NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is an article by Walter E. Williams, a respected Economist at George Mason University.

Before you go off the handle and respond angrily because you don't like the name of the thread, why don't you just read his article and respond to Williams thesis.



Socialism is Evil by Walter E. Williams

What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.
But God asked for a tithe. Interesting.

As was the narrow definition of socialism.

Walter is the man!

I've been making all the same points here, regarding morality and slavery. The anarcho-syndicast-social-progressives will just ignore the logic and tell you what an evil exploter you are, and that property is theft. (Huh?)

Great article, but you're just doing this :headbang:

Looks like I'm safe then, as I'm an Anarcho-Individualist (or sorts), the fact that I do believe taxation is theft is besides the point.

The fact remains that he is using a very narrow definition of socialism, and ignoring the fact that many fundementalist christians churchs enforced or 'heavily encouraged' tithes.

I've been making all the same points here, regarding morality and slavery. The anarcho-syndicast-social-progressives will just ignore the logic and tell you what an evil exploter you are, and that property is theft. (Huh?)


No, I'll just point out that according to the logic of the piece all taxation is immoral: not just that collected to support the less fortunate, but also that which is spent on the military or government itself.

The fact remains that he is using a very narrow definition of socialism...

I would look at it as a very wide one: it appears to cover every government or state apparatus in history that has also collected a tax.


No mention of 'rendering unto Caeser'?

Wait, are taxes slavery too?

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

The problem here is that nowhere in the Bible is a definition of 'stealing' given. Surely it means to appropriate something from its rightful owners? Yes? So who are the rightful owners of the world and its wealth? Could it be the poor/meek... they are after all going to inherit it?

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Lol, that guys is saying that people must not pay taxes cause they are immoral and someone says he's right?

i wonder how many of you will afford an airplane, since no taxes = no road maintenance, for example.

Morality and Politics have nothing to share, whatever you say.

Both are subjective, while this smart guy is trying to make em objective.

The next one, please

cheers.

I have to admit - while I tend to view all socio/economic systems as objectively as possible, this article is quite an effective attack on socialism (except for that Christian bit at the end - it's just that I like to be a bit more secular in my arguments)

What Walter defines in this article is not socialism. It's merely the Robin Hood theory. Socialism has no intents of absconding with property, it merely eliminates the idea of capital, thus creating a barter system with no room for a mass corporate takeover. Thus, there would not be any trust fund CEO's sitting in their father's thrones basking at the business that they didn't create. In socialism, it would be impossible to have an international corperation because there isn't any standard for money. In essence, your wealth would be based on your property and skill, not your caste.

And as for this stealing bit. Aren't we in America living on stolen land (from the Native Americans, Mexicans and French)?

No, I'll just point out that according to the logic of the piece all taxation is immoral: not just that collected to support the less fortunate, but also that which is spent on the military or government itself.


that's the point.
he tried to make a blatant attack on socialism, the problem is that he forgot to turn on his brain.

cheers :)

Yes, his definition of socialism is very limited and does not cover all aspects of the doctrine. But if one agrees with his definition, then it is still possible to challenge his theory. He is making one crucial assumption - that, as long as property is acquired justly, no person has a right to take that property away from the person who owns it. Some may agree with this, some may not. But let's say we agree with it. Then, if a person acquires property unjustly; say by coercion or exploitation, then the aformentioned right to keep this property is void, in the same way that a murderer (according to the law of some states in the USA) has forfeited their right to life by not respecting another persons right to life.
If one accepts this line of argument so far, then it is possible to challenge his thesis. Because, as many socialists claim, a lot of capitalist property is acquired unjustly, through coercion and exploitation. The capitalist need for profit (as it is profit which is central to succeeding in capitalism) conflicts strongly with the needs of the workers. The workers want better pay, better conditions, better working hours. The capitalist wants to pay them less, cut back on costs of improving conditions and make them work as much as possible for as little as possible. This logic, in my opinion, is wholly immoral. It is selfish, based solely around the capitalist's personal gain rather than any compassion for other people in society.
Socialist redistribution is based in compassion for other people and animals, about empathy and understanding. The fundamental mindset of capitalism is selfishness, about personal gain. This selfishness that is central to capitalism is far worse than the redistribution of socialism.
Therefore I suggest that, because (many) capitalists gain their property through coercion and exploitation, they have forfeited their right to owning this property.

taxes are evil when they go to creating a bloated military that can't account for the money it is spending.

taxes are evil when they go to paying our govt. leaders insane amounts of money and retirement packages.

taxes are evil when they go to supporting oppresive regimes like Israel.

taxes are evil when the heaviest burden falls on the poor while rich individuals and corporations have accountants that can spend the whole year finding loopholes that help them pay practically nothing.

yes, I agree taxes are evil in those instances.

but if they went to bettering life for ALL Americans then I am glad to pay my taxes into society.

Morality and Politics have nothing to share, whatever you say.
cheers.

i meant to say economics, sorry

"Taxes are evil" at the start of every line.....thats some good political rhetoric you've got going on there. You should become an "evil" politician with that kind of skill.

No, I'll just point out that according to the logic of the piece all taxation is immoral: not just that collected to support the less fortunate, but also that which is spent on the military or government itself.

Yes, taxation of income is immoral, regardless of what it is spent on. Taxing consumption (e.g., sales taxes) is not immoral, since it leaves the decision (of whether to buy or not) to the individual and does not rely on force. It also encourages conservation, and thus should be favored by environmentalists, but for some reason they seem to cling to a "progressive" income tax.

there is an important distinction between private property (ie. owning the means of production) and between personal property (as defined by use and need). Socialism only seeks to place the private property - land, factories in the hands of the people. The problem boils down to a dialectial materialism that there is a contradiction between the social nature of production and the private ownership of the means of production. It is this contradiction that communism seeks to resolve.

Wait, are taxes slavery too?
Income taxes are slavery, yes. As stated in the article, they use force to compel one individual to work for the benefit of another. That is slavery.

Yes, taxation of income is immoral,

just to know, immoral by WHAT standards?

cheers

Income taxes are slavery, yes. As stated in the article, they use force to compel one individual to work for the benefit of another. That is slavery.

That's what capitalists do to workers to get that income, you know?

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.
[Southern Baptist Preacher Voice] Instead, God tells us to ride the backs of the broken and the poor into the sunset across the beaches we inherited from our Grandfathers! Onward Christian Soldiers... save your money for God![/Southern Baptist Preacher Voice]

Socialism is evil.

Wow. That's really quite stretching the definitions of slavery and taxation, don't you think? I mean to say I do. You know, if I went to hell everytime someone told me I was being immoral, I'd be really hot right now. For a very long time. Wouldn't it be nice to think that instead of seeing things as the government forcing us to allow our money to be "stolen" in the form of taxes, we see it as actually *giving* the money as per the goverment's requirement, because we know it will be for the greater good? Not that where our tax dollars go is perfect, but honestly, is anything *ever* going to be perfect?

Oh, and I HATE it when anyone puts words in God's mouth. Ta.

I've been making all the same points here, regarding morality and slavery. The anarcho-syndicast-social-progressives will just ignore the logic and tell you what an evil exploter you are, and that property is theft.

Yes, his definition of socialism is very limited and does not cover all aspects of the doctrine. But if one agrees with his definition, then it is still possible to challenge his theory. He is making one crucial assumption - that, as long as property is acquired justly, no person has a right to take that property away from the person who owns it. Some may agree with this, some may not. But let's say we agree with it. Then, if a person acquires property unjustly; say by coercion or exploitation, then the aformentioned right to keep this property is void, in the same way that a murderer (according to the law of some states in the USA) has forfeited their right to life by not respecting another persons right to life.
If one accepts this line of argument so far, then it is possible to challenge his thesis. Because, as many socialists claim, a lot of capitalist property is acquired unjustly, through coercion and exploitation. The capitalist need for profit (as it is profit which is central to succeeding in capitalism) conflicts strongly with the needs of the workers. The workers want better pay, better conditions, better working hours. The capitalist wants to pay them less, cut back on costs of improving conditions and make them work as much as possible for as little as possible. This logic, in my opinion, is wholly immoral. It is selfish, based solely around the capitalist's personal gain rather than any compassion for other people in society.
Socialist redistribution is based in compassion for other people and animals, about empathy and understanding. The fundamental mindset of capitalism is selfishness, about personal gain. This selfishness that is central to capitalism is far worse than the redistribution of socialism.
Therefore I suggest that, because (many) capitalists gain their property through coercion and exploitation, they have forfeited their right to owning this property.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! hee hee :D

Socialism is evil.

capitalism is evil, we can go on forever, you know?

echoing something without giving anything to the topic is kinda useless

cheers

That's what capitalists do to workers to get that income, you know?

No, the workers are paid for their labor. If they think they are worth more, or they can be more productive, they are free to pursue their livelihood by many other means. No one is forcing them to stay in their jobs. Income taxes are collected by force. Do you see the difference? Do you see the role that force plays? And before you spout the Marxist handbook drivel at me, the Marxist definition of "exploitation" does not constitute force.

Yes, taxation of income is immoral, regardless of what it is spent on. Taxing consumption (e.g., sales taxes) is not immoral, since it leaves the decision (of whether to buy or not) to the individual and does not rely on force. It also encourages conservation, and thus should be favored by environmentalists, but for some reason they seem to cling to a "progressive" income tax.
Surely both are theft?

Sales taxes can only really be thought of as 'volutary' if everyone has enough disposable income to chose what they want to buy.

Putting tax on a staple like bread is still theft, unless of course the Government baked the bread. It may not rely on physical force, but many times the threat of starvation is far more coercive then mere violence.

just to know, immoral by WHAT standards?

cheers

Immoral by the objective standard that a man's life belongs to himself, not to his neighbors, not to "society", and not to the state.

"Taxes are evil" at the start of every line.....thats some good political rhetoric you've got going on there. You should become an "evil" politician with that kind of skill.

and what have you contributed? oh right.... nothing

Do you just think that sales taxes are ok because you like the military and haven't found a way not to pay the sales tax.

Immoral by the objective standard that a man's life belongs to himself, not to his neighbors, not to "society", and not to the state.

From whence comes this objectivity?

No, the workers are paid for their labor. If they think they are worth more, or they can be more productive, they are free to pursue their livelihood by many other means. No one is forcing them to stay in their jobs.

right, i can always go in the streets and beg for money.

after all one of the primary needs is food, and food is acquired by money, so i am forced to stay in my job.

Cheers

right, i can always go in the streets and beg for money.

after all one of the primary needs is food, and food is acquired by money, so i am forced to stay in my job.

Cheers
Some think that only when someone holds a gun to your head or threatens you with some other violence is force.

Surely both are theft?

Sales taxes can only really be thought of as 'volutary' if everyone has enough disposable income to chose what they want to buy.

Putting tax on a staple like bread is still theft, unless of course the Government baked the bread. It may not rely on physical force, but many times the threat of starvation is far more coercive then mere violence.

In the system I'm talking about, there could be allowances for (i.e., no sales taxation of) food. Fair enough? Although charitable organizations could probably handle it.

In the system I'm talking about, there could be allowances for (i.e., no sales taxation of) food. Fair enough? Although charitable organizations could probably handle it.
How do you know that charitable organisations will/can handle it?

Also, what would you do if some smart arses manage to not pay/charge a sales tax? (I realise that this will need to be done right from producer to consumer, but still. It is possible).

No, the workers are paid for their labor. If they think they are worth more, or they can be more productive, they are free to pursue their livelihood by many other means. No one is forcing them to stay in their jobs. Income taxes are collected by force. Do you see the difference? Do you see the role that force plays? And before you spout the Marxist handbook drivel at me, the Marxist definition of "exploitation" does not constitute force.

Define "force" please. If, say, a person is born in to a very poor family, in a very poor district, where the quality if education is very poor, doesn't learn enough to pass the standardized tests to get into college, can't go to college because of lack of money anyway, and then tries to climb the social ladder to a better, higher paying job, and can't, because of all the setbacks that are out of his/her controll... is that person "forced", in a sense, to take that low paying, not-so-swell job?

Some think that only when someone holds a gun to your head or threatens you with some other violence is force.
Some (who ever they are) are wrong

Well first off a tithe and socialism are two very different things. The person who is serious about titheing realizes two things,

1.)That God has blessed you with the possesions and money that you have and that we are nothing more than stewards of what He has given us.

2.)And when you realize that you are no more than a steward of what God owns, I think its perfectly justifiable to give back to Him what He owns if He asks for it.

The agent in collecting the tithe is the church and it is to be used to do God's work, saving and discipling lost souls.

I posted Williams article because I agree with its thesis. Collecting taxes to provide for the common defense, i.e. the military, is not evil. Collecting taxes so that it can provide for other peoples salary, i.e. social security, medicare, all the other social welfare programs, or to give to a failing business is evil. It is taking from others to give to somebody else. We also call that stealing where I am from. Socialists wrap themselves in the flag of doing it to help others. Throwing money at the problem is not the answer, helping them to re-educate themselves to get another job or helping them to find another job is the solution. By helping them to re-educate themselves that doesn't mean throwing money at colleges either. It means encouraging colleges to provide such programs.

Immoral by the objective standard that a man's life belongs to himself, not to his neighbors, not to "society", and not to the state.

objective?
some african or oceanic societies (don't remember the name, don't make me look on my anthropology books) consider the whole community as more important as the single. childs are educated by the whole community and the concept of father and mother are quite abstract.

that "objective standard" ain't that objective in my humble opinion.

btw, why my life has to belong to an employer that maybe has born richer than me and got less skill?


cheers

From whence comes this objectivity?

It is axiomatic. Are you saying that a man's life DOES belong to someone else? If so, who?

In the system I'm talking about, there could be allowances for (i.e., no sales taxation of) food. Fair enough? Although charitable organizations could probably handle it.

we don't want charity, thanks, we want a fair social system.

cheers

Quite frankly, I find any system that holds that it is perfectly acceptable for one who has inherited their fortune to go on collecting innumerable luxuries while elsewhere men, women and children starve by matter of circumstance and no fault of their own utterly repulsive, and totaly void of any "morality".

Further, I am not so caught up in the premisies of socalism, but rather, it's results. I have not found any system that promotes happiness and freedom moreso than the notions of libertarian socalism, and that is why I support it.

It is axiomatic. Are you saying that a man's life DOES belong to someone else? If so, who?

I'm saying that it is not clear that a man's life belongs to either himself or an other (in as much as a life can be considered a belonging).

Does a newborn infant own its own life? If no, then at what point do they come into possession of it?

It means encouraging colleges to provide such programs.

1) encouraging them how? Without money? Oh you mean forcing them to do. Which brings us back to slavery

2) You have to be able to eat while your being re-educated you know.

2.)And since God gave you things you have and He owns everything in the first place it is perfectly justifiable for Him to ask for 10% in return.


don't talk to an italian about christianity.

God gave us the Freedom to choice between good and evil and so on.

so in my opinion i will give what i want IF i want, it's not "perfectly justifiable" it's just a choice.

Cheers

Define "force" please. If, say, a person is born in to a very poor family, in a very poor district, where the quality if education is very poor, doesn't learn enough to pass the standardized tests to get into college, can't go to college because of lack of money anyway, and then tries to climb the social ladder to a better, higher paying job, and can't, because of all the setbacks that are out of his/her controll... is that person "forced", in a sense, to take that low paying, not-so-swell job?

Amazing how quickly some people resort to semantic games.

force: the use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain.

The rest of your post does not describe force, it describes your feelings about hypothetical circumstances.

,

1.)That God has blessed you with the possesions and money that you have.

Is it not possible that it could be considered that the government/state allowed you to gain the money, therefore be completely justified in "charging you rent?"

2.)And since God gave you things you have and He owns everything in the first place it is perfectly justifiable for Him to ask for 10% in return.

Does the employer have the right to steal off the employee, just because he gave the money to the employee?

The agent in collecting the tithe is the church and it is to be used to do God's work, saving and discipling lost souls.

