NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is something that puzzles me:

Why is it that the very same capitalist apologists who insist that "human nature" is inherently competitive also complain that under conditions of ensured subsistence and managed equality, people will become terribly "lazy," having no motivation to excel?

(I do not exactly prefer communism, but I do sympathize with communists who have to deal with this kind of self-contradictory nonsense.)

You can't have it both ways. Either people have a natural urge to compete with one another (which I think they do), and deprived of monetary competition they will compete in some other way, such as for professional or personal esteem... or people are not "naturally" competitive.

I mean, seriously. How do we get high school sports teams to compete? How do we get scholars to compete? Hell, why do people bother to "compete" in games like Nationstates?

Monetary wealth is by no means the beginning and end of competitiveness. Capitalists, I applaud you for realizing that human beings are naturally competitive, and for understanding that a political/economic system can take advantage of this fact. But I have to shake my head when you suddenly turn your backs on this idea and pretend that if the government equalizes wealth, it will have so easily defeated "human nature."

Here is something that puzzles me:

Why is it that the very same capitalist apologists who insist that "human nature" is inherently competitive also complain that under conditions of ensured subsistence and managed equality, people will become terribly "lazy," having no motivation to excel?

(I do not exactly prefer communism, but I do sympathize with communists who have to deal with this kind of self-contradictory nonsense.)

You can't have it both ways. Either people have a natural urge to compete with one another (which I think they do), and deprived of monetary competition they will compete in some other way, such as for professional or personal esteem... or people are not "naturally" competitive.

I mean, seriously. How do we get high school sports teams to compete? How do we get scholars to compete? Hell, why do people bother to "compete" in games like Nationstates?

Monetary wealth is by no means the beginning and end of competitiveness. Capitalists, I applaud you for realizing that human beings are naturally competitive, and for understanding that a political/economic system can take advantage of this fact. But I have to shake my head when you suddenly turn your backs on this idea and pretend that if the government equalizes wealth, it will have so easily defeated "human nature."

Explain the USSR? They "equalized" things as best they could and suddenly they managed their Oil wells by taking the easy way out, destroyed their enviorment because it was easy and overall didn't compete that much.

*some* people are competetive, and it is inherent in Human nature for *some* people to compete and rise above the rest in terms of talent, money, skill, professionalism, manners, knowledge etc... It is not in human nature for everyone to be competitive.

*some* people are competetive, and it is inherent in Human nature for *some* people to compete and rise above the rest in terms of talent, money, skill, professionalism, manners, knowledge etc... It is not in human nature for everyone to be competitive.

So are you claiming that capitalism as a system only benefits a certain type of human being?

So are you claiming that capitalism as a system only benefits a certain type of human being?

If he backs his own statement that would be admitting that capitalism is not the best system

So are you claiming that capitalism as a system only benefits a certain type of human being?

Nein, I am claiming that capitalism benefits some a lot more than others. What capitalism does is create a incentive to force those would be lazy into competetion. Frankly almost everyone wants to be rich, very few people are willing to put in the work to do it. That captialism benefits people in different amounts is obvious.

*some* people are competetive, and it is inherent in Human nature for *some* people to compete and rise above the rest in terms of talent, money, skill, professionalism, manners, knowledge etc... It is not in human nature for everyone to be competitive.

No, I think it is... People differ primarily in the scope and arena of their desire for excellence.

For instance, I have absolutely no sense of competitiveness in team sports... but this is because I recognize that I have little talent for them, so to compete aggressively would be senseless -- even self-destructive. I do have a great sense of competition in scholarly debate however, largely because I sense that I have some talent in the area. I also enjoy competitive video games.

For the most sensitive critics of capitalism, the problem is this: the advantage of the wealthy is that wealth provides, from an early age, the experiences that allow an individual to discover and explore his own aptitudes. Without those early experiences, the sense of competition will be reduced to the limited scope available to, say, a kid on the street: fighting or crime are good examples. As a political scientist studying public law, I visit the prisons and talk to the men sentenced to life... and I have learned to understand that there is a kind of status on the street associated with criminal activity. There is competitiveness there... it just has not learned any other direction.

Of course, not all poor kids end up in prison... and some of them do quite well. But I predict that if you studied the success stories, the ones who go from rags to riches, you will find that most of them -- if not all -- can describe experiences as a youth that taught them to appreciate and develop more productive aptitudes. They are not the ones who are especially competitive; rather they are the ones whose naturally competitive nature got tuned to a legitimate frequency.

Socialism recommends a radical expansion of such experiences for children, adolescents and youth. The socialist idea is that, given the education and early experience that allows a child to discover her/his natural ability, the sense of pride -- the sense of competition -- will drive individuals and society to unimaginably beautiful and creative endeavors.

If the USSR or other "Communist" countries have failed, it is because they only went half-way. They closed off monetary competition, but failed to provide alternative channels for the human competitive spirit. There are therefore an inadequate yardstick for what truly free competition can achieve.

snipe

:shrug: Our views on humanity are different. No amount of arguing will change that.

There are *no* human need that make the individual go out and act competetive against another in itself. There are however human needs which cannot be satisfied unless the individual act in such a manner.

Why anyone would ever compete against another is a question on motivation. What motivate a person is it's own field of study and there are entire books written on the subject, also in an economical context (espesically for leaders), aimed at unleashing the most motivation for the workers (and leaders) within a system/business/organization.

A commonly accepted motivation theory is made by Maslow. He said there were five human needs, with the first being the strongest, and other needs only activating when a satisfactory level of appeasment have been reached towards the first need(s).

1. Physiological needs (food, basic shelter, etc.)
2. Security needs (against mental and physical harm)
3. Social needs
4. Status
5. Self-realization (be all you can be, unleash all your potential)

If you ponder on this and see that he is generally right, you'll see that it is impossible for everyone to satisfy all these needs without competing against anyone else at all.

The question is if competing within a capitalist system allows the individual to satisfy more of his needs, than is possible by just being a mere workerbee in a communist system, with a slight chance of getting upwards in the system. I'll let you think about that for yourself.

:shrug: Our views on humanity are different. No amount of arguing will change that.

It is an empirical question. Observation and experience will answer it.

Human's aren't naturally anything, but a competitive market style economy is the most effecient possible, and that some suffer for the good of others is terribly sad, but inevitable, so why try to coat the truth with the sugar of pseudo-equality that socialism hopes to create when the only real effect that can possible have is to lower the standard of living for everyone?

Human's aren't naturally anything, but a competitive market style economy is the most effecient possible, and that some suffer for the good of others is terribly sad, but inevitable, so why try to coat the truth with the sugar of pseudo-equality that socialism hopes to create when the only real effect that can possible have is to lower the standard of living for everyone?

Did you want to back any of that up, or does it just make you feel good to say it?

Did you want to back any of that up, or does it just make you feel good to say it?

Mostly it just makes me feel good to say. I went into a lot more detail for a bunch of anarcho-syndicalists a while back, pages and pages of detail, but it did me no good, and I'm not really willing to do it again.

Mostly it just makes me feel good to say. I went into a lot more detail for a bunch of anarcho-syndicalists a while back, pages and pages of detail, but it did me no good, and I'm not really willing to do it again.

Well, if you ever feel up to it, I like to think that I make a serious attempt to understand people according to where they are coming from... and a scan of my NS record would show that I am more willing than most to cede a point when it has been made. If, like me, you feel that the point of discussion is mutual illumination, then our "competition" -- as it were -- might actually produce a useful result.

Let me know.

Here is something that puzzles me:

Why is it that the very same capitalist apologists who insist that "human nature" is inherently competitive also complain that under conditions of ensured subsistence and managed equality, people will become terribly "lazy," having no motivation to excel?

Well, I'm not a 'capitalist apologist,' but I'm a capitalist.

The problem here is you are misinterpreting that whole dynamic. It's not that they have no motivation to excel, it's that they would have no motivation to excel in an economically productive way.

What's more, it's not that the conditions you mean are "ensured subsistence and managed equality," because "managed equality" is something of a total joke. Have you ever known a large family with say 6 or 7 children where all the children were "managed" to be "equals?"

What does that even mean? They get paid the same amount of allowance? They are treated the same? They are no better or worse than their siblings? Secondly, when it's a government enforcing an artificial utopian-style vision of 'equality,' it's not "management" it's "control." It's a prevention of the liberty and accumulation of wealth - one of man's favorite pasttimes.


(I do not exactly prefer communism, but I do sympathize with communists who have to deal with this kind of self-contradictory nonsense.)

Well, there's self-contradictions and nonsense spouted by supporters of every idealogy, aren't there?


You can't have it both ways. Either people have a natural urge to compete with one another (which I think they do), and deprived of monetary competition they will compete in some other way, such as for professional or personal esteem... or people are not "naturally" competitive.

Yes, people are naturally competitive. Deprived of the (legal) accumulation of wealth, people find other ways of getting ahead, such as corrupting the local (and ubiquitous, since there is a need to police and make sure no one violates the rules preventing economic differentiation) government to gain wealth anyway...

The need comes from not just the need to be competitive and "alpha male," it's the things that come with that status naturally - MORE things, more stuff, more buying power if you will. Having more than one immediately and personally needs is always a good idea, because things might not remain as productive as they are right now.

Monetary wealth is by no means the beginning and end of competitiveness.

I would say material wealth is, though.

Capitalists, I applaud you for realizing that human beings are naturally competitive, and for understanding that a political/economic system can take advantage of this fact. But I have to shake my head when you suddenly turn your backs on this idea and pretend that if the government equalizes wealth, it will have so easily defeated "human nature."

Ah but unless you untie wealth and power, or wealth and materialism or simply materials, artificially created "equality" simply is not. It's a pretense, it IS the repression of human nature, much like laws against homosexuality. You won't "defeat" human nature or competition - not at all.

It'll simply force competition to go underground in black markets or express itself in more positive ways, like those state sponsored USSR tank and missile parades and such.

Well, if you ever feel up to it, I like to think that I make a serious attempt to understand people according to where they are coming from... and a scan of my NS record would show that I am more willing than most to cede a point when it has been made. If, like me, you feel that the point of discussion is mutual illumination, then our "competition" -- as it were -- might actually produce a useful result.

Let me know.

I'll keep that in mind.

Human's aren't naturally anything, but a competitive market style economy is the most effecient possible, and that some suffer for the good of others is terribly sad, but inevitable, so why try to coat the truth with the sugar of pseudo-equality that socialism hopes to create when the only real effect that can possible have is to lower the standard of living for everyone?


You carefully skirt the issue of how many people suffer for the good of how few and then state that the system is efficient. What standard of efficiency are you using? The most efficient method of transferring wealth into the hands of the wealthy few from the poor majority? Yes very efficient.

What qualifies as a lower standard of living? Everyone say, having equal access to education, health care, housing, food, leisure, entertainment and useful work? It would probably be difficult for anyone to afford a private pleasure yacht under those circumstances and therefore less efficient by your measure and Hollywood productions would probably be less flashy, but somehow, I don't think that there would be such massive expenditures on useless and destructive products like military hardware.

There are many reasons to compete in life, the high school sports player covets status, recognition and admiration, as in many ways do academics publishing a paper (although of course the status , recognition and admiration come from entirely different groups).

Capitalism exploits a different source of competition; the urge to compete for resources. More food, better food, bigger house, house in a nicer neighbourhood, clothes,nicer clothers.
In a capitalist system people who have skills that are valued highly by the market are rewarded highly by the market, in the form of money, giving them access to the food they want to buy, the clothes they want to wear, the house they want to live in etc etc.

If you wish to "equalise" wealth, if you wish to give everyone the same choice of food, clothing, housing etc then this competion for resources disappears.Why study medicine for years at university if the hospital janitor is getting the same salary, shopping in the same stores and living in the same street as you? In a world where everyone has access to "equalised" wealth there is no material reward for material effort.

The notion of equalising wealth is like announcing before a soccer match kicks off that at the end of the high school soccer match the score will be 22-22 with each player being judged to have scored one goal each. In such a system there is no motive for the players to actually try, since they will be recognised as having scored a goal wether they score one goal, no goals or ten goals.

You carefully skirt the issue of how many people suffer for the good of how few and then state that the system is efficient. What standard of efficiency are you using? The most efficient method of transferring wealth into the hands of the wealthy few from the poor majority? Yes very efficient.

What qualifies as a lower standard of living? Everyone say, having equal access to education, health care, housing, food, leisure, entertainment and useful work? It would probably be difficult for anyone to afford a private pleasure yacht under those circumstances and therefore less efficient by your measure and Hollywood productions would probably be less flashy, but somehow, I don't think that there would be such massive expenditures on useless and destructive products like military hardware.

Let me say this, State Capitalism distinguishes itself from Anarchic Capitalism by the frequency of specific individuals profiting.

Also, a market economy provides the greatest total wealth, whether it is concentrated in the hands of a few or not, there is still more of it. This is not to say that the greatest mean wealth is desirable if it results in a low mode average wealth, but the fact is that markets are more effecient than planned economies.

Well, being a staunch pacifist I can't really argue against you on military spending except to say that there is no other way for the state to maintain itself or preserve itself in battles against other statist organizations. In other words, force requires more force, so stopping the cycle of violence is a difficult task.

The problem here is you are misinterpreting that whole dynamic. It's not that they have no motivation to excel, it's that they would have no motivation to excel in an economically productive way.

No... Did you read my post? What else is the desire for professional esteem?

What's more, it's not that the conditions you mean are "ensured subsistence and managed equality," because "managed equality" is something of a total joke. Have you ever known a large family with say 6 or 7 children where all the children were "managed" to be "equals?"

(A) I already said I am not a communist. I am a socialist and an anarchist, and I believe (as have so many political theorists all the way back to Plato and up through the modern era) that some measure of relative equality is necessary to a healthy constitution.

(B) Yes, I have known large families of, say, six or seven children in which all of the children were treated with equal regard to their health, education, and economic well-being. In fact, that describes the way virtually every family I have ever known treats their children. Do you know many that feed some but not others?

What does that even mean?

It means that the family offers the same nurturance to each that it offers to all. That is what families do.

They get paid the same amount of allowance?

It could. In my family, Dad put up a chart with a chore in each column and a name in each row. Every time one of us did a chore, Dad initialed the appropriate box. At the end of the week, each chore was worth $.25. Of course, we still got dinner, a heated bedroom, and a basic wardrobe regardless of whether we did any chores. How did it work for you?

They are treated the same?

Basically, yeah. See above.

They are no better or worse than their siblings?

Well, now that depends on them. But Mom and Dad should do their best for each one.

Secondly, when it's a government enforcing an artificial utopian-style vision of 'equality,' it's not "management" it's "control."

Sure, if it is really "utopian" and an attempt for real perfection. But as long as one is willing to settle for "pretty good" and "as close as possible," there is no need to go jumping down slippery slopes.

It's a prevention of the liberty and accumulation of wealth - one of man's favorite pasttimes.

Well, some versions of communism might be... but where I am coming from, people are perfectly free to accumulate wealth -- until it gets to the point that such accumulation threatens the general welfare. As with everything else, at some point there are necessary limits to personal freedom.

Well, there's self-contradictions and nonsense spouted by supporters of every idealogy, aren't there?

Yes. But to the extent that those supporters genuinely wish to convince others, their responsibility is to work toward resolving those contradictions. Moreover, it should be a matter of personal satisfaction to feel oneself to hold a consistent and reasonable worldview.

Yes, people are naturally competitive. Deprived of the (legal) accumulation of wealth, people find other ways of getting ahead, such as corrupting the local (and ubiquitous, since there is a need to police and make sure no one violates the rules preventing economic differentiation) government to gain wealth anyway...

I agree entirely. Hence the need to supply alternative avenues through which to channel ambition. While it is true that people are naturally competitive, it is not true that they naturally tend toward wealth before all other goods. Indeed, in surveys of American workers as to what is most important to them in a job or career, salary consistently comes in around sixth or seventh, after things like "fulfillment" and satisfactory hours.

The need comes from not just the need to be competitive and "alpha male," it's the things that come with that status naturally - MORE things, more stuff, more buying power if you will.

Yes, people like "stuff." There is no denying that. However:

(1) There are necessary limits, as discussed above.
(2) The desire for nice things becomes an unhealthy need in capitalist society. Because wealth is defined as status, and the entire environment encourages narcissism, people feel less "whole" without the stuff they buy. The things we own become an extension of ourselves... and that is not psychologically healthy.

Ah but unless you untie wealth and power,

That is the idea.

You won't "defeat" human nature or competition - not at all.

Nope. Hence the need to channel it into productive activities. But there are clearly more ways to do that than the desire for wealth.

There are many reasons to compete in life, the high school sports player covets status, recognition and admiration, as in many ways do academics publishing a paper (although of course the status , recognition and admiration come from entirely different groups).

Yes, exactly.


If you wish to "equalise" wealth, if you wish to give everyone the same choice of food, clothing, housing etc then this competion for resources disappears.Why study medicine for years at university if the hospital janitor is getting the same salary, shopping in the same stores and living in the same street as you? In a world where everyone has access to "equalised" wealth there is no material reward for material effort.

No, but there are other rewards. You just made that point yourself above!!

The notion of equalising wealth is like announcing before a soccer match kicks off that at the end of the high school soccer match the score will be 22-22 with each player being judged to have scored one goal each. In such a system there is no motive for the players to actually try, since they will be recognised as having scored a goal wether they score one goal, no goals or ten goals.

Umm, no. How did you manage to write that intelligent first paragraph, and then entirely forget it? Do you have multiple personalities?

Equalizing wealth is precisely like a high school soccer match. Everyone knows before the match that the winning team will earn exactly as much money as the losing team. No one gets paid for their efforts. They compete only to find out whose is the better team, who are the best players... and individuals also play to find out just how far they can push themselves. The communist theory suggests that all of life can be much more like an amateur sporting competition: competitive, fun, and with everyone going home to a decent supper and warm bed afterwards.

No, I think it is... People differ primarily in the scope and arena of their desire for excellence.

For instance, I have absolutely no sense of competitiveness in team sports... but this is because I recognize that I have little talent for them, so to compete aggressively would be senseless -- even self-destructive. I do have a great sense of competition in scholarly debate however, largely because I sense that I have some talent in the area. I also enjoy competitive video games.

For the most sensitive critics of capitalism, the problem is this: the advantage of the wealthy is that wealth provides, from an early age, the experiences that allow an individual to discover and explore his own aptitudes. Without those early experiences, the sense of competition will be reduced to the limited scope available to, say, a kid on the street: fighting or crime are good examples. As a political scientist studying public law, I visit the prisons and talk to the men sentenced to life... and I have learned to understand that there is a kind of status on the street associated with criminal activity. There is competitiveness there... it just has not learned any other direction.

Of course, not all poor kids end up in prison... and some of them do quite well. But I predict that if you studied the success stories, the ones who go from rags to riches, you will find that most of them -- if not all -- can describe experiences as a youth that taught them to appreciate and develop more productive aptitudes. They are not the ones who are especially competitive; rather they are the ones whose naturally competitive nature got tuned to a legitimate frequency.

Socialism recommends a radical expansion of such experiences for children, adolescents and youth. The socialist idea is that, given the education and early experience that allows a child to discover her/his natural ability, the sense of pride -- the sense of competition -- will drive individuals and society to unimaginably beautiful and creative endeavors.

If the USSR or other "Communist" countries have failed, it is because they only went half-way. They closed off monetary competition, but failed to provide alternative channels for the human competitive spirit. There are therefore an inadequate yardstick for what truly free competition can achieve.

The problem here, which is the crux whenever political or economic systems are compared, and which is far too often overlooked, is that we need to provide a definition of "the good" that we are supposed to be striving for. What makes one form of competition more valid than another? How is competing for intellectual or artistic excellence more or less worthwhile than competing for wealth, say, or for respect on the street? Until we answer that question everything else is moot.

As for the USSR it's not entirely true to say there were no alternative channels for the competitive spirit. Sporting and certain artistic avenues were open, from Spartak Moscow to the Bolshoi, and there was also the system of model workers. Whether they were effective or not is, of course, another question entirely.

The problem here, which is the crux whenever political or economic systems are compared, and which is far too often overlooked, is that we need to provide a definition of "the good" that we are supposed to be striving for.

Naturally. But competition is the means to the end, not the end itself. Thus many capitalists are convinced that the ultimate end of human society is the production of wealth... and they have little concern for how that wealth is distributed. If an uneven distribution produces more, even in the hands of a few people, then they think this is good.

Many of us, of course, think this is perverse. But to convince our opponents, we must make at least one of two (complementary) points:

(1) The "good" of society is necessarily the general welfare. While the production of wealth is a necessary tool useful toward this end, we should care about distribution: if many people suffer for the good of a few, we have a morally undesirable situation that should be corrected.

(2) Regardless of how we feel about providing for the well-being of others, even most capitalists want government to provide certain basic public goods: protection of private property through a police force, for instance, or protection from random ugliness and criminality. Thus we may advance this argument: while we may not care about providing for the less fortunate, to ensure their basic subsistence, health, and education contributes materially to the stability of society. People who benefit from good social services are less likely to rob us, less likely to graffiti our streets, and more likely to contribute to society. Thus social services provide indirect benefits even to those who do not use them directly.

What makes one form of competition more valid than another?

Nothing intrinsic. Competition is a means to an end. So society has to decide on its ends first... once that happens, "valid" competition contributes toward that end, whether directly or indirectly, while "invalid" competitiveness detracts from those goals.

I wrote---
If you wish to "equalise" wealth, if you wish to give everyone the same choice of food, clothing, housing etc then this competion for resources disappears.Why study medicine for years at university if the hospital janitor is getting the same salary, shopping in the same stores and living in the same street as you? In a world where everyone has access to "equalised" wealth there is no material reward for material effort.
to which you responded

No, but there are other rewards. You just made that point yourself above!!
Yes, and I am sure you can understand that clearly I wouldnt have made that point above if I didnt feel that the rewards of more money, better food, better clothing, better housing were to be honest, a little bit more appealing than the rewards of feeling good for five minutes because I played well in a sports match. To be honest I also think that the rewards of more money, better food, clothing etc are also a lot more appealing than the thrill of publishing a research paper.Evidently many scientists feel the same way or they would be working for far lower wages, content only with the thrill of gaining respect from their peers.




Umm, no. How did you manage to write that intelligent first paragraph, and then entirely forget it? Do you have multiple personalities?
ad hominenm is generally not recognised as being a particularly successful debating tactic..
Equalizing wealth is precisely like a high school soccer match. Everyone knows before the match that the winning team will earn exactly as much money as the losing team. No one gets paid for their efforts. Hmm I failed to make my point in a way that was understandable, I was comparing the rigging of a sports events result to the economic rigging necessary to guarantee everyone the same material reward for their labour.They compete only to find out whose is the better team, who are the best players
Now this I do understand, but I also understand that professional football teams who get to play to find out who is the better team- and get paid tend to contain far more proficient players than the amateur teams who are content to play for no wage and only to "find out who is the better team" The communist theory suggests that all of life can be much more like an amateur sporting competition: competitive, fun, and with everyone going home to a decent supper and warm bed afterwards.
I am not sure I fancy a life where after having "competive fun" my reward is going home to a house that I may hate but no matter how hard I work I will never have the option of buying a home I actually like ; then having to eat a "decent supper" consisting of someone elses definition of "decent food".

Equalizing wealth is precisely like a high school soccer match. Everyone knows before the match that the winning team will earn exactly as much money as the losing team. No one gets paid for their efforts. They compete only to find out whose is the better team, who are the best players... and individuals also play to find out just how far they can push themselves. The communist theory suggests that all of life can be much more like an amateur sporting competition: competitive, fun, and with everyone going home to a decent supper and warm bed afterwards.

So who makes sure the oil wells are kept at the right pressure so as to drain them as completley as possible? Who makes sure the mining operation is done as efficently as possible so as to leave as precious little valuable mineral in the waste as possible?

Mankind likes to compete, but a whole lot of jobs simply won't get done if you aren't paid to do them. Nevermind where would get the laborforce for jobs like construction. Do you really think people will compete to see who can lay the flattest foundation or the finest door if they get paid the same as everyone else? Hell, if everyone just makes custom made hand made doors, where do we get enough doors to give everyone's house a door?


Naturally. But competition is the means to the end, not the end itself. Thus many capitalists are convinced that the ultimate end of human society is the production of wealth... and they have little concern for how that wealth is distributed. If an uneven distribution produces more, even in the hands of a few people, then they think this is good.

Also, you're creating a "paper captialsit" and not a realistic one. You're attacking a viewpoint not many practicing capitalists hold. Almost no one believes it is only the amount of wealth that exists that matters. Everyone knows that the distribution matters somewhat. What most capitalists believe is that even though wealth gets concentreted the general welfare of everyone increases over time. Likewise we tend to think that the general welfare over time pretty much stays the same or maybe even decreases as seen in the USSR.

Here's a different take:
I think, and this is purely opinion, that many of those who believe in capitalism as opposed to socialism/communism, do so not because of difference in belief over how competitive we are, but of a difference in how we perceive human nature. For instance, I, as a Christian, believe that human nature is essentially flawed - sinful. Socialists/Communists, and communism in particular, seem to me to be predicated on the belief that human nature is essentially good - a humanist outlook. If you believe that human nature is flawed, then capitalism makes more sense - in a socialist/communist system the flawed human nature would not work any more than required for basic needs, because his material goods would not increase. Capitalism forces the individual to use his talents to the fullest to survive, and provides the motivation for material possessions. I haven't fully fleshed this out yet, but something to think about.

Yes, and I am sure you can understand that clearly I wouldnt have made that point above if I didnt feel that the rewards of more money, better food, better clothing, better housing were to be honest, a little bit more appealing than the rewards of feeling good for five minutes because I played well in a sports match.

Well, I happen to agree that I would like my work to result in some material benefits as well. The question here is a matter of degree. I think the resilience of non-material competition within a society that wholly promotes competitive wealth-building is strong evidence that, given a restructuring of priorities, they could play a much larger role in people's lives. (And societies have existed, especially in the ancient world, in which honor was prized much more highly than wealth.)

Admittedly, many communists think that honor and esteem could entirely replace wealth as an incentive to work. I disagree, which is why I am a socialist and not a communist.

To be honest I also think that the rewards of more money, better food, clothing etc are also a lot more appealing than the thrill of publishing a research paper.Evidently many scientists feel the same way or they would be working for far lower wages, content only with the thrill of gaining respect from their peers.

Ummm... They are working for lower wages than they might, with only the thrill of gaining respect from their peers (and the rewards of teaching). As I am working toward a professorship myself, I know from personal experience: I could make a hell of a lot more in the private sector, and so could virtually anyone else with a Ph.D.

Hmm I failed to make my point in a way that was understandable, I was comparing the rigging of a sports events result to the economic rigging necessary to guarantee everyone the same material reward for their labour.

Ultimately, you are probably right. Absolute equality and the elimination of money is a really bad idea. Again, that is why I favor market socialism: people still reap material rewards for their efforts, tempered however to avoid drastic differences in material wealth.


I am not sure I fancy a life where after having "competive fun" my reward is going home to a house that I may hate but no matter how hard I work I will never have the option of buying a home I actually like ; then having to eat a "decent supper" consisting of someone elses definition of "decent food".

Again, we agree. I happen to think that everyone should be guaranteed a "decent" supper, but that individuals have the right to work to achieve better... at least until such achievement materially detracts from the good of the whole. In other words, inequality is not a bad thing in itself -- indeed, a certain kind of inequality reflects the dictates of justice. But there are limits.

What are those limits? That is a political question to be determined by the democracy that attempts social policy. As a committed democrat, I decline to set those limits before-hand.

Mankind likes to compete, but a whole lot of jobs simply won't get done if you aren't paid to do them.

There are two answers to this question. Although I am not a communist, I will supply the communist's answer first:

Communist: Yes, there are certain unpleasant jobs that no one would like to be "assigned," and that no one will do without payment. On the other hand, families deal with these kinds of chores all the time, and although they may resort to a system of payments, often enough they choose to share responsibility for these tasks. Cleaning and taking out the garbage are examples. House members may agree that one person should clean the kitchen, another the bathroom, and so on... and they may take turns taking out the garbage.

Similarly, communities may be organized to share unpleasant responsibilities. No one likes to do them, but by taking turns or sharing they minimize the unpleasantness for any one person or group. Individuals may even negotiate arrangements... If a particular person or street especially dislikes one "chore," but they mind another less, they may find another person or community to trade with them -- just as you might do in a household.

Now, on to the socialist's answer, with which I am more inclined to agree:

Socialist: You are absolutely right. There are some jobs that no one wants to do without compensation. Moreover, while it may be possible to share responsibility for some of these, in a complex society this is simply not possible in general. However, the system of payments would be considerably different in a society established with relative equality. Under conditions of drastic inequality, due to the economic facts of marginal utility, poor individuals will be willing to perform unpleasant or dangerous jobs -- garbage collector, oil driller, or miner -- for a relatively meager wage. Marginally it is "worth it" to them because it prevents starvation or homelessness. Under conditions of relative equality, however, the labor market more nearly reflects the relative desirability of jobs. In other words, when everyone is basically "taken care of," individuals will be less likely to take unpleasant jobs... and we will have to offer more to get them done. Thus, the least intrinsically desirable jobs will pay the most. We expect that this will result in high turnover for these jobs... Students might choose them for a summer job, or the relatively poor might choose these jobs -- which would then function as a true "stepping stone" toward an education or training that will help them get better jobs. Thus, there should be no real "underclass" forced to live long lives in unpleasantness. The market will actually offer the economic mobility that capitalism promises but does not deliver.

What most capitalists believe is that even though wealth gets concentreted the general welfare of everyone increases over time.

If that were true, socialists would have little argument with capitalism. But experience does not accord with the theory. Things get better for a few, worse for most. (We might also still complain that vast economic inequality results in vast political inequality.)

If you believe that human nature is flawed, then capitalism makes more sense

I'm sorry, but you have it quite backwards. If human nature is flawed, then the last thing we should do is live in a system that encourages that flaw -- rather we should develop a system that recognizes and deals with it. This is socialism.

The competitive nature of people has nothing to do with why communism will not work. People who are saying that are trying to talk about competition in the free market.

However, communism will not work because it strips people of their autonomy, the individual becomes powerless because they lose the wealth in which to keep government in check. There must be a distribution of wealth, (and don't tell me communism is a distribution of wealth) or the government will become authoritarian.

I'm sorry, but you have it quite backwards. If human nature is flawed, then the last thing we should do is live in a system that encourages that flaw -- rather we should develop a system that recognizes and deals with it. This is socialism.

Capitalism allows for the flaws and usually keeps the flaws out of the system, whereas socialism only exacerbates them.

Capitalism allows for the flaws and usually keeps the flaws out of the system, whereas socialism only exacerbates them.

Would you care to explain what leads you to that idea, so that we can actually have a discussion rather than hurling accusations at one another?

Capitalism, after all, takes human flaws and intentionally exacerbates them in the misguided belief that universal selfishness results in an overall good. Its slogan might be "a few million wrongs make a right."

Socialism, on the other hand, recognizes the flaw and channels it into productive activities. Meanwhile it encourages values that combat the human flaw and encourage the human propensity toward cooperation. (We are at least as cooperative as we are competitive, or society could not exist at all.)

There are two answers to this question. Although I am not a communist, I will supply the communist's answer first:

Communist: Yes, there are certain unpleasant jobs that no one would like to be "assigned," and that no one will do without payment. On the other hand, families deal with these kinds of chores all the time, and although they may resort to a system of payments, often enough they choose to share responsibility for these tasks. Cleaning and taking out the garbage are examples. House members may agree that one person should clean the kitchen, another the bathroom, and so on... and they may take turns taking out the garbage.

Similarly, communities may be organized to share unpleasant responsibilities. No one likes to do them, but by taking turns or sharing they minimize the unpleasantness for any one person or group. Individuals may even negotiate arrangements... If a particular person or street especially dislikes one "chore," but they mind another less, they may find another person or community to trade with them -- just as you might do in a household.

How many households with poorly kept lawns, a dirty house do you know? I know quite a few.

