NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree with this:

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.

Then you are talking about a liberal capitalism.

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 don't, the welfare of the consumer base is the most important aspect of a good free market economy. There is tension in the free market that is what drives a strong economy. If the producer wrestles control of the economy from the consumer than that tension is gone. So I think that ensuring the basic rights of the individual is extremely beneficial to the free market. I did not say that I supported "Laissez Faire" capitalism.


No, because we are talking about the ECONOMIC definition, which is not in the same category as the political one. Get it straight.

I have it straight. I just wish you would quit calling Socialism a political system because it is not valid.

I have it straight. I just wish you would quit calling Socialism a political system because it is not valid.
No, it is not workeable...just like any political system in its purest form is not. YOU don't think it's valid...that doesn't mean that as a political ideology it does not exist. So no, I don't think you DO have it straight yet.

Then you are talking about a liberal capitalism.
Have you been reading nothing of the other posts? It's called market socialism.

Communism is not the answer to Capitalism's ails. The solution is to go back to a bartering system, where goods or services were exchanged for other goods or services. This system is the ultimate in equality because if you have a skill, you use it to survive. A small tribal culture is the only way to cure the problems with todays societies.

Communism is not the answer to Capitalism's ails. The solution is to go back to a bartering system, where goods or services were exchanged for other goods or services. This system is the ultimate in equality because if you have a skill, you use it to survive. A small tribal culture is the only way to cure the problems with todays societies.

Boy I hope the owners of Best Buy are willing to take my 20 cows in exchange for a new computer. Get real.

Communism is not the answer to Capitalism's ails. The solution is to go back to a bartering system, where goods or services were exchanged for other goods or services. This system is the ultimate in equality because if you have a skill, you use it to survive. A small tribal culture is the only way to cure the problems with todays societies.
I am wary of anyone who claims to have the 'ONLY' cure to all our problems.

How would bartering work in terms of getting highways built, exactly? Bartering certainly has its place...but I'm not sure how you would have it work on an international level...most of us are working from the assumption that money is not going to be done away with any time soon.

Boy, I hope your family is ready to survive a worldwide loss of power.

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.

http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/diagrams/equilibrium_1.gif

In a free market equilibrium prices are determined by the intersection of the supply and demand curves. As you see supply is up-sloping and demand is downsloping, this is obviously because at a lower price, people will demand more quantity, and at a higher price producers will supply more.

In your theory, the supply line will be vertical, as no matter what the price the government will supply the good. So as the price goes up the government supplies it, as the price goes down, the government continues to supply it. The demand curve will remain as it is, so as you can see, unless the government manages to constantly be right as to the fair market value of goods the economy will be inefficient.

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.

So we will be buying from government owned corporations? You realize that to maximize profit, that you can't produce enough goods for everyone, right? Under your system there will be people who are left neglected as well.

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 not only will we have government owned corporations, but CEOs who will be provided incentive to make money for the government as well. What do you suppose happens when they realize that they have an excess of production and they need to downsize?

So you see, you get the same sort of equilibrium prices you would in a capitalist market.

With all of the same corporate downfalls of capitalism.

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?

(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.

What are you seeking to achieve with your political system. So far you have established that you do not care if one person receives an inherited advantage over another. Wasn't that the purpose of socialism?

What are you seeking to achieve with your political system. So far you have established that you do not care if one person receives an inherited advantage over another. Wasn't that the purpose of socialism?
What are YOU seeking to achieve with your political system? Better yet, what do you hope to achieve with your economic system, which so far has been poorly defined? You still have not addressed the contradictions inherent in your previous statements....so perhaps you should deal with those first before you try to understand someone else's (already well and exhaustively explained) thoughts on the matter?

Communism is not the answer to Capitalism's ails. The solution is to go back to a bartering system, where goods or services were exchanged for other goods or services. This system is the ultimate in equality because if you have a skill, you use it to survive. A small tribal culture is the only way to cure the problems with todays societies.

Without everyone else here presenting well thought out arguments and long posts, a post like this deserves no place at all among them and is an insult to the discussion. This is crazy. I can deal with people being sure of themselves if they have a decent or minimally complex argument but this is nonsense.

I'll use a simple example as was provided in one of the opening chapters of Wealth of Nations...

Instead of producing all of our own needs, people have narrowed their labor to a specific need which they provide for many people, in return for all the their other needs which are provided by other people. It is a fact that this narrows the range of skills people have to have, they can focus and become more skilled at their tasks and the whole society becomes more productive and efficient.

As an example:
Butcher produces his own meat. He also produces excess meat, and has various needs waiting to be met. He trades his excess meat for his other needs.

One of these needs is bread, so it is in the interest of the Butcher to trade with the Baker. Suppose the Baker has no need of that Butcher's meat. If the Butcher has nothing to offer the Baker, the Butcher can not be the Baker's customer.

These kinds of trade gaps would happen all over the place and create embarrasing situations indeed, unless a common currency is established which can be traded for any and all goods. A market in which people need things produced by other people makes a common currency a necessity.

Also, it allows the Butcher to estimate the value of his meat in relation to money, as opposed to in relation to bread, and then rum, and then lumber, etc, etc, etc. making values of things more clearly understood.

Vitt, since you're having so much difficulty grasping the concept:

Market Socialism:
also called liberal socialism economic system representing a compromise between socialist planning and free enterprise, in which enterprises are publicly owned but production and consumption are guided by market forces rather than by government planning.
Though this has already been explained to you. Production would still be dependant upon demand, which of course would affect the supply.

AnarchyeL explains this wonderfully. Please read that post.


Read it, responded.

By that, you are referring to tax breaks and subsidies. I agree.

Terrific


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.

No, I am referring to small businesses, privately owned and partnerships. It helps foster competition by cancelling out the financial clout of the corporations.

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:

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?

I meant that no free trade agreement should be entered into with a nation that does not have extensive worker rights. It both spreads the free market between nations, allowing for enhanced specializations, while protecting the rights of the workers in your own country.

Which means the government must sign free trade agreements and administer them...more government involvement...gasp!

You must have not read when I posted that I do not prefer laissez faire capitalism. I believe that government intervention when protecting the basic rights of the people and facilitating the free market is a good thing.

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?

Military, corporate insurance, pork laiden contracts.

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?

No an expansion and enforcement of the graduated income tax. Sales tax is just another way in which government effects the prices and production capabilities of the nation.

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.

Personal and corporate debt. There is far too much personal and corporate debt. The economy is very strained due to the extreme credit spending right now. A higher tax on debt would cause companies and individuals to take on a more responsible capital structure.

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.

The shortcomings of the government to follow through on anti-monopoly laws does not detract from my argument.

Walmart is a retail company not producer or a supplier. That doesn't mean that they aren't a problem, but retail employers will offer low wages no matter what. The problem right now is with corporate treatment of workers involved in production.

I'm still unclear on your stand...more government, less government, more taxes, less taxes...

I am not for more or less government, I am not for more or less taxes. I am for a more efficient application of both.

What are YOU seeking to achieve with your political system? Better yet, what do you hope to achieve with your economic system, which so far has been poorly defined? You still have not addressed the contradictions inherent in your previous statements....so perhaps you should deal with those first before you try to understand someone else's (already well and exhaustively explained) thoughts on the matter?

I asked first.

But since I am nice, I will answer.

I want a government whose only responsibility will be to provide a beneficial environment for the free market to operate and to protect the basic human rights of the individual. NOTHING ELSE.

Vitt, since you're having so much difficulty grasping the concept:

Though this has already been explained to you. Production would still be dependant upon demand, which of course would affect the supply.

Don't flatter yourself, it is not a difficult idea to comprehend.

It is my opinion, though, and one that I keep stating, that the market forces will be completely skewed in the event of public ownership of and government running of corporations.

In your theory, the supply line will be vertical, as no matter what the price the government will supply the good.

No, it won't. But I have already explained that.

So as the price goes up the government supplies it, as the price goes down, the government continues to supply it.

Where did I say that?

Perhaps you are thinking of the "free" goods that the government provides -- basic food and so on? Well, economists actually call things like salt, simple bread and the like "free" goods because the cost is consistently low and the demand is inelastic. In other words, people use the same amount of salt regardless of how much it costs.


The demand curve will remain as it is, so as you can see, unless the government manages to constantly be right as to the fair market value of goods the economy will be inefficient.

It doesn't have to be any more constantly right than a profit-maximizing entrepreneur. All it has to do is make adjustments in response to demand. If prices are high, it increases production to take advantage of the high price -- i.e. make a profit. If prices are low, it will have to cut back production to cut costs. Seriously, I have gone over this in five or six posts now. Government industries just have to be held to accounting prices on basic resources -- and these prices are determined, as all prices are, by the owners' -- in this case the population's -- willingness to sell.

So we will be buying from government owned corporations? You realize that to maximize profit, that you can't produce enough goods for everyone, right?

That's right. But we don't need enough of everything for everyone. Just the basics. And since those operate on a principle of inelastic demand, it is fairly easy to get a "read" on how much to produce. Those goods are the only ones not produced for profit. The government just uses the profits from other industries to pay for salt, butter, cheap bread and cheese, and so on. Anything more than that is sold on the market... and people buy what they can afford. The more scarce a good is, the more it will cost.

I am not for more or less government, I am not for more or less taxes. I am for a more efficient application of both.
Alright, I think I can agree with most of that post, finally!:) Government certainly needs to be more efficient, and we need to make them more accountable in order for that to happen. You are not then, advocating either pure socialism or capitalism, but rather a blend, much like what exists now, only run better. I am a little further left on the spectrum, as I want certain industries to stay government run in order to prevent private erosion of, say, education and health care, and I am still more in the market socialism field of things. Efficiency and transparency would be the goal of course, but that would be a battle always fought and never quite won (though no less valuable for that). I agree that trade agreements should be made only with nations who respect human and labour rights...instead of the current practice of imposing structural adjustment programs that strip these rights away, and agreements that demand they be removed.

In what way would you expand (and enforce) the graduated tax system? (interested) I'm still not sure how you tax debt...do you mean upping interest rates? I'm hazy on this one.

I asked first.

But since I am nice, I will answer.

I want a government whose only responsibility will be to provide a beneficial environment for the free market to operate and to protect the basic human rights of the individual. NOTHING ELSE.
Actually, to be pernickity, I asked you first:)
Pretty vague, but you explain it better in your latest post.

What are you seeking to achieve with your political system. So far you have established that you do not care if one person receives an inherited advantage over another. Wasn't that the purpose of socialism?

No. The purpose is to assure that everyone has a basic subsistence, and to avoid drastic inequalities in wealth.

I am not one of those whiny so-called socialists who think everyone should be exactly equal, and who begrudge people an inheritance from their parents. I think inheritance is fine... but I also think that to ensure relative equality there must be some restrictions. Parents can leave enough to keep their children well-off, if they use it right. What should the limit be? Again, it depends on the politics and the economy at the time. For my own opinion, I think $250,000 or so is about enough.

Don't flatter yourself, it is not a difficult idea to comprehend.

It is my opinion, though, and one that I keep stating, that the market forces will be completely skewed in the event of public ownership of and government running of corporations.
At least you admit it is only your opinion. Well, it is my opinion that garden gnomes are a blight on society, but that doesn't make it so.

That's right. But we don't need enough of everything for everyone. Just the basics. And since those operate on a principle of inelastic demand, it is fairly easy to get a "read" on how much to produce. Those goods are the only ones not produced for profit. The government just uses the profits from other industries to pay for salt, butter, cheap bread and cheese, and so on. Anything more than that is sold on the market... and people buy what they can afford. The more scarce a good is, the more it will cost.

I am having trouble grasping why you don't just say we need more regulation on our capitalism?

In your system everything is exactly the same (as long as we assume that the government would be able to find managerial wizards who can predict the profitability of a good with no models for comparison), with the government having five times as much power.

I am having trouble grasping why you don't just say we need more regulation on our capitalism?

Well, in a way I am. Among the regulations is the one that specifies how many restaurants a person can own, or how large an industry can be before the people buy it from the individual owner.

with the government having five times as much power.

All regulation is power. So you could just as well say, "with the government making five times the regulations."

Look, clearly we are not going to agree on the ends... and if you agree, I am satisfied, for the present to "agree to disagree" as long as we can agree on this:

The people, through the government, rightfully own basic natural resources. We can disagree for the moment on whether or not they should also own major industries, but it should be a simple fact that a society owns the minerals in its ground and the trees of its forests.

The benefits should be obvious. And it is a hell of a lot better than allowing a British company to own most of the southern Appalachians (which it does).

Alright, I think I can agree with most of that post, finally!:) Government certainly needs to be more efficient, and we need to make them more accountable in order for that to happen. You are not then, advocating either pure socialism or capitalism, but rather a blend, much like what exists now, only run better. I am a little further left on the spectrum, as I want certain industries to stay government run in order to prevent private erosion of, say, education and health care, and I am still more in the market socialism field of things. Efficiency and transparency would be the goal of course, but that would be a battle always fought and never quite won (though no less valuable for that). I agree that trade agreements should be made only with nations who respect human and labour rights...instead of the current practice of imposing structural adjustment programs that strip these rights away, and agreements that demand they be removed.

Yes, I think I am much more at odds with AnarchyeL in terms of economic policy, and I had trouble distinguishing the the two of you.

AnarchyeL has been proposing a segmented socialism (not just Market Socialism) that is strange with accent on the community and all major production controlled by the government. That is a long way away from what I agree with. Where do you stand on that?

In what way would you expand (and enforce) the graduated tax system? (interested)

It would be much like it is now, just with more spending on the regulation of corporate disclosure and audits of the wealthy. The added revenue from making sure that taxes are fairly assessed would pay for the costs ten times over (if only the people would exert their power over government so that it would crack down).

I also support a more top heavy graduated income tax, as I don't believe the government is truly accounting for the marginal utility of a dollar. By utility standards, the $100,000th dollar you earn in a year is worth about 3 times the amount your $20,000th dollar.

I'm still not sure how you tax debt...do you mean upping interest rates? I'm hazy on this one.

The government can artificially raise the risk free rates with bonds and that would raise overall rates, but that would do little to generate revenue for the government. I think there should be a tax on debt reported, which would be an artificial raise of the risk free rate, I guess, but it would generate revenue.

This of course would increase the cost of debt and cause businesses to require more profit to invest, but with the elimination of the sales tax, there would be a higher profit margin.

Look, clearly we are not going to agree on the ends... and if you agree, I am satisfied, for the present to "agree to disagree" as long as we can agree on this:

The people, through the government, rightfully own basic natural resources. We can disagree for the moment on whether or not they should also own major industries, but it should be a simple fact that a society owns the minerals in its ground and the trees of its forests.

The benefits should be obvious. And it is a hell of a lot better than allowing a British company to own most of the southern Appalachians (which it does).

I can agree that the people have the right to first use, but not the right to complete public ownership. And I will agree that they are invariably cut out without extra government regulation.

Yes, I think I am much more at odds with AnarchyeL in terms of economic policy, and I had trouble distinguishing the the two of you. I'm not really sure you are all that much at odds...I think we're just arguing a lot of semantics here.

AnarchyeL has been proposing a segmented socialism (not just Market Socialism) that is strange with accent on the community and all major production controlled by the government. That is a long way away from what I agree with. Where do you stand on that?
I like it...it is closer to a true democracy than what we have now. I still think we need a federal government to regulate the communities and to administer nation-wide services, but many things can be locally controlled through a community wide democratic process. Much like how the Zapatistas do it...and to a lesser extent, the reservations in Canada...though they are rife with corruption. That would need to be worked on.

It would be much like it is now, just with more spending on the regulation of corporate disclosure and audits of the wealthy. The added revenue from making sure that taxes are fairly assessed would pay for the costs ten times over (if only the people would exert their power over government so that it would crack down).
Yes, more citizen input and pressure is needed.

I also support a more top heavy graduated income tax, as I don't believe the government is truly accounting for the marginal utility of a dollar. By utility standards, the $100,000th dollar you earn in a year is worth about 3 times the amount your $20,000th dollar.
Agreed...though I would prefer the system closer to what AnarchyeL is talking about, I would accept a more stringent application of the laws that already exist, and more citizen power.

The government can artificially raise the risk free rates with bonds and that would raise overall rates, but that would do little to generate revenue for the government. I think there should be a tax on debt reported, which would be an artificial raise of the risk free rate, I guess, but it would generate revenue.

This of course would increase the cost of debt and cause businesses to require more profit to invest, but with the elimination of the sales tax, there would be a higher profit margin.
What is your stand on environmental protection, by the by? What do you see as a good way to minimise the problems associated with gluttonous consumption of natural resources? (curios)

All regulation is power. So you could just as well say, "with the government making five times the regulations."

Regulation is not the same as power. Regulation can be enforced by power, and I worry that providing the government with so much economic power, that they may begin enforcing social regulations as well.

Regulation is not the same as power. Regulation can be enforced by power, and I worry that providing the government with so much economic power, that they may begin enforcing social regulations as well.
Just keep in mind...AnarchyeL isn't talking about giving government complete power either. Not by a long shot.

Regulation is not the same as power. Regulation can be enforced by power, and I worry that providing the government with so much economic power, that they may begin enforcing social regulations as well.

Why? Just for fun?

EDIT: Besides, the government already has all the power they need to enforce whatever social regulations they want. (And they do enforce some, such as bans on public nudity, laws against statutory rape, and so on.) The reason they do not enforce others is that the groups who might support them do not have the political will to make it happen. And they won't, unless they get support from the majority of the population and (for the most restrictive policies) courts willing to forget the Constitution (or a constitutional amendment).

AnarchyeL has been proposing a segmented socialism (not just Market Socialism) that is strange with accent on the community and all major production controlled by the government.

Where did you get that idea? I have been describing market socialism in exhaustive detail!! (My minor as a Masters student was political economy... I know what I'm talking about here.)

I'm not really sure you are all that much at odds...I think we're just arguing a lot of semantics here.


I like it...it is closer to a true democracy than what we have now. I still think we need a federal government to regulate the communities and to administer nation-wide services, but many things can be locally controlled through a community wide democratic process. Much like how the Zapatistas do it...and to a lesser extent, the reservations in Canada...though they are rife with corruption. That would need to be worked on.

Would you call it a regulated system of socialist city-states?

If you do, I kind of think it accentuates the problems with both. It spreads the inequality of capitalism over the entire region, while causes what could be massive communist governmental sections that dominate the people.


Yes, more citizen input and pressure is needed.

Socialism will deaden public participation in the government in my opinion.

Agreed...though I would prefer the system closer to what AnarchyeL is talking about, I would accept a more stringent application of the laws that already exist, and more citizen power.

You had better accept it, you aren't going to see a system like AnarchyeL's set up for a long time. I odn't even know if it is a feasible thing to look forward to.

What is your stand on environmental protection, by the by? What do you see as a good way to minimise the problems associated with gluttonous consumption of natural resources? (curios)

Resources are finite and should be conserved.

It is the demand end that is causing the problems with the environment, as mining, deforestation, and just about any process which pulls resources are expensive and would not be done if it weren't for the public's tastes. With either system, there is no incentive for companies to respect the environment

Why? Just for fun?


Self Preservation

Would you call it a regulated system of socialist city-states?
No, I would call it market socialism, which it is.


Socialism will deaden public participation in the government in my opinion.
No more so than it is already deadened in our current system. A revitalisation needs to occur first, and people need to exercise their democratic powers far above simply 'voting'. How involved are YOU in your current government?


You had better accept it, you aren't going to see a system like AnarchyeL's set up for a long time. I odn't even know if it is a feasible thing to look forward to.
Ah, but I HAVE seen such a system in Chiapas, Mexico. And in Las Gaviotas, Colombia, AND in the Northwest Territories on Gwitchiin and Inuvaliut lands...all communities which are essential anarchistic and communally run. That this system is not yet international in scope does not mean it is impossible, nor does it mean I won't live to see it on a wider scale. I urge you to get some information on these communities...they are very interesting, and citizen apathy is non-existent because people have a REAL say in what happens in their lives.


Resources are finite and should be conserved.

It is the demand end that is causing the problems with the environment, as mining, deforestation, and just about any process which pulls resources are expensive and would not be done if it weren't for the public's tastes. With either system, there is no incentive for companies to respect the environment
It's not the demand...demand in and of itself is a fluctuating and insubstantial thing. It is the actual consumption, and the 'wants' being satisfied for the few, instead of the 'needs' of the many. I think a more regulated system has a better chance of dealing with this, by regulating environmental use, rather than hoping the market will respect the environment 'in its own best interest'.

Self Preservation
Then why don't all democracies turn into dictatorships once a party is voted in? Wouldn't that be the best way to assure self preservation?

Self Preservation

You said yourself that liberal democracy depends on individual freedom. Now why would a democracy go about destroying individual freedom in the name of self-preservation? That is blatantly self-contradictory!

REPOST: Besides, the government already has all the power they need to enforce whatever social regulations they want. (And they do enforce some, such as bans on public nudity, laws against statutory rape, and so on.) The reason they do not enforce others is that the groups who might support them do not have the political will to make it happen. And they won't, unless they get support from the majority of the population and (for the most restrictive policies) courts willing to forget the Constitution (or a constitutional amendment).

Where did you get that idea? I have been describing market socialism in exhaustive detail!! (My minor as a Masters student was political economy... I know what I'm talking about here.)

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.

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.

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.

Your combination of anarchy and socialism in which you believe government should be regulated to smaller regions and communities and you desire for socialist regulations of these is hard to for me to reconcile.

Crap. Here we go again. Just when progress was being made. :headbang:

And you're means you are, not 'belonging to you' as in your. (since things are just getting silly now)

You're combination of anarchy and socialism in which you believe government should be regulated to smaller regions and communities and you desire for socialist regulations of these is hard to for me to reconcile.

Only because you seem to have a skewed understanding of what both of these things mean. Most anarchists are socialists of one form or another. Socialism is an economic policy adopted by a government -- whatever kind of government that happens to be.

Where is the problem?

You said yourself that liberal democracy depends on individual freedom. Now why would a democracy go about destroying individual freedom in the name of self-preservation? That is blatantly self-contradictory!

Democracy is still an organized government. In America, we do not choose our representatives we only choose the best of the options. If you haven't noticed that the American government is a system that is starting to get out of control. That is because the POLITICIANS have a need for self preservation.

REPOST: Besides, the government already has all the power they need to enforce whatever social regulations they want. (And they do enforce some, such as bans on public nudity, laws against statutory rape, and so on.) The reason they do not enforce others is that the groups who might support them do not have the political will to make it happen. And they won't, unless they get support from the majority of the population and (for the most restrictive policies) courts willing to forget the Constitution (or a constitutional amendment).

Property rights, against you and Sinahue's beliefs, there has been a remarkable distribution of wealth in this nation. There is a less recognized system of checks in this nation between the corporation, the government, and the labor force. All are responsive to the the others and rely on others. Socialism destroys the balance of checks.

Socialism destroys the balance of checks.
How exactly?

And you're means you are, not 'belonging to you' as in your. (since things are just getting silly now)

Sorry, I will monitor my grammar from now on.

There is a less recognized system of checks in this nation between the corporation, the government, and the labor force.

Little recognized indeed, since as a political theorist I have yet to see such "checks" explained. Why don't you enlighten me?

Sorry, I will monitor my grammar from now on.
;) Good...I flunked out of the grammar patrol, and I'm bitter. Bitterness leads to socialism. Hehehehehe...I'm tired. :D

Only because you seem to have a skewed understanding of what both of these things mean. Most anarchists are socialists of one form or another. Socialism is an economic policy adopted by a government -- whatever kind of government that happens to be.

Where is the problem?

Because socialism, by default, requires a large, powerful government.

Democracy is still an organized government. In America, we do not choose our representatives we only choose the best of the options. If you haven't noticed that the American government is a system that is starting to get out of control. That is because the POLITICIANS have a need for self preservation.
So do something about it. Get involved. Fight for reform.

Property rights, against you and Sinahue's beliefs, there has been a remarkable distribution of wealth in this nation.
What? Try the grammar check here...what are you saying?

There is a less recognized system of checks in this nation between the corporation, the government, and the labor force. All are responsive to the the others and rely on others. Socialism destroys the balance of checks. !!?? Again? Why don't we deal with the concrete checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches instead...REAL checks...that would not be destroyed by the socialist boogeyman...you're going in circles again...you are pro-government one second, then running scared from any sort of organised government....

Because socialism, by default, requires a large, powerful government.

It only has to be large in comparison to the society that it governs. A village can be socialist just as easily as an empire.

You seem to believe that we can solve inefficiency and corruption in government by getting rid of government. (Baby and bathwater analogy again) This is kind of funny, because if I were just to pop into this thread for the first time, you would sound like a psuedo-anarchist, who wants to abolish all governments...except you don't, but then you do, and then you change your mind again. You still WANT government for some things...but how exactly are you going to keep that government honest in those particular areas? And how do you have a government powerful enough to enforce the market controls you desire...yet toothless enough to make sure they don't grab ALL the power out of 'self preservation'? You need to think your political and economic views out a bit more.

Little recognized indeed, since as a political theorist I have yet to see such "checks" explained. Why don't you enlighten me?

The corporations are responsible to the collective power of the labor force and the government, the government is responsive to the the economic power of the corporations and the political power of the citizenry, and the work force recieves their wages from the corporations, and their protection from the government.

With socialism the citizenry is seriously tested by the power of combining the corporation and the government. I personally don't believe that the public is up for that sort of test.

The corporations are responsible to the collective power of the labor force and the government, the government is responsive to the the economic power of the corporations and the political power of the citizenry, and the work force recieves their wages from the corporations, and their protection from the government.

With socialism the citizenry is seriously tested by the power of combining the corporation and the government. I personally don't believe that the public is up for that sort of test.

Once again you entirely miss the point..are you doing this on purpose?

That might be the case if we were talking about making the government the ONLY employer, which has been stated again and again is not being suggested. And by the way, plenty of people still don't thing the 'public' is up for democracy either, but here it is. Now let's use it for something.

So do something about it. Get involved. Fight for reform.

Maybe if you could convince the rest of America as well.

What? Try the grammar check here...what are you saying?

I am at work and can only argue in short bursts.

I meant that property rights empowers the people. It gives them more than just labor capital.

!!?? Again? Why don't we deal with the concrete checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches instead...REAL checks...that would not be destroyed by the socialist boogeyman...you're going in circles again...you are pro-government one second, then running scared from any sort of organised government....

Good argument, now that all of those branches are controlled by the same party, and at best can be controlled by two different parties that are both only concerned with political self-preservation.

Government is not black and white. I support government as a protector and provider. Any time there is a chance for it to become more than that, let's say employer, alarm bells ring.

The corporations are responsible to the collective power of the labor force

Not especially.

and the government,

This is true, fortunately.

the government is responsive to the the economic power of the corporations

And why is this a good thing?

and the political power of the citizenry,

Sometimes, thankfully. Let us all hope this improves.

and the work force recieves their wages from the corporations,

Again, you fail to state why this is a good thing.


With socialism the citizenry is seriously tested by the power of combining the corporation and the government. I personally don't believe that the public is up for that sort of test.

How???? What test????

If you are going to be this vague, there is no way we can continue this discussion.

Once again you entirely miss the point..are you doing this on purpose?