As it said in the article, theft is theft is theft, and will always be theft, no matter how noble the intentions are.

I posted Williams article because I agree with its thesis. Collecting taxes to provide for the common defense, i.e. the military, is not evil.

How is financing an organisation, which kills, more ok then one to help poor people who need help?

Collecting taxes so that it can provide for other peoples salary, i.e. social security, medicare, all the other social welfare programs, or to give to a failing business is evil.

Right. So it is ok to give/steal money to those that kill, but not those that help?

How unchristian.

It is taking from others to give to somebody else. We also call that stealing where I am from.

How are soldiers not 'others'?

force: the use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain.

That is a pretty tight definition of force. Surely saying, "Do this or starve," is also force. Even though there has been no violence.

Paragraph 1, is flawed. Socialism is the abolition of privately owned companies and return of everything to the government, not complete loss of privately owned goods. Communism is the destruction of all private property.

Paragraph 3, is irrelevant.

Paragraph 4, capitalism is slavery as well. It is the use of someone else to make more money and to have as many people doing this for you as possible. Unless we are all one unit we are enslaved.

Paragraph 5, when I make a man work for me, I am taking his freedom away to make more money for me, of course I give a little back. The same happens with social programs, we take from everyone, and give it back to them. That is the basic idea of communism, taking from everyone and then giving it all back. In socialism it is presumably the same.

Paragraph 6, is irrelevant. Morals are subjective, they all thought it was moral to do that. Perhaps we don't, but they did.

Paragraph 7, there is no way to tell whether or not they deserve it. Many people on the streets simply cannot find work, no matter how qualified they are. It is also impossible to judge who is deserving and who isn't. Especially when nearly all professions are essential to the flourishing and prosperity of humanity.

Paragraph 8, it is charity. One willing puts their money to other people so we can all prosper. Those who don't, either leave or are dealt with.

Paragraph 9, more of the same. It also shows the stupidity of Christianity, considering tithes are gathered by intimidation and fear; tithe, or go to hell.

All in all, that was completely worthless.

That is a pretty tight definition of force. Surely saying, "Do this or starve," is also force. Even though there has been no violence.

naaah that's is "freedom of choice" ;)

I'm saying that it is not clear that a man's life belongs to either himself or an other (in as much as a life can be considered a belonging).

Does a newborn infant own its own life? If no, then at what point do they come into possession of it?

Yes, a newborn infant owns its life. Is it not a crime to use force against an infant's life? Life IS a belonging, in the sense that it BELONGS to the individual living it.

force: the use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain.

Say I tell you to rob a bank and give me the proceeds or I will kill your family. Under your defination thats not force.

Yes, a newborn infant owns its life. Is it not a crime to use force against an infant's life?

That depends on what you define as force (smacking/restraint/captivity) and what country's laws you are looking at or are you claiming that any exercise of force against another is inherently immoral?

Life IS a belonging, in the sense that it BELONGS to the individual living it.

OK, who owns your body?

Say I tell you to rob a bank and give me the proceeds or I will kill your family. Under your defination thats not force.

You're being absurd; of course that is force. You would be "us[ing] physical power or violence" (a threat to my family, unless you can think of a way to kill them without using physical power or violence) to "compel" me (to commit bank robbery). Your hypothetical situation is almost the definition of force itself. Sheesh...

OK, who owns your body?

I own it.

That depends on what you define as force (smacking/restraint/captivity) and what country's laws you are looking at or are you claiming that any exercise against another is inherently immoral?

Doesn't the book of all truth say something like spare the rod, spoil the child?

You're being absurd; of course that is force. You would be "us[ing] physical power or violence" (a threat to my family, unless you can think of a way to kill them without using physical power or violence) to "compel" me (to commit bank robbery). Your hypothetical situation is almost the definition of force itself. Sheesh...

if u don't steal that bank i'll fire you and assure myself that u will not work anymore as teacher (assuming u worked 30 years as a teacher)

cheers

I own it.

What is this 'I' separate from your body?

So helping out people is evil, huh? Socialist concepts try to help society in general; bettering the whole rather than the already well off individual. A huge gap between rich and poor is a sign that the whole is not well.
And about invoking religion, I will leave you with this:
"When religion and politics go in the same cart the whirlwind follows. Beware the man at the head of the cart for he shall lead you to your doom."
--Dune by Frank Herbert

You're being absurd; of course that is force. You would be "us[ing] physical power or violence" (a threat to my family, unless you can think of a way to kill them without using physical power or violence) to "compel" me (to commit bank robbery). Your hypothetical situation is almost the definition of force itself. Sheesh...

No. I'm simply using the threat of violence not violence itself. In the same way that employers can use the threat of starvation and loss of luxeries to keep a worker working.

By not including a verbal or subtle threat of violence in your defeniation you leave it wide open to be abused.

The defination in this case would be If you don't rob this ank and give me the money I won't stop breaking your arm.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Matthew 19:21
21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Matthew 19:23-26
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Luke 12:15
15 Then Jesus said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Proverbs 14:31
31 He who oppresses the poor blasphemes his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy glorifies him.

Proverbs 31:89
89 Open your mouth in behalf of the dumb, and for the rights of the destitute; Open your mouth, decree what is just, defend the needy and the poor!

If one man owned the wealth of a country and 10,000 people were starving, would it be wrong to steal from him to feed the hungry? You're a fucking idiot if you still believe it to be immoral.

What is this 'I' separate from your body?

No, they are one and the same.

No, they are one and the same.

Good, so it appears you are a materialist then: what is the nature of objective morality that it can exist in a materialist universe?

If one man owned the wealth of a country and 10,000 people were starving, would it be wrong to steal from him to feed the hungry? You're a fucking idiot if you still believe it to be immoral.

Knock Knock. Bill Gates' private security men want to have a few words with you about comments you have been making on the internet...

No. I'm simply using the threat of violence not violence itself. In the same way that employers can use the threat of starvation and loss of luxeries to keep a worker working.

By not including a verbal or subtle threat of violence in your defeniation you leave it wide open to be abused.

The defination in this case would be If you don't rob this ank and give me the money I won't stop breaking your arm.

OK, then suppose I ignore your threat, and refuse to rob the bank?

You're playing stupid semantic games, give it up.

If one man owned the wealth of a country and 10,000 people were starving, would it be wrong to steal from him to feed the hungry? You're a fucking idiot if you still believe it to be immoral.

It would be immoral. It wouldn't be common sense. Countries usually follow the route of common sense than morality, which is something that flaws this agument from the begining

Good, so it appears you are a materialist then: what is the nature of objective morality that it can exist in a materialist universe?

Instead of trying to bait me into another semantic trap, why don't you just state what you're going to say? Your question is "philosophizing" you into incomprehensibility.

OK, then suppose I ignore your threat, and refuse to rob the bank?

Nothing happen. You go about your life. I tell the next person the same thing and see what he does.

In the sameway people can quit from thier Jobs if they dont believe they will starve. And they go about thier lives. But other believe they will starve. So they stay.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person.

There are more than a few problems with that essay, not very convincing at all. A couple of note; in any society where the majority have agreed to the system of socialism, they obviously aren't being forced. They made the choice to use said system, and are inherently giving permission to help other people. Nobody asked the slaves if they wanted to be slaves.

Moreover, this person is apparently entirely ignorant of altruism. Part of which is the idea that a person can willingly sacrifice something of their own, even if it is harmful to them, for the benefit of someone else. He makes the rather false assumption that if someone is involved in the system that they must have been coerced. I suppose from a Capitalist perspective, I can kind of follow the 'logic'.

Now not everyone will agree with Socialism. But nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you stay in the country. Not everyone agrees with Capitalism either, but once again you are free to move to a different location if you don't care for the principles of the first one.

But as has already been pointed out, it's a pretty poor definition of Socialism to begin with, and a biased and misinformed one as well.

This is nothing new. The argument though does a better job at demonstrating that established 'Christianity' exists only to justify the current brand of brutal exploitation then it does of showing that socialism is 'evil'. In the days of chattal slavery, abolitionists were 'evil.' But Christianity has another face: that of men like John Brown and Tolstoy: men who reject relegion's defense of all sorts of slavery.

If I were a Christian, I would take the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" to condemn any economic system in which the worker does not have control over the full product of his or her labor, not workers who would have that which is rightfully theirs.

The Preacher and the Slave
by Joe Hill

Long haired preachers come out ev'ry night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked, how 'bout something to eat,
They will answer with voices so sweet;
You will eat, (You will eat)
Bye and bye, (Bye and bye) in that glorious land above the sky;
(way up high)
work and pray, (work and pray) live on hay, (Live on hay)
you'll get pie in the sky when you die. (That's a lie!)

And the starvation army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray.
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

You will eat, (You will eat)
Bye and bye, (Bye and bye) in that glorious land above the sky;
(way up high)
work and pray, (work and pray) live on hay, (Live on hay)
you'll get pie in the sky when you die. (That's a lie!)

Holy Rollers and Jumpers come out,
And they holler, they jump and they shout
"Give your money to Jesus," they say,
"He will cure all diseases today."

If you fight hard for children and wife
Try to get something good in this life-
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight!
When the world and its wealth we have gained,
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry.
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye. (That's no lie!)

Actually, the only forms of socialism still in practice involve taxes. Which of course, in your view, taxes are sending us all to hell. Of course, it is not like the people who live in a society that is run by members of that society should not have to give what is required in due process. Of course not, that's insane. The government should slave for me!!! Please note the sarcasim. Socialism is justified because:
1. If you live in that society, and it pays for your education, trasportation, electricity, and healthcare, then of course that is stealing, becuase none of the above are paying you back.
2. If the society wants to due the moral and dare I say Christian idea of giving to the poor, and you do not want to, then get out.
3. Again, please note the sarcasim.
4. You and that writer are dumbasses.

Instead of trying to bait me into another semantic trap, why don't you just state what you're going to say? Your question is "philosophizing" you into incomprehensibility.

No, I'm not trying to trap you: I'm a materialist, but fail to see how objective morality can exist in a materialist universe. It is an honest question, as you appear to likewise believe in a materialist universe (or at least that the human being is a purely material entity without soul or spirit), but you also make claims that objective morality exists, and I would like to understand the reasoning behind this.

Nothing happen. You go about your life. I tell the next person the same thing and see what he does.

In the sameway people can quit from thier Jobs if they dont believe they will starve. And they go about thier lives. But other believe they will starve. So they stay.

A person's pessimism about their own future does not constitute the use of physical power or violence by another.

You're being absurd; of course that is force. You would be "us[ing] physical power or violence" (a threat to my family, unless you can think of a way to kill them without using physical power or violence) to "compel" me (to commit bank robbery). Your hypothetical situation is almost the definition of force itself. Sheesh...

You're just being lazy. My good friends at dictionary.com define force as:

1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.

2.
a. Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.

[Gee, you're right that is the definition of force, oh wait, there's more]

3.
a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
Moral strength.
b. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
c. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.

There is such a thing as intellectual intimidation, you know.

A person's pessimism about their own future does not constitute the use of physical power or violence by another.

It does if such pessimism is caused by a threat. but kyrsverq said it better.

It would be immoral. It wouldn't be common sense. Countries usually follow the route of common sense than morality, which is something that flaws this agument from the begining

how exactly does it flaw the argument? its an extrapolation of the frankly ludicrous argument that taking money from the rich too feed the poor is evil in any context. common sense has nothing to do with it, its purely a hypothetical example to test your commitment to the consistency of your argument.

I was talking about Walter E. Williams argument.....

I'd also like to point out that anyone who compares slavery and taxes must have gigantic balls. I mean, am I the only one who finds that comparison a wee bit offensive?

Slavery, in its worst forms, is utterly dehumanizing. It turns men in to absolutely nothing but machines (though our current system of wage-labor is only marginally better in my eyes, thought that's a somewhat different point). It steals from them something more important than money, it steals thier lives, their humanity. It is digusting and degrading. Even in its somewhat nicer forms, it is still and untolerable evil to allow in a decent society. Furthermore, the benifit of their labor does not go to helping the multitude of society (though it would be no more justifiable if it did), but a single master.

Taxes do none of this. They redistribute money, hopefully by taking it from those who would spend it foolishly and on pointless sacrifices to an unending vanity and give it to those who might die or be utterly miserable without society's help (admittedly, it often does not work out nearly so well, but the principle remains). To compare the two shows one's own total lack of morality.

OK, then suppose I ignore your threat, and refuse to rob the bank?

You're playing stupid semantic games, give it up.

u answered to him but ignored to answer to me.
that's my example, again:

if u don't steal that bank i'll fire you and assure myself that u will not work anymore as teacher (assuming u worked 30 years as a teacher)

that's not use of force for you?

When we have to pay taxes that gives raises to government officials who already have big houses or pent houses and live a high-middle class life already, or even have their own successful business...that's where it should stop. I understand that governing is VERY hard job. It really is. The stress can kill you. And in fairness, people get copensated for the health risks involved in the job world.

But there's a different between regular jobs and that of your government representative. They are there to serve us. They are not there to fill their pockets. They deserve free health care and enough to live on as well as maybe free-from-taxes AT HE MOST. Sure they can have their own businesses but they cam't make profit from us. When the country needs money and is in debt THEY want to get more money from us then they NEED when that money could go for things to help the country which they SERVE. They may serve us now...but how much? Not enough for me.

That was an example of taxation I disagree with. And now we come to military. Just what do you think that bloated military is for? It is to protect you as well as others. If you don't help pay for that then why do YOU deserve to be protected? And for that matter, why do you deserve to have a fire-truck come and put out the blaze your personal property has turned into? Maybe, if we charged people on an individual bases for these services and exclude those who don't pay then taxes would be a lot lower. If you, as a willing tax payer does not like the way military is run, maybe having too much, then use the democracy and try to change it. If you can't change it then tough. That's the nature of the democracy- that not you, one person, gets their belief listened to over everyone else.

Now I have things to do so I wont be able to respond to anyone or read anymore posts but ofcourse feel free to discuss what I said and maybe prove me wrong.

btw WHO is Walter E. Williams?

The following is an article by Walter E. Williams, a respected Economist at George Mason University.



Socialism is Evil by Walter E. Williams......



Sound familliar?

Sound familliar?

i am gioacchino marocchi famed economicist at the Università of Milan.

u trust me?

A name and a title says me nothing, was just asking about books, works and so on.

cheers

and especially where this article was taken from.

cheers

i am gioacchino marocchi famed economicist at the Università of Milan.

u trust me?

A name and a title says me nothing, was just asking about books, works and so on.

cheers

Oh right. No, I've never heard of him either.

A name and a title says me nothing, was just asking about books, works and so on.


The miracle of Google:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

The miracle of Google...

heh

heh

bodies is too smart for me :)

1.)That God has blessed you with the possesions and money that you have and that we are nothing more than stewards of what He has given us.
Hence implying that God has cursed the poor with a lack of material possessions...


The threat of losing one's job in today's society is most certainly a threat of force. If you have no money, you will not eat, and you will die. That's why workers are forced to work: without their work, they wouldn't be able to survive. And don't feed us BS about how workers could get different jobs if they wanted: most low-paying jobs are manual labor jobs, and those who work them are generally uneducated and unable to get a higher-paying job. If they quit, they can't feed themselves by force of will alone. They have to pay the bills, have to work, and hence are forced to remain employed at near-poverty wages.

1.)That God has blessed you with the possesions and money that you have and that we are nothing more than stewards of what He has given us.

Yet he also preaches that we shouldn't have material goods, that indulging in the food that he gave us is sinful, having those goods in vast quantities is sinful.

Hence implying that God has cursed the poor with a lack of material possessions...

Possibly they are just 'differently' blessed as in 'differently able'.

Possibly they are just 'differently' blessed as in 'differently able'.
hehe...

