But how do you determine what people "need"?

And rationing WILL lead to economic collapse this day and age simply becasue the market is global. If you start rationing, your currency becomes worthless. When your currency becomes worthless, people start using currency from other nations on the black market, and that causes your economy to shrink in half in just one generation a la Cuba.
You consider "currency" (and multiple variations of it at that) to be some constant. Take the American dollar out of the Cuban equation as you would with global Communism and your argument collapses. But why is their such limitation on what Cubans can eat? Well that would be the viscous embargo! People would not need to be told what to eat otherwise. I would say though that if you asked the average Oriente-province peasant to choose Batista or Castro then the latter would win hands down. Cuban standards of living are up for the average Cuban since those days. The Cuban economy though is poor only RELATIVE to how it used to be but still, under Castro. Remember that in the early 90's Cuba lost 80% of its trade as the Soviet Union collapsed. You might still note that after this and the tightening of the embargo, Cuba has not only maitained its sovereignty but its economy began to recover and indeed improved. It is not such a linear idea as you might like.
How to judge what peole need. A five person family needs a bigger house. A person in Siberia needs warmer clothing than an Egyptian. All people's needs vary only slightly. Medication needs can be administered through a doctor. Simple statistical sampling.

Uh... currency's not a constant, it represents ownership of part of teh economy, sort of like a deed represents ownership of a house or a stock certificate represents ownership of part of a company.

Currency is only worth what people say it's worth... that's part of market-regulation as well.

Cuba's economy has been declining since the 60s. I believe in ending teh embargo as that will bring capitalism to Cuba, but it's fair to say that the embargo is not the only reason. In fact, after we passed the Helms-Burton Act, strenghtening the embargo, Cuba's economy declined at just the same rate it was declining earlier.

Cuba's economy is now one-half what it was in 1980. You're absolutely right that most Cubans support Castro... the ones that don't are all either locked up (According to Americas Watch, Cuba imprisons more political prisoners per capita than any other country), or they live in Miami.

Also, don't you think it's better if we let people decide what they need (through pricing) instead of having the government decide what people need?

You're lucky I don't believe in government or I'd be advocating banning capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

A pound/ dollar worth an 8th an ounce today may be worth a 10th tomorrow but the low(er) level of productivity in the feudal era kept this even. An interaction involving the exchange of a pound into gold was meaningless. The interaction today represents much more. Money was but advanced bartering before Capitalism.

Except that I don't follow you exactly. I do want to note that the cow changed in value like wise. The whole process of going to to paper money is however based on making the worth remain as stable. And the cow, being more directly related to something physical in contrast to a piece of paper was a necassery step. However in the end the piece of paper will be gone just as well.

Grin, I should really look up how these anarchists propose there economies work. I wouldn't be suprised they would be capitalistic as hell :P.

Global Market, the Cuban economy improved with Soviet assistance despite a rough patch early after the revolution.
It has not been declining since the sixties.
Child mortality is lower than in many parts of the U$.
Life expectancy is higher.
It has one of the world's highest no. of doctors per capita and gives assistance to fight AIDs in Africa etc.
I understand education is of a high standard.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and despite the embargo Cuba's economy has begun to recover (to the surprise of all including America; it is being heralded as a miracle).
For most Cubans though particularly the peasantry the standard of living is higher. It is no longer a playground for Amerikkkan millionaires so is it any surprise that the Batista-era stats were a little skewed.
NeoCommunists, I challenge you that the value of primitive currency was relatively fixed and irrelevant for most in the Feudal system. Inflation was meaningless and indeed everything we associate "natural" to the nature of modern money was meaningless to a serf.

Global Market, the Cuban economy improved with Soviet assistance despite a rough patch early after the revolution.
It has not been declining since the sixties.
Child mortality is lower than in many parts of the U$.
Life expectancy is higher.
It has one of the world's highest no. of doctors per capita and gives assistance to fight AIDs in Africa etc.
I understand education is of a high standard.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and despite the embargo Cuba's economy has begun to recover (to the surprise of all including America; it is being heralded as a miracle).
For most Cubans though particularly the peasantry the standard of living is higher. It is no longer a playground for Amerikkkan millionaires so is it any surprise that the Batista-era stats were a little skewed.
NeoCommunists, I challenge you that the value of primitive currency was relatively fixed and irrelevant for most in the Feudal system. Inflation was meaningless and indeed everything we associate "natural" to the nature of modern money was meaningless to a serf.

What is your source for all of that?

They wouldn't be official Cuban government stats, would they?

Global Market, the Cuban economy improved with Soviet assistance despite a rough patch early after the revolution.
It has not been declining since the sixties.
Child mortality is lower than in many parts of the U$.
Life expectancy is higher.
It has one of the world's highest no. of doctors per capita and gives assistance to fight AIDs in Africa etc.
I understand education is of a high standard.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and despite the embargo Cuba's economy has begun to recover (to the surprise of all including America; it is being heralded as a miracle).
For most Cubans though particularly the peasantry the standard of living is higher. It is no longer a playground for Amerikkkan millionaires so is it any surprise that the Batista-era stats were a little skewed.
NeoCommunists, I challenge you that the value of primitive currency was relatively fixed and irrelevant for most in the Feudal system. Inflation was meaningless and indeed everything we associate "natural" to the nature of modern money was meaningless to a serf.

What is your source for all of that?

They wouldn't be official Cuban government stats, would they?

Global Market, the Cuban economy improved with Soviet assistance despite a rough patch early after the revolution.
It has not been declining since the sixties.
Child mortality is lower than in many parts of the U$.
Life expectancy is higher.
It has one of the world's highest no. of doctors per capita and gives assistance to fight AIDs in Africa etc.
I understand education is of a high standard.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and despite the embargo Cuba's economy has begun to recover (to the surprise of all including America; it is being heralded as a miracle).
For most Cubans though particularly the peasantry the standard of living is higher. It is no longer a playground for Amerikkkan millionaires so is it any surprise that the Batista-era stats were a little skewed.
NeoCommunists, I challenge you that the value of primitive currency was relatively fixed and irrelevant for most in the Feudal system. Inflation was meaningless and indeed everything we associate "natural" to the nature of modern money was meaningless to a serf.

What is your source for all of that?

They wouldn't be official Cuban government stats, would they?

Neither capitalism or state socialism appeals to me. You're just shifting the origin of oppression.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Neither capitalism or state socialism appeals to me. You're just shifting the origin of oppression.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What is oppressive about capitalism again?

Neither capitalism or state socialism appeals to me. You're just shifting the origin of oppression.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What is oppressive about capitalism again?

If I had just joined the board, I'd ask "You aren't serious, are you?", but I know you.

Social classes are the main oppressive component of capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

If I had just joined the board, I'd ask "You aren't serious, are you?", but I know you.

Social classes are the main oppressive component of capitalism.

1) How do oppressive social classes (i.e. feudal ones) exist in capitalism?
2) How are the "social classes" (which are vague anyways) that do exist in capitlaism oppressive? It's not like there's a fine line between "high class" and "low class" the way there was in feudalism.

1) How do oppressive social classes (i.e. feudal ones) exist in capitalism?

I suppose those poor people reject medical care willingly?

How are the "social classes" (which are vague anyways) that do exist in capitlaism oppressive? It's not like there's a fine line between "high class" and "low class" the way there was in feudalism.

The line between high class and low class is by no means fine. Millions vs. almost nothing is hardly insignifigant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

1) How do oppressive social classes (i.e. feudal ones) exist in capitalism?

I suppose those poor people reject medical care willingly

Meidcal care is a service that someone (a doctor) provides. It is not a right. You may only have it if the person providing the service (the doctor) gives it to you. I don't know where you come from, but where I'm from, when you force someone to give you a service, we call it "slavery".

As for your second statement, all that proves is that some people are poor, not that they are exploited or oppressed.

Just to clarify...
Marxism is not about trying...it is an economic theory that said capitalism will EVENTUALLY fail and collapse...Marx would support capitalism, saying it was a means to an end. And that end being the economics associated with Marxism.

Meidcal care is a service that someone (a doctor) provides. It is not a right. You may only have it if the person providing the service (the doctor) gives it to you. I don't know where you come from, but where I'm from, when you force someone to give you a service, we call it "slavery".


So someone should die because they were unlucky enough to be unable to afford medical care?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Meidcal care is a service that someone (a doctor) provides. It is not a right. You may only have it if the person providing the service (the doctor) gives it to you. I don't know where you come from, but where I'm from, when you force someone to give you a service, we call it "slavery".


So someone should die because they were unlucky enough to be unable to afford medical care?

People don't have the right to enslave others. If you can't live without enslaving others, than you are perfectly within your rights to die.

Meidcal care is a service that someone (a doctor) provides. It is not a right. You may only have it if the person providing the service (the doctor) gives it to you. I don't know where you come from, but where I'm from, when you force someone to give you a service, we call it "slavery".


So someone should die because they were unlucky enough to be unable to afford medical care?

People don't have the right to enslave others. If you can't live without enslaving others, than you are perfectly within your rights to die.

Well, that took several seconds to understand. At first it seemed cryptic, but only because it makes an unjustified assumption.

In Britain, the NHS workers are paid, and people have a right to healthcare. If they want to and can afford it, they can pay for private healthcare, but if you can't you receive healthcare which you pay for according to your means.

No one is enslaved, the doctors and nurses complain that they're not getting paid enough (especially the nurses), but they aren't forced to stay in their positions. The NHS also comes under harsh criticism for its many 'deficiencies,' but these are largely due to bad management, on a local and a national level - such as the innumerable hospitals that could be closed down to free funds for improving other hospitals.