Now, on to the socialist's answer, with which I am more inclined to agree:

Socialist: You are absolutely right. There are some jobs that no one wants to do without compensation. Moreover, while it may be possible to share responsibility for some of these, in a complex society this is simply not possible in general. However, the system of payments would be considerably different in a society established with relative equality. Under conditions of drastic inequality, due to the economic facts of marginal utility, poor individuals will be willing to perform unpleasant or dangerous jobs -- garbage collector, oil driller, or miner -- for a relatively meager wage. Marginally it is "worth it" to them because it prevents starvation or homelessness. Under conditions of relative equality, however, the labor market more nearly reflects the relative desirability of jobs. In other words, when everyone is basically "taken care of," individuals will be less likely to take unpleasant jobs... and we will have to offer more to get them done. Thus, the least intrinsically desirable jobs will pay the most. We expect that this will result in high turnover for these jobs... Students might choose them for a summer job, or the relatively poor might choose these jobs -- which would then function as a true "stepping stone" toward an education or training that will help them get better jobs. Thus, there should be no real "underclass" forced to live long lives in unpleasantness. The market will actually offer the economic mobility that capitalism promises but does not deliver.

I guess you're not aware that garbarge men, plumbers, construction workers etc... all make pretty damn good livings?

If that were true, socialists would have little argument with capitalism. But experience does not accord with the theory. Things get better for a few, worse for most. (We might also still complain that vast economic inequality results in vast political inequality.)

Average standard of living America 1900. Average standard of living America 2005. Compare and get back to me.

I guess you're not aware that garbarge men, plumbers, construction workers etc... all make pretty damn good livings?

Compared to whom?

Average standard of living America 1900. Average standard of living America 2005. Compare and get back to me.

Averages are far from the whole story. Do you know what "skew" is? Besides which, the comparison neglects the effects of capitalism on the underdeveloped world. If American lifestyle has improved, it has been largely at the expense of others.

Would you care to explain what leads you to that idea, so that we can actually have a discussion rather than hurling accusations at one another?

Don't worry about that, we seemed to have a very decent discussion on this topic earlier.

Capitalism, after all, takes human flaws and intentionally exacerbates them in the misguided belief that universal selfishness results in an overall good. Its slogan might be "a few million wrongs make a right."

I first would not consider selfishness completely wrong. Secondly, capitalism normally involves one million people working towards a common goal. If they can't lead they have to take their part somewhere amongst the other cogs. Those who cannot or will not contribute are filtered out. That is what I mean about Capitalism usually filters out the flaws.

Socialism, on the other hand, recognizes the flaw and channels it into productive activities. Meanwhile it encourages values that combat the human flaw and encourage the human propensity toward cooperation. (We are at least as cooperative as we are competitive, or society could not exist at all.)

No, socialism does not encourage cooperation, as there is absolutely no incentive to do so unless the government artificially creates it, and that is when you find yourself in fascist territory.

No, socialism does not encourage cooperation, as there is absolutely no incentive to do so unless the government artificially creates it, and that is when you find yourself in fascist territory.

The activities of society have a natural tendency to affect the ends of the individuals that make it up -- if only through the processes of cognitive dissonance. No one needs to do anything "artificial." Unless the government goes around shooting people (and to a large extent even then) people have a tendency to share the values of the society into which they are born.

The activities of society have a natural tendency to affect the ends of the individuals that make it up -- if only through the processes of cognitive dissonance. No one needs to do anything "artificial." Unless the government goes around shooting people (and to a large extent even then) people have a tendency to share the values of the society into which they are born.

I thought we were talking about economy here, not social structures.

If we are talking about social structures, then cooperation is bad. Tolerance but not conformity is the mark of a free society.

I thought we were talking about economy here, not social structures.

If we are talking about social structures, then cooperation is bad. Tolerance but not conformity is the mark of a free society.

You think there is no possibility of free cooperation?

To cooperate is not to conform. Indeed, cooperation is defined by the fact that different people work together for common goals that they find together. To simply conform to a pre-determined end is not cooperation... it's slavery.

Compared to whom?

Social government workers?

Averages are far from the whole story. Do you know what "skew" is? Besides which, the comparison neglects the effects of capitalism on the underdeveloped world. If American lifestyle has improved, it has been largely at the expense of others.

Take the mean then. Take the average removing the skew points. Whatever you wish, you will find the general welfare of the people have gone up.

You think there is no possibility of free cooperation?

To cooperate is not to conform. Indeed, cooperation is defined by the fact that different people work together for common goals that they find together. To simply conform to a pre-determined end is not cooperation... it's slavery.

Not particularly, I don't think so.

People are selfish, it is in their nature above all, and I never denied that.

In socialism the end is pre-determined as the betterment of the government or the society, which by your terms. By being somewhat forced to be employed by the government they are forced to conform towards that goal. By your terms that is slavery.

In Capitalism, the goal is the betterment of the person, people work for themselves, no matter what you want to add about corporations. The system is made strong through the selfishness.

[QUOTE=Vittos Ordination]I thought we were talking about economy here, not social structures. [QUOTE]

There's a difference?

To simply conform to a pre-determined end is not cooperation... it's slavery.

Its what you are saying we should do.

[QUOTE=Vittos Ordination]I thought we were talking about economy here, not social structures. [QUOTE]

There's a difference?


They are interrelated, but there is an enormous difference.

Socialist: You are absolutely right. There are some jobs that no one wants to do without compensation. Moreover, while it may be possible to share responsibility for some of these, in a complex society this is simply not possible in general. However, the system of payments would be considerably different in a society established with relative equality. Under conditions of drastic inequality, due to the economic facts of marginal utility, poor individuals will be willing to perform unpleasant or dangerous jobs -- garbage collector, oil driller, or miner -- for a relatively meager wage. Marginally it is "worth it" to them because it prevents starvation or homelessness. Under conditions of relative equality, however, the labor market more nearly reflects the relative desirability of jobs. In other words, when everyone is basically "taken care of," individuals will be less likely to take unpleasant jobs... and we will have to offer more to get them done. Thus, the least intrinsically desirable jobs will pay the most. We expect that this will result in high turnover for these jobs... Students might choose them for a summer job, or the relatively poor might choose these jobs -- which would then function as a true "stepping stone" toward an education or training that will help them get better jobs. Thus, there should be no real "underclass" forced to live long lives in unpleasantness. The market will actually offer the economic mobility that capitalism promises but does not deliver.


Of course, that assumes that all dangerous unpleasant jobs are essentially performed by unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Which is not true. (Although I suppose we could send college students down mines for the summer, it would probably pull their heads out of their asses - those that survive.)

Social government workers?

Doubtful. My uncle is a welder. My girlfriend's father is a welfare fraud investigator for the state... He has a better salary and better benefits.

Take the mean then.

We were talking about the mean. It has a heavy positive skew.

Take the average removing the skew points.

The measure you are looking for would be fairly accurately represented by the median. And still you have not captured the real distribution.

But I am willing to cede the point that, in general, Americans are probably better off materially than their ancestors two hundred years ago. There are still two problems:

(1) No matter the average gains, the plight of the poorest cannot be justified against the wealth of the richest. It is possible to do better, and we should.

(2) You still neglect to discuss the global impact of capitalism.

They are interrelated, but there is an enormous difference.

I think it's impossible to separate them. Following the arguments in this thread and every proposed economic model assumes and requires a complementary social structure.

As an example from outside this discussion: Can't have a fuedalistic economy without nobility, gentry and serfs.

Though I tend to believe that Capitalism is just an extension of feudalism where the serfs have been outsourced to the third world.

In socialism the end is pre-determined as the betterment of the government or the society, which by your terms. By being somewhat forced to be employed by the government they are forced to conform towards that goal. By your terms that is slavery.

First of all, I presume democracy, which means everyone has a say in determining the collective ends of society. Secondly, individual ends are no more restricted in market socialism than they are under capitalism. Indeed, there is much greater freedom in individual ends. One can choose to compete in any career one wants; one can choose to further one's education; one can choose a career that pays well, or one can choose a career that is personally fulfilling (for whatever end). One can choose to be a small entrepreneur, or one can choose to compete for management positions in the larger government firms.

While it is true that one cannot choose to be a big-time capitalist entrepreneur, this choice is only limited because it is found to be harmful to other individuals or society as a whole... and every political theory assumes that it is justifiable to limit choices when they are detrimental to others.

Its what you are saying we should do.

No, it's not. I suspect it may be how you would like to characterize what I am saying... but I have no responsibility for that.

I am a socialist and an anarchist,

Interesting... I'm large and small, personally.


(B) Yes, I have known large families of, say, six or seven children in which all of the children were treated with equal regard to their health, education, and economic well-being. In fact, that describes the way virtually every family I have ever known treats their children. Do you know many that feed some but not others?

I didn't say "with regard to health, education and economic well-being." I said "equal." My point was that nobody is equal, but its moot if you're going to play dumb.

It means that the family offers the same nurturance to each that it offers to all. That is what families do.

So by extension, your quest for "equality" is actually only the belief that everyone receives the same "nurturance" economically in society? With, of course, government as "mom and dad?"

It could. In my family, Dad put up a chart with a chore in each column and a name in each row. Every time one of us did a chore, Dad initialed the appropriate box. At the end of the week, each chore was worth $.25. Of course, we still got dinner, a heated bedroom, and a basic wardrobe regardless of whether we did any chores. How did it work for you?

In my family, similar wages or rates did not make me "equal" to anybody else in my family.


Yes. But to the extent that those supporters genuinely wish to convince others, their responsibility is to work toward resolving those contradictions.

I agree, but it works the other way around - for example, for anarchists and socialists. Contradictions abound, not just in arguments but reality itself.

I agree entirely. Hence the need to supply alternative avenues through which to channel ambition.

Why? What need? Whats so wrong with wealth?

While it is true that people are naturally competitive, it is not true that they naturally tend toward wealth before all other goods. Indeed, in surveys of American workers as to what is most important to them in a job or career, salary consistently comes in around sixth or seventh, after things like "fulfillment" and satisfactory hours.

I've read similar studies and from what I understood, that was true given a certain assurance of consistent, adequate pay, or concerning raises (i.e pay raises were not as effective as job fulfillment or hours at raising employee morale). But actually, because things like time HAVE money values, couldn't you say that seeking more satisfactory hours *IS* pursuing wealth?


Yes, people like "stuff." There is no denying that. However:

(1) There are necessary limits, as discussed above.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Limits to how much people can own? Caps? Quotas? Who decides what is necessary?


(2) The desire for nice things becomes an unhealthy need in capitalist society. Because wealth is defined as status, and the entire environment encourages narcissism, people feel less "whole" without the stuff they buy. The things we own become an extension of ourselves... and that is not psychologically healthy.

Take out "capitalist" in that statement and I agree with it. But then it's just general animosity towards materialism, a la Fight Club or Thoreau. Wealth IS status, and there exists a desire for nice things, and neither of those truths will go away because it is deemed unhealthy by you.



That is the idea.

Well, no one decided one day, "power and wealth and material possession will all be linked." It's just a facet of civilization, just like selfish, greedy self-interest is a part of human nature. And I have massive amounts of skepticism towards people who want to change facets of civilization and core human nature.

Compared to whom?



Averages are far from the whole story. Do you know what "skew" is? Besides which, the comparison neglects the effects of capitalism on the underdeveloped world. If American lifestyle has improved, it has been largely at the expense of others.
Really? Do you actually believe that? Can you somehow prove or demonstrate this?

Of course, that assumes that all dangerous unpleasant jobs are essentially performed by unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Which is not true.

No, it's not. But I do not make that assumption. I merely stated that dangerous or unpleasant jobs would pay extremely well (to make them attractive to people who do not have to do them to survive), and that as a result tenure in such jobs would be "relatively" short. That means people will not spend lifetimes doing them (of course, they can if they want to)... but in all likelihood they may spend several years doing them. Besides, it works on a market principle... if people are reluctant to hang around for the positions that require the most experience, those positions will just have to pay more, won't they? Of course, they already do that... and apparently it works.

(Although I suppose we could send college students down mines for the summer, it would probably pull their heads out of their asses - those that survive.)

Hehe... Yeah. I have some students I'd like to send. ;)

Really? Do you actually believe that? Can you somehow prove or demonstrate this?

You mean to say that you don't believe that the extraordinary wealth of nations like the US, England or Canada isn't wasn't obtained through the exploitation of other countries?

I thought that was a moot point, and now I've found someone who claims complete ignorance of a well documented fact.

Here is something that puzzles me:

Why is it that the very same capitalist apologists who insist that "human nature" is inherently competitive also complain that under conditions of ensured subsistence and managed equality, people will become terribly "lazy," having no motivation to excel?
There is no contradiction whatsoever.
Laziness and competitiveness are both components of human nature and they compliment each other quite nicely.

Capitalists, I applaud you for realizing that human beings are naturally competitive, and for understanding that a political/economic system can take advantage of this fact. But I have to shake my head when you suddenly turn your backs on this idea and pretend that if the government equalizes wealth, it will have so easily defeated "human nature."

Human beings are not naturally competitive. Human beings simply exist on a planet where tangible natural resources are limited in supply. Because tangible natural resources are in limited supply, not everyone can have as much of whatever it is they want. Thus some kind of system and organization is necessary in order to distribute and redistribute these resources in a fair/just/good/peaceful manner. Competitive market economics is one such system.

In a situation where a resource is not limited in supply, however, competition is not necessary. Take for instance a piece of computer software. The software, in and of itself, is an intangible unlimited resource. Anyone can come along and make and take as many copies as he pleases. But no matter how many copies he takes, the software still remains, and anyone else can take as many copies as they like, so on and so forth. Because of this special property, the supply of the software is for all practical purposes infinite. As such demand is very easily satisfied and plumets very quickly. Any good capitalist knows that infinite supply with next to no demand means a price of exactly 0. This is why we have seen the emergence of file sharing networks of all kinds on the internet.

Alas, it is very hard to make a profit selling something when the market demands a price of 0. Thus, "intellectual property" which allows the creation of artificial scarcity by threating those who simply obey the free market with the coercion of the state. Of course, those who champion "intellectual property" will rely on the idea of "human nature" in order to justify their position. "People have a natural right to own what they create" or "people have a natural right to be compensated for their labor." In reality, all "human nature" is is a cheap rationalization that basically amounts to "just because." When confronted with the fact that market economics does not work to their advantage (i.e. their ability to make a profit) in a particular situation, proponents of "intellectual property" must abandon the mechanisms of the market and instead invent some religion by which they can justify their need for statist coercion with their lassiez-faire rhetoric. Thus, "human nature" is not a rational argument or position but rather a convienient excuse.

Human beings are not naturally competitive, nor are they naturally non-competitive. Human beings simply adapt themselves to the conditions of the current situation. Trees, rocks, and water are naturally scarce, thus people compete over them. Digitized music and software are not naturally scarce, thus people do not compete over them. Human beings, however, simply are.

Whether or not the state should equalize wealth is a question that should be answered by an examination of empirical evidence (which system better distributes/redistributes limited resources?), but not by blind faith or religion ("just because").

This is why we have seen the emergence of file sharing networks of all kinds on the internet.So we can steal?

Doubtful. My uncle is a welder. My girlfriend's father is a welfare fraud investigator for the state... He has a better salary and better benefits.

And you know the salary and the savings of both of them? The amount of debt they've got running? I know that the traditional watch for the underwater welders in the area is a Rolex Submariner. Oh how poor.

The measure you are looking for would be fairly accurately represented by the median. And still you have not captured the real distribution.

:shrug: whatever.

But I am willing to cede the point that, in general, Americans are probably better off materially than their ancestors two hundred years ago. There are still two problems:

(1) No matter the average gains, the plight of the poorest cannot be justified against the wealth of the richest. It is possible to do better, and we should.

Lets take Bill Gates as the richest, and the guy begging for money on the street as the poorest. I can justify the difference myself.

(2) You still neglect to discuss the global impact of capitalism.

The global impact? Oh, you mean the rising standard of living of those people that work in factories compared to their standard of living before the factories came? It takes time for society to develope and it has to move through various stages at its own pace, ie the third world. But then a huge amount of the problems in the third world can be blamed on their own governments/dictatiors and civil wars.

Cleary I will not argue for pure captialism. Which is as I noted, what you are arguing against. But your viewpoint that everyone will compete in everything and provide enough for a good functioning society is flawed.

You mean to say that you don't believe that the extraordinary wealth of nations like the US, England or Canada isn't wasn't obtained through the exploitation of other countries?

I thought that was a moot point, and now I've found someone who claims complete ignorance of a well documented fact.
I'm not about to claim that no exploitation exists, but only that it's foolish to think that's the reason why the American quality of life has improved over the last 100 years.

Secondly, capitalism normally involves one million people working towards a common goal.

How so?

So we can steal?

In order to steal something, it must be property. Computer software cannot be considered property, as it exists in a state of intangible infinite supply. Thus, it cannot be stolen and the question "So we can steal?" is meaningless. By claiming that file sharing is "stealing," proponents of "intellectual property" are begging the question ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ) as they assume that software is property to begin with.


(That said, the state *does* consider software to be property, even if I believe the state to be wrong. Thus, those who do engage in file sharing of copyrighted material are likely to face prosecution.)

I didn't say "with regard to health, education and economic well-being." I said "equal."

Yes... and you were therefore attacking a strawman, because socialists mean equal with regard to health, education and economic well-being.

My point was that nobody is equal

And you are quite right about that. But no one in this discussion wants to pretend that they are, so it is a mystery to me why you are being so argumentative about it.

So by extension, your quest for "equality" is actually only the belief that everyone receives the same "nurturance" economically in society? With, of course, government as "mom and dad?"

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Neat, huh?

In my family, similar wages or rates did not make me "equal" to anybody else in my family.

Now you are playing dumb. Seriously, you know that similar wages are a kind of abstract equality. No, it doesn't make you as strong, or as tall, or as smart, or even as successful. It is still "equal treatment" in which there are no "favorites" who get special treatment. Can we get past this now, please? No one is arguing this point.

I agree, but it works the other way around - for example, for anarchists and socialists. Contradictions abound, not just in arguments but reality itself.

Yes, and I agreed with you. No one is pretending that any of us can be completely consistent... but if one puts any stock in rational argument at all, one assumes that more consistency is better than less. Thus it is our responsibility to find, to the best of our ability, as many inconsistencies as we can and make efforts to reconcile them. If we cannot agree on this, then we simply cannot have a meaningful discussion. It would be pointless.

Why? What need? Whats so wrong with wealth?

There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth. Indeed, as I assert over and over again in statements which you so stubbornly ignore, wealth is a good thing. (*gasp* Did a socialist say that?!) But as in so many other circumstances, there can be too much of a good thing. Also, some of us believe it would be nice if the good things (e.g. wealth) were more widely available than they are today.

I've read similar studies and from what I understood, that was true given a certain assurance of consistent, adequate pay,

Yes, a promise of socialism.

But actually, because things like time HAVE money values, couldn't you say that seeking more satisfactory hours *IS* pursuing wealth?

Maybe... although in a slightly skewed way, since you cannot accumulate time or use it to buy other things. But for the sake of argument, I cede the point. In fact, I'll do you one further: fulfillment and esteem are goods, too, and we could attach monetary values to them. But if we do that, then you have to admit that a socialist plan that offers more of such goods in place of less money suits the pursuit of "wealth" perfectly well. Your argument turns in on itself.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Limits to how much people can own? Caps? Quotas? Who decides what is necessary?

That is a political question. As a socialist, I mean only to turn people's attention to the fact that at some point the wealth gap becomes unhealthy, and the extreme wealth of a few has damaging consequences for society. It is up to the democracy to decide what the limits should be, and how they should be handled. I suspect that, like most political issues, opinion will change with time and circumstance.

Wealth IS status, and there exists a desire for nice things, and neither of those truths will go away because it is deemed unhealthy by you.

I never claimed they would go away; I certainly do not expect them to. Indeed, I never said that these desires are inherently unhealthy, but rather unhealthy in excess. However, they have proven to be variables over time and culture, which means that we can aim for lower (healthier) rather than higher (unhealthy) levels.

Well, no one decided one day, "power and wealth and material possession will all be linked." It's just a facet of civilization, just like selfish, greedy self-interest is a part of human nature. And I have massive amounts of skepticism towards people who want to change facets of civilization and core human nature.

Me too. But I also have massive amounts of skepticism toward people who insist that these facets are constants and not variables. If you want to discuss whether they are dependent or independent variables, that would at least be an interesting discussion; but to claim they simply show no variability is to ignore history and anthropology.

I'm not about to claim that no exploitation exists, but only that it's foolish to think that's the reason why the American quality of life has improved over the last 100 years.

So it may be a reason but not the reason. So, the industrialised nations relationships with (to take one example) oil producing nations isn't exploitive? We haven't encouraged and propped up friendly dictatorships throughout the Middle East in order to fuel our lifestyles?

In order to steal something, it must be property. Computer software cannot be considered property, as it exists in a state of intangible infinite supply. Thus, it cannot be stolen and the question "So we can steal?" is meaningless. By claiming that file sharing is "stealing," proponents of "intellectual property" are begging the question ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ) as they assume that software is property to begin with.


(That said, the state *does* consider software to be property, even if I believe the state to be wrong. Thus, those who do engage in file sharing of copyrighted material are likely to face prosecution.)It's property. It took me time to make it. Now I get to sell it. Just because there's lots of it, or you can copy it, doesn't mean you're not stealing. Look at intellectual property sometime.

It's property. It took me time to make it. Now I get to sell it. Just because there's lots of it, or you can copy it, doesn't mean you're not stealing. Look at intellectual property sometime.

Re-read my original post and you will find my refutation of the concept of intellectual property:

Anyone can come along and make and take as many copies as he pleases. But no matter how many copies he takes, the software still remains, and anyone else can take as many copies as they like, so on and so forth. Because of this special property, the supply of the software is for all practical purposes infinite. As such demand is very easily satisfied and plumets very quickly. Any good capitalist knows that infinite supply with next to no demand means a price of exactly 0.

What is the point of buying something if the price is 0?

Here is something that puzzles me:

Why is it that the very same capitalist apologists who insist that "human nature" is inherently competitive also complain that under conditions of ensured subsistence and managed equality, people will become terribly "lazy," having no motivation to excel?

(I do not exactly prefer communism, but I do sympathize with communists who have to deal with this kind of self-contradictory nonsense.)

You can't have it both ways. Either people have a natural urge to compete with one another (which I think they do), and deprived of monetary competition they will compete in some other way, such as for professional or personal esteem... or people are not "naturally" competitive.

I mean, seriously. How do we get high school sports teams to compete? How do we get scholars to compete? Hell, why do people bother to "compete" in games like Nationstates?

Monetary wealth is by no means the beginning and end of competitiveness. Capitalists, I applaud you for realizing that human beings are naturally competitive, and for understanding that a political/economic system can take advantage of this fact. But I have to shake my head when you suddenly turn your backs on this idea and pretend that if the government equalizes wealth, it will have so easily defeated "human nature."

Well, it's mostly a misunderstanding by both sides...

Humans are naturally competitive...

We are naturally hunter/gatherers... And love to hoard "possessions"...

Equality in the sense of socio-communism does not exist... It is a lie and self-deception.

When the principle of wealth, or rather, more accurantely, the system of possession... As in Communism... It defeats the human nature, because they no longer have a reason to be competitive in the human hunter/gatherer mentality... "Competitiveness" in the people becomes a baseless scam; because the only personnel capable of such, afterwards, is the Government itself, and the people running it... As such, equality is destroyed, and becomes a meaningless word, because the Politburo, or whatever other form of governmental authority becomes the fief over the countless serfs of the populace... The populace itself having no way to attain fiefdom... Communism, is in reality, nothing more than Feudalism revisited...

On the principle of equality... people are "equal" in rights alone... all bearing the same rights inherant to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness...

Socialists deny this, as do communists... They claim equality, and even lie about their "equalization of wealth..." mind you, while they claim this; at the same time members of their government grant gifts to other members of their government in the form of money and possessions... As such... they are all a bunch of liars, who form an strict feudalistic framework built upon idealogical and blood descent...

This is further prooven through the existing socialist and communist governments of the planet... None of which consider the people the "source and originator of all governmental power"... All of them consider the people tools and property of the state; to which certain liberties are a grant...

Re-read my original post and you will find my refutation of the concept of intellectual property.
Yeah, you said that people are just out to make a buck. That they want to own what they create. I still don't see where the train goes off the tracks, here. You DO get to own what you create. We have patents. And intellectual property rights. Because we need to. We should.

And you know the salary and the savings of both of them? The amount of debt they've got running?

As a matter of fact I do. My uncle has not children, and is leaving everything to me, his "godchild." For a variety of legal reasons, rather than making this a simple matter of his eventual will, everything is already in my name as well as his. My girlfriend is in the exact same position vis-a-vis her father. And we have had no problem making comparisons.

I know that the traditional watch for the underwater welders in the area is a Rolex Submariner. Oh how poor.

Yes, I know they make "good" money, although I am not entirely sure it reflects the relative desirability of their profession. Perhaps in this instance, however, it does. That would be great. My point is that you certainly cannot make the same claim for the majority of undesirable jobs under capitalism as we know it. How about janitors, for instance, or most food service workers?

Lets take Bill Gates as the richest, and the guy begging for money on the street as the poorest. I can justify the difference myself.

Okay... go ahead.

The global impact? Oh, you mean the rising standard of living of those people that work in factories compared to their standard of living before the factories came? It takes time for society to develope and it has to move through various stages at its own pace, ie the third world.

Capitalism requires vast economic inequality; it does not function without it. Those economies would not even be so far behind to begin with if they had not been initially decimated by capitalist or pre-capitalist (capital-building) imperialism. Don't you know your history?

But then a huge amount of the problems in the third world can be blamed on their own governments/dictatiors and civil wars.

Yes, and those governments, dictators, and civil wars can in large part be blamed on the poor economic straits of the post-colonial world.

Cleary I will not argue for pure captialism.

That is a relief.

Which is as I noted, what you are arguing against.

Maybe a little bit. :) And of course, I am not arguing for "pure" socialism, at least insofar as I believe, from a socialist perspective, that some industries belong in private hands. I am arguing, however, that the current capitalist/socialist "mix" should be moved decidedly in the direction of socialism.

But your viewpoint that everyone will compete in everything and provide enough for a good functioning society is flawed.

I never said people would compete in everything. That's just nonsense. And really, from the perspective of the individual, the world I am describing is not so different from the one in which he/she already lives. There are just more options for more people, and a smaller divide between rich and poor.

In order to steal something, it must be property. Computer software cannot be considered property, as it exists in a state of intangible infinite supply. Thus, it cannot be stolen and the question "So we can steal?" is meaningless. By claiming that file sharing is "stealing," proponents of "intellectual property" are begging the question ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ) as they assume that software is property to begin with.


(That said, the state *does* consider software to be property, even if I believe the state to be wrong. Thus, those who do engage in file sharing of copyrighted material are likely to face prosecution.)

Software is created through lots of work... Much coding and debugging...

It is as tangible as a "book" or a peice of music... It is the property of the one who created it...

It's the concept of service work... Let's say I work as a coder... Let's say I build server-side script web-sites for others... Well, others are going to either "hire" me, and have me code for them (and thus compensate me throug payment), or I will work on contract, developing the site and selling them the code and support (in which case they will compensate me by final and/or continual payments for my time and efforts)... In any case it's compensatory payment for services rendered...

Now, when you take a program, and use it, without compensating the author of the product; you are stealing from that author... Because you are USING his work without authorization or compensation... He has done much work, to which you are benefiting, and yet you lack the decency to pay the author of the work for his service TO YOU!... You are conceptually enslaving the author, and taking his work for your own benefit.

Well, it's mostly a misunderstanding by both sides...

No, capitalists really do say that. You can find them all over the boards saying it.

The rest of your post doesn't really respond to the question. But I will answer it anyway.

Humans are naturally competitive...

I agree, although I think they are also naturally cooperative.

Equality in the sense of socio-communism does not exist... It is a lie and self-deception.

All equality is a lie and a self-deception. Democratic and/or liberal societies just happen to find it to be a useful one.

It defeats the human nature, because they no longer have a reason to be competitive in the human hunter/gatherer mentality...

Fortunately, human psychology is much more complex than that. Actually, competition for "esteem" or honor is common to many primates, even the ones who do not hoard possessions. It may have something to do with getting better mates, but as with so many instincts it becomes sublimated into a socially useful desire in the human animal.


As such, equality is destroyed, and becomes a meaningless word, because the Politburo, or whatever other form of governmental authority becomes the fief over the countless serfs of the populace... The populace itself having no way to attain fiefdom... Communism, is in reality, nothing more than Feudalism revisited...

Can we say, "Democracy"? If there is government corruption, there is no reason to believe it should be any worse than the corruption in our own democratic government. (Admittedly, quite a problem... but not so destructive as to dismantle society.)

On the principle of equality... people are "equal" in rights alone...

Just as much of an invention as any other form of equality. The question is, "does it make sense to hold this assumption"? I would say yes to equality in rights... and I would include the right to basic nourishment, shelter, and education. Not because people "deserve" these things, but because it is a good thing to protect them as rights.

Yeah, you said that people are just out to make a buck.


Strawman.

I said that, in the case of computer software, the natural price demanded by the market via supply and demand (exactly 0) interferes with the ability to make a profit by selling software, thus an artificial mechanism is necessary in order to inflate the price. I care not that people want to make a profit (I am a capitalist after all), what I care about is these people's willingness to abandon capitalist lassez-faire ideals in order to achieve that profit.

Profit is good. Using the state to force me to pay a price that the market itself does not demand is not good.

You DO get to own what you create.

Only if what you create is tangible and scarce. If it is intangible and non-scarce, what's the point?

We have patents. And intellectual property rights.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition ). The simple existance or practice of something does not justify that existance or practice.


Because we need to. We should.

Simply because you say so? Thank you for proving my position. :D

I said that, in the case of computer software, the natural price demanded by the market via supply and demand (exactly 0) interferes with the ability to make a profit by selling software, thus an artificial mechanism is necessary in order to inflate the price. I care not that people want to make a profit (I am a capitalist after all), what I care about is these people's willingness to abandon capitalist lassez-faire ideals in order to achieve that profit.Oooookay. We're dealing with a Libertarian here. If you don't want to pay people for honest work and services rendered, okay. But don't make me out to be a commie when I say that stealing copies of software isn't cool. I can just as easily argue that stealing software or music 'artificially' increases the supply.

Also, you're thinking in terms of selling widgets. The laws of supply and demand work pretty good for selling widgets. They should work fine, if a little differently, in this case too if you would stop stealing stuff.

Profit is good. Using the state to force me to pay a price that the market itself does not demand is not good.Again with the market. Like I said, there are some things it sells well, others it doesn't.



Only if what you create is tangible and scarce. If it is intangible and non-scarce, what's the point?The point is essential to the idea of creation. You have created a product. You have the right to sell it without it being stolen from you. I'm not the one making copies.



Argumentum ad antiquitatem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition ). The simple existance or practice of something does not justify that existance or practice.Yes, what an antiquated belief in patents and intellectual property. What? We have to have patents. And intellectual property. Otherwise it all goes down the tubes, man.

Software is created through lots of work... Much coding and debugging...


Absolutely true.


It is as tangible as a "book" or a peice of music... It is the property of the one who created it...


Labor does not prove that the software is tangible, as "labor" and "software" are two completely different entities. Rather, labor proves that you are tangible, and being tangible means you are scarce. If your physical body is scarce, then the labor that it produces must also be scarce. Therefore you can sell your labor...


It's the concept of service work... Let's say I work as a coder... Let's say I build server-side script web-sites for others... Well, others are going to either "hire" me, and have me code for them (and thus compensate me throug payment), or I will work on contract, developing the site and selling them the code and support (in which case they will compensate me by final and/or continual payments for my time and efforts)... In any case it's compensatory payment for services rendered...