I do not believe that socialism is inherently "evil". The fact that I sympathize with it has little to do with this. It is impossible for an economic system, in and of itself, to be evil. To illustrate this point, I'll use a saying of conservatives about gun ownership: "Economic systems don't kill people; people kill people". We fail the system, not the other way around. The weakness of socialism is its followers. The weakness of religion, and Christianity not least, is its followers. If the world were a perfect place, everything would work for everyone. Heck, even capitalism would make all pepole rich, in that case. But it's not.

I have noticed recently how incredibly similar the goals and methods of socialism and Christianity are. Here's a page that points these things out: http://www.zompist.com/leqr.html

To end, I wrote this recently, in response to Wowcha wowcha land's "What is Socialism?" thread:

Socialism is a economic system between communism (collectivism, public ownership, classlessness) and capitalism (individualism, private ownership, stratified classes), but closer to communism. It is seen by some as a stop on the road from capitalism to communism: socialism is the path, communism is the destination, or however it goes. Others consider socialism as a less extreme take on the causes that communists stand for, combining the efficiency of private-run companies with the cooperative spirit of workers' rights, peace, caring for the environment, aiding the plight of the poor, and fostering equality for all. Socialism relies more on (as others have mentioned) cooperation than competition. Those who support capitalism often say that socialism is a form of theft, as it strives to take money, power, and privileges from those who have more to those who have less.

To get an understanding of a real world experiment in socialism, study the nations of Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark), widely considered to be the most socialist nations in the world today. For more "soft-core" socialism, check out Canada, France, Germany, and other European countries.

You will notice that these countries have, in general, large governments that are more concerned with education (Sweden has perhaps the best education in the world), welfare, national healthcare, and regulation of business than with defense (most have small, even underfunded, militaries), corporate welfare, etc.

It's easy to understand why you have little understanding of socialism, as you're American. These things aren't taught to us in school; I know personally. I didn't have an understanding of socialism until fairly recently. To put the alienation of Americans to socialism in perspective, we are the only industrialized nation with no national healthcare system. Having recently been to Canada, which does, I can tell you that such a thing is an entirely different ball game.

Americans also believe in a large, well-funded military, which conflicts with the socialists' desire for peace. We also have less interest in caring for the environment, in general. The United States of America is not, then, very socialist at all; what socialistic programs we do have we seem to have adopted rather reluctantly and only at great need.

The socialist programs of America, mostly begun by the New Deal of FDR, include Social Security (check out the name), welfare, minimum wage, graduated income tax rates for the rich, public education, and others. Someone else wrote a more complete list above. These programs, for the most part, have run into serious problems with funding, which ever seems to be a chief problem of socialist initiatives. Conservatives see this as evidence that they are therefore ineffective, and thus should be privatized, cut down, or eliminated. Liberals see it as evidence that the programs need more funding (in the form of taxes), or are being mined by other parts of the government (that would be corruption, another huge issue with socialism).

However, the ideals of socialism are hardly limited to government programs with long names. They are visible in everyday life, even in the most capitalist nations. We call one of the major embodiments of socialist values the nuclear family. Families work because of cooperation among their members (certainly not competition), the willingness of the more privileged and able parents to make sacrifices on their children's behalf, and, of course, peace. Other socialistic institutions of society include the community (basically a family writ large), and the church or other religious center.

This last brings up an interesting topic, religion and socialism. Many in America today believe religion (I will use Christianity as an example here, as I'm familiar with it and because it is the prevailing religion of the United States, but I think the below would be nearly as applicable in the case of the other great religions) and socialism are anathema to each other. This idea apparently stems from the fact that many Americans associate socialism with Marxism, an all-too-easy mistake. It couldn't be further from the truth, however. In the New Testament, the early Apostles are described as owning all their goods in common, so that "not a man was needy among them". Most socialist ideals (including the family) are, or ought to be, important to the religious as well. This is particularly true concerning the attitude toward the poor. Jesus taught that when we deal with the poor, we deal with him, and that whether we go into Heaven or not depends on how we treated them, and other unfortunates we met in our lives. It is rather telling then, that, in a thread on this board asking fellow members to guess who initiated socialism, Jesus Christ was mentioned by more than one.

Socialism is slavery. You have no control over your own labors, they are for someone else to allocate as they see fit. Well intentioned slavery it may be, but it is still slavery in the end.

And that is as inherently evil as anything mankind has yet come up with.

Socialism is slavery. You have no control over your own labors, they are for someone else to allocate as they see fit. Well intentioned slavery it may be, but it is still slavery in the end.

And that is as inherently evil as anything mankind has yet come up with.
The road to Hell, certainly is paved with good intentions, I'll give you that.

Socialism is slavery. You have no control over your own labors, they are for someone else to allocate as they see fit. Well intentioned slavery it may be, but it is still slavery in the end.

And that is as inherently evil as anything mankind has yet come up with.
Capitalism is slavery. You have the ability to chose a different job, yes. The moment you chose a job you are opressed so that whoever is on top of you makes as much money as they can from your efforts. If you don't, you become homeless and die rather swiftly because there is no one to help you.

And that is as inherently evil as anything mankind has yet to come up with.

Sorry for the parody, it was very fitting.

Proletariat Comrades, very good. Despite what Christianity says it is, it is one of the most corrupt institutions on this planet, but that's besides the point of religions usually being very socialist in nature.

Socialism is slavery. You have no control over your own labors, they are for someone else to allocate as they see fit. Well intentioned slavery it may be, but it is still slavery in the end.

And that is as inherently evil as anything mankind has yet come up with.

What?! I think you're confusing socialism with an oppressive dictatorship. Don't look around for other countries as examples of socialism; won't find any. There has not yet been a true socialist/communist/marxist nation in the entire world (since prehistory). I have no idea where you are getting that socialism doesn't allow you to pick a profession. Honestly I can't recall Marx saying that in his manifesto. Read the manifesto sometime, then come back with an educated opinion.

Walter E. Williams is a conservative columnist and has a PhD in economics. My google search didn't reveal much beyond the fact that his writings only seem to appear on conservative oriented sites. So, who he is respected by and to what degree is a matter of question. That said, I didn't see any sites lambasting him either.

A line of reasoning that might refute Dr. Williams' points lies in the work of Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Lawrence%20Kohlberg).

Dr. Kohlberg "started as a developmental psychologist in the early 1970s and became famous for his later work in moral education, especially his theory of moral development." Dr. Kohlberg's work is used in basic Sociology curricula.

His basic point is that there are higher moral states than simple law and order. One of the examples he uses in the higher moral states is that of stealing. Suppose a mna's wife is dying. There is a medicine that can save her, but he cannot afford it. In Kohlberg's system, stealing the medicine is not immoral because preserving human life is a higher moral obligation than preserving property.

So, in the field of morality, there may not be as many objective absolutes as some posters are suggesting.

You're just being lazy.

b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.

[Gee, you're right that is the definition of force, oh wait, there's more]

I use the same source as you, but I'm being lazy. Gee, what does make you then? :rolleyes:

That is the sense in which I am using force. Not every sense of a word applies to every use of the word in every context. Words are used in context and with a specific meaning (sense, if you will). When I use the word force in the context of this thread, that is the sense in which I use it. It is also the sense in which the word is used in the context of income taxes.

I use the same source as you, but I'm being lazy. Gee, what does make you then? :rolleyes:

That is the sense in which I am using force. Not every sense of a word applies to every use of the word in every context. Words are used in context and with a specific meaning (sense, if you will). When I use the word force in the context of this thread, that is the sense in which I use it. It is also the sense in which the word is used in the context of income taxes.

Just because that is the only sense that you are using it in does not mean you are correct. From the context being used, the mental intimidation definition of force also applies. F = MA probably does not.

Hence implying that God has cursed the poor with a lack of material possessions...


The threat of losing one's job in today's society is most certainly a threat of force. If you have no money, you will not eat, and you will die. That's why workers are forced to work: without their work, they wouldn't be able to survive. And don't feed us BS about how workers could get different jobs if they wanted: most low-paying jobs are manual labor jobs, and those who work them are generally uneducated and unable to get a higher-paying job. If they quit, they can't feed themselves by force of will alone. They have to pay the bills, have to work, and hence are forced to remain employed at near-poverty wages.

Really? And who is threatening the worker with use of physical power or violence? No one is going to come to his house with a gun or a baseball bat and force them to return to their job. Well, except in a socialist society, that is.

Really? And who is threatening the worker with use of physical power or violence? No one is going to come to his house with a gun or a baseball bat and force them to return to their job. Well, except in a socialist society, that is.

So any society that uses conscription or the draft is a socialist country then?



(Any chance of an answer to my hoinest question about morality anf materialism?)

So any society that uses conscription or the draft is a socialist country then?

No, you are reversing the antecedent and the consequent.

My assertion is NOT: If a society uses force to keep workers in their jobs, then it is socialist. The society could be based on any number of social systems.

My assertion is: If a society is socialist, then it must necessarily use force to keep people in their jobs (or force them to leave and take another job). How else could the society adjust to people wanting to change jobs (or remain in their current job) of their own free will?

(Any chance of an answer to my hoinest question about morality anf materialism?)

As soon as you explain what your definition of "materialism" is. You are starting with the premise that I am a "materialist" and I don't necessarily agree the premise is valid.

Two very brief points to make about the discussion without reading through 7 pages of jibber-jabber (I like jibber-jabber--that's not an insult).

One--socialism isn't a governmental system. It's an economic system akin to capitalism, so Williams' thesis about the evils of government socialism are faulty from the getgo. A socialistic economy can exist under any and all forms of government from totalitarian dictatorship to direct democracy with all permutations in between.

Two--Williams is mistaken when he refers to socialism as evil, because that imputes motive to a non-conscious system. Socialism is no more evil than a rock or justice. It just is--it's an economic system invented by human beings that is designed to accomplish a particular job. If you disagree with the job it sets out to accomplish, then argue about the merits of the system, but don't fall into the intellectually lazy trap of calling an inanimate system (it's not even an object) evil, as though this economic system were laying in wait for unsuspecting travelers and then tickling them until they wet themselves. That would be evil.

No, you are reversing the antecedent and the consequent.

My assertion is NOT: If a society uses force to keep workers in their jobs, then it is socialist.


No one is going to come to his house with a gun or a baseball bat and force them to return to their job. Well, except in a socialist society, that is.

I view your earlier assertion differently: only in a socialist society would force be used to keep workers in their jobs (and it is not neccesarilly the case that all socialist societies would exercise force). But, if that isn't what you actually meant to say, it isn't what you actually meant to say.

One--socialism isn't a governmental system. It's an economic system akin to capitalism, so Williams' thesis about the evils of government socialism are faulty from the getgo. A socialistic economy can exist under any and all forms of government from totalitarian dictatorship to direct democracy with all permutations in between.

Two--Williams is mistaken when he refers to socialism as evil, because that imputes motive to a non-conscious system. Socialism is no more evil than a rock or justice. It just is--it's an economic system invented by human beings that is designed to accomplish a particular job. If you disagree with the job it sets out to accomplish, then argue about the merits of the system, but don't fall into the intellectually lazy trap of calling an inanimate system (it's not even an object) evil, as though this economic system were laying in wait for unsuspecting travelers and then tickling them until they wet themselves. That would be evil.

It's not "the job it sets out to accomplish" that I disagree with, it is the means by which it proposes to accomplish the job that I disagree with. There is no way to "redistribute wealth" without using physical force.

Your point about attributing morality to an inanimate object is absolutely true. So, here is my re-statement of what I think Dr. Williams meant: People who wish to impose socialism on others are evil. There, is that better?

I view your earlier assertion differently: only in a socialist society would force be used to keep workers in their jobs (and it is not neccesarilly the case that all socialist societies would exercise force). But, if that isn't what you actually meant to say, it isn't what you actually meant to say.

The last sentence ("Well, except in a socialist society, that is.") was meant in a half-joking manner.

The last sentence ("Well, except in a socialist society, that is.") was meant in a half-joking manner.

Fair enough, however, you agree that in certain circumstances force is used to keep people at their posts even in (as close as we have to) capitalist countries?

So, here is my re-statement of what I think Dr. Williams meant: People who wish to impose socialism on others are evil. There, is that better?

Presumably you would also hold that those people who wish to impose any other economic system on others are evil?

Fair enough, however, you agree that in certain circumstances force is used to keep people at their posts even in (as close as we have to) capitalist countries?

I can't speak for other countries, because I live in the USA. In the USA, no, I do not agree that force is used to keep people at their jobs. (Except the military, but the enlistee agrees to follow those regulations when they sign the enlistment papers. The USA has an all-volunteer military; no conscription.)

Presumably you would also hold that those people who wish to impose any other economic system on others are evil?

Anyone who initiates the use of physical force against another is evil.

I can't speak for other countries, because I live in the USA. In the USA, no, I do not agree that force is used to keep people at their jobs. (Except the military, but the enlistee agrees to follow those regulations when they sign the enlistment papers. The USA has an all-volunteer military; no conscription.)

The USA currently has an all-volunteer military, but it has not always been the case, unless I am unaware of some technicality which argues otherwise.


Anyone who initiates the use of physical force against another is evil.

Does this statement also cover the military?

Lets go way back to Plato's example: what if they are not of sound mind?

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person.
One could also argue that capitalism, which disregards minimum wage and worker's rights, is slavery.

they use force to compel one individual to work for the benefit of another. That is slavery.
Capitalism, anyone?

The USA currently has an all-volunteer military, but it has not always been the case, unless I am unaware of some technicality which argues otherwise.

Yes, the USA has had conscription in the past. Since you seem to like to engage in baiting and insinuation, I'll save you a post or two and say: I believe conscription is immoral. There, I saved you some time, didn't I?

Does this statement also cover the military?

More? #*($&(#$&*, where the &*#($&(! is this going? (Besides completely off-topic).

Yes, it applies to the military too. Before you make your next post, I should draw your attention to my use of the word "initiate."

Galtania, the point I am trying to make is thus: yes, technically you could quit your job if you wanted, no matter how bad it is. HOWEVER: When the choice you have is (a) keep your crap job with crap wages and suffer vs. (b) quit your job, become poor, and die of starvation, we can safely say that you are forced by interest in your own well-being to keep your job.

More? #*($&(#$&*, where the &*#($&(! is this going?

Just enjoying the ride and looking at the scenery.

No, actually it was your first post which peaked my interest, and I've just been exploring your reasoning since then.

However, it would seem that I am enjoying our little theoretical walk more than you are, so I shall leave you in peace.

Before you make your next post, I should draw your attention to my use of the word "initiate."

I was well aware of that word, don't worry.

Galtania, the point I am trying to make is thus: yes, technically you could quit your job if you wanted, no matter how bad it is. HOWEVER: When the choice you have is (a) keep your crap job with crap wages and suffer vs. (b) quit your job, become poor, and die of starvation, we can safely say that you are forced by interest in your own well-being to keep your job.

You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions there, not the least of which is this ridiculous business of "if you quit your job you will starve to death." Also, the tactic your post uses is the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Just enjoying the ride and looking at the scenery.

Fair enough.

No, actually it was your first post which peaked my interest, and I've just been exploring your reasoning since then.

OK. Does it meet with your approval? I have to ask because we've gone so far afield I can't remember what I said in my first post. :)

You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions there, not the least of which is this ridiculous business of "if you quit your job you will starve to death." Also, the tactic your post uses is the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.
Fine. I suppose that if you quit your job you can survive-for a time. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to get some charity, maybe you won't.
And about the false dichotomy: The only other choice I see is "quit your job and have a terrible standard of living because you only get meager charity money from others." Or perhaps "twenty billion dollars falls from the sky after you quit and you live happily ever after." There, now it's not a dichotomy. The choice is still the same.

OK. Does it meet with your approval? I have to ask because we've gone so far afield I can't remember what I said in my first post. :)


"I've been making all the same points here, regarding morality and slavery. The anarcho-syndicast- social-progressives will just ignore the logic and tell you what an evil exploter you are, and that property is theft. (Huh?)"

We're starting from different unprovable assumptions (such as the existence of an objective morality, and I believe the nature of property).

At the risk of sounding patronising, I haven't detected any flaws with the way you are operating after that point.

