NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

I think socialists promote social equality, rather than civil liberties.

I don't know. But socialism isn't freedom. It's statism, legalized theft, big government, and rampant corruption.

I don't know. But socialism isn't freedom. It's statism, legalized theft, big government, and rampant corruption.

Yep. It's a nice idea in theory, but true socialism never seems to work in practice.

Now what did Locke say? Life, Liberty, and Property. Liberty and property are two separate entities.

I think socialists promote social equality, rather than civil liberties.
Correction: how can most socialists...

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

To put it simply, not all forms of property are the same. Some forms are exploitive and authoritarian and others aren't. For example, few would argue that we arebeing oppressed because we can't own slaves. Slavery is an example of property ownership that is oppressive. Socialists extend this concept further and hold that owning means of production (but not personal possessions) is also authoritarian and advocate a more equal distribution of economic control.

Now what did Locke say? Life, Liberty, and Property. Liberty and property are two separate entities.
Are you saying there's no liberty to keep one's own property?

Correction: how can most socialists...

Yeah, good point. There is generally a great deal of diversity within political affiliations.

To put it simply, not all forms of property are the same. Some forms are exploitive and authoritarian and others aren't. For example, few would argue that we arebeing oppressed because we can't own slaves. Slavery is an example of property ownership that is oppressive. Socialists extend this concept further and hold that owning means of production (but not personal possessions) is also authoritarian and advocate a more equal distribution of economic control.
The socialist mantra says that you must share what you produce. For some, this means they do not enjoy the full benefits of what they produce, therefore their right to property (product) is being denied. If your argument is that what you produce is not necessarily yours (or your payment for producing it), then what does belong to you?

Yeah, good point. There is generally a great deal of diversity within political affiliations.
I was thinking of Democratic Socialists (http://www.dsausa.org/) specifically. The hypocrisy!

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

Depends. There are degrees in socialism. Communism is a type of extreme socialism where you can't own property, but there are countries in europe with socialist policies where property is as much of a right as in the USA.


For some, socialism is simply a way of trying to even down the rich-poor divide. That doesn't mean richs and poors don't still exist: the income difference between them is just narrower.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

They do. Well at any rate, I do.

The socialist mantra says that you must share what you produce. For some, this means they do not enjoy the full benefits of what they produce, therefore their right to property (product) is being denied. If your argument is that what you produce is not necessarily yours (or your payment for producing it), then what does belong to you?

There are many types of socialism, actually. Some forms have no problem with markets so long as all workers have a say in how the factory or other means of production is managed. Communism holds that there are benefits to sharing the products of your labor with the community and that markets are actually wasteful and harmful. Anarcho-communism doesn't require you to share your resources. If you don't want to share, you don't have to, though others don't have an obligation to support you if you don't.

Are you saying there's no liberty to keep one's own property?
No, I'm saying that liberty and property are two separate entities.

They do. Well at any rate, I do.
That makes less sense than this sentence doesn't.

Liberty is liberty. Liberty is not equality. Liberty is not sustenance. Liberty is nothing but what itself is. Liberty is the ability to do and own what you wish, just so long as your behavior hurts none. As property is inert, the right to own whatever should exist.

But a common confusion amongst some is that Liberty is economic equality, or that liberty is an offshoot of economic equality, or that liberty even needs economic equality.

Letila draws a line of exploitative property. But what is exploitative property? I'd say exploitative property is property that violates others liberties. Thus, slavery naturally fits under this category. But, beyond that Letila will want you to believe that capital property is exploitative. Which it is not.

The only difference between what has often been called capital and private property is the use of it. Sure, I can take a bunch of mud and make it into a bowl, heat it in a fire and have a bowl, crumbly yes, but it's still a bowl.

Or, I could come and take the same mud puddle, shape it into a mound clear out the inside of the mound and make a kiln. From which I can make more, higher quality bowls, which people would far prefer over the crappy campfire made bowls. Now this is a simplified definition, but it captures the spirit of capital.

But just to show that there really isn't a difference between capital and private property, I'll just expound a bit. Whilst I could obviously use the crappy campfire bowl for cooking for myself, I could also cook food for other people, and in return, they give me stuff. Thus the campfire bowl becomes capital.

The kiln too can switch to private property. As for the kiln, I can use it as a heating element for my home. Or a trash disposal, or a million other things of that nature.

My point is that property is not something in set lines. That the non-exploitative property (capital and private) can actually be embodied in a single object. And that exploitative property isn't a device, or some inanimate object. Exploitative property is where someone's rights are involunatily violated, in a circumstance such as slavery. Mind this, as consenting laborers do not fit this definition. They choose to be in their condition, and if they didn't like it, they can leave. You cannot be exploited if you consent to certain practices.

No, I'm saying that liberty and property are two separate entities.
I'd agree, but I'd also add that they can be intertwined, in the liberty to own property. As property is the inert mass, but liberty is the act.

That makes less sense than this sentence doesn't.
Some Socialists do recognise the right to private property. I [as a socialist] do recognise private property.

Now, I realise that in my sleep deprived state I can be hard to understand. However, I completely fail to see how you could fail to understand that.

Some Socialists do recognise the right to private property. I [as a socialist] do recognise private property.

Now, I realise that in my sleep deprived state I can be hard to understand. However, I completely fail to see how you could fail to understand that.
I understand what you said, what I don't understand is the argument. The idea is to explain why socialists say they promote liberty yet do not even recognize property, private or capital...

I understand what you said, what I don't understand is the argument. The idea is to explain why socialists say they promote liberty yet do not even recognize property, private or capital...
Yes, why no liberty to do as you wish with what you have?

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

Well, I don't know about the socialists you have in mind.... but how about the Hobbesian view? That is, liberties have nothing to do with rights.

There, "paradox" resolved.

Next?

Now what did Locke say? Life, Liberty, and Property. Liberty and property are two separate entities.

Actually, he usually said "life, liberty, and estate." He considered all of these "property."

But that's the sort of nonsense you get from a philosopher...

Socialism is usually used as a bad word and hardly ever really understood by the politicians using it. It’s a school of thought that includes dozens of government types and philosophical ideas. There have been several authors of socialist ideals, several eventually leading to communism. Communism focusing on a revolution that reverses the political structure; the poor gain power and the rich loose it.