...which is exactly what you are doing in this hypothetical situation. You are not selling software, you are selling your labor. If you follow the information technology industry closely, you will find that many companies are moving towards exactly what you describe. Instead of selling software, these companies are selling services. They give away their software for free, but then sell technical support, maintenance, upgrades, etc. Just look at the Linux operating system. Anybody can get any number of copies of Linux off the internet for absolutely free. Yet companies like IBM, Red Hat, Sun, and many others are investing lots of money in Linux. These companies, by investing heavily in free software, and making a profit in the process, are simply proving that one doesn't need to sell software in order to make a profit and thus are disproving the need for "intellectual property."


He has done much work, to which you are benefiting, and yet you lack the decency to pay the author of the work for his service TO YOU!... You are conceptually enslaving the author, and taking his work for your own benefit.


This particular logical fallacy is not only an appeal to emotion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion ) but it is also a straw-man. All the non-open source software I use and all the music media I own are legally bought and paid for.

Oooookay. We're dealing with a Libertarian here.


An Argumentum Ad Hominem fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )

A potential Guilt by Association fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association )

Also a potential Poisoning The Well fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well )


If you don't want to pay people for honest work and services rendered, okay.


Straw-man, as explained in a post above ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7874495&postcount=70 )


I can just as easily argue that stealing software or music 'artificially' increases the supply.


Present your argument.


The point is essential to the idea of creation. You have created a product. You have the right to sell it without it being stolen from you. I'm not the one making copies.


a) I have created software
b) ?
c) therefore, I have a right to sell software.

fill in b) for me, please.


Yes, what an antiquated belief in patents and intellectual property. What? We have to have patents. And intellectual property. Otherwise it all goes down the tubes, man.

Appeal To Fear fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear )

An Argumentum Ad Hominem fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )

A potential Guilt by Association fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association )

Also a potential Poisoning The Well fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well )



Straw-man, as explained in a post above ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7874495&postcount=70 )



Present your argument.



a) I have created software
b) ?
c) therefore, I have a right to sell software.

fill in b) for me, please.



Appeal To Fear fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear )
Your arguments might be considered more seriously if you weren't continuously referring to wikipedia as your unimpeachable source. And you can argue all you want, the law says it is illegal to make copies of software someone else created without their permission. So, if you do, you are committing a criminal act. Whether you think it's right or not.

Your arguments might be considered more seriously if you weren't continuously referring to wikipedia as your unimpeachable source. not.
Heh, wanna help me write an "appeal to wikipedia" entry for wikipedias logical fallacy section ? :D

Anywho, I see that there are a lot of long arguments here that I am too lazy to read, so here's my take on why capitalism works the way it does.

People aren't so much competative as they are lazy and greedy. The extent of each various among individuals and cultures. Me, I'm pretty lazy (see above), but I have almost no greed. Capitalism works because it encourages people to get up off their lazy butts and do something, if for no other reason than being able to eat. If a person comes up with a product that is good for society, society rewards them by paying them well for it, and we all benifit.

Other economic systems don't work so well because they force artificial rules on top of the market. This will stifle growth and innovation.

Capitalism is also the most humanitarian of the systems. You might object to that because it creates no obligation to the poor and downtrodden. This is true. However, capitalism has allowed overall prosperity unheard of in human histroy up to this point. This then allows people to spread the extra wealth around, instead of worrying about feeding themselves. "But this doesn't happen," you might say. True, that often doesn't happen. But that's the point. First of all, it reinforces one of my above points: people are greedy. Second, people must be free to support people and organizations that actually help. Creating a government monopoly on charity (or even government funded charity, for that matter) gets rid of the competition which will allow the best organizations to rise to the top, and the rest will die off. Charity MUST be voluntary, or else it defeats the purpose. It is up to us to use the system ethically, not the system itself.

Heh, wanna help me write an "appeal to wikipedia" entry for wikipedias logical fallacy section ? :D
I don't know, I might be accused of
"A potential Guilt by Association fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association ) " :)

Labor does not prove that the software is tangible, as "labor" and "software" are two completely different entities. Rather, labor proves that you are tangible, and being tangible means you are scarce. If your physical body is scarce, then the labor that it produces must also be scarce. Therefore you can sell your labor...

The software is tangible... It exists as code, which can be hard copied onto medium for transfer, or sold as data over the internet, from a pay to download location.


...which is exactly what you are doing in this hypothetical situation. You are not selling software, you are selling your labor. If you follow the information technology industry closely, you will find that many companies are moving towards exactly what you describe. Instead of selling software, these companies are selling services. They give away their software for free, but then sell technical support, maintenance, upgrades, etc. Just look at the Linux operating system. Anybody can get any number of copies of Linux off the internet for absolutely free. Yet companies like IBM, Red Hat, Sun, and many others are investing lots of money in Linux. These companies, by investing heavily in free software, and making a profit in the process, are simply proving that one doesn't need to sell software in order to make a profit and thus are disproving the need for "intellectual property."

Wrong, I sell the code to them, and provide contractual support, either by fee or per contract, depending on the work done.

As for your example... IBM, and Sun all make software FOR linux which they SELL to linux users... They invest in Linux (which they do not own) to turn profit on software sales FOR linux which they do own.


This particular logical fallacy is not only an appeal to emotion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion ) but it is also a straw-man. All the non-open source software I use and all the music media I own are legally bought and paid for.

Yes, you own the media, and payed for the code to the author... However, if you download that code, or recieve it for free (where as it is not distributed for free by the author), then you are commiting an act of theft.

The concept of software as intellectual property was a logical extension of writtings and music as intellectual property.

It is not a straw man, because "use of the product without the expressed permission of the author" either by EULA or payment is effectively stealing the authors work, and enslaving them... Open Source does not nullify this, because the AUTHOR, which is effectively GNU by the EULA (The GPL is a EULA), expressly gives the permission to use it.

Your arguments might be considered more seriously if you weren't continuously referring to wikipedia as your unimpeachable source.


The links to Wikipedia are provided only so people can find a definition of a particular logical fallacy. The links are not provided to prove that my accusations of fallacy are correct (indeed, use the material at Wikipedia to show me that I am wrong!), or even that my own position is correct. My accusations of fallacy or my position could very well be wrong. If you believe so, please tell me why. :D

Plus, refering to Wikipedia many times does not mean that I consider Wikipedia an "unimpeachable source," it only means that Wikipedia happens to have a very large section on logical fallacies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy#A_list_of_fallacies ). Thus, straw-man. :)


And you can argue all you want, the law says it is illegal to make copies of software someone else created without their permission. So, if you do, you are committing a criminal act. Whether you think it's right or not.

A fact that I completely and totally acknowledge here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7874397&postcount=58

(That said, the state *does* consider software to be property, even if I believe the state to be wrong. Thus, those who do engage in file sharing of copyrighted material are likely to face prosecution.)

This fact, however, does not prove that the state is correct (such would be a genetic fallacy/appeal to authority fallacy), nor does acknowledging the fact mean that I cannot argue that the state is wrong.

Anywho, I see that there are a lot of long arguments here that I am too lazy to read, so here's my take on why capitalism works the way it does.

People aren't so much competative as they are lazy and greedy. The extent of each various among individuals and cultures. Me, I'm pretty lazy (see above), but I have almost no greed. Capitalism works because it encourages people to get up off their lazy butts and do something, if for no other reason than being able to eat. If a person comes up with a product that is good for society, society rewards them by paying them well for it, and we all benifit.

Other economic systems don't work so well because they force artificial rules on top of the market. This will stifle growth and innovation.

Capitalism is also the most humanitarian of the systems. You might object to that because it creates no obligation to the poor and downtrodden. This is true. However, capitalism has allowed overall prosperity unheard of in human histroy up to this point. This then allows people to spread the extra wealth around, instead of worrying about feeding themselves. "But this doesn't happen," you might say. True, that often doesn't happen. But that's the point. First of all, it reinforces one of my above points: people are greedy. Second, people must be free to support people and organizations that actually help. Creating a government monopoly on charity (or even government funded charity, for that matter) gets rid of the competition which will allow the best organizations to rise to the top, and the rest will die off. Charity MUST be voluntary, or else it defeats the purpose. It is up to us to use the system ethically, not the system itself.

I can't agree with all of this, i don't think that we are inherently greedy, in a good capitalist country the insentive to work is to get paid a little more so you can live a little easier, but the problem is that in every capitalist country in the world right has wages either too high or too low for everyone to want to work for the betterment of their situation. If it is too high then the person will loose insentive and sit on the job instead of trying to achieve a higher place in the food chain. If the money for the job is too low (minimum wage) then there is so much competition that people will practically gun eachother down for a premotion. Which puts everyone who doesn't get the premotion even further down the hole, and even more desparate. Charity should be voluntary, by voting on whether or not a certain amount of our tax dollars should be spent on a certain foundaition. It is up to us to use the system ethically, but we won't. because we are greedy, but we didn't start out that way.

A)I created a piece of software.
B)Creation involves time and work.
C)People are paid for the work they create.
D)Therefore I have the right to sell my software to pay for the work it takes to create it....


And as a disclaimer, not all Libertarians are averse to the principle of IP.

I am a libertarian and an ardent supporter of IP. In fact, MOST if LP's are IP supporters (some disagree with the concept of Patent and Copywrite, and preffer rather to exist in contract law; of which I am one of those).

So here's my take on the software ownership issue.

The most valuable commodity for people is time. Ultimately, that is what we pay for in every transaction. Even when paying someone to mine coal, all you are paying him for is the time it takes to mine it, as the earth does not charge you to pull it out. So, it takes time to create software. A person should be paid for the use of their time. Getting rid of this pay will remove the incentive to write software, as few people in this world are driven strickly by altruism (see my above post for my explaination of capitalism in general). Granted, multiple copies of a piece of software can be made for free once it is written, but that again takes time, whether to copy to disk or download, so see above argument.

As an analogy, let's consider books. Up until recently, books could only be found on paper, or some similar medium, so we could argue that we are just buying paper and ink. But now we can upload them all to the internet, so should we stop paying for books? No, we should not because this will kill the incentive for people to write. What is valuable is not the medium that we use, but the information that it conveys. Afterall, I could go down to OfficeMax and get enough paper and ink to print myself a copy of my favorite book, but it would be nearly worthless compared to the book itself.

So here's my take on the software ownership issue.

The most valuable commodity for people is time. Ultimately, that is what we pay for in every transaction. Even when paying someone to mine coal, all you are paying him for is the time it takes to mine it, as the earth does not charge you to pull it out. So, it takes time to create software. A person should be paid for the use of their time. Getting rid of this pay will remove the incentive to write software, as few people in this world are driven strickly by altruism (see my above post for my explaination of capitalism in general). Granted, multiple copies of a piece of software can be made for free once it is written, but that again takes time, whether to copy to disk or download, so see above argument.

As an analogy, let's consider books. Up until recently, books could only be found on paper, or some similar medium, so we could argue that we are just buying paper and ink. But now we can upload them all to the internet, so should we stop paying for books? No, we should not because this will kill the incentive for people to write. What is valuable is not the medium that we use, but the information that it conveys. Afterall, I could go down to OfficeMax and get enough paper and ink to print myself a copy of my favorite book, but it would be nearly worthless compared to the book itself.But how can we stop people from telling stories they've read in a book without seriously limiting freedom of speech?

Again, it also lays in principle of construction...

There are sights which took me months to develope, debug and code; merely from the sheer size and function of the site...

Other friends, selling software also spend months coding and debugging before marketing their final product...

Now in the case of sights, my compensation is direct... That is the contractee completely compensates my hours in one bulk sum (or over stages) in finality at delivery.

Bulk software developers, have to spread this cost out per medium of sale... As such, no single person is paying for the complete compensation of the author's time... but rather only small snippets of it...

In much it is similar... All of the initial work is done by "investment of time" of the author, with final compensation either in full or in increments in the end...

Incurred profits allow for the author to live in more invested time in more future development of products in the future...

Now, were the principle of IP to be completely abandoned... Actual work would be cease... Why should I spend 3 months on a online store's website if I will not get payed for all that work?

If I spent 8 months building and developing a particuarly usefull application, why should someone else be allowed to only pay 20-30 bucks for a copy of that work and then distribute it for free? (what, was my time in development only worth $0.10 a day? I wouldn't be able to survive as a developer for long on that...

IP is neccessary... ESPECIALLY when it takes little to no effort to copy the work and handed it to someone else at little to no work...

IP ensures that I recieve compensation for my work...

Let me pay more taxes and have information for free (as in free speech and as in free beer).

It is noticeable while looking at these threads, which i assume are mainly from the US, that there is quite a narrow conception of the political and social arena of human relations. There seems to be an urge to justisy human nature as selfish and competitive in order rebuke what you perceive as the ills of failed socialism. To this end i agree- nothing went as badly wrong as the experience of the Soviet Union.
However, i think the point about Communism is that it is not an alternative to capitalism, in fact most Marxists (like myself) do not hav any contradictory problem with captialism as a productive system, and certainly one that is the most efficient for the material development of humankind. Hence, true Marxists would not endorse Communist regimes of the past or be anti-capitalist; what would be the point. What we truly seek is to uncover the dynamic of history via the naturalisation of concepts that we take for granted, such as the nation-state and the assumptions regarding human selfishness. History reveals that human nature is not particularly directed in any direction except to live- whether some believe that that involves selfishness or co-operation is largely irrelevant. The only real truth is that humanity always develops, and alwyas seeks to acquire knowledge. As Plato believed, those who enquire or wonder are conscious of their own ignorance. What criticism directed at capitalism involves is simply this; that at advanced stages of captialist production, the political and social control required to maintain the surplus extraction of capital (which can be either through western democratic frameworks or despot governments; the US and UK have supported both), ebbs away at the human creative intelligence as learning becomes a means to an end, i.e, to support the functioning of the capitalist economy.
This is by no means a bad thing- for technological improvement only occurs through material progress, and it is technoloigcal improvement that will finally relieve humankind of the need to 'work' (as a very general term), and deliver a safe permanent (i.e., renewable and never-ending) energy source that will releive the need for control of resources. Only at this point will be necessary for a social-political change from captialism, by which time i think even terms such as 'social' and 'political' will be unrecognisable from today, and the debates between capitalism vs socialism and human nature will pass into the annals of history. So Dr Fukuyama might have been a bit early to pronounce the end of history.

Spatial and Temporal Horizons.

The software is tangible... It exists as code, which can be hard copied onto medium for transfer,


The paper is tangible and scarce, and thus can be bought and sold of course. If you want to sell books, then go for it. It's interesting that you mention hard copies, actually, as the practice of lending out books to friends is extremely common. When I lend a book to a friend, the friend can consume the contents of the book without paying the original author. It would seem that even in the realm of hard copy, a sort of natural file sharing is also very common. By lending a book, or even just giving it away for free, am I violating the rights of the original author?

Regardless of what one does with paper, when the software is in digital form, contained within the intangible realm of cyberspace, it is intangible and non-scarce. The fact that you can arrange dots on a piece of paper in a certain way does not change this. :)


or sold as data over the internet, from a pay to download location.


Ah, but am I selling data, or am I selling access to my computer system (tangible and scarce)? You could argue that if not permited to sell the data itself, you would be unable to sell access as people could just go elsewhere for free. Or would people value the ability to access data directly from you, as an assurance of quality and completeness, thus paying you for access even if the same data is available elsewhere for free?

This would explain why people continue to buy Linux or *BSD in stores even though both are available completely free on the internet.


Wrong, I sell the code to them, and provide contractual support, either by fee or per contract, depending on the work done.


And the only reason you can sell them the code now is because "intellectual property" already exists. Sounds like a circular argument to me.


Yes, you own the media, and payed for the code to the author... However, if you download that code, or recieve it for free (where as it is not distributed for free by the author), then you are commiting an act of theft.


I am commiting theft only because you assume software to be property to begin with. The only argument that I have seen so far as to why one should own software is so that one can sell it. This is not a sufficient justification, as money can be made in writing, supporting, upgrading, maintaining software, without actually selling software.


The concept of software as intellectual property was a logical extension of writtings and music as intellectual property.


But that logical extention only works if you can prove that intellectual property for literature and music is also justified. Citing the existance of intellectual property for literature and music is not good enough (genetic fallacy). :)

I await such a proof.


It is not a straw man, because "use of the product without the expressed permission of the author" either by EULA or payment is effectively stealing the authors work, and enslaving them...


Only if one assumes ahead of time that EULA's or payments can be rightfully applied. The fact that this is already common practice is not proof.

a) I created a piece of software.
b) ?
c) therefore, I own the software.

I am more than willing to be convinced, if someone fills in b).


Open Source does not nullify this, because the AUTHOR, which is effectively GNU by the EULA (The GPL is a EULA), expressly gives the permission to use it.


It is absolutely correct that licenses like the GPL (and even other far less restrictive licenses like the BSD or MIT licenses) rely on copyright and intellectual property in general in order to function and have force. The purpose of Free/Open-Source licenses, however, is to bestow rights onto the end user that would otherwise be denied by straight copyright law. The Free/Open-Source licenses allow people to redistribute as many copies as they want for free. In this case, copyright is being used as a defensive measure, in order to make sure that the software continues to be distribued in as many copies as wanted for free. This is a practical matter of operating in a less than ideal environment, and is not hypocritical nor proof that intellectual property is needed or just.

A)I created a piece of software.
B)Creation involves time and work.
C)People are paid for the work they create.
D)Therefore I have the right to sell my software to pay for the work it takes to create it....


This explaination fails between C) and D). C) is not always true (slavery, if I willingly reject payment, etc) and C) does not show that I can sell software, as it is completely possible to be compensated for my labor on free software.

if anything:

a) I created a piece of software
b) creation involves labor
c) labor is produced by my body
d) my body is a tangible limited resource
e) people compete over tangible limited resources
f) people win the competition via payment
g) therefore, people pay for bodies and the labor those bodies produce.

The only thing proven is that people can be compensated for labor. Really, your argument fails when you equate "labor" with "product of labor." This equation is false. If it was true, then every employee of a given company would have to own 100% of his company. Chaos ensues. :)


I am a libertarian and an ardent supporter of IP. In fact, MOST if LP's are IP supporters (some disagree with the concept of Patent and Copywrite, and preffer rather to exist in contract law; of which I am one of those)


The contract law idea is full of holes. What is to be done about third-parties who are not included in the contract? I can agree with you that I will not give away copies of a book, but in that case, I am the only one who is restrained. Someone else can make a copy of the book (perhaps when he borrows or steals it from me) and there is nothing you can do about it because this third party never signed an agreement with you. What good is even contract law "IP" then?

We could attach EULA's to everything, stating that by using this book you agree to not distribute copies, etc. But such an "agreement" is only a tacit one, not strong at all. In such a case, the book is the only witness to my agreement/disagreement. All I have to say is "I never agreed!" and who is to say otherwise?

The only way you can possibly stop everyone from copying a book or software is to implement "IP" via the state in the form of involuntary law. In such a case, the distribution of ideas in books and of software for profit ultimately relies on the coersion of the state, and not on natural market processes. This would seem to me to blow a rather large hole in Libertarian economic theory. Which, as a libertarian, distresses me greatly.

I can't agree with all of this, i don't think that we are inherently greedy, in a good capitalist country the insentive to work is to get paid a little more so you can live a little easier, but the problem is that in every capitalist country in the world right has wages either too high or too low for everyone to want to work for the betterment of their situation. If it is too high then the person will loose insentive and sit on the job instead of trying to achieve a higher place in the food chain. If the money for the job is too low (minimum wage) then there is so much competition that people will practically gun eachother down for a premotion. Which puts everyone who doesn't get the premotion even further down the hole, and even more desparate. Charity should be voluntary, by voting on whether or not a certain amount of our tax dollars should be spent on a certain foundaition. It is up to us to use the system ethically, but we won't. because we are greedy, but we didn't start out that way.

As for people being greedy, I think that we have a fundemental difference of opinion, and I have nearly zero chance of convincing you to change, and visa versa.

Right, wages are often too high or too low. But the market will move to compensate for it. It's like constantly changing your thermostat. The tempurature in your house will never be exactly what you set it to, but it will always be getting closer. Other economic systems set limits either on how fast the tempurature will change or the limits to which it can go, and don't work as well.

It's interesting that you bring up minimum wage as an example. This is a great example of an artificial limit on the economy. We use it because we don't think that the market is paying people enough. But then the law of unintended consequences comes in. People have more money from their jobs, so they can spend more, so prices rise to hit equilibrim again, which is inflation. So then we peg the minimum wage to inflation, and we have a vicious circle. I could say the same sort of thing about minimum wage causing unemployment, but it's late, and I'm getting lazy again.

On the charity, you missed my point. Charity must be COMPLETELY voluntary, so no voting on where the government spends our money. This just adds another level of bureaucracy and wastes money. It also limits our choices where to put our money to the official government approved list, and hence limits the competition.

So then you say that we won't use the system ethically because we're greedy? So then you're correcting yourself above when you said we weren't? But you said that we didn't start out greedy. Then where did we get it? And don't give met he old "corporations are evil" script. People have been greedy far outside of the scope of corporations, both in space and time. I have heard many stories about people going to China or the Third World and come back talking about the rampant materialism. This is in places far removed from a capitalistic system.

Please also note, when I say greedy, I'm not just talking about money. People can also be greedy for power and other things, too. They just use money to get them.

The paper is tangible and scarce, and thus can be bought and sold of course. If you want to sell books, then go for it. It's interesting that you mention hard copies, actually, as the practice of lending out books to friends is extremely common. When I lend a book to a friend, the friend can consume the contents of the book without paying the original author. It would seem that even in the realm of hard copy, a sort of natural file sharing is also very common. By lending a book, or even just giving it away for free, am I violating the rights of the original author?

When you lend someone the book, you do not, because the book is payed for... However, when digitally copying the book, and sending it to someone, or copying a piece of software and sending it to someone is not "lending"... You have duplicated the authors work, and given someone else additional usage of his services without compensation.


Regardless of what one does with paper, when the software is in digital form, contained within the intangible realm of cyberspace, it is intangible and non-scarce. The fact that you can arrange dots on a piece of paper in a certain way does not change this. :)

It is scarse, in the fact that the WORK was development of the code, to which I do not get compensated for. IT IS THEFT... Whether you want to believe it or not... It is THEFT purely from ETHICAL principles... IP EXISTS BECAUSE OF ETHICS... Because you are PROVIDING the services of another FOR FREE without THEIR consent...


Ah, but am I selling data, or am I selling access to my computer system (tangible and scarce)? You could argue that if not permited to sell the data itself, you would be unable to sell access as people could just go elsewhere for free. Or would people value the ability to access data directly from you, as an assurance of quality and completeness, thus paying you for access even if the same data is available elsewhere for free?

Once again, this is not about access... A product is sold to emburse the author of the code... Most applications are distributed in hard form, because not all consumers have access to high speed connections to download large software packages from exclusive online sources... Now it is through the incremental profits of those sales, where the author is re-embursed for the work they did in development. Now, if you buy a CD, and then give the CD to someone else... That is nothing more than transfew of property... Now, if you COPY that CD, and give a copy to someone else, you just to a segment of the author's original payment, in giving someone an application to which you had no rights to distribute... Another matter of ETHICS... something you appearantly don't understand...


This would explain why people continue to buy Linux or *BSD in stores even though both are available completely free on the internet.


Actually, the reason they buy it is because #1) They get support for it, #2) They can't download it because of a slow connection (Linux distros of the commercial variety take up about 2GB's worth of data presently) and #3) They get actual documentation...


And the only reason you can sell them the code now is because "intellectual property" already exists. Sounds like a circular argument to me.

I can sell them code, because the CODE IS MY WORK, and thus a service to them... You keep trying to disconnect the code from the service... There is no disconnection... that is where the ethics of it kick in... THE CODE IS MY WORK, and I OWN MY WORK, and CAN SELL MY WORK... Which you can slip into your failed ad absurdum you keep posting...

What you claim, is that AFTER COMPLETING MY WORK, in the case of what is presently known as IP, that MY WORK BECOMES PUBLIC PROPERTY... As such, you are prooving yourself quite the little Communist.


I am commiting theft only because you assume software to be property to begin with. The only argument that I have seen so far as to why one should own software is so that one can sell it. This is not a sufficient justification, as money can be made in writing, supporting, upgrading, maintaining software, without actually selling software.

The software is PROPERTY, because the software IS WORK... WORK is property... Unless you claim that all work is public domain? And that no one should be re-embursed for anything they do... Once again, trying to seperate the two concepts... You're a member of the French Libertaire aren't you?


But that logical extention only works if you can prove that intellectual property for literature and music is also justified. Citing the existance of intellectual property for literature and music is not good enough (genetic fallacy). :)

Is the "literature" and "music" the work of another?

Do people own the work they do?

Do people have rights to sell work to service others?

If you answered yes to all of the above... Interlectual Property, IS PROPERTY.


I await such a proof.


I've given it to you... You just keep wanting to disconnect the "work" and the "object"... there is no disconnection between the two...


Only if one assumes ahead of time that EULA's or payments can be rightfully applied. The fact that this is already common practice is not proof.


It's common practice because it is ethical... My Marxist friend.


a) I created a piece of software.
b) ?
c) therefore, I own the software.

I am more than willing to be convinced, if someone fills in b).

A)I worked to create a piece of software
B)My work is marketable to others as a possession of mine
C)Therefore, WORK being a POSSESSION, and the SOFTWARE being my WORK.... THE SOFTWARE is my POSSESSION


It is absolutely correct that licenses like the GPL (and even other far less restrictive licenses like the BSD or MIT licenses) rely on copyright and intellectual property in general in order to function and have force. The purpose of Free/Open-Source licenses, however, is to bestow rights onto the end user that would otherwise be denied by straight copyright law. The Free/Open-Source licenses allow people to redistribute as many copies as they want for free. In this case, copyright is being used as a defensive measure, in order to make sure that the software continues to be distribued in as many copies as wanted for free. This is a practical matter of operating in a less than ideal environment, and is not hypocritical nor proof that intellectual property is needed or just.

Actually the GNU is perfect proof of hypocritical development... Since the entire system is run by people who work developing IP which is soldelsewhere... While running the GNU as a virtual non-profit organization..

It's a nice idea... But if the system worked completely like GNU does... the GNU would cease to exist and collapse from non-development and lack of funds... since all of the owners would be out of work and starving... GNU exists purely because other IP endeavours function... It's kinda a bad example of the system working, and in fact a straw man, because it fails to deal in complete reality.

IP ensures that I recieve compensation for my work...


If the state should ensure that you recieve compensation for your work, does that mean you believe you deserve compensation for your work?

If so, then why?

You've described yourself as a libertarian. Well, many believe that all people deserve healthcare, thus the state must ensure that all people have healthcare. Libertarians will reject this idea, prefering that the free market determine who gets healthcare ("We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the State. We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care" -- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#healcare)

If the state cannot actively ensure that people recieve healthcare, why can the state actively ensure that people get compensation for their labor?

Instead of relying on the state to force compensation, it would seem more libertarian to rely on the free market to determine who gets compensation. This is what I argue the free market is attempting to do with software. The fact that a piece of software can be copied over and over without ever running out means that it is in infinite supply. Infinite supply can answer all demand, thus demand is essentially non-existant. Therefore, according to supply and demand, the basic mechanism of the market, the price for software is 0. Behold, the free market has spoken! You do NOT deserve compensation for your software.

Oh, well, then countless programmers will go hungry and die. Well, many people cannot afford healthcare and so die; libertarians say "that's the free market." So I say to starving programmers..."that's the free market."

The only thing proven is that people can be compensated for labor. Really, your argument fails when you equate "labor" with "product of labor." This equation is false. If it was true, then every employee of a given company would have to own 100% of his company. Chaos ensues. :)

No, there is no difference between labor and product of labor... Your delineation is one of artificial construct... Labor is a work, the work I do I own, and I am capable of either selling or giving my work to others... (Most people choose to sell, because "giving it away" would eventually lead to you starving to death)


The contract law idea is full of holes. What is to be done about third-parties who are not included in the contract? I can agree with you that I will not give away copies of a book, but in that case, I am the only one who is restrained. Someone else can make a copy of the book (perhaps when he borrows or steals it from me) and there is nothing you can do about it because this third party never signed an agreement with you. What good is even contract law "IP" then?

No, contract law can lead to me suing YOU... Once again, depends on the contract... By copying my work, and giving it away, you have provided my work to someone elses ownership without compensation... Once again, this exists in the concept of ETHICS... an area you appearantly don't believe in...


We could attach EULA's to everything, stating that by using this book you agree to not distribute copies, etc. But such an "agreement" is only a tacit one, not strong at all. In such a case, the book is the only witness to my agreement/disagreement. All I have to say is "I never agreed!" and who is to say otherwise?

Establishment of a EULA at initial purchase equates to direct legal agreement... You can "say" it all you want... You will loose in court, because you in fact DID agree, and your "disagreement" is due to you lying... As such, you would then, not only lose, but be held in contempt of court as well and jailed...


The only way you can possibly stop everyone from copying a book or software is to implement "IP" via the state in the form of involuntary law. In such a case, the distribution of ideas in books and of software for profit ultimately relies on the coersion of the state, and not on natural market processes. This would seem to me to blow a rather large hole in Libertarian economic theory. Which, as a libertarian, distresses me greatly.

Bullshit... You're not libertarian, the entirety of your group is not libertarian (you're bullshit artists). In fact, this area is the single reason for the states very existance under the principles of Libertine operation... That is the arbitration between the sovereign rights of people... My right to be compensated for work rended to someone else is a product of my fundamental rights... If those rights are denied, then I can take it before the state to arbitrate the matter... It is the responsibility of the state to protect my rights... And that is the only true responsibility of the state...

Once again....

I Spend months developing code... that is WORKING ON CODE...

I then turn around and MARKET THIS PRODUCT OF MY WORK, that is THE PROGRAM, which is A PRODUCT (You goddamn retarded bastard) of my WORK... Being the WORKER, I can SELL MY WORK to others...

What you demand, is that I provide my work to people for free... Because my product isn't made up of hard materials...

I have this much to say....

1375 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA. 23220....

Be there... When you come, I'll be waiting with my employees at my door to fucking beat the living crap out of your lame retarded ass...

It's common practice because it is ethical... My Marxist friend.


And the name calling begins...

Capitalism requires vast economic inequality; it does not function without it. Those economies would not even be so far behind to begin with if they had not been initially decimated by capitalist or pre-capitalist (capital-building) imperialism. Don't you know your history?


I think your second point is debatable. The question of how developed former colonial states would be now had they not been colonised is a hypothetical that is very difficult to answer concretely. Certainly, they would not have developed much without some form of access to the more advanced technology of the European nations, and any such access would almost certainly involve some form of exploitation.

I have this much to say....

1375 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA. 23220....

Be there... When you come, I'll be waiting with my employees at my door to fucking beat the living crap out of your lame retarded ass...


If reason fails, there is always violence...

Marx and his ilk argued that capitalism requires violence and war to perpetuate itself. Was he right then?

Instead of relying on the state to force compensation, it would seem more libertarian to rely on the free market to determine who gets compensation. This is what I argue the free market is attempting to do with software. The fact that a piece of software can be copied over and over without ever running out means that it is in infinite supply. Infinite supply can answer all demand, thus demand is essentially non-existant. Therefore, according to supply and demand, the basic mechanism of the market, the price for software is 0. Behold, the free market has spoken! You do NOT deserve compensation for your software.


The problem here is that whilst this argument may hold true for any one piece of IP it does not hold true for the class as a whole. In the face of widespread copying of pieces of intellectual property the supply dwindles to near 0, exactly 0 for complex, labour intensive pieces of IP, since there is no longer any tangible incentive for creation.

Arguing on a resource basis is faulty because innovation is not a resource and does not operate according to the rules of resources. Once created a product of innovation can be freely replicated, that is granted. However, the product relies on certain incentives in order to be created in the first place. A product of the mind cannot be equated to coal; the means of production are too dissimilar.