That might be the case if we were talking about making the government the ONLY employer, which has been stated again and again is not being suggested. And by the way, plenty of people still don't thing the 'public' is up for democracy either, but here it is. Now let's use it for something.

If the government is responsible for the corporations it is responsible for setting the market prices and wages. If you will notice that in the investment markets, the government sets the base rate and then it is up to the private market to provide a better deal. That would be true in all aspects of the market with market socialism. The government would set the wages and prices that it wants, and the private sector would be forced to do better than the government in order to compete. With the economies of scale and elimination of supply overhead created by the government it would be almost impossible for the private sector maintain competition.

We don't have a representative democracy anymore.

Any time there is a chance for it to become more than that, let's say employer, alarm bells ring.

You keep saying that, but all you ever come up with are vague threats of "maybe they'll dip into social policy too much then" and confused economic arguments that seem to intentionally misconstrue the mechanics of market socialism.

Unless you can give us a more concrete of what those "alarm bells" are all about, you will continue to come across as more paranoid than legitimately concerned.

If the government is responsible for the corporations it is responsible for setting the market prices and wages.

No. If you refuse to argue against the system that we are proposing, then we cannot argue with you. It makes no sense for us to say, "These are the virtues of system X" only for you to respond, "Yes, but it could never work because of the problems in system Y."

If the government is responsible for the corporations it is responsible for setting the market prices and wages. If you will notice that in the investment markets, the government sets the base rate and then it is up to the private market to provide a better deal. That would be true in all aspects of the market with market socialism. The government would set the wages and prices that it wants, and the private sector would be forced to do better than the government in order to compete. With the economies of scale and elimination of supply overhead created by the government it would be almost impossible for the private sector maintain competition.
Deja vu....I think we've done this before:

Once again you entirely miss the point..are you doing this on purpose?

That might be the case if we were talking about making the government the ONLY employer, which has been stated again and again is not being suggested.


In your theory, the supply line will be vertical, as no matter what the price the government will supply the good.


No, it won't. But I have already explained that.
So as the price goes up the government supplies it, as the price goes down, the government continues to supply it.


Where did I say that?

Perhaps you are thinking of the "free" goods that the government provides -- basic food and so on? Well, economists actually call things like salt, simple bread and the like "free" goods because the cost is consistently low and the demand is inelastic. In other words, people use the same amount of salt regardless of how much it costs.

The demand curve will remain as it is, so as you can see, unless the government manages to constantly be right as to the fair market value of goods the economy will be inefficient.

It doesn't have to be any more constantly right than a profit-maximizing entrepreneur. All it has to do is make adjustments in response to demand. If prices are high, it increases production to take advantage of the high price -- i.e. make a profit. If prices are low, it will have to cut back production to cut costs. Seriously, I have gone over this in five or six posts now. Government industries just have to be held to accounting prices on basic resources -- and these prices are determined, as all prices are, by the owners' -- in this case the population's -- willingness to sell.
So we will be buying from government owned corporations? You realize that to maximize profit, that you can't produce enough goods for everyone, right?


That's right. But we don't need enough of everything for everyone. Just the basics. And since those operate on a principle of inelastic demand, it is fairly easy to get a "read" on how much to produce. Those goods are the only ones not produced for profit. The government just uses the profits from other industries to pay for salt, butter, cheap bread and cheese, and so on. Anything more than that is sold on the market... and people buy what they can afford. The more scarce a good is, the more it will cost.

and confused economic arguments that seem to intentionally misconstrue the mechanics of market socialism. If you intend to show why this persons economic arguments are confused and why you think he seems to intentionally miscontrue the mechanics of market socialism then perhaps you will be debating the subject rather than engaging in yet more ad hominem.
you will continue to come across as more paranoid than legitimately concerned.
Wether your opponent is legitimately concerned, paranoid , bipolar schizophrenic or suffering from the sniffles is without relevence to the subject being debated.
Its a shame to see a thread of this calibre being dragged down to ad hominem yet again. Debate the subject, not the man.

Not especially.

Yes it is, due to the government's responsibility to the people.

And why is this a good thing?

For the economy.

Sometimes, thankfully. Let us all hope this improves.

Yes, sometimes, I don't think it will improve drastically, though.

Again, you fail to state why this is a good thing.

It isn't, it is necessary though.

How???? What test????

If you are going to be this vague, there is no way we can continue this discussion.

The test as to whether they can maintain the balance on their own. As you even admitted they are having a hard time keeping their end of the bargain in the little give-and-take between the three entities I mentioned.

You do realize that, by combining the government and the corporation, you are combining and doubling the power of the only two groups of people who make a living by exploiting the people, right?

If you intend to show why this persons economic arguments are confused and why you think he seems to intentionally miscontrue the mechanics of market socialism then perhaps you will be debating the subject rather than engaging in yet more ad hominem.
I like your name:) And I had to look up ad hominem...I was confusing it with ad nauseam for some reason:)

Wether your opponent is legitimately concerned, paranoid , bipolar schizophrenic or suffering from the sniffles is without relevence to the subject being debated.
Its a shame to see a thread of this calibre being dragged down to ad hominem yet again. Debate the subject, not the man.
Surely you can understand AnarchyeL's frustration in having to go over the same argument again and again...in any case, I'm sure things will get more cerebral around here:)

If you intend to show why this persons economic arguments are confused and why you think he seems to intentionally miscontrue the mechanics of market socialism then perhaps you will be debating the subject rather than engaging in yet more ad hominem.

I have been debating it. My complaint, which you mischaracterize as ad hominem, is that he is not.

Wether your opponent is legitimately concerned, paranoid , bipolar schizophrenic or suffering from the sniffles is without relevence to the subject being debated.

I am not particularly concerned about his mental state. I am criticizing his arguments for being paranoiac in the sense that they make emotional appeals and assertions of fear without providing any suggestion of what specifically one should fear and why.

Debate the subject, not the man.

I would love to, but the man is not being very cooperative.

Deja vu....I think we've done this before:

Do you two actually think that the production end of the economy has nothing to do with the market equilibrium? No matter how you try to explain it away, if the government handles production, they have an enormous hand in the determining of prices.

Debate the subject, not the man.
Why are we making assumptions about Vitt's gender?

I like your name:)
Surely you can understand AnarchyeL's frustration in having to go over the same argument again and again...in any case, I'm sure things will get more cerebral around here:)
Sadly who can say they have never felt frustration? ;)
However (and I may be mistaken) I also understand that in a civilised debate, the first to resort to ad hominem normally turns out to be the loser.

Why are we making assumptions about Vitt's gender?
"We" are making no assumptions, Vitt has established himself (through amongst other things photographs posted on this forum) to be male.

"We" are making no assumptions, Vitt has established himself (through amongst other things photographs posted on this forum) to be male.
Is that the royal 'we'? Now that we have established Vitt's gender is indeed male, perhaps we could return to debating the usefulness of ad hominem ad naseam?
Sorry, getting tired, getting silly.

You do realize that, by combining the government and the corporation, you are combining and doubling the power of the only two groups of people who make a living by exploiting the people, right?

You don't know many politicians personally, do you? It really is too bad the media only reports on the few bad ones.

The great majority of them, in my experience, take the job they do because they genuinely want to make a difference. Certainly I do not agree with what all of them want to do, but their motives are -- on the whole -- good.

Moreover, those Founding Fathers you love so much intended to see to it that their very desire to keep their jobs is what makes them accountable to the population that elects them. It is pretty difficult to get away with much real "exploitation" as a politician and not have people find out... and it is even harder to stay in office once they do.

Anyway, the corruption that runs rampant in democratic government is usually concerned with petty abuses of power (e.g. with interns), not with the exploitation of the masses for personal economic gain.

Personally, if I have to put people in charge, I would prefer it to be in a system that does its best to attract those who want to serve the people, rather than those who want to squeeze them dry.

Do you two actually think that the production end of the economy has nothing to do with the market equilibrium? No matter how you try to explain it away, if the government handles production, they have an enormous hand in the determining of prices.
And again, all this proves is that you equate the freedom to consume with freedoms in general. Price fixing already exists, albeit in a less regulated form in the market economy of your own country. Are you any less free because you can only find a slight variation in price for a rubber hose in Walmart compared to Zellers?

freedom to consume != political freedom

Sorry, getting tired, getting silly.
Silly is allowed, if you feel like getting blatantly silly I may have to buy you a drink ;) although I think we have both filled our off topic quota in this thread:D

I think this debate would be much better done over a pint or two...if only I could drink at work....

In any case, I'm going to have to drop off here for the weekend pretty soon, thanks everyone for the chat, it's been interesting and it's helped to solidify some ideas I had about economics. Have a great Friday!

I have been debating it. My complaint, which you mischaracterize as ad hominem, is that he is not.



I am not particularly concerned about his mental state. I am criticizing his arguments for being paranoiac in the sense that they make emotional appeals and assertions of fear without providing any suggestion of what specifically one should fear and why.

You suggest that corporations are corrupt and are constantly trying to exploit the people. I agreed with you.

I say the government is no different, and you ignore my arguments by saying that democracy prevents that.

I then say that government is held in check by both the demands that capitalism places on it through the corporations, and the demands that the citizenry places on it through democracy, and you ignore that, so that when I say that I don't think the people would be able to maintain the balance on their own, you are completely oblivious to the point I was making.

I would love to, but the man is not being very cooperative.

I have conceded that the government does need certain aspects of socialism that to maintain the capitalism.

Now you are saying that the country needs to be socialist, with regional markets to promote autonomy and the economy, and I say it can't be done, due to the fact that the government would not be efficient in responding to the demands of the market. How am I not the one debating?

How am I not the one debating?
You pick now to clarify yourself...man...

You don't know many politicians personally, do you? It really is too bad the media only reports on the few bad ones.

The great majority of them, in my experience, take the job they do because they genuinely want to make a difference. Certainly I do not agree with what all of them want to do, but their motives are -- on the whole -- good.

Moreover, those Founding Fathers you love so much intended to see to it that their very desire to keep their jobs is what makes them accountable to the population that elects them. It is pretty difficult to get away with much real "exploitation" as a politician and not have people find out... and it is even harder to stay in office once they do.

Anyway, the corruption that runs rampant in democratic government is usually concerned with petty abuses of power (e.g. with interns), not with the exploitation of the masses for personal economic gain.

Do you know what the retention rate for the House of Representatives in the US was? 99%. Now do you suppose that is because 99% of the representatives were doing a good job? Or do you think it is moreover the fact that the political parties have created a science of exploiting the people in order to retain power?

Personally, if I have to put people in charge, I would prefer it to be in a system that does its best to attract those who want to serve the people, rather than those who want to squeeze them dry.

So you want to put businessmen in charge, good plan.

And before you say that I am obtuse and ignoring your argument, I will say this, when you combine government and business, and make it that government would maintain itself by profit in the marketplace, who else would run the government.

And again, all this proves is that you equate the freedom to consume with freedoms in general. Price fixing already exists, albeit in a less regulated form in the market economy of your own country. Are you any less free because you can only find a slight variation in price for a rubber hose in Walmart compared to Zellers?

freedom to consume != political freedom

Where did I say anything about freedom?

I stated that the market will be inefficient because there will be very little natural price float.

Do you two actually think that the production end of the economy has nothing to do with the market equilibrium? No matter how you try to explain it away, if the government handles production, they have an enormous hand in the determining of prices.

Look, I know it is a really difficult idea to accept. When I first studied the theory of market socialism, I approached it from the perspective of an anarchist... and it sounded really "fishy."

Indeed, my first books on the subject are filled with marginal notes of protest. I just could not see how the government could own natural resources and the means of production, but not set prices.

But the fact is, after a lot of reading I was swayed. It makes sense.

Look at it this way...

Suppose I want to sell my comic book collection. It is mine, so I set the price at which I am willing to sell. Say I decide to sell them for $5 each. I set up a booth on the street, and see what happens.

Now, one of three things might occur:

(1) My comics are sold at a satisfactory rate, and I am happy with my returns.
(2) I do not sell many comic books. Now, it is possible that I will still be unwilling to part with them for less than $5, so there can simply be no sale. However, it is also possible that I will re-evaluate my position (perhaps I need the money for something), and lower my price to $4 per book.
(3) My comics are flying out of their boxes -- which tells me that if I want to, I can probably get more than $5 each for them, so I up the price to $6.

If they still don't sell at $4, I might go lower. If they still sell rapidly at $6, I may go higher.

That is a market.

Now, let us see what happens in market socialism. We'll take this one step at a time. Let us suppose that the very first thing the socialist government does is to nationalize natural resources (and the basic retrieval of these), but for the moment they leave major industry alone. What happens?

Well, let's say we own a very old forest, and we are willing to sell some portion of it as lumber. The forest belongs to the society in exactly the same way that my comic books belong to me. Therefore, just like me, society gets to decide at what price they are willing to sell their wood. So, they pick a starting price: if they were happy with the rate at which wood was selling before it was socialized, they probably make their "guess" at whatever was the previous market price. If they think the forest was being depleted too quickly, they would guess higher.

Okay, for convenience let's just say that wood is sold in units of "X," and we decide to start selling wood for $100 per X.

Now, the industries that need wood -- paper mills, pencil manufaturers, furniture producers, and so on -- need to purchase wood at that price. And here the market kicks in. Suppose, for instance, that there is a sudden surge in demand for paper. Then the paper mills would start buying more wood, perhaps even as much as they can get. In response, we would find that we could up the price of wood, and those paper mills would just keep buying it. This might affect the price of other products, too -- but that is a well-known phenomenon in any market. Conversely, if demand slackens -- perhaps people are using pens now, and pencils are out of style -- our managers would have to lower the price of wood in order to sell the amount that we already politically agreed we were willing to lose.

With me so far?

Now, we're about to socialize the paper mills. This is where "accounting prices" come in. See, we take over the paper mills... and again, we take our "guess" about prices from the existing market price at the time. Now, we appoint a manager for each paper mill, whose job -- as I have already discussed -- is to maximize its profitability.

Okay, so the paper mill needs to buy wood... but wood is produced and owned by the government, just like the paper mill, so really this is like calling up another government agency and getting what you need -- that is the inherent problem of planned economies. How is anyone supposed to know how much is enough? How much paper should we produce when we already own the wood, so it has no real "cost"?

Well, we make it a matter of law that managers must "purchase" wood at the existing market price -- it was determined by the market just a minute ago, remember? Now that this occurs "within" one firm -- the government -- we call it an "accounting" price. No money actually has to be transferred from one account to another, but the manager is legally required to keep accounts using the accounting price -- the same price that applies to anyone in the private sector who may be purchasing, in this case, wood.

Now, it is the responsibility of the manager to make as much profit as possible. That means he must respond to the market. And when his demand increases, he will -- just like a private entrepreneur -- be willing to pay a higher accounting price for wood. In turn, the wood producing firms respond by raising the price.

Demand is transmitted through the price system in exactly the same way as it is transmitted through the existing capitalist price system. Production is determined by demand, NOT by government "planning."

Sadly who can say they have never felt frustration? ;)
However (and I may be mistaken) I also understand that in a civilised debate, the first to resort to ad hominem normally turns out to be the loser.

Again, my complaints about his unwillingness to argue the point are no more an ad hominem than it would be to ask one's interlocutor to stop making "beep-beep" noises.

You pick now to clarify yourself...man...

Maybe you just dismissed my statements.

Do you know what the retention rate for the House of Representatives in the US was? 99%. Now do you suppose that is because 99% of the representatives were doing a good job? Or do you think it is moreover the fact that the political parties have created a science of exploiting the people in order to retain power?

You mentioned this before, and I agreed with you. Term limits would be a good start.

who else would run the government.

Elected officials, who else?

*snip*

So what is your problem with capitalism again?

So what is your problem with capitalism again?

Vast inequalities in wealth; the control of natural resources for private profit; the lack of substantive opportunity for great numbers of people... I could go on.

But you knew all that.

Elected officials, who else?

Would not the CEO's be the individuals that a well informed citizenry would elect to lead these government owned industries.

They would be the most qualified.

Would not the CEO's be the individuals that a well informed citizenry would elect to lead these government owned industries.

They would be the most qualified.

Sure, they can be managers of industry. But they are employed by the democratically-elected government, presumably made up of career politicians.

If you want checks and balances, there they are. ;)

Would not the CEO's be the individuals that a well informed citizenry would elect to lead these government owned industries.

They would be the most qualified.

Not always, some CEOs are remarkably unqualified and get their positions only because the positions hardly matter and the people have connections. Plus, they wouldn't get payed the rediculous five million dollar bonuses every year if the government controlled the companies because they'd be answerable to the public, and that's the biggest point. Make the companies answer to the consumers outside the market and corruption goes away, at lesat in part.

Vast inequalities in wealth; the control of natural resources for private profit; the lack of substantive opportunity for great numbers of people... I could go on.

But you knew all that.

How does a market socialism keep the successful managers from earning vast amounts of wealth, since they will be rewarded for their success?

I agreed with you for the most part that natural resources should be available to the public first and foremost.

How does a market socialism provide more jobs than a regular capitalism?

And still I don't see how Anarchy can mesh with such a hierarchical government?

Not always, some CEOs are remarkably unqualified and get their positions only because the positions hardly matter and the people have connections. Plus, they wouldn't get payed the rediculous five million dollar bonuses every year if the government controlled the companies because they'd be answerable to the public, and that's the biggest point. Make the companies answer to the consumers outside the market and corruption goes away, at lesat in part.

This assumes that the goal of the corporation is not to maximize wealth as well. If the goal of these government own industries is to maximize wealth, doesn't it seem to follow that the they will behave in the same manner as privately owned corporations?

Sure, they can be managers of industry. But they are employed by the democratically-elected government, presumably made up of career politicians.

If you want checks and balances, there they are. ;)

Yes!!!! CEO's who are supervised by career politicians. Sounds like a workable plan to me! How could that ever go wrong?

How does a market socialism keep the successful managers from earning vast amounts of wealth, since they will be rewarded for their success?

They will be rewarded, but not in the absurd amounts we see today (and you know this is a relatively recent development). It's a labor market. We have to pay enough to attract talented individuals to the job -- and no more. And it does seem to be a pretty exciting and rewarding job with its own non-material goods; I suspect that we really have to pay a lot less than CEOs get these days. (Just think about how many smart people would love to be CEO in their company. People are practically beating down the door. Clearly this is NOT equilibrium.)

How does a market socialism provide more jobs than a regular capitalism?

Simple. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done; the government has the money to pay people to do them. They could do it now, but those pesky capitalists oppose it because it has a tendency to exert upward pressure on a wide range of wages (though this effect is neither as powerful nor as prevalent as most believe).

More particularly, the government can employ people to produce public goods. Public goods, as any economist will tell you, are in drastic under-supply -- it is a classic market failure. Since people benefit from them whether they pay into purchasing them or not, individuals are unluckly to volunteer their own money -- the world is full of freeloaders. This is a perfect place for government to step in and use its profits to procure things that benefit everyone.

And still I don't see how Anarchy can mesh with such a hierarchical government?

It can't. But one thing at a time. If I can get you to understand the principles of market socialism from the perspective of how a country like the United States could move in that direction, then we can talk about how anarchists manage it.

(It's actually not all that complex. Primarily, it means that the workplace itself is internally organized on democratic principles.)

Yes!!!! CEO's who are supervised by career politicians. Sounds like a workable plan to me! How could that ever go wrong?

*sigh* Have we stopped giving reasons for our claims again?

That didn't last long.

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."

1. you need a profit motive to ensure the need to exell at work. otherwise you just get paid regardless of how well you work.
2. if there is no reason to compete for profit, you will compete for political reasons.
3. when the government equalises wealth, it penalises success, it robs people of the incentive to use their talent for profit.

They will be rewarded, but not in the absurd amounts we see today (and you know this is a relatively recent development). It's a labor market. We have to pay enough to attract talented individuals to the job -- and no more. And it does seem to be a pretty exciting and rewarding job with its own non-material goods; I suspect that we really have to pay a lot less than CEOs get these days. (Just think about how many smart people would love to be CEO in their company. People are practically beating down the door. Clearly this is NOT equilibrium.)

Would there be competion amongst the labor market? I don't understand how there would be a difference between a corporation that wants to maximize profits, and a government owned corporation that wants to maximize profits.

I know you want to say that it is corporate corruption that causes it, and that democracy will do away with that type of thing by keeping the managers responsible, but I would say that stockholders are much more responsible voters than the general public.

Simple. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done; the government has the money to pay people to do them. They could do it now, but those pesky capitalists oppose it because it has a tendency to exert upward pressure on a wide range of wages (though this effect is neither as powerful nor as prevalent as most believe).

More particularly, the government can employ people to produce public goods. Public goods, as any economist will tell you, are in drastic under-supply -- it is a classic market failure. Since people benefit from them whether they pay into purchasing them or not, individuals are unluckly to volunteer their own money -- the world is full of freeloaders. This is a perfect place for government to step in and use its profits to procure things that benefit everyone.

Here is one capitalist who agrees with you.

It can't. But one thing at a time. If I can get you to understand the principles of market socialism from the perspective of how a country like the United States could move in that direction, then we can talk about how anarchists manage it.

(It's actually not all that complex. Primarily, it means that the workplace itself is internally organized on democratic principles.)

I UNDERSTAND OUR DIFFERENCE NOW!!!

You think that the flat authority of democracy will pervade the business sector, while I think that the hierarchical authority of business will pervade the government.

*sigh* Have we stopped giving reasons for our claims again?

That didn't last long.

I'm sorry I thought the dangers of having career politicians supervise CEO's was obvious. For a anarchist you are incredibly trusting of government.

I think it is obvious that the public is not responsible enough to maintain their representation on their own, as I pointed out with the little triumverate of responsibilities and the retention rate in this government.

I see very little signs that the people are at all able to maintain the accountability of government. And if the government isn't accountable, who is to hold the CEO's accountable?

1. you need a profit motive to ensure the need to exell at work. otherwise you just get paid regardless of how well you work.
2. if there is no reason to compete for profit, you will compete for political reasons.
3. when the government equalises wealth, it penalises success, it robs people of the incentive to use their talent for profit.

Lordy, I got chastised and my arguments were not even near that simplistic.

They will be rewarded, but not in the absurd amounts we see today (and you know this is a relatively recent development). It's a labor market. We have to pay enough to attract talented individuals to the job -- and no more. And it does seem to be a pretty exciting and rewarding job with its own non-material goods; I suspect that we really have to pay a lot less than CEOs get these days. (Just think about how many smart people would love to be CEO in their company. People are practically beating down the door. Clearly this is NOT equilibrium.)



Simple. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done; the government has the money to pay people to do them. They could do it now, but those pesky capitalists oppose it because it has a tendency to exert upward pressure on a wide range of wages (though this effect is neither as powerful nor as prevalent as most believe).

More particularly, the government can employ people to produce public goods. Public goods, as any economist will tell you, are in drastic under-supply -- it is a classic market failure. Since people benefit from them whether they pay into purchasing them or not, individuals are unluckly to volunteer their own money -- the world is full of freeloaders. This is a perfect place for government to step in and use its profits to procure things that benefit everyone.



It can't. But one thing at a time. If I can get you to understand the principles of market socialism from the perspective of how a country like the United States could move in that direction, then we can talk about how anarchists manage it.

(It's actually not all that complex. Primarily, it means that the workplace itself is internally organized on democratic principles.)

1. Upward pressure on wages is inflationary, I have experienced nothing but inflation on the same rate as the increase in the minimum wage as legislated by the new zealand government.
2. Don't paint all anarchists as socialists, some of us are actually good capitalists who merely prefer that government services be provided by competing companies.

Would there be competion amongst the labor market? I don't understand how there would be a difference between a corporation that wants to maximize profits, and a government owned corporation that wants to maximize profits.

Two differences:

(1) The profits of a government-owned corporation go to procure public goods. The profits of a private corporation go to exacerbate the ridiculous inequality between rich and poor.

(2) Not every policy of every corporation is purely profit-maximizing. Some of those policies, for instance, are imposed by government, regulations designed to force corporations to respect the environment, labor, or product safety in ways they are otherwise unlikely to choose. Occasionally, corporate executives or stockholders may even feel generous (or guilty) and choose more attractive policies.

Socialism removes the middle man. If we can manage some success in regulating businesses through outside agencies, it will be even easier to apply the law to our own employees, whose records must by definition be open to review, and whose executives cannot simply call their lawyers when they are told to conform to environmental regulations or safety standards. Being government employees, they are bound to obey the law or risk being fired.

I know you want to say that it is corporate corruption that causes it, and that democracy will do away with that type of thing by keeping the managers responsible, but I would say that stockholders are much more responsible voters than the general public.

Responsible to their profits, perhaps. That is not the sort of responsibility that concerns me.


You think that the flat authority of democracy will pervade the business sector, while I think that the hierarchical authority of business will pervade the government.

That appears to be so.

I'm sorry I thought the dangers of having career politicians supervise CEO's was obvious. For a anarchist you are incredibly trusting of government.

I am trusting of anarchist government. And I am more trusting of a democratically elected government than a profit-minded corporation.

I see very little signs that the people are at all able to maintain the accountability of government. And if the government isn't accountable, who is to hold the CEO's accountable?

First of all, you neglect (again) the fact that the motives of elected officials tend to be more genuinely concerned with serving the public than corporate executives.

Secondly, your concerns point to a legitimate need for reform in democratic government. The fact remains that democracy is the most accountable form of decision-making we have.

While you guys seem to be on the subject of regulation, I should ad that the free market is capable of establishing it's own regulatory systems, and they seem to do as good a job as any government ones do.

For example, the ESRB which rates computer games is not a government organization, and it is a trustworthy and accurate system. And also, Verisign, is an credibility stamp for online vendors, marking them as trustworthy and granting licenses, etc.

Regulating seems to be possible even without taxing people to do it.

1. Upward pressure on wages is inflationary, I have experienced nothing but inflation on the same rate as the increase in the minimum wage as legislated by the new zealand government.

You aren't even paying attention to your own government, are you? New Zealand has been raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. You have the causal relation backwards.

Minimum wage increases have a marginal to non-existent effect on inflation. In fact, they can sometimes decrease inflation when they allow people to stop buying on credit, which has a profound impact on inflation because it allows people to buy with money they have not (yet) earned.

2. Don't paint all anarchists as socialists, some of us are actually good capitalists who merely prefer that government services be provided by competing companies.

Hence my choice of the word "most."

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?

Capitalist apologists? I like that term. It certainly indicates the similarities between religious beliefs and economic/political beliefs.

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

Allow me to play my violin...

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.

Correct.

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?

It could be a partially a product of socialization, rather than solely a natural urge.

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."

"Naturally"? I take it you mean that competiveness is an inherent quality rather than an applied quality? Rather like the difference between a person who has human DNA as compared to a person who goes to the bathroom in a toilet. The first is an inherent property, and the second is imposed by the environment. In the case of the toilet, the social environment was the cause.

Personally, I think that competition is generally a result of both environmental factors and an inherent quality. Scarce resources will lead to competition for resources. Effective socialization to compete will lead to competition. Our psychological need to express dominance over others will lead to competition, in some form.

While you guys seem to be on the subject of regulation, I should ad that the free market is capable of establishing it's own regulatory systems, and they seem to do as good a job as any government ones do.

For example, the ESRB which rates computer games is not a government organization, and it is a trustworthy and accurate system. And also, Verisign, is an credibility stamp for online vendors, marking them as trustworthy and granting licenses, etc.

