NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do you think are legitimate governing principles? I lately got in a discussion with a pinko-commie friend on this. He argued for helping the poor, yadda yadda, as the biggest governing principle for government. I argued that "It's the economy, stupid."

I know, I'm really oppressing the workers who are too lazy to be trained, but I'm willing to argue that having a wise eye for economics is probably the sole governing principle for a government (besides guarenteeing rights and all that.) It's not a love of money, but someone tell me why I'm such a heartless capitalist bastard.

Government exists to protect the rights of the people.

Government exists to protect the rights of the people.

Exactly. And that includes the protection from the theft, especially by socialists who believe they have a right to my production.

Exactly. And that includes the protection from the theft, especially by socialists who believe they have a right to my production.

Then don't live in a socialist nation. :rolleyes: (Some) capitalists fail to grasp time and time again that socialism is not being upheld at gunpoint. This is a voluntary system. It exists because the people want it to exist. That's also the reason the 'theft' you reference isn't theft, or a problem.

Exactly. And that includes the protection from the theft, especially by socialists who believe they have a right to my production.

The socialists want to defend your right to keep what you make instead of capitalists taking it, selling it, and paying you only part of the money made. It is the capitalists stealing from you by paying you less than the amount of money your products make.

Without the "capitalists" (I'm considering starting the "Capitalist Proletariats Association"), I would not have a job, would I?

Without the "capitalists" (I'm considering starting the "Capitalist Proletariats Association"), I would not have a job, would I?

Without the capitalists, factories could be owned by worker syndicates instead and you could work with equals instead of taking orders from a boss.

I'd rather work for a boss. It's much simpler, and more efficient.

Anyway, let's elaborate. Legitimate functions of government (keep in mind, fellow Americans, that I do not necessarily mean federal government):

Defense
Keeping government accountable to the people
Maintaining civil order
-Fire departments
-Police departments
Maintaining a postal service
Providing for a stable economy
-Minting currency
-Providing a free, competitive market where anyone can succeed through their own merits
-Regulating trade

I'd rather work for a boss. It's much simpler, and more efficient.

When did freedom take a backseat to efficiency and order? I want to go back to a time before then.

There are no legitimate functions of government anymore than there are legitimate functions of capitalists or rapists.

When did freedom take a backseat to efficiency and order? I want to go back to a time before then.

There are no legitimate functions of government anymore than there are legitimate functions of capitalists or rapists.

SOCIALISM IS NOT FREEDOM. It prevents private sector success based on individual merits and hard work. Capitalism rewards effort.

Anyway, let's elaborate. Legitimate functions of government (keep in mind, fellow Americans, that I do not necessarily mean federal government):

Defense
Keeping government accountable to the people
Maintaining civil order
-Fire departments
-Police departments
Maintaining a postal service
Providing for a stable economy
-Minting currency
-Providing a free, competitive market where anyone can succeed through their own merits
-Regulating trade

You guys should really get an NHS over there

SOCIALISM IS NOT FREEDOM. It prevents private sector success based on individual merits and hard work. Capitalism rewards effort.

What the hell are you talking about? Socialism gets rid of bosses and unearned profit. How is that infringing on individual merits?

Capitalism: the intiative and financial investment to start a business earns future profits the way I see it.
Socialism: forcing everyone to be at one low level? That's not my idea of freedom.

Government exists to protect the rights of the people.
I agree

As for another legit governing principle, I believe in what is known as 'Limited Government' - keeping the government at an efficiently small size

Capitalism: the intiative and financial investment to start a business earns future profits the way I see it.
Socialism: forcing everyone to be at one low level? That's not my idea of freedom.

Capitalism has huge social classes that can't possibly be the result of hard work. Many rich people inherited their money. Surely preventing people from inheriting money is no worse than getting rid of a king?

When did freedom take a backseat to efficiency and order? I want to go back to a time before then.

There are no legitimate functions of government anymore than there are legitimate functions of capitalists or rapists.

Freedom took a backseat to efficiency and order when people decided that living in the stone age sucked. Government provides a continuity of human affairs, and what I think you're arguing (anarchy) has been proven to be a really really bad idea. It's nihilism, really.

What's your big beef with capitalism? As long as we smooth out its rough edges a little (like a little standardization, very little subsidation, labor unions, minimum wage, etc.) capitalism is the most efficent distributor of goods and services we've ever seen. I don't know why. Ask an economist. But for some reason it works, and it works really well.

I don't like to just poke at points, so I'll ask a question. If you are arguing that there is no legitimacy to any government, what social institutions are legitimate to you Letila?

This is all a lovely theoretical debate coming from various True Believers. The problem, though, is that the real world is messy, and no economic system ever works out the way that the True Believers say it will.

In real life, Socialism no more brings about class equality than Capitalism brings anything approaching meritocracy. The grey areas (and the devious darkness of the human soul) are where reality lies.

So I have a novel concept for you all: Pragmatism.

When did freedom take a backseat to efficiency and order? I want to go back to a time before then.


Letila, that may be the wisest thing I have seen anyone say on these boards. Congratulations. :D

What's your big beef with capitalism? As long as we smooth out its rough edges a little (like a little standardization, very little subsidation, labor unions, minimum wage, etc.) capitalism is the most efficent distributor of goods and services we've ever seen. I don't know why. Ask an economist. But for some reason it works, and it works really well.