Besides, you haven't adequately answered the question of theft. You may use free market based arguments to justify it, although take note of what I said above, however, the same could be said for theft of property. In a wholly free market property theft would be permitted and stolen goods given a market value accordingly. To many, however, such a scenario would be neither ethically nor pragmatically desirable, which testifies to the limits of the free market in the eyes of most. If you wish to advocate such a scenario then that's fine, do not be surprised if it somewhat lacks persuasive force, however.

And Tekania, I respect your intellect and debating ability, I've read some fascinating posts of yours, but you need to calm down here. I understand you have deep feelings about this subject, we all have subjects we feel passionate about, but there's a line between passionate debate and offensive flaming. And suggesting physical violence is a long way past that line. It might be best to just drop this discussion now.

Wow Bad blood.

Unfortunately it's true that Software is always very easily duplicated. Even if all measures are taken.

But to disregard intellectual property, and just count the human labour factor is also bad IMO. A creators work is different than a laborous/mindless job. Hence we pay managers more than workers.

To me, the best economy is finding a perfect balance and take the good between Capitalism and socialism.

Besides, you haven't adequately answered the question of theft. You may use free market based arguments to justify it, although take note of what I said above, however, the same could be said for theft of property. In a wholly free market property theft would be permitted and stolen goods given a market value accordingly. To many, however, such a scenario would be neither ethically nor pragmatically desirable, which testifies to the limits of the free market in the eyes of most. If you wish to advocate such a scenario then that's fine, do not be surprised if it somewhat lacks persuasive force, however.


In the case of real tangible property, people would be right to reject such a scenario. The reason why we have the concept of property for real tangible items is because real tangible items are scarce, they are in limited supply. This situation is harmful to our existance, as there is always the threat that an individual will not have enough resources to survive. Thus we invent a system by which we can be peacefully secure in our limited resources: property. You can own a loaf of bread, because if I steal and eat it, I have deprived you of it's use forever, and have thus placed your existance in jeopardy. Obviously, I do not desire to have my own existance threatened in this way, so of course I support wholeheartedly the institution of private property in real tangible items.

But ultimately the concept of property is not based on a right from creation or a right from labor, but on the reality of a limited supply. If a supply of something is not limited, then my unregulated consumption of it does not threaten anyone else's ability to consume it. An individual piece of software cannot simply run out, as it can be perfectly copied over and over and still exist; it cannot be consumed out of existance. As such I cannot deny anyone else its use, no matter how hard it try. I such I fail to see why a rationing and control mechanism, like private property, is necessary in this case.

So I answer the question of theft by saying that the concept of theft requires that the item being stolen be property. In the case of software, consumption does not need to be regulated, so I fail to see how the concept of property applies. If the concept of property does not apply, then is theft really occuring at all?

Just wait until someone invents the matter replicator... :o

But how can we stop people from telling stories they've read in a book without seriously limiting freedom of speech?

You can't stop people from telling stories they've heard, but you can stop them from telling stories they've heard for profit. By purchasing a book you purchase a number of rights along with it, including the right to retell the story as long as you aren't retelling it for profit.

First of all, I presume democracy, which means everyone has a say in determining the collective ends of society.

How do you maintain a healthy, fair democracy when the people have no economic power?

Secondly, individual ends are no more restricted in market socialism than they are under capitalism. Indeed, there is much greater freedom in individual ends. One can choose to compete in any career one wants; one can choose to further one's education; one can choose a career that pays well, or one can choose a career that is personally fulfilling (for whatever end). One can choose to be a small entrepreneur, or one can choose to compete for management positions in the larger government firms.

Why do we not just stick with regulated capitalism then? I assume you are thinking that the government will redistribute opportunity, but tell me how you will ensure that everyone will be afforded an equal opportunity, since there will be most likely be a smaller amount of employment, and a larger work force. If the government decides who receives jobs, would it not follow that people that are friendly with the government will recieves jobs? How do you manage to protect those without power in this situation?

While it is true that one cannot choose to be a big-time capitalist entrepreneur, this choice is only limited because it is found to be harmful to other individuals or society as a whole... and every political theory assumes that it is justifiable to limit choices when they are detrimental to others.

Where is it found? The CEO's main duty is to improve the value of the stock, which is public ownership, and another duty is to maintain the quality and lifestyle of the workforce. If you want to talk about corporate corruption, then we can get into crime and the SEC, but that would be present under your system, as well.

The main problem I have with your system is that it is exactly the same as capitalism, with the government deciding who the workforce is, instead of the corporation. All that does is propagate the present class structure, along with handing over complete control of the populous to the government.

Right, wages are often too high or too low. But the market will move to compensate for it.

Not unless workers are allowed the power of collective bargaining or workers begin from a state of relative equality. Due to vast inequalities in wealth, the marginal value of a dollar is not at all consistent... which is just another way of saying that some workers will settle for anything just to avoid starvation or homelessness. This is not a "level" playing field, so the market does not work.

It's interesting that you bring up minimum wage as an example. This is a great example of an artificial limit on the economy. We use it because we don't think that the market is paying people enough.

Yes, "we" being the mass of the population representing workers as a collective... politics is about people working together.

But then the law of unintended consequences comes in. People have more money from their jobs, so they can spend more, so prices rise to hit equilibrim again, which is inflation.

There is little evidence that raising the minimum wage contributes significantly to inflation. Buying on credit (i.e. with money you have not already earned) has much more disastrous consequences, and to the extent that raising the minimum wage prevents habitual credit purchases, it even has the potential to stabilize inflation.

I think your second point is debatable. The question of how developed former colonial states would be now had they not been colonised is a hypothetical that is very difficult to answer concretely.

On the contrary, it is pretty well decided. There is a reason we call them underdeveloped countries now... Colonialism set them back economically. The kingdoms of Africa, when Europeans found them, were powerful and wealthy states.

Certainly, they would not have developed much without some form of access to the more advanced technology of the European nations, and any such access would almost certainly involve some form of exploitation.

Ultimately, you are correct. However, you are incorrect in stating that access required exploitation. Healthy trade was possible, and a number of historians have lately argued that in the long-run it would have been more beneficial to the economies of Europe as well. Colonialism is inherently destructive, and destruction by its very nature impairs the world economy.

How do you maintain a healthy, fair democracy when the people have no economic power?

What are you talking about? The people have all the economic power!!

How do you maintain a healthy, fair democracy when 5% of the population monopolizes economic power?

Why do we not just stick with regulated capitalism then?

By now it should be clear that "regulated" capitalism is toward one end of a spectrum toward the other end of which is market socialism. I think we need to move more in that direction.

I assume you are thinking that the government will redistribute opportunity, but tell me how you will ensure that everyone will be afforded an equal opportunity, since there will be most likely be a smaller amount of employment, and a larger work force.

If I am going to answer that, you are going to have to explain to me what you mean by "a smaller amount of employment, and a larger work force."

If the government decides who receives jobs, would it not follow that people that are friendly with the government will recieves jobs?

No. Guaranteed employment. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done (right now)... and a step in the right direction would be for the existing government to act as the employer-of-last-resort.

How do you manage to protect those without power in this situation?

I am an anarchist, remember? In my "ultimate" vision, power is so evenly distributed that protecting the "powerless" is a moot point. In the meantime, it can work as well as any democratic republic such as that of the United States... and do you see many accusations of favoritism in government employment? (The top posts, to be sure... but in general the bureaucracy has its own sort of merit system. Again, both of my girlfriend's parents work for the government... and it seems to run just like any other workplace.)


If you want to talk about corporate corruption, then we can get into crime and the SEC, but that would be present under your system, as well.

Exactly. So, as far as the stumbling blocks of corruption and bureaucracy, there is no reason to believe it will be any worse than what we see today. But we add in good things like relative equality, strong social services (social "wages" on top of literal wages), guaranteed employment and so on.

The main problem I have with your system is that it is exactly the same as capitalism, with the government deciding who the workforce is, instead of the corporation. All that does is propagate the present class structure, along with handing over complete control of the populous to the government.

No, you are missing the point. First, everyone who wants to work works. There is no "deciding who the workforce is." Secondly, by removing power from the few people who control major corporations and/or massive wealth, we empower the democracy.

I will be the first to admit, this does not work without a strong democracy. In the case of lesser democracies or non-democracies, your criticisms about corruption are wholly valid. Moreover, I do not think that the "democracy" of the United States is quite ready for it... but there are things that the existing political situation can do to "prepare the way." Ultimately, I think real democracy has to be built from the ground up... and once you have real democracy, it is not a powerful class-based bureaucracy making decisions about employment, but the population to whom it actually matters.

On the contrary, it is pretty well decided. There is a reason we call them underdeveloped countries now... Colonialism set them back economically. The kingdoms of Africa, when Europeans found them, were powerful and wealthy states.

They were wealthy and powerful but not nearly as wealthy or powerful as the European invaders, and I think that's the point. Colonialism had advantages and disadvantages for the colonised, but I don't think they're called underdeveloped countries as a result of colonialism, I think they're called that because they were a step behind Europe in industrializing, and they've been a step behind ever since. Frankly, they were behind even before that, which is what allowed European explores to so easily establish themselves in positions of power.

A spear culture simply cannot compete against a gun culture, and it's that inherent imbalance that we see continued today, it's been that way since the beginning of European colonization.

I will qualify that a little, many years were spent adopting European cultures rather than progressing within the native African culture, so they were necessarily disadvantaged because of the forced transition.

Ultimately, you are correct. However, you are incorrect in stating that access required exploitation. Healthy trade was possible, and a number of historians have lately argued that in the long-run it would have been more beneficial to the economies of Europe as well. Colonialism is inherently destructive, and destruction by its very nature impairs the world economy.

Blame the gold standard. Mercantilism caused the excess of colonialism and prevented the establishment of an equal trading relationship which would have been mutually benificial in the long run. Mercantilism was basically the only way to maintain steady inflation under the gold standard (plus, like Stalin and his steel, the European leaders loved to measure success in gold, rather than real progress or production) which is necessary for maintaining the banking system on which the Western economies were built. Combine the need for a steady inflow of gold, and the abundance of gold in parts of Africa, along with the military superiority of the European states and you've got a recipe for exploitation. Put simply, the colonizing nations were used to dealing with each other and giving products for their gold, but when they met the Africans and found gold they were more than willing to exploit their military superiority for short term profit, without any concern for the long term well being of the African nations, or their own long term profit.

Everyone will be lazy no matter what happens in the world. the whole reason the humans ever work is to get ahead get a lot of money so they will never have to work again. That is why I am not a human, I am a protoss, so I am a hard worker unlike those lazy humans!!!

What are you talking about? The people have all the economic power!!

No the government does.

[/QUOTE]How do you maintain a healthy, fair democracy when 5% of the population monopolizes economic power?[/QUOTE]

The people have all of the labor capital that they would have under socialism, but under at least under capitalism the government is required to represent the people as well. I suppose that you would rather hand the government complete control over the entire population.

By now it should be clear that "regulated" capitalism is toward one end of a spectrum toward the other end of which is market socialism. I think we need to move more in that direction.

Regulated capitalism is a system where the government does not interfere with the free market, but keeps in check. It should facilitate the free exercise of business, but put a premium on the maintenance the rights of the individual. The protection of the rights of the individual is generally conducive to a free market, when it is not, the individual comes first.

If I am going to answer that, you are going to have to explain to me what you mean by "a smaller amount of employment, and a larger work force."

One employer, a much larger pool of eligible workers.

No. Guaranteed employment. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done (right now)... and a step in the right direction would be for the existing government to act as the employer-of-last-resort.

There is an unemployment rate of 5.4% in this nation, with much of that percent being unfit to hold employment.

I am an anarchist, remember? In my "ultimate" vision, power is so evenly distributed that protecting the "powerless" is a moot point. In the meantime, it can work as well as any democratic republic such as that of the United States... and do you see many accusations of favoritism in government employment? (The top posts, to be sure... but in general the bureaucracy has its own sort of merit system. Again, both of my girlfriend's parents work for the government... and it seems to run just like any other workplace.)

A socialist anarchist???!!! How the hell do you reconcile the collective pooling of resources, and the individual defining himself?

How can power be evenly distributed without a massive government?

And I am referring to the top posts in companies. There isn't much of a problem of favoritism in lower level employment as it is. I do not understand how your view is anything different than the present state of things, besides the government collecting the revenue from business, and choosing the people who benefit from it.

Exactly. So, as far as the stumbling blocks of corruption and bureaucracy, there is no reason to believe it will be any worse than what we see today. But we add in good things like relative equality, strong social services (social "wages" on top of literal wages), guaranteed employment and so on.

You realize that these increased services will come out of your wages, right? You will have lower wages and less options on what you are able to spend them on.

No, you are missing the point. First, everyone who wants to work works. There is no "deciding who the workforce is." Secondly, by removing power from the few people who control major corporations and/or massive wealth, we empower the democracy.

No, you are missing the point. You cannot "empower the democracy", that is not possible. Secondly, the people who control the major corporations will be the very ones the government picks to run the corporations. They are the most qualified for the job.

I will be the first to admit, this does not work without a strong democracy. In the case of lesser democracies or non-democracies, your criticisms about corruption are wholly valid. Moreover, I do not think that the "democracy" of the United States is quite ready for it... but there are things that the existing political situation can do to "prepare the way." Ultimately, I think real democracy has to be built from the ground up... and once you have real democracy, it is not a powerful class-based bureaucracy making decisions about employment, but the population to whom it actually matters.

Democracy, by its very definition is a very weak government, it retains it's power solely through the will of the people. If we were to strengthen the government, it would no longer need the will of the people and would no longer be responsible for its actions.

By now it should be clear that "regulated" capitalism is toward one end of a spectrum toward the other end of which is market socialism. I think we need to move more in that direction.

I don't think that's right. With a little nod to the definition argument going on in the other socialist thread, I'd suggest that the spectrum runs from "Total private control of capital" to "Total collective/governmental control of capital." On this spectrum, regulated capitalism and market socialism are right next to each other. Really, it would go something like:

Turn-of-the-century America -> Modern America -> Canada -> Sweden -> China, after the shift towards market socialism -> Cold War Soviet Union

And you can see the direction the States are moving in our own history.

I don't think they're called underdeveloped countries as a result of colonialism, I think they're called that because they were a step behind Europe in industrializing, and they've been a step behind ever since.

Well, you are wrong. We used to call them "undeveloped," because we saw them as you do. Since then historians and political scientists have adopted the term underdevelop to indicate the detrimental effects of colonialism.

Put simply, the colonizing nations were used to dealing with each other and giving products for their gold, but when they met the Africans and found gold they were more than willing to exploit their military superiority for short term profit, without any concern for the long term well being of the African nations, or their own long term profit.

Yes, exactly. Isn't that what I have been saying?

Well, you are wrong. We used to call them "undeveloped," because we saw them as you do. Since then historians and political scientists have adopted the term underdevelop to indicate the detrimental effects of colonialism.

Not really my area of expertise, so I'll defer to you on that, but it seems to me that that's a bad name if you're right.

Yes, exactly. Isn't that what I have been saying?

I don't know, I didn't actually read anything before the post I replied to, I was just looking for something to do for a minute.

No the government does.

Yes, but the government serves the people. Democracy.

How do you maintain a healthy, fair democracy when 5% of the population monopolizes economic power?

The people have all of the labor capital that they would have under socialism, but under at least under capitalism the government is required to represent the people as well.

NO. Under democracy the government is required to represent the people. No one is talking about doing away with democracy. We are talking about changing an economic system under democracy.

Moreover, you utterly failed to answer the question. How is a system in with 5% of the population monopolizes economic power more democratic than one in which economic power is relatively evenly distributed... and to the extent that "elites" (in government) control the power, they are answerable to democratic politics... which corporate elites are not?

I suppose that you would rather hand the government complete control over the entire population.

You are really reaching for straw men now.

The protection of the rights of the individual is generally conducive to a free market, when it is not, the individual comes first.

I agree. I think the rights of the individual should be protected. In what way have I led you to believe otherwise?

There is an unemployment rate of 5.4% in this nation, with much of that percent being unfit to hold employment.

If someone is unfit to hold employment, then obviously no system proposes they should work. As they are now, the disabled should be supported by society.

A socialist anarchist???!!! How the hell do you reconcile the collective pooling of resources, and the individual defining himself?

The individual can do whatever he/she wants. He/she can have whatever occupation or education he/she wants. He/she can do whatever he/she wants with her/his free time. Where is the problem here?

How can power be evenly distributed without a massive government?

It cannot. But being an anarchist, I believe in the most massive government of all... a government that is coequal with society itself.

And I am referring to the top posts in companies. There isn't much of a problem of favoritism in lower level employment as it is.

And there isn't a problem of favoritism at the top? Ever hear of the old boys? Oh, and there is the problem that the education required to even reach the top is unavailable to most people. In market socialism, to the extent that the state remains, the problems of favoritism are at least no worse than at present, and things should be better considering that (a) politicians are democratically accountable in ways that corporate heads are not; and (b) the whole idea is to radically expand educational and occupational opportunities in the direction of relative equality.

How can you possibly think things would be worse than they are now??

I do not understand how your view is anything different than the present state of things, besides the government collecting the revenue from business, and choosing the people who benefit from it.

That is exactly what it is. Thank you for understanding me. Of course, the benefit here is that a democratic government represents more people than the capitalist owning classes.

You realize that these increased services will come out of your wages, right? You will have lower wages and less options on what you are able to spend them on.

No, they will come out of profits. Take all of the corporate profits under capitalism and make them social wages.

You cannot "empower the democracy", that is not possible.

Well, then our differences come down to this: I think democracy is possible. You do not.

Secondly, the people who control the major corporations will be the very ones the government picks to run the corporations. They are the most qualified for the job.

Maybe at first. But at any rate they will not monopolize the profits, which will go to society.

Democracy, by its very definition is a very weak government, it retains it's power solely through the will of the people.

No, that is what gives democracy its strength.

If we were to strengthen the government, it would no longer need the will of the people and would no longer be responsible for its actions.

The point is not to strengthen the government against the people, as you seem to think. The point is that at present the government is accountable primarily to the wealthiest class, and to that class alone. Socialists want to eliminate that class precisely so that the government becomes accountable to sheer numbers -- i.e. it becomes more democratic.

You seem to think that government is necessarily anti-democratic. But government can be brought closer to the people. In so doing, you automatically make it more powerful, but only because you bring it nearer to the source of its power.

How about the military?

If there is anything truly run by the government, it has to be the military, right?

Do you think it would be less corrupt run by the private sector? Really?

Anarchyel, the United States is not a democracy; it is a republic. Our representatives are democratically elected , but we are NOT a democracy.

Democracy entails mob rule.

And if you're so anti-business that you assume that private-run militaries would inherently be corrupt... wow.

Human nature dictates that some people are corrupt. I'm fairly certain that if the organization were large enough, there would be corrupt people. But to assume that the whole operation would be corrupt is quite a leap of abstraction.

Of course this argument doesn't mean much to me. hehe

Anarchyel, the United States is not a democracy; it is a republic.

Yes, it is a republic. A democratic republic. And I think it would be better to lean a bit more toward the democratic aspect.

Democracy entails mob rule.

What is so bad about mob rule (as long as basic rights have constitutional protection)? Seriously, tell me why I should prefer to be ruled by the rich than by the many.

And if you're so anti-business that you assume that private-run militaries would inherently be corrupt... wow.

I did not say inherently. But do you really believe that a private-run military is likely to be less corrupt than a public military? Seriously, give me a reason to believe that.

Do you favor financial freedom or financial equality?

That will go a long way in answering which type of society/economic policy you'd be happiest with.

I did not say inherently. But do you really believe that a private-run military is likely to be less corrupt than a public military? Seriously, give me a reason to believe that.

I have no reason to think that it would be more or less corrupt than a gov't-controlled military.

This is hypothetical.

But to assume that the whole operation would be corrupt is quite a leap of abstraction.

I never said that. But I do know that private industry attracts people whose primary motive is to make money. At least the public military attracts people who have some genuine sense of service.

As a rebellious young undergrad, I was inclined to think that politicians were inherently corrupt... but after spending enough time around them as a graduate student, I have discovered that the great majority of them enter public service because they genuinely want to do some good. (Their notion of the good may be wildly misguided... but they are nevertheless willing to sacrifice private goals to the public good.)

Spending time around businesspeople does not give one the same impression.

It is a difference in the sort of people the system attracts to the top.

Do you favor financial freedom or financial equality?

Why do I have to favor one over the other? Given a choice, I "favor" personal financial freedom: people should be free to do what they want with their personal resources. But natural resources and the means of production are inherently impersonal; they have a necessarily public nature.

As for equality... I do not think it has any value in itself. But like so many theorists before me, I think that a measure of relative equality has a stabilizing and unifying effect that has utility in practical politics. Even Adam Smith thought relative equality was a good thing.

I have no reason to think that it would be more or less corrupt than a gov't-controlled military.

I just gave you one.

This is hypothetical.

This whole discussion is largely hypothetical. If you are going to participate, you will have to make due with probabilities and conjectures.

Sorry, dude, you're dealing with a brain-dead, overstressed person who wants to go home! hehe

Sorry, dude, you're dealing with a brain-dead, overstressed person who wants to go home! hehe

I sympathize. :)

I apologize if I was short with you.

The contract law idea is full of holes. What is to be done about third-parties who are not included in the contract? I can agree with you that I will not give away copies of a book, but in that case, I am the only one who is restrained. Someone else can make a copy of the book (perhaps when he borrows or steals it from me) and there is nothing you can do about it because this third party never signed an agreement with you. What good is even contract law "IP" then?

We could attach EULA's to everything, stating that by using this book you agree to not distribute copies, etc. But such an "agreement" is only a tacit one, not strong at all. In such a case, the book is the only witness to my agreement/disagreement. All I have to say is "I never agreed!" and who is to say otherwise?

The only way you can possibly stop everyone from copying a book or software is to implement "IP" via the state in the form of involuntary law. In such a case, the distribution of ideas in books and of software for profit ultimately relies on the coersion of the state, and not on natural market processes.

I'm sorry I missed this nincompoopery first time around. MC, this is meatheaded at best. Not that I'm advocating that Tek whip your ass, but I'm not entirely against it either. You have, at best, a tentative grasp on both the concept of "tangible objects" and the most basic principles of copyright. Don't dress it up with IP and EULA static. The fundamental issue is copyright and, because you give examples of infringements of copyright on published works, I'm not going to distinguish between new media and old either.

The idea of "contract law" failing to prevent a third party from copying material is ridiculous. Copyright law prevents this.

And the distribution of ideas and books depends on the recognition of copyright by the willing or its enforcement on the unwilling. Not "the distribution of ideas and books *for profit* depends on the cohesion of the state." Take away the economic potential of writing, books or music or code, and there goes the incentive. All writers and coders will need day jobs to support their nonprofit hobbies. Even the Iliad and the Odyssey were for-profit works. Their copyright? They were memorized by the performers who recited them. Kind of hard to pirate that.

I can't believe you really buy the idea that what we're paying for when we buy a book is the tangible paper. Right, and when I buy an album, I'm paying $12 for a nickel worth of plastic.

How about the military?

If there is anything truly run by the government, it has to be the military, right?

Do you think it would be less corrupt run by the private sector? Really?

I have never said that government should be eliminated. I said that the only responsibility government has is to facilitate the free market. Safeguarding the marketplace would certainly fall under that category.

I have never said that government should be eliminated. I said that the only responsibility government has is to facilitate the free market.

I agree!

It's just that in a free market, the people have the freedom to decide at what price they are willing to sell the res publica. No individual can own what belongs to the public. That is thievery. ;)

Yes... and you were therefore attacking a strawman, because socialists mean equal with regard to health, education and economic well-being.

Yes, but I was talking about family. I believe parents should provide for their children in all those things, up to a point. The government, however, is not a parent, it didn't create or give birth to citizenry, nor does it really have a responsibility to nurture anyone.

When you socialists talk about the responsibilities of government to act as DADDY -and that is what you're doing here - its frankly creepy.

Reply forthcoming because browser is acting up

Yes, but I was talking about family. I believe parents should provide for their children in all those things, up to a point.

Well, at least we agree that far.

The government, however, is not a parent, it didn't create or give birth to citizenry, nor does it really have a responsibility to nurture anyone.

We are not talking about the government as some abstract "Big Brother" above and beyond the level of society. We are talking about the fact that we are all born into societies, and we feel an obligation to one another. Moreover, we all know -- however hard some of us may try to deny it -- that the world treats some people poorly through no fault of their own, and our simple human sympathy calls upon us to care for one another.

But put all that aside. I know some people have become so alienated from their own humanity that they just don't care about other people anymore. The fact remains that relative equality and basic social services have a healthy and stabilizing effect on a society. They help reduce crime, and they make political life more equal and meaningful. If not for human reasons, for practical ones at least social government makes sense.

When you socialists talk about the responsibilities of government to act as DADDY -and that is what you're doing here - its frankly creepy.

Hmm... Do you maybe have some issues with your father you would like to discuss?

Yes, but the government serves the people. Democracy.

NO. Under democracy the government is required to represent the people. No one is talking about doing away with democracy. We are talking about changing an economic system under democracy.

How can an entity that employs people serve the people? That is the central point. You can keep saying that since we have a democracy, we will be in control of the businesses, but we won't, an elite few who have the ability to run for office will have power over them.

You also fail to recognize that business is authoritarian, the boss tells the people below him what to do, and they in turn tell those below them what to do. If the government controls business they become authoritarian.

Moreover, you utterly failed to answer the question. How is a system in with 5% of the population monopolizes economic power more democratic than one in which economic power is relatively evenly distributed... and to the extent that "elites" (in government) control the power, they are answerable to democratic politics... which corporate elites are not?

Because the economic power will be controlled by the same people in a socialism. And they will not be answerable to democratic politics if we switch to socialism. How can someone be empowered in the government when the government employs them?

I agree. I think the rights of the individual should be protected. In what way have I led you to believe otherwise?

By stripping people of their autonomy. Buy making government all-powerful.

If someone is unfit to hold employment, then obviously no system proposes they should work. As they are now, the disabled should be supported by society.

And they are.

The individual can do whatever he/she wants. He/she can have whatever occupation or education he/she wants. He/she can do whatever he/she wants with her/his free time. Where is the problem here?

No, the individual can do whatever he/she wants as long as it conforms with the wants of the government. Will there will be private schools? Otherwise, individuals will be forced to learn exactly whatever curriculum the government wants.

It cannot. But being an anarchist, I believe in the most massive government of all... a government that is coequal with society itself.

Can never happen.

And there isn't a problem of favoritism at the top? Ever hear of the old boys? Oh, and there is the problem that the education required to even reach the top is unavailable to most people. In market socialism, to the extent that the state remains, the problems of favoritism are at least no worse than at present, and things should be better considering that (a) politicians are democratically accountable in ways that corporate heads are not; and (b) the whole idea is to radically expand educational and occupational opportunities in the direction of relative equality.

Do you know what the turnover rate is in congress? Far less than that of the corporate turnover.

How can you possibly think things would be worse than they are now??

By allowing government free reign over both the societal aspects and the business aspects of the country. I think it is plainly evident that the government is not interested in equality, and if it decided who recieved the benefits of the business as well, we would be in bad shape.

That is exactly what it is. Thank you for understanding me. Of course, the benefit here is that a democratic government represents more people than the capitalist owning classes.

No it doesn't!!! When was the last time a high political figure who wasn't the member of a major party was elected. Name a member of our congress or a recent president who wasn't Christian. Name a political figure that didn't come from a well off class.

No, they will come out of profits. Take all of the corporate profits under capitalism and make them social wages.

This is starting to sound like coalmining towns. The company employs the people, they pay them in company credits, and then the people use the company credits in the company store. Leaving them with absolutely nothing.

Well, then our differences come down to this: I think democracy is possible. You do not.

Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers would vomit if they heard how vehemently you believe that democracy is meant to be a strong centralized government. This country was designed to have as weak a government as possible.

Democracy would be impossible under socialism because people are employed by the government, fed by the government, housed by the government, educated by the government, and entertained by the government. Where is the accountability necessary for a democratic society?

Maybe at first. But at any rate they will not monopolize the profits, which will go to society.

CEOs do not monopolize the profits, the stockholders do.

No, that is what gives democracy its strength.

Democracy is meant to have no strength over the people. It is meant to be powerless in fact. If the people were to forsake democracy, they could walk away free. Not possible under socialism.

The point is not to strengthen the government against the people, as you seem to think. The point is that at present the government is accountable primarily to the wealthiest class, and to that class alone. Socialists want to eliminate that class precisely so that the government becomes accountable to sheer numbers -- i.e. it becomes more democratic.

How are you going to eliminate the powerful with government? That is the silliest thing you have said yet.

Either the government has power over the people or the people have power over the government. If the government control the resources of this country they control the people.

You seem to think that government is necessarily anti-democratic. But government can be brought closer to the people. In so doing, you automatically make it more powerful, but only because you bring it nearer to the source of its power.

A powerful, centralized government is necessarily anti-democratic.

How can government be brought closer to the people? Especially through socialism?

Sorry, this is a repost from another thread, but it addresses Vittos's last post as well.

Ah, but you are speaking of the still unmanifested 'invisible hand' that is supposed to increase wages and levels of working conditions in order to maximise profit. This is not the case in practice. Instead, there is a marked 'race to the bottom' going on in the world, which is essentially the drive to provide the lowest wages, human rights and production costs possible in order to attract investment. Companies making record profits are firing employees, union busting to keep wages low, and lobbying for an end to the minimum wage. Maximum profits come from lower production costs, and eliminating governmental protections. The majority of businesses out there are service based...low skill, low pay. You say that the government needs to step in to facilitate a free market, but you fail to define what that facilitation would entail. Here is what I think the government needs to keep its hands in:

Government needs to:

1. Protect staple foods and small farmers from free trade agreements.
A country should be at least able to feed itself. Switching to 'cash crops' like cotton or tobacco undermines the food security of a nation, and does not guarantee wealth...instead overproduction drops world market prices.

2. Ensure that trade agreements respect labour rights.
Dismantling unions, cutting minimum wages, getting rid of overtime etc only benefits the corporations and creates job insecurity. People need to make a living wage, or they fall back on taxed social systems (or non-existent systems, which leaves them nowhere to turn). This does not mean equal pay for all jobs...a doctor should still make more than a waitress...but the waitress should have recourse to collective bargaining if she chooses, and not be forced to work 90 hours a week just to pay her rent.

3. Have the power to establish and defend intellectual property rules that protect the interests of their citizens.
This means guaranteeing access to essential drugs (generics), maintaining biodiversity (no forcing GM crops on people), and traditional cultures (multiculturalism laws are being challenged by trade agreements that see this as a barrier to trade).

4. Ensure that trade agreements are entered into democratically, with citizen input.
Our representatives are signing us into trade agreements we may not even know about, or support...and we are bound to them. Trade needs to be more democratic, and respect civil and human rights as well as the environment.

5. Regulate foreign investment to protect their citizens.
The investment free for all of the last few decades has seen the economies of some Asian nations (Asian flu) and Argentina (most recent) become completely destabilised because of investor pullouts. This have serious repercussions on linked economies, as well as domestic labour and political hardships that are difficult to recover from. [points taken from the New Internationalist, issue 374]

For the unskilled employee, they may be going down. But for those who provide an applicable service they are high.

And I can agree with all of those statements.

I agree!

It's just that in a free market, the people have the freedom to decide at what price they are willing to sell the res publica. No individual can own what belongs to the public. That is thievery. ;)

What belongs to the public?

What belongs to the public?
Important resources such as water, or health care.

This gets weirder and weirder.
How can an entity that employs people serve the people? That is the central point. You can keep saying that since we have a democracy, we will be in control of the businesses, but we won't, an elite few who have the ability to run for office will have power over them.
How is that any different than the elite few who run corporations having control over us all? How can an entity that employs people work in the interests of people? By reigning in the free market system. By being bound to labour laws and other restraints that I have mentioned above. The government as an employer, or the free enterprise as an employer both need to be kept within boundaries that will maintain the integrity of the system. State run businesses are well known for their living wages and respect for labour rights. They are also known for their ineffeciency...something that would have to be worked on and monitored to keep things running well. You can't elect a government and then throw up your hands and say, "Let them do it!" You need to keep yourself involved...something sadly lacking in representative democracies in the West.