Regulating seems to be possible even without taxing people to do it.

Yes, but how many of those regulatory corporations are set up to check up on environmental violations? They make their money by getting companies to pay them for their "stamp," but companies are only willing to do this for qualities they expect to matter on an individual level -- i.e product quality, safety, and so on. To act in a responsible way (whether in terms of quality, safety, environmental protection or anything else) usually costs more than to avoid doing so... which means the products cost more. People are willing to pay more for a private good, such as product safety, but they are less willing to pay more for a public good like clean air -- they feel like they are the one "taking the hit" to "support the company" while other people get away with cheaper products.

Because people think other people are freeloading, they wind up freeloading themselves, even if they really care about the public good in question. Thus although a majority of people might want to protect the environment, almost no one is willing to pay unless he believes everyone else is paying, too.

Hence the necessity of government regulation.

I am trusting of anarchist government. And I am more trusting of a democratically elected government than a profit-minded corporation.

First of all, you neglect (again) the fact that the motives of elected officials tend to be more genuinely concerned with serving the public than corporate executives.

Secondly, your concerns point to a legitimate need for reform in democratic government. The fact remains that democracy is the most accountable form of decision-making we have.

Now you are the anarchist appealing the ideal situation. You are relying on the hope that the public will maintain a responsible government, which I have shown evidence to the contrary. You assume that even the most socially minded politician aren't incredibly adept at political backscratching and self preservation.

But, I do and always will be personally assured that business is a corrupting force that is built on exploitation, and that its introduction into government can only have a corrupting effect.

But, I do and always will be personally assured that business is a corrupting force that is built on exploitation, and that its introduction into government can only have a corrupting effect.

Well, since you have the gift of foresight, there is little point in continuing this discussion further.

Well, since you have the gift of foresight, there is little point in continuing this discussion further.

As you have decided to dodge points as well, I agree.

You aren't even paying attention to your own government, are you? New Zealand has been raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. You have the causal relation backwards.

Minimum wage increases have a marginal to non-existent effect on inflation. In fact, they can sometimes decrease inflation when they allow people to stop buying on credit, which has a profound impact on inflation because it allows people to buy with money they have not (yet) earned.



Hence my choice of the word "most."

No, New Zealand has been raising Taxes on the so-called rich to create inflation, there has been no tax cut in the 5 years since this socialist Labour party got elected.
They have had to raise the minimum wage to almost cover inflation on the basic goods and services provided by the free market that are taken for granted : food, power, petrol, phone, etc.

Ok, lets take the example of my new seiko kinetic watch :
I paid half by eftpos (cash), half on my credit cards. I did this instead of pay a six week layby, so I can just pay my cards when I get paid (fortnightly)
Fortunately, I have worked 6 days this week instead of 1, so I have enough to cover my cards next friday and I will use what remains on my cheque account to keep me going until my student allowance arrives on wednesday.
I think you will find that credit cards aren't inflationary if you pay them off before the bill is due, which is what I do almost everytime.

However, my work doesn't let people pay by credit card because the charge cuts into profit, so we just offer eftpos for cheque and savings accounts.

Yes, but how many of those regulatory corporations are set up to check up on environmental violations?

With the government ones in place before the crisis rose to what it is today, one could argue that the already existing government agencies have taken the place that any private one would have... FDA EPA, etc.

The reason ESRB was able to exist is because it was created before any government equivalent was. So I think that is a good explanation as to why one hasn't yet been set up for environment and the like.

People are willing to pay more for a private good, such as product safety, but they are less willing to pay more for a public good like clean air -- they feel like they are the one "taking the hit" to "support the company" while other people get away with cheaper products.

I do agree that people are willing to pay a premium for safety in cars, machinery, and also on a lesser scale for perhaps electrical products and whatever else of that type. So people will pay a premium for their safety there.

Now as for clean air and environment, that's a very interesting subject because I am of the opinion that it has always been in people's interests to improve the environment and that it has been a constant process of government and corporate resistance to it, and a more representative hand would have taken some action to do something for these public goods.

For example, the government has committed billions of dollars to supporting polluting energy companies while giving little to other industries. Excluding Fossil Fuels the government has committed billions (in the 150 range) to R&D for energies. 96.6% of this goes to nuclear, and the rest in various alternative like wind, solar etc. (which squeezes to an even smaller percentage when the Fossil Fuels are factored in.) Public opinion polls show that people actually favor these alternatives more, and without giving the goverment power to resist the people's interest I think that there is a greater chance we could see their interest in action and actually having an effect on our environment.

A lot of the movement for hybrid cars has actually been because of consumer interest.

Also, people are willing to pay a premium in many cases for alternative energies, which, in lack of gov. funding, has helped them make progress.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_-VAlJg223gJ:www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm%3FDSP%3Dcontent%26ContentID%3D2052+%22people+are+willing+to+pay+a+premium%22+for+clean+ene rgy&hl=en

As to how much the public is willing to pay for public goods, I think it's unfair to use America as an accurate example because I think our gov. is not doing what the people really would have, so it's an unfair comparison. For example if research were up to the private industry, and government were powerless to support industries who continue on in spite of lack of profit (the #1 ethanol producer in the U.S. gets 33% of its funds from gov subsidies and the like, for example), might be more interested in going after the profit that exists in public interest.

So basically in the specific realm of public goods, we get down to:

Extra expense for improved safety/quality
vs.
Extra profit from consumer's willingness choose safer/higher quality product over a less safe/lower quality product.

And which is higher. If it's the latter, I win. :) I think that in either case, it should be understood that improved quality isn't ALWAYS at an extra cost, and a lot times the hardships with introducing a service is that it is pitted against existing established ones which (unfortunatley for the U.S.) are gov. supported. For example coal pollutes more AND often costs more than Nuclear power. A person with a choice between the two and a similar price would easily pick nuclear. Same goes for rising technologies like solar and wind (which WILL be viable in the future.)

As always I think the push will be for higher quality services/products that are either equal or cheaper in price, which also benefit our safety/quality of life.

I think you will find that credit cards aren't inflationary if you pay them off before the bill is due, which is what I do almost everytime.

That is absolutely correct.

With the government ones in place before the crisis rose to what it is today, one could argue that the already existing government agencies have taken the place that any private one would have... FDA EPA, etc.

The reason ESRB was able to exist is because it was created before any government equivalent was. So I think that is a good explanation as to why one hasn't yet been set up for environment and the like.

Still would not get around the market failure.


Now as for clean air and environment, that's a very interesting subject because I am of the opinion that it has always been in people's interests to improve the environment and that it has been a constant process of government and corporate resistance to it, and a more representative hand would have taken some action to do something for these public goods.

You are correct. But why does government resist environmental protection? Because corporations have too much power.

Public opinion polls show that people actually favor these alternatives more, and without giving the goverment power to resist the people's interest I think that there is a greater chance we could see their interest in action and actually having an effect on our environment.

How about we just make government more representative of people's interests, instead of those of the wealthiest class?

A lot of the movement for hybrid cars has actually been because of consumer interest.

That is true.

Also, people are willing to pay a premium in many cases for alternative energies, which, in lack of gov. funding, has helped them make progress.

Absolutely. Imagine how much progress they could make if they also obtained government funding!

As to how much the public is willing to pay for public goods, I think it's unfair to use America as an accurate example because I think our gov. is not doing what the people really would have, so it's an unfair comparison.

But you are missing the point. The problem with public goods is a well-known market failure. You need a collective organization of people (e.g. government), because the market cannot spontaneously produce enough public goods. People just will not pay for them if they can get them for free!


Extra expense for improved safety/quality
vs.
Extra profit from consumer's willingness choose safer/higher quality product over a less safe/lower quality product.

Safety and quality are private goods, not public goods.

For example coal pollutes more AND often costs more than Nuclear power.

Coal costs more, but it is cleaner. (Hence the huge movement against nuclear power.)

had a long response but my f'in comp froze... will get back to you

Okay... then it fails, and presumably the people figure out something else. What is the point of this question?

Forgot and I don't want to flip back pages to find out. Probably something along the lines of, your society is more government-dependent, so would suffer even more from a failure of government to properly do it's roles. Partly also because your government will be doing more roles as well.



Really? Then why does anyone ever go to medical school? Why does anyone do anything other than just "enough" to get by?

Because you see, having to work for even the basic food means people develop skills, responsibility and know-how and desire to continue working. If you start out having food on the table, for no work, you don't have to do any of that.

But the real reason is, people desire to accumulate wealth. As much as possible, generally. Are they going to bother in a country that will intentionally punish them for being too successful? Not so much. That is why you don't find many American business people moving to a socialist nation so much either.


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

Oh, fine. But by giving the basic goodies, you're taking away from the need to learn how to attain any sort of goodies. People are willing to work for extra goodies, but people who've been brought up in a society where the government puts food on your table will be less able to - and generally less willing to.



Why?

Because a diet of peanut butter and jelly is really not all that much better than a diet of restaraunt garbage. Then again you just want those unemployed people off the street so you "don't have to deal with them," so I guess I shouldn't expect you to really care for them. And I definitely don't expect any sort of big government to.


The only "free" aspects of capitalism are features of all markets. Capitalism cannot take credit for them.

So because markets are free, and capitalism is free, capitalism is just plagiarizing markets? Or something? Whatever, I think this point must be irrelevant by now.



I have already explained this. I tire of doing so in every single post.


Well, you might as well give up your idealism then, since you can't even explain it well enough to one individual. And you still have billions to go before your global utopian direct democracy comes about.


Clean air, water, mineral deposits, forests -- to name a few.

I don't see how any agent, 'public' or 'private', owns "clean air." I don't buy that nonsense about how corporations pollute so they're acting as if they "own" the air, that's like me saying you are guilty of their same crime because you stink. (That's not an ad hominem, just a general example.)

What about privately owning a forest is different from privately owning land? How do you support land ownership but not if that land has mineral deposits, lakes or forests on it? Or DO you support land ownership?


I said that. But it cannot go on indefinitely -- certainly not at the rate required by capitalism.

An infinitely growing, local economy is not required by capitalism to work.


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.)

Agreed.



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.

In the example I mentioned, your father initiated, began and personally was responsible for the hypothetical steel mill. You claim that he shouldn't own it? Or that his descendents shouldn't be able to own it if he says so, like in his last dying wish?


His freedom is not limited, and neither is mine. Our choices are redefined.

Yeah, that's pretty much the effect of limiting freedom. 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.

So a choice is now: limitation or socialization. And that's IF our friendly Big Brother judges how much "personal value" it has for your father.

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).

I wish you'd say "government" instead of the "public" euphemism. Also note that they "have" to sell it off, because of their government-limited choices. ANd those choices are now, give your dad's mill to the government (which is now a profit-making enterprise, so much for your "elected officials are more interested in the good of the public than profit-making corporations" bit...) or beg and plead (or bribe) for you just to keep what you already have, what your family already owned. Some choice.


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.

Interesting. I've never trusted that that is anything but a pipedream, however.


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.

Well what you mean is direct democracy, or as close as possible to that. So yes, I was just being difficult. :D

I still maintain direct democracy as unpractical.

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.

Nonsense. The TV raises kids today! Children are increasingly apathetic. That means my friends most likely have the same kind of 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.

Government owning large amounts of businesses is a little more complex, inefficient and dangerous than simply a difference of one person signing a check... Besides, why would I be happy to be paid for the work I do if others are paid for work they don't do? Paid just for being alive, really.


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.

I must have missed it elsewhere. And I'm skeptical. On what basis do you conclude there are more than enough jobs that need doing and that everyone who wants one could get one?


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.

It is HOW it provides that basic safety net. By taxation. And how that net works. Plus the other things you've described that place limits on wealth to "curb excesses."


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.

Heh! Truth is, we are apes. There doesn't have to be a conscious decision to emulate their society. No one elected inequality. The human need for power wasn't chosen deliberately. I'm telling it like it is.

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.

And you were saying you were cynical? What happened? Now the USG isn't at all corrupt (or if it is it's because of capitalism and corporations and private ownership)?

Must be a swell place, there doesnt seem to be any need to change to socialism then. :)


There you are wrong.

See above!

Anyway, I'm retiring from this thread as you people post way more often and in-depth than I can, plus I just don't think there's any real hope for a common understanding anyway.

Because you see, having to work for even the basic food means people develop skills, responsibility and know-how and desire to continue working. If you start out having food on the table, for no work, you don't have to do any of that.

Okay... that's funny. Because you capitalists seem to be so insistent that even the children of the wealthy do something productive. But according to your argument, they have no reason to work. After all, many of them can live their entire lives without ever lifting a finger.

But the real reason is, people desire to accumulate wealth. As much as possible, generally. Are they going to bother in a country that will intentionally punish them for being too successful?

No one is getting "punished" for being too successful. The terms of success are different... but the terms of success differ in every society.

Oh, fine. But by giving the basic goodies, you're taking away from the need to learn how to attain any sort of goodies. People are willing to work for extra goodies, but people who've been brought up in a society where the government puts food on your table will be less able to - and generally less willing to.

See above. And just remember that we are talking really basic. You know, kids who grow up with their parents putting food on the table and a roof over their heads... even good food and a good roof... they have this funny desire to get a job as soon as they possibly can, so they can go out with their friends, buy clothes or CDs, or whatever other good things they may desire beyond the basics. I really don't see why it should be any different with a socialist upbringing that for all practical purposes provides an identical experience.

Because a diet of peanut butter and jelly is really not all that much better than a diet of restaraunt garbage. Then again you just want those unemployed people off the street so you "don't have to deal with them," so I guess I shouldn't expect you to really care for them.

Okay, so what are you complaining about, then?

So because markets are free, and capitalism is free, capitalism is just plagiarizing markets? Or something?

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Whatever, I think this point must be irrelevant by now.

That also is pretty much it.

And you still have billions to go before your global utopian direct democracy comes about.

I never said global, and it is far from utopian.

I don't see how any agent, 'public' or 'private', owns "clean air."

No one owns clean air, but it is a public good, and it takes a public agent to provide for it (by preventing pollution).


What about privately owning a forest is different from privately owning land? How do you support land ownership but not if that land has mineral deposits, lakes or forests on it? Or DO you support land ownership?

I support land ownership for personal use. (Why don't you tell me how many times I have to say this before it sinks in, and then I'll just cut and paste it all into one post.)

I support land ownership for personal use.
I support land ownership for personal use.
I support land ownership for personal use.
I support land ownership for personal use.
.....

An infinitely growing, local economy is not required by capitalism to work.

It doesn't have to be local, but it does have to keep growing. You don't have to take my word for it... any capitalist economist will tell you the same thing.


In the example I mentioned, your father initiated, began and personally was responsible for the hypothetical steel mill. You claim that he shouldn't own it? Or that his descendents shouldn't be able to own it if he says so, like in his last dying wish?

As long as it is small enough; you can choose to keep it that small. There is really nothing new in the idea that business can and should be limited to accord with some general good. Zoning restrictions do it already. And rights of due process would still be in effect. Your family would have the right to appeal the decision, arguing either (a) that the mill does not carry the dangerous economic clout that the government says it does, or (b) that it actually benefits the public to keep it privatized. And of course, you will be paid for the mill -- it will not just be taken.

Some choice.

It's the same choice my parents had when the government wanted to build a freeway through their property. This is really nothing new. Absolute freedom would entail doing whatever you want, no matter what effect it has on other people; clearly you do not support this? Well, my argument is that the ownership of too large a corporation is unjustifiably harmful to other people. Living in society means limited freedom. You are free to do anything you want so long as it does not hurt others. If you can convince me that your steel mill is not harmful to the rights of others, then you can convince me that it is not necessary to buy it off.

Government owning large amounts of businesses is a little more complex, inefficient and dangerous than simply a difference of one person signing a check...

How so?

Besides, why would I be happy to be paid for the work I do if others are paid for work they don't do?

Because you are being paid a whole lot more.


On what basis do you conclude there are more than enough jobs that need doing and that everyone who wants one could get one?

The streets are always dirty; there is litter everywhere; buildings are falling apart; streets are falling apart; street signs everywhere are hopelessly inaccurate... I could go on for some time, but I think you get the idea. Plenty of things to be done. While I have no way to "prove" that there could be guaranteed employment, I think it is quite evident that the situation could be much improved.



It is HOW it provides that basic safety net. By taxation.

No. Haven't you been reading? It provides for that safety net through the profits it makes selling natural resources and managing major industries.


Heh! Truth is, we are apes.

No, we are thinking primates who have proven themselves capable of choosing to be better than our own worse instincts. If one ape kills another, do the other apes punish him? No, but humans do, because we know that we are capable of acting morally.

The human need for power wasn't chosen deliberately.

No. But that doesn't make it any more just than rape.


And you were saying you were cynical? What happened? Now the USG isn't at all corrupt (or if it is it's because of capitalism and corporations and private ownership)?

Well, its worst excesses are certainly related to the influence of major corporations on the government. However, I never said that it "isn't at all corrupt." Why are you intentionally twisting things? You argue as if you have already decided, and now you just want to reach for whatever semblance of an argument says what you already believe to be true. Honestly, no one believes some of the things you are saying (like humans being no better than apes, or that people will not work for better given the basics). It seems that you think repeating them will "win" the argument... which obviously it cannot.

So why don't we just be honest with each other. Tell me things you actually believe. If you cannot think of any arguments other than these fallacies, perhaps you should reconsider your position. I know it's difficult, but if reason does not answer you, maybe you should try listening to reason instead.

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 always capital. What if people want to pay you money to cross your garden? Is it wrong to accept their offer?

It's always capital. What if people want to pay you money to cross your garden? Is it wrong to accept their offer?

Actually, I don't think it is. (Which probably surprises you.)

Let's spell this out. I have a garden on my property... which just happens to lie across a great shortcut from the local playground to the creek. The local kids keep running through my garden, and inevitably they bruise some tomatoes and ruin my strawberry patch. Naturally, I get pretty mad about this, and the next time I see them I run out to stop them and tell them to go around.

Now, there are a couple of market-based economic solutions. One possibility is that I pay them a certain amount to go the long way around. (I know this sounds perverse, me paying them to stay off of my garden, and it violates our sense of justice, but it is actually possible to show that -- as long as we have to use a market-based solution and not the police -- the net utility gained for everyone is the same whether I pay them or they pay me, as long as we manage to settle on equilibrium prices.)

EDIT: (People who advocate this sort of solution point to the inevitable fact of "reciprocal causation." "True," they say, "there would be no problem if the kids went another way. But there would also be no conflict if you had not planted a garden there. So whose fault was it again?" Personally, I do not really agree with this approach. But the fact remains that, if I want to keep my garden nice, there should be some price I would be willing to pay to have them go around, and if this price is equal to or higher than their utility in using the shortcut, they should be willing to accept and we will have an agreement.)

Alternatively, they could offer to pay me. Perhaps I could move my garden to the other side of the house, but the soil is not as good and I need a better fertilizer to work over there. If they offer a price equal to or greater than my cost of moving to the other side and buying fertilizer, then -- theoretically, assuming I am not just a jerk who doesn't want kids on my lawn -- the market will have sorted itself out so that everybody wins.

You see, I am a socialist and an anarchist... but I like market-based solutions precisely for those reasons. The market is allocative -- it does not tell people what they can and cannot do, it only tells people what they can do given they are willing to pay the price. Now, this can be really unfair under conditions of vast inequality, in which we know that there are a wide range of very important things -- like quality education -- from which some people will be simply excluded. But under conditions of relative equality, most things should be available to anyone willing to put in the effort and/or savings required to get them.

Certainly the negotiations in question are not likely to fundamentally alter the balance of wealth in society.

So I say, go ahead. Make me an offer, and I may just let you cross my garden.

;)

Question:

How does one begin to build private capital under a socialist system?

Okay... that's funny. Because you capitalists seem to be so insistent that even the children of the wealthy do something productive. But according to your argument, they have no reason to work. After all, many of them can live their entire lives without ever lifting a finger.


Yes, but it's also the right of a parent to provide everything they need and want. If I work for something and have children I want to be able to pass that on to my children. Most people do. That includes even wealthy people, and they have the same right!

And they'll have reason to work when they piss away the family fortune and there isn't a "safety net" to catch them.


No one is getting "punished" for being too successful. The terms of success are different... but the terms of success differ in every society.

Doublespeak. It's punishment when you negativitize success as "excess" and then "curb" it. Or else maybe I can just say, people thrown in jail for theft are just having their "terms of success readjusted." It's punishment. So, stop denying that it is.


See above. And just remember that we are talking really basic. You know, kids who grow up with their parents putting food on the table and a roof over their heads... even good food and a good roof... they have this funny desire to get a job as soon as they possibly can, so they can go out with their friends, buy clothes or CDs, or whatever other good things they may desire beyond the basics.

Primarily, the desire to get away from their parents. Of course, in your government=parent society, that's impossible. There's no getting away from the government, even if you DO get a job.

I really don't see why it should be any different with a socialist upbringing that for all practical purposes provides an identical experience.

See above. Despite your fondness for the concept, the government are not parents of the citizens.



Okay, so what are you complaining about, then?


Nothing, other than your apparenty hypocrisy. After all you do seem to care for equality, for meaningful lives for people in general and at large. Except, you don't, since of course you still consider bums to be worthless.


Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Ooookay. Capitalism is just plagiarizing the market's freedom so there is no real freedom in capitalism. I got it. Thanks for explaining.

and it is far from utopian.

Well, you got that straight.

But unattainable? Impractical? Not going to work the way you'd like? Yep.


No one owns clean air, but it is a public good, and it takes a public agent to provide for it (by preventing pollution).

What you are saying is that clean air IS owned. A "public good" being provided for by a "public agent" means = good, owned by government, or at least treated the same.

I support land ownership for personal use. (Why don't you tell me how many times I have to say this before it sinks in, and then I'll just cut and paste it all into one post.)

I support land ownership for personal use.
I support land ownership for personal use.
I support land ownership for personal use.
I support land ownership for personal use.
.....

Upset much? Maybe you should go lie down.

Maybe you could also answer the question. Then again, you can just ignore and evade it like you generally do, and I can not care like I generally do.

It doesn't have to be local, but it does have to keep growing.

Nope. That's like saying you need positive population growth for democracy to work.


As long as it is small enough; you can choose to keep it that small.

So basically what you're concerned with is other people's property or possessions being too LARGE in comparison to others, like yours? That bothers you.

There is really nothing new in the idea that business can and should be limited to accord with some general good.

There's nothing new in the idea that government should own businesses (and seize them by force of law, too - why not?) and become a biased, profit making agency, either.

Zoning restrictions do it already. And rights of due process would still be in effect. Your family would have the right to appeal the decision, arguing either (a) that the mill does not carry the dangerous economic clout that the government says it does, or (b) that it actually benefits the public to keep it privatized. And of course, you will be paid for the mill -- it will not just be taken.

Hmm, paid for by what? Oh yeah, the profits made by the OTHER business your government would steal. Kind of a circle there. Sounds like taxes will HAVE to come into it, sooner or later.

It's the same choice my parents had when the government wanted to build a freeway through their property. This is really nothing new. Absolute freedom would entail doing whatever you want, no matter what effect it has on other people; clearly you do not support this?

Who says I don't? That sounds pretty good to me, actually. It's not a political or practical concept, but...

Well, my argument is that the ownership of too large a corporation is unjustifiably harmful to other people.

How so? Does it limit other people's freedom?

Living in society means limited freedom. You are free to do anything you want so long as it does not hurt others. If you can convince me that your steel mill is not harmful to the rights of others, then you can convince me that it is not necessary to buy it off.

Why should I have to convince you of that? How about you convince me that my steel mill is harmful, as in hurting other people. HURTING THEM. Then maybe I'll consider giving in to your demands. Or I'll consider revolting against your tyrannical government.



How so?

Because "ownership" is more complex than "signing a check." Think about it.



Because you are being paid a whole lot more.

Oh, fine.

But then, I'm still having to, according to government, fork over half of my salary or more to support said nonworking friends. Either that or government is stealing my dad's steal mill in order to use it's profits to do it... terrific...

I know, I know. It's not STEALING. It's forcing by mandate of law and dumping some government decided price in return. Probably paid in inflated dollars since government spending has also increased ridiculously.

The streets are always dirty; there is litter everywhere; buildings are falling apart; streets are falling apart; street signs everywhere are hopelessly inaccurate... I could go on for some time, but I think you get the idea. Plenty of things to be done. While I have no way to "prove" that there could be guaranteed employment, I think it is quite evident that the situation could be much improved.

The key to all those things is increased privatization, not less.

It should be obvious, due to the above (since streetcleaning and such are all currently 'public' jobs) that the government is not the best employer. (I have my own personal reasons and other people's to agree with that but I'm not going to go into them here.)


No. Haven't you been reading? It provides for that safety net through the profits it makes selling natural resources and managing major industries.

Managing them, after stealing them. Selling natural resources that it either didn't own already, or was [mis]using for some other purpose. On the latter, I agree that selling and using economically is better, and the government should try to do that more and decrease taxes.

No, we are thinking primates who have proven themselves capable of choosing to be better than our own worse instincts. If one ape kills another, do the other apes punish him? No, but humans do, because we know that we are capable of acting morally.

Uh, yeah. We're apes, like I said. If one human kills another, do the other humans punish him? Not if he's O.J Simpson. Not in war. Not if it's government doing the killing. Not if it's the Nazis. Of course we humans don't do that - we're so moral.

And if you look at murder rates per capita in the US, and consider murder rates in small ape societies, you will see that despite how much capable we are of "choosing to be better" than our own "worse instincts," we DON'T. We choose to be WORSE. Humans are apes, without tails or most body hair, and we have language and a few other things due to our evolutionary meandering. Big deal. We're apes first and foremost. And I'm proud of it.


Honestly, no one believes some of the things you are saying (like humans being no better than apes, or that people will not work for better given the basics). It seems that you think repeating them will "win" the argument... which obviously it cannot.

No one believes what I'm saying? Wow, that's harsh. It's a good thing you know what the opinions of 6 billion other people are. And I guess the fact that *I* believe it doesn't count?

And I DIDNT say "humans are no better than apes." Now YOU are "twisting what I say." I merely said that humans ARE apes. You deny that because the idea is so repulsive.

And it seems also that you think repetition will "win" your argument as well. What's your point? We're arguing, both arguers try to "win" by definition of what it means to "argue." I hope that bothers you, because it shows you're bothered by a lot of aspects of reality - that inequality exists, that few are agreeing with your socialist politics, that humans are basically just apes with pretension, that government agents are every bit (and actually more) corrupt than private agencies.

So why don't we just be honest with each other. Tell me things you actually believe. If you cannot think of any arguments other than these fallacies, perhaps you should reconsider your position. I know it's difficult, but if reason does not answer you, maybe you should try listening to reason instead.

I love the condescension and hypocrisy you display. Now you're not just trying to win, you're acting as if you ALREADY HAVE. Meanwhile, you make tons of fallacies yourself. Maybe you should try listening to reason, young man, since I'm so much better than you - that's what you're saying, and what I'm saying back to you just for the hell of it. :)

And why should I tell you what I "actually believe" (since apparently that's different from what I've already written)? So you can try to poke holes in my "confused" "capitalist apologist" "fallacies?" This is your thread, about your own dumb beliefs. You can try that when I make MY thread detailing how all socialist apologists and anarchist apoligists are confused.