Many socialist ideas are vary safely used by modern democracies and no modern socialism school advocates revolution but some minorities still hold on to the old ideas published in the industrial revolution era.

The core concepts shared by all forms of socialism are centrally controlled industries. A modern example is a government agency that regulates many privately owned power plants. This agency does not own the power plants but it sets prices and holds the owners to a common set of standards.

A belief that each working citizen should have a say in the means of production. A modern example is labor unions, where members are guaranteed a say in hours of labor/day, wages and benefits.

The belief that democracy should not be superceded by feudal systems. Each worker should be able to change policy through referendums or representation on a ruling body.

A belief that universal services should be handled equally. Everyone must eat, sleep, drink and receive an education & medical attention. Therefore they should be standardized and regulated by the state. A modern example is Canada’s socialized medicine program.

Ownership of land should be regulated. If you privately own land you have no incentive to preserve it for future generations. The fear that privately owned land will be abused through exploitation of natural resources or dumping of toxins, etc.

Remember that each communist state that has existed has not been a socialist one. Cuba is a dictatorship and Russia was an oligarchy.

Each socialist democratic state we know is a trading partner and an ally and generally has less crime and pollution than states that don’t regulate industry and see to the welfare of the people.

That each and every Democratic Capitalist state has had to socialize industry and bust down monopolies, which are the natural end result of the profit-loss system.

So it’s not really a dirty word, it’s a school of thought that is deployed by all modern society to some extent.

Liberty is the ability to do and own what you wish, just so long as your behavior hurts none.

and the second clause is where the disagreement sets in.

Now what did Locke say? Life, Liberty, and Property. Liberty and property are two separate entities.
Actually, he's saying that those things are inseperable.

I understand what you said, what I don't understand is the argument. The idea is to explain why socialists say they promote liberty yet do not even recognize property, private or capital...
Some socialists (like you'll find in a social democracy) respect private ownership (on a limited basis).
You'd be right though if we were discussing communism instead.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

individual ownership of capital is not a divinely given right, or even a necessary component of human society. and individual ownership of land runs into all sorts of problems in terms of both outcome and justification.

but not many socialists that i've ever heard of deny people the right of possession. we aren't after your toothbrush.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

From what I can tell, we socialists each fall into one of a number of categories on this issue.
(I have invented the terms that follow. To my knowledge, no published theorist has described the situation in exactly these terms. So take this as an opinion, not a text-book answer.)

1. "Light" Lockeans.

These socialists agree with the (typically capitalist) argument that a person has a natural right to the product of her or his labor. However, their theory diverges (rather vaguely) from the Lockean tradition in that they are suspicious of the capitalist's 'right' to the profits of others' labor. In my opinion, they are guilty of just as much hand-waving as Locke himself in his justification of this very right. They find their strongest ground when they take Locke seriously in his claim that no one has a right to more property than he can use productively -- which they aim especially against capital speculation, since this almost always involves the ownership of more than what one "uses."

For the Americans, this is essentially the theoretical position of the late nineteenth-century Populist Movement.

2. Full Lockeans.

Letila seems to hold something like this view. Basically, these socialists fully accept Locke's theory of property: people have a right to their product, as well as a right to the products they can buy (or which they pay labor to produce). They tend to neglect (or forget) the "no more than you can use" rule.

So, they accept the right to property. But then they say, "Well, but you can only take your rights as far as they can go before threatening the welfare of others... and we believe it can be shown that certain kinds of property / uses of property are inherently harmful to others. Society thus limits the right to property accordingly, just as it limits any other right you can think of."

3. Marxists.

Like Locke, Marx argues that a person has a right to his own product. However, Marx argues that this right is essentially non-transferrable. (At the very least he argues that such transference is unnatural. Thus, Marxists seek to change the system of property control as a moral issue. Perhaps the hardest case to make, even if it is the most interesting.

4. Hobbesians.

I happen to be a member of this group. Of course, most of these socialists would shudder to hear themselves associated with Hobbes... but that is because they have either not read the Leviathan, or they get to the establishment of the Sovereign and stop because it "sounds" too totalitarian.

Anyway, Hobbes argues that where there is no established government, people exist in a state of war in which each person has a natural right to anything and everything that he can take and keep -- which is to say that no one has a "right," in the way we think of it, at all. Thus, there is no "property" without government, since anyone who can take what I have automatically "owns" it. Possession is, quite simply, ten tenths of the "law."

Of course, Hobbes also argues that people naturally want to establish a sovereign power capable of guaranteeing contracts -- of keeping people to their word. But then the sovereign, who protects property, defines what will be protected and what not. The government creates the "right" to property, so it is perfectly within the scope of government to decide how property will be treated.

Now, most of us Hobbesians believe that as a practical matter there should be pretty liberal rights to personal property: people should be allowed to keep what they have. However, since the very purpose of government is to make rational decisions consistent with the public good, we believe that the government can and should distribute the wealth for the general good, control property that cannot be unproblematically privatized, and establish taxation to pay for public goods.

(Hobbes himself, of course, was a strong advocate of a heavy estate tax and a degree of relative equality. It is supremely ironic that he has been adopted as a forebear of capitalism -- he supported a market, but simply could not fathom it under anything but the harshest regulations -- as well as the basis for modern rational choice theory. He would like neither of them.)

No, I'm saying that liberty and property are two separate entities.
"Liberty is indivisible."
-- Milton Freidman

Liberty and property are no more seperate than are time and space.

Depends. There are degrees in socialism. Communism is a type of extreme socialism where you can't own property, but there are countries in europe with socialist policies where property is as much of a right as in the USA.
BECAUSE those countries are still fundamentally based on market economics.

Yep. It's a nice idea in theory.
No it isn't.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?
They lie.

Liberty and property are no more seperate than are time and space.
Oh, why thanks for supporting me. Seeing as time is the 4th dimension and space the 3rd. :p

Oh, why thanks for supporting me. Seeing as time is the 4th dimension and space the 3rd. :p
No it's not. As best as the eggheads can figure out, time is sorta like a common thread between the dimensions. There's a reason it's called the space-time continuum.