You also fail to recognize that business is authoritarian, the boss tells the people below him what to do, and they in turn tell those below them what to do. If the government controls business they become authoritarian.
You are assuming all businesses run this way. Other models are possible...co-ops where all producers have a say in the means of production and the methods of distribution...true democracy, despite being a centralisation of resources...this could work within a government model too, as long as the stakeholders (the producers, and voters) continue to take a hand in the decision making. Even if it was all top down, government business would be no worse than private business, and in a democracy, it would AT LEAST be accountable to the voter.

Because the economic power will be controlled by the same people in a socialism. And they will not be answerable to democratic politics if we switch to socialism. How can someone be empowered in the government when the government employs them?
The same way stockholders have power within the corporation they own stock in. By having labour unions represent them. By collective bargaining...by the many autonomous checks and balances that must exist in any political system. The judicial system is separate from the legislative system...yet neither are privately run. The same can be done in a socialist democracy.


By stripping people of their autonomy. Buy making government all-powerful.
The same could be said of free market trade agreements which are undemocratically formed, yet binding, and directly affect the rights of individuals in favour of corporate personhood. You are not making your case well. YOU are the only one who seems to think the government would be all-powerful.

No, the individual can do whatever he/she wants as long as it conforms with the wants of the government. Will there will be private schools? Otherwise, individuals will be forced to learn exactly whatever curriculum the government wants.
Are you seriously unaware that your government does in fact ALREADY dictate the curriculum? Even private schools must follow state and province curriculum if they want that education to be valid in a post-secondary institution. This would not change.


Democracy would be impossible under socialism because people are employed by the government, fed by the government, housed by the government, educated by the government, and entertained by the government. Where is the accountability necessary for a democratic society?
The accountability lies in the checks and balances of a democratic system and different levels of government. The free market system that provides the things you mentioned above are NOT accountable except through government legislation. They are not run by democratically elected officials, nor are they transparent. They are FORCED to be accountable in certain areas, but they do NOT answer to the citizenry.


Democracy is meant to have no strength over the people. It is meant to be powerless in fact. If the people were to forsake democracy, they could walk away free. Not possible under socialism.
Absolutely false. A democracy is direct control by the people of their government. You are talking about abnegating all responsibility. Your ideas of freedom are vague and undefined. Freedom of security, liberty, health, etc etc are not guaranteed in any way by an economic system. Political systems deal with these things. Try and understand the distinction.

Important resources such as water, or health care.

Water supplies are maintained by the government already. Healthcare is a right, not a possession. I believe the government is failing the people by not offering universal healthcare.

Now you are playing dumb. Seriously, you know that similar wages are a kind of abstract equality. No, it doesn't make you as strong, or as tall, or as smart, or even as successful. It is still "equal treatment" in which there are no "favorites" who get special treatment.

Okay, so it's "a kind of abstract equality" that's so valueable to you? Why? Equal treatment is one thing, in that an agent (ie government) treats other agents without playing favorites. In fact, you'll find that in non-socialist systems.

But you're talking about the government providing pretty much everything for all. Equal treatment is a nice bell to ring, but why does it not sound like the same thing?


There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth. Indeed, as I assert over and over again in statements which you so stubbornly ignore, wealth is a good thing. (*gasp* Did a socialist say that?!) But as in so many other circumstances, there can be too much of a good thing. Also, some of us believe it would be nice if the good things (e.g. wealth) were more widely available than they are today.

Sure, there can be too much of a good thing, but that's an issue for the guilt or lack thereof of those who are burdened with too much of wealth. "Too much of a good thing" or any "excess" like that is similar to people who like to eat a lot. Are you willing to force them not to, "for their own good?"

If you really wanted to provide opportunity to make wealth you'd advocate free market policies, not socialism.

But you favor this "equality" chimera over freedom of choice, and government fatherhood over responsibility of one's own actions.



Yes, a promise of socialism.



I don't think I made this clear. It was, GIVEN that a person already has a job, and that job already pays a certain amount, that person is more likely to appreciate job fulfillment more than a pay hike. Your socialism is going to imrpove job happiness? Or simply see to it that (of course) unemployment is eliminated?


Maybe... although in a slightly skewed way, since you cannot accumulate time or use it to buy other things. But for the sake of argument, I cede the point. In fact, I'll do you one further: fulfillment and esteem are goods, too, and we could attach monetary values to them. But if we do that, then you have to admit that a socialist plan that offers more of such goods in place of less money suits the pursuit of "wealth" perfectly well. Your argument turns in on itself.

Sure, IF that plan truly offers MORE of such goods, AND that the net value of those goods can replace that of the inevitable loss of liquid wealth, AND that it doesn't involve a loss of say self-respect, or a loss of a sense of accomplishment and independence or any other qualities.

Basically you have to assume that everyone would be made happier living in your socialist ideal than they are otherwise.

And if that were so, why doesn't everyone move to a socialist nation? Shoot, I could start a business right now if I lived in Sweden. Why don't I? Why doesn't everybody? Is it just such a paradise that everyone is blind to it?

I never claimed they would go away; I certainly do not expect them to. Indeed, I never said that these desires are inherently unhealthy, but rather unhealthy in excess.

Okay, and sexual desire is unhealthy in excess too. Is it the government's job (as Father) to morally correct it's citizens (according to your rather puritannical convictions, of course)? Curb desire, eliminate temptation? The "sex gap" could be eliminated along with the wealth gap, simply by limiting the ability of people to make their own sexual choices! Let's do it!

However, they have proven to be variables over time and culture, which means that we can aim for lower (healthier) rather than higher (unhealthy) levels.

And that's a promise of religion... we have religion, so do we need socialism? Just make religion more effective!

Me too. But I also have massive amounts of skepticism toward people who insist that these facets are constants and not variables. If you want to discuss whether they are dependent or independent variables, that would at least be an interesting discussion; but to claim they simply show no variability is to ignore history and anthropology.

They constantly exist, they're present and can't be eliminated, as we've agreed already. And sure, they show variability.

But you're talking about SHOULDs. You think they should be "lower (healthier)", and that the government should have a prime role in that. You want society to conform to your beliefs by becoming more morally acceptable in your eyes. I don't. It's a fundamental difference between us - you see government as father, you look to it for providing and security, whereas I don't. Or one could say you are the hopeless idealist and I am the cynical realist.

Anywho, it's been a lark, and I look forward to reading your replies tomorrow:) Have a good night!

*snip*

We are going in circles, and I am forced to post this again:

Would you please stop imagining that Democracy keeps the government and the people inseparable? That is fairy tale thinking that would not happen in real life no matter what economic system you would like to impose.

The government will always be separated from the people, and the only things that keep the government responsible to the people are those things that the people do not turn over.

How can an entity that employs people serve the people?

I don't know, how can the military -- which employs people -- serve the people? How can my local co-op bookstore serve its members, which it also employs? There is no contradiction between people being employees in their own company, is there?

You can keep saying that since we have a democracy, we will be in control of the businesses, but we won't, an elite few who have the ability to run for office will have power over them.

And we will have power over them! (Or, to tend toward the anarchist system that I would prefer, people will take turns in leadership positions.)

You also fail to recognize that business is authoritarian, the boss tells the people below him what to do, and they in turn tell those below them what to do.

First, it does not have to be authoritarian -- businesses can be run on democratic models. Second, to the extent that some hierarchy is required, offices can be elective, and with limited terms. Election is, after all, a meritocratic tool. Workers elect someone from among their own numbers whom they feel to be most capable of leadership. Or, managers are appointed by elected government officials. Either way, the hand of the people is there.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

If the government controls business they become authoritarian.

If you don't believe that popular elections prevent authoritarianism, then by your definition the United States is already authoritarian.

Because the economic power will be controlled by the same people in a socialism. And they will not be answerable to democratic politics if we switch to socialism. How can someone be empowered in the government when the government employs them?

Elections. Honestly, the level of your debate is deteriorating seriously. If you cannot accept the fact that people can be employed by an agency and still elect its leaders, then you are simply making yourself intentionally blind to reality. It happens all the time!

By stripping people of their autonomy. Buy making government all-powerful.

Find one thing I have said that makes government all-powerful. Name one thing that the average individual will not be able to do in the system I have described that he or she is able to do today. Please, I need to understand where you are getting this idea.


No, the individual can do whatever he/she wants as long as it conforms with the wants of the government.

And now an individual can do whatever he/she wants as long as it conforms with the wants of the government, suits the needs of a corporation, and they have the money to supply themselves with the resources to do so.

In what society in the world are people to do things that do not conform to the wants of the government? The United States government, being liberal and democratic, desires that people should be free to make as many free choices as possible, and that they should have free speech. If the political will ever existed to change those things, they would be changed. (There might be a rebellion, but no one is "free" to do that!)

In a democratic socialism, people would be just as politically free, as long as they refused to change. Seriously, you have to help me understand why the fact that people will be better educated and better employed will make them suddenly renounce their political freedoms. I don't understand.

Will there will be private schools?

Maybe. That is a political question for the democracy to decide. People who favor private schools would be free to argue in their favor.

Otherwise, individuals will be forced to learn exactly whatever curriculum the government wants.

Not really. In case you hadn't noticed, the government runs public schools now... and until recently, teachers were relatively free to do what they wanted. Even now, secondary school teachers say plenty of things of which the sitting government would disapprove... and certainly at the post-secondary level the public schools have a perfectly independent curriculum. (I can tell you that at the state university I attend, the sitting government would certainly not approve of the things being taught!)

Can never happen.

Anarchist societies historically have been among the longest-lived. While a "modern" anarchy would look quite a bit different, I see no reason to believe it is impossible. Would you care to offer one?

Do you know what the turnover rate is in congress? Far less than that of the corporate turnover.

So?

First of all, perhaps that indicates that corporate executives are more likely to get in, reap the corrupt benefits for themselves, and get kicked out... as opposed to Congresspeople who are more likely to stick around to actually try and get things done.

Second of all, if it really concerns you so much it is a simple matter for democratic reform. Please, do I have to explain everything to you?

I think it is plainly evident that the government is not interested in equality,

Ha!! Of course it isn't... but that is because the existing government is at the mercy of those 5% who control all the wealth. Gee, I wonder how we could change that....

No it doesn't!!! When was the last time a high political figure who wasn't the member of a major party was elected. Name a member of our congress or a recent president who wasn't Christian. Name a political figure that didn't come from a well off class.

Now, I wonder how they will come from a "well-off class" when there is relative equality? Hmm... Tough one. These are matters for democratic reform, and the socialist principle of relative equality is a step in that direction.

This is starting to sound like coalmining towns. The company employs the people, they pay them in company credits, and then the people use the company credits in the company store. Leaving them with absolutely nothing.

Except that in this case the people own the company and set its policy. Completely inaccurate analogy.

Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers would vomit if they heard how vehemently you believe that democracy is meant to be a strong centralized government.

First of all, Thomas Jefferson might be the only founding father to vomit over a strong centralized government. Hamilton was a power-mad lunatic, and Madison was caught somewhere in between... but at the time of the Constitutional Convention he leaned a bit more toward Hamilton's view. (He changed his mind after Adams' presidency.

Second of all, I said nothing about a strong centralized government. I think local communities and regional governments should control the natural resources and industries in their area. They should also have primary responsibility for providing social services for their locality. Ultimately, I think these governments would be in intimate cooperation with one another. Indeed, as an anarchist a favor as de-centralized a government as possible.

(I think you would be surprised how much I have in common with Jefferson. You should read Rick Matthew's The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson, currently the leading work on the Founder. Incidentally, Rick was my thesis advisor.) ;)

This country was designed to have as weak a government as possible.

No, it was designed so that no one person or branch could monopolize power within the government (checks and balances)... but the problem the Founders had with the Articles of Confederation was precisely that they were too weak. The Constitution was drafted as an exercise in centralized government strength.

Democracy would be impossible under socialism because people are employed by the government, fed by the government, housed by the government, educated by the government, and entertained by the government.

Under democratic socialism people are employed by themselves, fed by themselves, housed by themselves, educated by themselves, and entertained by themselves. The government is merely the administrator of the public will.

Where is the accountability necessary for a democratic society?

Same place it has always been.

CEOs do not monopolize the profits, the stockholders do.

Fantastic! I was hoping you would go there... so that I can point out that under socialism every citizen is a stockholder in every public enterprise.

Democracy is meant to have no strength over the people. It is meant to be powerless in fact. If the people were to forsake democracy, they could walk away free.

You have utterly no understanding of democratic politics. Democracy is free precisely because the people -- taken collectively -- control their collective destiny. Individual destinies are for individuals. Collective destinies are for collectives. This is the fundamental rule of liberal democracy.

Either the government has power over the people or the people have power over the government. If the government control the resources of this country they control the people.

Again, you simply do not understand democratic politics. In a democracy, people collectively make decisions about collective matters; they have power over the government, which exists to enact those decisions; the fact that those decisions must be enforced against members of the community who disagree with the decision of the people only means that the people rule themselves.

You are not making your case well. YOU are the only one who seems to think the government would be all-powerful.

I am the only one who seems to believe that government is separate from the public.

I am the only one that seems to understand that politicians have a profound interest in separating the government from the public.

I am the only one who seems to come to the conclusion that a powerful central government will afford politicians the ability to cut the public out of the government.

The founders of our nation are rolling in their graves.

We are not talking about the government as some abstract "Big Brother" above and beyond the level of society.

Well, show me the government of a large nationstate that ISn't above and beyond the level of a simple homogenous society...

We are talking about the fact that we are all born into societies, and we feel an obligation to one another.

Yeah - for members of the same society. In nature, that society is a clan or perhaps tribe. It is not natural to expect me to feel an obligation to some random member of the 6 billion people on this planet. I wasn't born into "USA" or "America" or "the world." Those are all above and beyond my immediate society pretty much by definition.

Moreover, we all know -- however hard some of us may try to deny it -- that the world treats some people poorly through no fault of their own, and our simple human sympathy calls upon us to care for one another.

Yeah, simple human sympathy ... or, in your plan, taxation. Forced sympathy, I love it!


But put all that aside. I know some people have become so alienated from their own humanity that they just don't care about other people anymore.

Right, or they just don't care about other people enough to let them make their own choices and live with their own responsibility, and care more about controlling people so they are more morally acceptable to your sense of justice!

The fact remains that relative equality and basic social services have a healthy and stabilizing effect on a society.

All other things being equal - maybe.

They help reduce crime,

So does relaxing the law, so do police states...

and they make political life more equal and meaningful.

Why do I get the feeling you really consider "equal" and "meaningful" as pretty much the same thing?

If not for human reasons, for practical ones at least social government makes sense.

There are practical reasons why any government makes sense, though. Is socialism MORE practical than the alternatives? I don't think that's a fact.

Hmm... Do you maybe have some issues with your father you would like to discuss?

Yeah, I have a father, so I don't need government to play the role. Also, my father doesn't extract taxes or place limits on how much more I can possess in comparison to my siblings.

Infinitely superior to Big Brother.

But you're talking about the government providing pretty much everything for all.

No, but thanks for the pretty straw man.

I am advocating the government providing, not "pretty much everything," but only the basics: food, shelter, education, and the guarantee of some employment for those who want it -- even if it is not always the best work. The kind of work, and the extent of the reward, naturally depend on an individual's skill, motivation, and so on.

Equal treatment is a nice bell to ring, but why does it not sound like the same thing?

The kind of equal treatment I mean is the kind that says everyone should get a truly equal opportunity at life, health, and success. Being the capitalist's favorite bell, I should think it sounds pleasant enough to you. The socialist merely points out that someone in poverty hardly really has the same chance as a person born into wealth. We want to even the playing field... and then let people succeed or fail as they will. But we find it useful to prevent people from failing so utterly that they cannot survive, or they live on the streets, or they resort to crime.

Sure, there can be too much of a good thing, but that's an issue for the guilt or lack thereof of those who are burdened with too much of wealth. "Too much of a good thing" or any "excess" like that is similar to people who like to eat a lot. Are you willing to force them not to, "for their own good?"

No, I wouldn't. But if they were eating so much food that there was none left for anyone else, you can bet I would stop them.

If you really wanted to provide opportunity to make wealth you'd advocate free market policies, not socialism.

If making wealth were the only thing important to me, I would. But I think that society does not exist to create massive wealth for only a few people. (Also, one has to consider the fact that economists are now realizing that a growth economy cannot exist forever... eventually human beings will have to learn to live with small to zero-growth. And if we want a decent planet to be around at the time, sooner is better than later.)

But you favor this "equality" chimera over freedom of choice,

Enlighten me. What choices do I limit?

and government fatherhood over responsibility of one's own actions.

Not at all. You can still do pretty much whatever you want (within reason, of course). The public only adopts a basic care for the welfare of all.

It was, GIVEN that a person already has a job, and that job already pays a certain amount, that person is more likely to appreciate job fulfillment more than a pay hike.

Yes. And since socialism guarantees the job, you describe the shift in values likely to take place.

Your socialism is going to imrpove job happiness?

Hopefully. At any rate, it will put more people into jobs that they choose rather than ones they settle for out of necessity or lack of training. And it will improve job security. These are pretty good reasons to believe it should increase happiness, yes?

Or simply see to it that (of course) unemployment is eliminated?

That is the idea, yes.

Sure, IF that plan truly offers MORE of such goods, AND that the net value of those goods can replace that of the inevitable loss of liquid wealth, AND that it doesn't involve a loss of say self-respect, or a loss of a sense of accomplishment and independence or any other qualities.

Yep. But you've lost me... why in the world would it involve a loss of self-respect or sense of accomplishment and independence?

And if that were so, why doesn't everyone move to a socialist nation? Shoot, I could start a business right now if I lived in Sweden. Why don't I? Why doesn't everybody? Is it just such a paradise that everyone is blind to it?

What a silly question. For one thing, people are pretty attached to their home -- and I don't blame them. Personally, I would rather do a service to my nation by improving matters here than copping out and heading to a better society. But that is because I care.

Okay, and sexual desire is unhealthy in excess too. Is it the government's job (as Father) to morally correct it's citizens (according to your rather puritannical convictions, of course)?

Nope, those are personal matters. The public's only job is to curb excesses that have a material impact on other people. But again, nice straw man. (I picture him with a cute little hat.)

Or one could say you are the hopeless idealist and I am the cynical realist.

You are quite wrong about me.

I am a cynical idealist.

Well, show me the government of a large nationstate that ISn't above and beyond the level of a simple homogenous society...

Did you notice the "anarchy" in my name? I do not advocate a large nationstate.

Yeah - for members of the same society. In nature, that society is a clan or perhaps tribe. It is not natural to expect me to feel an obligation to some random member of the 6 billion people on this planet. I wasn't born into "USA" or "America" or "the world." Those are all above and beyond my immediate society pretty much by definition.

Agreed! (For the most part, anyway.)

Yeah, simple human sympathy ... or, in your plan, taxation. Forced sympathy, I love it!

Not exactly. First of all, market socialism relies on social profits far more than taxation. These profits (like taxes, but perhaps more obviously) belong to the public, and the public decides what to do with it (democratically). Now, if the majority decides to be charitable toward society's worst-off members, certainly not everyone may agree... but not everyone will agree with any decision the majority makes. That is what it means to live in a democracy!!

Right, or they just don't care about other people enough to let them make their own choices and live with their own responsibility, and care more about controlling people so they are more morally acceptable to your sense of justice!

Please. PLEASE! Tell me in what way the system I propose is "controlling" people? It gives each person more options in life, more say in the political system... I fail to see in what way you think personal liberty is restricted. Do enlighten me.

Why do I get the feeling you really consider "equal" and "meaningful" as pretty much the same thing?

I have no idea, since I do not consider them the same thing at all. "Equal" means that (relatively speaking) everyone has the same "say" in government. Every vote "counts" as much as any other. "Meaningful" implies that people actually feel like their vote does something. They feel empowered to engage in politics directly, and they feel less of the "us/them" mentality about government that has been so well ingrained into people like our friend Vittos.

There are practical reasons why any government makes sense, though. Is socialism MORE practical than the alternatives?

Well, that is the point I have been arguing. I think it is more practical in the sense that it achieves one of the important ends of a social system -- stability -- while also providing a maximum of freedom. Certainly better than your police state option, yes?

Well, show me the government of a large nationstate that ISn't above and beyond the level of a simple homogenous society...

Did you notice the "anarchy" in my name? I do not advocate a large nationstate.

Yeah - for members of the same society. In nature, that society is a clan or perhaps tribe. It is not natural to expect me to feel an obligation to some random member of the 6 billion people on this planet. I wasn't born into "USA" or "America" or "the world." Those are all above and beyond my immediate society pretty much by definition.

Agreed! (For the most part, anyway.)

Yeah, simple human sympathy ... or, in your plan, taxation. Forced sympathy, I love it!

Not exactly. First of all, market socialism relies on social profits far more than taxation. These profits (like taxes, but perhaps more obviously) belong to the public, and the public decides what to do with it (democratically). Now, if the majority decides to be charitable toward society's worst-off members, certainly not everyone may agree... but not everyone will agree with any decision the majority makes. That is what it means to live in a democracy!!

Right, or they just don't care about other people enough to let them make their own choices and live with their own responsibility, and care more about controlling people so they are more morally acceptable to your sense of justice!

Please. PLEASE! Tell me in what way the system I propose is "controlling" people? It gives each person more options in life, more say in the political system... I fail to see in what way you think personal liberty is restricted. Do enlighten me.

Why do I get the feeling you really consider "equal" and "meaningful" as pretty much the same thing?

I have no idea, since I do not consider them the same thing at all. "Equal" means that (relatively speaking) everyone has the same "say" in government. Every vote "counts" as much as any other. "Meaningful" implies that people actually feel like their vote does something. They feel empowered to engage in politics directly, and they feel less of the "us/them" mentality about government that has been so well ingrained into people like our friend Vittos.

There are practical reasons why any government makes sense, though. Is socialism MORE practical than the alternatives?

Well, that is the point I have been arguing. I think it is more practical in the sense that it achieves one of the important ends of a social system -- stability -- while also providing a maximum of freedom. Certainly better than your police state option, yes?

Ok, so if stuff like software, music, painting, etc. has no value, how are the people whose only livlihood to make this kind of stuff supposed to survive, if their work has no value? Which is more or less what you are saying... People who use information have no responsibility to the creator of the information? It sounds like what you are trying to create is a society so "free" that people are even "free" of their responsibilities to others... A lawless society... And if matter-replicators were invented then all sorts of material goods would be worthless? And if cloning technologies were developed, people's lives would be worthless? In which case, freedom and liberty would be worthless as well..

Did you notice the "anarchy" in my name? I do not advocate a large nationstate.
Well you have advocated that everyone should have a minimum standard of living, that everyone should have a job; a small government will simply not have the resources to guarantee everyone work, nor will it have the funds to interfere with the economy and guarantee everyone a mimimum standard of living. While I see the Anarchy in your name, I dont see Anarchism in your words.

Well you have advocated that everyone should have a minimum standard of living, that everyone should have a job; a small government will simply not have the resources to guarantee everyone work,

It will if it is the primary employer. Wealth is distributed socially, rather than into the hands of a few.

nor will it have the funds to interfere with the economy and guarantee everyone a mimimum standard of living.

The community is the economy.

While I see the Anarchy in your name, I dont see Anarchism in your words.

Then you clearly do not know very much about anarchism.

It will if it is the primary employer. Wealth is distributed socially, rather than into the hands of a few.
The government as the primary employer? Unless only a tiny number of the potential workforce is actually employed the government would need to be pretty big to be the principal employer.


The community is the economy.
Huh? The community wouldnt have control over the economy, nor would business, nor would the consumers. With the government as the primary employer politicians and civil servants would have control over the economy.Or rather politicians would try and control the economy.



Then you clearly do not know very much about anarchism.
Hmm what is anarchist about the government being the primary employer?
What is anarchist about government interference in the economy?Do you know very much about anarchism? All I see is socialism and statism.

Nationalized health care would have: the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal Service, the failure rate of government schools, the enforcement tactics of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and all at Pentagon prices! -- Albert V. Burns

The government as the primary employer? Unless only a tiny number of the potential workforce is actually employed the government would need to be pretty big to be the principal employer.

Yes, the government would be "big" -- as big as the society in question. Anarchists want a government that is essentially indistinguishable from the population itself, and whose ends encompass all collective ends of the community.

Huh? The community wouldnt have control over the economy, nor would business, nor would the consumers.

For anarchists, the community is the government.

Hmm what is anarchist about the government being the primary employer?

Everything. Anarchism is about self-rule. That is, an anarchist constitution is one in which the people democratically rule themselves. If they are not collectively self-employed, then they serve the interests of the owning class -- the antithesis of anarchism.

What is anarchist about government interference in the economy?

For anarchists, people collectively manage their own economy. (For market socialist anarchists, they manage the supply of natural resources and major industries. Allocation responds to the consumer market.)

All I see is socialism and statism.

It is socialist, but not statist. Statism implies that there is a state separable from the people as rulers.

(Admittedly, I have my reservations about thinking state-like structures can be entirely eliminated. But I am prepared to argue that we can make significant moves in that direction. It does require a small geographical scale and a relatively small population as the primary political body... but the scope of politics is expanded.)

Yes, the government would be "big" -- as big as the society in question. Anarchists want a government that is essentially indistinguishable from the population itself, and whose ends encompass all collective ends of the community.
So the population as a whole decides what laws the government passes?A community 70% group A (religon , race, whatever) and 30% group B is able to pass laws that disenfranchise the smaller group?Im presuming governments would have to be on a very small scale of course, its hard to imagine a city of ten million having meetings to debate every decision the government has to make.



For anarchists, the community is the government.
Communities are usually mixed, diverse how is the government to be stopped from permanently being representative of whatever the largest group in the community is?



Everything. Anarchism is about self-rule. Unless your in a minority when the decisions are being made- then its about conforming to the will of the majority. That is, an anarchist constitution is one in which the people democratically rule themselves. Again , how do those people who are in a minority democratically rule themselves?If they are not collectively self-employed, then they serve the interests of the owning class -- the antithesis of anarchism. If they are in the minority group in any community//government then the majority group is the owning class.



For anarchists, people collectively manage their own economy. the majority attempts to manage the economy, the minority is managed.
but the scope of politics is expanded.)
Expanded how? By turning over control of the asylum to the lunatics?

So the population as a whole decides what laws the government passes?A community 70% group A (religon , race, whatever) and 30% group B is able to pass laws that disenfranchise the smaller group?

Did I say that? What is it about the word "democracy" that makes people assume there could be no constitution that establishes basic political and social rights?

Im presuming governments would have to be on a very small scale of course, its hard to imagine a city of ten million having meetings to debate every decision the government has to make.

Somewhere in between, more likely. Few modern anarchists still think it is necessary to political freedom that people actively debate every governmental decision. Most likely there would be limited-term and/or rotating administrative posts.

Communities are usually mixed, diverse how is the government to be stopped from permanently being representative of whatever the largest group in the community is?

Good work. You tap into one of the reasons that anarchists want a classless society. The idea is that, for the most part, no one will always -- or even usually -- be in the minority faction on any decision. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Of course, no one ever expects "perfection," which is precisely why the constitution establishes certain individual rights that cannot be infringed by a majority decision. Anarchists do not want to do away with legality.

As a pseudo capitalist I have never ever argued that human nature, nor the nature of any living thing is competition.

Instead I have argued that laziness is fundamental nature of all living things, the attempts to do as little work as possible to survive are common features amongs basically every animal (and humans are animals, science tells us that.)

My argument has been to improve the quality of life, one must force competetion and therefore improvement. People will adapt and put forth more effort if more effort is needed to survive. People will also put forth more effort if there is something that can make life comfortable or more enjoyable.

Did I say that? What is it about the word "democracy" that makes people assume there could be no constitution that establishes basic political and social rights?
The majority can amend and or nullify a constitution at will, changing the basic politcal and social rights to favour themselves while excluding a minority.
Few modern anarchists still think it is necessary to political freedom that people actively debate every governmental decision. Ah so the idea of direct democracy is a phantom, in fact governments(a collection of people seperate from the electorate) will be making decisions that are not debated by the people as a whole.Whoever it is that is making the undebated decisions is the one with the power, not the people as individuals or a whole. Most likely there would be limited-term Well thats a relief, term limits are a good thing from the perspective of most democrats. and/or rotating administrative posts.
And who decides who gets which post?



Good work. You tap into one of the reasons that anarchists want a classless society. I can tap into reasons why it would be swell for me to never have to work again and have an endless supply of food, drink money and entertainment- however I cant make the ideal of a classless society a reality any more than I can realise my fantasy of a billionaires lifestyle for no effort. The idea is that, for the most part, no one will always -- or even usually -- be in the minority faction on any decision. and how will this idea, for the most part , actually be put into practice? Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Of course, no one ever expects "perfection,"
indeed and it is the very absence of perfection in humanity which means its possible for a majority faction to always win, and a minority faction to always lose.which is precisely why the constitution establishes certain individual rights that cannot be infringed by a majority decision. a constitution that will be enforced by what?When the majority decides to amend the constitution how is the minority protected then?Anarchists do not want to do away with legality. Legality enforced by what? When a majority faction is able to pass laws that reflect its own interests(blasphemy//apostasy laws or whatever) how exactly can the minority be protected- rather than persecuted by those laws?

The majority can amend and or nullify a constitution at will, changing the basic politcal and social rights to favour themselves while excluding a minority.

Not if the constitution specifies that constitutional amendments require a unanimous vote (or other vote in excess of a simple majority).

Ah so the idea of direct democracy is a phantom, in fact governments(a collection of people seperate from the electorate) will be making decisions that are not debated by the people as a whole.

No, the idea of direct democracy is an ideal. Most modern anarchists admit that it is not practical for "every single" decision to be made by direct majority (or consensus) vote. Rather they approve of the appointment of specialized committees for certain tasks, and elected administrators for others. Really, you cannot criticize the notion without criticizing politics as is. The idea is to move as far as practically possible toward the ideal of participatory direct democracy.[/I].

And who decides who gets which post?

Ummm... the electorate? What a silly question.


I can tap into reasons why it would be swell for me to never have to work again and have an endless supply of food, drink money and entertainment- however I cant make the ideal of a classless society a reality any more than I can realise my fantasy of a billionaires lifestyle for no effort.

Maybe. Maybe not. But if it is a good thing, then it is still something to work for, no?

In response to this The majority can amend and or nullify a constitution at will, changing the basic politcal and social rights to favour themselves while excluding a minority.
this point was raised
Not if the constitution specifies that constitutional amendments require a unanimous vote (or other vote in excess of a simple majority).

Allow me to rephrase, irregardless of what words are put on a piece of paper called a constitution, what is actually going to stop a majority rewriting//amending//nullifying the constitution (even if the constitution itself stipulates a unanimous vote) short of armed force?
When asked about some details of "direct democracy" this point was made

Most likely there would be limited-term and/or rotating administrative posts.This intrigued me given that a rotating administrative post would be filled based on a rota so I then asked And who decides who gets which post? after all someone is putting the names on the rota , and it had not been made clear if that someone putting the names on the rota was a government official, or if elections were being held to put names on the rota.Its therefore with some confusion that I read this Ummm... the electorate? What a silly question
Given the confusion over wether or not these "rotating administrative posts" were being filled by election or government appointment Im forced to wonder wether the "what a silly question" remark is useless ad hominem?

One point on which I would be especially intrigued by a response is this:
The idea is that, for the most part, no one will always -- or even usually -- be in the minority faction on any decision.
to which the enquiry was made and how will this idea, for the most part , actually be put into practice?


Finally,I can tap into reasons why it would be swell for me to never have to work again and have an endless supply of food, drink money and entertainment- however I cant make the ideal of a classless society a reality any more than I can realise my fantasy of a billionaires lifestyle for no effort. the response to this was Maybe. Maybe not. But if it is a good thing, then it is still something to work for, no?
Im forced to observe that wether or not a goal is a good thing, if its completely unattainable, working towards it would seem to do little other than waste time and resources that could be put to better use.