And they'll have reason to work when they piss away the family fortune and there isn't a "safety net" to catch them.

Now there you go contradicting yourself again. Don't you remember saying that people need that constant threat of starvation to habituate them to work in the first place? That, after all, is why you said people would not work for anything in a socialist country; and why you thought everything would go to hell if it "failed." Well, if this is true of people in general, it must surely be true of wealthy children who "piss away the family fortune." When they have not had that constant threat of starvation hanging over their heads, how in the world will they figure out how to work?

Doublespeak. It's punishment when you negativitize success as "excess" and then "curb" it. Or else maybe I can just say, people thrown in jail for theft are just having their "terms of success readjusted." It's punishment. So, stop denying that it is.

It is not the same thing. I am talking about something akin to progressive taxation, not throwing people in jail. It is not punishment because it does not take anything away that you have or should have had. After all, the whole point of my argument is that at some point it is no longer right for a person's wealth or control of capital increases. (This is, of course, for the same reason that most things are not "right"... they start to infringe on other people's rights.)



Primarily, the desire to get away from their parents.

Surely you jest. I know plenty of high school (and college students) who work a job for the money, but have absolutely no problem living with their parents and accepting their parents' food and shelter. They do it for the extra stuff. Honestly, for such a sincere devotee of capitalism, I should think the realities of the consumer mindset should be more than apparent to you. No matter what we have we always want more. (The great majority of us, anyway. I cannot speak for you... I can only assume you are satisfied with what you have. But then I find it hard to understand why you so adamant that you must be allowed to have a bigger steel mill.)

There's no getting away from the government, even if you DO get a job.

Sure there is. You can work for a private enterprise if you want, or open one for yourself. Just don't get too greedy. Besides, you are the one who thinks that if someone does not like a society, obviously they can just up and move. (The contrapositive of your assumption about the reasons people (do not) leave the United States.)

Nothing, other than your apparenty hypocrisy. After all you do seem to care for equality, for meaningful lives for people in general and at large. Except, you don't, since of course you still consider bums to be worthless.

Well, bums -- people who voluntarily contribute nothing -- are by definition worthless. Some of us (myself included, as it happens) have some basic human sympathy that refuses to leave a person to starve (but no more than that). But when I argue with the rest of you, I have to point out that even if you do not care for another human being, it is in the best interests of society to keep her/him off the street and supplied with basic nourishment, if only to help prevent her/his crimes of desperation. Yet I certainly do not think we owe them anything! That would be nonsense!

Ooookay. Capitalism is just plagiarizing the market's freedom so there is no real freedom in capitalism. I got it. Thanks for explaining.

You are quite welcome. Again.

But unattainable? Impractical? Not going to work the way you'd like? Yep.

Well, thank you for the prophecy, but I think the current "mix" of socialist and capitalist principles, combined with the fact that some countries manage a more sensible socialism than others, shows directly that progress can be made.


What you are saying is that clean air IS owned. A "public good" being provided for by a "public agent" means = good, owned by government, or at least treated the same.

No. A clear night sky is also a public good, but no one owns it. However, if smog or other pollution begins to obscure it, we have to figure out how to get it back. A few private groups or individuals might be willing to contribute money, but this will rarely -- if ever -- be enough to actually pay the total cost. The reason is that no matter who pays for it EVERYONE gets to enjoy it -- because no one owns it -- so private individuals have little motivation to pay. This does not mean they do not want the good. In fact, since all goods have money value, there is by definition some amount that every person would be willing to pay toward it... they just do not pay it because if they do they run the risk that they will pay, while others will not... the good will not be acquired, and they will have just wasted their money (whatever it was). (It also bothers us that we might pay and other freeloaders enjoy the good we paid for.) A public organization with the power to ensure that everyone pays in fairly is the only economically viable way to actually pay for such things. But it still does not entail ownership... because once the good is paid for, everyone receives the benefit. (Even if, for whatever reason, they did not pay, like those bums, foreign visitors, and so on.)

See The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups by Mancur Olson, the real classic in the field.


Maybe you could also answer the question. Then again, you can just ignore and evade it like you generally do, and I can not care like I generally do.

How many times did I write "personal use"?? What other answer do you want? Do I have to do it again?

Nope. That's like saying you need positive population growth for democracy to work.

Ah, it is true that you don't need it for democracy, but capitalism thrives on it: more labor means cheaper labor, more consumers means greater demand. (The advertising-heavy phase of consumer capitalism is an attempt to respond to the slowing population growth of advanced capitalist countries; if you cannot have more buyers, you have to convince your buyers to consume more things.)

So basically what you're concerned with is other people's property or possessions being too LARGE in comparison to others, like yours? That bothers you.

Not personally. I really couldn't care less. And if it were not true that great wealth carries with it great political power -- just look at how things work in the United States -- I probably wouldn't care at all. Honestly, it does not bother me that others have more than I do. And as I have said again and again, no serious socialist imagines a world without inequality. Not only would it be impractical -- and probably impossible -- but there is also no need for it. (Personally, I also find it rather unattractive.)

As I have already said, it is hard to give very precise numbers for a society that does not yet exist. But I am willing to venture a guess that the range of possible wealth could begin, for the poorest, with people who have no real assets (but do not starve)... so let's set it goes from $0 for the bums, up into the millions for the wealthiest people. (Assuming for purposes of illustration that the real value of the dollar is equivalent to what it is today.)

Tens of millions for a single individual or corporation would, I think, be too high -- but that is only a guess. As long as a single individual or corporation is not so wealthy that they can contribute, without missing it, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to political organizations, they will not significantly imbalance the hundreds of thousands or millions of small contributions from individuals.

(I should point out for the anarchists that this has to vary somewhat as we move toward anarchist goals. But it seems a reasonable next-step for the existing society.)

Sounds like taxes will HAVE to come into it, sooner or later.

Possibly for redistributive purposes, progressive taxes applied to the very wealthiest individuals. But 99% of the population will never pay an income tax in their lives.

That [absolute freedom] sounds pretty good to me, actually. It's not a political or practical concept, but...

Exactly!! And vast inequalities of wealth is not a political or practical concept, either, because it makes genuine democracy (even genuine representative democracy) impossible.

Why should I have to convince you of that? How about you convince me that my steel mill is harmful, as in hurting other people. HURTING THEM.

It hurts their political freedom. It is just as bad as standing outside a ballot box and deciding who gets in and who doesn't.

It should be obvious, due to the above (since streetcleaning and such are all currently 'public' jobs) that the government is not the best employer.

Ah, but the current government serves the interests of those extremely wealthy (and therefore powerful) corporations... and they hate the idea of the government employing the unemployed. Unemployment is attractive to capitalism, because it keeps wages absolutely as low as possible and it keeps people employed in even the worst working conditions. (Because there is always someone desperate to have a job, who will work for "practically anything." If people at least have a guranteed minimum-wage job to fall back on, they might be less likely to put up with their employers' worst excesses.)

(I have my own personal reasons and other people's to agree with that but I'm not going to go into them here.)

Please do. Nothing else has convinced me.

On the latter [natural resources], I agree that selling and using economically is better, and the government should try to do that more and decrease taxes.

That's good... I am glad we at least agree there. In fact, I have gotten such agreement on it within this thread that I am encouraged to suggest to the various environmental groups to lobby in that direction. The problem with such idealistic political groups is that they always argue "all or nothing" -- end oil drilling here, save this entire forest, etc. They fail to realize that politics is, and always will be... well, politics. A market-based approach that attempts to better allocate scarce resources, rather than banning their use entirely, has a much greater hope of success. Plus, it gives you the leverage to lobby for increasing the price once the market-based solution is in effect. Politics, by definition, almost always requires compromise.

Uh, yeah. We're apes, like I said. If one human kills another, do the other humans punish him? Not if he's O.J Simpson. Not in war. Not if it's government doing the killing. Not if it's the Nazis.

The fact that there are exceptions does not change the fact that we are moral and political creatures, unlike apes.

Humans are apes, without tails or most body hair, and we have language and a few other things due to our evolutionary meandering. Big deal. We're apes first and foremost.

Yes, and we should always remember that. But it is not an excuse. "So what, I'm an ape," just doesn't cut it.

I merely said that humans ARE apes. You deny that because the idea is so repulsive.

Yes, humans are primates; there is nothing repulsive about it. But so what? How does that help the discussion? If you mean it to point out that we have certain instincts that we have to deal with as moral creatures, then I agree with you. If you mean it as an excuse, it doesn't work.

We're arguing, both arguers try to "win" by definition of what it means to "argue."

Not true. Sometimes people argue because they expect one another to bring different truths to the table in order to find out which ones hold up under sustained scrutiny. Being of the legal mindset that we Americans hold, we tend to think that the truth comes out best when each party "fights" for her/his ideas as well as he/she can. But there is no reason to take it personally if you find out that what you thought was true doesn't hold up as well as you believed it would. Rather you should be happy you have learned something.

I feel pity for you if you have never had that kind of enlightening debate. Honestly, I think one of the best feelings in the world is to argue with a capable interlocutor and to say at the end, "thanks, I feel like I've learned something." It is something I enjoy with my closest friends all the time.


because it shows you're bothered by a lot of aspects of reality - that inequality exists, that few are agreeing with your socialist politics, that humans are basically just apes with pretension, that government agents are every bit (and actually more) corrupt than private agencies.

Good for you! You tried to sneak a complex question into that last sentence, but I caught you.

For those who don't recognize it, the fallacy of a complex question occurs when two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined as if to make a single proposition. The person who does this hopes that her/his opponent will not catch it and will feel compelled to agree to the whole proposition because one part commands obvious agreement.

In the above statement, it is obviously true that inequality exists, that -- on the whole -- socialists are in the minority, and that humans are (in a way) "apes with pretension. Hoping to build agreement as he/she goes, our friend has thrown on the end the markedly less certain (and hotly disputed) assertion that "government agents are every bit (and actually more) corrupt than private agencies."

The question no one in this discussion has so far been able to answer for me is this: why should that be true? I have pointed out that business attracts people who are interested primarily in personal gain; I could point out that unregulated business has a horrible record of acting voluntarily in the public interest; I have drawn attention to the fact that government employment, and especially elective office, attracts people who care about doing good for the people they serve (sure, they have private motives, too -- we all do -- but some public regard is better than none); I have explained that, in my personal experience, my acquaintances among elected representatives are more honest and caring than my business acquaintances.

Yet in response I get only the seemingly paranoid assertion that government is inherently worse than business. Why?

Now you're not just trying to win, you're acting as if you ALREADY HAVE.

To be honest, I feel like I have. Now I have to tell you, this is not a common feeling... often enough I am impressed with my opponents arguments, and occasionally I even have trouble figuring out how to respond. (DeaconDave often gave me a run for my money. Where the hell has he gotten to?) I am even willing to concede a point when I am convinced.

But this discussion has devolved to the point that I feel like other people are simply not reading my posts -- or perhaps reading only what they want to see. So since I am the only one still trying to appeal to reason, I have to feel like I have already won. I only continue to answer these posts out of some sort of masochistic urge to flay myself with other people's obstinate prejudice of anything that calls itself "socialist." Perhaps I'll invent a new word and see what happens.

Meanwhile, you make tons of fallacies yourself.

Please identify them as they appear. Be specific. I would appreciate the education.

Now there you go contradicting yourself again. Don't you remember saying that people need that constant threat of starvation to habituate them to work in the first place? That, after all, is why you said people would not work for anything in a socialist country; and why you thought everything would go to hell if it "failed."

No no no. I didn't contradict myself. Those individuals DO need a constant threat of starvation to habituate them to work, which is exactly what they'll get after pissing away the family fortune. Unless of course there's a safety net.

Well, if this is true of people in general, it must surely be true of wealthy children who "piss away the family fortune." When they have not had that constant threat of starvation hanging over their heads, how in the world will they figure out how to work?

They either figure it out and survive or don't and don't.


It is not the same thing. I am talking about something akin to progressive taxation, not throwing people in jail. It is not punishment because it does not take anything away that you have or should have had. After all, the whole point of my argument is that at some point it is no longer right for a person's wealth or control of capital increases.

Right, assuming your argument is correct and that they "should not have had " something, then it's not punishment or theft. But I disagree with the premise, and so will a lot of people in that society. So you call government theft "progressive taxation" but that's just MORE euphemism.


Surely you jest. I know plenty of high school (and college students) who work a job for the money,

They no doubt are planning for the future where there will be no safety net or parents. It wouldn't be so in your socialist society, where there's a safety net AND government-parents.


but have absolutely no problem living with their parents and accepting their parents' food and shelter. They do it for the extra stuff.

See above! Of course they desire extra stuff as well, but theres a difference between working because you want to get more stuff and because you HAVE to.


Sure there is. You can work for a private enterprise if you want, or open one for yourself. Just don't get too greedy.

Sigh! Yes, be successful, but not TOO successful [or else.] Blah.

My point was there is no getting away from a powerful omnipresent government in your society. You are placing too much power in the hands of elected officials.


Besides, you are the one who thinks that if someone does not like a society, obviously they can just up and move.
(The contrapositive of your assumption about the reasons people (do not) leave the United States.)

People go to where it's better. My point was that the US is perceived as better than, say, Sweden by people who don't move away. Similarly they'll move to Nazi Germany when its apparent that your socialist moral direct democracy is even more of a nightmare.


Well, bums -- people who voluntarily contribute nothing -- are by definition worthless.

Then again they do provide vital food clean-up and conserve a lot of food that would otherwise be wasted...


You are quite welcome. Again.

You are not getting it. YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING YOURSELF. But fine, don't even bother! No skin off my back.

Well, thank you for the prophecy,

You're welcome.

No. A clear night sky is also a public good, but no one owns it. However, if smog or other pollution begins to obscure it, we have to figure out how to get it back.

We have to? Why? No one owned it, so no one can give it back right?

(It also bothers us that we might pay and other freeloaders enjoy the good we paid for.)

Indeed. As with socialist taxation, except that's forced payment. For a good other freeloaders will enjoy (your safety net).

A public organization with the power to ensure that everyone pays in fairly is the only economically viable way to actually pay for such things. But it still does not entail ownership... because once the good is paid for, everyone receives the benefit.

Except, the organization is paid for the good. The government owned it and then "sold" it. Everyone receives the benefit, but the government is now concretely wealthy. And just how do you decide a fair value of a clear sky? You can't, especially if the vast amounts of "buyers" don't really have a choice about buying it.

So in your system people are forced to pay a price they do not personally agree on for a good that supposedly, everyone enjoys.

How many times did I write "personal use"?? What other answer do you want? Do I have to do it again?

The question that was answering is only one of many unanswered questions, and wasn't what I meant in the first place, so no, repeating that over and over doesn't help your argument any.


Ah, it is true that you don't need it for democracy, but capitalism thrives on it: more labor means cheaper labor, more consumers means greater demand.

"Thrives" does not mean "cannot function without." Democracy flourishes in positively growing populations, too, but it can exist and function at zero or lower growth. Same with capitalism and economy.

(The advertising-heavy phase of consumer capitalism is an attempt to respond to the slowing population growth of advanced capitalist countries;

Well no, it's an attempt to profit by selling a good. Are you saying there'd be less advertising if there was higher population growth?


Tens of millions for a single individual or corporation would, I think, be too high -- but that is only a guess. As long as a single individual or corporation is not so wealthy that they can contribute, without missing it, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to political organizations, they will not significantly imbalance the hundreds of thousands or millions of small contributions from individuals.

Or you could just outlaw campaign contributions and such. That would be better and more effective than essentially outlawing how financially successful individuals or corporations can be (while conversely giving government no such limits).


Possibly for redistributive purposes, progressive taxes applied to the very wealthiest individuals. But 99% of the population will never pay an income tax in their lives.

Because only that other 1% will be successful enough? Because it's just as inequal a society as ours, except the rich are taxed even more.

Exactly!! And vast inequalities of wealth is not a political or practical concept, either, because it makes genuine democracy (even genuine representative democracy) impossible.

Making genuine democracy impossible does not = impractical. Vast inequalities of wealth is so practical it will exist even in your society.

What is impractical is democracy...


It hurts their political freedom. It is just as bad as standing outside a ballot box and deciding who gets in and who doesn't.

Only if vote buying is allowed. Seems to me that a lot of the problems you discuss could be solved by curbing that - curb what people can do with their successful wealth, not how much successful wealth they can accumulate.


Ah, but the current government serves the interests of those extremely wealthy (and therefore powerful) corporations... and they hate the idea of the government employing the unemployed. Unemployment is attractive to capitalism, because it keeps wages absolutely as low as possible and it keeps people employed in even the worst working conditions. (Because there is always someone desperate to have a job, who will work for "practically anything." If people at least have a guranteed minimum-wage job to fall back on, they might be less likely to put up with their employers' worst excesses.)

Okay, but the government is still not the best employer. Compared to even the worst excesses of private employers. How many corporations mis-treat how many employees, versus how many governments mistreat how many citizens? Throughout history? Considering the corporation isn't even as old as government.

Please do. Nothing else has convinced me.


I think not because I don't have certain people's permission to discuss their experiences here, nor do I think it would convince you even so.


That's good... I am glad we at least agree there. In fact, I have gotten such agreement on it within this thread that I am encouraged to suggest to the various environmental groups to lobby in that direction. The problem with such idealistic political groups is that they always argue "all or nothing" -- end oil drilling here, save this entire forest, etc. They fail to realize that politics is, and always will be... well, politics. A market-based approach that attempts to better allocate scarce resources, rather than banning their use entirely, has a much greater hope of success. Plus, it gives you the leverage to lobby for increasing the price once the market-based solution is in effect. Politics, by definition, almost always requires compromise.

True enough. Good luck with your proposals.


The fact that there are exceptions does not change the fact that we are moral and political creatures, unlike apes.

Okay, so we're moral unlike apes, because we say so. Of course the other apes can't say they're moral so how would we know? Look at behavior instead of claims. 50-odd million killed in WWII. Versus an ape killing another occasionally? From a moral standpoint I'd rather be raised in a natural ape society than our bloated, pretentiously "moral" one.

Yes, and we should always remember that. But it is not an excuse. "So what, I'm an ape," just doesn't cut it.

Not an excuse, an explanation.


Yes, humans are primates; there is nothing repulsive about it. But so what? How does that help the discussion? If you mean it to point out that we have certain instincts that we have to deal with as moral creatures, then I agree with you. If you mean it as an excuse, it doesn't work.

You point out instincts as being negative things to be tamed. Like a demon within, sorta similar to Original Sin. You really think so, when our greatest atrocities as a species could not have been possible without civilization - without the product of all this "morality" and "taming?"


Not true. Sometimes people argue because they expect one another to bring different truths to the table in order to find out which ones hold up under sustained scrutiny.

Generally people consider their truth to have "won" in that case, and that is their ultimate goal. Mine, yours.


I feel pity for you if you have never had that kind of enlightening debate. Honestly, I think one of the best feelings in the world is to argue with a capable interlocutor and to say at the end, "thanks, I feel like I've learned something." It is something I enjoy with my closest friends all the time.

Who says I haven't? This isn't what I'd call enlightening though. At this point I only respond because you do and you keep saying things that don't bear validity in my way of thinking. (I can never resist being "called out" like that.)


In the above statement, it is obviously true that inequality exists, that -- on the whole -- socialists are in the minority, and that humans are (in a way) "apes with pretension. Hoping to build agreement as he/she goes, our friend has thrown on the end the markedly less certain (and hotly disputed) assertion that "government agents are every bit (and actually more) corrupt than private agencies."

Frankly, you admitting that inequality exists and humans are apes is not so "obviously true" to you based on our previous arguments. Nor was I expecting agreement on any clause, since its rare that someone agrees when I point out that they're in denial.

The question no one in this discussion has so far been able to answer for me is this: why should that be true? I have pointed out that business attracts people who are interested primarily in personal gain; I could point out that unregulated business has a horrible record of acting voluntarily in the public interest;

And I could point out that your profit-making government would be subject to the same conditions. I could point out that governments have an even more horrible record, and for a longer period of time as well. But I think Vittos may have pointed that out already, so I'm sure you're aware already.


I have drawn attention to the fact that government employment, and especially elective office, attracts people who care about doing good for the people they serve (sure, they have private motives, too -- we all do -- but some public regard is better than none);

I can say that people who work for a private employer also may care about doing good for the people... works both ways.


I have explained that, in my personal experience, my acquaintances among elected representatives are more honest and caring than my business acquaintances.

I've alluded to the opposite kind of personal experience, though I haven't "explained" it in the sense of gory details. (Then again neither have you.)

Yet in response I get only the seemingly paranoid assertion that government is inherently worse than business. Why?

Well, governments tend to cause wars, oppress people (usually in the name of the greater good), and restrict freedom. That have more power to do so and even today are still more powerful than corporations. How many corporations have gassed 5 or 6 million people to death, dropped nuclear weapons on people, filled up jails and prisons with people who didn't obey the spirit of the corporation's charter? That's right, zero.

Meanwhile what can a corporation do? Fire its employees? Pay them less? Oh no, terrible. I'd rather be destroyed in nuclear fire for simply residing in a particular country, than have to find another job.

If the sarcasm above is strong it's because I believe this rather strongly, and it frustrates that others seem to see things backwards.

So since I am the only one still trying to appeal to reason, I have to feel like I have already won.

Who says you're the only one? God, see that pisses me off. You assume you've won, because you assume you're being reasonable and no one else is, and use each unjustified assertion to prove the other.

I only continue to answer these posts out of some sort of masochistic urge to flay myself with other people's obstinate prejudice of anything that calls itself "socialist." Perhaps I'll invent a new word and see what happens.

Well it's like anarchists who have a problem when their beliefs get MISTAKEN for having something to do with anarchy. Choose a different word, if the one you've chosen is easily construed to mean (apparently) the opposite thing.


Please identify them as they appear. Be specific. I would appreciate the education.

No thanks. Pointing out fallacies is a job that would take all my time up if I started doing it on this message board. Besides, I've already pointed out bunches of them in previous posts, don't care enough to flip through and give each one its own name.

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.
Do you understand how difficult it would be for an independent auditor to access the profit margin? And it would be necessary to re-evaluate it everytime the profit is checked. For instance, it is first determined that the maximum net profit on hot served food is 33% of cost. Then, it is further determined that the pot roast at your restaurant costs you $4.00. At this point you charge $5.00 for the pot roast. The dollar profit is 25% of cost. The following month, the price of beef goes up and you pass some of the added cost along by raising the pot roast to $5.50 wich pushes your profit to 37.5% of the old cost. Your actual cost has increased to $4.70, as far as you can tell, but you're trying to keep customers happy and expect the price of beef to come back down eventually. Now you have to prove to the inspector/auditor that the cost to make a pot roast dinner have increased since he came by last month. You might even have to prove that you didn't raise the price on the pot roast until you were actually using the more expensive beef even though it might be wiser to raise the price in anticipation. I hope you can see how wasteful such bureacratic market interventionist nonsense is.

No no no. I didn't contradict myself. Those individuals DO need a constant threat of starvation to habituate them to work, which is exactly what they'll get after pissing away the family fortune.

Okay, let's say they do... those few who "piss away" the family fortune. How many is that again? What about the majority of wealthy kids who do just fine, because it seems to be a nearly universal need to do "as well or better" than one's parents. Where did they learn it?

Hell, where did I learn it. I've never been realistically threatened with starvation or homelessness. I don't really suppose I ever will -- and there will always be people or money there to catch me if I fail. But still I keep pushing myself... because I don't really like the idea of living off of other people: government or otherwise. I want to have nice things. Human pride will drive people to far greater heights than human fear.

Right, assuming your argument is correct and that they "should not have had " something, then it's not punishment or theft.

That is right. Therefore you have to address the argument rather than simply labeling it "theft" and moving on.

But I disagree with the premise, and so will a lot of people in that society.

As you point out yourself (previous sentence), it is not a premise, it is an argument. The first premise is this: people should be free to do anything that does not limit another's freedom. Then the second premise: private citizens should have relatively equal political power in a democracy. Then we move to a point of empirical experience: if one person has vastly more wealth than others, he or she almost always has vastly more political power as well. As a political scientist, I can tell you that if one of my colleagues were to dispute that claim, the APSA might just revoke his membership. It is simply an empirical fact.

Conclusion 1: to amass a great deal of wealth gives a person undue political influence.

Conclusion 2: because one private person's having too much wealth unbalances the political equality that is the basis of democratic freedom, such wealth should not be allowed in a democracy.

They no doubt are planning for the future where there will be no safety net or parents. It wouldn't be so in your socialist society, where there's a safety net AND government-parents.

Clearly we have a fundamental difference of opinion about human beings. You believe that people only work (or learn to work) when they are threatened with suffering or death. I believe that, even guaranteed a certain level of subsistence, people nevertheless work (and learn to work) because they want more for themselves (or more than their neighbors). My belief, fortunately for me, is born out by experience: most people work to better themselves, even when they don't have to. This is why people choose not to retire, or retire early. It is the reason children work while their parents support them. It is the reason I work two extra jobs even though the university provides me more than enough to live.

How can you be so confident that, without the threat of starvation or homelessness, no one will work?

See above! Of course they desire extra stuff as well, but theres a difference between working because you want to get more stuff and because you HAVE to.

Yes, there is. The first is more enjoyable, because it involves more choice. I know I choose to work, because I know I don't have to. People who have to work are, quite clearly, less free than those who do not have to.

My point was there is no getting away from a powerful omnipresent government in your society.

There is really no more "getting away from" the government today. Tell me how you get away from them... tell me a place to which their reach does not extend. Business? Heavily regulated. Your home? Whatever you can do in your home now, you can do in a socialist society -- there is simply no difference.

You are placing too much power in the hands of elected officials.

And you would prefer the power go to unelected ones. Given the choice between giving power to people responsible to the voting public, and giving it to people responsible only to themselves and their stockholders, I will take the elected officials, thank you. They may not all be good, but at least they sometimes have to do what we tell them.

My point was that the US is perceived as better than, say, Sweden by people who don't move away.

But you are quite wrong about that. Counter-example: me. I think Sweden is a much better place to live than the United States... or Norway. I have been to Norway, and quite liked it. But I do not choose to move.

Plenty of people look around and see better places to live much closer to home... in the same country, the same, state, even in the same city... but they do not choose to move.

Yours is an empirical assertion. It is proven wrong by experience.

You are not getting it. YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING YOURSELF.

I think I am... but I guess it must not be clear enough to you. Here is a bit of advice. When you feel that someone is not explaining her/himself, you say, "Could you please explain yourself?" If he/she then appears to you to be repeating her/himself without an adequate explanation, clearly you are not going to get anywhere by typing in large letters "YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING YOURSELF." You need to try to give that person a hint about what it is you fail to understand. I seem to think that I am saying something straight-forward, but I guess I must be mistaken. The problem is that it seems so simple to me, it is hard for me to imagine where another person's perplexity must lie. So if you want a better answer, you will have to help me out with that.

We have to?

If we value a clear sky. If I am incorrect, and it is not a good, then surely no one will want it.

No one owned it, so no one can give it back right?

This sentence does not make sense. Yes, no one owned the sky. But then some people went and got it polluted. To the extent that we can achieve justice, we should get them to pay for cleaning it up. But if for some reason that cannot happen, and we actually want a clear sky, then someone has to pay to do it. None of this implies ownership which is an exclusive right. No one has an exclusive right to the sky.