First of all the article is a load of crap. Secondly there is a rebuttle to the article which I think, if you havn't already seen it or if it hasn't already been poasted that everyone who read the first article should read.

It can be found at http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rebuttal_to_walter_williams.htm.

:D Enjoy :D

Okay, let's start by facing the facts. There will always be people who will think socialism is evil. There will always be people who think capatalism is evil. Chances are, you will not be able to convince these people to believe otherwise.
Another simple truth: no society has yet been "perfect" in its implemented form. Thus, if this statement holds true, no society will ever be perfect in its implemented form. An assumption, I know, but listen.
Because no society has been "perfect" (define perfect how you will), that means that all societies have had some "evils" (again, define how you will) in them.
And so, my thesis: All societies have some "evils" in them. Thus, all societies may be considered "evil". Capatalism, socialism, communism, it doesn't matter.
Take this how you wish to, I cannot stop you. I am simply stating my opinion.

Fine. I suppose that if you quit your job you can survive-for a time. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to get some charity, maybe you won't.
And about the false dichotomy: The only other choice I see is "quit your job and have a terrible standard of living because you only get meager charity money from others." Or perhaps "twenty billion dollars falls from the sky after you quit and you live happily ever after." There, now it's not a dichotomy. The choice is still the same.

Or, you could get another job that's just as good, or maybe even better. Why is it that you neglect to mention that possibility?

Or, you create your own job doing something that you're good at. Why isn't that a possibility in your mind?

Or, you get some charity for a little while, then, instead of starving to death, get another job. Maybe it just took a little time. Why is the outcome automatically starvation? Why is this possibility never mentioned in your post?

Or, you could team up with others, and start your own business. You didn't consider that, did you?

Or, <insert any one of a myriad of possibilities here>...

There, now it's REALLY a choice, and not a re-statement of the same false dichotomy.

[Southern Baptist Preacher Voice] Instead, God tells us to ride the backs of the broken and the poor into the sunset across the beaches we inherited from our Grandfathers! Onward Christian Soldiers... save your money for God![/Southern Baptist Preacher Voice]

LOL. In all honesty, I believe Christians, being the rabid right-wingers they are, is the greatest oxymoron there could ever exist.

It's not "the job it sets out to accomplish" that I disagree with, it is the means by which it proposes to accomplish the job that I disagree with. There is no way to "redistribute wealth" without using physical force.

Your point about attributing morality to an inanimate object is absolutely true. So, here is my re-statement of what I think Dr. Williams meant: People who wish to impose socialism on others are evil. There, is that better?It's better in the sense that it's actually possible to debate the question now. I disagree with the assertion that people who wish to use a socialistic economic system are evil, however.

All economic systems are to some degree exploitative--some more so than others. Unregulated captialism is, in my opinion, one of the most exploitative--socialism is exploitative, but not as much as unregulated capitalism. My personal choice is for a heavily regulated capitalism--it combines the protection of the citizenry from the worst of capitalism while allowing the market forces of capitalism to provide for the opportunity for social and economic mobility.

"I've been making all the same points here, regarding morality and slavery. The anarcho-syndicast- social-progressives will just ignore the logic and tell you what an evil exploter you are, and that property is theft. (Huh?)"

And I think other posters have quite substantiated that statement. What do you think?

We're starting from different unprovable assumptions (such as the existence of an objective morality, and I believe the nature of property).

Actually, I think that objective morality can be proven, or close to it. However, I don't have the energy or the right frame of mind to attempt it here and now.

At the risk of sounding patronising, I haven't detected any flaws with the way you are operating after that point.

Cool, thanks! :D

Okay, let's start by facing the facts. There will always be people who will think socialism is evil. There will always be people who think capatalism is evil. Chances are, you will not be able to convince these people to believe otherwise.
Another simple truth: no society has yet been "perfect" in its implemented form. Thus, if this statement holds true, no society will ever be perfect in its implemented form. An assumption, I know, but listen.
Because no society has been "perfect" (define perfect how you will), that means that all societies have had some "evils" (again, define how you will) in them.
And so, my thesis: All societies have some "evils" in them. Thus, all societies may be considered "evil". Capatalism, socialism, communism, it doesn't matter.
Take this how you wish to, I cannot stop you. I am simply stating my opinion.

I agree (with a nation named 'love and cheese' interesting). The problem with saying that anything is evil is that there is no such thing as evil. Evil is a term derived for anything an individual or a sect of society has deemed unacceptable. Because there will always be someone to disagree with everything, there is nothing saying that everything except sleep (no one i have yet met dislikes sleep) is evil. In that same strain of thought, there is nothing to say that nothing is evil. There are some people who believe murder is perfectly justifyable. Just because anyone thinks that something is wrong or impossible doesn't automatically make it 'evil'.

bject is absolutely true. So, here is my re-statement of what I think Dr. Williams meant: People who wish to impose socialism on others are evil. There, is that better?

So I suppose that the people who impose the Capitalist system, which remains indifferent to the basic necesities of millions, are even worse?

Socialism is Evil

Christianity is Evil

:) ;) :p

The thesis of Socilism is Evil is totally ungrounded and as i said before a load of crap. My initial rage of seeing this article, which I have read before, on nation states prompted me to give the links to the rebuttal but as I came to my sences I decided to just start a new thread here is the link (it contains the text of the rebuttal but not the images)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349668

Please respond.

It's better in the sense that it's actually possible to debate the question now. I disagree with the assertion that people who wish to use a socialistic economic system are evil, however.

All economic systems are to some degree exploitative--some more so than others. Unregulated captialism is, in my opinion, one of the most exploitative--socialism is exploitative, but not as much as unregulated capitalism. My personal choice is for a heavily regulated capitalism--it combines the protection of the citizenry from the worst of capitalism while allowing the market forces of capitalism to provide for the opportunity for social and economic mobility.

That's all well and good, but you're leaving out the means again. (BTW, I specifically used the word "impose" socialism, not "use" socialism, for a reason.) Again, there is no way to "redistribute wealth" without using force (defined as "physical power or violence"). On the other hand, capitalist systems do not use force, as they are based on mutual agreement between parties. I reassert my position (which echoes Dr. Williams): Income taxes (i.e., redistribution of wealth) are immoral, because they are based on the use of force.

Actually, I think that objective morality can be proven, or close to it. However, I don't have the energy or the right frame of mind to attempt it here and now.

I have discovered a marvelous proof to this theorem, that this margin is too narrow to contain.

:p

What was said in that text didn't really describe socialism, but I wish to point out a few problems his misguided Christian view of the subject. Firstly if a Right wing government was to take $5 from every american to bail out an airline company this may be seen as unfair. To rectify this the government should offer to re-fund the $5 to anyone that wants it on the condition that they never fly again. Similarly they should do the same thing with roads, water supplys, dole and ,in sensible places that have national health, Health care. You may at first think that taxation is theft, but without it where would we be? ( in a capitalist country anyway ) So my confused friend please, before you decide to write anything else on government systems imagine them if they were not there, no roads, no police, no Fire service, no military, no state education, no sewers, no water purification....need i go on my friend?

Aw, those poor, poor, bloated neo-plutocrats, forced to help a tiny percentage of the starving poor of the earth. Why, I bet some of them have had to cut down to one or two yachts!

Grow up. Theft is when someone takes your money, i.e., the ruling class growing rich off of the work of the proletariat. Taxes mostly go back to the rich, anyway. Military spending, anyone? Did you think weapons corporations were owned by the poor?

The thesis of Socilism is Evil is totally ungrounded and as i said before a load of crap. My initial rage of seeing this article, which I have read before, on nation states prompted me to give the links to the rebuttal but as I came to my sences I decided to just start a new thread here is the link (it contains the text of the rebuttal but not the images)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349668

Please respond.

Not a very good rebuttal. Long on emotion and rhetoric, short on substance and logic.

So my confused friend please, before you decide to write anything else on government systems imagine them if they were not there, no roads, no police, no Fire service, no military, no state education, no sewers, no water purification....need i go on my friend?


You think the anarcho-capitalists haven't followed this through to a logical conclusion? The answer is subscription services: if you want your home protected you pay one of the defence companies or police companies, if you want clean water you pay the water purification company, if you want fire cover then you pay the fire service company... thus (theoretically) everybody only pays for only the services that they chose to use and free market competition keeps the different companies honest.

Aw, those poor, poor, bloated neo-plutocrats, forced to help a tiny percentage of the starving poor of the earth. Why, I bet some of them have had to cut down to one or two yachts!

Grow up. Theft is when someone takes your money, i.e., the ruling class growing rich off of the work of the proletariat. Taxes mostly go back to the rich, anyway. Military spending, anyone? Did you think weapons corporations were owned by the poor?

Class warfare, blah, blah, blah, Marxist propaganda, blah, blah, blah, revolution, blah, blah, blah...

You think the anarcho-capitalists haven't followed this through to a logical conclusion? The answer is subscription services: if you want your home protected you pay one of the defence companies or police companies, if you want clean water you pay the water purification company, if you want fire cover then you pay the fire service company... thus (theoretically) everybody only pays for only the services that they chose to use and free market competition keeps the different companies honest.

That's pretty much correct, except for the military, police, and court systems. These are legitimate functions of a government in a free-market economy, and could be paid for, as I said before, with a consumption (i.e., sales) tax. Also, competition is not the only thing "keeping companies honest"; the court system would have a role in that also.

Oh, when I consent to being classified, I NEVER use a classification with the prefix "anarcho." :)

Class warfare, blah, blah, blah, Marxist propaganda, blah, blah, blah, revolution, blah, blah, blah...

if u don't agree it doesn't means that others are babbling.

more respect.

cheers
edit: found a more appropriate word.

if u don't understand it doesn't means that others are babbling.

more respect.

cheers

I understand completely. My post was an accurate description of his/her post. IMO, "hate the rich" is not a philosophy worthy of respect.

That's all well and good, but you're leaving out the means again. (BTW, I specifically used the word "impose" socialism, not "use" socialism, for a reason.) Again, there is no way to "redistribute wealth" without using force (defined as "physical power or violence"). On the other hand, capitalist systems do not use force, as they are based on mutual agreement between parties. I reassert my position (which echoes Dr. Williams): Income taxes (i.e., redistribution of wealth) are immoral, because they are based on the use of force.
Sorry, but did you just say that capitalist systems don't use force? Come on--capitalist systems are the most notorious for using force to exploit natural resources and the work of the lower classes. If you really believe that statement, then you need to read up on the history of economics, especially the great capitalist powers like Imperial Britain and the pre-labor movement US.

The passage sounds very similar to the concept of social anarchy (not anarchy as is popularly thought of) which works on the theory of co-operative disinterest.

The same arguments against utopia can be used against it, ie, people are greedy, etc.

As for the christian epitaph at the end, concerning evil, good and evil are fairly relative terms and cannot be defined in absolute terms, since only humans have the concepts.

That's pretty much correct, except for the military, police, and court systems. These are legitimate functions of a government in a free-market economy, and could be paid for, as I said before, with a consumption (i.e., sales) tax. Also, competition is not the only thing "keeping companies honest"; the court system would have a role in that also.


just to know, in your system if my father and my mother die when i am thirteen i should look on charity?

and if i work as fisherman i should choose each month between electricity, sending childs to school or having some health insurance?

no social welfare at all? that's terrible. And unthinkable in Europe, luckily.

cheers

I understand completely. My post was an accurate description of his/her post. IMO, "hate the rich" is not a philosophy worthy of respect.

hate the marxists isn't too.

cheers.

hate the marxists isn't too.

cheers.

I don't hate Marxists, I just think they're full of shit and have violent intentions.

I don't hate Marxists, I just think they're full of shit and have violent intentions.

blah blah blah help help the commies blah blah the red threat blah blah will eat my childrens blah blah my property stolen blah blah

That's pretty much correct, except for the military, police, and court systems. These are legitimate functions of a government in a free-market economy, and could be paid for, as I said before, with a consumption (i.e., sales) tax. Also, competition is not the only thing "keeping companies honest"; the court system would have a role in that also.

Yeah - I was struggling for the ternm 'security guards' for some reason and used 'defence' and 'police' in its place.

One of the problems I have with this whole structure is the way that it maintains a minimal state apparatus - the shadow of the original state - and I have yet to be convinced as to why military/police/judiciary are granted a special status within it.

Oh, when I consent to being classified, I NEVER use a classification with the prefix "anarcho." :)

Quite possibly you don't, but it wasn't you that invented this system.

EDIT: possibly you were implying that you are a lady and use the 'anarcha-' prefix.

As a christian communist I would just to like to register my offence that some people, who allegedly share my faith, believe that the exploitation of one group by another is moral

Class warfare, blah, blah, blah, Marxist propaganda, blah, blah, blah, revolution, blah, blah, blah...
Well, yeah. How is that suddenly worse than it's opposition?

Violent intentions? Just remember, if it wern't for the communists, you wouldn't have the right to vote, we'd have no public education, and we'd all be speaking German.

Lastly, when did I say I was advocating Marxist communism? I'm for equality, democracy, and community, no more, no less.

just to know, in your system if my father and my mother die when i am thirteen i should look on charity?

Family or charity, or some other method, or combination of methods. In "my system," as you've chosen to call it, no one would stop anyone from assisting others. It's just that no one would be forced to help them if they didn't want to.

and if i work as fisherman i should choose each month between electricity, sending childs to school or having some health insurance?

You're assuming that a fisherman can't afford all of them. But if he can't, then yes, you must choose. Or find a way to provide something without paying money for it (e.g., home school your child, generate your own electricity). Life isn't always fair and easy. No one has a moral claim on someone else's life (i.e., work).

Lastly, when did I say I was advocating Marxist communism? I'm for equality, democracy, and community, no more, no less.

When did Marxism go against the principles of equality, democracy, and community? Don't listen to what Che Guevara said was Marxism, he was wrong, very wrong.

Not a very good rebuttal. Long on emotion and rhetoric, short on substance and logic.

I would have to say it contains more logic and reasoning (not to mention consistancy) than the orringinal article that started this post.

You're assuming that a fisherman can't afford all of them. But if he can't, then yes, you must choose. Or find a way to provide something without paying money for it (e.g., home school your child, generate your own electricity).

that's terrible.
there are some social services that needs to be mantained by the state, or that's not a state, in my humble opinion. in Your vision, as i choosed to call it, there's no need for a state to be honest. it remembers me some cyberpunk novels.

cheers

You're assuming that a fisherman can't afford all of them. But if he can't, then yes, you must choose. Or find a way to provide something without paying money for it (e.g., home school your child, generate your own electricity). Life isn't always fair and easy. No one has a moral claim on someone else's life (i.e., work).

Assuming that your views are 'right', how many poor people do you know that have the means of creating their own electricity. And how would this poor fisherman find time to teach his childrean and work enough to afford healthcare and food.

Furthermore on a more idealistic note the job of the government is to supply for the people so if they can't provide basic services for thier citizens especially the poor than what is the government doing? Bailing out top CEO's and big buisness from international competition and or scandal.

that's terrible.
there are some social services that needs to be mantained by the state, or that's not a state, in my humble opinion. in Your vision, as i choosed to call it, there's no need for a state to be honest. it remembers me some cyberpunk novels.



The 'Fall Revolution' novels by Ken MacLeod? The Anarco-captialist states shown in them didn't seem too bad, though they did have a bad tendency to develop communism after a revolution or two...

E!

Assuming that your views are 'right', how many poor people do you know that have the means of creating their own electricity. And how would this poor fisherman find time to teach his childrean and work enough to afford healthcare and food.

not to mention that home made education will bring the education of the children down and down generation by generation. i could bet this kind of system would bring poor people to be "specialized" on their father's work, since their fathers would teach them what they know, and they will be probably know how to live.

it looks like something i already saw, maybe in the middle ages?

where's the freedom there?

The 'Fall Revolution' novels by Ken MacLeod? The Anarco-captialist states shown in them didn't seem too bad, though they did have a bad tendency to develop communism after a revolution or two...