I'd advise, that if you are interested in this topic, that Nozick is a very interesting read. Beyond Nozick, Adam Smith is very useful, as is Friedman. I believe that these three authors lay a sufficient groundwork for capital being private property, and the intertwining of property with freedom. Very fun, I'm reading them right now for my politcal theory course.

No it's not. As best as the eggheads can figure out, time is sorta like a common thread between the dimensions. There's a reason it's called the space-time continuum.
I always thought it was time existing in space, or space existing in time, or both or something...Either way, it supports your point.

"Liberty is indivisible."
-- Milton Freidman

Liberty and property are no more seperate than are time and space.
Property is divisible. If i have an apple, I can divide it into two. Therefore if liberty is indivisible, property is clearly seperate from liberty.


BECAUSE those countries are still fundamentally based on market economics.
Socialism does not contradict the existence and operation of markets nor does it seek to eliminate them. Markets exist wherever resources are scare. Socialism is a mode of social organisation that operates in conditions of scarcity, as is capitalism. Economics is a science (or so economists claim) that attempts to predict the behaviour of markets under certain conditions so all economics is 'market economics'.

No it isn't.Yes it is


They lie.I might be a liar today but one day i will tell the truth while you will still be stupid.

Liberty is liberty. Liberty is not equality. Liberty is not sustenance. Liberty is nothing but what itself is. Liberty is the ability to do and own what you wish, just so long as your behavior hurts none. As property is inert, the right to own whatever should exist.

But a common confusion amongst some is that Liberty is economic equality, or that liberty is an offshoot of economic equality, or that liberty even needs economic equality.

Letila draws a line of exploitative property. But what is exploitative property? I'd say exploitative property is property that violates others liberties. Thus, slavery naturally fits under this category. But, beyond that Letila will want you to believe that capital property is exploitative. Which it is not.

The only difference between what has often been called capital and private property is the use of it. Sure, I can take a bunch of mud and make it into a bowl, heat it in a fire and have a bowl, crumbly yes, but it's still a bowl.

Or, I could come and take the same mud puddle, shape it into a mound clear out the inside of the mound and make a kiln. From which I can make more, higher quality bowls, which people would far prefer over the crappy campfire made bowls. Now this is a simplified definition, but it captures the spirit of capital.

But just to show that there really isn't a difference between capital and private property, I'll just expound a bit. Whilst I could obviously use the crappy campfire bowl for cooking for myself, I could also cook food for other people, and in return, they give me stuff. Thus the campfire bowl becomes capital.

The kiln too can switch to private property. As for the kiln, I can use it as a heating element for my home. Or a trash disposal, or a million other things of that nature.

My point is that property is not something in set lines. That the non-exploitative property (capital and private) can actually be embodied in a single object. And that exploitative property isn't a device, or some inanimate object. Exploitative property is where someone's rights are involunatily violated, in a circumstance such as slavery. Mind this, as consenting laborers do not fit this definition. They choose to be in their condition, and if they didn't like it, they can leave. You cannot be exploited if you consent to certain practices.

Ah, but herein lies the problem: supposing that the owner of the kiln bought up all other kilns in the area, or actively suppressed them from being built, and then charged outrageous amounts of money for the products of his kiln, as well as forcing people to work for lower and lower wages, all in the name of higher profit margins on his part, what seperates such a system from slavery? I suppose you could say that people have a "choice", but if it's a choice between paying so much that they can't afford to eat, or having nothing upon which to cook their food, they starve either way. Not much of a choice there, really.

Marx would retort that such a system is immoral and inherently unstable, and ought to be replaced with a better one. In this case, it could take one of many forms. In one case, you could have a kilnbuilder build a kiln for every person who needs one, and everyone can make their own crockery whenever it suits them. In another case, you could have one jointly-owned kiln wherein everyone can get crockery whenever they need it. In still another case, you could suppose that there would be a few kilns on one side of the village, and a shirt factory on the other side of the village, and one day the Crockery-builders meet with the Tailors and the meeting goes something like this:

Tailor: "Hey Joe!"
Crocker: "Howdy Tim!"
T: "I don't suppose you have any spare time on your hands. The buddies and I at the shirt factory were looking at our cupboards the other day, and realized most of our crockery is broken and chipped. We sure could use about a hundred plates."
C: "Funny you should mention that Tim, because us kilnworkers were just commenting on how ratty our shirts were. We could use about. . .oh 25 shirts or so when you get the time."
T: "Not a problem, Joe! I've actually been looking forward to working some more recently, as everyone has more than enough shirts on our side of the village. It'll be good to get back to the grindstone for a bit."
C: "When do you suppose you could have 'em done?"
T: ". . .Thursday sound good to you?"
C: "Yeah, it does. I should be able to get you the hundred plates by then as well, so it'll make a nice swap."
T: "Done deal. Nice seeing you, Tim!"
C: "Adios, Joe! Remember, nothing in plaid this time!"
*Both laugh, scene ends*

This demonstrates how a market mechanism would possibly work in a communist economy. In all cases, the means of production are in the hands of the working class, and distribution is based on need. Beyond that, it's pretty much free reign as to how you want to organize it. The point being that a communism doesn't have to mean an abolition of property: you still are considered in all cases to own the kilns, the crockery, the shirt factories, and the shirts. What differs is only the fact that now everyone is supposed to own the means of production, and everyone who needs the product of that production has access to it.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

Even if this is the case, economic freedom and civil freedom are separate ideas. We play NationStates, a game where you nation is measured by all of three different types of freedoms: civil, economic, and political. Socialism tends to promote a lower degree of economic freedom (communism might promote zero economic freedom, but as far as I know, socialism as we know it promotes at least some economic freedom.) In practice, it seems to promote a higher degree of civil freedom and varying degrees of political freedom, though full-fledged communism doesn't promote freedom of any kind. Just ask anyone who lived through Mao's regime or Pol Pot's regime.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

Oh well, where do they say, that nobody can have property?

In fact, they say, everybody should have property, especially property of production means.

Yep. It's a nice idea in theory, but true socialism never seems to work in practice.


Actually Socialism works pretty well in Europe. And unlike what the Americans think, its neither communistic or dictatorial. Nor does it enforce social equality by distributing all wealth equally.

What it actually does is provide stuff like a good healthcare system for everybody. Just to name something.

But then again, in America a person's life is equal in value to a person's amount of cash and stuff...