As with socialist taxation, except that's forced payment.

At some point, people figured out that they have to force payment for public goods, because otherwise the freeloader problem will prevent the purchase of public goods. You know, things like military protection. Everyone wants it... but once it's paid for, everyone gets the same benefit. So what motive is there to pay your share unless someone makes you? I chose the sky because I presumed that this was another rather obvious example of a good that pretty much everyone wants, but no one would pay for unless we forced them.

Of course, we do not agree on everything that should be considered a public good. In some governments, a dictator, king, or aristocracy chooses for us. In a democracy, we agree to pool some of our resources for the purchase of public goods... and then we introduce mechanisms that help the entire population hammer out their preferences in public goods. As a practical matter we agree to be bound by the decision of the majority. (We could choose other rules, like two-thirds, consensus or unanimity.)

This means, naturally, that sometimes each of us does not agree with what the majority decides is a public good, and we may feel "robbed" of our money since it goes to pay for something that is not good for us. But at least we get to have our say... and the idea is that at least this way we purchase public goods that benefit which is better than any of the other schemes we can think up.

Naturally, as a capitalist you will respond that we could just let people decide what to do with their own money, and eliminate the government all-together... but then you are just right back at the freeloader problem and an undersupply of public goods.

(The undersupply of public goods is a basic market failure. Markets are good -- you know I like them -- but some things they don't do at all well. Public goods are one of them.)

For a good other freeloaders will enjoy (your safety net).

Okay, we really are getting repetitive now. Do I have to go over again how the fact that the safety net need not have anything to do with a concern for the private welfare of bums? It has to do with buying public goods -- crime prevention, for instance -- that benefit everyone [I]at the lowest cost possible. (Giving people something to eat usually costs less than waiting for them to rob Wal-Mart, then arresting them, processing them, and housing them in prison. But if you would prefer to pay more to do that... well, I just don't understand that mentality.)


Except, the organization is paid for the good.

What organization? This is not a profit-maximizing problem -- that's another sector of the economy. What happens here is that the government does the paying. They "purchase" the good of a clear sky (or a military) for all of us to enjoy.

The government owned it and then "sold" it.

If the government "owned" the sky, then they would get to determine who does and does not get to enjoy it. I suppose such a sci-fi world is imaginable, but certainly not what I have been describing here. Moreover, they did not "sell" the clear sky, they bought it... but not for the sake of ownership. They buy it, then everyone gets to enjoy it.

Everyone receives the benefit, but the government is now concretely wealthy.

If so, not because of this. They just bought something, if anything they are less wealthy.

And just how do you decide a fair value of a clear sky?

Actually, it's not that hard. First, you find out what it will cost to get businesses to stop polluting it so much. There are a variety of ways to do this, but I think the market-based approach is most cost-effective. (Permits that can be bought and sold "licensing" businesses for a particular level of emissions.) Then there may also be literal clean-up costs for the damage already done. You get the technology and pay for it. (Naturally, we may decide that we cannot afford the best possible air... the costs and benefits would most likely be hotly debated within the democracy -- as with all goods democrats consider.)


You can't, especially if the vast amounts of "buyers" don't really have a choice about buying it.

They have just as much choice as with any decision in a democracy. They can support politicians and proposals that provide for the good, or they can support those who oppose it. But it is just a fact of democratic life that we agree to spend our collective funds the way the majority decides.

"Thrives" does not mean "cannot function without."

I will concede that capitalism has proven itself capable of adapting to a variety of changing circumstances. However, it still remains a fact that capitalism as we know it requires expanding labor and consumer markets. Now, it can expand both of these by becoming more global -- drawing more and more areas of the world into the capitalist labor market, while also making them consumers of capitalist products. But sooner or later it seems destined to become truly global, and then the only thing that can keep labor costs low is an increasing population.

Or you could just outlaw campaign contributions and such. That would be better and more effective than essentially outlawing how financially successful individuals or corporations can be.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, it does not work because the problem goes well beyond campaigns. Even if you set limits to what individuals can contribute to a campaign, people will be able to contribute to lobbying groups -- and the wealthiest corporations and individuals just hire their own army of lobbyists. And no democracy can do away with the right to lobby the government.

(Incidentally, there is good research that suggests that contribution limits actually have the worst effects on the poorest, least organized interests. The reason is that wealthy or well-organized interests are already prepared to set up collections of relatively small amounts. For instance, corporations often set up collection from their own employees for political causes, even going so far as to make it easy by adding it as a payroll deduction option. Less wealthy and less organized groups, however, generally need an organization set up to start the collection process. Traditionally, this has been done by "prime donors," single wealthy donors who are sympathetic to a cause who start a PAC and send out mailers asking for donations. Since contribution limits can prevent these large initial donations, but not in-house corporate fund raising, the limits tend to increase the political power of wealthy interest groups.)

Okay, but the government is still not the best employer. Compared to even the worst excesses of private employers. How many corporations mis-treat how many employees, versus how many governments mistreat how many citizens? Throughout history? Considering the corporation isn't even as old as government.

First of all, it is not fair to compare corporations to governments "throughout history." We are talking about a democracy here, specifically a modern liberal democracy. And they actually have a pretty damn good record, over all. There is something in the field of International Relations called "Democratic Peace Theory." It refers to the fact that, although we have no good idea why this is, modern democracies do not go to war against one another. It just does not happen. So it seems that the more democracy, the less war.

Second, corporations are just the modern manifestation of private ownership of the means of production, which has existed in one form or another for much longer. Do I need to bring up the slave plantation???

I think not because I don't have certain people's permission to discuss their experiences here, nor do I think it would convince you even so.

You said something about your own experience? Besides this is completely anonymous. "I know a person who..." will do just fine. As things stand, I am inclined to believe you are making up these "experiences."

Okay, so we're moral unlike apes, because we say so.

No, we are moral unlike apes because we have a choice. We are political unlike apes because we can negotiate ways to deal with public problems. Now, I have no problem with apes -- indeed, they are among my favorite animals. And I will admit that they display a limited degree of moral behavior, especially in captivity. But the fact remains that if you kill someone out of jealousy, you cannot shrug your shoulders and say, "I am an ape. That is what apes do."

Look at behavior instead of claims. 50-odd million killed in WWII. Versus an ape killing another occasionally?

Oh, you will get no argument from me that human beings have proven to be the most destructive animals on the planet. So? You also cannot excuse yourself from a crime by saying, "What? At least I only killed one person."

From a moral standpoint I'd rather be raised in a natural ape society than our bloated, pretentiously "moral" one.

No, from a pragmatic standpoint you might choose to live in ape society. From a moral standpoint that does not even make sense, because morality is a human concept.

Not an excuse, an explanation.

Okay, fine. Humans have some emotional/instinctual drives in common with animals, and this explains some of our behavior. So what? We are trying to figure out what people should do with ourselves, not the reasons that we are more prone to some inclinations rather than others.

The fact that I can explain why a murderer kills may help me to understand him. It may even help me to prevent him from killing again. But it does not excuse his action.

You point out instincts as being negative things to be tamed. Like a demon within, sorta similar to Original Sin. You really think so, when our greatest atrocities as a species could not have been possible without civilization - without the product of all this "morality" and "taming?"

Yes, and neither could some of our most beautiful achievements and discoveries. Read Rousseau and get back to me. Our drives intersect with civilization in complicated and often destructive ways. One of our tasks as human beings is to figure out how to deal with that... but we certainly won't get any better by writing them off as unalterable instincts that make us nothing more than pretentious apes. We are animals, but we are thinking animals. We cannot simply pick one and renounce the other.

Generally people consider their truth to have "won" in that case, and that is their ultimate goal. Mine, yours.

You miss the point. Usually in such a discussion you both discover a truth other than the ones you brought to the table. Our first assumptions are rarely correct... but we can only find that out when other people make an attempt to understand us and speak reasonably, rather than out of a personal need for "victory."

At this point I only respond because you do and you keep saying things that don't bear validity in my way of thinking.

Perhaps you should try a "way of thinking" that is recognizable as rational thought.

Frankly, you admitting that inequality exists and humans are apes is not so "obviously true" to you based on our previous arguments.

Really? Are you reading my posts? Honestly, you can tell me if you just see a big blur and type whatever you want... because your eyes must have clouded over or something every time I typed -- in virtually every single post --that not only is inequality a fact of nature, but it is a generally good one, and impossible to eliminate.

Nor was I expecting agreement on any clause, since its rare that someone agrees when I point out that they're in denial.

Considering that you seem to be reading my posts highly selectively, I would say that you are the one in denial. Possibly of a vertical split in the ego.

I can say that people who work for a private employer also may care about doing good for the people... works both ways.

They can yes... but you have to admit that the nature of a management position tends to attract the "cutthroats" whose only concerns are personal ambition and the good of the corporation's stockholders. Market socialism has a place for these people, don't worry... They can still manage firms in exactly the same way, except that the stockholders are the public. So you see, we have the elected politicians who are attracted to their jobs because they want to do some good (and who are accountable to the electorate if they do not)... and then we take the most ruthless individualists and see to it that in order to secure their own interests they must act in the public interest or else lose their job. (Much as they must act in the interest of the stockholders today, or lose their job.)


I've alluded to the opposite kind of personal experience, though I haven't "explained" it in the sense of gory details. (Then again neither have you.)

There is nothing "gory" about my experience. It's just that I used to work in the corporate sector, so I knew a lot of those people (and mine was the sort of company in which the higher-ups prided themselves on promoting corporate culture by meeting frequently with us underlings). Now I am a graduate student in political science, and in addition to research that involves interviewing public officials, my department intersects with them in a lot of other ways as well.

On the whole, I have found that the politicians tend to go into politics because they want to serve the public. I find that businesspeople tend to go into business because they want to serve themselves. It is that simple.

I would still like to read your gory details.

Question:

How does one begin to build private capital under a socialist system?

Seriously, how does one build private capital?

How is one not housed by the government?

Seriously, how does one build private capital?

One could try buying durable goods, or saving money.

How is one not housed by the government?

One might buy... perhaps... a house?

One could try buying durable goods, or saving money.



One might buy... perhaps... a house?

But wouldn't one be borrowing from the government, buying a house from the government, and paying back the government with your wages paid by the government (for the most part)?

What keeps the government from cutting out the middle man and providing public housing for its workers?

But wouldn't one be borrowing from the government,

You know, I have not decided if there could be private banks. It could be well debated either way. In any case, once it is yours, it's yours.

buying a house from the government,

There could very easiliy be private house-builders. And most homes will probably be owned already, so you are actually buying from individuals on the open market.

with your wages paid by the government (for the most part)?

Yeah. So? Do government employees today seem to mind? Money is money.

What keeps the government from cutting out the middle man and providing public housing for its workers?

The government provides basic housing for people who cannot afford better. No one really wants to live there. And why is it not in their interest to provide better? Simple... it has so many workers that it would just be too great an expense. And there is no need.

You know, I have not decided if there could be private banks. It could be well debated either way. In any case, once it is yours, it's yours.

Well banks are barely private as it is, with as pervasive as the Fed's power is, but that is slightly off topic. But what do you mean with, "once it is yours, it's yours?"

There could very easiliy be private house-builders. And most homes will probably be owned already, so you are actually buying from individuals on the open market.

But many houses are privately owned capital that is handed down in inheritance, would those be confiscated by the government?

Houses built by the government would be much cheaper, so do you think that housing contractors would be squeezed out?

Do you think that the subsidies placed on rent would cause private rental agencies to be squeezed out as well?

Yeah. So? Do government employees today seem to mind? Money is money.

No, they do not, but that point was to be included with the rest to show that were my scenario to be true, the government would most likely provide the housing for employees and take rent directly from the paychecks.

The government provides basic housing for people who cannot afford better. No one really wants to live there. And why is it not in their interest to provide better? Simple... it has so many workers that it would just be too great an expense. And there is no need.

This point I agree with, people, no matter what, will strive to not be at the very lowest point, as they will always work for something better. I don't have any problem with the motivation part of socialism, where as my worries are based on a loss of autonomy, through dependance on the government.

You addressed my economic concerns about the detrimental effects of socialism on the economy, now I am trying to address the social ramifications.

Well banks are barely private as it is, with as pervasive as the Fed's power is, but that is slightly off topic. But what do you mean with, "once it is yours, it's yours?"

Once you own your home, it is a part of your personal property.

But many houses are privately owned capital that is handed down in inheritance, would those be confiscated by the government?

I don't see why.

Houses built by the government would be much cheaper,

Why?

Do you think that the subsidies placed on rent would cause private rental agencies to be squeezed out as well?

No. The government provides for only the most basic rental facilities. If you want something better, you will have to pay for it yourself. Of course, the government might own and rent out some of these, but that does not mean they are "subsidized." Remember, each firm that is owned by the government operates on its own budget, with its own cost and revenue -- much like social security today. So government-owned rental buildings, run by their managers for profit, would sink or swim just like a capitalist firm.

EDIT: I will concede that there is some risk that since the government owns the largest firms, economies of scale threaten to drown out competition. However, this is mitigated by the fact that the government itself keeps separate firms within a single industry (and within individual geographical areas as well, to prevent what economists call "monopolistic competition"). This is the first principle of market socialism. Also, the government only buys out a firm once it reaches a certain size... so presumably, whatever economies of scale work for the government firm would have existed for the largest private firms anyway, meaning that remaining private entrepreneurs face approximately the same challenges they would have seen in the original market.

No, they do not, but that point was to be included with the rest to show that were my scenario to be true, the government would most likely provide the housing for employees and take rent directly from the paychecks.

Ah, I see. That is actually a very astute question. The answer is the same as above: different budgets, so there is no "common fund" to draw from. Employees are paid out of the resources of whatever firm employs them. They then make payments to the firm that rents to them. Of course, perhaps people might choose some kind of "direct payments" in much the same way that many people have their paychecks directly deposited to a checking account today, and their monthly bills paid directly by their bank.

You addressed my economic concerns about the detrimental effects of socialism on the economy, now I am trying to address the social ramifications.

Understood... and I will happily do my best to answer them. The level of your questions indicates that you understand the basics. (Good job... I think it took me a good semester or so of reading.)

Well banks are barely private as it is, with as pervasive as the Fed's power is, but that is slightly off topic.

Hehe... indeed. However, it reminds me of a great quote by Andrew Jackson. During his term as president the charter of the first central bank was coming up, and he threatened to veto its renewal because he thought the bank had too much power. If he did, the president of the bank threatened to retaliate by calling in all debts owed to the bank, which he knew would throw the economy into a recession.

Jackson replied (I am paraphrasing from memory, but this should be fairly accurate): "If my choice is wealth or liberty, it is liberty I must choose."

He vetoed the bill, and the bank president followed through with his threat.

Once you own your home, it is a part of your personal property.

I don't see why.

Personal real estate empires could develop in place of monetary wealth. One of your principles is the elimination of such a dramatic build up of wealth through inheritance. Homes would apply.

Why?

Economies of scale, but I will get to that.

No. The government provides for only the most basic rental facilities. If you want something better, you will have to pay for it yourself. Of course, the government might own and rent out some of these, but that does not mean they are "subsidized." Remember, each firm that is owned by the government operates on its own budget, with its own cost and revenue -- much like social security today. So government-owned rental buildings, run by their managers for profit, would sink or swim just like a capitalist firm.

But the increase in very cheap housing provided by the government would put pressures on the market to drop prices. It seems to me that entire industry may become non-profitable. We are back to the price problems, but I believe that the government run ones would sink just as bad as the privately owned ones. Which may force the government to subsidize all of them.

EDIT: I will concede that there is some risk that since the government owns the largest firms, economies of scale threaten to drown out competition. However, this is mitigated by the fact that the government itself keeps separate firms within a single industry (and within individual geographical areas as well, to prevent what economists call "monopolistic competition"). This is the first principle of market socialism. Also, the government only buys out a firm once it reaches a certain size... so presumably, whatever economies of scale work for the government firm would have existed for the largest private firms anyway, meaning that remaining private entrepreneurs face approximately the same challenges.

If the government would police itself from allowing price fixing and other cooperative measures amongst the industry this would not be a bad structure. I am afraid that my distrust of government makes me wary of the risk, though.

Ah, I see. That is actually a very astute question. The answer is the same as above: different budgets, so there is no "common fund" to draw from. Employees are paid out of the resources of whatever firm employs them. They then make payments to the firm that rents to them. Of course, perhaps people might choose some kind of "direct payments" in much the same way that many people have their paychecks directly deposited to a checking account today, and their monthly bills paid directly by their bank.

Yes, the real estate institutions will be maintained separately from the industry. I am still having trouble keeping the idea of separated government facilities in my thought process. It is hard for me to imagine, and sometimes it evades my logic.

Like I said before, if the government kept the employers and the real estate industry from cooperating, this would not be a problem.

Understood... and I will happily do my best to answer them. The level of your questions indicates that you understand the basics. (Good job... I think it took me a good semester or so of reading.)

I am a finance major and have taken several economics courses so I have a background in this, the system took me a little while to work into my thought process, but now that it has progress can be made.

Another question though, wouldn't the a reworking of the corporate structure and a graduated inheritance tax be a much more feasible plan? It would alleviate my worries concerning the dependence of the individual on the government, while working to fight the build up of wealth. Also, if you eliminated the income tax, in theory wouldn't the government simply collect the lost taxes when the person died? It seems that that would put a premium on the earning power of the individual.

Personal real estate empires could develop in place of monetary wealth. One of your principles is the elimination of such a dramatic build up of wealth through inheritance. Homes would apply.

Well, now you are changing your tune. People could inherit a private home for personal use. Maybe a few more, considering some people have "summer" homes. Possibly a few more than that, if Mom was a small-scale real estate entrepreneur. But like all industries, there would be limits to its size.

(If you mean that people would just start keeping houses instead of money as a way to "save" wealth, clearly at some point it would be "too much" for inheritance tax to overlook. No one is going to be convinced that all of them are for personal use.)

But the increase in very cheap housing provided by the government would put pressures on the market to drop prices.

First of all, the government does not provide "very cheap" housing. It provides free housing to those who want it. But it would not be especially attractive. More like one-room apartments with a pull-out sofa, perhaps -- or whatever the democratic government decided was "basic." Now, presumably no private entrepreneur would try to compete at this level -- there would be no point. No one would want to pay for a crappy apartment if they could get it for free.

But besides those basic units offered by social services, the government would simply run profit-making firms -- just like the private ones -- that offer rental apartments. (What makes you think they could offer them for any cheaper than private landlords?)

Alternatively, there is no obvious need for real estate to be run on a massive scale -- unlike something like the auto industry, in which economies of scale have a profound effect: one simply cannot compete unless one is selling a lot of cars. So real estate (besides the bare minimum) might be entirely private, with limits on the total number of units that an individual can own (possibly combined with a form of progressive taxation on profits) .

It seems to me that entire industry may become non-profitable. We are back to the price problems, but I believe that the government run ones would sink just as bad as the privately owned ones.

For what reason? As long as there is demand for more than a one-room apartment (or whatever), there should be a healthy market.

If the government would police itself from allowing price fixing and other cooperative measures amongst the industry this would not be a bad structure.

Speaking of the Fed, it already operates as an autonomous branch of the government, with its own budget, costs and revenue. It happens to be run as a non-profit, but there is no practical reason that Congress could not change the law to have the Board run it for profit.

EDIT: Actually, I can think of a few good reasons not to do that in the case of the central bank. The point is that the Fed operates just like the sort of firms I have been describing, except that it is non-profit.

If the government can manage to police corporations that are busily hiding their books, how much more easily can they audit their own employees?

Yes, the real estate institutions will be maintained separately from the industry. I am still having trouble keeping the idea of separated government facilities in my thought process. It is hard for me to imagine, and sometimes it evades my logic.

I know... I told you, it was very tough for me when I first studying market socialism -- and I resisted it! Oh, how did I resist it! I was taking a graduate course in political economy. At the university that I attended, many graduate courses involved attending the undergraduate class and then doing "extra work." The main class involved an in-depth study of market economics (in general) and the variety of market failures... and I think my professor must have sensed my resistance to markets (from an anarchist perspective), so for my "extra work" he assigned me readings in market socialism... and for the longest time I didn't get it. He wanted me to write a paper on the subject, and I had to take an incomplete and turn it in the next semester... mostly because I just needed time for it to sink in.

But now that it has sunk in, it makes a hell of a lot of sense. It really is the best of both worlds.

Another question though, wouldn't the a reworking of the corporate structure and a graduated inheritance tax be a much more feasible plan?


Reworking how? I like the idea of a graduated inheritance tax in any case, but I would like to know more about what kind of restructuring you have in mind.

Also, if you eliminated the income tax, in theory wouldn't the government simply collect the lost taxes when the person died?

Probably not, or only at a discount. If people only saved and/or wisely invested their money, it would be great. But people tend to put their money into depreciating material goods and intangible services, so already you may be taking a discounted account. It relies on the "bet" that, on average, people will not piss away their earnings. (To illustrate: pick any person at random and calculate their net worth at the beginning of the year. Now let them work all year... and calculate their net worth at the end of the year. I think you will find that very little of a person's earnings tends to transfer into an increase in net worth.) No, I think it is more practical to take a bit of the wealth when it is produced, whether through taxes or government profits.

Some people have suggested a federal sales tax, so that we tax spending instead of earning. Among the benefits would be the fact that it makes savings easier for the poorest classes, since it gives them a little extra money and with some self-restraint they can put it towards education or investment that may make upward social mobility more likely -- the promise of capitalism realized. (It also eliminates those awkward positions at the cusp of a higher tax bracket, when people are reluctant to make an earnings leap for fear that, after taxes, their net earnings may be reduced.) I have my doubts about the whole idea, but they are beside the point and too much to go into here.

Hell, where did I learn it. I've never been realistically threatened with starvation or homelessness.

A lot of starving and homeless have thought just as you do on that one, right up until the path became set. Doesn't mean the threat isn't always there, lurking in the background, just because you're not so poverty stricken that missing a day of work leads to a hungry night.

As you point out yourself (previous sentence), it is not a premise, it is an argument. The first premise is this: people should be free to do anything that does not limit another's freedom. Then the second premise: private citizens should have relatively equal political power in a democracy. Then we move to a point of empirical experience: if one person has vastly more wealth than others, he or she almost always has vastly more political power as well. As a political scientist, I can tell you that if one of my colleagues were to dispute that claim, the APSA might just revoke his membership. It is simply an empirical fact.

Conclusion 1: to amass a great deal of wealth gives a person undue political influence.

Conclusion 2: because one private person's having too much wealth unbalances the political equality that is the basis of democratic freedom, such wealth should not be allowed in a democracy.

Okay, your point of empircal experience was "vastly more political power" for those with "vastly more wealth." Suddenly your first conclusion is now vast wealth gives a person "undue" political influence. It's obvious, the point of evidence; it is not obvious the moral judgement of your conclusion. Complex sentence perhaps?

As for conclusion 2, can you think of anything else that unbalances political equality? Are all things that unbalance political equality things that should just be outlawed or otherwise "not allowed?"

Clearly we have a fundamental difference of opinion about human beings. You believe that people only work (or learn to work) when they are threatened with suffering or death.

Let's say that's true that I believe that. Wait let's not, because I don't.

However, less people will work when you take away the major consequences of not working that exist today.

I believe that, even guaranteed a certain level of subsistence, people nevertheless work (and learn to work) because they want more for themselves (or more than their neighbors).

Yes, but not as many, and overall less work will be done. Society will be less productive, and there will be an underclass of freeloaders just as there is today, only more so.


How can you be so confident that, without the threat of starvation or homelessness, no one will work?

I'm not, and I never said every single person would cease to work. At least I never meant that, I'll let you pick through and see if that's what I wrote.


Yes, there is. The first is more enjoyable, because it involves more choice. I know I choose to work, because I know I don't have to. People who have to work are, quite clearly, less free than those who do not have to.

Well, in a society, there must be SOME limits to freedom...


There is really no more "getting away from" the government today.

Eh, it's well on it's way to socialist totalitarianism anyway. Proof is how people actually consider GW to be a conservative...

Given the choice between giving power to people responsible to the voting public, and giving it to people responsible only to themselves and their stockholders, I will take the elected officials, thank you. They may not all be good, but at least they sometimes have to do what we tell them.

Given the choice between relying on someone's self interest and someone's interest in the good of the public, I rely on the former. Elected officials are ultimately responsible to the public for fooling them into getting their votes, and pacifying them somehow when it looks like they'll vote them out.


But you are quite wrong about that. Counter-example: me. I think Sweden is a much better place to live than the United States... or Norway. I have been to Norway, and quite liked it. But I do not choose to move.

Plenty of people look around and see better places to live much closer to home... in the same country, the same, state, even in the same city... but they do not choose to move.

Yours is an empirical assertion. It is proven wrong by experience.

Uh, your experience. Not really what I'd call proof. I can offer opposite experiences as well.

Besides, moving around in the same country is not the same as moving to a country that is more, or less, free than your own country. Freedom is such a good thing that it should be worth enough to overcome the usual hassles involved with short, nonexotic moves, no?

Either you are irrational because you choose to live in a place that is not better than where you could manage to live and would enjoy. Or, you're not quite honest and the fact that you do not choose to live in a supposedly better place means it's not actually any better.



I think I am... but I guess it must not be clear enough to you. Here is a bit of advice. When you feel that someone is not explaining her/himself, you say, "Could you please explain yourself?"

Yeah, except you knew you were explaining nothing, and just reasserting a supposedly rhetorical example I gave to you. Answering "yep" to a rhetorical question is not an explanation and you know that, but you did it twice seemingly just to be annoying.

If he/she then appears to you to be repeating her/himself without an adequate explanation, clearly you are not going to get anywhere by typing in large letters "YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING YOURSELF."

Actually, I thought I would. Simple, clear, easy to read, direct...


Yes, no one owned the sky. But then some people went and got it polluted. To the extent that we can achieve justice, we should get them to pay for cleaning it up. But if for some reason that cannot happen, and we actually want a clear sky, then someone has to pay to do it. None of this implies ownership which is an exclusive right. No one has an exclusive right to the sky.

Well, by treating it like a noble's prized hunting grounds that he wants kept clean, it implies ownership to me. The noble will fine trespassers on his hunting grounds who make it unclean (to him). And if thats not enough to pay for the cleanup, he taxes the serfdom to do it. Sure, he doesn't own it, but what does that matter to the trespasser OR the serfs?

Your government of THE PUBLIC wouldn't be equatable to a noble, in theory, because of the concept of democracy he'd use to get the serfs to vote for him and legitimize his monopolies.

I tire of these long, long posts. Actually I said I tire of this whole thread a while back. I don't think we share enough common ground to even argue, since there's so much disagreement that stems from basic values and failures of understanding. Yes, on both sides.

But hmm... lessee.

Okay, we really are getting repetitive now. Do I have to go over again how the fact that the safety net need not have anything to do with a concern for the private welfare of bums? It has to do with buying public goods -- crime prevention, for instance -- that benefit everyone at the lowest cost possible. (Giving people something to eat usually costs less than waiting for them to rob Wal-Mart, then arresting them, processing them, and housing them in prison. But if you would prefer to pay more to do that... well, I just don't understand that mentality.)