I personally think it's sad that so many people quibble over property and personal profit, but there seems to be an innate drive in humans such that they form attatchments to material things, which has been formalised in the concept of legal ownership. And, while this drive exists, something must be done to defuse it, or cater for it. Personally, I go with exploiting it.

All this becomes very hard, because in the end we're talking about words with no real, observable, definte meanings. I mean, can someone define capitalism, please? Do we start by looking at the real world, or from an abstract idealisation? Anyone want to tackle the problem of idealism versus materialism first, so we can proceed to discussing capitalism versus communism (versus anything in between) with precision?

I'm waiting for takers.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Meidcal care is a service that someone (a doctor) provides. It is not a right. You may only have it if the person providing the service (the doctor) gives it to you. I don't know where you come from, but where I'm from, when you force someone to give you a service, we call it "slavery".


So someone should die because they were unlucky enough to be unable to afford medical care?

People don't have the right to enslave others. If you can't live without enslaving others, than you are perfectly within your rights to die.

Well, that took several seconds to understand. At first it seemed cryptic, but only because it makes an unjustified assumption.

In Britain, the NHS workers are paid, and people have a right to healthcare. If they want to and can afford it, they can pay for private healthcare, but if you can't you receive healthcare which you pay for according to your means.

No one is enslaved, the doctors and nurses complain that they're not getting paid enough (especially the nurses), but they aren't forced to stay in their positions. The NHS also comes under harsh criticism for its many 'deficiencies,' but these are largely due to bad management, on a local and a national level - such as the innumerable hospitals that could be closed down to free funds for improving other hospitals.

I personally think it's sad that so many people quibble over property and personal profit, but there seems to be an innate drive in humans such that they form attatchments to material things, which has been formalised in the concept of legal ownership. And, while this drive exists, something must be done to defuse it, or cater for it. Personally, I go with exploiting it.

All this becomes very hard, because in the end we're talking about words with no real, observable, definte meanings. I mean, can someone define capitalism, please? Do we start by looking at the real world, or from an abstract idealisation? Anyone want to tackle the problem of idealism versus materialism first, so we can proceed to discussing capitalism versus communism (versus anything in between) with precision?

I'm waiting for takers.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

complain that they're not getting paid enough (especially the nurses), but they aren't forced to stay in their positions.

There's more to it than that.

Tell me, how is the health care for people who can't afford it themselves paid for? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit that it's done through taxes. Essentially, then, those people who are receiving free or partly-subsidized health care have enslaved everyone else.

complain that they're not getting paid enough (especially the nurses), but they aren't forced to stay in their positions.

There's more to it than that.

Tell me, how is the health care for people who can't afford it themselves paid for? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit that it's done through taxes. Essentially, then, those people who are receiving free or partly-subsidized health care have enslaved everyone else.

I think that's pretty... overstated, to say the least.

First point: if you really think that's 'enslavement,' then there is a far more pronounced case of enslavement evident in any capitalist system. In order to maintain a group of people in a position of relative wealth, there must be another group of people who are less wealthy. The inclusion of the word 'maintain' is significant here: it means that an active force is operating to prevent the flow of wealth in the other direction. Thus, resources are being withheld from a singnificant number of others.

Now, perhaps you define 'enslavement' to include only the unwilling transfer of funds from one group of people to another, but even this is flawed - those at the bottom (in terms of wealth) may part with their money, but they would prefer not to do so. Those at the top may not pay taxes, but they certainly don't mind having more extracted if it's a necessary consequence of having more for themselves. In either case, the only thing preventing one group from simply taking from the other is the law.

Second point: I hardly think that requiring that taxes be paid is 'enslavement.' Anyone who wishes to do work in Britain is implicitly agreeing to pay taxes. It's their choice to pay the money, because they choose to accept a higher rate of pay. It's hardly applicable!

Third point: taxes exist to give the government the power to implement public services, such as the police, the fire brigade (or firefighters), waste disposal, judiciary services and the like. Are the people who can't afford security guards, therefore, enslaving everyone else when they call the police to stop a break in, or to prevent being attacked? And, going even further, should the law only belong to those who can afford it? Should there be no state-paid solicitors, barristers, lawers or attourneys?

A government requires the power to protect its citizens, and I consider protecting their health from the ravages of disease just as important as protecting them from any other form of assault.

In the words of Euler: respond!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

You're ignoring the issue.

If you're going to GUARANTEE that these services are going to be available, then several things come about as a result of that.

First, you've got to ensure that there are people to perform the services. If you can't find people willing to do that, you've got to force them. If they're willing to perform the services in return for compensation, you've got to force still others to provide the compensation.

Second, you've got to ensure that there are the material goods necessary to perform the services. Same thing applies.

I could go on and on and on...

:evil:

You're ignoring the issue.

If you're going to GUARANTEE that these services are going to be available, then several things come about as a result of that.

First, you've got to ensure that there are people to perform the services. If you can't find people willing to do that, you've got to force them. If they're willing to perform the services in return for compensation, you've got to force still others to provide the compensation.

Second, you've got to ensure that there are the material goods necessary to perform the services. Same thing applies.

I could go on and on and on...

I'm looking the issue clean in the face.

If you're going to enforce anything, you need the resources to do it, whether it's power and influence or simply material wealth. A government needs to make people do things, i.e. enforce them. Is it going to gently persuade Mr. W. L. Protected to fund the police out of sheer good will? No, it will take money from him, and under threat of legal action. Whether you call this 'exploitation' or 'taxes,' the government needs it to operate. The only other possibility is to simply dissolve the government, i.e. anarchy, and frankly I don't consider that people are smart enough or scrupulous enough for that. (No offence to the curious nations that manage it.)

The fact is, forcing people to do something is a regular and, in fact, required aspect of running a civilised society, and frankly I think forcing someone to part with taxes to save a life is pretty good, compared to some of the things money is spent on.

Or are all taxes enslavement? Is the government to transform into anarchy, or devolve into a plutocracy?

- Jordan

:evil: THE FREE PEOPLE OF TRISTANTHIA BELIEVE THAT CAPITALISM IS FUNDAMENTALLY NOT NICE. WE RESPECT THE FACT THAT EVEN CAPITALISTS ARE FREE TO DO AS THEY WISH, BUT WOULD ALSO LIKIE TO POINT OUT THAT CAPITLAISTS DO NOT RESPECT THE EARTH ON WHICH THEY LIVE, NOR DO THEY RESPECT THIER FELLOW BROTHERS' RIGHTS TO FRESH FOOD, WATER, AIR AND SANITATION.

HOWEVER, THE FREE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO THANK CAPITALISTS IN GENERAL FOR THIER EFFORTS IN HOME ENTERTAINMENT ESPECIALLY FOR PLAYSTATION AND X-BOX.

THE PEOPLE HAVE PREPARED A STATEMENT: "AHEM....F*#K YOU, BUT THANKS FOR THE PLAYSTATIONS"

:evil: THE FREE PEOPLE OF TRISTANTHIA BELIEVE THAT CAPITALISM IS FUNDAMENTALLY NOT NICE. WE RESPECT THE FACT THAT EVEN CAPITALISTS ARE FREE TO DO AS THEY WISH, BUT WOULD ALSO LIKIE TO POINT OUT THAT CAPITLAISTS DO NOT RESPECT THE EARTH ON WHICH THEY LIVE, NOR DO THEY RESPECT THIER FELLOW BROTHERS' RIGHTS TO FRESH FOOD, WATER, AIR AND SANITATION.

HOWEVER, THE FREE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO THANK CAPITALISTS IN GENERAL FOR THIER EFFORTS IN HOME ENTERTAINMENT ESPECIALLY FOR PLAYSTATION AND X-BOX.

THE PEOPLE HAVE PREPARED A STATEMENT: "AHEM....F*#K YOU, BUT THANKS FOR THE PLAYSTATIONS"

On behalf of those who exploit me, and wish that poor people as smart as myself would not bother going to University but rather sit at home watching daytime television and spending my money to please them, I would like to offer my heartfelt acceptance of your gratitude.

...

No, I'm not really all that exploited. But I still can't afford a computer of my own...

- Jordan

profit is not exploitation. check a dictionary. better yet, let me post the definition:An advantageous gain or return; benefit.
The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.
Communism will always fail in the long run because it is the ultimate fascism- the State provides everything, and only the state can improve your life, so the strong and the willing become virtual slaves to the weak and the lazy.
Read Atlas Shrugged, or the Faith of the Fallen.
therefore, if I make a profit, it is because of MY work, and not your stupidity- which seems top be in rampant display, if you think capitalism is all bad. there are abuses, yes, but they are generally in the minority. and Capitalism did not fail in the great depression; if anything, that is an example of enlightened thinking causing a decline in prices at the same time as the majority of the country put itself into debt with the Stock markets-which then crashed, due to the misactions of the few and the stupidity of the many.
If you wish to ban anything, ban stupidity.

I notice that no one has, thusfar, posted a definition of capitalism, or resolved the dialectical debate on how to start...

- Jordan

You're ignoring the issue.

If you're going to GUARANTEE that these services are going to be available, then several things come about as a result of that.

First, you've got to ensure that there are people to perform the services. If you can't find people willing to do that, you've got to force them. If they're willing to perform the services in return for compensation, you've got to force still others to provide the compensation.

Second, you've got to ensure that there are the material goods necessary to perform the services. Same thing applies.

I could go on and on and on...

I'm looking the issue clean in the face.

If you're going to enforce anything, you need the resources to do it, whether it's power and influence or simply material wealth. A government needs to make people do things, i.e. enforce them. Is it going to gently persuade Mr. W. L. Protected to fund the police out of sheer good will? No, it will take money from him, and under threat of legal action. Whether you call this 'exploitation' or 'taxes,' the government needs it to operate. The only other possibility is to simply dissolve the government, i.e. anarchy, and frankly I don't consider that people are smart enough or scrupulous enough for that. (No offence to the curious nations that manage it.)