Allow me to rephrase, irregardless of what words are put on a piece of paper called a constitution, what is actually going to stop a majority rewriting//amending//nullifying the constitution (even if the constitution itself stipulates a unanimous vote) short of armed force?

What gives the United States Supreme Court legitimacy to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional? (In case you didn't know, they have no formal powers of enforcement.) Whatever it is, the same thing would allow a court to declare anarchist majoritarian acts unconstitutional.

This intrigued me given that a rotating administrative post would be filled based on a rota so I then asked after all someone is putting the names on the rota , and it had not been made clear if that someone putting the names on the rota was a government official, or if elections were being held to put names on the rota.

Allow me to clarify: Elected posts are subject to the decision of the electorate. Rotating posts rotate between members of the entire electorate as in, say, ancient democracies in which posts were determined by lottery.

Given the confusion over wether or not these "rotating administrative posts" were being filled by election or government appointment Im forced to wonder wether the "what a silly question" remark is useless ad hominem?

Not at all. It was intended to criticize your poor attempt to derail the argument into the elaboration of -- frankly quite obvious -- detail. I am sorry such subtlety eludes you.

One point on which I would be especially intrigued by a response is this:

The response was given. No political system can be held to the irrational standard that "everyone should always win." That is nonsense.

Im forced to observe that wether or not a goal is a good thing, if its completely unattainable, working towards it would seem to do little other than waste time and resources that could be put to better use.

There are always approximations. Only an irrational fool believes that perfection is possible. Certainly there is no such thing as a "pure" capitalist state, yet people defend capitalism as a goal. I defend anarchist socialism as a goal. Although its ideal may never be attained, approximations to it surpass in quality the approximations available to any other systems.

That, of course, is the point of the argument.

As a seperate point- I am alas confused yet again-
I am sorry such subtlety eludes you.
In what way is this relevent to the debate, rather than simply flaming?

As a seperate point- I am alas confused yet again-

In what way is this relevent to the debate, rather than simply flaming?

I guess it could be considered flaming... If it is, I apologize.

However, I interpreted your comments as intentionally diversionary. I meant this to chide you for intentionally attempting to twist my words.

EDIT: You seem more interested in "winning" a debate than actually coming to a common understanding.

What gives the United States Supreme Court legitimacy to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional? Whatever it is, the same thing would allow a court to declare anarchist majoritarian acts unconstitutional?
The constitution and laws of the US give the US supreme court this legitimacy, however congress is not under the control of a majortiy of congressmen who have been elected on a platform of overturning//suspending the constitution.It never has been, we dont know what would happen if this situation were to arise.

With regards to this point
The response was given. No political system can be held to the irrational standard that "everyone should always win." That is nonsense. The idea that "everyone should always win" wasnt mentioned
you had stated that The idea is that, for the most part, no one will always -- or even usually -- be in the minority faction on any decision.
to which I asked and how will this idea, for the most part , actually be put into practice? See? I am not proposing that "everyone should always win" I am simply asking how you actually propose to ensure that "no one will always--or even usually-- be in the minority faction on any decision. You brought it up, Im wondering what you meant by it.

Im a little puzzled by the relevence of this remark.. Only an irrational fool believes perfection is possible I cant find anyone in this thread suggesting that perfection is possible, what have I missed?

The constitution and laws of the US give the US supreme court this legitimacy,

Actually, Justice Marshall pretty much declared the fact of constitutional review, which is stated neither in the Constitution, nor in the substantive laws of the United States. But that is beside the point.

The point is that the legitimacy of judicial review does not rely on military force. Therefore military force is not required to enforce constitutional mandates upon a majoritarian government.

however congress is not under the control of a majortiy of congressmen who have been elected on a platform of overturning//suspending the constitution.It never has been, we dont know what would happen if this situation were to arise.

Right. If it were to happen, the Constitution might actually be overturned or suspended. (Actually, empirical research suggest rather strongly that when Congress wants to overrule the Supreme Court, it does. Did I mention that I am a specialist in public law?) Again, the point is that every constitutional democracy runs this risk -- not just the anarchist ones.

See? I am not proposing that "everyone should always win" I am simply asking how you actually propose to ensure that "no one will always--or even usually-- be in the minority faction on any decision. You brought it up, Im wondering what you meant by it.

As I said already, I meant that this is the ideal. I never said I believe that we can attain the ideal, only that we should strive towards it. As things stand, most people lose most of the time, because the wealthiest class almost always wins. I would prefer a system that tends toward genuine political equality.

I cant find anyone in this thread suggesting that perfection is possible, what have I missed?

Apparently, your own remarks. You have criticized both anarchism and socialism based on the fact that neither can ever attain its ideal. If this is a valid criticism, it follows that the appropriate political/economic system can attain its ideal. Otherwise. anarchists and socialists may still argue that approximations of their ideal are better than approximations of the capitalist or republican ideals.

This is directed toward AnarchyEl:

If you are indeed an anarchist, than you advocate the abolition of government. Under such circumstances, people would be free to organize their economic and social affairs as they saw fit. You advocate socialism, and you would be free to organize a voluntary group willing to abide by the tenets of socialism as you describe them. What I must ask you is this: If in the course of their economic dealings with other groups, your comrades came to realize that their economic system was not benefiting them as much as their capitalist neighbors' system, or if they discovered a way to make a great deal of wealth for themselves, (I'm not sure how wealth can threaten the general welfare, since wealth is not a finite thing, it is created through labor and innovation, but let's assume it meets your criteria for threatening the general welfare) would you advocate the use of force to bring them back in line with your socialist ideals? Remember that this is "anarchy" where only voluntary arrangements can be made, where there exists no government force with police powers, no courts to impose violence or imprisonment on the people (other than contracted ones whose plaintiffs and defendants agree to have their cases heard there, and whose judges have no prior claim on the lives or property of those who come before them). If the Capitalists next door offer your socialist workers more money, or a bigger house or a plasma TV, would you act to stop them? If your answer is yes, you are NOT an anarchist. If the answer is no, then you would likely find that Capitalism would soon establish itslef in the ashes of your attempt at socialism, as people trade goods and services to achieve whatever combination of material wealth and social status they deem satisfactory. This is an idea I brought up in the "why do you hate communism" thread when someone asserted that real communism was anarchic, but it has since been better articulated by another author. Here, read this...

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/gregory/gregory1.html

This is directed toward AnarchyEl:

If you are indeed an anarchist, than you advocate the abolition of government.

No, I advocate self-rule. The etymology of the word "anarchy" is often misinterpreted to mean "no rules." In fact, it means "no rulers," or a system in which the people rule themselves, rather than being ruled by a distinct class of people.

Under such circumstances, people would be free to organize their economic and social affairs as they saw fit.

That is correct.

You advocate socialism, and you would be free to organize a voluntary group willing to abide by the tenets of socialism as you describe them. What I must ask you is this: If in the course of their economic dealings with other groups, your comrades came to realize that their economic system was not benefiting them as much as their capitalist neighbors' system, or if they discovered a way to make a great deal of wealth for themselves, *snip* .... would you advocate the use of force to bring them back in line with your socialist ideals?

I am an anarchist before a socialist. If the democratic decision of the people is to adopt capitalism, I see not legitimate way to oppose them. I think it would be surprising for a well-educated, politically-involved democracy to choose capitalism... and I would oppose it... but my opposition would be -- as it is now -- through democratic mechanisms.

*insert snippet*(I'm not sure how wealth can threaten the general welfare, since wealth is not a finite thing, it is created through labor and innovation, but let's assume it meets your criteria for threatening the general welfare)

As I have said repeatedly in statements my opponents insist on ignoring, wealth in itself is a good thing. My problem is with drastic inequalities of wealth.


Remember that this is "anarchy" where only voluntary arrangements can be made, where there exists no government force with police powers, no courts to impose violence or imprisonment on the people (other than contracted ones whose plaintiffs and defendants agree to have their cases heard there, and whose judges have no prior claim on the lives or property of those who come before them).

Again you mischaracterize anarchism. It entails rule of the people, not the absence of general rules.

If the Capitalists next door offer your socialist workers more money, or a bigger house or a plasma TV, would you act to stop them?

No.

If the answer is no, then you would likely find that Capitalism would soon establish itslef in the ashes of your attempt at socialism, as people trade goods and services to achieve whatever combination of material wealth and social status they deem satisfactory.

Do we see a great degree of emigration from today's moderately socialist Western European nations to the most capitalist ones? Not really. On what evidence do you base your claim?

Water supplies are maintained by the government already. Healthcare is a right, not a possession. I believe the government is failing the people by not offering universal healthcare.
Good for you. Some other places in the world are not as advanced. What you must do in your country is protect the rights you already have and fight for those you don't have.

There is little evidence that raising the minimum wage contributes significantly to inflation. Buying on credit (i.e. with money you have not already earned) has much more disastrous consequences, and to the extent that raising the minimum wage prevents habitual credit purchases, it even has the potential to stabilize inflation.
You're right, raising minimum wage doesn't really contribute to inflation. It contributes to unemployment. Real significant inflation is caused by printing more money.

It contributes to unemployment.It doesn't

Why do I have to favor one over the other? Given a choice, I "favor" personal financial freedom: people should be free to do what they want with their personal resources. But natural resources and the means of production are inherently impersonal; they have a necessarily public nature.Where do you draw the line between peronsal resources and the means of production?

Important resources such as water, or health care.
My wife is going to school to be a respitory therapist. I would appreciate it if you didn't consider her public property.

Good for you. Some other places in the world are not as advanced. What you must do in your country is protect the rights you already have and fight for those you don't have.

Yes, that is why I do not like socialism. It strips us of property rights, and I consider those to be the most important of the rights, as it gives us the power to guarantee the rest. Let the government maintain energy sources and healthcare, but leave the free market as alone as possible.

Where do you draw the line between peronsal resources and the means of production?

I should think that is obvious... The means of production are a means... with which to produce something.

Personal property includes anything that has personal value for an individual that it would not have for another person. (As distinguished from "private" property, the very name of which suggests its definition by negation or exclusion: it is that of which the public is deprived because it is set off for exclusive use by an individual or limited group. All personal property is private property, but not all private property is personal.)

Of course, certain means of production may be personal property. But it is really the scale we are concerned with here. After all, I have already said that market socialism allows capitalist entrepreneurship
on a small scale.

What will be the "cut-off"? That's a political question to be answered by the democracy, and will probably change with time and circumstance.

Yes, that is why I do not like socialism. It strips us of property rights, and I consider those to be the most important of the rights, as it gives us the power to guarantee the rest. Let the government maintain energy sources and healthcare, but leave the free market as alone as possible.
Depends on what you mean by socialism.

It is a fairly broad term, and many socialists see property rights as integral to liberty.

Yes, that is why I do not like socialism. It strips us of property rights,

No, it redefines them. "Rights" in large-scale property descend directly from the "right" of nobility to own large pieces of land -- the major means of production of the day -- but it is difficult to ascertain exactly what was so "right" about this.

Socialism reclaims rightfully public property for the public. Once that happens, it offers strict rights to personal property, things that belong to you as a person.

See my post above: the word "private" actually comes to us from the Latin "privare" by way of "privatus." It literally means "deprived of the public."

You know, even John Locke, who makes perhaps the most famous defense of private property, was clearly nervous about the idea.

Before he could write his Second Treatise on Government, in which he argued that government exists essentially for the protection of private property, he felt compelled to write the First Treatise.

No one really reads it anymore, but they should. It reveals the lengths to which Locke felt it necessary to go in order to "prove" that wealth does not equal power. He felt that if wealth is power, then protecting property rights -- and especially inheritance -- just reintroduces a powerful hereditary nobility in a different form.

At the time, he thought he made a successful proof of the fact.

Since then, experience has taught us otherwise. Since he assumed his own theory to rest on the fact that wealth is not power, he at least would agree that it ultimately fails.

Depends on what you mean by socialism.

It is a fairly broad term, and many socialists see property rights as integral to liberty.

No, they are capitalists then.

Socialism is a government in which all resources for production are pooled by the government and operated by the government. Most socialists are under the impression that the people control the government in a Democracy, so they think that the populous will control the resources.

Let me just ask the socialists on here, how much control do you feel that you have over this little beacon of democracy, America?

Let me just ask the socialists on here, how much control do you feel that you have over this little beacon of democracy, America?

Not enough. :D

But that just means we need more democracy, not less.

I should think that is obvious... The means of production are a means... with which to produce something.

It's not at all obvious. You only imagine it to be so.

Personal property includes anything that has personal value for an individual that it would not have for another person. (As distinguished from "private" property, the very name of which suggests its definition by negation or exclusion: it is that of which the public is deprived because it is set off for exclusive use by an individual or limited group. All personal property is private property, but not all private property is personal.) Do you realize that practically nothing is considered ''personal property' by your definition? My food doesn't have "personal value." I would starve to death.


Of course, certain means of production may be personal property. But it is really the scale we are concerned with here. After all, I have already said that market socialism allows capitalist entrepreneurship
on a small scale.

What will be the "cut-off"? That's a political question to be answered by the democracy, and will probably change with time and circumstance.
And that's precisely what I was asking you. What do YOU want then?
Virtually anything useful can be considered 'means of production'. How about pens, hammers, computers, trucks, ovens, tractors, elephants, shovels, earth movers, boats, sewing machines, chainsaws, and microwaves? Does Microsoft own anything you would consider to be 'means of production'? Is it okay for one person to own a 3000 square foot bakery? What if he lives there?

I hear this rhetoric all the time, as if there's some real and obvious difference between what things are 'means of production' and the things that aren't.

No, it redefines them. "Rights" in large-scale property descend directly from the "right" of nobility to own large pieces of land -- the major means of production of the day -- but it is difficult to ascertain exactly what was so "right" about this.

Socialism reclaims rightfully public property for the public. Once that happens, it offers strict rights to personal property, things that belong to you as a person.

See my post above: the word "private" actually comes to us from the Latin "privare" by way of "privatus." It literally means "deprived of the public."

I thought fair exchange on a market place was more than enough to establish a rightful ownership. That is the thing about the free market, it MOSTLY assures people get what their capital is worth. Whereas, in a socialism the government will determine how much everything is worth, and all of your capital will be at the mercy of the government.

How do you distinguish between land and the house that sits on it? Or even better, how do you distinguish the house from the timber and steel it was made of.

Not enough. :D

But that just means we need more democracy, not less.

Well I am going to tell you that you can't have more democracy. Democracy is only true at an flat level with no authority. The less authority the less government, the less government the less Democracy.

Also, voting does not make a Democracy, an autonomous society makes a democracy.

No, they are capitalists then.

Free Market != Capitalism (automatically).

Socialism is a government in which all resources for production are pooled by the government and operated by the government.

Anarchists tend to regard themselves as socialists, you can hardly say that they are fond of the idea of government owning all.

Some anarchists also argue for the existence of a total free market (but not for capitalism)

Let me just ask the socialists on here, how much control do you feel that you have over this little beacon of democracy, America?

The US government has many qualities which could be considered 'socialist'

It's not at all obvious. You only imagine it to be so.
Do you realize that practically nothing is considered ''personal property' by your definition? My food doesn't have "personal value." I would starve to death.


And that's precisely what I was asking you. What do YOU want then?
Virtually anything useful can be considered 'means of production'. How about pens, hammers, computers, trucks, ovens, tractors, elephants, shovels, earth movers, boats, sewing machines, chainsaws, and microwaves? Does Microsoft own anything you would consider to be 'means of production'? Is it okay for one person to own a 3000 square foot bakery? What if he lives there?

I hear this rhetoric all the time, as if there's some real and obvious difference between what things are 'means of production' and the things that aren't.It depends on what you use your property for. Having a piece of land for gardening as a hobby is no problem. Having a piece of land strategically placed so you can ask a fee to the people who want to cross is a problem. In the later case, it's capital.

It's not at all obvious. You only imagine it to be so.
Do you realize that practically nothing is considered ''personal property' by your definition? My food doesn't have "personal value." I would starve to death.

Did someone threaten your food?

I hear this rhetoric all the time, as if there's some real and obvious difference between what things are 'means of production' and the things that aren't.

Well you are not hearing it from me. I am telling you that it is a political question to which there is no a priori answer.

I tell you that an industry is rightfully public when it is "too big," but you will not allow me this answer.

But "you know quite well that if you asked someone how much twelve is and in asking told him beforehand, 'See to it you don't tell me, you human being, that it is two times six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three; I won't accept such nonsense from you'--it was plain to you, I suppose, that no one would answer a man who asks in this way."

--- Like Socrates, I am perplexed. Even if my opinion happens to be what I have already said, "shall I say something other than the truth, you surprising man?"

Well I am going to tell you that you can't have more democracy. Democracy is only true at an flat level with no authority. The less authority the less government, the less government the less Democracy.
.
Depends on what you mean by 'government' though.

I thought fair exchange on a market place was more than enough to establish a rightful ownership.

Sure. But I am telling you that certain capital goods do not belong on the market in the first place. Kind of like slaves.

The fact that you bought something does not make you the rightful owner if it is not the sort of thing that an individual should own.

How do you distinguish between land and the house that sits on it? Or even better, how do you distinguish the house from the timber and steel it was made of.

What a silly question. You know the answer to that. People can own houses and land to put them on. Where is the harm in that? They can own the lumber and the steel that make up houses. They can even purchase lumber and steel to build houses, as far as I can see.

They may not, however, control the lumber or steel industries. Nor do I think it likely socialist democrats would let them have a construction company that builds skyscrapers and large buildings (because this requires a great deal of capital like cranes and such).

I helped my grandfather build the home in which my (widowed) grandmother now lives... Building houses is not a huge capital enterprise.

(Then again, I won't be the one to tell the democracy what they can and cannot do. If they think they are better off socialism the production of homes, then let them do so.)

Free Market != Capitalism (automatically).

No, Free Market is an economic principle, capitalism is a political economic system that is based on private ownership of the means to production. Capitalism is facilitated by the free market, but they are separate. I believe that Capitalism can be both beneficial and detrimental to the free market.

Anarchists tend to regard themselves as socialists, you can hardly say that they are fond of the idea of government owning all.

Government is the only way they can legitimately pool the resources that is needed for socialism. Socialism promotes a large government by its very nature.

Some anarchists also argue for the existence of a total free market (but not for capitalism)

That is not possible, as the government is forced to set prices when they distribute resources, money, and goods.

The US government has many qualities which could be considered 'socialist'

Yes, but those should only be used to protect the rights of the people and to facilitate the free market. Otherwise, the US is and should be a capitalism.

And also let me point out that socialism does not end corporatism, it only gives the government the ability to stop it. As shown by our present government the voting public does not care about corporatism

Well I am going to tell you that you can't have more democracy.

That does seem to be our fundamental disagreement.

Democracy is only true at an flat level with no authority.

What is a "flat" level? And there is no such thing as "no authority." Even anarchists know that... Authority is, by its very nature, conferred; power, of course, is another matter. (This theory goes at least back to St. Augustine.)

The less authority the less government, the less government the less Democracy.

I'm sorry, I cannot seem to make any sense out of that statement.

Also, voting does not make a Democracy, an autonomous society makes a democracy.

No, an autonomous society defines a liberal society. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, which means rule by the people. The more power people have collectively, the more democratic the society.

Depends on what you mean by 'government' though.

Now don't go on with this definition business again.

Government is the system by which people are governed. It is the body that establishes public policy, maintains the society.

That is not possible, as the government is forced to set prices when they distribute resources, money, and goods.

Have you so quickly forgotten everything I taught you about market socialism? My teaching abilities disappoint me. There is no price-setting in market socialism. The market determines prices.

My opinion is that property can not last after your life in your family.
What lasts should not exceed something like €100 000.
What exceeds this amount should go to the public after your life.
That way, the class system stops.

My wife is going to school to be a respitory therapist. I would appreciate it if you didn't consider her public property.
Don't be silly. I'm not talking about your wife, I was talking about health care.

My opinion is that property can not last after your life in your family.
What lasts should not exceed something like €100 000.
What exceeds this amount should go to the public after your life.
That way, the class system stops.

Hey, Thomas Jefferson thought the same thing. ;)

(EDIT: Crazy guy. You can imagine why no one wanted to call him back from France when they decided to write a new Constitution. He was really hurt, too... If there is one thing the man loved, it was writing constitutions. His notes are full of them!)

No, Free Market is an economic principle, capitalism is a political economic system that is based on private ownership of the means to production. Capitalism is facilitated by the free market, but they are separate. I believe that Capitalism can be both beneficial and detrimental to the free market.

That's what I said, just expanded (you do realise ''!='' means does not equal don't you?)

Government is the only way they can legitimately pool the resources that is needed for socialism. Socialism promotes a large government by its very nature.

Not all socialism calls for pooling resources.

That is not possible, as the government is forced to set prices when they distribute resources, money, and goods.
Have you so quickly forgotten everything I taught you about market socialism? My teaching abilities disappoint me. There is no price-setting in market socialism. The market determines prices.

Thanky you AnarchyeL

Yes, but those should only be used to protect the rights of the people and to facilitate the free market. Otherwise, the US is and should be a capitalism.

So, how does social security (or welfare, or what ever it is called in the US), minimum wage laws, making some goods illegal taxes etc help the rights of the people or facilitate the free marker?

It is also possible to have both socialism and capitalism. There aren't mutually exclusive (eg the UK)

And also let me point out that socialism does not end corporatism, it only gives the government the ability to stop it. As shown by our present government the voting public does not care about corporatism[/QUOTE]

Hey, Thomas Jefferson thought the same thing. ;)
Nice guy then. Who is Thomas Jefferson BTW?
And please excuse my ignorance.

What a silly question. You know the answer to that. People can own houses and land to put them on. Where is the harm in that? They can own the lumber and the steel that make up houses. They can even purchase lumber and steel to build houses, as far as I can see.

They may not, however, control the lumber or steel industries. Nor do I think it likely socialist democrats would let them have a construction company that builds skyscrapers and large buildings (because this requires a great deal of capital like cranes and such).

Then land is not a public resource then?

If it is, how is the land and the materials for the house purchased? Are people allowed to sell their house and move after they have purchased or must they simply abdicate it to the government?

I helped my grandfather build the home in which my (widowed) grandmother now lives... Building houses is not a huge capital enterprise.

:confused: Large contractors and housing developers have 6 and 7 digit weekly operational cash flows.

(Then again, I won't be the one to tell the democracy what they can and cannot do. If they think they are better off socialism the production of homes, then let them do so.)

At least you respect the democracy. There are many people that do not respect the democracy, and if they gain control of a socialist government we would have a problem.

Nice guy then. Who is Thomas Jefferson BTW?
And please excuse my ignorance.
OK I've found that:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html
But I don't get it. What does this man have to do with inheritance?

Have you so quickly forgotten everything I taught you about market socialism? My teaching abilities disappoint me. There is no price-setting in market socialism. The market determines prices.

The more resources that the government sells, the more prices for all products are skewed towards a government defined level.

At least you respect the democracy. There are many people that do not respect the democracy, and if they gain control of a socialist government we would have a problem.
It's not a socialist trait. If some bastard gain control of a large corporation like Halliburton in a capitalist society, we have a big problem as well.

Nice guy then. Who is Thomas Jefferson BTW?
And please excuse my ignorance.

Ahh... sorry. He is one of the American "Founding Fathers." He was the principle writer of the Declaration of Independence (although his original draft is more interesting than what wound up going to England).

Americans tend to think he is pretty important... but few realize just how radical he was. He was by far the most democratic of the Founders, openly admiring Native American anarchism. He was among the first to suggest public education. He thought that a new Constitutional convention should be held about every 19 years ("a little revolution now and then") because he did not believe that men have the right to rule the generations that follow them.

He also thought the world was given to humanity in "usufruct," or as a trust. That means that we are obliged by natural law to leave "as good or better" for those after us... making him among the first environmentalists.

Finally, he extended the same principle to say that no one has the right to command what happens to his wealth after death -- it returns to the society from which it was "borrowed" in trust. He thought that survivors should get some wealth as a practical matter, but fundamentally he believed that society has the right to set limits on how much.

My opinion is that property can not last after your life in your family.
What lasts should not exceed something like €100 000.
What exceeds this amount should go to the public after your life.
That way, the class system stops.

So much for financial freedom... and proprietary rights.

The more resources that the government sells, the more prices for all products are skewed towards a government defined level.

Sorry, no. But I have already explained this far too many times, and it exhausts me. If you want to understand it any better, you will simply have to do your own reading on market socialism.

so what you wre saying is... you think Thomas Jefferson was a socialist?

I mean if he didn't respect people's rights to handle their own money as they see fit...

So much for financial freedom... and proprietary rights.
Freedom stops where begins the one of others.

so what you wre saying is... you think Thomas Jefferson was a socialist?

I mean if he didn't respect people's rights to handle their own money as they see fit...
Read more about socialism. Socialism is not only the evil empire.

That does seem to be our fundamental disagreement.

Yes

What is a "flat" level? And there is no such thing as "no authority." Even anarchists know that... Authority is, by its very nature, conferred; power, of course, is another matter. (This theory goes at least back to St. Augustine.)

I should have said there is no authority of one group over another. I mean by flat there would be no hierarchy of power, with everyone having an equal say in the government. We do not have this, and I believe socialism would only accent the failings of our government as it would have more power.

I'm sorry, I cannot seem to make any sense out of that statement.

Democracy is a government, government is authority. A government grows smaller by losing authority.

No, an autonomous society defines a liberal society. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, which means rule by the people. The more power people have collectively, the more democratic the society.

You are correct on the first part, but,

The more power the people have individually, the more democratic the society. The power as a collective is an extension of the power of the individual.

My opinion is that property can not last after your life in your family.
What lasts should not exceed something like €100 000.
What exceeds this amount should go to the public after your life.
That way, the class system stops.

I am almost willing to agree with this, even though I despise the idea of not being allowed to do what you wish with your earnings.

so what you wre saying is... you think Thomas Jefferson was a socialist?

Not quite. He had no concept of socialism as we know it. But he was certainly the most socialist -- and anarchist -- of the Founders.

I mean if he didn't respect people's rights to handle their own money as they see fit...

Basically, he did. He just thought that human beings have a fundamental responsibility to future generations, to the point that he basically considered abuse of the environment or excessive waste criminal acts.

Like many theorists, he believed that money was a convention invented by society to serve society's needs; it is a useful thing for achieving the ends of human existence. But by its very nature, it belongs to society, and individuals merely borrow the use of it. As a practical matter property rights were important to him... but that just means that when practical to do so, the state should intervene.

Notice that Jefferson almost stole Locke's well-known phrase: "life, liberty, and property" or "life, liberty, and estate" as it appears in the Second Treatise. But Jefferson carefully changed it to, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I am the only one who seems to believe that government is separate from the public.

I am the only one that seems to understand that politicians have a profound interest in separating the government from the public.

I am the only one who seems to come to the conclusion that a powerful central government will afford politicians the ability to cut the public out of the government.

The founders of our nation are rolling in their graves.
Ay Vitt, it must be hard to be the only one who understands things as they really are... ;)

Leave the poor founders in their graves...if we were meant to keep things exactly the way our ancestors did, we'd still be living in caves. Our nations, and how they are run are up to the living.

Explain the USSR? They "equalized" things as best they could and suddenly they managed their Oil wells by taking the easy way out, destroyed their enviorment because it was easy and overall didn't compete that much.

Speaking as an Economics student, I have to point out that this does have some valid points. However, that wasn't so much to do with equalising wealth, that was to do with the centralised planning system. Industries with no other incentive but to follow the government-laid quota aren't going to care that much about environmental destruction.

That's what I said, just expanded (you do realise ''!='' means does not equal don't you?)

I was unaware what != means.

Not all socialism calls for pooling resources.

That is the nature of socialism. Even the most loosely associated views of socialist policies are tied together by the process of pooling and redistributing wealth.

So, how does social security (or welfare, or what ever it is called in the US), minimum wage laws, making some goods illegal taxes etc help the rights of the people or facilitate the free marker?

It is also possible to have both socialism and capitalism. There aren't mutually exclusive (eg the UK)


Social security is what I meant by protecting the rights of the people. The government is obligated, first and foremost in my opinion, to establish a minimal lifestyle that allows for autonomy in its people.

You can have a capitalist society with socialist regulations. (The US)

You can have a socialist society with capitalist regulations. (China)

But a nation cannot be both socialist and capitalist.

I should have said there is no authority of one group over another. I mean by flat there would be no hierarchy of power, with everyone having an equal say in the government.

Ah, so you are an anarchist!! Excellent. Then you do agree that there can be more democracy?

We do not have this, and I believe socialism would only accent the failings of our government as it would have more power.

Hey, keep in mind I would not want our government as-is to pick up too much socialist enterprise either. I think we need to de-centralize and socialize, with individual communities and regions determining their own resources and industry -- with cooperation, of course.

But fundamentally, if we can agree that real democracy or anarchy is possible, then there should be no disagreement that such a government should be socialist. When the people control their own political life, why should they not direct that life toward their common good? It would be foolish of them to do otherwise.

Democracy is a government, government is authority. A government grows smaller by losing authority.

Not necessarily. It is possible to have great authority but no power, or great power and no authority. (Guns provide a lot of power, but not necessarily any authority. Authority is inherently bound up with legitimacy.)

The more power the people have individually, the more democratic the society.

Nope. You are again describing liberalism.

In ancient Greek democracies, most democrats had very little individual power to determine their own lives, which were dictated by tradition, lineage, and most importantly the totalitarian laws of the state. But they were still democracies because however totalitarian those laws may have been they were nevertheless determined by a collective vote.

Now, I am certainly not suggesting anything like that! I tend to think people have gotten over their most totalitarian urges, and democrats will still be liberals in the future. (Although there is great tension between democratic and liberal theory. Remember, Thomas Hobbes was the first major liberal, but he was certainly no democrat!!) But it does serve to prove the point that democracy does not derive from the power of the individual. It names the power of the collective.

It's not a socialist trait. If some bastard gain control of a large corporation like Halliburton in a capitalist society, we have a big problem as well.

What stops a bastard from gaining control of a socialistic society? We elected a bastard democratically, and I don't see how a socialism would change that. We would just have a bastard with a different last name.

Sorry, no. But I have already explained this far too many times, and it exhausts me. If you want to understand it any better, you will simply have to do your own reading on market socialism.

If I remember right you said the government would control the major markets, while the public was responsible for regional ones, correct?

What stops a bastard from gaining control of a socialistic society? We elected a bastard democratically, and I don't see how a socialism would change that. We would just have a bastard with a different last name.
Indeed it would be the same thing.
Maybe people should be checked for sanity before being handed any power (big property in capitalism or government position in socialism).

Then land is not a public resource then?

Sure it is, but the public has every right to sell its resources.

If it is, how is the land and the materials for the house purchased?

With money.

Are people allowed to sell their house and move after they have purchased or must they simply abdicate it to the government?

Of course they can sell and move. Once they procure it, it is theirs. Of course, if the society has some reason to reclaim the land, they may do so... but they would have to pay a good price! This already happens all the time. My family was forced to sell the home in which I was born back to the State of Virginia so that they could build a freeway extension.

:confused: Large contractors and housing developers have 6 and 7 digit weekly operational cash flows.

Okay... so? If the democracy finds this problematic, they can employ any number of methods to change the situation. For one thing, we do not know that they would make so much, since we do not know how cheaply a socialist anarchy would be willing to sell its lumber. Since our existing governments have a tendency to just give it away, we might expect profit margins to be much lower. Progressive taxation is also an option. Finally, a business of that scale might simply be socialized... and this in no way differs from the government forcing my parents to sell their home when society required it.

Indeed, one can easily imagine that in such a society to build a business large enough to merit socialization would be considered one of the highest possible honors. People would be proud of it.

At least you respect the democracy. There are many people that do not respect the democracy, and if they gain control of a socialist government we would have a problem.

Here we agree entirely. Indeed, I respect democracy more than socialism... If a truly democratic government chooses a capitalist economy, I will oppose them only as a democrat opposes other democrats: by my voice and my vote.