I'm curious, does that mean you give homeless people food? Or do you dismiss personal action since YOUR own behavior couldn't have enough effect on reducing crime or taxes?


If so, not because of this. They just bought something, if anything they are less wealthy.

Well they also 'bought' profit producing industries too. The ones "too large" or not "personal" enough to be in private hands. It was my understanding that was one way you intended the rise in taxes to not be as extreme (or even happen?). So, the government is now as I said concretely wealthy, with more means to increase it's own wealth (theoretically, assuming the government is any good at that sort of thing), and with a vested interest in doing so.



They have just as much choice as with any decision in a democracy. They can support politicians and proposals that provide for the good, or they can support those who oppose it. But it is just a fact of democratic life that we agree to spend our collective funds the way the majority decides.

There's nothing inherent to democracy about collective funds at all. The majority decides the politicians, but once it's their decision the majority has no say. Once the taxes are in it's not "collective funds" or "the public's," it's controlled by those politicians. At least in representative democracy. And I don't even want to discuss direct democracy.

However, it still remains a fact that capitalism as we know it requires expanding labor and consumer markets

In order to function? No. Capitalism functions even in shrinking economies, and your allusion to some mythical final-state "global economy" that has no potential for new markets doesn't frighten me into agreeing.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, it does not work because the problem goes well beyond campaigns. Even if you set limits to what individuals can contribute to a campaign, people will be able to contribute to lobbying groups -- and the wealthiest corporations and individuals just hire their own army of lobbyists. And no democracy can do away with the right to lobby the government.

Why not? I don't think they'll so easily "change definitions of success" and adopt your socialist morality either. Does that mean its futile to try?

First of all, it is not fair to compare corporations to governments "throughout history."

Why not? History doesn't have any lessons for you or the world?

And they actually have a pretty damn good record, over all. There is something in the field of International Relations called "Democratic Peace Theory." It refers to the fact that, although we have no good idea why this is, modern democracies do not go to war against one another. It just does not happen. So it seems that the more democracy, the less war.

Since no one knows why it hasn't happened that doesn't prove anything. It could be any number of reasons, not simply the fact that they're democracies. And just what nations are you considering as "democracies" now?

Second, corporations are just the modern manifestation of private ownership of the means of production, which has existed in one form or another for much longer. Do I need to bring up the slave plantation???

The ones owned by governments, and elected officials? Slave empires condoned and perpetrated by governments? Wars made to make that more smoothly, to make the government's coffers fill with gold? The conquerors of the New World were individuals, nobles, but they too were government. They were franchised. Stalin, Mao, Hitler? The worst world war, the biggest genocides, the most tyrannical dictators.

They weren't just tyrannical owners of corporations or guilds...


You said something about your own experience? Besides this is completely anonymous. "I know a person who..." will do just fine. As things stand, I am inclined to believe you are making up these "experiences."

Anonymous, except not since anyone reading this knows the location. There are a limited amount of people of this type in town. And because I've already said I DON'T WANT TO.

Is it so hard to believe that in someone else's experience, government has been a worse employer than private employers? I must be lying, since no one could possibly experience such a thing? Are you so naive?


No, we are moral unlike apes because we have a choice.

You sure? An ape can choose this action or this one. Just because he can't discuss it with you beforehand doesn't mean he is somehow fated to act one single way at all times.

We are political unlike apes because we can negotiate ways to deal with public problems.

Apes don't have a "public." Because they don't elect governments or build the civilizations that cause the problems. If they did, how do you know they wouldn't develop political solutions out of the need to? I mean, that's pretty much what we did. We weren't born with elective democracy.

But the fact remains that if you kill someone out of jealousy, you cannot shrug your shoulders and say, "I am an ape. That is what apes do."

Because there are consequences. And actually, I could do exactly that, now couldn't I? I'd just suffer the consequences. So where does us being so moral come in? Because we cause consequences? Write the laws?

Is that out of moral sense of rightness, or just fear and the knowledge that we might be next to get murdered, say. Is that what morality even IS - fear that next time, it may be you? I think it's likely something just like that.


Oh, you will get no argument from me that human beings have proven to be the most destructive animals on the planet. So? You also cannot excuse yourself from a crime by saying, "What? At least I only killed one person."

Yeah, but we're supposedly more moral than apes. Or I think you meant that we HAVE a sense of morality - hence our more moral ACTIONS? Neither one flies. What good is morality if its shared by the least moral behaving of species?

Does that excuse immorality? No, it explains it. It explains why governments are even more immoral. They write the laws. They own most of the available consequences. And they are an agency, not simpy the base set of everyone living in the nation (the public, as you say).


Okay, fine. Humans have some emotional/instinctual drives in common with animals, and this explains some of our behavior. So what? We are trying to figure out what people should do with ourselves, not the reasons that we are more prone to some inclinations rather than others.

Reasons why and what people do is, I think, a key proponent of this argument. Correct me if I'm wrong. Explaining why a private individual may say, murder someone or not - and why a government can, say, execute a few million people for the greater good or not - is relevant. Think about it.

Governments are artificial beasts with their own instincts, which you have no real solution of "taming." Your main thing is "taming" those of the lay men, the citizenry, VIA government. You want to make government a tool and not an actor. But it is an actor, because it has a body and the people who will inevitably control it have their own interests that they more often than not hold over that of the 'public good.'

Basically, you're turning me anarchist...

And in a way I am, because I do advocate the destruction of civilization and a reversion to hunting and gathering - at least I would if I didn't know it wouldn't be too long before we started calling the tribal Big Man a "Chief" and then his council of friends a "government."


Yes, and neither could some of our most beautiful achievements and discoveries.

Overrated, all of them.

You miss the point. Usually in such a discussion you both discover a truth other than the ones you brought to the table. Our first assumptions are rarely correct... but we can only find that out when other people make an attempt to understand us and speak reasonably, rather than out of a personal need for "victory."

Self criticism and self improvement also can find that out.

In my case, usually better than some random person attempting to win. Ooh, ooh, I meant attempting to point out my incorrect assumptions, since there is no feeling of "winning" for you. Except you already stated that there was, didn't you?

Therefore you are speaking as much against your own method of argument here.



Perhaps you should try a "way of thinking" that is recognizable as rational thought.

You don't recognize this as rational thought? Interesting. Why, because I've made a fallacy or two? You have as well. You should also try being recognizable as rationally thinking. Ho ho, ad hominem and condescension is so much fun.


Really? Are you reading my posts? Honestly, you can tell me if you just see a big blur and type whatever you want... because your eyes must have clouded over or something every time I typed -- in virtually every single post --that not only is inequality a fact of nature, but it is a generally good one, and impossible to eliminate.

You have NOT stated that it is a generally good one. You've implied the opposite. Am I reading your posts, well are you reading mine? Tell me what you think the actual answer is to those questions. You're smart enough to know when I'm lying just on the basis of your instant-psychic-judgement...

You know, if you want to sound rational and such, you COULD avoid the personal attacks. I could too, but I never said I wanted to appear a certain way to anyone.

Considering that you seem to be reading my posts highly selectively, I would say that you are the one in denial. Possibly of a vertical split in the ego.

You write long posts. I respond to what I feel like. You also choose to ignore what you don't feel like responding to.

Where does me being in denial come into it? Now you're what, instant-psychic-psychoanalyzing me too, Freud? We can play that game both ways, but it's not very "recognizably rational."

They can yes... but you have to admit that the nature of a management position tends to attract the "cutthroats" whose only concerns are personal ambition and the good of the corporation's stockholders.

Do I? If you admit that the nature of government power tends to attract people whose main concerns are getting and keeping power, I may.

Market socialism has a place for these people, don't worry... They can still manage firms in exactly the same way, except that the stockholders are the public. So you see, we have the elected politicians who are attracted to their jobs because they want to do some good (and who are accountable to the electorate if they do not)

Maybe. But turning the government into a single publically owned corporation just means you have all the problems of private monopolies translated to a government. Which as I've pointed out before (though you seem not to want to believe it) are no better and often worse in reality.

There is nothing "gory" about my experience.

It's a turn of phrase ...


It's just that I used to work in the corporate sector, so I knew a lot of those people (and mine was the sort of company in which the higher-ups prided themselves on promoting corporate culture by meeting frequently with us underlings). Now I am a graduate student in political science, and in addition to research that involves interviewing public officials, my department intersects with them in a lot of other ways as well.

Unfortunately I cannot so generalize my 'experience', so you'll have to continue to believe I am lying.


On the whole, I have found that the politicians tend to go into politics because they want to serve the public.

Nice, but you got that by talking with politicians. Politicians job is to convince people like you that they are acting in the interest of the public good. They do that primarily by hiding their true motives and plans, with some bread and circuses thrown in.

At best they are doing what THEY think is right for the public, like lowering or raising taxes, war, genocide etc.

I find that businesspeople tend to go into business because they want to serve themselves.

Which is really the same goal as politicians, only you can afford to be honest about your motives in business since every stockholder can agree that profits are good. Every citizen cannot agree on... pretty much anything.

I would still like to read your gory details.

Sorry, you'll have to take my word on it. And use your common sense - whose a better employer, Hitler or Bill Gates? Some asshole retail boss, or an asshole sergeant in the army? At least in retail or Microsoft, you can quit. I can offer many examples of bad governments and politicians, far fewer of private individuals, and the latter generally have less impact.

Government is a harsher employer that expects more service from its peons, and gives more power to it's managers. Power corrupts, as is your main point about too much power in the hands of private individuals - and I agree that that can turn out bad for society - but what I learn from that is the government is even worse, since it has even more power. Before anything else, it needs to be less corrupt, and the only ways I can generally think to do that are to make sure it's not any more powerful than I think it should be.

Certainly, as much as a state-company might appeal to me, I mainly see it as monopoly, or a vast, undue concentration of power and wealth.

Now I've been sitting here for about two hours typing this. I have to tell you I can't continue. Either we have to move to comfortable generalities, or I can no longer continue to respond to your desire. Especially if you expect me to be non "selective" about answering your posts, as you see above I didn't answr a bunch of things.

Sheesh, it logged me out as usual and I come back to post this and find even MORE gigantic responses. How do you do it? Maybe I just type slower than I used to... but it seems like you have a team of psychic monkeys transcribing your thoughts or something.

And on a last note, please don't be offended by anything I say. And take it with a grain of salt. ;) I don't take offense by the fact that you genuinely seem to think I'm either a liar or perhaps blind or dumb. If anything, I'm impressed by you and wish I could offer you the kind of high level logical debate you seem you want (though you can be as illogical as I, near as I can tell), but also frustrated by your apparent unwillingness to see certain things.

Well, now you are changing your tune. People could inherit a private home for personal use. Maybe a few more, considering some people have "summer" homes. Possibly a few more than that, if Mom was a small-scale real estate entrepreneur. But like all industries, there would be limits to its size.

(If you mean that people would just start keeping houses instead of money as a way to "save" wealth, clearly at some point it would be "too much" for inheritance tax to overlook. No one is going to be convinced that all of them are for personal use.)

That was exactly what I mean. It would be very difficult to differentiate between what would be considered personal property, and what would be considered working capital when it came to real estate. Wealthy individuals could invest in large homesteads worth millions of dollars and pass it down as personal property, all the while borrowing against it and using it for capital.

First of all, the government does not provide "very cheap" housing. It provides free housing to those who want it. But it would not be especially attractive. More like one-room apartments with a pull-out sofa, perhaps -- or whatever the democratic government decided was "basic." Now, presumably no private entrepreneur would try to compete at this level -- there would be no point. No one would want to pay for a crappy apartment if they could get it for free.

Yes, I understand that, but if 200 square foot apartments are free, then the demand for 300 square foot apartments is driven down, and larger apartments in relation. I think the solution remains with making sure whoever wants a job will have one, while housing can only be subsidized not completely paid for.

But besides those basic units offered by social services, the government would simply run profit-making firms -- just like the private ones -- that offer rental apartments. (What makes you think they could offer them for any cheaper than private landlords?)

Alternatively, there is no obvious need for real estate to be run on a massive scale -- unlike something like the auto industry, in which economies of scale have a profound effect: one simply cannot compete unless one is selling a lot of cars. So real estate (besides the bare minimum) might be entirely private, with limits on the total number of units that an individual can own (possibly combined with a form of progressive taxation on profits) .

I think that real estate would need to be entirely private, while the government makes sure that the individual can afford housing. Otherwise, I don't think it would be a healthy market.

Speaking of the Fed, it already operates as an autonomous branch of the government, with its own budget, costs and revenue. It happens to be run as a non-profit, but there is no practical reason that Congress could not change the law to have the Board run it for profit.

EDIT: Actually, I can think of a few good reasons not to do that in the case of the central bank. The point is that the Fed operates just like the sort of firms I have been describing, except that it is non-profit.

Yes, but the nature of the Fed and the nature of a business is very different. The Fed is a regulatory entity and isn't driven by profit. I think that if it were driven by profit, that we would see a big problem in our monetary system.

If the government can manage to police corporations that are busily hiding their books, how much more easily can they audit their own employees?

I worry that a profit driven government may be less concerned about policing their employees than a regulatory one.

It really is the best of both worlds.

I still don't agree there, but more as a matter of government power than the ideal application of the system.

Reworking how? I like the idea of a graduated inheritance tax in any case, but I would like to know more about what kind of restructuring you have in mind.

Maybe mandatory term limits for board members and salary caps for corporate officers to start with. Stock percentage ownership limits, mandatory stock options for all employees. Maybe public ownership of stock through government ran mutual funds. That flirts with market socialism, but it maintains government as a regulatory entity, and keeps the basic nature of the rights of capital.

Probably not, or only at a discount. If people only saved and/or wisely invested their money, it would be great. But people tend to put their money into depreciating material goods and intangible services, so already you may be taking a discounted account. It relies on the "bet" that, on average, people will not piss away their earnings. (To illustrate: pick any person at random and calculate their net worth at the beginning of the year. Now let them work all year... and calculate their net worth at the end of the year. I think you will find that very little of a person's earnings tends to transfer into an increase in net worth.) No, I think it is more practical to take a bit of the wealth when it is produced, whether through taxes or government profits.

Wouldn't a net worth drop for one person be a gain for another? After all money is not depreciable (in the sense that goods are depreciable), and when one person gains a TV another gains a couple hundred dollars. I realize while I am typing this that our trade deficit would make this theory tenuous at best, so maybe an income tax would still be applicable.

Some people have suggested a federal sales tax, so that we tax spending instead of earning. Among the benefits would be the fact that it makes savings easier for the poorest classes, since it gives them a little extra money and with some self-restraint they can put it towards education or investment that may make upward social mobility more likely -- the promise of capitalism realized. (It also eliminates those awkward positions at the cusp of a higher tax bracket, when people are reluctant to make an earnings leap for fear that, after taxes, their net earnings may be reduced.) I have my doubts about the whole idea, but they are beside the point and too much to go into here.

I like the graduated income tax because of the marginal utility of a dollar.

If we went to a sales tax the poor would pay a tax on nearly all of their income, while the rich could offset their tax through investment.

A lot of starving and homeless have thought just as you do on that one, right up until the path became set.

So? That just means that up until they failed they must have been motivated by things other than such threats.

Doesn't mean the threat isn't always there, lurking in the background, just because you're not so poverty stricken that missing a day of work leads to a hungry night.

Yes, but it does seem to imply that the threat is not among my primary motivations for working hard.

Okay, your point of empirical experience was "vastly more political power" for those with "vastly more wealth." Suddenly your first conclusion is now vast wealth gives a person "undue" political influence. It's obvious, the point of evidence; it is not obvious the moral judgment of your conclusion.

It is if "undue" is an adjective that can be applied to "vastly more." But that relies on the second premise (which you exclude in your response), viz. that democracy requires an egalitarian distribution of power amongst private citizens. To reiterate, if democracy requires political equality, and vast wealth is coequal with vast political power, vast wealth is a serious problem for democracy. Or for a democratic republic, which relies on the same principle. Unless you prefer a hereditary aristocracy or a de facto oligarchy to either of these, it follows that a responsible democracy must take limits to curb excessive wealth. This is a truth about democracy that has been understood for more than two thousand years. (Actually, most political theorists over the last two millennia have gone further, insisting that a measure of economic equality benefits even the most politically hierarchical regimes.)

Complex sentence perhaps?

No, a complex sentence amounts to a misuse of the word "and." The fallacy of which you accused me would have been a fallacy of prejudicial language. (You thought I used a moral term rather than an objectively descriptive one.)

As for conclusion 2, can you think of anything else that unbalances political equality?

Sure. Lack of education -- democracy requires that people get a decent one. Deprivation (excessive poverty as opposed to excessive wealth), since people whose largest concern is survival rarely have time or resources to bother with politics. Proximity to politics -- there is a decent chance that people close to the center of power may have more influence than people who live far away. Those are the big ones that I can come up with... feel free to add more if you think of them.

Are all things that unbalance political equality things that should just be outlawed or otherwise "not allowed?"

All things that unbalance political equality are things with which a democracy should be concerned. Little is "all or nothing" -- there are costs and benefits to be weighed. For instance, in theory one could suggest that the most politically equal society would be absolutely equal (as some communists in fact argue). However, there are rather obvious costs to absolute (or even near-absolute) equality, both in terms of extreme limits on freedom and in terms of overall economic health. thus, rather than absolute or near-absolute equality, I advocate "relative" equality.

If I have not done so before, I apologize for the vagueness of the terms... but as I know I have said before, I can only be vague because the specific limits have to be decided by the political society that enacts them. The democracy has to debate within itself what "relative equality" means -- and of course the wealthiest are as free as anyone else to have their voices heard. But by using "relative" as opposed to "mostly" or "near-absolute," I mean to imply that my personal preference leans toward allowance. After all, I do highly value economic freedom, and if political freedom -- which I also highly value -- costs something in economic freedom, I want it to be as small a cost as is practical.

I just think that at present, our society could do to pay a little more in economic freedom so as to buy a little more in political freedom. (Campaign contribution limits are also a limit on economic freedom in the name of political freedom, by the way. It is just something democracies have to do.)

Of the problems I mention above, only proximity to the center of power is essentially an insoluble problem for a society on the scale of the United States -- we can hardly make people live equal distances from Washington, D.C.!!! Of course, this is one of the reasons I am an anarchist... I believe that real political freedom requires that communities govern themselves on much smaller scales, thus reducing the problem of proximity.

(This was a big issue during debates over the U.S. Constitution. Anti-federalists worried that the central government would simply be too far away from most people for them to have a voice.)

However, less people will work when you take away the major consequences of not working that exist today.

My emphasis -- I added it because it indicates a place in which we seem to be coming closer to agreement. I knew you couldn't really believe what you were saying -- that all people are fundamentally motivated to work by fear of deprivation and not the desire for more. Now we come to the real point.

I agree with you. It is likely that on the margins, a few people who work in our society because they fear deprivation will not work in the socialist society that I describe. I suspect you think the number of such people must be relatively high; I think it will be rather low. Thus, while there may be some economic cost, I think it will be well worth the benefits.

Am I correct in identifying this as our point of disagreement?

Yes, but not as many, and overall less work will be done.

I agree. There is no doubt that a transition to a socialist society will probably mean slightly less economic growth. (I have already explained why I am suspicious of growth anyway.) However, there is already less growth in America's capitalism than economists predict for a truly free market; but we are willing to sacrifice a little growth for goods like safety regulations and an eight-hour day. Economic productivity is not such a good that it should be achieved at all costs -- we have already decided that.

Society will be less productive, and there will be an underclass of freeloaders just as there is today, only more so.

Yep. They won't get much for their laziness -- some cheap but healthy food and adequate but unimpressive housing -- but there may be a few more of them. However, there will be a few differences:

(1) Regardless of whether Mom and Dad are freeloaders, their children will be entitled to decent food and a quality education.
(2) Many lazy bums may, at some point, become tired of their situation and want to change it, but they have real trouble finding a way out; they have no resources with which to educate themselves, many may be too dirty or undernourished to make an appearance at a job interview, and so on. A socialist society would provide the means necessary for the unproductive to become productive, whereas capitalism actually makes it difficult for them to decide to have a job.

I'm not, and I never said every single person would cease to work. At least I never meant that, I'll let you pick through and see if that's what I wrote.

You certainly seemed to insist that fear of deprivation is the primary motivation to work, implying that most -- if not all -- people would be reluctant to work without such motivation. However, I apologize for misinterpreting her intent.

Well, in a society, there must be SOME limits to freedom...

That's right. :D So it comes down to a matter of cost/benefit analysis.

Uh, your experience. Not really what I'd call proof. I can offer opposite experiences as well.

Hey, I'm not the one who made an absolute claim -- I offered a counter-example to one.

Besides, moving around in the same country is not the same as moving to a country that is more, or less, free than your own country. Freedom is such a good thing that it should be worth enough to overcome the usual hassles involved with short, nonexotic moves, no?

It should be, yes. I only wish people could recognize freedom (and the lack thereof) when they see it.

Either you are irrational because you choose to live in a place that is not better than where you could manage to live and would enjoy. Or, you're not quite honest and the fact that you do not choose to live in a supposedly better place means it's not actually any better.

Actually, it is a combination of both. :D

First, the "not quite honest" part: We were talking about whether I would move to get to a "better place to live," by which we were referring to a place with a better (presumably, more free) government and/or economic system. I pointed out that plenty of people live under governments they dislike, and see better ones across the ocean (or even next door), but choose not to move. The reason for this is that people have attachments to friends, family, and even the place they grew up with that they may not be able to take with them. Now, we agree that freedom and good government are very desirable things... but you also have to admit that people have powerful psychological attachments to goods that they may not be able to take with them. So overall, they do stick with the place they "like" best... but only because the other goods attract them so strongly. Thus, the fact that people remain under a government is not evidence that they like the government, or even like it better than any other options: they may simply have attachments (or commitments) that preclude the option of moving.

Second, the "irrational" part. Some of us have this problem of caring. We may look at another country (like Norway) and think to ourselves, "now that is a good place to live." But we stay here, not because we like it better, but because we have some sense of duty to our fellow citizens, or "irrational" national pride, or whatever. Or maybe we just "like" feeling that we can make a difference. So we get politically involved and try to make our country more like the one we think is best -- or even like something better. It is irrational, or at least seemingly so, in that it is not apparently motivated by self-interest (and that is what people are calling "rational" these days).

Well, by treating it like a noble's prized hunting grounds that he wants kept clean, it implies ownership to me.

Not at all. The noble also excludes other people from enjoying his hunting grounds, so keeping them clean is not a public good, it is a private good. A public good is one that is enjoyed by everyone. (The fact that you may not like clean air is not the issue. In order to purchase public goods, the people have to act together... which means that the only reasonable way to decide "what counts" as a public good is through democratic decision-making.

I don't think we share enough common ground to even argue, since there's so much disagreement that stems from basic values and failures of understanding. Yes, on both sides.

I don't know, we may have actually made some headway here or there... ;)

I'm curious, does that mean you give homeless people food? Or do you dismiss personal action since YOUR own behavior couldn't have enough effect on reducing crime or taxes?

Me personally? Sure, I give homeless people food. I also contribute to public radio and saving the whales. Just because there is an undersupply of public goods doesn't mean there is no supply... because there just happen to be saps like me out there who don't mind (a) taking the risk that we "waste" our money because it will never be enough to purchase the good we require; or (b) understanding that whatever amount of the good is produced, it will be enjoyed by a lot of people who didn't pay in. The problem is undersupply. (It is a bit difficult to explain better than that without significantly lengthening an already long post.)

Well they also 'bought' profit producing industries too. The ones "too large" or not "personal" enough to be in private hands. It was my understanding that was one way you intended the rise in taxes to not be as extreme (or even happen?).

Actually, I intend to pretty much eliminate taxes, or to come as near as possible to it. Taxes in a market socialist country should go down, not up.

So, the government is now as I said concretely wealthy, with more means to increase it's own wealth,

Yes.

and with a vested interest in doing so.

If you consider purchasing goods that benefit everyone a "vested" interest.

There's nothing inherent to democracy about collective funds at all. The majority decides the politicians, but once it's their decision the majority has no say.

I have already admitted that on the scale of modern states this is largely true. Republican democracy acts as an approximation of truly popular government. Elected officials gain office on a popular platform, then they stay in office by trying to do what people want in order to win frequent elections.

Unfortunately, in practice their service to small but wealthy interests makes as much or more difference. Certainly this can be improved. (Actually, research indicates that politicians are surprisingly responsive to public opinion as expressed in polls and through the media -- even more responsive than political scientists at first imagined. Even the least democratic arm of our government -- the judiciary, one of my personal areas of expertise -- seems to be responsive to public pressure.)

Once the taxes are in it's not "collective funds" or "the public's," it's controlled by those politicians...

,.. who are controlled, by and large, by public opinion. Seriously, people are cynical about this (mostly following Nixon -- public evaluation of all branches of the government except the judiciary went down dramatically during that fiasco), but all the empirical research indicates that for the most part the American government responds to public pressure.

In order to function? No. Capitalism functions even in shrinking economies, and your allusion to some mythical final-state "global economy" that has no potential for new markets doesn't frighten me into agreeing.

I do not think there is any way to continue the discussion of growth and non-growth economies until you learn a lot more about economics. (I mean no offense by this... I just don't think I can explain at all briefly the economic premises from which I am attempting to proceed.) It is a rather tangential topic to the main discussion anyway.



In response to my assertion that "no democracy can do away with the right to lobby the government," you write:
"Why not? I don't think they'll so easily "change definitions of success" and adopt your socialist morality either. Does that mean its futile to try?

It may not be futile to try, but if you achieve it you won't have democracy anymore. The right to lobby the government for redress of grievances is fundamental to our entire political system.

Why not? History doesn't have any lessons for you or the world?

Certainly it does! But you have to put them into context.

Since no one knows why it hasn't happened that doesn't prove anything. It could be any number of reasons, not simply the fact that they're democracies.

In that you are at least partially correct -- since no one knows why it works, there may be an unidentified variable that is the real cause of the correlation. However, there is really strong evidence that the theory is accurate, even if we do not know why. Political scientists have accumulated literally thousands of variables about modern countries -- wealth, religion, literacy, etc. etc. -- and so far the political system seems to be the significant variable, with the observed fact being that democracies do not go to war with each other.

And just what nations are you considering as "democracies" now?

I will have to be honest and admit that I cannot say for sure; International Relations is not my field, although I know the important theories. However, given the acceptance of the theory in the field (and political scientists are reluctant to say anything "for sure," I can state with some confidence that it appears to hold up.

The ones owned by governments, and elected officials?

No, most of them were private individuals or corporations. By the time the United States declared independence, virtually all slave owners were private individuals, and the ones who belonged to public officials belonged to them in a private capacity.

They were franchised. Stalin, Mao, Hitler? The worst world war, the biggest genocides, the most tyrannical dictators.

Still, you have to deal with the variable of constitutional type. Democracies, based on the available evidence, cannot be lumped in with the others. (FYI, this is a fallacy of definition.) :)

They weren't just tyrannical owners of corporations or guilds...

Hmm... Good point. Given the successes of democracy on the government front, I wonder what it might do to make corporations more democratic?

Anonymous, except not since anyone reading this knows the location. There are a limited amount of people of this type in town. And because I've already said I DON'T WANT TO.