Good thing the US is finally starting to lose a little influence due to its unstable Dollar.

you have a right to what YOU produce so long as you harm no one.since some people do not produce part of what they own,or even directly manage it.they have no rights to it.

and if you produce all the kilns.blah blah blah.yeah you get the idea.if your ownership diminishs anothers quality of life unnessarily you are in effect physically harming them.hurting others is wrong.

we aren't after your toothbrush.

Man, speak for yourself FS. I'm *totally* after the OP's toothbrush.

I mean, have you seen it? *covets said toothbrush*


:p

Man, speak for yourself FS. I'm *totally* after the OP's toothbrush.

I mean, have you seen it? *covets said toothbrush*


:p

shhhh! now they'll know we're up to something

shhhh! now they'll know we're up to something

Oh man, I just totally revealed the evil socialist plot to steal EmoBuddy's toothbrush, didn't I?

Can I make it up to everyone with freshly-baked cookies, do you think?

Oh man, I just totally revealed the evil socialist plot to steal EmoBuddy's toothbrush, didn't I?

Can I make it up to everyone with freshly-baked cookies, do you think?

you supply the cookies, i'll supply the hammer of memory adjustment

you supply the cookies, i'll supply the hammer of memory adjustment

Oh, ok. I was just going to poison the cookies, but your way is good too, I guess. Less bodies to clean up.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

I think socialists are more into "what's mine is yours" than "keep off, that's mine".

Anyway if I have the right to own something then you dont. So as my liberty has increased yours has decreased. The more I own the more liberated I become and the more oppressed you become.......

IAnyway if I have the right to own something then you dont. So as my liberty has increased yours has decreased. The more I own the more liberated I become and the more oppressed you become.......

Which is the essential idea.. Instead of letting one person own 50 beachhouses, you ensure that 1000 people have a roof over their head and food on their tables. Which means that on average the amount of happyness, or 'civil liberties' if you continue this reasoning, increases.
Paradox solved.

To put it simply, not all forms of property are the same. Some forms are exploitive and authoritarian and others aren't. For example, few would argue that we arebeing oppressed because we can't own slaves. Slavery is an example of property ownership that is oppressive. Socialists extend this concept further and hold that owning means of production (but not personal possessions) is also authoritarian and advocate a more equal distribution of economic control.

You forget, just as slave owners wouldn't see anything wrong with owning slaves, capitalists don't see anything wrong with controlling the means of production.

I think socialists are more into "what's mine is yours" than "keep off, that's mine".

Anyway if I have the right to own something then you dont. So as my liberty has increased yours has decreased. The more I own the more liberated I become and the more oppressed you become.......
it always makes me sad to encounter people who believe their freedom is defined by how much stuff they have. perhaps if any of you actually experienced poverty you would learn the reality of the situation.

You forget, just as slave owners wouldn't see anything wrong with owning slaves, capitalists don't see anything wrong with controlling the means of production.
so you are saying that owning a human being, and selling them like livestock, is equivalent to owning currency or land or material goods?

wow, what lovely value you place on human life...

I think socialists promote social equality, rather than civil liberties.
How can you have social equality without civil liberties?

To put it simply, not all forms of property are the same. Some forms are exploitive and authoritarian and others aren't. For example, few would argue that we arebeing oppressed because we can't own slaves. Slavery is an example of property ownership that is oppressive. Socialists extend this concept further and hold that owning means of production (but not personal possessions) is also authoritarian and advocate a more equal distribution of economic control.
What if some of your posessions are a means of production? Your time and tools are means of production. Do I not own my time and tools? If not, then how much of them do I not own? 10%? 90%? 50%? How can anyone lay claim to my life without my will or consent, isn't that slavery?

How can you have social equality without civil liberties?
enforced equality. you make it so everybody is equal in financial and social status, but to do that you have to severely restrict civil liberties. in a society with perfect equality under the LAW, and maximal civil liberties, social equality would be impossible because human beings are not equal in ability.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?
Property is not a "right". Property is a privilege. Not only that, but it's an illegitimate privilege.

Think about it: How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

So, to put it in capitalist-speak: All property was created through the illegitimate use of force. That is why private property is illegitimate.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

Honesty in a sense.

Let us presume I am a dictator of a country and I am announcing my laws for the country.socialist vs capitalist. We have an illusion in the USA let me show you how.
Scenerio #1 The government states that the people shall own property it shall be yours. However you shall pay property tax and if you fail to pay your property tax then the government will take away "your" property.

Scenerio#2 The government states that it shall own all property and you shall pay a lease to the government for the property.

The real difference between the above 2 is nothing. The government owns both just one says that you own it. Do you really? Stop paying your lease errrrrrrr I mean property tax and see who really owns that property.

Both systems at this point in time are corrupt true individual liberties are hard to find. I hate to sound pessimistic but the powermongers have won and really there is only one form of government in the world they are just disguised under different titles. Oligarchy!!

Depends. There are degrees in socialism. Communism is a type of extreme socialism where you can't own property, but there are countries in europe with socialist policies where property is as much of a right as in the USA.


For some, socialism is simply a way of trying to even down the rich-poor divide. That doesn't mean richs and poors don't still exist: the income difference between them is just narrower.
Actually it's wider, products and services are more expensive, economic growth is slower, "the poor" are on the whole a larger group and worse off. Philosophically, socialist goals of aliviating poverty and suffering is highly admirable, but it is a naive and unworkable system. Anything that goes directly against human nature is not workable.

Asking EVERYONE to put themselves behind the greater good goes against human nature. It is human nature to "look out for number one." Humans will generally always look for a way to get ahead. How can I get the most output with the least input? When put into a system that says "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs", you're going to have a race to the bottom.

Why should I work hard, and put in extra hours? I won't recieve any reward except MORE working hours, and less off time. I should show myself to be as incompitent as possible so that I will be worked as little as possible. I should then display that I have a great need, by doing things like asking relatives to live with me, have lots of children, etc. Now you have a nation full of lazy people, living in horrible conditions, and all of it is self-imposed.