The fact is, forcing people to do something is a regular and, in fact, required aspect of running a civilised society, and frankly I think forcing someone to part with taxes to save a life is pretty good, compared to some of the things money is spent on.

Or are all taxes enslavement? Is the government to transform into anarchy, or devolve into a plutocracy?

- Jordan

A police force is a necessary evil, as there would be more robbery without one. Healthcare, however, is not.

Taxes are not enslavement; they are robbery. Enslavement would be something like the draft.

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.

Your failure to acknowledge the immorality of letting the poor die of disease says a lot.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Your failure to acknowledge the immorality of letting the poor die of disease says a lot.

Disease has nothing to do with morality. Disease is just... there. Most people die of disease.

Morality is about what people do. Nature isn't sentient. It isn't moral or immoral. And since people don't have the right to enslave, you're left with an amoral action (doing nothing, i.e. nature) versus a clearly immoral one (slavery). I choose the amoral.

Those of you advocating against capitalism also seem to be advocates of the common, yet simply erroneous, statement that "Money is the root of all evil." Those of you supporting communism seem to deem money as evil. Rather than use my own words to argue with you (and watch my head swell and explode), I shall quote a wise woman. This is an excerp from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Thos pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you’ll learn that a man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced an of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.

To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that man must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy the worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more that your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then you money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of sham. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respect is has earned it.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and his life, as he deserves.

Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikes of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society established criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes on, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

Do you wish to know whether the day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it done not make terms with brutality. IT will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: ‘Account overdrawn.’

When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying this world?’ You are.

You stand in the midst of the greatest achievement of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. The phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.

To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pat to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there was no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real make of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always though of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looter’s credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.

Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out."

If you can refute a single word of that, I would gladly listen.

Objectivist Chimps is so right, and I agree 100%.
Not only that, Atlas Shrugged, is the best book on earth.
Capitalism is not evil, it is the only just form of living out there, plus it works. Communism is bound to fail, because if you will always get a pay chack, why try to work hard? All incentive is gone, that is why all communisms will and have failed.
So I leave you with these words:

I'd rather have unequal sharing of blessings than equal sharing of misery and/or suffering

You're ignoring the issue.

If you're going to GUARANTEE that these services are going to be available, then several things come about as a result of that.

First, you've got to ensure that there are people to perform the services. If you can't find people willing to do that, you've got to force them. If they're willing to perform the services in return for compensation, you've got to force still others to provide the compensation.

Second, you've got to ensure that there are the material goods necessary to perform the services. Same thing applies.

I could go on and on and on...

I'm looking the issue clean in the face.

If you're going to enforce anything, you need the resources to do it, whether it's power and influence or simply material wealth. A government needs to make people do things, i.e. enforce them. Is it going to gently persuade Mr. W. L. Protected to fund the police out of sheer good will? No, it will take money from him, and under threat of legal action. Whether you call this 'exploitation' or 'taxes,' the government needs it to operate. The only other possibility is to simply dissolve the government, i.e. anarchy, and frankly I don't consider that people are smart enough or scrupulous enough for that. (No offence to the curious nations that manage it.)

The fact is, forcing people to do something is a regular and, in fact, required aspect of running a civilised society, and frankly I think forcing someone to part with taxes to save a life is pretty good, compared to some of the things money is spent on.

Or are all taxes enslavement? Is the government to transform into anarchy, or devolve into a plutocracy?

- Jordan

A police force is a necessary evil, as there would be more robbery without one. Healthcare, however, is not.

Taxes are not enslavement; they are robbery. Enslavement would be something like the draft.

Not necessary, or not evil?

Personally, I think it's the latter. Causing someone harm through inaction is only marginally better than actively causing harm.

If I accept your reasoning about the police force, I can reply that healthcare is also necessary, because there would be more people dying or suffering without it. Do you really think that suffering caused by robbery is more pronounced than that caused by a real, physical complaint? Whether or not that affects you directly doesn't matter, because what really matters is how it affects the people in poor health, or those attached to them - otherwise your logic doesn't hold.

Once, I would have cared that my health, housing and education depend on money extracted from other people. However, I've came to realise that:

1. I'm far smarter than most people, I take better care of my body and I live frugally and conscienciously. I benefit far better from the little I use than they do collectively from what they give away.

2. Generally, they dislike parting with money because they're selfish and/or judgemental.

3. They themselves seldom have scruples about 'playing the system' if it's to their benefit.

4. It's likely that I'll be a high earner myself one day, and I'll be paying plenty back in taxes then.

Thus, I justify the tiny amount that I require to live from day to day. On a wider scale... Frankly, the government needs taxes to operate, or we have a plutocracy - how else would it receive funding for projects and public services?

It's not that I support Communism - a system equally oppressive as total capitalism - I just don't support greed as a reason to let people die. Most political and economic ideologies are collections of vague and (empirically speaking) arbitrary precepts with certain values at heart, which do not naturally exist - the realm of values is entirely within our minds. Call it 'robbery' if you will, but the police aren't going to pay for themselves, and neither is healthcare. Property and territorial divisions seem to stem from animal instincts to dominate or control certain resources, but the abstract relationship of ownership has no logical reason to exist other than our inability to work in a system without it. My arbitrary values include placing human lives above property rights, while yours seems to involve the reverse, perhaps as an entailment of another value. If it gets down to arguing that, we're at a logical impasse.

Can I also ask why you used the word 'robbery'? I think it's purely because of the negative connotations - the forceful reappropriation of resources is not necessarily immoral because you give it a judgemental designation.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

1. Money is completely irrelevent. I think it is the use (or misuse) of money which is considered 'evil'. What an absurd concept...

2. I'm not a communist.

3. I was going to respond, but there's a big problem: there's no logic in that argument. It relies entirely on emotion. The more I read, the more I realised people would be unsatisfied, because this man, regardless of his logical faculties, is manipulating people through sheer emotional blackmail. Honestly,all that claptrap about money being used morally, and his pithy, judgemental designations of 'moocher' and 'looter'. I tried to rise to the challenge, pointing out that he obviously considers men responsible not to their fellow man, but their business transactions alone, that the ambitious are seldom scrupulous, that property laws are enforced in an identical fashion to taxation and so on, but after writing a significant amount I realised it would be totally ineffective, since those who heed this sort of material are more susceptible to emotional manipulation than reasoning, and are unlikely to be swayed.

I wish I could be less harsh, but the underpinnings, being almost entirely emotional, are irrefutable. (Note that to be scientific, it must be possible to refute an argument.)

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.

Best at what? ripping off the poor? invading other countries to steal natural resources?

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.

Economically, of course, because the only valid ideological perceptions are made from within the ideological system, right?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.

Best at what? ripping off the poor? invading other countries to steal natural resources?

Ah, a similar point has already been made, I see?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.

What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.

Best at what? ripping off the poor? invading other countries to steal natural resources?

Uh... best at producing a viable economy and providing a comparably high quality of life for all of its citizens, including the poor.

And yes I opposed the war on Iraq. Under true capitalism there is no intiation of force. Such actions are distinctly Keynesian/Mercantilist.

Not necessary, or not evil?

Not necessary. A system of free healthcare does not protect people from a greater amount of robbery than it causes.

Personally, I think it's the latter. Causing someone harm through inaction is only marginally better than actively causing harm.

So... me and you are responsible for everything that goes wrong since we could've done something? So I just lost $1 million today because I didn't buy any of the stocks that made an upsurge?

If you say that a positive and a negative action are essentially the same thing, you're just being irrational.

If I accept your reasoning about the police force, I can reply that healthcare is also necessary, because there would be more people dying or suffering without it. Do you really think that suffering caused by robbery is more pronounced than that caused by a real, physical complaint?

Robbery isn't evil because it causes suffering. Robbery is evil because it violates rights. If ending suffering because the ultimate end of a political system, you're stuck with a Brave New World-style dystopia.

Whether or not that affects you directly doesn't matter, because what really matters is how it affects the people in poor health, or those attached to them - otherwise your logic doesn't hold.

No it does matter if it affects me... if I'm paying for it. Your logic is essentially that robbery only concerns the robber and not the victim.

Once, I would have cared that my health, housing and education depend on money extracted from other people. However, I've came to realise that:

That's called "ethics." And by that statement you have shown that YOU are the most irrationally selfish person here.

1. I'm far smarter than most people, I take better care of my body and I live frugally and conscienciously. I benefit far better from the little I use than they do collectively from what they give away.

So? I'm far smarter than most people too. I bet I could make more use of money than most people could. That doesn't mean that I'm entilted to their money.

2. Generally, they dislike parting with money because they're selfish and/or judgemental.

Which is like saying, "theft isn't wrong because people who are unwilling to have stuff stolen from them are selfish."

Whether they are selfish or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that it's their money.

3. They themselves seldom have scruples about 'playing the system' if it's to their benefit.

So we should prevent them from doing so. It's still wrong to rob people who MAY or MAY NOT rob you if they had the chance.

4. It's likely that I'll be a high earner myself one day, and I'll be paying plenty back in taxes then.

So? When you borrow money with no equity and force or trick people to accept it, even if you can pay it back later, we call that "fraud". Punishable by a lengthy prison term.

Thus, I justify the tiny amount that I require to live from day to day. On a wider scale... Frankly, the government needs taxes to operate, or we have a plutocracy - how else would it receive funding for projects and public services?

The government's job is to protect individuals and their rights. Projects aren't in their realm of operation. That's what charities and social services are for.