Fine, I'll let up on it. I didn't realize it was such a big deal. I thought you were just trying to spare me. :)

Is it so hard to believe that in someone else's experience, government has been a worse employer than private employers? I must be lying, since no one could possibly experience such a thing? Are you so naive?

No, but I am not trying to argue absolutes. I could point out that I also know some perfectly decent businesspeople, some of whom are better than anyone I know in government -- although these tend not to climb very high on the corporate ladder. I also know some real jerks in government. But from everything I have seen, the general trend appears to be that people enter government for better motives than those who enter business. Political scientists call this a "selection variable."


You sure? An ape can choose this action or this one. Just because he can't discuss it with you beforehand doesn't mean he is somehow fated to act one single way at all times.

I don't think he is. But I still don't think his decisions are moral in the same sense that a person's are. Moreover, I suspect that on this particular argument our definitions and assumptions really are too much in conflict to hope for common understanding.

Apes don't have a "public."

My point exactly. So how can we answer political questions by looking at non-political animals?

Because there are consequences. And actually, I could do exactly that, now couldn't I? I'd just suffer the consequences. So where does us being so moral come in?

It comes in because the reason there are consequences is that we label certain actions blameworthy -- as morally wrong. There may be consequences for an ape, too (being top-ape can be a dangerous position), but not because anyone blames him. And the consequences for humans do not, as you think, rely solely on the desire to protect ourselves. If they did, then reasonably we would think a mentally handicapped, insane, or juvenile criminal should get the same punishment as a fully-capable adult; instead we punish them with consideration to culpability as well.

Yeah, but we're supposedly more moral than apes. Or I think you meant that we HAVE a sense of morality - hence our more moral ACTIONS?

No one ever said having a moral sense necessarily makes one act morally. If it did, there would be no need for a moral sense.

What good is morality if its shared by the least moral behaving of species?

Is that not precisely why we need it so badly?

Governments are artificial beasts with their own instincts, which you have no real solution of "taming."

Yes, I do. Democracy; ultimately, anarchy. All empirical evidence points to the fact that democracy has a "taming" effect on governments... and what other evidence do we have? Divine inspiration?

[Actually, that presents a fallacious false dilemma... but the rhetoric flowed so nicely I just couldn't resist!] :D

Basically, you're turning me anarchist...

Yippee!! Too bad you are sounding like an anarchist of the primitivist variety. If you find that attractive, you should read John Zerzan: brilliant man, possibly crazy. He was friends with Ted Kaczynski. ;) He was also the inspiration for a lot of the anarchists in Seattle, '99.

And in a way I am, because I do advocate the destruction of civilization and a reversion to hunting and gathering - at least I would if I didn't know it wouldn't be too long before we started calling the tribal Big Man a "Chief" and then his council of friends a "government."

HA!! I knew it! Check out Zerzan's book Elements of Refusal. You'll like it.

Self criticism and self improvement also can find that out.

Sure... but I think some good discussions help. We have a tendency to hide things from ourselves that friends can point out.

In my case, usually better than some random person attempting to win. Ooh, ooh, I meant attempting to point out my incorrect assumptions, since there is no feeling of "winning" for you. Except you already stated that there was, didn't you?

Yes, I did. And I certainly never claimed to have no sense of pride in winning an argument -- that would be ridiculous. I just try to recognize it, and more importantly recognize when it is pushing me to say things just to win. I would prefer not to allow it to be my primary motivation.

You don't recognize this as rational thought? Interesting. Why, because I've made a fallacy or two?

No... It just starts to look a little irrational when you don't care that you've made a fallacy or twenty.

You have NOT stated that it is a generally good one. You've implied the opposite.

No, I have stated quite explicitly that while its extremes are bad, in general inequality is a perfectly healthy feature of a society made up of human beings with differing interests and unequal strengths and motivations.

You're smart enough to know when I'm lying just on the basis of your instant-psychic-judgment...

Was it instant? Damn, I'm getting better. :D

Now you're what, instant-psychic-psychoanalyzing me too, Freud?

I do specialize in applied psychoanalytic theory. Thanks for the practice.

Do I? If you admit that the nature of government power tends to attract people whose main concerns are getting and keeping power, I may.

First, constitutional-type is a variable you want to exclude; in non-democratic societies, desire for power is clearly a stronger call to government than in democratic ones. In the democracies? Sure, it's there. I want to do good for society, and one of the reasons I don't go into government is that I don't have any special desire for that kind of power. Indeed, in an ideal society people would compete -- to borrow from Plato -- not to rule, rather than competing to rule. But I am a cynic and I don't believe society will ever be that good. Nevertheless, all the evidence we have suggests that in democracies the desire to serve and do good is a very strong motive for becoming a politician.

But turning the government into a single publically owned corporation just means you have all the problems of private monopolies translated to a government.

No, because although the government may own major industries, it does not manage them as a single unit. Each firm is an independent entity within the government, like the Federal Reserve or Social Security today. They each have their own budget with its own costs and revenue.

Unfortunately I cannot so generalize my 'experience', so you'll have to continue to believe I am lying.

I accept that you are not lying. However, if your experience cannot be generalized it is difficult for me to imagine how one could draw general conclusions from it. It sounds like a single instance rather than a general experience.

Nice, but you got that by talking with politicians. Politicians job is to convince people like you that they are acting in the interest of the public good. They do that primarily by hiding their true motives and plans, with some bread and circuses thrown in.

True, political scientists do a lot of interviewing... but we do a lot more than that as well. When studying Congress, we do things like measuring a single Congressperson's responsiveness (in words, actions, and votes) to public opinion -- either in his home district, his home state, or in the entire country. (They tend to react strongly to their home district early in their careers, and to the entire country later in their careers, for a variety of well-known reasons.) We also do something that has the humorous name "soaking and poking," which means we basically hang around politicians in their offices, in the assembly, and so on, for extended periods of time. We interview them, we interview their staff, we sit in on their meetings with constituents, lobbyists, and fellow politicians.

From all of this evidence, we get a pretty good feel for how they work.

At best they are doing what THEY think is right for the public, like lowering or raising taxes, war, genocide etc.

To some extent that is true, especially late in their careers. Some politicians (these are relatively rare) have even been known to consciously sacrifice re-election because they wanted to stand up for an unpopular cause. However, for the most part they are responsive (although they also have to contend with powerful corporate interests -- a real problem, and a lot of them really hate the fact that they must sometimes betray their constituents in order to appease a corporation. Bill Clinton had to scrap some very promising social programs because Wall Street threatened to cause a recession if he put them into effect. THAT is what I mean by corporations having too much power.)

And use your common sense - whose a better employer, Hitler or Bill Gates?

Hey, false dichotomy. That's one for each of us.

Some asshole retail boss, or an asshole sergeant in the army?[QUOTE]

Oops, you take the lead.

[QUOTE]At least in retail or Microsoft, you can quit.

And people can quit their jobs under market socialism as well. The firms still have to compete for labor if they want to make a profit... Actually, people are more likely to quit if they are being treated like shit, considering they have a social safety net to fall back on.

Power corrupts, as is your main point about too much power in the hands of private individuals

No, my main point is that business attracts the most corrupt individuals and encourages them to be as corrupt as possible, while government does precisely the opposite. I never said power corrupts; lack of accountability corrupts -- which often goes along with power, but that is exactly why democracy is better than other forms of government.

(You will notice that lack of accountability corrupts at all levels of power. The lowest person on the scale is likely to skim from the register if no one is checking it at the end of his shift. People are wrong when they say power corrupts, because they miss this other variable.)


but what I learn from that is the government is even worse, since it has even more power.

Government is worse because it has more power... but only when it lacks accountability. It is lack of accountability that corrupts; power just amplifies the effects.

Certainly, as much as a state-company might appeal to me, I mainly see it as monopoly, or a vast, undue concentration of power and wealth.

Then you have not been reading carefully about how market socialism works. I too would oppose government monopolies in most sectors, with the exception of "natural" monopolies like roads.

How do you do it? Maybe I just type slower than I used to... but it seems like you have a team of psychic monkeys transcribing your thoughts or something.

Psychic monkeys! I wish!!!

And on a last note, please don't be offended by anything I say.

Likewise.

And take it with a grain of salt. ;)

Also likewise.

I don't take offense by the fact that you genuinely seem to think I'm either a liar or perhaps blind or dumb.

I don't think you are a liar, per se... but there have been times that I suspected you of making things up that would make your point if they actually happened/existed. One of the problems with Internet communication is that it makes it really hard to read someone. In a face-to-face conversation, "calling you out" should at least give me a read on you... on the Internet? Well, sometimes. It works often enough that I continue to do it.

If anything, I'm impressed by you and wish I could offer you the kind of high level logical debate you seem you want

As long as you are being honest and you make a genuine attempt to recognize when you are "stretching" to make an argument, I don't mind. (I like to say things like, "I concede that..." and so on.) I also find absolute arguments suspicious, and I usually pick on them... and from what I have read above, at least some of the time if I push hard enough it turns out that we are either misinterpreting each other or one of us backs off, and it turns out that we are really arguing non-absolute ends of a continuous spectrum -- which at least gives us some basis for understanding.

also frustrated by your apparent unwillingness to see certain things.

As am I by yours. ;)

-snip-
damn dude, that's one of the longest posts I have EVER seen, anywhere.

-snip-
damn, same goes for you.

This is one of my favorite refutations of Marxism, and I'll just post it for kicks. (Don't forget Poland!!!!!)

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/articles/kolakowski.html

I have had to ignore Santa Barbara's posts just for the sheer size of them and respond only to AnarchyeL. I don't know how he manages to respond to the both of us.

That was exactly what I mean. It would be very difficult to differentiate between what would be considered personal property, and what would be considered working capital when it came to real estate. Wealthy individuals could invest in large homesteads worth millions of dollars and pass it down as personal property, all the while borrowing against it and using it for capital.

Yes, I concede that it would be very difficult -- but not impossible. If an estate tax makes sense at all, then politics will work out the details.

Yes, I understand that, but if 200 square foot apartments are free, then the demand for 300 square foot apartments is driven down, and larger apartments in relation.

To some extent. But the effect on demand decreases significantly as floor-space increases. That means there might not be a market for 300-square-foot apartments, but the market market for 1,000 square-foot (a little less than average in Manhattan) plus apartments should be barely affected.

Of course, I imagine the problem is even less pronounced than our discussion suggests. After all, the free housing would be necessarily limited, and would probably require an application, much like unemployment or today's low-cost government housing. Thus, if you want to make more money, you will also be compelled to rent an apartment on the open market.

Yes, but the nature of the Fed and the nature of a business is very different. The Fed is a regulatory entity and isn't driven by profit. I think that if it were driven by profit, that we would see a big problem in our monetary system.

I agree, but only because it happens to be concerned with the monetary system.

I worry that a profit driven government may be less concerned about policing their employees than a regulatory one.

The only reason the current government is concerned with policing is because there is political demand. As long as there remains political demand, the government will have an interest in policing. And policing their own employees will be easier than policing the employees of others.

Maybe mandatory term limits for board members and salary caps for corporate officers to start with. Stock percentage ownership limits, mandatory stock options for all employees.

I agree with all of those, but I still do not think it solves the problem, however, as the executives still have a pressing private interest as opposed to a public one. The face of the corporation rotates, but its essential behavior remains the same.

Maybe public ownership of stock through government ran mutual funds. That flirts with market socialism, but it maintains government as a regulatory entity, and keeps the basic nature of the rights of capital.

Better, but I still don't think it goes far enough.

Wouldn't a net worth drop for one person be a gain for another? After all money is not depreciable (in the sense that goods are depreciable), and when one person gains a TV another gains a couple hundred dollars.

Yes, but unless that person never spends the money, it is just as likely to go into depreciable (or intangible/non-lasting) goods. The average person earns hundreds of thousands of dollars in a lifetime, but accumulates very little net worth. College graduates and workers with advanced degrees can earn millions of dollars in a lifetime, but certainly are not worth millions when they die. On the other hand, a heavy estate tax directed at the very wealthiest estates might generate enough revenue to make up for it. (Indeed, the preceding facts are intimately bound up with the fact that our economy tends to transfer liquid wealth and capital (durable) goods UP the economic laddder.) In any case, the details involve an equation that I do not have the resources or the patience to solve. ;)

I realize while I am typing this that our trade deficit would make this theory tenuous at best, so maybe an income tax would still be applicable.

Good, I hadn't thought of that.

I like the graduated income tax because of the marginal utility of a dollar.

Me too. So it is just (people get taxed the "same" utility) and it does some good -- reducing inequality.

If we went to a sales tax the poor would pay a tax on nearly all of their income, while the rich could offset their tax through investment.

Those are among the reasons I don't like it, yes. It has been argued that the poor would (or could) buy mostly food and clothing, and the federal government could refuse to tax these (like many state governments), while much heavier taxes for luxury items would shift additional burden to the rich... and some of those arguments make some sense. So I am not completely convinced either way. Like I said, I am "suspicious."

I have had to ignore Santa Barbara's posts just for the sheer size of them and respond only to AnarchyeL. I don't know how he manages to respond to the both of us.

When I get into a groove, I can type almost 90wpm. (I won an award for it in middle school!!) :D

Also, this happens to be a subject I know rather well (being an element of my chosen profession). So the answers pretty much tend to "flow."

(Not that it doesn't get tiring... Oh, my poor fingers!!!!)

sorry to be my dark self but in the end its all one waste of time. when u take away all the martialism. U're left with only basic human needs. everything (competivism, martialism,) is just a distraction until death. it doesn't matter b/c working more then the other guy doesn't make u better then him, and doing nothing just makes u a lazy dum. but really wats the point, it seems to be just a big video game that when "mom" calls ur going to turn it off. just a big utter waste of time. all we and anyother animal need is a shelter, food, and love but even then u don't need love, but u might be a lil disfunctional. the more stuff we make to distract us the more messed up the world gets. the thing is that people don't see these things so nothing will ever change. I remember yesterday me and my dad were having a talk about the state of mind about "being" and i look over theres a guy eating his pankcakes and doing his bills and i said to myself just like him the rest of the world is, so wats the point of trying to look outside the box? next time ur trying to beat ur friend at mortal kombat and u loose just say w/e don't matter b/c u know what it doesn't. NS rocks b/c it lets me make my nation like i would want the world to be (read my nation's motto)..... so yea capitilism is full of its flawess mainly hypocrisy and communis is just too full of deamers. just gotta go with the majority and make urself and ur loved once happy. :fluffle: :p :D

Yes, I concede that it would be very difficult -- but not impossible. If an estate tax makes sense at all, then politics will work out the details.

Ahhh, that wonderful reliance on politicians again. Since they are among the class that will be limited by such taxes and laws, I can hardly trust them to work the details fairly.

To some extent. But the effect on demand decreases significantly as floor-space increases. That means there might not be a market for 300-square-foot apartments, but the market market for 1,000 square-foot (a little less than average in Manhattan) plus apartments should be barely affected.

Of course, I imagine the problem is even less pronounced than our discussion suggests. After all, the free housing would be necessarily limited, and would probably require an application, much like unemployment or today's low-cost government housing. Thus, if you want to make more money, you will also be compelled to rent an apartment on the open market.

I think the effect would be moderate at least. It may still be profitable, but I'm not sure how much.

But you may be right about the problem being less pronounced than what we are going by, and that is all the more evidence that a major restructuring isn't needed, only minor reforms.

I agree, but only because it happens to be concerned with the monetary system.

I see.

The only reason the current government is concerned with policing is because there is political demand. As long as there remains political demand, the government will have an interest in policing. And policing their own employees will be easier than policing the employees of others.

I am not sure how much political demand there actually is. The general public doesn't really monitor the government as it is, but maybe they would be more active if the government gave them their paycheck. I worry that if the government actually did do a good job of providing for the people the people would be less and less independent from the government, which I don't feel is a good thing. I am sure you hear that argument a lot.

I agree with all of those, but I still do not think it solves the problem, however, as the executives still have a pressing private interest as opposed to a public one. The face of the corporation rotates, but its essential behavior remains the same.

I personally don't feel the corporation is that bad of a thing, as long as corruption does not get a foothold.

Better, but I still don't think it goes far enough.

And I think your system goes to far. We may have met our stalemate as I cannot accept a system that gives the government so much power. I don't feel democracy is strong enough to handle it.

Yes, but unless that person never spends the money, it is just as likely to go into depreciable (or intangible/non-lasting) goods. Plus, there is inflation. On the other hand, a heavy estate tax directed even at the wealthiest estates might generate enough revenue to make up for it... it's an equation that I do not have the resources or the patience to solve. ;)

Me neither, we will let this fall by the wayside.

Good, I hadn't thought of that.

Yes, another reason we will not have to worry about the retaining of income for the inheritance tax.

Me too. So it is just (people get taxed the "same" utility) and it does some good -- reducing inequality.

I get frustrated by the "conservatives" who argue for a flat tax as the only just tax, when a graduated tax is a true capitalistic tax rate.

Those are among the reasons I don't like it, yes. It has been argued that the poor would (or could) buy mostly food and clothing, and the federal government could refuse to tax these (like many state governments), while much heavier taxes for luxury items would shift additional burden to the rich... and some of those arguments make some sense. So I am not completely convinced either way. Like I said, I am "suspicious."

I am on the side of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

sorry to be my dark self but in the end its all one waste of time. when u take away all the martialism. U're left with only basic human needs. everything (competivism, martialism,) is just a distraction until death. it doesn't matter b/c working more then the other guy doesn't make u better then him, and doing nothing just makes u a lazy dum. but really wats the point, it seems to be just a big video game that when "mom" calls ur going to turn it off. just a big utter waste of time. all we and anyother animal need is a shelter, food, and love but even then u don't need love, but u might be a lil disfunctional. the more stuff we make to distract us the more messed up the world gets. the thing is that people don't see these things so nothing will ever change. I remember yesterday me and my dad were having a talk about the state of mind about "being" and i look over theres a guy eating his pankcakes and doing his bills and i said to myself just like him the rest of the world is, so wats the point of trying to look outside the box? next time ur trying to beat ur friend at mortal kombat and u loose just say w/e don't matter b/c u know what it doesn't. NS rocks b/c it lets me make my nation like i would want the world to be (read my nation's motto)..... so yea capitilism is full of its flawess mainly hypocrisy and communis is just too full of deamers. just gotta go with the majority and make urself and ur loved once happy. :fluffle: :p :D

:confused:

What I actually could read didn't make too much sense.

sorry to be my dark self but in the end its all one waste of time. when u take away all the martialism. U're left with only basic human needs. everything (competivism, martialism,) is just a distraction until death. it doesn't matter b/c working more then the other guy doesn't make u better then him, and doing nothing just makes u a lazy dum. but really wats the point, it seems to be just a big video game that when "mom" calls ur going to turn it off. just a big utter waste of time. all we and anyother animal need is a shelter, food, and love but even then u don't need love, but u might be a lil disfunctional. the more stuff we make to distract us the more messed up the world gets. the thing is that people don't see these things so nothing will ever change. I remember yesterday me and my dad were having a talk about the state of mind about "being" and i look over theres a guy eating his pankcakes and doing his bills and i said to myself just like him the rest of the world is, so wats the point of trying to look outside the box? next time ur trying to beat ur friend at mortal kombat and u loose just say w/e don't matter b/c u know what it doesn't. NS rocks b/c it lets me make my nation like i would want the world to be (read my nation's motto)..... so yea capitilism is full of its flawess mainly hypocrisy and communis is just too full of deamers. just gotta go with the majority and make urself and ur loved once happy. :fluffle: :p :D

Whazat?

Ahhh, that wonderful reliance on politicians again.

Not reliance so much as a belief that it is easier to control them than it is to control capitalists. At least in a democracy politicians have some accountability. The degree of accountability depends on the strength of the democracy, of course, which is why my democratic sensibilities lead me toward anarchism.

Since they are among the class that will be limited by such taxes and laws, I can hardly trust them to work the details fairly.

They can't be "trusted" to do it. We have to keep an eye on them. The fact is, they are already limited by laws derived from a combination of public pressure (which should be strengthened) and party competition (which is also a bit weak in the U.S., but this can be improved). Really, a politician's ability to oppose the electorate comes primarily from his support in the corporate sector. Eliminate the powerful corporation, and the politician's only accountability is to the electorate -- which, for all its failings, has proven to be considerably good at keeping them in check. (You should read my previous post to SantaBarbara on the empirical evidence for this.)

But you may be right about the problem being less pronounced than what we are going by, and that is all the more evidence that a major restructuring isn't needed, only minor reforms.

I think you misunderstood me. I think the problems you suggest are negligible for market socialism. There are still huge problems in the existing capitalist system.

I am not sure how much political demand there actually is.

Well, the argument works either way. If there is a lot of political demand, and this is what drives government regulation, then this is evidence that the population is capable of controlling the government. If there is little political demand, then it must be the case that government officials choose to regulate the corporation -- against the strenuous and powerful objections of the business community -- out of the goodness of their own hearts... which means they must not be so bad after all! (Personally, I think it is actually a combination of both.)

I worry that if the government actually did do a good job of providing for the people the people would be less and less independent from the government, which I don't feel is a good thing.

First of all, people tend to be smart enough to recognize the difference between a paycheck they earn and a payment "provided" for them. Most people don't really feel dependent "on the company they work for"... they feel dependent on "their own work," which is to say they feel independent.

Generally speaking, the pattern we see is this: the more responsive an organization becomes, the more interest people take in it. The majority of people are uninterested in politics because they feel that big business runs the show. (In addition to seeing a correlation between government responsiveness and public interest, people also come right out and say this on surveys.)

Don't get me wrong. I think your suspicion of the government is a good, healthy thing... Indeed, it is what keeps people interested. (It may even be the reason that the more the government does, the more interest people take -- it may be that they recognize that the more active a government, the more need it has for public oversight.) But I think it is misdirected. Your suspicion of government officials leads you to think that you should refuse to give them the power they need to do their job -- and we already know that we need government to produce public goods that cannot be had any other way. A true democrat's suspicion calls for government transparency and accountability -- but precisely so that the government can do as much as possible for the good of all.

I personally don't feel the corporation is that bad of a thing, as long as corruption does not get a foothold.

Me too. That's why I approve of government-owned firms that operate like de facto public corporations. I just think that the private sector encourages corruption, making it more likely... Socialist firms, meanwhile, may attract executives interested in private gain (they should, to be efficient), but (1) the profits are returned directly to society rather than collected in the hands of a few people (eroding democracy); and (2) those executives are directly answerable to a system that does attract individuals interested in the common good (or at least as interested as can be), and who are themselves directly answerable to the democratic population. Think of it as a chain of direct accountability.


I get frustrated by the "conservatives" who argue for a flat tax as the only just tax, when a graduated tax is a true capitalistic tax rate.

Me too!! We agree wholeheartedly on this. (And not just a true "capitalistic" tax, of course, but a truly market-sensitive tax.)

I am on the side of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Me too. I just think it is broke.

*snip*

You may be completely correct that my distrust of government is misplaced. I have become far too tired, though, to adequately analyze it.

Tomorrow, I shall be in much better form, and will respond.

You may be completely correct that my distrust of government is misplaced. I have become far too tired, though, to adequately analyze it.

Tomorrow, I shall be in much better form, and will respond.

Hehe... I was sort of hoping we could take a break for the night!

Right, assuming your argument is correct and that they "should not have had " something, then it's not punishment or theft. But I disagree with the premise, and so will a lot of people in that society. So you call government theft "progressive taxation" but that's just MORE euphemism.

Progressive Taxation is the term for increasing the tax rate as your income increases, it has been proven by New Zealand Treasury officials to reduce the wealth in the economy.
Essentially, New Zealand Govt. could offer all the same services it now does and cut from a top progressive tax rate of 39 % to a flat tax rate of 20 % .


Well no, it's an attempt to profit by selling a good. Are you saying there'd be less advertising if there was higher population growth?

I find that countries with larger populations have higher advertising rates due to larger markets to advertise to. Just watch major american networks and compare them to other nations networks.


I can say that people who work for a private employer also may care about doing good for the people... works both ways.

I work for a private employer and I care about doing good for customers because I like it and I will get recognised for it.

Progressive Taxation is the term for increasing the tax rate as your income increases, it has been proven by New Zealand Treasury officials to reduce the wealth in the economy.
Essentially, New Zealand Govt. could offer all the same services it now does and cut from a top progressive tax rate of 39 % to a flat tax rate of 20 % .

How has it been proven?

First of all, the government does not provide "very cheap" housing. It provides free housing to those who want it. But it would not be especially attractive. More like one-room apartments with a pull-out sofa, perhaps -- or whatever the democratic government decided was "basic." Now, presumably no private entrepreneur would try to compete at this level -- there would be no point. No one would want to pay for a crappy apartment if they could get it for free.

My parents own a crappy house for rent. It was built by the government in the 30s and is in an identical state of disrepair and decay as state-owned houses. We have not raised the rent in the decade since our tenants moved in, and we haven't done much maintanence since then either.
Fact is, we get paid more than the state does for the same house essentially.
Maybe the close proximity to the shops and bus stop makes it worth a bit more, but not as much as another $60 per week. ($40 USD)

But besides those basic units offered by social services, the government would simply run profit-making firms -- just like the private ones -- that offer rental apartments. (What makes you think they could offer them for any cheaper than private landlords?)

New Zealand does this, they just don't do enough maintenance or ensure the houses aren't overcrowded by polynesians or underused by pensioners.
In short, the state doen't have to care what happens to it's property because it will get money regardless of what happens.

Alternatively, there is no obvious need for real estate to be run on a massive scale -- unlike something like the auto industry, in which economies of scale have a profound effect: one simply cannot compete unless one is selling a lot of cars. So real estate (besides the bare minimum) might be entirely private, with limits on the total number of units that an individual can own (possibly combined with a form of progressive taxation on profits) .

What will happen is a private / public mix with most people opting to take responsibility for their own house rather than live in a scummy house or bloc of soviet style flats.


Some people have suggested a federal sales tax, so that we tax spending instead of earning. Among the benefits would be the fact that it makes savings easier for the poorest classes, since it gives them a little extra money and with some self-restraint they can put it towards education or investment that may make upward social mobility more likely -- the promise of capitalism realized. (It also eliminates those awkward positions at the cusp of a higher tax bracket, when people are reluctant to make an earnings leap for fear that, after taxes, their net earnings may be reduced.) I have my doubts about the whole idea, but they are beside the point and too much to go into here.

Wrong, that was the idea behind the NZ (& Australia) Goods & Services Tax. Wealthy people don't spend all that much more unless they actually want to.
However, we now have some stupid socialist tax rebate scheme in NZ called Working for Families, a scheme where an income of $38 k leaves you better off than an income of $ 60 k. The effective tax rate from $38 k to $60 k is 90 % on income between $38k to $60k.

So, you tell me what is the point in hard work if someone else who works less hard than you gets more in the hand after tax ?

Wrong, that was the idea behind the NZ (& Australia) Goods & Services Tax. Wealthy people don't spend all that much more unless they actually want to.
However, we now have some stupid socialist tax rebate scheme in NZ called Working for Families, a scheme where an income of $38 k leaves you better off than an income of $ 60 k. The effective tax rate from $38 k to $60 k is 90 % on income between $38k to $60k.

So, you tell me what is the point in hard work if someone else who works less hard than you gets more in the hand after tax ?

A 90% tax on that bracket is ridiculously extreme, are you sure about that?