Has anyone here read about living conditions in communist Russia? People would show up to work drunk, and then sleep under their workbench for most of the workday. Then everyone in the workplace would work their butts off for a few days at the end of the month to get out their required minimum production. Of course, all of this fast, last minute work was very sloppy. Anything bought at the end of the month, which happened to be most products, were usually of questionable quality to say the least. There were families of 6-10 living in two bedroom apartments. Lines that went on for blocks to get toilet paper rations, bread rations, shoes that usually didn't fit, etc. Is there any wonder why they had to post machine gun sentries at the Berlin wall to keep people from fleeing?

enforced equality. you make it so everybody is equal in financial and social status, but to do that you have to severely restrict civil liberties.
Wrong. What does equality in financial and social status have to do with freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press? Or freedom of assembly? Would you have to restrict any of these freedoms in order to achieve economic equality? No, because they have nothing to do with economic issues.

There are many types of socialism, actually. Some forms have no problem with markets so long as all workers have a say in how the factory or other means of production is managed.
Ironically, that's called a "corporation" and there are LOTS of those in America. Unfortunately, most workers don't bother to try to participate, rather individuals who desire to become wealthy do. The average worker has been filled with stories of Enron and World Com, and believe that all companies offered publically are like that. These workers would rather gamble on the lottery (a rigged game), then invest (they call it gambling) in the market (which give a far greater chance of "winning" then ANY lottery).

Scenerio #1 The government states that the people shall own property it shall be yours. However you shall pay property tax and if you fail to pay your property tax then the government will take away "your" property.

Scenerio#2 The government states that it shall own all property and you shall pay a lease to the government for the property.

The real difference between the above 2 is nothing. The government owns both just one says that you own it. Do you really? Stop paying your lease errrrrrrr I mean property tax and see who really owns that property.
Owning something doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. Let's say I own a bicycle. But I don't have the freedom to drive my bicycle in the middle of traffic on a motorway. Does that mean that I don't really own that bicycle, because my use of it is restricted? Of course not.

Owning something doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. Let's say I own a bicycle. But I don't have the freedom to drive my bicycle in the middle of traffic on a motorway. Does that mean that I don't really own that bicycle, because my use of it is restricted? Of course not.

And the price of tea in China currently is?

Ah, but herein lies the problem: supposing that the owner of the kiln bought up all other kilns in the area, or actively suppressed them from being built, and then charged outrageous amounts of money for the products of his kiln, as well as forcing people to work for lower and lower wages, all in the name of higher profit margins on his part, what seperates such a system from slavery? I suppose you could say that people have a "choice", but if it's a choice between paying so much that they can't afford to eat, or having nothing upon which to cook their food, they starve either way. Not much of a choice there, really.

SOMEONE will see an opportunity, create a kiln and offer cut rates. If the guy with the first kiln wants to keep his livelihood, then he HAS to lower his price and become competitive with the guy with the second kiln, unless they collude. Even if they collude, someone else will see opportunity to make a kiln, offer cut rate prices and make a killing. Thusly, the invisible hand of the free market always disallows monopolies.

Actually it's wider, products and services are more expensive, economic growth is slower, "the poor" are on the whole a larger group and worse off. Philosophically, socialist goals of aliviating poverty and suffering is highly admirable, but it is a naive and unworkable system.
Have you been to Sweden or Denmark lately? The huge, overwhelming majority of the population (not just the poor) is better off in the semi-socialist countries of Scandinavia than in the capitalist United States. A Swedish friend of mine who went to America on vacation last year described it as "a dump".

If your theories don't fit reality, change your theories.

Anything that goes directly against human nature is not workable.
"Human nature" is what's written in our DNA. Therefore, if you want to claim that a certain kind of behaviour goes against "human nature", you first need to show me the DNA sequence that causes humans to reject that kind of behaviour.

And guess what? There is no DNA sequence that encodes complex social relations. Human nature says that we want to eat, sleep, have sex, and so on, but it says nothing about how we can or can't achieve those desires. As far as human nature is concerned, any kind of social system is possible.

Asking EVERYONE to put themselves behind the greater good goes against human nature.
Socialism DOES NOT ask ANYONE to put him/herself behind the greater good. The "greater good" is made up of the personal good of all individuals involved.

It is human nature to "look out for number one." Humans will generally always look for a way to get ahead. How can I get the most output with the least input?
Exactly. And if a socialist system provides the majority of individuals with a better life than capitalism, then the majority of individuals, even if they are all selfish bastards, will choose socialism.

When put into a system that says "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs"...
That's communism, not socialism. We'll get to communism in a second, but first let's finish this discussion about socialism.

Has anyone here read about living conditions in communist Russia?
First of all, the Soviet Union wasn't communist, and second of all, it never implemented the principle "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs". Read the Soviet constitution or ask a Russian, for God's sake. Don't rely on second-hand information.

Is there any wonder why they had to post machine gun sentries at the Berlin wall to keep people from fleeing?
Do you realize that the communists won almost 30% of the vote in the most recent elections in all German states that were formerly part of East Germany? And their popular support is growing. Clearly, capitalism isn't what the East Germans hoped it would be.

Even if this is the case, economic freedom and civil freedom are separate ideas. We play NationStates, a game where you nation is measured by all of three different types of freedoms: civil, economic, and political. Socialism tends to promote a lower degree of economic freedom (communism might promote zero economic freedom, but as far as I know, socialism as we know it promotes at least some economic freedom.) In practice, it seems to promote a higher degree of civil freedom and varying degrees of political freedom, though full-fledged communism doesn't promote freedom of any kind. Just ask anyone who lived through Mao's regime or Pol Pot's regime.
Ironically, this game appears to be slanted in favor of socialism/communism. Almost EVERY free market based decision leads to disasterous consequence. Whereas, almost EVERY contra-free market based decision leads to nothing but flowery results. That, and the inability to ever change the fundamentals of the governmental workings is why I haven't played for a while. The only things that ever change are a few details at the bottom that get changed out for others. The decisions I made months ago have NO lasting reflection on my country, except for the tax rate. Nation States REALLY needs to be overhauled and redesigned.

I think socialists are more into "what's mine is yours" than "keep off, that's mine".

Anyway if I have the right to own something then you dont. So as my liberty has increased yours has decreased. The more I own the more liberated I become and the more oppressed you become.......
That doesn't make any sense at all. Are you under the impression that economics is a zero sum equation?