E!

maybe cause that anarco-capitalistic states weren't that nice, u know :P

Matthew 19:21
21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Matthew 19:23-26
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Luke 12:15
15 Then Jesus said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Proverbs 14:31
31 He who oppresses the poor blasphemes his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy glorifies him.

Proverbs 31:89
89 Open your mouth in behalf of the dumb, and for the rights of the destitute; Open your mouth, decree what is just, defend the needy and the poor!
Ahhhhh laying a little Christianity on the "Unashamed Christian", is a good thing, but alas dear brother or sister do you honestly believe these words can indeed help him/her find his/her way? Perhaps not?

A heart heavy with hate, anger, revenge, and greed, is indeed a heart that has no room for humility?

Let us pray for the lost souls that are truly confused and wandering aimlessly towards their own destruction.

This must be the stupidest topic I have ever seen, except for some by some neonazis. Capitalism is based on theft. Read What is Property or chapter 3 of the link in my signature (it's labeled Free your mind!)

Or, you could get another job that's just as good, or maybe even better. Why is it that you neglect to mention that possibility?

If you have a crap job, you probably don't want to quit for one "just as good." It's the same crappy job. The odds of someone who is working for low wages being able to spontaneously jump to a better job are slim. Those working low-income jobs usually don't have education or high skills, and hence cannot get a better job.

Or, you create your own job doing something that you're good at. Why isn't that a possibility in your mind?

It isn't a possibility because the poor who work low-income jobs can't support themselves on their own for long enough to start their own business or create their own job. That takes serious money/investment, which a poor ex-janitor probably can't put together.

Or, you get some charity for a little while, then, instead of starving to death, get another job. Maybe it just took a little time. Why is the outcome automatically starvation? Why is this possibility never mentioned in your post?

What other job? One with the same crap conditions as the previous job? Again, people with less education and less money have less job opportunities.

Or, you could team up with others, and start your own business. You didn't consider that, did you?


Again, the poor usually can't support themselves long enough to start a business. I considered it. It isn't an option.


There. I've explained myself again. Now stop telling me that poor people with little education can quit their jobs and magically become successful businesspeople. It just doesn't happen enough to be a viable possibility.

not to mention that home made education will bring the education of the children down and down generation by generation. i could bet this kind of system would bring poor people to be "specialized" on their father's work, since their fathers would teach them what they know, and they will be probably know how to live.

it looks like something i already saw, maybe in the middle ages?

where's the freedom there?

Although, I've seen articles that claim that the national reading age, in America at least, has gone down since home schooling was phased out. If you look at the change in reading ability between World War I and II, for instance (measured using the testing apparatus used by the military), there is a significant drop.

E!

Great piece. I agree with it completely. Perhaps this quote from Lysander Spooner will also be useful.....

" Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them. But of his legal duty – that is, of his duty to live honestly towards his fellow men – his fellow men not only may judge, but, for their own protection, must judge. And, if need be, they may rightfully compel him to perform it. They may do this, acting singly, or in concert. They may do it on the instant, as the necessity arises, or deliberately and systematically, if they prefer to do so, and the exigency will admit of it."

For those of you who are worried about maintaining roads, military, police and help for the needy (as I'm sure all people of this view were at some point) you might find this useful, "the Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray Rothbard

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

And also this article on military without the state

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

Please don't ignore this, it is offering a very practical and common sense alternative to the traditional system which will increase wealth, freedom and peace.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! hee hee :D

Thanks for ignoring my argument entirely. My argument does not ignore the logic at all if you'd actually read it properly, I am using his own logic to arrive at a conclusion that falsifies his argument, namely that some capitalists acquire property through wholly immoral means that could be constituted as theft. Therefore they have no right to that property.

And there is plenty of empirical evidence for this argument. Conglomerates using cheap sweat shop labour anyone? I'm not saying all property is theft at all, I am saying that capitalism is fundamentally selfish (this is undeniable, personal gain is central to the ideology) and that this leads to many capitalists gaining property via immoral means. A person who acquires property from another person by paying them a reasonable price for their labours is moral and just. However, most transactions in capitalism do not happen this way.

Now could you please challenge my argument with reason and not ignorance.

Great piece. I agree with it completely. Perhaps this quote from Lysander Spooner will also be useful.....

" Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them. But of his legal duty – that is, of his duty to live honestly towards his fellow men – his fellow men not only may judge, but, for their own protection, must judge. And, if need be, they may rightfully compel him to perform it. They may do this, acting singly, or in concert. They may do it on the instant, as the necessity arises, or deliberately and systematically, if they prefer to do so, and the exigency will admit of it."Still wasn't an anarcho-capitalist though. To be fair though, I suspect your views more logically consistent then Unashamed Christians. I take it you also consider tithes as theft.

For those of you who are worried about maintaining roads, military, police and help for the needy (as I'm sure all people of this view were at some point) you might find this useful, "the Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray Rothbard

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

And also this article on military without the state

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

Please don't ignore this, it is offering a very practical and common sense alternative to the traditional system which will increase wealth, freedom and peace.Speaking of links... Any response yet?

Although, I've seen articles that claim that the national reading age, in America at least, has gone down since home schooling was phased out. If you look at the change in reading ability between World War I and II, for instance (measured using the testing apparatus used by the military), there is a significant drop.

E!

this doesn't means that if a fisherman's children could be a great phisician it would be, using what his father could teach to him.

learning is probably limited by your teacher and what your teacher expects to you.

i bet a fisherman would try to bring his son to the sea as soon as possible.


another problem is: they where more proficent in reading. but reading what?
a school gives a more universal meaning and purpose to the learning.

Cheers
Ps: how i wish i could talk in Italian lol, i feel "blocked" talking in English, some concepts i wish to exprime are just too hard for my puny english :)

Thanks for ignoring my argument entirely. My argument does not ignore the logic at all if you'd actually read it properly, I am using his own logic to arrive at a conclusion that falsifies his argument, namely that some capitalists acquire property through wholly immoral means that could be constituted as theft. Therefore they have no right to that property.
This doesn't mean capitalism is wrong, it just means that under capitalism some people are criminals. Is there any system of which this isn't true? Stealing is anathema to a free market.

And there is plenty of empirical evidence for this argument. Conglomerates using cheap sweat shop labour anyone? I'm not saying all property is theft at all, I am saying that capitalism is fundamentally selfish (this is undeniable, personal gain is central to the ideology) and that this leads to many capitalists gaining property via immoral means. A person who acquires property from another person by paying them a reasonable price for their labours is moral and just. However, most transactions in capitalism do not happen this way.
"Sweat shop" labour is not stealing. If they could get a better wage somewhere else they would. The company MUST be making them better off or they wouldn't work for it. Your idea of a just reasonable wage might not be applicable in societies where that wealth just doesn't exist. The point is that if you didn't think the offered wage was reasonable (compared to your other options) you wouldn't accept it, and you are free not to. Meanwhile, a free market will hasten the day when they CAN earn a decent wage.

As for greed, there is no link between free markets and greed. A free market is allowing people to do what they like with their property. This could mean trading, hoarding or donating it to charity. If people choose not to persue wealth they are perfectly free to do so. Is there something wrong with wanting to be better off? Every system rewards those who seek wealth. Seeking wealth necessarily leads (if you are competent) to aquiring wealth, which is what is meant by "reward". Someone who seeks wealth in socialism will do what it takes to aquire it, thus socialism rewards greed too.

You need to realize that it is your CHOICE to live in the society which asks you to pay taxes. Most free governments i know of dont force you to be a citizen, so if you enjoy reaping the benefits of living within the society that said governments secure, then you must be willing to do your part in maintaining those societies. The taxes you pay as a member of those societies helps maintain many of the services you so mindlessly utilize on a day to day basis. Quit whining and go back to church.

Still wasn't an anarcho-capitalist though.
Nevertheless, I agree with most of what he said, especially this passage.
To be fair though, I suspect your views more logically consistent then Unashamed Christians. I take it you also consider tithes as theft.
I'm not entirely sure what a tithe is. If it is payment for a voluntary association, like club dues, then it isn't theft. If it is a religious tax coercively enforced then it is.

Speaking of links... Any response yet?
Not sure I know what you mean.

I'm not entirely sure what a tithe is. If it is payment for a voluntary association, like club dues, then it isn't theft. If it is a religious tax coercively enforced then it is.

Traditionally 10% of what you earn has to be donated to the Church. Or you go to hell.

"You need to realize that it is your CHOICE to live in the neighbourhood of the mafia which asks you to pay protection money. Most mafias i know of dont force you to live near them, so if you enjoy reaping the protection that said mafias secure, then you must be willing to do your part in maintaining those mafias. The protection money you pay as a member of those neighbourhoods helps maintain many of the services you so mindlessly utilize on a day to day basis. Quit whining and go back to church."

Does this make any sense? Then why does it make sense when it's a big mafia all elected and stuff? You could make a similar argument to justify conscription. How do you feel about being drafted, oh Liberated One?

Nevertheless, I agree with most of what he said, especially this passage.Huzzah. You've finally acknowledged that Spooner isn't from the same political background as you.

I'm not entirely sure what a tithe is. If it is payment for a voluntary association, like club dues, then it isn't theft. If it is a religious tax coercively enforced then it is.The historical use is generally that of a church enforcing it on the populace. Interesting question though, considering, I assume, that you support freedom of religion, is it morally right to tax that right, even if "voluntary".

Not sure I know what you mean.The refution of Coulter. (On the off chance you are ready to respond, we'll take it to another thread).

Traditionally 10% of what you earn has to be donated to the Church. Or you go to hell.
You don't really go to hell though. If I said give me 10% of what you earn or the tooth fairy will eat you I don't think you'd say I tried to rob you.

The following is an article by Walter E. Williams, a respected Economist at George Mason University.

Before you go off the handle and respond angrily because you don't like the name of the thread, why don't you just read his article and respond to Williams thesis.



Socialism is Evil by Walter E. Williams

What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

A forty year old jackass who I rip on all the time posted this exact article on mxtabs.net a while ago. He was promptly ripped apart by me and half a dozen others, all half his age or less. Within the first two lines it starts stating "facts" which are plainly not true. "Property redistribution" is a term invented by McCarthyists to vilify communism. It DOES NOT OCCUR IN A TRUE SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT! EVER! There IS private property and private enterprise in socialist nations. You simply aren't allowed to exploit others. This is what socialism actually is:

You are paid in accordance to what you accomplish and how hard you work. Since poor people tend to work harder than the wealthy, this means that there are no poor people and no uber-rich, just a large middle class (a few would still make a couple of million a year). Only the wealthiest 10% of Americans would give up even a dime for a socialist system to function. Look at Bill Gates. He's an idiot, plain and simple. He hasn't done any real work since the 80's. Why is he rich? Because he dodges paying billions of tax dollars every year, at one point had an illegal monopoly, and sell faulty products. Any real programmer will tell you Windows is bullshit, but sells because A) Any idiot can use it-it will simply crash constantly and B) Gates has worked out deals with Dell and other computer companies to include it with computers. Therefore Bill Gates would be as close as you get to poverty, but those who actually work a 9-5 job working out glitches on Windows-run computers are paid about 40 000 a year (very roughly). Janitors would make a reasonable salary because they work hard but don't need any education. Doctors would be very near the top of the ladder because they perform a vital and difficult task that requires education.

EDIT: Everyone should remember to know the difference between Socialism (Marxism) and Stalinism. Most people are stupid and think of Stalinism, which does not even vaguely resemble Socialism. If you don't know the difference, you should not post in this thread. Also, on another note, if you read the bible carefully, you will realize that Jesus was a socialist.

You don't really go to hell though. If I said give me 10% of what you earn or the tooth fairy will eat you I don't think you'd say I tried to rob you.
But to those that believe it exists it is different.

The threat is there and to those that believe, it would make all the difference in the world.

Huzzah. You've finally acknowledged that Spooner isn't from the same political background as you.
As far as I'm aware he agreed with us on nearly everything, and on those things he didn't agree with (rent etc) he wouldn't violently prevent. Thus we have the same political beliefs (what freedoms we should have) , but different moral ones (how to use your freedom).

The historical use is generally that of a church enforcing it on the populace. Interesting question though, considering, I assume, that you support freedom of religion, is it morally right to tax that right, even if "voluntary".
Morally, perhaps not. Legally though it is acceptable as it is analagous to club dues (and you aren't forced to join the club).

The refution of Coulter. (On the off chance you are ready to respond, we'll take it to another thread).
I haven't had time to research it. It's a big job! I assumed (and to an extent still do) that Caplan had done his work right. Intellectual division of labour. Sorry, it's just not high on my priorities right now. I'm reading about other stuff.

You don't really go to hell though. If I said give me 10% of what you earn or the tooth fairy will eat you I don't think you'd say I tried to rob you.

No, obviously -- but that argument doesn't work too well on people who believe that they WILL go to hell. Since the whole thing is based on belief in stuff that doesn't exist, the actuality or otherwise is moot.

Incidentally, I think you need to do some more research into the sort of options open to people in extreme poverty. The idea that "if [sweat-shop workers] could get a better wage somewhere else they would. The company MUST be making them better off or they wouldn't work for it," is terribly naive. When the choice is to work for a sweat shop and barely survive, or don't work in a sweat-shop and starve to death (because the only other option -- return to subsistence farming -- is no longer available because the sweat-shop owners own the land, and the police too for that matter), it's not really much of a choice, is it? What makes these corporate robber-barons, extorting labour from the poor, any different from statist robber-barons extorting money from the not-so-poor?

Traditionally 10% of what you earn has to be donated to the Church. Or you go to hell.

roman chatolic church will never do that, this is a theft.

no wait it did that in the Middle Ages and that brought to Protestantism... and now it's used there?

quite strange, and hyronic.

Cheers

A forty year old jackass who I rip on all the time posted this exact article on mxtabs.net a while ago. He was promptly ripped apart by me and half a dozen others, all half his age or less. Within the first two lines it starts stating "facts" which are plainly not true. "Property redistribution" is a term invented by McCarthyists to vilify communism. It DOES NOT OCCUR IN A TRUE SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT! EVER! There IS private property and private enterprise in socialist nations. You simply aren't allowed to exploit others. This is what socialism actually is:

You are paid in accordance to what you accomplish and how hard you work. Since poor people tend to work harder than the wealthy, this means that there are no poor people and no uber-rich, just a large middle class (a few would still make a couple of million a year). Only the wealthiest 10% of Americans would give up even a dime for a socialist system to function. Look at Bill Gates. He's an idiot, plain and simple. He hasn't done any real work since the 80's. Why is he rich? Because he dodges paying billions of tax dollars every year, at one point had an illegal monopoly, and sell faulty products. Any real programmer will tell you Windows is bullshit, but sells because A) Any idiot can use it-it will simply crash constantly and B) Gates has worked out deals with Dell and other computer companies to include it with computers. Therefore Bill Gates would be as close as you get to poverty, but those who actually work a 9-5 job working out glitches on Windows-run computers are paid about 40 000 a year (very roughly). Janitors would make a reasonable salary because they work hard but don't need any education. Doctors would be very near the top of the ladder because they perform a vital and difficult task that requires education.

EDIT: Everyone should remember to know the difference between Socialism (Marxism) and Stalinism. Most people are stupid and think of Stalinism, which does not even vaguely resemble Socialism. If you don't know the difference, you should not post in this thread. Also, on another note, if you read the bible carefully, you will realize that Jesus was a socialist.
Lets not quibble over definitions. All forms of socialism (all those things people call socialism whether welfare statism or communism) attack private property in some form, whether in earnings, posessions or capital goods. Thus all are based on some sort of stealing.

No, obviously -- but that argument doesn't work too well on people who believe that they WILL go to hell. Since the whole thing is based on belief in stuff that doesn't exist, the actuality or otherwise is moot.
More fool them. If I "intimidate" you with threats from a malicious elf it's your own fault if you believe them. It is unfair and immoral, but should it be violently prevented, i.e. illegal, that's going too far.