It's not that I support Communism - a system equally oppressive as total capitalism - I just don't support greed as a reason to let people die. Most political and economic ideologies are collections of vague and (empirically speaking) arbitrary precepts with certain values at heart, which do not naturally exist - the realm of values is entirely within our minds.

So you don't really own your body? So the government is justified in shooting you since the right to life is just a social construct?

Call it 'robbery' if you will, but the police aren't going to pay for themselves, and neither is healthcare.

The cost of a police force is actually relatively minor compared to healthcare. Without a police force there would be more robbery and enslavement than the minor cost of a police force.

And you're damn right that healthcare won't pay for itself... the doctors should be allowed to choose who pays for it. And if you don't want to pay for it, you are free not to use the service.

Property and territorial divisions seem to stem from animal instincts to dominate or control certain resources, but the abstract relationship of ownership has no logical reason to exist other than our inability to work in a system without it.

It derives naturally from your right to life. If you have a right to life, then you have teh right to your body. If you have teh right to your body, then you have teh right to the products of your body.

If you hold that property is a social construct, then the natural result of that assumption is that the right to life becomes a social construct as well. No government that has not protected property rights has remained free for very long.

My arbitrary values include placing human lives above property rights, while yours seems to involve the reverse, perhaps as an entailment of another value. If it gets down to arguing that, we're at a logical impasse.

Mine's involves placing RIGHTS IN GENERAL as the highest priority of government. We're here discussing the right to liberty (i.e. whether or not enslaving doctors is justified) as opposed to just the right to property (though the right to property does come in throuhg taxes).

Can I also ask why you used the word 'robbery'? I think it's purely because of the negative connotations - the forceful reappropriation of resources is not necessarily immoral because you give it a judgemental designation.

Because that's what taxes are ... the forceful reappropriation of resources. If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot. That's force. What other word would you use? Robbery is easier to say than "the forceful reappropriation of resources".

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Monarch, surprise, surprise.

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the poor over the rich… it is the only form of tyranny that lasts.”
--Oscar Wilde

Why is the right to have large amounts of something that is only valuable because society says it is so important to you?

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the poor over the rich… it is the only form of tyranny that lasts.”

How do the poor exert any authority over the rich? The rich regularly allow many of them to die.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Why is the right to have large amounts of something that is only valuable because society says it is so important to you?

No. Something is valuable to you because YOU like it.

The right to property is the right to what you produce and what others give you. It is inexorably tied in with other natural rights, such as the right to life and the right to liberty. If you accept the axiom that a person is sovereign over his own body, then it follows that he is sovereign over the products thereof; hence property rights.

How do the poor exert any authority over the rich? The rich regularly allow many of them to die.

They can exert authority through the vote. My Oscar Wilde quote was a warning, a foreboding if you will.

If the rich intervened in matters of the poor instead of leaving them to their own devices, as you suggest, is that not the tyranny of the rich then?

Does it not insult the poor person for you to demand that a rich person be his father figure? And does it not insult the rich person to rob from him?

Oops, simulpost!

Not necessary, or not evil?

Not necessary. A system of free healthcare does not protect people from a greater amount of robbery than it causes.

I know you meant that, I was just making the most of a trivial semantic transformation.

Personally, I think it's the latter. Causing someone harm through inaction is only marginally better than actively causing harm.

So... me and you are responsible for everything that goes wrong since we could've done something? So I just lost $1 million today because I didn't buy any of the stocks that made an upsurge?

Not correct. I anticipated this, but I hoped that no one would actually take it to extremes, and that if they did they would answer it themselves.

We are, logically, responsible for everything we can knowingly do something about. Unfortunately, we can seldom do anything about most injustices (solving them, or even allieviating them, would take far more resources and ability than most of us possess), and those we can do something about would require a lot of dedication - so much, in fact, that we would likely be compromising our responsibilities towards ourselves, such as keeping healthy or retaining financial solvency.

That shouldn't be interpreted as 'we should look after ourselves, then' - rather, it means that we shouldn't become so caught up in other people that we forget about ourselves. Incidentally, I believe this is roughly what modern Christianity teaches - responsibility for one's brother and for one's self.

If you say that a positive and a negative action are essentially the same thing, you're just being irrational.

If you think I'm saying that, you have misinterpreted me. I'm saying that a deliberate choice to do something (to someone's detriment) is almost as bad as a deliberate choice not to do something, thus causing someone harm. Witholding water from someone dying of thirst is hardly any better than taking what water they do have away from them. The latter is worse, but only by degree.

And as I pointed out, all this depends on your conception of values.

If I accept your reasoning about the police force, I can reply that healthcare is also necessary, because there would be more people dying or suffering without it. Do you really think that suffering caused by robbery is more pronounced than that caused by a real, physical complaint?

Robbery isn't evil because it causes suffering. Robbery is evil because it violates rights. If ending suffering because the ultimate end of a political system, you're stuck with a Brave New World-style dystopia.

I'll go over the relativity of values again. If the ultimate end of government is to protect rights, then one has a dilemma: where do rights end? In the above analogy, you would probably say that, if you own surplus water, you are under no obligation to offer it to the dying man. (If you wouldn't, I'd like to see how you fit this in with your philosophy.) Basically, this would mean that someone could be denied the right to life to protect someone else's right to own property. The healthcare issue is simply a less direct version of this dilemma.

Robbery isn't evil because it's a violation of rights per se, but because it's a violation of rights according to an a priori moral philosophy.

Whether or not that affects you directly doesn't matter, because what really matters is how it affects the people in poor health, or those attached to them - otherwise your logic doesn't hold.

No it does matter if it affects me... if I'm paying for it. Your logic is essentially that robbery only concerns the robber and not the victim.

That was poorly phrased, so I see how you would interpret me thus. Apologies. I do not contend that robbery concerns solely the robber, but that consideration must be made for them both.

Once, I would have cared that my health, housing and education depend on money extracted from other people. However, I've came to realise that:

That's called "ethics." And by that statement you have shown that YOU are the most irrationally selfish person here.

Are you suggesting that it would be more ethically correct to live on the street, let my mind go to waste, and probably die several times over because I couldn't afford healthcare? Or that I should enter into child labour, or whatever work a destitute can perform? Because that's my only option. It's not as if I can help who I'm born to, and I belong to a family living below the poverty line for this country. Should I have refused to go to University because the wealthy are paying a tiny amount for my education, and contented myself with flipping burgers or basic accounting?

I'm not going to defend myself (and I could), because I don't see why you're snapping to an irrational judgement about my character based on one sentence, which tells you almost nothing about me. Suffice to say, I'm not going to die because some wealthier individuals are greedier than I am.

1. I'm far smarter than most people, I take better care of my body and I live frugally and conscienciously. I benefit far better from the little I use than they do collectively from what they give away.

So? I'm far smarter than most people too. I bet I could make more use of money than most people could. That doesn't mean that I'm entilted to their money.

The point being, I'm not going to waste opportunities when I'm far better placed to take advantage of them. I was specifically referring to education here - frankly I think it's counterproductive for Universities to teach according to wealth rather than talent - it would be immoral for me not to use my abilities, and I don't really care if someone's unhappy about the fractions of a penny it costs them.

2. Generally, they dislike parting with money because they're selfish and/or judgemental.

Which is like saying, "theft isn't wrong because people who are unwilling to have stuff stolen from them are selfish."

Whether they are selfish or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that it's their money.

Incorrect. I was referring to greed, which is to want excessively. Taxes can be steep, but you have to be earning a fair amount before they get steep. People may complain about them, but it's mostly out of greed, and thus I feel rather less guilty when they go on tirades about their 'hard earned cash' going to waste - which, I'm sure, is no less hard-earned than the money of any decent, low-wage citizen. I acknowledge that their motivation is, primarily, immoral.

I'm not saying immoral acts committed on immoral people aren't wrong, I'm saying that arguments based on immoral justifications are weaker. If you think that my accepting the money is immoral, fine, but I'm no worse than any of the millions of better-off people who allow the government to pay their tuituition or healthcare.

3. They themselves seldom have scruples about 'playing the system' if it's to their benefit.

So we should prevent them from doing so. It's still wrong to rob people who MAY or MAY NOT rob you if they had the chance.

You call it robbery - and not because it's shorter, but because you are making a value judgement. I call it the most moral action. Do you think that acting as morally as one believes one can is wrong?

The main point being, I see no reason to base morality on what is convenient for myself or for someone else, as opposed to what I consider morally correct.

4. It's likely that I'll be a high earner myself one day, and I'll be paying plenty back in taxes then.

So? When you borrow money with no equity and force or trick people to accept it, even if you can pay it back later, we call that "fraud". Punishable by a lengthy prison term.

The name for it, when committed illegally, is irrelevent. This is money obtained legally and justifiably. I accept the justification, you don't.

Besides which, you beg the question with your language. You start from the premise that it is wrong, a classic example.

Now that the attack on my character has been fended off (and I'm not too bothered about it, because it's utterly inconsequential) I can continue.

Thus, I justify the tiny amount that I require to live from day to day. On a wider scale... Frankly, the government needs taxes to operate, or we have a plutocracy - how else would it receive funding for projects and public services?

The government's job is to protect individuals and their rights. Projects aren't in their realm of operation. That's what charities and social services are for.

I was referring to the police, councils, preservation comittees and the like when I referred to projects. And once more you beg the question, in a very obvious fashion - you DEFINE what a government does according to your own argument, and then state that I am therefore incorrect! In reality, this definition is part of what we are questioning, making your reasoning rather suspect.

In the UK, so far as I am aware, social services are implemented by, paid for and answerable to the government, so they are certainly within their scope.

It's not that I support Communism - a system equally oppressive as total capitalism - I just don't support greed as a reason to let people die. Most political and economic ideologies are collections of vague and (empirically speaking) arbitrary precepts with certain values at heart, which do not naturally exist - the realm of values is entirely within our minds.