If you are correct then that is more a problem of application than the system. The graduated income tax is the best system.

Progressive Taxation is the term for increasing the tax rate as your income increases, it has been proven by New Zealand Treasury officials to reduce the wealth in the economy.

I'd like to know what these officials have "proven"... It sounds like you are referring to something like the theory behind the Laffer curve. You know, the notion that there is an "ideal" tax rate at upper incomes, and if you tax them more than that you discourage people from increasing wealth. The result is that you wind up collecting less total tax revenue than you would at a lower tax rate.

The fact is, it's good theory... but no one knows where the turnaround point is. All empirical evidence points to its being incredibly high: people at higher incomes feel motivated to get more -- even if taxation means it's not as much more as possible -- even with extremely high taxation.

Essentially, New Zealand Govt. could offer all the same services it now does and cut from a top progressive tax rate of 39 % to a flat tax rate of 20%

I highly doubt that. A tax rate of 39% is not at all likely to have hit the downside of the Laffer curve.

I work for a private employer and I care about doing good for customers because I like it and I will get recognised for it.

Good for you. When I worked for a private employer, I also cared about doing good for customers -- and I did get recognized for it. I got "appreciation" letters from customers; sometimes they would call my manager to tell him what a good job I had done for them. Occasionally I would even win a little "contest" or two run by the company.

But you know what I could never be? Management. The people that get promoted are the ones that care about the company, not the ones that care about the company before the customer. That means that I shouldn't have been giving out adjustments on bills just because the company screwed up -- I should have been arguing with people, and only refunding money if they threatened to cancel. If, that is, I wanted to be management.

My parents own a crappy house for rent. It was built by the government in the 30s and is in an identical state of disrepair and decay as state-owned houses. We have not raised the rent in the decade since our tenants moved in, and we haven't done much maintanence since then either.
Fact is, we get paid more than the state does for the same house essentially.
Maybe the close proximity to the shops and bus stop makes it worth a bit more, but not as much as another $60 per week. ($40 USD)

Okay... great. Apparently that means Vittos and I are wrong, and government housing shouldn't really have much impact on the private market. But that's great... I thought the small impact it was going to have would just be one of those "costs" of socialism, but apparently not. Thanks for the info.

New Zealand does this, they just don't do enough maintenance or ensure the houses aren't overcrowded by polynesians or underused by pensioners. In short, the state doen't have to care what happens to it's property because it will get money regardless of what happens.

Why does it get money "regardless of what happens"? Based on the point to which you are replying, you are claiming that the government is competing with private firms... is the private sector not providing adequate competition?

What will happen is a private / public mix with most people opting to take responsibility for their own house rather than live in a scummy house or bloc of soviet style flats.

Yes, that is the very thing of which I have been trying to convince everyone.

Wrong, that was the idea behind the NZ (& Australia) Goods & Services Tax. Wealthy people don't spend all that much more unless they actually want to.

Okay, fine. I've already said I don't really support a sales tax replacing income tax... I just thought it was an interesting idea, but with too many flaws for me to support it without more evidence. You provide evidence against it, which is fine with me.

However, we now have some stupid socialist tax rebate scheme in NZ called Working for Families, a scheme where an income of $38 k leaves you better off than an income of $ 60 k. The effective tax rate from $38 k to $60 k is 90 % on income between $38k to $60k.

That is stupid, I agree.

So, you tell me what is the point in hard work if someone else who works less hard than you gets more in the hand after tax ?

There would be no point. I think that is idiotic.

A 90% tax on that bracket is ridiculously extreme, are you sure about that?

If you are correct then that is more a problem of application than the system. The graduated income tax is the best system.

Yes, it was deliberately designed to be that and the papers had a field day reporting it. It is designed to target the majority of voters, those with families earning aroung $38k.
See www.ird.govt.nz for more details.

Yes, it was deliberately designed to be that and the papers had a field day reporting it. It is designed to target the majority of voters, those with families earning aroung $38k.
See www.ird.govt.nz for more details.

Could you find something a little more specific? Clicking around on that site, the information I can find for individuals says that:

"The tax deducted from your income may range from 15 cents to 39 cents in the dollar."

Where is this 90% figure?

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.
Halliburton would be nothing without government. Such an enterprize isn't free-market capitalism, or any kind of socialism. It might be described as a product of mercantilism.

Wrong, that was the idea behind the NZ (& Australia) Goods & Services Tax. Wealthy people don't spend all that much more unless they actually want to.
However, we now have some stupid socialist tax rebate scheme in NZ called Working for Families, a scheme where an income of $38 k leaves you better off than an income of $ 60 k. The effective tax rate from $38 k to $60 k is 90 % on income between $38k to $60k.I don't know if your home laws are stupid, but I think you misunderstand them. In my country, it would works like that :
if you earn less than $38k, you get taxed something like 50%
if you earn 60k, 38k are taxes 50% and 22k are taxed 90%
It means that the one who earns 60k is better of than someone with 38k.

Halliburton would be nothing without government. Such an enterprize isn't free-market capitalism, or any kind of socialism. It might be described as a product of mercantilism.
My point still stands.

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.
But then how would your regional government deal with deal with interstate/international trade? A geographically small government would have no control over things outside its border, and there are many industries in which it doesn't make sense to do buisness on a small scale.

For instance, suppose two large corporate for-profit airlines wish to put an airport in your largest city where they will fly planes in and out of to places where it's perfectly legal to be large corporate for-profit airlines. If you (and all the other people in the majority) decide to let them proceed, you can regulate their industry within your borders, but they will still be a capitalist enterprise making lots of money from you and the other hard-working people of your anarchist paradise. If you regulate them too much, it will cease to be worthwhile to fly to your city and they'll stop. You could also attempt a state-run airline, but that also has serious drawbacks. A portion of the population might have no desire to enter the airline industry, especially considering the difficulty, cost, and risk of doing so. Even if it's a small portion, it would be asking an awful lot of them (especially if they're anarchists) to support such a venture.


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 could hardly agree with you more. I'm a big fan of decentralization. We didn't need no stinking constitution. The articles were fine. It's all Hamilton's fault. :p

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.

:confused:
You couldn't be more inconsistant. Are you talking about the US federal government? It's the most powerful centralized government in all of human history. Generally, if you want something to be smaller and less powerful, you do not make it larger and more powerful.

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.)

For all you want your anarchist government to do, there sure as hell would be plenty of jobs for people to do. However, if your government pays poorly, it will get poor labor. Anyone who needs an employer of last resort will make a crappy civil servant. If you pay more, the government becomes the employer of first resort. This is what most American cities do.

BTW, do you really have a Ph.D.?

But then how would your regional government deal with deal with interstate/international trade? A geographically small government would have no control over things outside its border, and there are many industries in which it doesn't make sense to do buisness on a small scale.

I agree there would have to be a large regulatory commission on trade, like the fed, and AnarchyeL never said that the federal government wouldn't handle large unwieldy industries.

For instance, suppose two large corporate for-profit airlines wish to put an airport in your largest city where they will fly planes in and out of to places where it's perfectly legal to be large corporate for-profit airlines. If you (and all the other people in the majority) decide to let them proceed, you can regulate their industry within your borders, but they will still be a capitalist enterprise making lots of money from you and the other hard-working people of your anarchist paradise. If you regulate them too much, it will cease to be worthwhile to fly to your city and they'll stop. You could also attempt a state-run airline, but that also has serious drawbacks. A portion of the population might have no desire to enter the airline industry, especially considering the difficulty, cost, and risk of doing so. Even if it's a small portion, it would be asking an awful lot of them (especially if they're anarchists) to support such a venture.

The airline industry is a poor example to use, as it is a very unusual industry that is very difficult to manage and has no real comparison model. I believe that the entire air traffic has to be subsidized so much that even with a capitalist government, it may be better to be ran by the government.

I could hardly agree with you more. I'm a big fan of decentralization. We didn't need no stinking constitution. The articles were fine. It's all Hamilton's fault. :p

I am a big fan of centralization but limited powers, decentralized power in the government can lead to trade and human right inequalities as well as a lack of cooperation amongst the regional governments.

:confused:
You couldn't be more inconsistant. Are you talking about the US federal government? It's the most powerful centralized government in all of human history. Generally, if you want something to be smaller and less powerful, you do not make it larger and more powerful.

That's what I think, too, as I don't want the government receiving as much power as market socialism would entail. But, America the "most powerful centralized government in all of human history"? Do you study much history?

For all you want your anarchist government to do, there sure as hell would be plenty of jobs for people to do. However, if your government pays poorly, it will get poor labor. Anyone who needs an employer of last resort will make a crappy civil servant. If you pay more, the government becomes the employer of first resort. This is what most American cities do.

BTW, do you really have a Ph.D.?

The employer of last resort would be for manual labor and probably retail jobs. These would not require a massive learning curve. I do wonder what he plans to do with people who are just not good workers and wouldn't be able to maintain a job, would they be just welfare cases in which they were completely supported by the government?

Vittos, I've personally met people who don't want to work, yet feel entitled to everything that they want.

Wife's ex-husband has never been able to hold a job - he always quits after the first paycheck because he can't take orders.

He brags to his kid (their child together) about the house with the three-car garage, the Harley, and the Hummer H2 that he "owns" and that the world "owes him".

He lives in the basement of his sister's house. What do we do about people like that?

Vittos, I've personally met people who don't want to work, yet feel entitled to everything that they want.

Wife's ex-husband has never been able to hold a job - he always quits after the first paycheck because he can't take orders.

He brags to his kid (their child together) about the house with the three-car garage, the Harley, and the Hummer H2 that he "owns" and that the world "owes him".

He lives in the basement of his sister's house. What do we do about people like that?

I don't know how he managed to get all of the crap he owns, and I don't deny that people like that are out there. But I think that no matter what system you have, that he should be given a basic level of sustenance by the government. If you don't work you live in a crap tank apartment and receive food stamps. I would also say that, from your discription, he would not need the sustenance.

What I do hate, and AnarchyeL will attest that I am a capitalist, is this notion that people will not work if the government provides a bare minimum, there will be some who are just worthless to the workforce no matter what, but it is a very small percentage, under 5%, and they still deserve the basic rights and needs of any other citizen.

But then how would your regional government deal with deal with interstate/international trade?
In much the same way present governments deal with it. But more in a moment...
A geographically small government would have no control over things outside its border,
As much as geographically small governments today, I would imagine.
and there are many industries in which it doesn't make sense to do buisness on a small scale.
This is true -- see below.
For instance, suppose two large corporate for-profit airlines wish to put an airport in your largest city where they will fly planes in and out of to places where it's perfectly legal to be large corporate for-profit airlines.
Okay.
If you (and all the other people in the majority) decide to let them proceed, you can regulate their industry within your borders, but they will still be a capitalist enterprise making lots of money from you and the other hard-working people of your anarchist paradise.
Yes, we might do that.
If you regulate them too much, it will cease to be worthwhile to fly to your city and they'll stop.
That's true. However, as in any democracy there would probably be people arguing both sides -- and the airline would no doubt let us know how it felt. People would debate the costs and benefits of various kinds of regulations... and if the airline threatened to leave (or economists predicted it would), then the democracy would take that into consideration. I happen to like flying, but if a democratic government decides that they would rather not have access to huge airlines (for whatever reason), then they have the right to do so. (Remember that they would almost certainly have smaller airlines anyway. These crop up all over the place.)
You could also attempt a state-run airline, but that also has serious drawbacks. A portion of the population might have no desire to enter the airline industry, especially considering the difficulty, cost, and risk of doing so.
That may be true. But there are costs to everything... and if the choice was between using untrustworthy or unconscientious capitalist airlines and running one themselves, such anarchists might feel considerable pressure to run it themselves.

It is even possible that they would realize that in cases such as this, a for-profit state-run firm may not be feasible... but if they felt an airline was desirable enough, they could run it as a not-for-profit. This is not, of course, to say that it is like other "free" social services. Rather, they offer the best prices they can to maximize revenue while meeting the pressing need. (Prices would no doubt be debated. Some would claim that not enough people could afford it, others would insist that the whole venture is too costly at existing prices... the democracy would have to sort it out.) Then the government subsidizes remaining costs.

Even if it's a small portion, it would be asking an awful lot of them (especially if they're anarchists) to support such a venture.

Only a majority, theoretically.

I will suggest another possibility: since most anarchist theory -- especially socialist anarchism -- argues that anarchism should (or must, depending on the theory) proceed as an essentially global movement, we may -- I only venture to speculate here -- be dealing with a world in which most people participate in governments of a relatively small or regional scale. (There is good reason to believe that this is possible. Democracy as we know it, for the last two hundred years, has more or less swept the globe. Places that don't have it demand it -- for the most part -- and we hope to see this trend continue. Anarchists theorize that once the world is stablized into democratic republics, the pressing military need for the large state will begin to evaporate in accord with democratic peace theory: democracies do not go to war against one another. Given this situation, an decentralizing turn by any one country, if it really promotes greater freedom and happiness, will create political demand for decentralization in other countries as well.)

I know there are objections... I do not mean to present this theory as having a firmer footing than it does. But for the purpose of the argument, bear with me. If this happens, there will be no country sending huge corporate airlines abroad... but people may still want large airlines. Rather than each community organizing one themselves, several nearby regions may agree to do so together. There is nothing complex abou this... Just as various companies may own stock in another company today, the various communities would essentially be shareholders in a common enterprise: if it runs a profit, they divide the profits accordingly.

But all of this is highly speculative. The fundamental point is that the democracy would have to decide for itself.

You couldn't be more inconsistant.

I am only as inconsistent as politics requires. The problem is two-fold: on the one hand, we are really having two discussions at once -- the merits of socialism and the merits of anarchism. I believe market socialism to be the best economic policy for any society, no matter how it is governed (although I tend to assume "existing democracy or better")... and I believe anarchism to be the best political system, no matter what economic policy it chooses.

On the other hand, I believe that no idealist can ignore the realities of existing politics. So like it or not, for the moment I have to deal with the U.S. government... and I think it would do well to turn toward market socialism. At the same time, I work to build anarchist principles, primarily "from the ground up." This means building democratic communities that are capable of taking over more and more of their own government and economic concerns for themselves... but as I have hinted above, I do not think real anarchism is possible at least until liberal democracy has "saturated" the world, or most of it.

I would prefer to do these as two separate conversations: if I can convince people of the merits of socialism, and the merits of anarchism, then I will be free to discuss in more detail how one flows into the other, and how I think we can most likely achieve an appropriate mix, "from here." But I have been pushed to attempt it all at once.

Are you talking about the US federal government? It's the most powerful centralized government in all of human history. Generally, if you want something to be smaller and less powerful, you do not make it larger and more powerful.

That is true. However, I think in this case it makes more sense to socialize industry along the strongest existing political divisions, and then to have the subdivisions "creep up" to claim control. I do not think it will work to have communities, variously and at different rates, attempting to socialize industry while the rest of the country remains essentially capitalist in nature. Also, I think the U.S. can simply do a lot of good for its own people in the interim between the present and the probably far-off days of anarchism; as long as we do not allow our democracy to weaken -- and we keep working to strengthen it -- there is nothing in this that threatens anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy about ends and means, not a description of absolutes.

For all you want your anarchist government to do, there sure as hell would be plenty of jobs for people to do. However, if your government pays poorly, it will get poor labor.

The government will have to compete for labor on the same market as everyone else. Even as the employer-of-last resort, it has to deal with the fact of its own basic "safety net," which will exert at least some upward pressure on wages.

Anyone who needs an employer of last resort will make a crappy civil servant.

Now that is simply not true. Plenty of people are on unemployment because they were laid off due to downsizing, or they have been out of the workforce for several years and need to get a "foot in the door." Of course, a lot of ths "last resort" stuff will have to do with unskilled labor... but not having skills does not make one a particularly bad employee.

If people are lazy or have discipline problems, they can be fired. The government guarantees jobs who to anyone who wants a job and is willing to work. If you are just a jerk trying to get paid for nothing, you will have to make due on the basic public-assistance safety net, which will keep you alive, nourished and healthy for reasons already discussed in other posts, but which will not provide you with the things most people want out of life.

BTW, do you really have a Ph.D.?
I never said I did. I am a Ph.D. student in political science. My major field is political theory, with interests in political economy, critical theory, and applied psychoanalysis. My first minor is public law, with a heavily theoretical interest, and my second major (which requires only coursework and no comprehensive examination) is American politics, with special interests in citizenship issues and Congress.

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 don't see where you are running into trouble with this. people are naturally competative...when there is something to be gained from competition. if total equality is enforced then there is no reason to compete, because there can be no gain from such competition. humans, like all biological organisms, are motivated toward personal success, and part of the biological drive is to acheive maximal success with minimal effort. if i am going to get success level 10 no matter what i do, then i will do nothing and enjoy my success. however, if i will get success level 0 from being lazy but can reach level 10 by competing with others then i will choose to compete at the maximal level at which i can win.


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?

competition for things other than resources doesn't fit under your original question. if a person doesn't compete in ways that help support them, but only competes recreationally and expects to be supported regardless of how little they contribute or produce, then a capitalist would call that "lazy" even if they are expending lots and lots of energy. the competition the capitalist is concerned with (in your openning question) is the sort that supports the individual and leads to their own sufficience, not the sort that is for fun or personal stimulation alone.


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."
i don't think it would defeat human nature, and i think that's why Communism will never succeed. people will never remain content to be enslaved and subjugated to the failures of others, and they will never be willing to have their personal identity, successes, strengths, and labor stolen from them.

I agree there would have to be a large regulatory commission on trade, like the fed, and AnarchyeL never said that the federal government wouldn't handle large unwieldy industries.

That's right... potentially tending toward a more "cooperative" than truly federal anarchist model... but that speculates rather far into the future.

The airline industry is a poor example to use, as it is a very unusual industry that is very difficult to manage and has no real comparison model. I believe that the entire air traffic has to be subsidized so much that even with a capitalist government, it may be better to be ran by the government.

Absolutely right! Thanks Vittos, I meant to mention this in the previous post. If it were not for federal subsidies, commercial flights would be so expensive that only the super-rich could afford them. Combined with the fact that the airline industry by its very nature requires heavy supervision, it may well be more efficient to just have the government run it.

I am a big fan of centralization but limited powers, decentralized power in the government can lead to trade and human right inequalities as well as a lack of cooperation amongst the regional governments.

We basically agree here. Anarchism for me is an ideal that, for the foreseeable future, remains severely constrained by the practicalities of politics-as-we-know-it.

The employer of last resort would be for manual labor and probably retail jobs.

This is probably largely true, although there would be a need for more skilled and technical labor as well. While many industries will be run as state-run profit-maximizers, there will still be plenty of not-for-profit agencies that require lawyers, detectives and police, architects, teachers, administrators, and so on. So there would be an employer-of-last-resort approach that affects most people at the level of education and skill they have obtained. (There is no guarantee that the job you want will be available... but you can request it, or rank your preferences on a list, and the government can do its best to place you.) The result, as always, is some upward pressure on wages for both the private sector and the for-profit government firms... but that is not so different than government agency employment today.

I do wonder what he plans to do with people who are just not good workers and wouldn't be able to maintain a job, would they be just welfare cases in which they were completely supported by the government?

At that basic level, yes -- and for practical reasons already discussed. The government guarantees jobs to people who want to work -- that means you must actually want to. A poor employment history would make it rather difficult... although as always with such histories, an individual could plead with an agency manager or employment representative to "give him a chance."

I don't know how he managed to get all of the crap he owns, and I don't deny that people like that are out there. But I think that no matter what system you have, that he should be given a basic level of sustenance by the government. If you don't work you live in a crap tank apartment and receive food stamps. I would also say that, from your discription, he would not need the sustenance.

What I do hate, and AnarchyeL will attest that I am a capitalist, is this notion that people will not work if the government provides a bare minimum, there will be some who are just worthless to the workforce no matter what, but it is a very small percentage, under 5%, and they still deserve the basic rights and needs of any other citizen.

The problem is that he Does Not own any of the things he brags about - but he wishes that he did, and he tells people that he does, and he further states that the world "owes" him these things, even though he is not willing to lift a finger

Vittos, I've personally met people who don't want to work, yet feel entitled to everything that they want.

Wife's ex-husband has never been able to hold a job - he always quits after the first paycheck because he can't take orders.

He brags to his kid (their child together) about the house with the three-car garage, the Harley, and the Hummer H2 that he "owns" and that the world "owes him".

He lives in the basement of his sister's house. What do we do about people like that?

If living in the basement of his sister's house satisfies him... fine. No government can prevent people from sucking off their relatives.

In a socialist government, he could live in the government's basement. We would not, however, give him a Harley or a Hummer.

The problem is that he Does Not own any of the things he brags about - but he wishes that he did, and he tells people that he does, and he further states that the world "owes" him these things, even though he is not willing to lift a finger

Sounds like a classic narcissist. I'd tell you he should get therapy, but narcissists will never admit anything is wrong... which makes it really tough, because it usually takes a good year or two of therapy to even get them to believe that the therapist is helping. It's pretty tough to keep them in therapy that long when they don't believe they need it.

Sounds like a classic narcissist. I'd tell you he should get therapy, but narcissists will never admit anything is wrong... which makes it really tough, because it usually takes a good year or two of therapy to even get them to believe that the therapist is helping. It's pretty tough to keep them in therapy that long when they don't believe they need it.

Or we could shoot him. It is hard to love yourself when you are dead.

So, we help the people who are either willing to make the effort to keep going, or we help those who through no fault of their own (disease, disability) need help.

So, we're helping the elderly, the crippled, the lame, etc.

And we're going to shoot the demonstrably lazy.

My problem is with capitalists who say that people are "naturally" competitive and complain that because one measure of success -- wealth -- is equalized by communists, people must necessarily become passive and lazy (or actively seek to destroy the system).

There are other productive measures of competition, like status, professional esteem, and so on. If people are "naturally" competitive, then all you have to do is give them something to compete over... and watch the fun. :D

Of course, I also have a serious problem with communists who delude themselves into thinking that people are not "really" competitive, and that capitalism somehow creates competition out of nothing. They seem to believe in a magical world where everyone will only want to cooperate and no one will ever want to be better than anyone else -- or, for that matter, ever want to be better.

I also think wealth equalization is a really bad idea. I oppose extreme inequalities of wealth, but I am far from advocating exact equality.

So, we help the people who are either willing to make the effort to keep going, or we help those who through no fault of their own (disease, disability) need help.

So, we're helping the elderly, the crippled, the lame, etc.

And we're going to shoot the demonstrably lazy.

Well, I was just joking, but sure. Line 'em up and mow them down. All we have to do is pay for the bullets and about 10 minutes of labor.

My problem is with capitalists who say that people are "naturally" competitive and complain that because one measure of success -- wealth -- is equalized by communists, people must necessarily become passive and lazy (or actively seek to destroy the system).

There are other productive measures of competition, like status, professional esteem, and so on. If people are "naturally" competitive, then all you have to do is give them something to compete over... and watch the fun. :D

Of course, I also have a serious problem with communists who delude themselves into thinking that people are not "really" competitive, and that capitalism somehow creates competition out of nothing. They seem to believe in a magical world where everyone will only want to cooperate and no one will ever want to be better than anyone else -- or, for that matter, ever want to be better.

I also think wealth equalization is a really bad idea. I oppose extreme inequalities of wealth, but I am far from advocating exact equality.

Yes, I could almost punch a friend over a competitive game of Madden 2005, and yet there is no money involved in that.

Well, I was just joking, but sure. Line 'em up and mow them down. All we have to do is pay for the bullets and about 10 minutes of labor.

Yeah... and it's not like they have it in them to run or anything. ;)

Yeah... and it's not like they have it in them to run or anything. ;)

Hell, we don't even have to waste money on the bullets, we could just take away their microwaves and put the refridgerators in other rooms and they would just starve to death.

Could you find something a little more specific? Clicking around on that site, the information I can find for individuals says that:

"The tax deducted from your income may range from 15 cents to 39 cents in the dollar."

Where is this 90% figure?

Ok, it was a couple of months ago, it may still be on the sunday star-times www.star-times.co.nz or maybe you could also find something on www.act.org.nz

Just search for working for families.

I forget who asked, but the NZ treasury report on lower taxes being good for the economy has been released. see www.act.org.nz/item.jsp?id=26489

And before you ask, yes I am a member of that great party. Act believes in economic and social freedom as being the best way to ensure success.

And today's press release is that the number of 'fatherless' children of beneficiaries has increased by 26 % since socialist labour came to power.
see www.act.org.nz/item.jsp?id=26507

I challenge AnarchyeL to show me one good thing socialist governments do.
I would like to know what socialist anarchys would do that is worth supporting.

This whole problem of a "job of last resort" would be more or less eliminated in an anarchist society. it is really just a matter of perception. a janitor is only menial labor and a lawyer is only a meaningful career because we perceive them as such. menial labor is an idea we inherited from feudalism and adapted to capitalism. a large part of the anarchist revolution would inevitably be a sea-change in our culture, and part of this cultural revolution would probably be the end of any concept of menial labor.

Ok, it was a couple of months ago, it may still be on the sunday star-times www.star-times.co.nz or maybe you could also find something on www.act.org.nz

Just search for working for families.

I must be dim, because I have searched and still cannot find it. Perhaps you could just find something specific and post it?

I forget who asked, but the NZ treasury report on lower taxes being good for the economy has been released. see www.act.org.nz/item.jsp?id=26489

But that is beside the point. The question was whether it would improve government revenue. If you don't remember, you claimed that the government would take in more money with a flat 20% income tax rate than the existing graduated taxes peaking at 39%.

Everyone agrees that tax cuts (generally speaking) benefit the economy. The question is whether they do so at the cost of crippling the government. Everything is a trade-off.

And today's press release is that the number of 'fatherless' children of beneficiaries has increased by 26 % since socialist labour came to power.
see www.act.org.nz/item.jsp?id=26507

Could that be because physically or emotionally abused mothers are able to leave their abusive husbands, with government assistance???

I challenge AnarchyeL to show me one good thing socialist governments do.
I would like to know what socialist anarchys would do that is worth supporting.

Some challenge. You should read the rest of this thread.

This whole problem of a "job of last resort" would be more or less eliminated in an anarchist society. it is really just a matter of perception. a janitor is only menial labor and a lawyer is only a meaningful career because we perceive them as such. menial labor is an idea we inherited from feudalism and adapted to capitalism. a large part of the anarchist revolution would inevitably be a sea-change in our culture, and part of this cultural revolution would probably be the end of any concept of menial labor.

I highly doubt that. If anything, people would be more willing to clean up after themselves rather than have servants or janitors do it for them... but this is at least in part because under a socialist government janitors would be better paid and therefore cost more (due to a relative equalization in marginal utility).

This whole problem of a "job of last resort" would be more or less eliminated in an anarchist society. it is really just a matter of perception. a janitor is only menial labor and a lawyer is only a meaningful career because we perceive them as such. menial labor is an idea we inherited from feudalism and adapted to capitalism. a large part of the anarchist revolution would inevitably be a sea-change in our culture, and part of this cultural revolution would probably be the end of any concept of menial labor.

That is a silly idea. Being a janitor is only menial labor because you have to clean up shit. People wouldn't clean up shit unless they were paid to do it. Being a lawyer will be considered a "meaningful career" because of all the training and specialization. You can't just pick up a briefcase and be a lawyer, but pick up a mop and guess what I will call you.