Here we agree entirely. Indeed, I respect democracy more than socialism... If a truly democratic government chooses a capitalist economy, I will oppose them only as a democrat opposes other democrats: by my voice and my vote.I agree with you both, but I have to add that if the government is not truly democratic, I will oppose it by other means.
I mean democratic as in "the people decide", and by people I mean all the people, without border.

Ah, so you are an anarchist!! Excellent. Then you do agree that there can be more democracy?

No, there cannot be more democracy. There can be more autonomy and more liberty, but not more democracy. Democracy is still of government, but it is defined by being the least powerful government possible. By increasing government power the democracy becomes less of a democracy. Presidents and Senators are no different than a King or Queen when they are given the power of a King or Queen.

Hey, keep in mind I would not want our government as-is to pick up too much socialist enterprise either. I think we need to de-centralize and socialize, with individual communities and regions determining their own resources and industry -- with cooperation, of course.

But fundamentally, if we can agree that real democracy or anarchy is possible, then there should be no disagreement that such a government should be socialist. When the people control their own political life, why should they not direct that life toward their common good? It would be foolish of them to do otherwise.

Real democracy is not possible, anarchy is not possible. But if they were, I would still support my right to be economically free to determine what goods I purchase, how I invest my money, and what I want to do with my property when I die. Hierarchy will always be an aspect of human nature, and no matter what system you use, the powerful will be there to exploit it.

Not necessarily. It is possible to have great authority but no power, or great power and no authority. (Guns provide a lot of power, but not necessarily any authority. Authority is inherently bound up with legitimacy.)

Power grants authority.

Nope. You are again describing liberalism.

In ancient Greek democracies, most democrats had very little individual power to determine their own lives, which were dictated by tradition, lineage, and most importantly the totalitarian laws of the state. But they were still democracies because however totalitarian those laws may have been they were nevertheless determined by a collective vote.

Now, I am certainly not suggesting anything like that! I tend to think people have gotten over their most totalitarian urges, and democrats will still be liberals in the future. (Although there is great tension between democratic and liberal theory. Remember, Thomas Hobbes was the first major liberal, but he was certainly no democrat!!) But it does serve to prove the point that democracy does not derive from the power of the individual. It names the power of the collective.

Does not a totalitarian also possess the power of the collective. Did not Stalin possess the power of the Soviet Union? A stable government will always represent the power of the collective. It is the inherent power of the individual that makes the democracy function.

I think that the difference between me and the socialists on here is that whereas the socialists are idealists who think that everyone will take responsibility if given the opportunity, I am a cynic who thinks that everyone (as a whole) will shirk responsibility if given the opportunity.

Real democracy is not possible, anarchy is not possible. But if they were, I would still support my right to be economically free to determine what goods I purchase, how I invest my money, and what I want to do with my property when I die. Hierarchy will always be an aspect of human nature, and no matter what system you use, the powerful will be there to exploit it.
It's not because it is impossible that you don't have the responsibility to fight for it. It can always be improved. Look at what we have achieved so far. Who would have thought 200 years ago that we would have schools for everybody in the country, or that any man in need would receive medecine. Who would have thought 1000 years ago that ordinary people would vote their rulers?

If I remember right you said the government would control the major markets, while the public was responsible for regional ones, correct?

Yes, the government/public would control the major industries, but being an anarchist I don't believe in "government" on anything more than a regional basis. So there is no one "controlling" markets on anything more than a regional basis.

I think just about the largest practical government is on the order of a moderately-sized state like Pennsylvania -- and even this should be decentralized to provide significant control to localities.

Personally, I have to agree with Hannah Arendt that the Articles of Confederation are a real "lost treasure" of American political thought... There was actually some brilliant theory in them, and we may well have scrapped them too precipitously. (They did get us through a major war, and they actually managed to reconcile the States' disputes over western territory; no small feat.)

In the meantime, however, I do think the existing government should continue certain useful socialist trends, improving public education and offering better and more consistent welfare.

I think that the government should act as the employer-of-last-resort. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done... Just set up a computer with a list of the jobs, and the qualifications necessary for each. Then people can rank the list of those for which they are qualified according to their preference... literally just numbering them from 1-30 or whatever. I would be satisfied with the bulk of these paying minimum wage, with higher wages for skilled positions. (Hey, I'm a little worried about getting a job with this Ph.D. ... unemployment isn't just for the uneducated and lazy.)

Finally, existing governments should be more careful with their natural resources. The argument is usually that giving them away "stimulates the economy," which is certainly not a bad thing... but this concern needs to be better balanced with a healthy regard for the environment. The best solution is a market-based solution. Set prices on natural resources like forests, mineral-rich land, and so on... and if more is being purchased than is healthy for the environment, up the prices.

I do not advocate the United States nationalizing many industries... with the possible exception of health care. But the steps above would do us good.

Ay Vitt, it must be hard to be the only one who understands things as they really are... ;)

Yes, it is so hard being a visionary. :p

Leave the poor founders in their graves...if we were meant to keep things exactly the way our ancestors did, we'd still be living in caves. Our nations, and how they are run are up to the living.

I think we should at least leave the principles of freedom and autonomy that our founding fathers BASED this nation on, at least.

You can have a capitalist society with socialist regulations. (The US)

You can have a socialist society with capitalist regulations. (China)

But a nation cannot be both socialist and capitalist.

This seems to be where the major disagreement lies...you are defining socialism and capitalism as the political systems which determine the economic ones. This is where you are getting confused...(and confusing the rest of us with your circling arguments). Socialism is a political system, and it is also an economic one. Socialism as a political system DOES impact the economic system, as it calls for a pooling of resources (though not necessarily the abolition of all private property...ie, you own your house, and even the land it sits on, but not the minerals below it). Socialism and capitalism as purely economic systems can be seen to various degrees in different nations as you have described. Capitalism however IS NOT A POLITICAL SYSTEM. It just isn't. It simply does not encompass a political structure outside of property rights and market liberalisation. You are giving capitalism entirely too much credit...capitalism defines how the economy will be run, just as socialism does. You are claiming that a socialist government could not hold power in a democracy, as it would nullify that democracy. Perhaps, were we talking about Socialism as a political ideology. However, socialism as an economic principle, held by the party in power, is simply the manner in which the economy would be defined. It no more nullifies democracy than capitalism does. Now, if that party turned around and voted themselves positions for life, you have a dictatorship, not a democracy. THAT would nullify democracy. Socialist economic policies, based on socialist political principles IN A DEMOCRACY would not.

Simply put: don't work from absolutes, neither socialism or capitalism (economics) exists in pure form, nor do Socialism or Democracy (politics) exist undiluted.

It's not because it is impossible that you don't have the responsibility to fight for it. It can always be improved. Look at what we have achieved so far. Who would have thought 200 years ago that we would have schools for everybody in the country, or that any man in need would receive medecine. Who would have thought 1000 years ago that ordinary people would vote their rulers?

That is why I say that we don't start giving away rights. I say that only through capitalism can the public be empowered enough to continue to control their government.

No, but thanks for the pretty straw man.

I am advocating the government providing, not "pretty much everything," but only the basics: food, shelter, education, and the guarantee of some employment for those who want it -- even if it is not always the best work.

Yep, that's pretty much everything, now, isn't it? Especially since you're creating a government monopoly of the power to provide food, shelter, education and employment. What happens when government fails? What happens when parents stop spoiling their children? They have to either sink or swim, and without an upbringing that teaches one to swim they sink.

Instead of a "wealthy elite" you have a "legal elite" of government, upon whom everyone is a dependent. (After all if you can get food, etc from the government why bother to work for it?)


The kind of work, and the extent of the reward, naturally depend on an individual's skill, motivation, and so on.

Ah! Just like in free market capitalism.



The kind of equal treatment I mean is the kind that says everyone should get a truly equal opportunity at life, health, and success. Being the capitalist's favorite bell, I should think it sounds pleasant enough to you. The socialist merely points out that someone in poverty hardly really has the same chance as a person born into wealth.

And non-entrepeneurial people don't have the same chance either. Life is just full of unfairness.

Of course entrepeneurial people born into poverty can and have been successful, just as people born into wealth have wasted all their resources.


No, I wouldn't. But if they were eating so much food that there was none left for anyone else, you can bet I would stop them.

So why not only try to also stop people from gaining wealth when there is "none left for anyone else?" You're drawing the line long before that...

(Also, one has to consider the fact that economists are now realizing that a growth economy cannot exist forever... eventually human beings will have to learn to live with small to zero-growth. And if we want a decent planet to be around at the time, sooner is better than later.)

"Now" realizing that the market goes up and down? This is something economists have known for quite some time. And it doesn't bother me. I don't see how market fluctuations mean that if we don't convert to socialism there won't be a "decent planet" around.


Enlighten me. What choices do I limit?

Ownership. You limit what people can own when you advocate more "public ownership" (government monopoly).


Not at all. You can still do pretty much whatever you want (within reason, of course). The public only adopts a basic care for the welfare of all.

When you say "the public" you mean the government, right? Unless you are advocating direct democracy.

It's still Big Brother. Higher taxes, more government power, responsibility and authority, and you can bet corruption will scale up as well, because that's how governments work.

Yes. And since socialism guarantees the job, you describe the shift in values likely to take place.

That description was of cases where people got their own job, instead of received a government handout. There's a difference, even if you don't perceive it. Besides which, socialism in practice doesn't guarantee a job anymore than capitalism guarantees wealth.


Hopefully. At any rate, it will put more people into jobs that they choose rather than ones they settle for out of necessity or lack of training. And it will improve job security. These are pretty good reasons to believe it should increase happiness, yes?

That doesn't make sense. People are still "choosing" their jobs when they "settle for" one. When they are handed government jobs, that's not "choosing."

The way it'll 'improve job security' is by having government mandates preventing businesses from getting rid of workers who can't do the job. Less freedom, since employers will be interfered with by your father government. And in the end, it means less security since these employers will be less successful than ones in more free markets, and eventually the government won't be able to print enough money to pretend socialism actually works.


That is the idea, yes.

Naivete. Unemployment won't go away jsut because government says so. It'll just become paid, taxpayer subsidized unemployment.



Yep. But you've lost me... why in the world would it involve a loss of self-respect or sense of accomplishment and independence?

Ah, another place where our fundamental differences clash. Working for oneself, getting to where you are by your own bootstraps and hard work, taking your own choices and risks and living with them, is a source of pride and self-respect for many people. So is inheriting the fruits of labor on behalf of your father who worked for it. You'd take away both.


What a silly question. For one thing, people are pretty attached to their home -- and I don't blame them. Personally, I would rather do a service to my nation by improving matters here than copping out and heading to a better society. But that is because I care.

Oh, right. So how about homeless people, why aren't they saving up to go to a socialist nation? They have home pride too, and prefer poverty?

No. The answer is, your socialist utopia is simply not as appealing, despite it's many promises.


Nope, those are personal matters. The public's only job is to curb excesses that have a material impact on other people. But again, nice straw man. (I picture him with a cute little hat.)

THAT was a straw man that you just gave me, not the other way around. Sex is a personal matter because excess of sex has no material impact on other people, is that what you're saying? So, STDs don't exist, and pregnancy/population growth doesn't result from sex? ;)


You are quite wrong about me.

I am a cynical idealist.

If by 'cynical' you mean, 'hopelessly naive,' sure....;)

Not exactly. First of all, market socialism relies on social profits far more than taxation. These profits (like taxes, but perhaps more obviously) belong to the public, and the public decides what to do with it (democratically). Now, if the majority decides to be charitable toward society's worst-off members, certainly not everyone may agree... but not everyone will agree with any decision the majority makes. That is what it means to live in a democracy!!

Blah blah blah. See this is what I mean, you think representational government actually IS the public. Unless, again, you advocate direct democracy...

We've already seen how charitable our government is. Your socialism relies on it (errr I mean The Public) being more charitable in the future.

Please. PLEASE! Tell me in what way the system I propose is "controlling" people? It gives each person more options in life, more say in the political system... I fail to see in what way you think personal liberty is restricted. Do enlighten me.

Well let's see, your profit-making government (presumably with yet more 'public owned' state monopolies) necessitates bigger government with more power and authority. I guess if I was totally naive I could pretend that would lead to LESS control instead of MORE...

I have no idea, since I do not consider them the same thing at all. "Equal" means that (relatively speaking) everyone has the same "say" in government. Every vote "counts" as much as any other. "Meaningful" implies that people actually feel like their vote does something. They feel empowered to engage in politics directly, and they feel less of the "us/them" mentality about government that has been so well ingrained into people like our friend Vittos.

You consider that your increased equality will automatically make it more meaningful. So, you consider them to be essentially the same thing, in that there's that handy, fictitious causal relationship.

Well, that is the point I have been arguing. I think it is more practical in the sense that it achieves one of the important ends of a social system -- stability -- while also providing a maximum of freedom. Certainly better than your police state option, yes?

A maximum of freedom? What a laugh. Yeah, TOTAL FREEDOM... for the low low cost of HALF OF EVERYTHING YOU GOT. Only, you get to vote on what the government does with your taxes... just like now... making it more meaningful. Somehow.

A moralistic (your morals), monopolizing government and the helpless, babied citizen-dependents. Oh, and with more public ownership, that means the government is in it for the money as well as a concerned, involved agent. But it won't be corrupt at all... because people will vote for it's members...?

Well, it sounds like a police state to me.

That is why I say that we don't start giving away rights. I say that only through capitalism can the public be empowered enough to continue to control their government.
But then they have less control since the government is nothing.
I mean ok having more control on the government is an area where we have to fight, but if it means suppressing the government, then we're back to the lords and we have to fight them again.

Yes, the government/public would control the major industries, but being an anarchist I don't believe in "government" on anything more than a regional basis. So there is no one "controlling" markets on anything more than a regional basis.

What do you mean by major industries? Would you keep all production regional as well?

I think just about the largest practical government is on the order of a moderately-sized state like Pennsylvania -- and even this should be decentralized to provide significant control to localities.

Personally, I have to agree with Hannah Arendt that the Articles of Confederation are a real "lost treasure" of American political thought... There was actually some brilliant theory in them, and we may well have scrapped them too precipitously. (They did get us through a major war, and they actually managed to reconcile the States' disputes over western territory; no small feat.)

I personally believe that a federal government is necessary to protect against regulatory infringement on trade between states and protect civil rights across the nation, little other than that.

The humorous thing is that, allowing autonomy amongst the states is a decidely non-socialistic policy.

In the meantime, however, I do think the existing government should continue certain useful socialist trends, improving public education and offering better and more consistent welfare.

I think that the government should act as the employer-of-last-resort. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done... Just set up a computer with a list of the jobs, and the qualifications necessary for each. Then people can rank the list of those for which they are qualified according to their preference... literally just numbering them from 1-30 or whatever. I would be satisfied with the bulk of these paying minimum wage, with higher wages for skilled positions. (Hey, I'm a little worried about getting a job with this Ph.D. ... unemployment isn't just for the uneducated and lazy.)

Finally, existing governments should be more careful with their natural resources. The argument is usually that giving them away "stimulates the economy," which is certainly not a bad thing... but this concern needs to be better balanced with a healthy regard for the environment. The best solution is a market-based solution. Set prices on natural resources like forests, mineral-rich land, and so on... and if more is being purchased than is healthy for the environment, up the prices.

I do not advocate the United States nationalizing many industries... with the possible exception of health care. But the steps above would do us good.

How did we fill so many pages when we seem to agree so much.

That is why I say that we don't start giving away rights. I say that only through capitalism can the public be empowered enough to continue to control their government.
Why are you basing freedoms on the ability to consume goods in a free market? The power you have as a consumer are fairly limited: you consume, or you do not. You have no more or less freedom of speech as a consumer than you do as a non-consumer. (i.e., you boycott GAP jeans for using sweatshop labour, or you don't....neither action makes you more or less free). You do not have all that much economic freedom as it is...oh yes, you get to choose WHERE you buy your goods, but not necessarily at what prices (despite protestations to the contrary, price fixing is a common practice in the market), and you have very little say about how those goods are produced (unless there is mass protest, sweatshops will continue to be the production means of choice), and you would have even LESS in an unregulated (no government interference) market.

Now, you have stated before that you feel the government needs to take steps to regulate the market, and we discussed some ways they could do this. How do you reconcile those protections with your need to have NO government interference? To different extents, all of those steps would entail a certain pooling of resources. Would that make a nation less free? Or simply more self-sufficient?

Perhaps you should outline what rights you feel are essential to humans, and then explain how a socialist economic system would infringe upon those human rights.

It's kind of funny actually, because I think a bunch of us agree on many of the same things, we're just in a pissing contest to see who can explain themselves better:)

By increasing government power the democracy becomes less of a democracy. Presidents and Senators are no different than a King or Queen when they are given the power of a King or Queen.

You are equivocating on the definition of power. When I talk about giving the government more authority, I mean that its scope should be expanded to include more things... but only under the condition that it also becomes more accountable to the population. You twist my words by pretending that by "power" I mean to give the government more autonomy; I do not.

I would still support my right to be economically free to determine what goods I purchase, how I invest my money,

As would I. All of those things describe features of markets that existed in markets long before capitalism was around, and will be aspects of a market economy long after capitalism is gone.

and what I want to do with my property when I die.

Yeah, for the most part me too. Given conditions of relative equality, I see no reason for an estate tax at all. Such a tax, like most others, may be a necessary evil, however, if it is the only way to maintain the sort of relative equality that virtually every political theorist in history thinks is the mark of a healthy constitution.

Hierarchy will always be an aspect of human nature, and no matter what system you use, the powerful will be there to exploit it.

Being even more cynical than you, I agree. Of course, I take that thought to its logical conclusion: if there is no way to eliminate the powerful and the greedy, we should at least make things as difficult for them as possible. Letting individuals control massive amounts of wealth, resources, and labor makes it too easy for individuals to exert dangerous influence on the economy. Granted, giving George Bush more power over the economy is just as bad, if not worse... but that is why the government must be made more accountable, with perhaps more checks and balances.

There is at least the hope of making government accountable to the people. Not so for business -- indeed, the only way we have held them accountable thus far is through the government.

Power grants authority.

No. This is a common misunderstanding of the nature of authority. Power implies the ability to make commands and have them followed. Power can be taken or coerced. Authority, as a political concept, implies respect. It entails that people believe a person speaks from knowledge, or has the right to command (as opposed to merely the power to do so.

Thus a military dictator may have great power, but little or no authority -- everyone knows he should not be in power, and they disobey his orders when they can get away with it -- but when compelled at gunpoint, they do as they are told.

A scientist, on the other hand, or a teacher, may have great authority but little to no power. People call a person "an authority" on a subject of her/his word should be taken as representing reliable knowledge; this does not imply that he or she has any power to compel people to act on that knowledge.

Authority is always conferred. People grant it to those they feel are deserving. Power is sometimes conferred -- usually to a figure of some authority -- but it can just as well be taken. Authority sometimes grants power; power almost never turns automatically into authority.

Does not a totalitarian also possess the power of the collective.

You are trying to equivocate again, and it is becoming annoying. You know perfectly well what I mean by the collective democratic voice. You know perfectly well what the difference is between a dictator and a voting assembly. Do not demean yourself by pretending not to.

I think that the difference between me and the socialists on here is that whereas the socialists are idealists who think that everyone will take responsibility if given the opportunity, I am a cynic who thinks that everyone (as a whole) will shirk responsibility if given the opportunity.

No, you are a cynic that thinks the profit motive makes people honest.

I am a cynic who thinks that society has to take responsibility for the public good, because individuals left to themselves will always shirk such responsibility.

This is the fundamental problem of public goods: everyone wants to be a freeloader. That is why we have to have taxes. Whatever you capitalist idealists want to tell yourselves, people will not spontaneously "contribute" to the purchase of public goods that they could otherwise enjoy for free. What they can do is get together and decide to purchase public goods as a public on the condition that everyone who can pays into it.... It is too bad that then they still have to twist the arms of those who do not want to pay.

That is why I say that we don't start giving away rights. I say that only through capitalism can the public be empowered enough to continue to control their government.

No, only through the maintenance of political rights can the public remain empowered enough to continue to control their government... as long as they also have the basic economic ability to do so.

This means the protection of the freedoms of speech and assembly. It means due process, equal protection, and privacy. It means that people must be free to choose their leaders, address their leaders, and remove them from office.

It also means that people should have access to basic food and shelter. It means that people should be entitled to education -- the real enabler of democracy -- and the means to support themselves.

It does not mean they should have the "freedom" to control massive amounts of wealth. Indeed, the fact that a very few people control such wealth erodes democracy. It is a mind-boggling paradox that you are so blind to this fact.

This seems to be where the major disagreement lies...you are defining socialism and capitalism as the political systems which determine the economic ones.

They are political systems that regulate the economy.

This is where you are getting confused...(and confusing the rest of us with your circling arguments). Socialism is a political system, and it is also an economic one. Socialism as a political system DOES impact the economic system, as it calls for a pooling of resources (though not necessarily the abolition of all private property...ie, you own your house, and even the land it sits on, but not the minerals below it).

If government decides the distribution of the resources it also determines the prices. It is no longer governed by the profit incentive and so the market never achieves an equilibrium. Therefore it has a very pronounced impact on the economic system.

Socialism and capitalism as purely economic systems can be seen to various degrees in different nations as you have described. Capitalism however IS NOT A POLITICAL SYSTEM. It just isn't. It simply does not encompass a political structure outside of property rights and market liberalisation. You are giving capitalism entirely too much credit...capitalism defines how the economy will be run, just as socialism does.

Then why is socialism a political system? If they have the same effects and both define rights of the people, then how are they categorized differently?

Capitalism IS a political system that emphasizes the obligation of government to not infringe on the free market.

You are claiming that a socialist government could not hold power in a democracy, as it would nullify that democracy. Perhaps, were we talking about Socialism as a political ideology. However, socialism as an economic principle, held by the party in power, is simply the manner in which the economy would be defined. It no more nullifies democracy than capitalism does. Now, if that party turned around and voted themselves positions for life, you have a dictatorship, not a democracy. THAT would nullify democracy. Socialist economic policies, based on socialist political principles IN A DEMOCRACY would not.

I am saying that it would be much easier for a dictatorship to spring up in a socialist nation than it would be in a capitalistic nation. Name one socialist society that managed to maintain power over their government, and then name one capitalist society that did not gain control of the government. There is a reason why Democracy is associated with capitalism and socialism is associated with totalitarianism and fascism.

Simply put: don't work from absolutes, neither socialism or capitalism (economics) exists in pure form, nor do Socialism or Democracy (politics) exist undiluted.

I know, but capitalism should be the basis.

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

For the last time...look up the difference between economic and political systems. They are linked, but they are NOT THE SAME.

DEMOCRACY should be the basis.

No, you are a cynic that thinks the profit motive makes people honest.

No, I think profit motive brings the market to an equilibrium. It means that the goods offered will be at the lowest price possible so that both the corporation and the consumer are treated fairly. It means that more qualified workers who increase production will be payed higher wages than unskilled workers. It has nothing to do with ambition.

I think that people will not be responsible towards government. They will allow it to gain to much power.

I am a cynic who thinks that society has to take responsibility for the public good, because individuals left to themselves will always shirk such responsibility.

This is the fundamental problem of public goods: everyone wants to be a freeloader. That is why we have to have taxes. Whatever you capitalist idealists want to tell yourselves, people will not spontaneously "contribute" to the purchase of public goods that they could otherwise enjoy for free. What they can do is get together and decide to purchase public goods as a public on the condition that everyone who can pays into it.... It is too bad that then they still have to twist the arms of those who do not want to pay.

How would public ownership of resources be incentive for anyone to contribute? I at least think people will contribute without being forced to.

For the last time...look up the difference between economic and political systems. They are linked, but they are NOT THE SAME.

DEMOCRACY should be the basis.

DEMOCRACY should be the basis for the policies of our society.

CAPITALISM should be the basis for the policies of our economy.

Where have I said anything different?

Yep, that's pretty much everything, now, isn't it?

What is it about the word "basic" you don't understand? I am talking about society providing all its members the means to survive. Food would be free (or enough money provided to pay for it). Good food would cost more, and really good food would cost a hell of a lot more. We are not treating people to 5-star restaurants here. We are not even treating them to the Olive Garden.

What happens when government fails?

Much the same that would happen if our existing government failed: it would be disastrous. That is just how the world works, and we all do our best to prevent it.

They have to either sink or swim, and without an upbringing that teaches one to swim they sink.

Well, assuming most people want to live a "good" life, and not just live like a slug on basic nourishment, they will have to do just that. And the upbringing should teach them to swim rather well... You know, education and all that.

After all if you can get food, etc from the government why bother to work for it?

Maybe because you want to eat something other than peanut butter and jelly. Most people do not work "just to survive"... they work, and work hard, because they want to provide a quality life for themselves.

Ah! Just like in free market capitalism.

YES!! All the freedom your heart desires. Freedom is a feature of markets and democracies, not capitalism.


So why not only try to also stop people from gaining wealth when there is "none left for anyone else?" You're drawing the line long before that...

I was speaking figuratively, and you know it. We might stop the glutton long before that, too, when he takes a ridiculous share and leaves so little for others.

But the analogy is somewhat awkward. The problems of vast inequalities of wealth are not so much that it leaves too little for the poorest, but that it creates vast inequalities in power. Moreover, capitalism grants power over naturally public resources to private individuals.

"Now" realizing that the market goes up and down? This is something economists have known for quite some time. And it doesn't bother me. I don't see how market fluctuations mean that if we don't convert to socialism there won't be a "decent planet" around.

I am not talking about market fluctuations. I am talking about the fact that, until recently, capitalist economists assumed that a "good" economy is one that grows. They knew that not all economies grow all the time -- the market fluctuates -- but fundamentally they agreed that we should try to make them grow. Now they are beginning to realize that in the future the economy will have to be structured on very different principles, or we will literally devour every resource on Earth -- and then an unprepared economy would simply collapse. For a good introduction to the theory, try Transforming the Dream: Ecologism and the Shaping of an Alternative American Vision by Charles Sokol Bednar.

Ownership. You limit what people can own when you advocate more "public ownership" (government monopoly).

The government already limits what people can own: you cannot own a nuclear warhead. The real question is, does it infringe on any important personal liberties? No. People can buy whatever they want, they can sell whatever they want, they can work whatever jobs they want. A socialist government just says that in addition to things like nuclear warheads and tanks, things like natural resources and major industries are things that do not belong in the hands of individuals.

If you are interested in being a high executive in an industry, such jobs are available to you -- so you can do the things you enjoy. I suppose there may be some people who just "like" to own things like that... but, I guess there may be some people who also "like" to own things like nuclear warheads. Oh well. Individuals have to accept some rules in order to live in society.

When you say "the public" you mean the government, right? Unless you are advocating direct democracy.

Yes, and yes. If you had read my other posts, you would know that I support direct democracy... or the closest possible approximation to it.

That description was of cases where people got their own job, instead of received a government handout.

People still earn their own jobs under a socialist constitution; this does not change because there is "a job" for everyone. You still feel pride in doing the work to become a doctor, or a teacher, or a scientist, or a mathematician -- or a welder, an architect -- whatever. And each of these involves a risk... you may spend all those years in school or training, and then fail out, or you may not be good enough to get a job in your chosen profession. You could still end up flipping burgers or sweeping streets.

The government can guarantee jobs without guaranteeing anyone the job they want -- it can do its best, but if you are not qualified you are not qualified, and there is still a market in labor. There may simply not be enough positions available in what you want. Only the best get hired. You still have to work hard to get what you want out of life.

When they are handed government jobs, that's not "choosing."

See above.

The way it'll 'improve job security' is by having government mandates preventing businesses from getting rid of workers who can't do the job.

No. That would be stupid. There is still a labor market, and if you are not qualified for a job no one is going to let you do it out of charity. You will be fired (or never hired in the first place). Of course, some people are not employable at all -- but for different reasons. Handicapped people, in my opinion, should receive the "basic" things that everyone gets... and get an additional allowance besides, to equal perhaps as much as they would get working a minimum-wage job. (My girlfriend's younger brother has cerebral palsy, and this is precisely what Social Security does for him now.)

Of course, some people may just be real jerks -- they may have a horrible employment record, with discipline problems and such. So screw them. I think they should get the basic bread and water that everyone gets... but this is just enough to live -- and only because we would rather not have to run into them on the streets. Of course, they can try to convince a manager, or a small private entrepreneur, to take them on... but the government only guarantees jobs to people who are willing and able to work.

Ah, another place where our fundamental differences clash. Working for oneself, getting to where you are by your own bootstraps and hard work, taking your own choices and risks and living with them, is a source of pride and self-respect for many people.

I agree entirely. See above.

So is inheriting the fruits of labor on behalf of your father who worked for it.

I agree here, too. No one wants to take your entire inheritance. We might tax some of it, though... but if dad worked hard, what you get will reflect that.

So how about homeless people, why aren't they saving up to go to a socialist nation? They have home pride too, and prefer poverty?

Are you being intentionally perverse? Homeless people "saving up" for a big trip? Come on, if you are going to take part in this discussion, at least make an attempt to be civil.

Sex is a personal matter because excess of sex has no material impact on other people, is that what you're saying? So, STDs don't exist, and pregnancy/population growth doesn't result from sex?

No... another straw man. No one is calling for absolutes here -- you are only accusing me of them. Just as some private freedoms must be limited insofar as they are harmful to the good of others, some potential sacrifices are made in the name of liberty. It is a matter of cost/benefit analysis. Clearly you understand the drastic costs to privacy that would result in trying to prevent STDs and pregnancy by... what? Castrating people?

(Perhaps you will understand the cost/benefit nature by looking at what might happen in extreme cases -- when the benefits are high enough. Personally, I think China's population-control measures are a decent enough idea, given their situation. Although I would prefer a market-based approach, in which "licenses" to bear a child are issued, and people can sell their licenses if they don't want to have children, so other people who want to can. I know it sounds perverse -- it is -- but with a severe enough population problem it would probably make sense to even the most liberal democracy.)


Well let's see, your profit-making government (presumably with yet more 'public owned' state monopolies) necessitates bigger government with more power and authority. I guess if I was totally naive I could pretend that would lead to LESS control instead of MORE...

You are being vague. I asked you to tell me what it is about personal life they are controlling. Please enlighten me.

You consider that your increased equality will automatically make it more meaningful. So, you consider them to be essentially the same thing, in that there's that handy, fictitious causal relationship.

I never stated a causal relationship, you chose to infer one. To be clear, I think people can be politically equal without finding any meaning in political relations. Conversely, people can find their political relations extremely meaningful (as in feudalism) without any equality whatsoever.

I, however, value both equality and meaning.

DEMOCRACY should be the basis for the policies of our society.

CAPITALISM should be the basis for the policies of our economy.

Where have I said anything different?
Democracy is how our government is organised. Capitalism is how our economy is organised...just like a Dictatorship can be how a government is organised, and capitalism can be it's economic structure. Is the light coming through here? As for where you said differently:

They are political systems that regulate the economy.
(referring to capitalism and socialism: Sinuhue)

Capitalism IS a political system that emphasizes the obligation of government to not infringe on the free market.
No, it's an economic one that needs a government to provide for an open market, whether that government is democratic or not.



You can have a capitalist society with socialist regulations. (The US)

You can have a socialist society with capitalist regulations. (China)

But a nation cannot be both socialist and capitalist.

Either you're talking about capitalism here as a political system, or you have completely contradicted yourself, because of course, economic systems can exist together.

What do you mean by major industries? Would you keep all production regional as well?

I mean by major industries the ones that are large as a matter of scale of production (rather than scope of the industry). Thus, although the "restaurant industry" may be a very large industry in the sense that restaurants are everywhere, it is not a "major" industry in that the scale of production of each restaurant is very low. (With suitable restrictions on the ability to own more than a few restaurants, food service should remain a capitalist industry.) Large-scale industries are ones in which production is necessarily (or almost always) monopolized by a very few firms within a region (or even the continent or the world). Because of the nature of the production process, no ownership restrictions can prevent these few firms, and the individuals who control them, from exerting great control over capital goods and the economy. They are therefore socialized so that, rather than a few individuals, the people together own them.