So you don't really own your body? So the government is justified in shooting you since the right to life is just a social construct?

Of course not. You might think I"m saying something absurd, if you refuse to look at this from outside of your own ideology, but from the perspective of pure reasoning, ownership has no logical basis. Neither, of course, does non-ownership, because the concepts are outside of the realms of logic and exist only within the domain of values. You assume, immediately, that you own your body without any rational basis, because your concept of ownership is a priori to your consideration.

That doesn't mean I don't think that 'ownership of one's own body' is an unreasonable value. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't something one can rationally deduce without prior value assumptions.

Call it 'robbery' if you will, but the police aren't going to pay for themselves, and neither is healthcare.

The cost of a police force is actually relatively minor compared to healthcare. Without a police force there would be more robbery and enslavement than the minor cost of a police force.

Once more, you assume that robbery is a greater crime. I have a question for you: if it cost more to operate a police force than was lost through non-tax robbery, and the cost was paid for through taxation, would you still support it? And if not, are you implying that those who can afford it should simply protect themselves rather than pay a police force?

And you're damn right that healthcare won't pay for itself... the doctors should be allowed to choose who pays for it. And if you don't want to pay for it, you are free not to use the service.

And that's the thing: doctors are free to work wherever they want to. They made a choice to be doctors. They made a choice to accept the work offered to them by the NHS. They may want more money, but they chose to enter the profession they did, knowing who would pay for them, and can choose to leave it at any time. Why should doctors, once they have entered, choose who should pay for them? Are you advocating massive industrial democracy?

Property and territorial divisions seem to stem from animal instincts to dominate or control certain resources, but the abstract relationship of ownership has no logical reason to exist other than our inability to work in a system without it.

It derives naturally from your right to life. If you have a right to life, then you have teh right to your body. If you have teh right to your body, then you have teh right to the products of your body.

OK, starting arbitrarily with the 'right to life' (something important in my own value system):

If you have a right to life, you logically have the right to have one's body treated accordingly, since one cannot live without one's own body. However, you cannot then argue that you have the right to the products of your own body. There is no deductive step that leads from one to the other. Once more, you are implicitly assuming other values which you have not stated.

Furthermore, to define ownership precisely one must look all the way back to the problem of original ownership. At what point can one say that a person owns something? One can destroy the idea of continuous sequential ownership by pointing out that it is impossible to decide on how to initiate ownership, or the extent to which ownership can be applied. Can someone own the moon, or Jupiter? How? This is a simple problem which is utterly impossible to address. Ownership is not only a value, but a poorly defined one.

Lastly, even if I hadn't picked up on your faulty logic, I could still have asked why the last value should count more than the second, from which it derives.

If you hold that property is a social construct, then the natural result of that assumption is that the right to life becomes a social construct as well. No government that has not protected property rights has remained free for very long.

Whether or not ignoring it is useful, it remains a social constuct. I can't comment upon what happens to governments who do not protect property rights, because I don't have any conclusive evidence to argue from.

I should point out here that I don't actually think a government should ignore property rights - yet. I am undecided on the issue, but I acknowledge that without something in place to implement some form of property rights, society as we know it would change radically and unpredictably. I question merely the precedence of property rights.

My arbitrary values include placing human lives above property rights, while yours seems to involve the reverse, perhaps as an entailment of another value. If it gets down to arguing that, we're at a logical impasse.

Mine's involves placing RIGHTS IN GENERAL as the highest priority of government. We're here discussing the right to liberty (i.e. whether or not enslaving doctors is justified) as opposed to just the right to property (though the right to property does come in throuhg taxes).

Well, if we're only discussing enslaving doctors, I have already discussed it, and demonstrated that no such enslavement is taking place - the work is VOLUTARY. And I also consider protecting rights the highest priority of government, so we at least have some common ground on which to base our debate! The problem is, as I say, that I consider certain rights such as the right to live to be more important than the right to own property. Answering why this requires (as I said way back when I first posted here)
that we decide what approach is required to answer the question.

Can I also ask why you used the word 'robbery'? I think it's purely because of the negative connotations - the forceful reappropriation of resources is not necessarily immoral because you give it a judgemental designation.

Because that's what taxes are ... the forceful reappropriation of resources. If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot. That's force. What other word would you use? Robbery is easier to say than "the forceful reappropriation of resources".

And I still feel that you use that word because of its rhetorical value. Nevertheless, I have ignored this - thus, when you see the word above, I hope that you realise I use it devoid of the implications of its normal context.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Monarch, surprise, surprise.

OOC: I chose to play a Monarch because it seemed to fit the workings of the game, and because I thought it would be an interesting choice of character; it also satisfies my taste for irony, since I feel a monarchy is one of the worst forms of government. I take it you meant that in jest? :lol:

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

What order do the rights go in? What is the most important?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the poor over the rich… it is the only form of tyranny that lasts.”
--Oscar Wilde

Indeed. One must remember, of course, that the rich could not be rich without someone to be poor - otherwise, we would have equal division of wealth and no one would be either.

So really, it's a self-inflicted tyranny. They want to be rich. They can't expect poor people not to.

Unfortunately, every economic class is (as a whole) greedy to keep what it has, and to get more - we have a conflict of interests. Remember that the relationship goes both ways, such that the rich exert a tyranny (deserving or not) over the world's resources.

What a poor, one-sided quote! Tellingly, Wilde was a pretty wealthy man... Do I smell self-interest?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Who needs social classes, anyway?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Why is the right to have large amounts of something that is only valuable because society says it is so important to you?

No. Something is valuable to you because YOU like it.

Things can also be valuable because of their innate financial worth - such as gold or oil.

The right to property is the right to what you produce and what others give you. It is inexorably tied in with other natural rights, such as the right to life and the right to liberty. If you accept the axiom that a person is sovereign over his own body, then it follows that he is sovereign over the products thereof; hence property rights.

And as I point out, that still doesn't answer a key question: who owns, or will own, the moon, and how? And in case you think I'm being absurd, consider that the 'products' of one's own body come from something else, i.e. the natural world. Who owns that?

How do the poor exert any authority over the rich? The rich regularly allow many of them to die.

They can exert authority through the vote. My Oscar Wilde quote was a warning, a foreboding if you will.

Resources are being redistributed because greed, protected by the 'right to property,' is not considered a just basis to claim all and leave little, or even nothing, for others.

If the rich intervened in matters of the poor instead of leaving them to their own devices, as you suggest, is that not the tyranny of the rich then?

The rich, by claiming this right to property, maintain control over a disproportionately large amount of the earth's natural resources, leaving many with such a limited portion that it is insufficient for even basic health purposes. Thus, they exert an implicit tyranny. It seems to me that you're ignoring how distribution of wealth and one's place in the distribution can limit a class of people.

Does it not insult the poor person for you to demand that a rich person be his father figure? And does it not insult the rich person to rob from him?

Does it not insult the poor person to suggest that one has a right to a fantastically better life, or even to life itself, simply because one claims a 'right' of property?

Marx got many things wrong (and I stress, I am not a communist). However, he did realise that ideologies are easily manipulated to preserve a favourable situation for a few. You can turn that back on me, of course, but it remains that while the rich man is bartering over luxaries, the poor man (under your system) would be fighting for the basic necessities of life itself.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Not correct. I anticipated this, but I hoped that no one would actually take it to extremes, and that if they did they would answer it themselves.

We are, logically, responsible for everything we can knowingly do something about. Unfortunately, we can seldom do anything about most injustices (solving them, or even allieviating them, would take far more resources and ability than most of us possess), and those we can do something about would require a lot of dedication - so much, in fact, that we would likely be compromising our responsibilities towards ourselves, such as keeping healthy or retaining financial solvency.

Have you ever heard of opportunity costs? I might be able to do many, many things, but if I do one of those then I won't have time to do another. Let's say two people are bleeding to death on two separate streets and I'm an ambulance driver. I can save either one, but I can only save one of them. By your logic, I would be responsible for the death of the other one, which I'm clearly not.

That shouldn't be interpreted as 'we should look after ourselves, then' - rather, it means that we shouldn't become so caught up in other people that we forget about ourselves. Incidentally, I believe this is roughly what modern Christianity teaches - responsibility for one's brother and for one's self.

Responsibility to one's self always comes first. Responsibility to one's brother follows that. However, responsibility to one's self also means respect for the rights of others.

If you think I'm saying that, you have misinterpreted me. I'm saying that a deliberate choice to do something (to someone's detriment) is almost as bad as a deliberate choice not to do something, thus causing someone harm. Witholding water from someone dying of thirst is hardly any better than taking what water they do have away from them. The latter is worse, but only by degree.

Only, not, because if you hold that people are responsible for negative actions (unless they agreed to commit a positive action through contract), then there's basically no stopping the slippery slope.

I'll go over the relativity of values again. If the ultimate end of government is to protect rights, then one has a dilemma: where do rights end? In the above analogy, you would probably say that, if you own surplus water, you are under no obligation to offer it to the dying man. (If you wouldn't, I'd like to see how you fit this in with your philosophy.) Basically, this would mean that someone could be denied the right to life to protect someone else's right to own property. The healthcare issue is simply a less direct version of this dilemma.

Your right to life, liberty, property, etc. go insofar as you do not violate the rights of others. Like I ahve the right to own a pen. That doesn't mean I have the right to steal one from another person.

Robbery isn't evil because it's a violation of rights per se, but because it's a violation of rights according to an a priori moral philosophy.

Then what would YOUR system of rights be based on, if not the sovereignity of the individual?