Incidentally, I think you need to do some more research into the sort of options open to people in extreme poverty. The idea that "if [sweat-shop workers] could get a better wage somewhere else they would. The company MUST be making them better off or they wouldn't work for it," is terribly naive. When the choice is to work for a sweat shop and barely survive, or don't work in a sweat-shop and starve to death (because the only other option -- return to subsistence farming -- is no longer available because the sweat-shop owners own the land, and the police too for that matter), it's not really much of a choice, is it? What makes these corporate robber-barons, extorting labour from the poor, any different from statist robber-barons extorting money from the not-so-poor?
Well, first of all I think we agree that the state exacerbates, if not outrightly causes, third world poverty. Life is indeed unpleasent for these people, I don't deny that. What I do deny is that any other system will give them a better deal, especially in getting them OUT of the poverty as quickly as possible.

Also, I don't think you can say something is involuntary just because all the other options are worse. If you say that then NOTHING is voluntary, since people will always do what they perceive to be the best thing, it's practically a tautology. It isn't good to choose between 2 bad deals, but it is a choice nonetheless.

Lets not quibble over definitions. All forms of socialism (all those things people call socialism whether welfare statism or communism) attack private property in some form, whether in earnings, posessions or capital goods. Thus all are based on some sort of stealing.

And capitalism is based on paying people less than they are worth, and selling goods for more than they are worth. Thus it's based on cheating.

You can only "steal" something if you believe in the concept of ownership. This is only a concept, so your statement -- like my statement on capitalism -- is only an opinion.

Lets not quibble over definitions. All forms of socialism (all those things people call socialism whether welfare statism or communism) attack private property in some form, whether in earnings, posessions or capital goods. Thus all are based on some sort of stealing.

as capitalism or anarcho-capitalism or what is it.

no public school = stealing of education
no public healthcare = stealing of health

and so on.

Lets not quibble over definitions. All forms of socialism (all those things people call socialism whether welfare statism or communism) attack private property in some form, whether in earnings, posessions or capital goods. Thus all are based on some sort of stealing.

Except for they don't, and you completely ignored my argument in order to state facts that are untrue..

And capitalism is based on paying people less than they are worth, and selling goods for more than they are worth. Thus it's based on cheating.

And this is based on the labour theory of value which, as BAAWA is fond of pointing out, has been refuted to death. What you are saying is meaningless. Tell me in apples and oranges what a person is worth!

You can only "steal" something if you believe in the concept of ownership. This is only a concept, so your statement -- like my statement on capitalism -- is only an opinion.
It is a true statement for anyone who understands the concept of stealing. You don't think stealing is wrong, I understand that, but don't pretend it isn't stealing.

as capitalism or anarcho-capitalism or what is it.

no public school = stealing of education
no public healthcare = stealing of health

and so on.
no conscription = stealing of defence?
no holocaust = stealing of lebensraum?
no drug laws = stealing of morals?
no public chocolate = stealing of candy?

This is silly.

More fool them. If I "intimidate" you with threats from a malicious elf it's your own fault if you believe them. It is unfair and immoral, but should it be violently prevented, i.e. illegal, that's going too far.

No argument there. Although there might be an issue about people not being able to afford decent education. If the only schooling I'd ever had was that provided "free" by some priest or witch-doctor then it makes this kind of rationalist "it's your own stupid fault" argument a bit trickier.

Well, first of all I think we agree that the state exacerbates, if not outrightly causes, third world poverty. Life is indeed unpleasent for these people, I don't deny that. What I do deny is that any other system will give them a better deal, especially in getting them OUT of the poverty as quickly as possible.

Also, I don't think you can say something is involuntary just because all the other options are worse. If you say that then NOTHING is voluntary, since people will always do what they perceive to be the best thing, it's practically a tautology. It isn't good to choose between 2 bad deals, but it is a choice nonetheless.

I don't know. When you think about it, the corporations that use sweated labour to make stupendous profits have a vested interest in maintaining groups of people in dire poverty. If, say, Nike go and help them off the breadline, who will make their hugely overpriced trainers for them at pennies a go then? Capitalism needs poverty and desperation. If it helps eliminate them, then it undermines its own existence.

I alos think that, by the time the options are reduced to "work here or literally starve to death", it's pretty much as close to involuntary as you need to get. "Do this or die" isn't actually a choice, except in the most hair-splittingly argumentative terms.

no conscription = stealing of defence?
no holocaust = stealing of lebensraum?
no drug laws = stealing of morals?
no public chocolate = stealing of candy?

This is silly.

points of view, your examples are quite silly, i could say.

I don;t know. When you think about it, the corporations that use sweated labour to make stupendous profits have a vested interest in maintaining groups of people in dire poverty. If, say, Nike go and help them off the breadline, who will make their hugely overpriced trainers for them at 5c a go then? Capitalism needs poverty and desperation. If it helps eliminate them, then it undermines its own existence.

This is a naive class analysis sort of fallacy. Although Nike may do very well if there is a permanent shortage of jobs and thus cheap labour, they don't benefit from not employing needed labour. If Reebok start paying 6c a go then it is in Nike's interest to pay 7c and so on until wages are high. Free markets => more investment => more jobs => higher wages. From your analysis all jobs should be subsistence level everywhere, which they clearly aren't. And I'm sure you're smart enough not to cite minimum wage laws and regulations to "explain" this.

I alos think that, by the time the options are reduced to "work here or literally starve to death", it's pretty much as close to involuntary as you need to get. "Do this or die" isn't actually a choice, except in the most hair-splittingly argumentative terms.
There is no better system for getting them out of this dilemma. Mercantilism and welarism will make it worse. Communism, anarcho or statist, will get them killed. A free market will cure the causes of poverty. However you cut it, they are better off now than they were before, and in the future they will be MUCH better off IF the markets are kept free.

I alos think that, by the time the options are reduced to "work here or literally starve to death", it's pretty much as close to involuntary as you need to get. "Do this or die" isn't actually a choice, except in the most hair-splittingly argumentative terms.
At least they are given a choice. I'd say any corporation that gives someone work, without of which that someone would die, is doing them a huge favor. Or should corporations offer people work and pay them "fairly" based on where the people are starving?

Communism, anarcho or statist, will get them killed. A free market will cure the causes of poverty. However you cut it, they are better off now than they were before, and in the future they will be MUCH better off IF the markets are kept free.

we are not talking about communism here. we are talking about Socialism.

At least they are given a choice.

work at subsistence wages or die is a choice?

This is a naive class analysis sort of fallacy. Although Nike may do very well if there is a permanent shortage of jobs and thus cheap labour, they don't benefit from not employing needed labour. If Reebok start paying 6c a go then it is in Nike's interest to pay 7c and so on until wages are high. Free markets => more investment => more jobs => higher wages. From your analysis all jobs should be subsistence level everywhere, which they clearly aren't. And I'm sure you're smart enough not to cite minimum wage laws and regulations to "explain" this.

One word: cartel. Another word: monopoly. Capitalists HATE competition, for this very reason. It's far easier for Reebok and Nike to get together in a back room somewhere and make a deal with each other over how much to pay their sweatshop workers.

The reason this hasn't been applied on a global scale is simple history. Industrialisation didn't hit the whole planet overnight. As the industrialised nations developed -- i.e. became more socialist, and passed laws preventing the ruthless exploitation of those nations' poor by the industrialists -- then the sweatshops moved out to the 3rd world. However, there is no guarantee that this progress in workers' rights and conditions will continue. Just because it happened here -- after much blood, sweat and tears, not to mention 2 world wars -- doesn't mean that it will happen there. In a globalised world the 3rd world is set up as the planet's slum, where the cheap labour can be found. Of course, since market forces are purely reactive, there's no guarantee that this state of affairs will last either.

There is no better system for getting them out of this dilemma. Mercantilism and welarism will make it worse. Communism, anarcho or statist, will get them killed. A free market will cure the causes of poverty. However you cut it, they are better off now than they were before, and in the future they will be MUCH better off IF the markets are kept free.

The "free market" would only have a chance of working along your idealistic lines if it is actually "free". But a huge corporation is just as likely to be a source of human misery and evil as a nation state, if not more so. And if, as you suggest, we remove the nation-states who at least form some sort of block to the outright gangster warfare of unfettered capitalism, then it would be a black day indeed for the world's poor. And, not too long afterwards, for the rest of us as well.

At least they are given a choice. I'd say any corporation that gives someone work, without of which that someone would die, is doing them a huge favor. Or should corporations offer people work and pay them "fairly" based on where the people are starving?

A corporation turns up and says that it owns the land where you are farming. It has a fancy piece of paper and more expensive lawyers than you can shake a stick at. It has lots of sticks, too, being shaken at you by the police who are there to make sure you obey the law.

Don't worry, says the company, you don't HAVE to starve to death. Here, we'll build a hellish sweatshop on the land you and your family have farmed for generations. You can work there for a wage that will just -- if you're careful -- keep you alive. See how kind we are?

work at subsistence wages or die is a choice?
A tribe of third-world people are dying. A corporation comes and offers them work that doesn't pay too much. The tribesmen realise that they won't die if they take the job (though it pays so little). What if the corporation didn't come at all?

You're drowning.
A. Someone comes along with a rope.
B. Nobody comes.

A: You get a choice. You pay through your nose but live.
B: You don't get a choice. You're dead.

One word: cartel. Another word: monopoly. Capitalists HATE competition, for this very reason. It's far easier for Reebok and Nike to get together in a back room somewhere and make a deal with each other over how much to pay their sweatshop workers.
If there are 2 companies in the world, yes. If there are 200 million, no. Cartels are never stable on a free market and require a state to enforce them either directly or indirectly (through regulations)

The reason this hasn't been applied on a global scale is simple history. Industrialisation didn't hit the whole planet overnight. As the industrialised nations developed -- i.e. became more socialist, and passed laws preventing the ruthless exploitation of those nations' poor by the industrialists -- then the sweatshops moved out to the 3rd world. However, there is no guarantee that this progress in workers' rights and conditions will continue. Just because it happened here -- after much blood, sweat and tears, not to mention 2 world wars -- doesn't mean that it will happen there. In a globalised world the 3rd world is set up as the planet's slum, where the cheap labour can be found. Of course, since market forces are purely reactive, there's no guarantee that this state of affairs will last either.

The "free market" would only have a chance of working along your idealistic lines if it is actually "free". But a huge corporation is just as likely to be a source of human misery and evil as a nation state, if not more so. And if, as you suggest, we remove the nation-states who at least form some sort of block to the outright gangster warfare of unfettered capitalism, then it would be a black day indeed for the world's poor. And, not too long afterwards, for the rest of us as well.
None of this is true. I don't know what else to say. I hate it when people reply with "Piss off until you've read such and such" but I really can't say anything other than you don't understand economics and you should learn about it.

we are not talking about communism here. we are talking about Socialism.
Can we discuss ideas instead of labels, please?

Jesus never backed multinational corporations, man. You think the Son of God could get behind putting the screws to sweatshop workers in places like Indonesia? The wants of corporate shareholders shouldn't take precedence over the needs of our fellowmen.

The wants of corporate shareholders shouldn't take precedence over the needs of our fellowmen.
It's a good job this isn't what happens in the free market then, isn't it?

Says you.

If there are 2 companies in the world, yes. If there are 200 million, no. Cartels are never stable on a free market and require a state to enforce them either directly or indirectly (through regulations)

Remember the system of capitalistism? 200 million companies start. The ones that make the most profit (i.e use every illegal and immoral trick to succeed) get inward investment. The ones that don't (i.e play by the rules) slowly die and get taken over by the other companies. Eventually there is only a few major companies that can easily start price fixing between them. And stamp heavily on the oppisition. capitalism only works in the begining, when the playing field is level.


None of this is true. I don't know what else to say. I hate it when people reply with "Piss off until you've read such and such" but I really can't say anything other than you don't understand economics and you should learn about it.

If you don't know what to say, don't talk. And if none of this is true it should be easy to refute it. But you don't. You simply say "I'm right, your wrong" No explaniation of reasoning at all. No web links. No bok titles. This leads me to believe that all of this is true and your just talking BS.



Can we discuss ideas instead of labels, please?

Yes that would be nice. But you could have said that to Walters E. Williams

Remember the system of capitalistism? 200 million companies start. The ones that make the most profit (i.e use every illegal and immoral trick to succeed) get inward investment. The ones that don't (i.e play by the rules) slowly die and get taken over by the other companies. Eventually there is only a few major companies that can easily start price fixing between them. And stamp heavily on the oppisition. capitalism only work in the begining, when the playing field is level.

If you don't know what to say, don't talk. And if none of this is true it should be easy to refute it. But you don't. You simply say "I'm right, your wrong" No explaniation of reasoning at all. No web links. No bok titles. This leads me to believe that all of this is true and your just talking BS.

www.mises.org

Now are you going to read "Human Action" or "Power and Market"? No. So why did I bother giving you the link? Are you going to do a web search for "The Wealth of Nations"? Of course not. I didn't give links because you wouldn't read them. Your lack of understanding is regrettable but even if I were to take hours or weeks explaining it would it make a difference if you saw the light? One more libertarian, big deal.

None of this is true. I don't know what else to say. I hate it when people reply with "Piss off until you've read such and such" but I really can't say anything other than you don't understand economics and you should learn about it.
I put this in because I was trying not to be condescending. You forced me to give references and I gave them. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was the farthest thing from my mind. But are you going to read them?

But are you going to read them?*Snigger* Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?

I put this in because I was trying not to be condescending. You forced me to give references and I gave them. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was the farthest thing from my mind. But are you going to read them?

fair enough. Consider my prevoius remarks withdrawn. Wealth of nation is entirly online so I'll give that a look over. You will hear from me tomorrow.

This is a naive class analysis sort of fallacy. Although Nike may do very well if there is a permanent shortage of jobs and thus cheap labour, they don't benefit from not employing needed labour. If Reebok start paying 6c a go then it is in Nike's interest to pay 7c and so on until wages are high. Free markets => more investment => more jobs => higher wages. From your analysis all jobs should be subsistence level everywhere, which they clearly aren't. And I'm sure you're smart enough not to cite minimum wage laws and regulations to "explain" this.

Nike wouldn't have to do this because the large majority of their employees wouldn't move to Reebok - for starters, Reebok would have nowhere near enough space, and wouldn't be building another facility unless there was profit in it for them. Nike can make more money by paying the lower wages, enabling them to use advertising, lower prices and other methods to outcompete Reebok. Hence Reebok's never going to increase it wages by more than Nike, 'cos they'll lose out. And so everyone keeps nice low wages.

Nike wouldn't have to do this because the large majority of their employees wouldn't move to Reebok - for starters, Reebok would have nowhere near enough space
Why not?

*Snigger* Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?
Ha ha. I wasn't criticising him, just observing that he probably wouldn't read them because I know I wouldn't in his position.

Hmm Mises.org. And today we have "Price gouging saves lives" " Is Ken lay a Criminal?" I could spend hours going through all this. Something more specific would be nice.

Wealth of nation is entirly online so I'll give that a look over.

Now that I think about it, these are very long obtuse works. Try this collection of essays be Frederic Bastiat instead. They're shorter, simpler and more entertaining.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSophContents.html

I don't think anyone will argue that capitalism without free market will degenerate into some sort of feudalism, and rather sooner than later, too.

I see enforcing 'freeness' of the market as one of the valid functions of government, but no one seems to be thinking like that much... often opposite, even.

Also, it seems that socialist doesn't realy believe that altruism is that common... Do they really believe that most people will leave dying from starvation without help? Especially if there is no 'the government should deal with it, I pay my taxes after all' mentality, which seems to be omnipresent here in Europe.

Have you ever given serious thought to what a free market in police, courts and law would look like? Most people don't, even those who otherwise trust the market. Just as many people assume a free market in healthcare would result in widespread disease so most assume that a free market in defence would lead to chaos and violence. Neither of these things are true. Here's why free market defence would be cheaper and safer than a govt monopoly.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

If there are 2 companies in the world, yes. If there are 200 million, no. Cartels are never stable on a free market and require a state to enforce them either directly or indirectly (through regulations)

I agree that cartels are not stable, but it doesn't stop them from forming and re-forming, both regionally and globally, as time goes on, to the detriment of the workers and the consumers. Without a regulatory framework this would occur as much through the use of mercenary force as through simple economic clout.