In other words, make it less blatantly coersive without removing it's core characteristics, like wage slavery, profit, bosses, etc. I want the abolition of capitalism, not reform. You can't make a bad system acceptable by reforming it. Would you advocate reforming slavery rather than abolishing it if it still existed here?

I don't like to just poke at points, so I'll ask a question. If you are arguing that there is no legitimacy to any government, what social institutions are legitimate to you Letila?

Ahierarchial communes and worker syndicates are certainly ones.

I know, I'm really oppressing the workers who are too lazy to be trained,
Right, because that is the only reason that people are untrained right. :rolleyes:

Without the "capitalists" (I'm considering starting the "Capitalist Proletariats Association"), I would not have a job, would I?

Never heard of the self employed?

The socialists want to defend your right to keep what you make instead of capitalists taking it, selling it, and paying you only part of the money made. It is the capitalists stealing from you by paying you less than the amount of money your products make.
Careful, not everyone who works, work for Capitalists.

Defense
Keeping government accountable to the people
Maintaining civil order
-Fire departments
-Police departments
Maintaining a postal service
Providing for a stable economy
-Minting currency
-Providing a free, competitive market where anyone can succeed through their own merits
-Regulating trade
The Free Market can handle all that.

SOCIALISM IS NOT FREEDOM.
What do you mean by socialism?
It prevents private sector success based on individual merits and hard work.The State prevents private sector success. By putting forward regulations, banning things it inhibits the free market. Capitalism rewards effort.Bullshit. It rewards luck and cheating the system

Capitalism: the intiative and financial investment to start a business earns future profits the way I see it.
No, that Capital. Differance
Socialism: forcing everyone to be at one low level? That's not my idea of freedom.
So in your eyes freedom can only exist at the express of those at the bottom?

You want freedom for your self and servitude for others right?

Freedom took a backseat to efficiency and order when people decided that living in the stone age sucked.
I take it you have never really studied History right?
Government provides a continuity of human affairs,
How are mere mortals unable to provide a 'continuity of human affairs?' What do you mean by that anyway?
and what I think you're arguing (anarchy) has been proven to be a really really bad idea.
How?
[On anarchy]It's nihilism, really.
Prove it.
What's your big beef with capitalism?
Do you really want to ask this?
As long as we smooth out its rough edges a little (like a little standardization, very little subsidation, labor unions, minimum wage, etc.)
Ways to choke the Free Market 101.
capitalism is the most efficent distributor of goods and services we've ever seen.
No it isn't. The Free Market is.
I don't know why. Ask an economist. But for some reason it works, and it works really well.
Well in a seance I had last night, Marx told me otherwise.

How does it work well?
I don't like to just poke at points,
I do :D
so I'll ask a question. If you are arguing that there is no legitimacy to any government, what social institutions are legitimate to you Letila?

Not being Letila, I will answer for myself. Those which are entered into voluntarily.

By the way, it is not an either/or with Capitalism and Communism/Socialism.

This is all a lovely theoretical debate coming from various True Believers. The problem, though, is that the real world is messy, and no economic system ever works out the way that the True Believers say it will.

In real life, Socialism no more brings about class equality than Capitalism brings anything approaching meritocracy. The grey areas (and the devious darkness of the human soul) are where reality lies.

So I have a novel concept for you all: Pragmatism.

Ah, a Pragmatism True Believer. Not exactly a panacea, is it? Even in these days of homogenous government, you can see that everyone has a different view of what's pragmatically viable.

Capitalism doesn't bring about meritocracy, unless you go back to the original market-place, where you produce a product and haggle over it's price. There's no element of personal merit about flipping burgers or emptying bins, is there? Does a company director do 20 to 500 times the work of front-line staff?

Communism doesn't bring about equality, see party officials and their families getting cushy wages and good breaks. See the eugenics programs of Stalin's era. This idea of going back to the old village and reputation system that some tout isn't going to work in a world of 6 billion souls and counting.

The thing is, neither of these two systems exist in their purest forms.
Capitalism in it's purest form is the ultimate Social Darwinist fantasy, so no welfare state or regulation, and no safeguards against discrimination or unsafe workplaces. Presumably, national defence would be run on the same basis. That would make Saudi Arabia a superpower, since they could pay off armies.
Communism makes a hell of a lot of sense if you want to bring a third-world country into the industrial age. Russia and China? Who really cared about Russia for anything but royal familial ties back before the revolution? All through the 19th century China was everyone's bitch- Britain, Portugal, Japan, to name but three, held Chinese land, usually on a contract so they needn't bother with the expanse of territory China was and is. After communism, their industries took off, so it's viable economic theory, regardless of dictatorial excesses, which happen whatever economy you have.

Socialism is basically something in the middle. Capitalism with strong regulation, healthy welfare state, healthcare and strong education system. A moderate option.

So what do you think are legitimate governing principles?


To get back on topic:

Basically to serve the will of society. Regardless of what that will may be, or what groups it may be making such decisions.

I think the largest problem with society today however does not come from our economic system of choice, as both communism and capitalism have great advantages and disadvantages depending on your perspective of truth.

The biggest problem is that we have a system that is "run" by the people (democracy), yet they are victim of an education system that does not educate them enough to understand the choices that they have to make. So politics, economics, whatever has become a game of oversimplification, or even marketing your cause. If we educate people to understand the way things work, than maybe we can get over such basic arguments as weather it is better to be a capatilist or a commie.

Point: you can establish a worker syndicate-run business or commune if you want.