Are you suggesting that it would be more ethically correct to live on the street, let my mind go to waste, and probably die several times over because I couldn't afford healthcare? Or that I should enter into child labour, or whatever work a destitute can perform?

Yes. Regardless of how much benefit that YOU incur from performing an action, you do not have the right to perform that action when you are directly violating the rights of someone else.

Because that's my only option. It's not as if I can help who I'm born to, and I belong to a family living below the poverty line for this country. Should I have refused to go to University because the wealthy are paying a tiny amount for my education, and contented myself with flipping burgers or basic accounting?

If you haven't noticed, most top American univerisites offer 100% need-based grants. This is because those rich people give the schools billions of dollars that the schools then use to fund poor kids' education. In fact, if we got the government out of it, the price of schools would only go down and there would be more endowment.

I'm not going to defend myself (and I could), because I don't see why you're snapping to an irrational judgement about my character based on one sentence, which tells you almost nothing about me. Suffice to say, I'm not going to die because some wealthier individuals are greedier than I am.

Your sentence was basically "other people exist to serve me". Of course I'm going to draw judgments from that.

Good selfishness is "Everyone ought to do what suits themselves."
Bad selfishness is "Everyone ought to do what suits me."

So? I'm far smarter than most people too. I bet I could make more use of money than most people could. That doesn't mean that I'm entilted to their money.

The point being, I'm not going to waste opportunities when I'm far better placed to take advantage of them. I was specifically referring to education here - frankly I think it's counterproductive for Universities to teach according to wealth rather than talent - it would be immoral for me not to use my abilities, and I don't really care if someone's unhappy about the fractions of a penny it costs them.[/quote]

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about! Of course I'm going to draw conclusions when you are basing your argument off of the premise that other people ought to serve you regardless of whether they want to or not. Universities DO teach on merit, not on wealth. But the point is that, when you rob other people, THEY are devoid of opportunities. And what about the poor kid across the street who would've went to school on a foundational scholarship but couldn't get one because its sponsor was overtaxed and all the taxes were wasted in bureaucracy?

Incorrect. I was referring to greed, which is to want excessively. Taxes can be steep, but you have to be earning a fair amount before they get steep.

That's funny, because my family pays 40-50% of its income in taxes and I still have to apply for financial aid (mostly private, mind you) when going to colleges.

People may complain about them, but it's mostly out of greed,

So? The fact remains that it's their money. You can't judge the values of other people because they want to retain what is legitimately theirs.

and thus I feel rather less guilty when they go on tirades about their 'hard earned cash' going to waste - which, I'm sure, is no less hard-earned than the money of any decent, low-wage citizen.

Incorrect. Your labor is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Just like the keyboard I'm typing with is worth what people are willing to pay for it. The ultimate judge of how valuable your work is is the person you're working for... he, after all, is forking out the money.

If a boss decides a lawyer's work is worth more than a secretary's, the lawyer will be paid more because his work is, indeed, more valuable. That has nothing to do with hard work... it's fairness.

I acknowledge that their motivation is, primarily, immoral.

How is wanting things immoral? You talked about moral relativism--I want you to explain your system of morality if it isn't based on individual rights. Greed only becomes immoral when you violate the rights of others.

I'm not saying immoral acts committed on immoral people aren't wrong, I'm saying that arguments based on immoral justifications are weaker. If you think that my accepting the money is immoral, fine, but I'm no worse than any of the millions of better-off people who allow the government to pay their tuituition or healthcare.

Accepting the money is not immoral. We all accept government charity all the time, and much of the time we have no choice in the matter.

Perhaps it would be heroic or noble to reject the money, but I would not say it is immoral to accept it.

I would, however, say it is immoral to steal the money in the first place.

You call it robbery - and not because it's shorter, but because you are making a value judgement. I call it the most moral action. Do you think that acting as morally as one believes one can is wrong?

Why is it a value judgment? Robbery is taking things by physical force. That definition works rather well.

I believe that you can do whatever you want, but as soon as you directly violate the right of another human being to do the same, you are acting immorally.

The main point being, I see no reason to base morality on what is convenient for myself or for someone else, as opposed to what I consider morally correct.

I agree. Principle does not bend to pragmatism. I consider protecting the rights of hte individual to be morally correct. What do YOU consider to be morally correct?

The name for it, when committed illegally, is irrelevent. This is money obtained legally and justifiably. I accept the justification, you don't.

So the Holocaust wasn't murder because it was legal?

Besides which, you beg the question with your language. You start from the premise that it is wrong, a classic example.

Now that the attack on my character has been fended off (and I'm not too bothered about it, because it's utterly inconsequential) I can continue.

Why is my premise wrong and where have you proved it without resorting to an argument that I have turned against you?


I was referring to the police, councils, preservation comittees and the like when I referred to projects. And once more you beg the question, in a very obvious fashion - you DEFINE what a government does according to your own argument, and then state that I am therefore incorrect! In reality, this definition is part of what we are questioning, making your reasoning rather suspect.

I define what a government does by four hundred years of republican social contract theory. Thusfar, it has been (more or less) the only way to achieve fair and democratic government. Unless you perfer tyranny.

In the UK, so far as I am aware, social services are implemented by, paid for and answerable to the government, so they are certainly within their scope.

Ever notice how all those governments are becomming more tyrannical as of late? Restrictions on free speech that would never have been tolerated in 1800 are commonplace. Likewise, idiotic things like the War on Drugs have caused massive violations of due process rights.

You want a policy impact, here: You cannot divorce property rights from human rights. Once you do, you lose both.

Of course not. You might think I"m saying something absurd, if you refuse to look at this from outside of your own ideology, but from the perspective of pure reasoning, ownership has no logical basis.

Why not? You concede that people have a right to life. Okay, then:

Individuals have a right to life. Therefore, [the right to life]
Individuals must logically have the right to their own body, which is the biological means for sustaining life. Therefore, [the right to liberty]
Individuals must logically have the right to the products of their own body and mind and what other individuals freely choose to give them, hence property. [the right to property]

Neither, of course, does non-ownership, because the concepts are outside of the realms of logic and exist only within the domain of values.

Then what do you consider logic? Logic has to end in some value. Logic supplies the means, YOU have to create an ends. My ends is the protection of rights. You haven't provided any alternate ends.

You assume, immediately, that you own your body without any rational basis, because your concept of ownership is a priori to your consideration.

If you don't own your own body, you do not have the right to your body. If you do not have the right to your body, you do not have the right ot life. If you do not have the right to life, I can shoot you for no reason and be morally justified in doing so. It's that simple.

That doesn't mean I don't think that 'ownership of one's own body' is an unreasonable value. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't something one can rationally deduce without prior value assumptions.

I have one prior value assumption -- the right to life.

You have to start with a value premise. Deduction means starting with an overlapping premise and finding lesser conclusions. That means you need a premise in the first place.

Once more, you assume that robbery is a greater crime. I have a question for you: if it cost more to operate a police force than was lost through non-tax robbery, and the cost was paid for through taxation, would you still support it?

You would also have to factor in murder, rape, kidnappings, etc.

But if a police force became more costly than the problems it solved, I would support reforming or changing it. In this case, the police force becomes destructive to the very ends for which it was created.

And if not, are you implying that those who can afford it should simply protect themselves rather than pay a police force?

No. The state claims a monopoly on force. That's why we have governments (before you get into moral relativism again, this is what conventional social contract theory which Western governments are based on hold as self-evident). Because individuals cannot morally intiatie force against other individuals (violates the right to life/liberty), people are not justified in acting as vigilantes or engaging in preemptive defense.

They do, however, have an absolute right to immediate self-defense.

And that's the thing: doctors are free to work wherever they want to. They made a choice to be doctors. They made a choice to accept the work offered to them by the NHS. They may want more money, but they chose to enter the profession they did, knowing who would pay for them, and can choose to leave it at any time. Why should doctors, once they have entered, choose who should pay for them? Are you advocating massive industrial democracy?

Perhaps my phrasing was off. The people who own the hospitals have the right to demand whatever conditions they want for treatment. Many doctors work in private practices, and in those practices, the doctors have more leeway.

Your scenario, however, is unjustified because in this case the government corners the market, i.e. it enforces a monopoly with physical force. Thus, in this case, doctors do not really have a free choice the way they would in a market economy with private hospitals competing.

OK, starting arbitrarily with the 'right to life' (something important in my own value system):

If you have a right to life, you logically have the right to have one's body treated accordingly, since one cannot live without one's own body. However, you cannot then argue that you have the right to the products of your own body. There is no deductive step that leads from one to the other. Once more, you are implicitly assuming other values which you have not stated.

Certainly. If you have teh right to something, you have the right to its products. This is the foundation of common law in every Western country. The deduction is that if you have the absolute right to something, that means 100% ownership, then you can use that something in whatever way you wish [except harming others]. Thus, you have the right to produce. And if you have the right to produce, then you have teh right to the products. That seems fair enough.

Furthermore, to define ownership precisely one must look all the way back to the problem of original ownership. At what point can one say that a person owns something?

A person owns something under one of three conditions:
- He creates it (production)
- Somebody else who owns it gives it to him (trade, this is the most common in modern society)
- He 'homesteads' unowned resources and is able to legitimately assert his claim by making use of them (appropriation. Applies mostly to land This is very rare nowadays, but was how land ownership got started)

One can destroy the idea of continuous sequential ownership by pointing out that it is impossible to decide on how to initiate ownership, or the extent to which ownership can be applied. Can someone own the moon, or Jupiter? How?

The Moon and Jupiter are unowned resources at the point. For somebody to own it, they would have to have a sufficient interest in it, and then be able to assert his claim by building on it. This 'homestead' method of property rights, however, should exist in a foundation of law. Common law establishes the right to homestead property, if you can make a viable claim to it. I do not have all the answers. You don't either.