This is the core of the problem. If nation states and their taxes were abolished (assuming this could ever happen without massive bloodshed), then -- since they represent developed forms of coercive power structures -- what is to prevent them reappearing again? Modern nation-states evolved from robber-baron protection rackets. If you strip everything back to feuding corporations then we'll just endure a few centuries of chaos until new states arise from the ruins. Ownership of property and economic clout require the threat and/or use of armed force to maintain them.

None of this is true. I don't know what else to say. I hate it when people reply with "Piss off until you've read such and such" but I really can't say anything other than you don't understand economics and you should learn about it.

No offence taken, although I would suggest -- in the same spirit -- that you study some more history. My problem with economics is: they don't call it the "dismal science" for nothing. Like psychoanalysis, it's just a collection of aphorisms, speculation and post-facto justification, without any scientific validity.

The bottom line, for me, is this: all human society is, and always will be, a work in progress. There is no single solution that will solve all ills, and anyone who says different is selling snakeoil, whether they know it or not. Nasty, stupid things will continue to happen as long as there are nasty, stupid people. Would I like to live in an anarchist utopia? Yes. Will there ever be one? Not until we develop mentally away from unfettered greed and desire. Since unfettered greed and desire are the motivating forces of capitalism, I find it optimistic in the extreme to assume that allowing these forces free rein will somehow result in the dawning of an age of peace and mutual prosperity. Furthermore, since such a dawning would require a catastrophic upheaval to achieve, it's questionable if the price would be worth paying. The world would be a beautiful place if we could all just get along; but since we can't, and won't, pipe-dreams of this sort are somewhat sterile.

But, in the best possible way, dream on. The hope for a better future is, in itself, the only hope for a better future. Of course, there are as many definitions of "a better future" as there are people. Which brings us back to square one again. This is what I mean by "a work in progress". There is no end to history.

Just wanted to say that the guy who wrote that article is a bit out in the blue. Saying that taking in money to fund something is in a way theft and slavery. Well, if he wanna live like that he will live in a land where there is no goverment, cause the goverment can't just create money out of thin air. Sure, you could have yourself elected and fund things with your own money, but would even Bill Gates (before he made his donations, cause he did do some major ones if I don't remember wrong) be able to fund his own country, The US, for any longer term? Also, the post as president would be even more limited.

In the end, if this means Socialism is evil(taxing to fund stuff), then the only real government wel could see would be bigass corporations ruling the nations. And that would be less evil?

Btw, I live in Sweden. And I am kinda happy about what my government "steal" from me and don't view it as something evil.

I'm quite good with history, especially interesting was Hayek's "Capitalism and the Historian". More history is on my to do list, though.

As for Anarchist instability, I think Dr Friedman has it covered in the link above.

Just wanted to say that the guy who wrote that article is a bit out in the blue. Saying that taking in money to fund something is in a way theft and slavery. Well, if he wanna live like that he will live in a land where there is no goverment, cause the goverment can't just create money out of thin air. Sure, you could have yourself elected and fund things with your own money, but would even Bill Gates (before he made his donations, cause he did do some major ones if I don't remember wrong) be able to fund his own country, The US, for any longer term? Also, the post as president would be even more limited.

In the end, if this means Socialism is evil(taxing to fund stuff), then the only real government wel could see would be bigass corporations ruling the nations. And that would be less evil?

Btw, I live in Sweden. And I am kinda happy about what my government "steal" from me and don't view it as something evil.
Or, you could take care of yourself and save the (private) charity for the truly helpless. Can you tell me how tax isn't stealing? For instance, how is the govt forcing you to give them money to "protect" you any different from the mafia's "protection" rackets?

(...) Here's why free market defence would be cheaper and safer than a govt monopoly.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

I'm afraid this article presupposes that human beings are rational and logical, or at least that no one would be able to have large 'protective agency' all for himself.

Generally, if organized use of weapons is involved efficiency must (in my opinion of course) make way for public control (some mixed system might work, though).

I'm quite good with history, especially interesting was Hayek's "Capitalism and the Historian". More history is on my to do list, though.

As for Anarchist instability, I think Dr Friedman has it covered in the link above.

No, he hasn't, really. His argument as to why two private security services wouldn't fight is that "wars are expensive". OK. But if we move away from the level of an individual with a stolen TV and his own domestic surveillance camera, to the level of a mega-corporation which wants to strip-mine some island that is currently occupied by a bunch of subsistence farmers, then things might get a bit less ideal. Just for fun, add to the mix the idea that the mega-corporation's CEO and board are racist, and they view the island's inhabitants as less than human. What happens then?

Anarcho-capitalism always seems to rely on a utopian model of small concerns run by reasonable people. If such were the case then it would probably function fine. As I said before, the world would be a beautiful place if we could all just get along: but we can't, and it won't.

I'm not saying that this approach to society couldn't work, or wouldn't be a good idea to try in a clean-sheet system like, say, a Martian colony. But as a solution to human problems here and now, it's a non-starter.

I'm afraid this article presupposes that human beings are rational and logical, or at least that no one would be able to have large 'protective agency' all for himself.
It presupposes that successful entrepeneurs are, which is mostly true.

Generally, if organized use of weapons is involved efficiency must (in my opinion of course) make way for public control (some mixed system might work, though).
The public cannot control the men with weapons, because they have the weapons. If the army doesn't take over it is because they don't want to, not because of a ballot box. Even with a ballot it is still just a tiny minority in control.

Of course no system is safe from violent takeover but is this system safER than the current one? Yes. Whoever you imagine taking over without a state, imagine them now and what they might do. It would be easier to seize the existing state than start a new one from scratch, especially with all these protection agencies to stop them.

It is scary to give up a system that works tolerably for something you're not sure of but private law has worked in practice in many different societies, including America. Here, look see.....

Starting earliest to latest, private or mostly private justice systems have existed in:

Ireland for ~ 1000 years until invaded by British. There were kings but security was provided by voluntary groups and justice was provided by a wandering judges called "Brehons". The king was just a military head and didn't get involved in justice. In fact, it was possible to sue the king.

Anglo-Saxon England, partially destroyed when Viking raiders necessitated consolidated military defence. The king enforced a monopoly on justice so that he could execute the criminals and confiscate their lands and property. After the Normans invaded they gradually subverted the system. Prior to that most punishment was in the form of restitution for the victim. Again there were voluntary groups for defence and the groups mediated disputes within themselves and between each other. Again the King was mostly a military figure and English Royal law was basically the codification of the customary laws which arose spontaneously from the bottom up.

Medieval Iceland: Probably the best example from ~ 900 - 1200. Iceland had exactly 1 govt employee who was elected each year and would make the laws. People grouped under chiefs (uaually wealthy landowners) but you could change your chief voluntarily. It had private courts which were well respected. There was no organised military. Historical records indicate that the murder rate was at the worst period ~ the same as a modern US city, quite remarkable for the dark ages. It ended due to subversion by the King of Norway and the church and the unfortunate fact that the title of chief cartelised by law.

Law Merchants: The law merchants operated in the free ports in the middle ages. International merchants used them to decide disputes and they were responsible for much international trade, banking and contract law *later copied* by the state. Remarkably, they never needed to back their verdicts with violence. Any merchant who ignored the courts was shunned by everyone else until he agreed to abide by the decision. Without the innovations due to private law the commercial revolution could not have happened. Eventually the state copied the private laws.

Admirality and Sea law: The admirality law and other provisions such as salvage law was developed and enforced almost entirely by the private sector. Again the state copied laws originating from the private sector.

Revolutionary America: During the war of independence all security provision was private. After the war James Madison (one of the founding fathers) said something to the effect, "we'd better start a govt quick before people realise they don't need one". The revolutionary army were voluntary militia proving even military defence is possible without the state.

19th century England: Private law was active again in the industrial age. Govt law was breaking down and inefficient and couldn't cope with organised crime (veterans of the Napoleonic wars didn't care much for real work and were trained in applying organised violence). Security was provided by voluntary groups called "thieftakers". Govt police were established ~ 150 years ago against great opposition from many sectors of the public. The rich were happy to have the state subsidise their expensive security.

The "not-so-wild" west: Settlers were moving west faster than the feds. Settlers traveled in convoys for security and before joining a convoy one had to sign a contract stipulating how justice would be supplied. Usually each person would choose a judge and the 2 judges would jointly choose a 3rd. Once settled justice was still supplied privately. The "gunslingers" generally preferred to rent themselves out to catch theives and murderers rather than become outlaws themselves. In California the miners set up courts to mediate claims. They remarked on how much crime increased when the Feds arrived.

More recent examples:

'60s New York: During a week long police strike crime increased....not at all.

African Tribe with hard to remember name: A study in the 50s of some African tribe observed how they provided justice without the state. If there was an argument it was mediated by a strong and respected member of the community with a good reputation for this sort of thing. Most punishment was in the form of fines and killers were declared outlaw, meaning anyone could kill them in retaliation without legal repercussions.

Somalia: Often pointed to as an example of dysfunctional anarchy many parts of Somalia are peaceful, namely the parts where govt was never strong. The non peaceful parts such as Mogadishu are basically in civil war between rival would be govts, not a stateless society.

Modern America: Many towns now contract out police services. In the example I saw read about the private police cost half the price and actually reduced crime substantially (about a third or something) by preventing rather than solving crime.

Most provision of protection is already private: locks, alarms, neighbourhood watch, guns, dogs etc. And the police just couldn't work at all without the cooperation of the public as witnesses etc.

The common features of private law are: Private property (sorry Kip, deal with it), restitution rather than punishment, shunning as punishment, mutual aid groups and respect for courts. Whenever private law has been subsumed by state law a marked worsening in crime has occured and a move towards incarceration rather than restitution meaning that the victim is neglected rather than "made whole again".

Links: Private law - http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Ireland - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf
England - http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l1.html
Iceland - http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
"Wild" west: - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
Primitive societies - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf
What it might look like today (just a guess, mind) - http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

No, he hasn't, really. His argument as to why two private security services wouldn't fight is that "wars are expensive". OK. But if we move away from the level of an individual with a stolen TV and his own domestic surveillance camera, to the level of a mega-corporation which wants to strip-mine some island that is currently occupied by a bunch of subsistence farmers, then things might get a bit less ideal. Just for fun, add to the mix the idea that the mega-corporation's CEO and board are racist, and they view the island's inhabitants as less than human. What happens then?

Well, if recent history is anything to go by, they get their govt to invade. Sure, it might happen without states too, but it's less likely. They'd pay the cost themselves and not be able to cite "liberation" or "WMDs" as an excuse to gain legitimacy. It's not perfect but it's better than the alternative which is all it needs to be. Please, whenever you want to criticise ancap, apply the same scenario to a modern state too. Generally you'll find ancap comes up trumps.

Well, if recent history is anything to go by, they get their govt to invade. Sure, it might happen without states too, but it's less likely. They'd pay the cost themselves and not be able to cite "liberation" or "WMDs" as an excuse to gain legitimacy. It's not perfect but it's better than the alternative which is all it needs to be. Please, whenever you want to criticise ancap, apply the same scenario to a modern state too. Generally you'll find ancap comes up trumps.

This was kind of my point. In a world without nation states, the megacorporations would move to fill that niche. The evils done by nation states would instead be done by corporations. What's the difference? Bad things are done by bad people. Get rid of nations, and we still have bad people. Take, for example, the horrors unleashed on India by the private-sector invasion and conquest carried out by the East India Company. At least with some nation states, democratic accountability gives us the potential to restrict the worst excesses. Shareholder accountability is no substitute.

By the way, quoting medieval examples of private "justice" doesn't really support your case. In the first place, they were horribly partial and corrupt. In the second place, as you have pointed out, they were all replaced by, or evolved into, nation states, because that's the Darwinian way that power systems go. If you break everything down to private (or owned) justice again, you'd just start the process back towards nation states again.

Incidentally, how WOULD you break down the nation states? Without precipitating warfare on a massive scale, that is?

This is a naive class analysis sort of fallacy. Although Nike may do very well if there is a permanent shortage of jobs and thus cheap labour, they don't benefit from not employing needed labour. If Reebok start paying 6c a go then it is in Nike's interest to pay 7c and so on until wages are high. Free markets => more investment => more jobs => higher wages. From your analysis all jobs should be subsistence level everywhere, which they clearly aren't. And I'm sure you're smart enough not to cite minimum wage laws and regulations to "explain" this.

There have been numerous times in the past few years where McDonalds have tried to get senators to actually lower the minimum wage, through donations (or bribery). There is a great example in Fast Food Nation, unfortunately I can't remember the exact details. It is in their interests to lower the minimum wage so they can pay everyone less, therefore cost cutting. The need for profit conflicts with giving workers a fair deal. Fact.

The free market does not equal more jobs at all. It is in a company's interests to employ less people to do more jobs, because then they get to spend less on training, wages, benefit packages etc. Then when there are lots of unemployed people, then can exploit their need to work by giving them shit jobs for shit pay.

Don't you dare patronise us by telling us we're employing naive arguments. We're not the naive ones. It's the "socialism is evil" lot who are ignorant and naive, who have a nice simplistic view of the world where everyone has complete free will to get a good job and those who dont are lazy and deserve it. Not only that, they can't define socialism properly because it is an extremely complex ideology that can't be falsified in a few paragraphs, despite what Mr. Williams seems to think.

Is this hypothesis true or false?

If a person quits or is fired from their job, then they will starve to death.

Is this hypothesis true or false?

If a person quits or is fired from their job, then they will starve to death.

if they do not agree to sell themsevles to another capitalist on the capitalist's terms, and they live in a place that doesn't have social institutions that prevent that, then yes they will.

Is this hypothesis true or false?

If a person quits or is fired from their job, then they will starve to death.

Depends on many variables. But in any first world country extremely unlikely. And charity can provide for that, government social system are unnecessary (unless being evil is prerequisite to becoming well-off, and I don't believe that's true).

Countries where people starve to death are not known for being very capitalistic usually. Multinational corporations operating in country with weak market traditions usually has rather horrible effects, especially if there is little or none local competition, but socialism is hardly a solution.

if they do not agree to sell themsevles to another capitalist on the capitalist's terms

They don't sell themselves, they sell their work, for a price determined by supply/demand balance. And I really doubt that any capitalist can intentionally skew this balance, unless they dominate a region (see above).

I was raised in a Socialist, Unitarian, "small-L liberal" family in Canada. All the Evil I've ever encountered in my life has come at the hands of people identifying themselves as right-wing, Christian conservatives.

I'm sure someone will no doubt have something snide to say about that, but it's simply my experience so far in life.

A tribe of third-world people are dying. A corporation comes and offers them work that doesn't pay too much.

you kick the corporation as it deserve and help them to create the basis needed to create an economy that wont make them slaves of first-world countries.

try something else.

They don't sell themselves, they sell their work, for a price determined by supply/demand balance. And I really doubt that any capitalist can intentionally skew this balance, unless they dominate a region (see above).

the price of labor (your wage) depends on the labor market, and has only a minimal relation to your work if any. the best you can say is that people sell their time, not their work. but selling your time amounts to selling yourself.

Can we discuss ideas instead of labels, please?

are you doing the same?

if they do not agree to sell themsevles to another capitalist on the capitalist's terms, and they live in a place that doesn't have social institutions that prevent that, then yes they will.

This is not an assessment of the hypothesis I put forth; it is putting forth another, different hypothesis.

Depends on many variables. But in any first world country extremely unlikely. And charity can provide for that, government social system are unnecessary (unless being evil is prerequisite to becoming well-off, and I don't believe that's true).

Countries where people starve to death are not known for being very capitalistic usually. Multinational corporations operating in country with weak market traditions usually has rather horrible effects, especially if there is little or none local competition, but socialism is hardly a solution.