You forget, just as slave owners wouldn't see anything wrong with owning slaves, capitalists don't see anything wrong with controlling the means of production.
Slavery is not the same as free market capitalism. Slavery involves owning individuals, free market capitalism is based around the concept of self ownership. The only person who owns your life and has any claim to it is you, slavery runs directly against that.

enforced equality. you make it so everybody is equal in financial and social status, but to do that you have to severely restrict civil liberties. in a society with perfect equality under the LAW, and maximal civil liberties, social equality would be impossible because human beings are not equal in ability.
Then we would all be equal slaves, unable to change our lot in life, unable to make any improvements. We could only accept what we have and not look forward to the possiblity of anything else. F*CK THAT! I don't want to just survive, I want to live!

Property is not a "right". Property is a privilege. Not only that, but it's an illegitimate privilege.

Think about it: How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

So, to put it in capitalist-speak: All property was created through the illegitimate use of force. That is why private property is illegitimate.
You're neglecting the key input; time. My time is what I own. Anything I put my time into, is worth a part of my life. If I take part of my life to do something, like make a clay bowl out of material that no one else has laid claim to, then why should I not be allowed to do as I please with that bowl, providing I do not deprive anyone else of life, liberty or property?

How about shelter? Shelter protects us from the elements. Therefore, we need to get a place and materials to build shelter with. If I find a piece of land I like, yet others like that piece of land too (perhaps it has good access to clean water, berries, wild game, etc), how is it decided who gets to build their shelter on that piece of land?

BTW, if property is illegitimate, then why do you have a computer? Why not just give away that "illegitimate" piece of property? It's illegitimate, so what does it matter?

The socialist mantra says that you must share what you produce.
Wrong. The socialist mantra says that the means of production should belong to those who work with them. In other words, that the means of production should belong to the workers. Public (or communal) property over the means of production is the basis of socialism. Another term for "socialism" is "economic democracy".

If Bill the capitalist owns a car factory, he isn't the one who produces all the cars who come out of that factory. The factory workers produce them. Therefore, the cars should belong to the workers, not to Bill. Of course, if Bill takes part in the production process - as a manager, for example - then he should have his share of ownership. That would be socialism. Capitalism, on the other hand, says that all the cars belong to Bill, because he owns the factory.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

I am a socialist, and there are varying different levels of socialism. By no means do I think anyone should give up their right to own property. The problem is how much property and what kind of property we own. Again though, the problem is that it's personal property. No one has the right to take it away from anyone.

Of course, my version of socialism is voluntary. I don't believe true socialism can be forced. Everyone needs to realize that personal greed means nothing in comparison to social wealth. This last point is a huge problem in the western world.

You're neglecting the key input; time. My time is what I own. Anything I put my time into, is worth a part of my life. If I take part of my life to do something, like make a clay bowl out of material that no one else has laid claim to, then why should I not be allowed to do as I please with that bowl, providing I do not deprive anyone else of life, liberty or property?
Your time is only part of the input required to make that clay bowl. The other part is the clay. You can't make a clay bowl appear out of thin air just by "using your time".

How about shelter? Shelter protects us from the elements. Therefore, we need to get a place and materials to build shelter with. If I find a piece of land I like, yet others like that piece of land too (perhaps it has good access to clean water, berries, wild game, etc), how is it decided who gets to build their shelter on that piece of land?
You're just supporting my argument. How do you decide who owns an empty piece of land? On what basis can you establish private property over that land? In practice, private property over land was established through brute force. That - brute force - is the foundation of property "rights".

BTW, if property is illegitimate, then why do you have a computer? Why not just give away that "illegitimate" piece of property? It's illegitimate, so what does it matter?
Since I live in a capitalist society, I am forced to own property in order to stay alive. But if someone needs to spend time on my computer in order to do something, I would gladly lend my computer to him without asking for anything in exchange.

Have you been to Sweden or Denmark lately? The huge, overwhelming majority of the population (not just the poor) is better off in the semi-socialist countries of Scandinavia than in the capitalist United States. A Swedish friend of mine who went to America on vacation last year described it as "a dump".

Never been to either country, but as you said earlier, I'm not going to rely on second hand information either.

"Human nature" is what's written in our DNA. Therefore, if you want to claim that a certain kind of behaviour goes against "human nature", you first need to show me the DNA sequence that causes humans to reject that kind of behaviour.

And guess what? There is no DNA sequence that encodes complex social relations. Human nature says that we want to eat, sleep, have sex, and so on, but it says nothing about how we can or can't achieve those desires. As far as human nature is concerned, any kind of social system is possible.

Human nature isn't written into our genes? Are you sure? If so, then you're going to have the entire community of psychologists and biologists telling you otherwise. Our behavioral patterns are part of our evolutionary history. Groups of primates that learned to do certain things had more surviving children then primates that didn't. What do you think instincts are? Why does my pet flying squirrel know how to open nuts, hide them, and make a nest even though he hasn't been around other flying squirrels since he was born? Humans are more complex then flying squirrels, isn't it possible that we have AT LEAST as much innate knowledge, such as behavioral patterns and group interactions?

Exactly. And if a socialist system provides the majority of individuals with a better life than capitalism, then the majority of individuals, even if they are all selfish bastards, will choose socialism.

I'm not against socialist policies entirely, there are some bits that work well. However, as an entire system, it's flawed to say the least. Socialism was only supposed to be a stepping stone to a full blown communist state, which we have never truly seen on a large scale. Care to guess why?

First of all, the Soviet Union wasn't communist, and second of all, it never implemented the principle "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs". Read the Soviet constitution or ask a Russian, for God's sake. Don't rely on second-hand information.

You're right, Russia wasn't a commuinist state, yet they WANTED a communist state. Care to guess why it didn't happen? Perhaps human nature caused those in power of the socialist state to realize that they has everything to gain or lose depending on how they played their cards, as it were. Why would someone (or many someone's in Russia's case) give up power and luxury for "common" power and living standards, at the best?

Do you realize that the communists won almost 30% of the vote in the most recent elections in all German states that were formerly part of East Germany? And their popular support is growing. Clearly, capitalism isn't what the East Germans hoped it would be.

Then please explain why Russia had machine gun posts to keep people in rather then keep people out if it was supposed to be so much better then capitalism.