This is a simple problem which is utterly impossible to address. Ownership is not only a value, but a poorly defined one.

That is only in the case of land. What about in the case of things that you actually do produce?

Lastly, even if I hadn't picked up on your faulty logic, I could still have asked why the last value should count more than the second, from which it derives.

It doesn't. They are the same value. They count equally.

Whether or not ignoring it is useful, it remains a social constuct. I can't comment upon what happens to governments who do not protect property rights, because I don't have any conclusive evidence to argue from.

Okay, let's say it is a social construct. At least, then, it is a necessary and proper one to free nations.

I should point out here that I don't actually think a government should ignore property rights - yet. I am undecided on the issue, but I acknowledge that without something in place to implement some form of property rights, society as we know it would change radically and unpredictably. I question merely the precedence of property rights.

I never said they had precedence. I said they should be valued equally.

Well, if we're only discussing enslaving doctors, I have already discussed it, and demonstrated that no such enslavement is taking place - the work is VOLUTARY.

Not if you use physical force corner the market it's not. That's like saying "living on the slave coast in Africa was voluntary, so everything the slaves did was really voluntary."

And I also consider protecting rights the highest priority of government, so we at least have some common ground on which to base our debate! The problem is, as I say, that I consider certain rights such as the right to live to be more important than the right to own property. Answering why this requires (as I said way back when I first posted here) that we decide what approach is required to answer the question.

I believe that they are equal and derivative rights.

And I still feel that you use that word because of its rhetorical value. Nevertheless, I have ignored this - thus, when you see the word above, I hope that you realise I use it devoid of the implications of its normal context.

Hey, you know what Aristotle says about ethos and logos.

OOC: I chose to play a Monarch because it seemed to fit the workings of the game, and because I thought it would be an interesting choice of character; it also satisfies my taste for irony, since I feel a monarchy is one of the worst forms of government. I take it you meant that in jest? :lol:

Yes I did. I'm Roman-obsessed myself, so I sign IC posts as "Praetor" or "Censor" a lot. :lol:

Oops, simulpost!

Sever sucks. I know. Haven't been able to get on at all in a few days.

"1. Money is completely irrelevent. I think it is the use (or misuse) of money which is considered 'evil'. What an absurd concept...

2. I'm not a communist.

3. I was going to respond, but there's a big problem: there's no logic in that argument. It relies entirely on emotion. The more I read, the more I realised people would be unsatisfied, because this man, regardless of his logical faculties, is manipulating people through sheer emotional blackmail. Honestly,all that claptrap about money being used morally, and his pithy, judgemental designations of 'moocher' and 'looter'. I tried to rise to the challenge, pointing out that he obviously considers men responsible not to their fellow man, but their business transactions alone, that the ambitious are seldom scrupulous, that property laws are enforced in an identical fashion to taxation and so on, but after writing a significant amount I realised it would be totally ineffective, since those who heed this sort of material are more susceptible to emotional manipulation than reasoning, and are unlikely to be swayed.

I wish I could be less harsh, but the underpinnings, being almost entirely emotional, are irrefutable. (Note that to be scientific, it must be possible to refute an argument.)

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus"

I would've used the quote feature but the server is running unbearably slowly (or perhaps it is my computer).

1. I agree, money is irrelevant. However, most communists/socialisits are in general opposed to wealth (or at least the accumulation of any substantial amount). Wealth is all but synonymous with money, and the quote in question chose money, but you can just replace that with wealth, if you so desire.

2. Good, nor am I.

3. I'm troubled by this statement, actually. A core of Ayn Rand's philosophy (author of Atlas Shrugged in which the 'money' speech is written) is that arguments should be based on logic and reason, not emotion. The reasons you chose to list which showed her quote to be solely based on emotion were, to be honest, beside the point. Money should be used morally (depending on your moral code) and I don't see that as any form of emotional manipulation. As for looters and moochers, those are the classificiation she chose for those who take unearned wealth by force and those who take unearned wealth through guilt, respectively. They too are not meant as any sort of emotional manipulation, they are simply the essence of those advocating "equality." I see the quote as quite logical, and I would like to hear what you were going to say on the subject, because I at least do like to hear the arguments of my opposition. As the speaker of that quote said moments after, "If you can refute a single word I said, I would hear it gladly." As for your statement that I (and Ayn Rand) consider man's responsibilty not to be the welfare of other men, well, that is completely true. An individual's responsibility is to themself and them only. Every man must look out for his own, rational self-interest. He should only do things which benefit him. However, as the name implies, this must be a rational action. Letting others die on the streets is in no one's best interest, it is in your interest to give to charity because it will make you feel good about yourself. That is the only reason charity is appropriate. However, mandatory charity (I.E. taxation) is not acceptable. Every man has a right to the money he has earned and should have complete control over it. If he's worked for it and earned, he should be able to dispense of it however he likes. It should not be taken from him to give to others, regardless of their level of need. If they are incapable of working for physical reasons, then they certainly should recieve some kind of VOLUNTARY charity.

That is the essence of my beliefs, if you still disagree, I would hear anything you had to say gladly.

Sincerely,
The Confederacy of the Objectivist Chimps
A resident of Galts Gulch Lair of Ayn Rand

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the poor over the rich… it is the only form of tyranny that lasts.”
--Oscar Wilde

Indeed. One must remember, of course, that the rich could not be rich without someone to be poor - otherwise, we would have equal division of wealth and no one would be either.

So really, it's a self-inflicted tyranny. They want to be rich. They can't expect poor people not to.

No, wanting to be rich isn't tyranny, it's competition. Tyranny is when physical force is involved. My family came to America very poor. It wasn't tyranny over the rich to get a college degree.

It becomes tyranny over the rich when you rob them.

Unfortunately, every economic class is (as a whole) greedy to keep what it has, and to get more - we have a conflict of interests. Remember that the relationship goes both ways, such that the rich exert a tyranny (deserving or not) over the world's resources.

That's if you think collectively. The key to avoiding class conflict is thinking of people as just that... people, individuals, as opposed to just bourgeoisie or proletarian.

The rich do not exert a tyranny over the world's resources. They are competing with each other just like the poor are.

What a poor, one-sided quote! Tellingly, Wilde was a pretty wealthy man... Do I smell self-interest?

Perhaps, but it's a general quote and a good point nonetheless.

I can quote CS Lewis, who I don't believe was that rich, in a similiar vein if you want.

Why do we need social classes, anyway? They benefit the rich and no one else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Hmm...

There's a lot to think about there, and given my penchant for lengthy posts, I'm going to have to answer tomorrow. (Note: I live in the UK, where it is currently half three in the morning and I'm still in the computer lab - that's what comes of not owning a computer!)

It's interesting and helpful to debate intelligently with someone who shares a radically different worldview, and I thank you for responding so fully.

You know what they say - if someone agrees with you all the time, what are you going to learn from them? I actually do have an aim to this, which is not to spread my own vision of what is right, but to establish it, and I enjoy this a lot. Hyperrelativism has its drawbacks - uncertainty - as well as its benefits - flexibility.

- Jordan (I usually just use the first name to sign posts when I'm not in character)

"The Global Market wrote:
'Letila wrote:
Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.'


What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.


Best at what? ripping off the poor? invading other countries to steal natural resources?"

Again, sorry that I couldn't use the quote feature, I need DSL. Anyway, I disagree very much with Paulie Dee, author of this quote. How exactly, I wonder, do Capitalist countries rip of the poor? Has paying for their every waking moment become so inrooted in our nations that the lack of welfare is seen as a rip off? A Capitalist nation is doing nothing more than allowing its citizens to rise and fall of their own merits, as Nationstates puts it. The lack of welfare is by no means a system to "screw over" the poor! It is simply forcing them to take care of themselves, for once. Secondly, though those nations equated with Capitalism (like the US) are very militaristic, a true Capitalist nation is NOT militaristic. Capitalism hinges on the axiom that property rights exist, and an individual has a right to the fruits of his labor. Therefore, how can a nation which truly believes (and lives by) that law take goods by force? That is the opposite of Capitalism! For that reason, I do not deem the US as a Capitalist nation, they simply use that economic system. Capitalism is entwined with the ecnomical, political, and diplomatic spheres of a nation. As of today, there are no truly Capitalist nations in this world that I know of.

Basically, I'm going to have to disagree with all of what you said Paulie. What Capitalist countries are good at is having a damn good economy and the only moral system.

Sincerely,
The Confederacy of Objectivist Chimps
A resident of Galts Gulch Lair of Ayn Rand

Why is it that when a dictator rules a country, it is said to have low political freedom, but when a rich elite exist at the expence of the lower classes, it is said to have high economic freedom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

"The Global Market wrote:
'Letila wrote:
Don't pretend that capitalism is any more moral than any other system. You've seen the evidence.'


What 'evidence'? Today's capitalist countries are the best in the world.


Best at what? ripping off the poor? invading other countries to steal natural resources?"

Again, sorry that I couldn't use the quote feature, I need DSL. Anyway, I disagree very much with Paulie Dee, author of this quote. How exactly, I wonder, do Capitalist countries rip of the poor? Has paying for their every waking moment become so inrooted in our nations that the lack of welfare is seen as a rip off? A Capitalist nation is doing nothing more than allowing its citizens to rise and fall of their own merits, as Nationstates puts it. The lack of welfare is by no means a system to "screw over" the poor! It is simply forcing them to take care of themselves, for once. Secondly, though those nations equated with Capitalism (like the US) are very militaristic, a true Capitalist nation is NOT militaristic. Capitalism hinges on the axiom that property rights exist, and an individual has a right to the fruits of his labor. Therefore, how can a nation which truly believes (and lives by) that law take goods by force? That is the opposite of Capitalism! For that reason, I do not deem the US as a Capitalist nation, they simply use that economic system. Capitalism is entwined with the ecnomical, political, and diplomatic spheres of a nation. As of today, there are no truly Capitalist nations in this world that I know of.