They don't sell themselves, they sell their work, for a price determined by supply/demand balance. And I really doubt that any capitalist can intentionally skew this balance, unless they dominate a region (see above).

Yes, I purposely ignored the variables. I wanted to know if anyone thought the hypothesis, as worded, is necessarily (in the logical sense) true.

the price of labor (your wage) depends on the labor market, and has only a minimal relation to your work if any.

It depends only on supply/demand, or what is the minimum someone is going to work for and maximum someone is going to pay. These values are determined in normal market process. Type and effectiveness of work play the same role as type and quality of any other product. Cost of production (training) remains a major factor. Still, sudden drop of demand will cause sudden drop of price. Work has no inherent value.


the best you can say is that people sell their time, not their work. but selling your time amounts to selling yourself.

How does it amount to that? You still have yourself. You agree to do certain work for certain amount of time, and when you leave you are still yourself. You don't have to follow any orders, but if you break and agreement you will not receive agreed payment.

Is this hypothesis true or false?

If a person quits or is fired from their job, then they will starve to death.

It's an incomplete hypothesis. The result is dependent on the (undefined) initial conditions, e.g.: is the hypothetical person living in a country with a social security net or available alternate means of employment or sustenance?

How does it amount to that? You still have yourself. You agree to do certain work for certain amount of time, and when you leave you are still yourself. You don't have to follow any orders, but if you break and agreement you will not receive agreed payment.

well, its more like renting yourself out. but you only have a certain amount of time - you can't buy more. which seems to me to make it exactly equivalent to selling youself for whatever length of time.

So, I ask those in support of the opening passage:

The people who don't have work; be they in the USA, Canada, Britain or any other democratic capatalistic country; the unemployed. Is it their fault, in every one of their cases, that they have no work?

Rather than being accused of "luring people into traps" (which, incidently, is often used an excuse for saying "Oh dear, look where my ideals have logically led - I didn't see that one coming but don't want to admit it") I'll go ahead of my question. It's rhetorical. There can surely be no way that anyone can think it is the fault of all the unemployed that they are so. Yes, it may be the fault of many - but obviously not all. They may be unable to work, through no fault of their own. They may be unable to find employment, because jobs just aren't available - like the coal mines being closed down under Thatcher, which left thousands of people unemployed in big coal-mining areas; there are numerous other possibilities.

If it's not their fault, is it right that they should starve? For that matter, is it right that they starve if it is their fault? They're still humans. And as for living on charity - well, that's just ridiculous. If they could live on charity at the moment, would governments provide unemployment benefits? No. And how likely are people to start giving more money to charity if they didn't have to pay taxes? Well, pretty obviously the people campaigning not to pay taxes wouldn't.

So what do we do? We can't let these people starve, yet people can't be relied upon to give money to those in need. The charities have nowhere near enough funding. I know! Let's get people to give money to help support some of the poorest, worst-off people in society. People that they could well become very easily should they suddenly be made redundant. Surely people can't mind giving a bit of money to help others.

Now, we need a name for this. Contributions makes it sound voluntary. I know! Taxes....

What about the police? Well, anyone could need them at any time, so why not get the people to pay for them? That way the protection isn't only given to those who could afford a private service. After all, it wouldn't be right to say poorer people can't have protection, would it?

(Repeat for firemen, etc etc)

I agree that much of taxes are wasted - politicans' excessively high wages; too much on the army, etc etc, although these are matters of opinion. But can you honestly say it is immoral to take money from people and use it to support people who otherwise cannot afford what surely are basic human rights?

And what about the fact that no serious political parties suggest abolishing taxes completely and along with them any public services? Suggesting, just maybe, that they feel these are unelectable policies? That the majority of people do not feel it is immoral to have some money taken in order to pay for public services? Can something be immoral if most people don't think it is?

This was kind of my point. In a world without nation states, the megacorporations would move to fill that niche. The evils done by nation states would instead be done by corporations. What's the difference? Bad things are done by bad people. Get rid of nations, and we still have bad people. Take, for example, the horrors unleashed on India by the private-sector invasion and conquest carried out by the East India Company. At least with some nation states, democratic accountability gives us the potential to restrict the worst excesses. Shareholder accountability is no substitute.

It is far more difficult and there is less incentive for a corporation to indulge in imperialism in a free market than for a govt to do it. War isn't profitable these days and any neo-East India Company would go bankrupt sharply. Only nation states, which gain their revenue via theiving from the workers, can do this. If you read Dr Friedman's article again you'll see why a stateless world would be better, and that's all you can ask.

Democratic accountability is only relevant so long as the army and police take any notice of ballots. It is a sham. If they didn't want to then democracy would be irrelevant, as we see in many third world countries.

The existence of evil people is exactly why you can't allow a channel for them to dominate us (a state). Power corrupts, and attracts the corrupt.

By the way, quoting medieval examples of private "justice" doesn't really support your case. In the first place, they were horribly partial and corrupt. In the second place, as you have pointed out, they were all replaced by, or evolved into, nation states, because that's the Darwinian way that power systems go. If you break everything down to private (or owned) justice again, you'd just start the process back towards nation states again.

Private justice was actually more impartial and less corrupt. A private judge who is biased will lose all his customers. See some of the websites at the bottom of the page. The Wiemer Republic "evolved" into Naziism, doesn't mean an improvement. Each time a private(ish) justice system evolved into a state it was either through invasion/imperialism (Ireland) or because it wasn't pure enough (Iceland). If you read the links at the bottom of the private justice post you can find out about this.

Incidentally, how WOULD you break down the nation states? Without precipitating warfare on a massive scale, that is?
First we decide where we want to go, then we explore how to get there.

There have been numerous times in the past few years where McDonalds have tried to get senators to actually lower the minimum wage, through donations (or bribery). There is a great example in Fast Food Nation, unfortunately I can't remember the exact details. It is in their interests to lower the minimum wage so they can pay everyone less, therefore cost cutting. The need for profit conflicts with giving workers a fair deal. Fact.

This is the individual interest of McDonald's, not some mysterious "class interest". Would McDonalds make a sacrifice for the benefit of other members of the "corporate class"? No. That is why class analyses fail. People in their individual interest most of the time and never in their so-called "class interest".

The free market does not equal more jobs at all. It is in a company's interests to employ less people to do more jobs, because then they get to spend less on training, wages, benefit packages etc. Then when there are lots of unemployed people, then can exploit their need to work by giving them shit jobs for shit pay.

It is in a company's interest to pay as little as they can get away with. It is in an employees interest to get as much pay as possible. The employee is protected by the existence of other employers and the employer is protected by the existence of other employees. The result is a mutually acceptable deal which we cannot a priori know will be a low wage (burger flipper) or high wage (corporate director, pro footballer) or inbetween. In a free market the incentives to invest in capital and to work unleash productive forces which increase the number of jobs and the rate of pay. This is theoretically sound and empirically verified.

Don't you dare patronise us by telling us we're employing naive arguments. We're not the naive ones. It's the "socialism is evil" lot who are ignorant and naive, who have a nice simplistic view of the world where everyone has complete free will to get a good job and those who dont are lazy and deserve it. Not only that, they can't define socialism properly because it is an extremely complex ideology that can't be falsified in a few paragraphs, despite what Mr. Williams seems to think.
Ha ha. Smoke a Jay, you'll feel better. :)

if they do not agree to sell themsevles to another capitalist on the capitalist's terms, and they live in a place that doesn't have social institutions that prevent that, then yes they will.
It is not on the capitalist's terms, it is on mutually acceptable terms. Do you think the Real Madrid directors want to pay Beckam millions per month? (or week or whatever) I'm sure the General Motors shareholders would love to pay their CEO minimum wage but those terms wouldn't be acceptable to any acceptable candidate. FS, you're one of the few socialists here who has proven himself smart enough to earn my respect, you're smarter than this.

Quote from Brian Caplan.

David Friedman has a particularly striking argument which goes one step further. Under governmental institutions, he explains, good law is a public good and bad law is a private good. That is, there is little direct personal incentive to lobby for laws that benefit everyone, but a strong personal incentive to lobby for laws that benefit special interests at the expense of everyone else. In contrast, under anarcho-capitalist institutions, good law is a private good and bad law is a public good. That is, by patronizing a firm which protects oneself, one reinforces the existence of socially beneficial law; but there is little incentive to "lobby" for the re-introduction of government. As Friedman explains, "Good law is still expensive - I must spend time and money determining which protection agency will best serve me - but having decided what I want, I get what I pay for. The benefit of my wise purchase goes to me, so I have an incentive to purchase wisely. It is now the person who wishes to reintroduce government who is caught in a public goods problem. He cannot abolish anarchy and reintroduce government for himself alone; he must do it for everyone or for no one. If he does it for everyone, he himself gets but a tiny fraction of the 'benefit' he expects the reintroduction of government to provide."

Quote from Brian Caplan.

David Friedman has a particularly striking argument which goes one step further. Under governmental institutions, he explains, good law is a public good and bad law is a private good. That is, there is little direct personal incentive to lobby for laws that benefit everyone, but a strong personal incentive to lobby for laws that benefit special interests at the expense of everyone else. In contrast, under anarcho-capitalist institutions, good law is a private good and bad law is a public good. That is, by patronizing a firm which protects oneself, one reinforces the existence of socially beneficial law; but there is little incentive to "lobby" for the re-introduction of government. As Friedman explains, "Good law is still expensive - I must spend time and money determining which protection agency will best serve me - but having decided what I want, I get what I pay for. The benefit of my wise purchase goes to me, so I have an incentive to purchase wisely. It is now the person who wishes to reintroduce government who is caught in a public goods problem. He cannot abolish anarchy and reintroduce government for himself alone; he must do it for everyone or for no one. If he does it for everyone, he himself gets but a tiny fraction of the 'benefit' he expects the reintroduction of government to provide."But Bryan Caplan's been proven to be an unreliable source, remember? ;)

But Bryan Caplan's been proven to be an unreliable source, remember? ;)
Ha ha. Perhaps. But there's nothing in this particular paragraph that isn't common sense.

you are idiots. the idea of COMMUNISM not socialism is that property is theft from all but one person. socialism is the new way as capitalism leads to greed and death. the entire point of socialism is that everyone has the same rights but communism gos to far and destroys it by making it everyones and everything is the states. socialism on the other hand believes that the poorer you are the less taxed you become and the richer the more tax you pay. if you read the communist manifesto you would know this. :mp5: :sniper:

you are idiots. the idea of COMMUNISM not socialism is that property is theft from all but one person. socialism is the new way as capitalism leads to greed and death. the entire point of socialism is that everyone has the same rights but communism gos to far and destroys it by making it everyones and everything is the states. socialism on the other hand believes that the poorer you are the less taxed you become and the richer the more tax you pay. if you read the communist manifesto you would know this. :mp5: :sniper:
Thanks for teaching us that. Except, capitalism - or more accurately the free market - is simply based on being allowed to do what you like with your property. Greed is irrelevant as you could have a free market based entirely on charity. If people are greedy then they will be so under any system, including socialism. In fact, the greed of bureaucrats, politicians and trade unions does a lot of damage.

It's an incomplete hypothesis. The result is dependent on the (undefined) initial conditions, e.g.: is the hypothetical person living in a country with a social security net or available alternate means of employment or sustenance?

It's not an incomplete hypothesis, it has a complete antecedent, and a complete consequent. If one wished, one could add conditions to create a new and different hypothesis, but the statement is sufficient to evaluate as is. Care to give that a try?

Greed is irrelevant as you could have a free market based entirely on charity. If people are greedy then they will be so under any system, including socialism. In fact, the greed of bureaucrats, politicians and trade unions does a lot of damage.Firstly I'd question your motives in including trade unions but not CEOs.

Secondly, surely that's an argument for the massive decentralisation of power and wealth. If people are naturally greedy then you need to limit the influence any one person can have over others lives.

Walter is the man!

I've been making all the same points here, regarding morality and slavery. The anarcho-syndicast-social-progressives will just ignore the logic and tell you what an evil exploter you are, and that property is theft. (Huh?)

Great article, but you're just doing this :headbang:
The problems I find with this article are that

a) He appears to have a peculiar understanding of the word 'slavery'
b) He appears to have a peculiar understanding of the word 'evil'

Sorry, his essay just came across as weak to me.

The problems I find with this article are that

a) He appears to have a peculiar understanding of the word 'slavery'
b) He appears to have a peculiar understanding of the word 'evil'

Sorry, his essay just came across as weak to me.

And semantic word games come across weak to me. And tiresome. Look, I already went through the games earlier on this thread. Not gonna do it again. :headbang:

And semantic word games come across weak to me. And tiresome. Look, I already went through the games earlier on this thread. Not gonna do it again. :headbang:Questioning someone's use of language is hardly a 'game'.

Firstly I'd question your motives in including trade unions but not CEOs.
I was illustrating that greed afflicts socialists too. Of course the greed of CEOs does harm, especially when they have politicians with ears to bend. Some of the biggest enemies of the free market are capitalists. Most regulations are lobbied for by big business to stifle smaller competition, for example.

Secondly, surely that's an argument for the massive decentralisation of power and wealth. If people are naturally greedy then you need to limit the influence any one person can have over others lives.
Like a free market. Anyway, this talk of greed is becoming misleading. Where does the good and rational want to live well and provide your family with comfort become the pathological greed of a miser? Is Bill Gates greedy, given how much he gives to charity?

What I keep trying to stress is the rigorous application of the same scenarios and ideas to both socialist and free market institutions. The majority of a commune is probably more able to tyrannise others than a free market entrepeneur trying to serve his customers, who is more of a servent than a master.

It is far more difficult and there is less incentive for a corporation to indulge in imperialism in a free market than for a govt to do it. War isn't profitable these days and any neo-East India Company would go bankrupt sharply. Only nation states, which gain their revenue via theiving from the workers, can do this. If you read Dr Friedman's article again you'll see why a stateless world would be better, and that's all you can ask.

It's only more difficult because at present there are nation-states to oppose any attempts at imperialism. If the nation-states didn't exist, and we just had a mass of corporations, then it would become much easier.

Democratic accountability is only relevant so long as the army and police take any notice of ballots. It is a sham. If they didn't want to then democracy would be irrelevant, as we see in many third world countries.

Yes, but in a democracy "the army" and "the police" aren't discrete, separate entities with single monolithic ideas. They are made up of ordinary individuals, with their own opinions and votes.

The existence of evil people is exactly why you can't allow a channel for them to dominate us (a state). Power corrupts, and attracts the corrupt.

I agree that it's a reason why you don't want to be dominated by evil people -- but I think evil people would seek power in any form. What I'm saying is that, if you free the world of nation-states, what's to stop evil and powerful people from reconstructing them, or their analogues, from corporate power bases?

Private justice was actually more impartial and less corrupt. A private judge who is biased will lose all his customers. See some of the websites at the bottom of the page. The Wiemer Republic "evolved" into Naziism, doesn't mean an improvement. Each time a private(ish) justice system evolved into a state it was either through invasion/imperialism (Ireland) or because it wasn't pure enough (Iceland). If you read the links at the bottom of the private justice post you can find out about this.

OK, but my main objection was to the idea of Anglo-Saxon and other medieval courts as being "private" in the above sense. They were owned, all right, but all that meant was that their justice could be, and was, bought and sold. In an era of tremendous differences between rich and poor -- in an era, in fact, when the poor didn't actually own anything that could be regarded as (moveable) wealth, -- the idea of running a fair "private" court was nonsensical. If the serf didn't like his lord's justice -- tough. He couldn't go out and seek another competing court. In short, I wasn't questioning the concept of private courts, I was questioning the relevance of Anglo-Saxon and medieval manorial courts to the concept. They are really not good examples of something which should be emulated by anybody. And I agree that "evolution" and "improvement" are not the same thing -- but it still doesn't mean that a power structure might not "evolve" naturally from one state to another.

First we decide where we want to go, then we explore how to get there.

OK. That's sensible.