I personally believe that a federal government is necessary to protect against regulatory infringement on trade between states and protect civil rights across the nation, little other than that.

Okay... well, in a way we agree here, too. As an anarchist I see little use for a "federal" government; I rely on cooperation between communities and regions. However, I suspect that these regions, especially in a contiguous area like the continental United States, would probably establish -- as a practical matter -- regular bodies that meet to organize inter-regional cooperation in trade and other matters. Something like a trade organization, only drastically more accountable and democratic than the ones we see today.

The humorous thing is that, allowing autonomy amongst the states is a decidely non-socialistic policy.

No, it isn't. Socialism is just a philosophy about how a government -- any government -- should run its economic life. It does not presume the scale or type of the government. As an anarchist socialist, I want an anarchist government that runs its economy according to socialist principles.

How did we fill so many pages when we seem to agree so much.

Oddly enough, while we have different ends in mind, we agree very much on the next step, on the sort of direction the existing political society should take from here.

I find that many socialists and anarchists "practice" their ideology in bad faith. They love to spout slogans and describe ideal worlds, but they regard any serious attention to the present with disdain, regarding it as insincere "reformism." But the real insincerity is to pretend that one really wants something while despising steps in the present that bring it closer.

I believe in revolution. But I also believe that some "reforms," like better education and environmentalism, either prepare the way for revolution or preserve the world for it.

(Remember that not all revolutions involve a war.)

Okay, it is an economic system, but it is enforced by the policies of the government, which is what I meant in all of those posts. But then how does socialism qualify as a political system?

How does that negate my points?

(Remember that not all revolutions involve a war.)
The best example of that are the Zapatistas, and other autonomous communities such as Las Golondrinas in Colombia, who have taken control of their regions and resources, and despite state violence have managed to make powerful ripples on an international level.

I mean by major industries the ones that are large as a matter of scale of production (rather than scope of the industry). Thus, although the "restaurant industry" may be a very large industry in the sense that restaurants are everywhere, it is not a "major" industry in that the scale of production of each restaurant is very low. (With suitable restrictions on the ability to own more than a few restaurants, food service should remain a capitalist industry.) Large-scale industries are ones in which production is necessarily (or almost always) monopolized by a very few firms within a region (or even the continent or the world). Because of the nature of the production process, no ownership restrictions can prevent these few firms, and the individuals who control them, from exerting great control over capital goods and the economy. They are therefore socialized so that, rather than a few individuals, the people together own them.



Okay... well, in a way we agree here, too. As an anarchist I see little use for a "federal" government; I rely on cooperation between communities and regions. However, I suspect that these regions, especially in a contiguous area like the continental United States, would probably establish -- as a practical matter -- regular bodies that meet to organize inter-regional cooperation in trade and other matters. Something like a trade organization, only drastically more accountable and democratic than the ones we see today.

How can private restaurants control their prices if the government controls food production?

No, it isn't. Socialism is just a philosophy about how a government -- any government -- should run its economic life. It does not presume the scale or type of the government. As an anarchist socialist, I want an anarchist government that runs its economy according to socialist principles.

But if Alabama and California operated separate of each other, how would you account for the obvious wealth divide between the citizens of each?

Oddly enough, while we have different ends in mind, we agree very much on the next step, on the sort of direction the existing political society should take from here.

Yes, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of collectivism, whereas I disagree with the idea that we should give away property rights. I also feel that, in a capitalistic society, people operate selfishly, but people are mainly interested in the same things, so in a way they are all working in a collective fashion. The fact that hierarchy exists and people will be cut out is provided by nature, not by policy.

I find that many socialists and anarchists "practice" their ideology in bad faith. They love to spout slogans and describe ideal worlds, but they regard any serious attention to the present with disdain, regarding it as insincere "reformism." But the real insincerity is to pretend that one really wants something while despising steps in the present that bring it closer.

I believe in revolution. But I also believe that some "reforms," like better education and environmentalism, either prepare the way for revolution or preserve the world for it.

(Remember that not all revolutions involve a war.)

Agreed, we should always be looking for ways to "reform" the present in ways that will be benefitial to the future. If the reform won't come, then I support revolution.

Edit: Actually revolution is just reform on a grand scale, so if I support reform, I guess by extension I support revolution.

Okay, it is an economic system,
Thank you...finally...(sigh of relief).

but it is enforced by the policies of the government, which is what I meant in all of those posts.
Yes, the government regulates the economic system. However, you are saying that capitalism can only thrive under a democracy, which is untrue. Dictatorships do wonders for the free market.

But then how does socialism qualify as a political system?
I generally think of socialism in terms of economics, but it IS a political theory when taken in the following context:
Socialism
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


How does that negate my points?

Here's the quote we are referring to:



You can have a capitalist society with socialist regulations. (The US)

You can have a socialist society with capitalist regulations. (China)

But a nation cannot be both socialist and capitalist.

The statement in bold contradicts the two statements above now that you have conceded that capitalism is an economic system. You say you can have blended economies, and give examples, then you say you CAN NOT have blended economies.

But I think we are now clear on this point.

*snip*

I have been argueing against socialism that is negates property rights, that is at complete odds with capitalism. Other than that redistribution of wealth is possible in a capitalist system.

Also the Marxist definition has never been achieved and will never be achieved.

How can private restaurants control their prices if the government controls food production?
Unless the restaurants themselves control their own food production (which some major chains actually do, though the vast majority rely on the open market), no matter what economic system they are in, they will not control the prices of their input goods (food, wages etc). Right now, restaurants purchase their food and goods on the open market, at prices which are regulated by set market amounts. Wages are regulated by the government (minimum wage at least), but even if this regulation was gone, wages would be based on competition in order to attract staff.

However, what government COULD do is control the markup reasonably allowed by a provider of goods. The value of a good sold should not exceed by hundreds of percent the ACTUAL value (input and materials) of that good. I am referring specifically to medications and essential foodstuffs here. Profit would be allowed, but profiteering would be stopped.

What is it about the word "basic" you don't understand?

What about the phrase "pretty much" do you not understand?


Much the same that would happen if our existing government failed: it would be disastrous. That is just how the world works, and we all do our best to prevent it.

I guess I meant failing to do the job you've prescribed for it. Not fail completely as in disintegrate.


Well, assuming most people want to live a "good" life, and not just live like a slug on basic nourishment, they will have to do just that.

Most people will simply take your basic nourishment and be content. Since it's basic, it's enough. Why work hard when even if you don't, there'll still be food on the table? To get extra goodies? Is that enough incentive to build an economy on - extra goodies? I don't think it is.

Maybe because you want to eat something other than peanut butter and jelly.

Well, if your benevolent socialist government is just handing out peanut butter and jelly, it may as well also be letting people live in the streets...


YES!! All the freedom your heart desires. Freedom is a feature of markets and democracies, not capitalism.

And how exactly is freedom not a feature of capitalism?


But the analogy is somewhat awkward. The problems of vast inequalities of wealth are not so much that it leaves too little for the poorest, but that it creates vast inequalities in power.

How exactly is the vastness of inequality in itself a problem? Bob has 100 horses, Joe has a plastic toy horse. But maybe Joe doesn't want to have 100 horses. Certainly, 100 horses are not necessary. So why does Joe have to get 100 horses, or the government take away Bob's horses to make him more equal to Joe?

I know that analogy may be a bit trite for you. But then I could also say there are inequalities in power already, by nature, and that they will always develop. For example, a government has ridiculous amounts of power compared to a person. Should we also try to reconcile THAT inequality? Maybe give people the right and power to make war, or deprive government of it? Either way, it's just an effort to create your artificial ideal where there are no alpha males who hog all the females (or food, or whatever).

Moreover, capitalism grants power over naturally public resources to private individuals.

And just what are some resources you consider "naturally public?"

I am not talking about market fluctuations. I am talking about the fact that, until recently, capitalist economists assumed that a "good" economy is one that grows. They knew that not all economies grow all the time -- the market fluctuates -- but fundamentally they agreed that we should try to make them grow.

Erghh well this is politics, because when they talk about growing AN economy, it's an economy of a specific region or state, like the US. From the perspective of that region or state, or individual even, growing economies ARE a good thing.

Now they are beginning to realize that in the future the economy will have to be structured on very different principles, or we will literally devour every resource on Earth -- and then an unprepared economy would simply collapse.

That has to do with the fact that civilization itself is an artificial cancer feeding off the finite resources of the world. Not capitalism, or growth economies.


The government already limits what people can own: you cannot own a nuclear warhead. The real question is, does it infringe on any important personal liberties? No. People can buy whatever they want, they can sell whatever they want, they can work whatever jobs they want. A socialist government just says that in addition to things like nuclear warheads and tanks, things like natural resources and major industries are things that do not belong in the hands of individuals.

Yep. Your socialist government places extra limits, extra controls and infringes on more liberties. Now if your industry qualifies as "major," government gets to own it. Too bad for your father who started the steel mill, I guess.

If you are interested in being a high executive in an industry, such jobs are available to you

Just like now, so we need to change because...?


Yes, and yes. If you had read my other posts, you would know that I support direct democracy... or the closest possible approximation to it.

Direct democracy on the scale of 300 million? Or of course, the world of 6 billion. You're out of your mind.

As for closest possible approximation... sounds vague. Sounds like I could describe pretty much anything as that, including what we have now.


People still earn their own jobs under a socialist constitution; this does not change because there is "a job" for everyone.

And you may earn your job, but you wouldn't have earned your living. That, also, makes a difference to people.


The government can guarantee jobs without guaranteeing anyone the job they want -- it can do its best, but if you are not qualified you are not qualified, and there is still a market in labor. There may simply not be enough positions available in what you want. Only the best get hired. You still have to work hard to get what you want out of life.

And if there aren't enough positions to employ everyone? What then? Then there's unemployment and the problem becomes just as it is right now, and the only thing you gained from socialism is a bunch of people waiting in line at the employment agency.

No. That would be stupid. There is still a labor market, and if you are not qualified for a job no one is going to let you do it out of charity. You will be fired (or never hired in the first place).

And, you'll have unemployment as a result and people will go, "OMG there's unemployment, obviously because of socialism!" in the same way you currently blame capitalism for unemployment.


I agree here, too. No one wants to take your entire inheritance. We might tax some of it, though... but if dad worked hard, what you get will reflect that.

You mean, if the government Judges that work to be hard ENOUGH. Again we have the role of paternalistic, micromanaging, moralistic government letting everyone know their role.


Are you being intentionally perverse? Homeless people "saving up" for a big trip? Come on, if you are going to take part in this discussion, at least make an attempt to be civil.

You must not know many homeless people. I actually do. Overseas may prove difficult, but homeless people can and do travel. Canada is right up there, and is rather more socialist than the US, so whats preventing the move? And there's a bunch of socialist countries in central and south america, too.

I'm rather civil in this, it's you who's painting homeless people (and most others, really) as helpless victims of capitalism who NEED a socialist government to make everything peachy.


No... another straw man. No one is calling for absolutes here -- you are only accusing me of them. Just as some private freedoms must be limited insofar as they are harmful to the good of others, some potential sacrifices are made in the name of liberty. It is a matter of cost/benefit analysis. Clearly you understand the drastic costs to privacy that would result in trying to prevent STDs and pregnancy by... what? Castrating people?

Then maybe you don't understand the drastic costs to privacy that would result in giving the state MORE power, more ownership, more "responsibility" to "look after" it's "wards."

You want to increase limitation of ownership, I fail to see where that is so much morally better than increasing any other limitation of personal freedoms. You continue to assume that, well, ECONOMIC freedom isn't quite as good as civil freedoms, and that we can just (partially) eliminate economic freedom to boost civil freedom. "Sacrifice" for "liberty." Sounds pretty extreme. And my analogy holds, the right to procreate is just as fundamental as the right to ownership, since for example ape societies have both rights (and unhealthy, unfair inequality, too, on both).


(Perhaps you will understand the cost/benefit nature by looking at what might happen in extreme cases -- when the benefits are high enough. Personally, I think China's population-control measures are a decent enough idea, given their situation. Although I would prefer a market-based approach, in which "licenses" to bear a child are issued, and people can sell their licenses if they don't want to have children, so other people who want to can. I know it sounds perverse -- it is -- but with a severe enough population problem it would probably make sense to even the most liberal democracy.)

Ugh. At least you prefer the market-based approach...


You are being vague. I asked you to tell me what it is about personal life they are controlling. Please enlighten me.

And you're being deliberately ignorant if you honestly can't imagine that your government wouldn't be different from other governments - a controlling figure by nature. Only, a more wealthy one with a bias towards its own profit-making. If you really need me to describe how governments control personal life, and how bigger, wealthier governments do so even more, I'm at a loss for words because it's a little like being asked to describe in what way is the sky blue.

I never stated a causal relationship, you chose to infer one. To be clear, I think people can be politically equal without finding any meaning in political relations. Conversely, people can find their political relations extremely meaningful (as in feudalism) without any equality whatsoever.

I think people can be politically equal without socialism.

I think people can find meaning in politics without socialism.

I have been argueing against socialism that is negates property rights, that is at complete odds with capitalism.
Yet we have discussed that it does not negate ALL property rights unless you are talking about pure socialism, which we are not. Certain things would be collectively owned, and others would be private. That is what a mixed economy means. Therefore, socialism can compliment, not negate capitalism.

Other than that redistribution of wealth is possible in a capitalist system.
Yes, as long as some socialist controls are in place. In a completely (and theoretical, for none exists) open market, how would redistribution of wealth be enacted?

Also the Marxist definition has never been achieved and will never be achieved.
Not the point...you were asking how socialism could be an economic AND a political system. I gave you the definition of the political ideology, which like all ideologies, has never existed in pure form. Capitalism, however, does not have a political definition, only an economic one.

How can private restaurants control their prices if the government controls food production?

The same way they do now, unless they are producing their own food.

But if Alabama and California operated separate of each other, how would you account for the obvious wealth divide between the citizens of each?

I am not sure what you are asking. Is it such a terrible thing that one community is wealthier than another? They will still make whatever mutual arrangements are agreeable to them.

Unless the restaurants themselves control their own food production (which some major chains actually do, though the vast majority rely on the open market), no matter what economic system they are in, they will not control the prices of their input goods (food, wages etc). Right now, restaurants purchase their food and goods on the open market, at prices which are regulated by set market amounts. Wages are regulated by the government (minimum wage at least), but even if this regulation was gone, wages would be based on competition in order to attract staff.

However, what government COULD do is control the markup reasonably allowed by a provider of goods. The value of a good sold should not exceed by hundreds of percent the ACTUAL value (input and materials) of that good. I am referring specifically to medications and essential foodstuffs here. Profit would be allowed, but profiteering would be stopped.

My point is, that since in market socialism the government controls the prices of the goods, they will control the retail prices as well, so there will be no free market for the small businesses. They will only be methods of distribution for the government.

I agree that profiteering should be stopped. An efficient market would stop it on its own, so if the government works to keep the market efficient it shouldn't be a problem.

The same way they do now, unless they are producing their own food.

But instead of the market controlling the costs for the business, the government controls the costs, so there is not a free market.

[QUOTEI am not sure what you are asking. Is it such a terrible thing that one community is wealthier than another? They will still make whatever mutual arrangements are agreeable to them.[/QUOTE]

Would not the individuals of the wealthier community have a far better opportunity to succeed than the one in the poorer community? What would stop the wealthier communities from grabbing power from the weaker ones?

Most people will simply take your basic nourishment and be content. Since it's basic, it's enough. Why work hard when even if you don't, there'll still be food on the table? To get extra goodies? Is that enough incentive to build an economy on - extra goodies? I don't think it is.
Funny...isn't extra goodies what the capitalist economy is based on? Consumption drives capitalism, and we are encouraged, even groomed to be good consumers. My brother is one of those slugs...he works just enough to pay rent, pay the bills and eat (sandwiches...JUST SANDWICHES...yuck!). He is someone that would probably sit on his butt in a socialist economy. However, I know plenty of people who could retire, or have enough income from a spouse working, who choose to work anyway because they WANT TO. It gives them something to do, and it makes them feel good. They also get those goodies you scorn...vacations to warm places, nice furniture and nights out. No matter the system, there will be slugs who are content with the bare minimum, and contribute little, and there will be those who contribute to get those goodies, or just to feel good about themselves. Government-provided services (paid for by us) such as unemployment insurance are NOT a free ticket...you have to work to be eligible, and you have to ACTIVELY seek employment to receive it. You also get cut off at a certain point. The only thing that might change about that in a more socialist economy is that the slug would still be able to eat (crappy Kraft dinners) and have a roof over their head (in a tiny, dingy little town house). If they like that life, good for them...it will cost a minimum, and they will be hounded constantly to get a job and get a life. Most people don't need to be poked and prodded to contribute in meaningful ways.

My point is, that since in market socialism the government controls the prices of the goods, they will control the retail prices as well, so there will be no free market for the small businesses. They will only be methods of distribution for the government.
They will still be making a profit. They are not going to be forced to work at a zero profit margin. If it isn't a 300% profit, so what? People will still be competing to provide those services, despite the controls. Just as they do now. A restaurant can't reasonably expect to charge $35.00 for a burger and fries and survive. If the price was SET at $6.50, but that price was indexed to match inputs (wages and groceries etc), the profit would be stable and still in existence. I don't believe the price would need to be set...it could fluctuate up to a certain ceiling profit percent.

I agree that profiteering should be stopped. An efficient market would stop it on its own, so if the government works to keep the market efficient it shouldn't be a problem. You want it both ways...you want the government to step out, but keep things safe for business. It's time that you define your ideas: How would the government keep the market efficient (what specific steps would be necessary)? How would an efficient market stop profiteering and redistribute wealth (again, give specifics

Yet we have discussed that it does not negate ALL property rights unless you are talking about pure socialism, which we are not. Certain things would be collectively owned, and others would be private. That is what a mixed economy means. Therefore, socialism can compliment, not negate capitalism.

What property does socialism wish to make publicly owned?

Yes, as long as some socialist controls are in place. In a completely (and theoretical, for none exists) open market, how would redistribution of wealth be enacted?

In a perfectly open market, the only thing that would earn money would be those things in which an individual would do to earn them. Labor and intellectual capital would be the only way in which to earn wealth. All other capital would be bought and sold at a fair market value that would increase with the utility of the good. So economic growth would be possible for anyone who had both intellectual and labor capital and applied it.

Not the point...you were asking how socialism could be an economic AND a political system. I gave you the definition of the political ideology, which like all ideologies, has never existed in pure form. Capitalism, however, does not have a political definition, only an economic one.

I know, but I just wanted to make the point that I dismiss the political definition of socialism as an impossibility. The one we are speaking of is in the exact same category of socialism.

What about the phrase "pretty much" do you not understand?

Oh, I get you. It's just that "pretty much" and "basic" are usually thought to reside on opposite ends of the spectrum, like "most" and "few."

I guess I meant failing to do the job you've prescribed for it.

Okay... then it fails, and presumably the people figure out something else. What is the point of this question?

Most people will simply take your basic nourishment and be content.

Really? Then why does anyone ever go to medical school? Why does anyone do anything other than just "enough" to get by?

Why work hard when even if you don't, there'll still be food on the table?

Why work for a promotion when even if you don't, there will still be food on the table?

To get extra goodies? Is that enough incentive to build an economy on - extra goodies? I don't think it is.

But that is precisely the principle on which your beloved capitalist economy is built! This is "consumer" capitalism now... If people were not willing to work for "extra goodies," it would fail.

Well, if your benevolent socialist government is just handing out peanut butter and jelly, it may as well also be letting people live in the streets...

Why?

And how exactly is freedom not a feature of capitalism?

The only "free" aspects of capitalism are features of all markets. Capitalism cannot take credit for them.

How exactly is the vastness of inequality in itself a problem?

I have already explained this. I tire of doing so in every single post.

And just what are some resources you consider "naturally public?"

Clean air, water, mineral deposits, forests -- to name a few.

Erghh well this is politics, because when they talk about growing AN economy, it's an economy of a specific region or state, like the US. From the perspective of that region or state, or individual even, growing economies ARE a good thing.

I said that. But it cannot go on indefinitely -- certainly not at the rate required by capitalism.

That has to do with the fact that civilization itself is an artificial cancer feeding off the finite resources of the world. Not capitalism, or growth economies.

Not every society destroys the world around it; not every society produces waste that it fails to re-integrate into the economy and/or environment. Sooner or later we will need to learn to live like that again. (No, this does not mean "going back to the trees." While something like the American lifestyle will almost certainly have to be scaled back, it is possible to run efficient economies -- efficient in the sense that they deplete few resources and produce little waste -- that maintain a "modern" standard of living.)

Yep. Your socialist government places extra limits, extra controls and infringes on more liberties. Now if your industry qualifies as "major," government gets to own it.

Okay, you have given me ONE example of what you consider an infringement of liberty... and unless you can adequately dispute my claim that individuals should not own such things anyway, then the fact that they already happen to own them is useless to the argument.

Too bad for your father who started the steel mill, I guess.

His freedom is not limited, and neither is mine. Our choices are redefined. If he started the steel mill and it has personal value to him, or me, then we can choose to limit its scale rather than pushing production to levels that demand socialization. As in so many life situations, people have to choose between doing something they love and doing something that will make them money (when they have to sell it off to the public). [B]It is your choice.[/I]


Direct democracy on the scale of 300 million? Or of course, the world of 6 billion. You're out of your mind.

No, if you would read my posts you would see that I am talking about ground-up political systems. I am an anarchist, after all. Localities, regions... "government" on the scale of the United States would amount to free cooperation between regional and local governments.

As for closest possible approximation... sounds vague. Sounds like I could describe pretty much anything as that, including what we have now.

You are just being difficult, since you know exactly what I mean. People describe ideals, and then they take steps that approximate them. That means that "as close as possible" entails taking whatever steps are possible today to go in that direction. I have described some of them in another post. Once you get there, you re-evaluated and see if you can go any further. Politics is a process.

And you may earn your job, but you wouldn't have earned your living.

How do you figure? You work hard, you make a good living. You don't work hard, you don't make a living... and you are embarrassed to have friends over to your crappy apartment.

As long as you are getting paid for the work you do, I don't see what difference it makes who signs the checks.

And if there aren't enough positions to employ everyone? What then? Then there's unemployment and the problem becomes just as it is right now,

As I have noted elsewhere, there are more than enough jobs that need doing right now for everyone to have a job who wants one, if the government would act as employer-of-last-resort. It is policy that creates involuntary unemployment, not necessity.

You mean, if the government Judges that work to be hard ENOUGH. Again we have the role of paternalistic, micromanaging, moralistic government letting everyone know their role.

No different than a capitalist manager deciding whether or not you are working hard "enough."

Then maybe you don't understand the drastic costs to privacy that would result in giving the state MORE power, more ownership, more "responsibility" to "look after" it's "wards."

Clearly I don't. Why don't you tell me what the specific consequences to privacy will be of the policies I want to enact? I just don't see how anything I have said implies that the government will interfere with the lives of individuals. All it does is provide a basic safety net.

the right to procreate is just as fundamental as the right to ownership, since for example ape societies have both rights (and unhealthy, unfair inequality, too, on both).

Great, so we should just model our society on apes, then. Hmm... I guess I'll just have to go beat up some guys, steal their food and rape their girlfriends.

If you really need me to describe how governments control personal life, and how bigger, wealthier governments do so even more, I'm at a loss for words because it's a little like being asked to describe in what way is the sky blue.

Honestly, I'm a little at a loss. The United States government is one of the biggest, wealthiest governments on the planet... I fail to see how that results in more interference in personal life. Americans generally feel themselves to be personally free.

I think people can be politically equal without socialism.

There you are wrong.

I think people can find meaning in politics without socialism.

There you are right.

What property does socialism wish to make publicly owned?

I agree with this:
Hey, keep in mind I would not want our government as-is to pick up too much socialist enterprise either. I think we need to de-centralize and socialize, with individual communities and regions determining their own resources and industry -- with cooperation, of course.
Property that would be collectively owned (this is all my opinion and ideas of a socialist economy here) would include much of what is already collectively owned (at least in Canada). Things like:

National parks
Subsurface rights (though I would want to see those rights transferred to the communities themselves)
Water resources
Government buildings and infrastructure (railways, highways etc.)
Transportation systems (power to the communities) like rapid transit, etc.

Other than that, I don't think there is an awful lot of property that needs to be collective.


In a perfectly open market, the only thing that would earn money would be those things in which an individual would do to earn them. Labor and intellectual capital would be the only way in which to earn wealth. All other capital would be bought and sold at a fair market value that would increase with the utility of the good. So economic growth would be possible for anyone who had both intellectual and labor capital and applied it.
The biggest flaw in this theory of capitalism is the idea of fair market value. Fair market value is supposed to be determined by the amount of input (in labour and materials) into a good and the price people are willing to pay for such a good. However, in our current model of capitalism, this is not how prices are determined. A famous hockey player earns far more than the input or value of his service. A teacher earns far less. As well, a free market system means getting goods produced at the lowest possible price...which means lowering wages and eliminating 'barriers' such as labour regulations and human rights. An open market means that governments can NOT step in to protect their citizens, and I don't think you support this.



I know, but I just wanted to make the point that I dismiss the political definition of socialism as an impossibility. The one we are speaking of is in the exact same category of socialism. No, because we are talking about the ECONOMIC definition, which is not in the same category as the political one. Get it straight.

My point is, that since in market socialism the government controls the prices of the goods, they will control the retail prices as well,

This just reflects the fact that you don't understand how price works in a market, and the fact that you have ignored my descriptions of market socialism.

Suppose the government is responsible for all agricultural food production. Now, there will be more than one industry purchasing this food: retail for home use, restaurants will buy it, some may be purchased for animals, and some will be purchased as inputs for the production of manufactured foods. Consumer demand for these various goods determines the rate at which each sector buys produce.

Now, the agricultural sector is broken into firms that are run by managers whose job description is this: maximize profit from the firm. So they start out production at a rate that they expect to make a profit, bound to use the accounting prices for inputs like water and using market prices for labor. If demand is high, they can increase production; if low, they may scale back production. Just like a capitalist firm.

What is the manager's incentive to maximize profit? Like anyone else, he gets paid for a job well done... and he gets bonuses and percentages just as he would as an executive in a capitalist firm. (They may not be as extravagant, but they will be enough to make the job worthwhile -- they have to be, or no one will do it. There is a labor market, after all.)

So you see, you get the same sort of equilibrium prices you would in a capitalist market.

They will still be making a profit. They are not going to be forced to work at a zero profit margin. If it isn't a 300% profit, so what? People will still be competing to provide those services, despite the controls. Just as they do now. A restaurant can't reasonably expect to charge $35.00 for a burger and fries and survive. If the price was SET at $6.50, but that price was indexed to match inputs (wages and groceries etc), the profit would be stable and still in existence. I don't believe the price would need to be set...it could fluctuate up to a certain ceiling profit percent.

But they are still simply distributers for the government and might as well work for the government. There will be no competition because they will all provide the same goods. There will be competition between services, but there will be absolutely no retail market.

You want it both ways...you want the government to step out, but keep things safe for business. It's time that you define your ideas: How would the government keep the market efficient (what specific steps would be necessary)? How would an efficient market stop profiteering and redistribute wealth (again, give specifics)

The elimination of corporate welfare would be a good start.
The elimination of internation free trade agreements without human rights clauses.
The maintenance of free trade amongst the states.
MUCH less government spending in general.
The better enforcement of SEC regulation on corporate disclosures.
Tax breaks for small businesses as subsidies to counteract brand name and economies of scale pressures.
An elimination of sales tax.
An increase in tax on debt.

It would stop profiteering through competition. If a company charges a very large markup then another company would emerge that would undercut it, or force it to drop prices.

Would not the individuals of the wealthier community have a far better opportunity to succeed than the one in the poorer community?

Maybe. So? The responsibility of a community is primarily to its own members, not its neighbors. If they felt charitable, or found it convenient to adopt some sort of alliance, they might help their poorer cousins. But I see no necessary political obligation unless they define one themselves. Do you?


What would stop the wealthier communities from grabbing power from the weaker ones?

(A) What stops them now?
(B) This entire discussion presumes that people of, say, the United States decide that they prefer life on a small scale -- that it has inherent advantages to large-scale political life. As long as those values persist, there is no reason to believe they would "grab power" from their weaker neighbors, reinstating large-scale politics.

And the continuation of every society depends upon its citizens retaining the basic values that make that society possible. Just as if enough Americans were to change their minds about free speech, it would cease to exist.

But they are still simply distributers for the government and might as well work for the government. There will be no competition because they will all provide the same goods. There will be competition between services, but there will be absolutely no retail market.
AnarchyeL explains this wonderfully. Please read that post.



The elimination of corporate welfare would be a good start.
By that, you are referring to tax breaks and subsidies. I agree.

Tax breaks for small businesses as subsidies to counteract brand name and economies of scale pressures.
This, however, is just small time corporate welfare, and needs government involvement, which is not in the interests of a free and open capitalist market.


The elimination of internation free trade agreements without human rights clauses. No such agreements exist to be eliminated. No free trade agreements have been allowed to include human rights clauses. Yet I am puzzled, because earlier you agreed with the following:

Government needs to:

1. Protect staple foods and small farmers from free trade agreements.
A country should be at least able to feed itself. Switching to 'cash crops' like cotton or tobacco undermines the food security of a nation, and does not guarantee wealth...instead overproduction drops world market prices.

2. Ensure that trade agreements respect labour rights.
Dismantling unions, cutting minimum wages, getting rid of overtime etc only benefits the corporations and creates job insecurity. People need to make a living wage, or they fall back on taxed social systems (or non-existent systems, which leaves them nowhere to turn). This does not mean equal pay for all jobs...a doctor should still make more than a waitress...but the waitress should have recourse to collective bargaining if she chooses, and not be forced to work 90 hours a week just to pay her rent.

3. Have the power to establish and defend intellectual property rules that protect the interests of their citizens.
This means guaranteeing access to essential drugs (generics), maintaining biodiversity (no forcing GM crops on people), and traditional cultures (multiculturalism laws are being challenged by trade agreements that see this as a barrier to trade).

4. Ensure that trade agreements are entered into democratically, with citizen input.
Our representatives are signing us into trade agreements we may not even know about, or support...and we are bound to them. Trade needs to be more democratic, and respect civil and human rights as well as the environment.

5. Regulate foreign investment to protect their citizens.
The investment free for all of the last few decades has seen the economies of some Asian nations (Asian flu) and Argentina (most recent) become completely destabilised because of investor pullouts. This have serious repercussions on linked economies, as well as domestic labour and political hardships that are difficult to recover from. [points taken from the New Internationalist, issue 374]
These actions protect human rights, and would necessitate trade agreements to respect them as well. These actions also constitute government involvement in the market, making it less 'free' in terms of the movement of capital, but also more 'ethical'. Are you going back on your agreement to these terms?


The maintenance of free trade amongst the states. Which means the government must sign free trade agreements and administer them...more government involvement...gasp!

MUCH less government spending in general. On what exactly? Inefficiency needs to be dealt with, as does corruption, but which aspects of government spending do you want to change? You said you want to stop corporate welfare and change it to a 'small corporation welfare' . Will that be cheaper?

The better enforcement of SEC regulation on corporate disclosures.
An elimination of sales tax. Right...cut spending and eliminate government income....I'm still not seeing where wealth is being redistributed...will people start taking out loans to get roads to their homes?

An increase in tax on debt. Cut taxes, increase taxes...which is it? Do you mean international debt? How do you tax debt exactly? You just owe more on top of what you owe (and can't pay). Sounds good, but probably doesn't pay well.

It would stop profiteering through competition. If a company charges a very large markup then another company would emerge that would undercut it, or force it to drop prices. Then why isn't that happening right now? Because companies get together and fix prices...or they undercut their competition and drive them out, then raise their prices once they are the only supplier left. Re: Walmart.

I'm still unclear on your stand...more government, less government, more taxes, less taxes...