Basically, I'm going to have to disagree with all of what you said Paulie. What Capitalist countries are good at is having a damn good economy and the only moral system.

Sincerely,
The Confederacy of Objectivist Chimps
A resident of Galts Gulch Lair of Ayn Rand

Sorry, my computer was acting a tad... well, seriously messed up when I was trying to post the above statement. One, I could not see that Global Market had already answered it very fully (I was not able to access the page...) and two, my computer stated quite clearly that the post had not gone through... obviously it had... several times. Again, sorry about that.

:x

Why is it that when a dictator rules a country, it is said to have low political freedom, but when a rich elite exist at the expence of the lower classes, it is said to have high economic freedom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence


The proud and outreaching communities of the Federation of the Anarchist Territories strongly support the concept that humans' main attribute is freedom, and therefore freedom from wage slavery, need, and market-driven forces which exploit the existence of the many, to the advantage of the few. On the other hand, we strongly oppose ALL FORMS of coercive institutions, therefore we do support an international ban on Capitalism for all UN member States, but we strongly reject any proposal for punishment on individual States that goes beyond the mere exclusion from the UN itself for non compliancy. If such resolution were to be proposed, The Anarchist Territories would respect the freedom of individual states to adopt or carry on Capitalist agendas if that is the path they intend to pursue, as long as they will do so outside the UN framework.

Good post, AT. Keep them up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Eh, who cares what an Anarchist thinks? You're not even a real country, anyways... :D

Nah, but on the real, we need a limited amount of capitalism, essentially by banning all capitalism all together you not only take away a persons right to determine what means of labor the choose and the motivation to work, but you also lose valuable money that is necessary for any modern country, especially when it comes to defense. My idea would be to limit international capitalism on the amount of business they control, and down through until you get to local business, the more local being allowed to have a larger peice of the smaller pie. This not only allows for people to have insentive to work, but it also limits big business from expoliting the weak.

Also, the businesses that are capitalized should be limited, I think corporate hospitals, medical corporations, drug companies, ect. should be outlawed internationally, to increase the standard of human rights within the country the exist in.

Why is it that when a dictator rules a country, it is said to have low political freedom, but when a rich elite exist at the expence of the lower classes, it is said to have high economic freedom.

Because dictators tend to only do what's in their best intrest, and since they have complete control over their nation, no one can stop them. However, in capitalist nations, the corporate elite don't have complete dominance, and are often regulated, so many times they have to get past dislikes and promote those that better the company, or if they're invaluable, are still regulated on their ability to fire them. So, I won't lose my job for tagging out my boss at the company softball game, but I could very well lose my head if I did that to a dictator.

I simply don't have time for an in-depth reply - however, I would like to point out briefly that the wealthy/super rich generally control the means of production, and who can receive what. Additionally, wealth and power go together, and are related intimately. This is clear, because withholding a service or a product is in itself a means of applying force, even if it is less direct than toting a gun or threatening prision sentences. This, coupled with the inertia inherent in a highly stratified society (witness: wealthy parents can send their children to better schools and afford to provide them with stimulating luxuries, the children get better grades, as a result of which they can go to better colleges or universities. They have less difficulty being financed through higher education and will perform better (unless there are government/university subsidies for the poor) and will go on to better-paid jobs. This is without even considering the social factors that discourage poor students from attaining at a high standard - realistically, they are not definitely a result of low economic status.

The result is that wealth stays put. Other people have less opportunities because of this - with regard to health, to education and to living in general.

OOC: A more detailed analysis of this, and the content of Caesar's and Chimp's previous posts will have to wait till I've got some sleep and coursework out of the way! :x

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I simply don't have time for an in-depth reply - however, I would like to point out briefly that the wealthy/super rich generally control the means of production, and who can receive what. Additionally, wealth and power go together, and are related intimately. This is clear, because withholding a service or a product is in itself a means of applying force, even if it is less direct than toting a gun or threatening prision sentences. This, coupled with the inertia inherent in a highly stratified society (witness: wealthy parents can send their children to better schools and afford to provide them with stimulating luxuries, the children get better grades, as a result of which they can go to better colleges or universities. They have less difficulty being financed through higher education and will perform better (unless there are government/university subsidies for the poor) and will go on to better-paid jobs. This is without even considering the social factors that discourage poor students from attaining at a high standard - realistically, they are not definitely a result of low economic status.

The result is that wealth stays put. Other people have less opportunities because of this - with regard to health, to education and to living in general.

OOC: A more detailed analysis of this, and the content of Caesar's and Chimp's previous posts will have to wait till I've got some sleep and coursework out of the way! :x

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

That's why strict regulation is in order, and social programs such as the ones the New Deal or The Great Society created are in order, too ensure that the poor recieve just as much oppurtnuity as the rich. However, deleting capitalism all together is worse, since at that points you're taking the means of production from the hands of the people into the hands of government, who has shown time and time again that the more power they are given, the more they will abuse it. We must keep the means of production in the hands of the people, but regulate it to ensure that it's in the hands of all, most, or even a great minority of the people to ensure that the elite rich can not control through the means of production.

The proud and outreaching communities of the Federation of the Anarchist Territories strongly support the concept that humans' main attribute is freedom, and therefore freedom from wage slavery,

No such thing.

need,

We need air to exist. Want to have freedom from that?

and market-driven forces which exploit the existence of the many, to the advantage of the few.

No such thing happens. The market allows FREEDOM of trade. You like FREEDOM, don't you? It allows NEEDS to be filled. You want FREEDOM FROM NEED, don't you?

On the other hand, we strongly oppose ALL FORMS of coercive institutions, therefore we do support an international ban on Capitalism for all UN member States,

Thereby making the UN a...COERCIVE INSTITUTION.

OOOOOOOPS!

1) How do oppressive social classes (i.e. feudal ones) exist in capitalism?

I suppose those poor people reject medical care willingly?

And how does that happen in capitalism?

How are the "social classes" (which are vague anyways) that do exist in capitlaism oppressive? It's not like there's a fine line between "high class" and "low class" the way there was in feudalism.

The line between high class and low class is by no means fine. Millions vs. almost nothing is hardly insignifigant.

Millions vs almost nothing OF WHAT?

Your failure to acknowledge the immorality of letting the poor die of disease says a lot.

Your desire to enslave everyone says a lot.

I say, let you lot burn in hell while I rule as the ultimate overlord of doom!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I say, let you lot burn in hell while I rule as the ultimate overlord of doom!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

rrrrrright...

Your desire to enslave everyone says a lot.

How can there be slavery in anarchism?

And how does that happen in capitalism?

Because they can't afford medical treatment.

Millions vs almost nothing OF WHAT?

Money, that green stuff you waste your life chasing after.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Capitalism gives everyone the right to suceed in life. If people fall under in society, it is no ones fault but their own.

Do you honestly believe that poor people choose to starve and die from lack of medical care?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Do you honestly believe that poor people choose to starve and die from lack of medical care?

No, that desicion was made from when they choose not to get an education, to get a stable job, or to work hard to get ahead in society. and last time I checked, nobody starved from a lack of medical care.

Yes, socialism truely leads to a stronger economy. thats why your economy is doing sooooooo well. [/sarcasm]

There would be plenty of slavery in anarchism. I could force people to work my garden by pointing a gun at them and saying "work"

There would be plenty of slavery in anarchism. I could force people to work my garden by pointing a gun at them and saying "work"

Ironically, that's not far from what the state does. How would the state solve it? Send police? How? They have no way of knowing as the hostages can't call them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Corporations don't go "work" and point a gun at you. You have the right to stop working whenever you want. If the state or corporation forces you to work it's bad, but it doesn't happen (at least not in industrialized western nations)

Moreover, in a capitalist nation, the government rarely plays a part in the affairs of the private sector.

Corporations don't go "work" and point a gun at you. You have the right to stop working whenever you want. If the state or corporation forces you to work it's bad, but it doesn't happen (at least not in industrialized western nations)

That has nothing to do with what he was asking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

There would be plenty of slavery in anarchism. I could force people to work my garden by pointing a gun at them and saying "work"

Ironically, that's not far from what the state does. How would the state solve it? Send police? How? They have no way of knowing as the hostages can't call them.

That is what the state does through conscription, etc.

But the hostage could tell the police. A witness that saw them could tell the police.

Do you honestly believe that poor people choose to starve and die from lack of medical care?

No, that desicion was made from when they choose not to get an education, to get a stable job, or to work hard to get ahead in society. and last time I checked, nobody starved from a lack of medical care.

Yes, socialism truely leads to a stronger economy. thats why your economy is doing sooooooo well. [/sarcasm]

Amazingly, poor people actually have children. But, of course, they deserve to die if their parents can't afford to look after them, one supposes? Or did the children choose to spend too much time crawling instead of getting a job? Should we send them to orphanages (ignore Hodges and Tizard)? But wait! The state doesn't get taxes, because it's wrong to ask the wealthy to pay taxes just to keep a few children alive! So it can't afford to run places like that. So they'll have to be charities or sponsered in some way... And, if a few die because they can't afford to give them anything more than very basic medical care, at least we still have freedom, and a few less of those lazy poor kids.

And yes, I'm deliberately going further than is necessary.

Try to understand what you are saying. And what Letila was saying - she didn't say they starve from a lack of medical care, but that they starve - pure and simple, from being unable to afford food. Global, at least, makes sensible points. You've simply demonstrated your apparent misanthropy.

- Jordan