Slavery is not the same as free market capitalism. Slavery involves owning individuals, free market capitalism is based around the concept of self ownership.
Hahaha - as you can see from your own words, the two concepts are pretty much one and the same.

The only person who owns your life and has any claim to it is you, slavery runs directly against that.
On the contrary. Slavery happens when an individual who "owns his own life" decides to sell his life in order to pay off a debt or for whatever other reason. If you own something, you can sell it. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself. Thus, slavery is the natural consequence of free market capitalism.

How is slavery outlawed? By announcing that human beings are not property.

Wrong. The socialist mantra says that the means of production should belong to those who work with them. In other words, that the means of production should belong to the workers. Public (or communal) property over the means of production is the basis of socialism. Another term for "socialism" is "economic democracy".

If Bill the capitalist owns a car factory, he isn't the one who produces all the cars who come out of that factory. The factory workers produce them. Therefore, the cars should belong to the workers, not to Bill. Of course, if Bill takes part in the production process - as a manager, for example - then he should have his share of ownership. That would be socialism. Capitalism, on the other hand, says that all the cars belong to Bill, because he owns the factory.
The workers would own the car if they bought stock in the company. Marx's dream has been made real through capitalism. I bet he's rolling over in his grave right now.

You're just supporting my argument. How do you decide who owns an empty piece of land? On what basis can you establish private property over that land? In practice, private property over land was established through brute force. That - brute force - is the foundation of property "rights".

Nice dodge. How is it resolved who gets to build their shelter on that choice piece of land? Not EVERYONE can live there, so who gets it and how is that decided?

Hahaha - as you can see from your own words, the two concepts are pretty much one and the same.


On the contrary. Slavery happens when an individual who "owns his own life" decides to sell his life in order to pay off a debt or for whatever other reason. If you own something, you can sell it. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself. Thus, slavery is the natural consequence of free market capitalism.

How is slavery outlawed? By announcing that human beings are not property.
You obviously don't understand slavery. Slavery is something that is FORCED upon an individual. In slavery, you may not choose what job you do, and you do not recieve ANY compensation other then basic food, shelter and perhaps clothing.

Your example of the "debt slave" is flawed because:

1. No one HAS to go into debt. Most wealthy individuals became wealthy BECAUSE they avoided debt, worked hard and saved their money.
2. You do not HAVE to do any particular job. You may quit your job at any time you choose to find another job or even make a job.
3. You obviously misunderstood the bit about self ownership versus the lack of self ownership. They are opposites, therefore they CANNOT be one and the same.

You obviously don't understand slavery. Slavery is something that is FORCED upon an individual. In slavery, you may not choose what job you do, and you do not recieve ANY compensation other then basic food, shelter and perhaps clothing.

Your example of the "debt slave" is flawed because:

1. No one HAS to go into debt. Most wealthy individuals became wealthy BECAUSE they avoided debt, worked hard and saved their money.
2. You do not HAVE to do any particular job. You may quit your job at any time you choose to find another job or even make a job.
3. You obviously misunderstood the bit about self ownership versus the lack of self ownership. They are opposites, therefore they CANNOT be one and the same.

What about indentured Servants: they are similar to slaves. And must work at least 7 years to pay off debt.
America is founded on them. We wouldn't have it without them.

Never been to either country, but as you said earlier, I'm not going to rely on second hand information either.
Fair enough. But then don't comment on what you don't know.

Human nature isn't written into our genes?
I said that human nature IS written into our genes, and that's precisely why things that are NOT written into our genes are not part of human nature.

Our behavioral patterns are part of our evolutionary history. Groups of primates that learned to do certain things had more surviving children then primates that didn't. What do you think instincts are? Why does my pet flying squirrel know how to open nuts, hide them, and make a nest even though he hasn't been around other flying squirrels since he was born? Humans are more complex then flying squirrels, isn't it possible that we have AT LEAST as much innate knowledge, such as behavioral patterns and group interactions?
Of course we have lots of innate knowledge. None of it has anything to do with capitalism, however - or with any other social or economic system. Our knowledge, like the squirrel's, is all about basic survival skills. Our innate knowledge is the kind of knowledge that was useful to our ancestors hunting on the plains of East Africa. We may have innate knowledge about how to organize a hunting party, or how to spot predators and warn the rest of the tribe. But complex social interactions are the products of education and culture. Any psychologist will tell you that.

If we don't even have innate knowledge about how to make fire - something we've been doing for tens of thousands of years - then how can you expect us to have innate knowledge about social interactions in capitalism, a system that has only existed for 300 years?

Socialism was only supposed to be a stepping stone to a full blown communist state...
With all due respect, your knowledge about socialism seems to be quite limited.

There are several socialist ideologies, just like there are several capitalist ideologies (for example liberalism and conservatism). One socialist ideology - Marxism - argues that socialism should be only a stepping stone on the road to communism. But other socialist ideologies do not support communism in any way, shape or form.

Oh, and by the way, the phrase "communist state" is an oxymoron, since communism is a system with no property, no social classes, and no state.

...which we have never truly seen on a large scale. Care to guess why?
Because the Soviet model for reaching communism had some minor but nevertheless significant flaws. These flaws allowed Stalin to take power, and, once that happened, everything pretty much went down the drain.

Hey, after all, the first attempts at capitalism failed too.

Perhaps human nature caused those in power of the socialist state to realize that they has everything to gain or lose depending on how they played their cards, as it were. Why would someone (or many someone's in Russia's case) give up power and luxury for "common" power and living standards, at the best?
The whole point about a socialist state is that it's supposed to be a highly democratic state. If it isn't democratic, it won't work (and can't really be said to be "socialist" anyway).

If a state is democratic, the people can force government leaders to take actions that dictators would never take.

Then please explain why Russia had machine gun posts to keep people in rather then keep people out if it was supposed to be so much better then capitalism.
Oh, that's simple - Russian stalinism wasn't better than, say, Western European capitalism. However, it was better than Russian capitalism. In other words, when you compare the Soviet Union with capitalist Russia, the Soviet Union was clearly better (even if it wasn't better than capitalist countries elsewhere in the world).

The workers would own the car if they bought stock in the company. Marx's dream has been made real through capitalism. I bet he's rolling over in his grave right now.
"The workers would... if..."

That is very far from socialism, and sure as hell isn't Marx's dream. The workers can buy stock, just like Roman slaves could buy their way out of slavery, but this works very rarely in practice. The stock that the workers can afford to buy is MUCH less than their rightful share of ownership in the factory.

Besides, there aren't supposed to be any "if"'s. The workers should own the means of production, full stop.

You obviously don't understand slavery. Slavery is something that is FORCED upon an individual. In slavery, you may not choose what job you do, and you do not recieve ANY compensation other then basic food, shelter and perhaps clothing.
Precisely. If you are somebody else's property, and if he has the right to do anything he wants with his property, then he obviously has the right to do anything he wants with you.

Your example of the "debt slave" is flawed because:

1. No one HAS to go into debt. Most wealthy individuals became wealthy BECAUSE they avoided debt, worked hard and saved their money.
No, most wealthy individuals became wealthy because they had other people work hard for them. It's called owning a company and having employees. But that's beside the point.

Perhaps no one "has" to go into debt, but if you DO find yourself in debt, you may have no choice but to sell yourself into slavery in order to pay off your debt. At least that's how it worked in ancient times.

2. You do not HAVE to do any particular job. You may quit your job at any time you choose to find another job or even make a job.
If you can, that is. But if you can't find a better job or make one, you have a choice between your current job (or another similar job) or starvation.

3. You obviously misunderstood the bit about self ownership versus the lack of self ownership. They are opposites, therefore they CANNOT be one and the same.
In other words, "they can't be the same because I say so". :rolleyes:

Allow me to reiterate: If you own something, you can sell it. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself. Thus, slavery is the natural consequence of free market capitalism.

Slavery is abolished when you stop looking at people as property.

Liberty is liberty. Liberty is not equality. Liberty is not sustenance. Liberty is nothing but what itself is. Liberty is the ability to do and own what you wish, just so long as your behavior hurts none.
What do you mean by "hurt"? Capitalist exploitation certainly hurts large numbers of people by enriching the few and impoverishing the many.

But a common confusion amongst some is that Liberty is economic equality, or that liberty is an offshoot of economic equality, or that liberty even needs economic equality.
Liberty does require at least some degree of economic equality. For example, what good is the freedom of speech if only the rich can afford to voice their opinions?

The only difference between what has often been called capital and private property is the use of it.
Even if that is true, it doesn't cause any problems for socialism or socialist ideas. Socialist laws could simply say that you are allowed to own private property but you can't use it as private capital - just like you can own a bicycle but you can't ride it on the motorway, or how you can own a gun but you can't use it to shoot random people on the streets.

Also, let me make one thing clear: Socialism is not opposed to you building an oven, baking bread and selling it to people. It's also not opposed to you baking bread in that oven with the help of a few friends, as long as all people involved are partners and owners of the oven and its products. What socialism is opposed to is the employer-employee relationship, in which you hire people to help you with the oven without giving them a share of ownership in your bread business.

Exploitative property is where someone's rights are involunatily violated, in a circumstance such as slavery. Mind this, as consenting laborers do not fit this definition. They choose to be in their condition, and if they didn't like it, they can leave. You cannot be exploited if you consent to certain practices.
Oh, good, then you cannot object to high taxes, or even a 100% tax rate. After all, if you don't like it, you can always leave the country, can't you?

Finally, if anyone here wants to see how socialism would actually function and look like, please read the Politics (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Constantinopolis#Politics_and_elections) and Economics (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Constantinopolis#Economy) sections of my nation's NSwiki page.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?


I think socialists are more into "what's mine is yours" than "keep off, that's mine".

Anyway if I have the right to own something then you dont. So as my liberty has increased yours has decreased. The more I own the more liberated I become and the more oppressed you become.......

That doesn't make any sense at all. Are you under the impression that economics is a zero sum equation?

I dont think economics is the issue here? Not in the sense of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services or that you own the economy.
Is it possible to own everything or own nothing?
Well maybe not, so we are somewhere in between. My comment is meant in the sense that, say we have one rich person and 100 poor people with the same wealth. Does not the rich individual have more choice and freedom in disposing of their wealth than one of the poor individuals alone? Is the rich person not more liberated and the poor person more oppressed?

Of course, collectively, the balance is somewhat restored for the poor people, but they are still individually poor.

I'm smelling so much propaganda and faulty logic I can barely even breathe...

WARNING

Your anti-communist software has detected a thinking agent on the web page you're browsing. thinking agents are dangerous for your brain cells and could damage the system.

Severity : high
Immediate action required: shut down your computer and turn on Fox news.

Please report this thinking agents to the nearest US police officer.

What about indentured Servants: they are similar to slaves. And must work at least 7 years to pay off debt.
America is founded on them. We wouldn't have it without them.
Indentured servitude hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

WARNING

Your anti-communist software has detected a thinking agent on the web page you're browsing. thinking agents are dangerous for your brain cells and could damage the system.

Severity : high
Immediate action required: shut down your computer and turn on Fox news.

Please report this thinking agents to the nearest US police officer.
Thank you for the wonderful dose of propaganda psylos.

Since I live in a capitalist society, I am forced to own property in order to stay alive.
No. Since you live, you're forced to own property to stay alive. The type of "society" you live in has nothing to do with the fact that you need material things to survive.

WARNING

Your anti-communist software has detected a thinking agent...

:upyours:

so you are saying that owning a human being, and selling them like livestock, is equivalent to owning currency or land or material goods?

wow, what lovely value you place on human life...

No, I was just comparing two ideas. ;)

Thank you for the wonderful dose of propaganda psylos.
Thank you for coming and negating my work. Don't you have more constructive things to do?

What do you mean by "hurt"? Capitalist exploitation certainly hurts large numbers of people by enriching the few and impoverishing the many. Not necessarily. You see, abuses of the system can lead to this. You see, abuses of the system can lead to this, but minor governmental controls can avoid these abuses, you know, things like anti-monopoly laws, rules against lying to employees, etc.

Beyond that, unionization also helps to prevent exploitation. If employees are able to talk to their bosses on equal, or relatively equal levels, injustices can be contained. And it works out for the best.
Liberty does require at least some degree of economic equality. For example, what good is the freedom of speech if only the rich can afford to voice their opinions?
Voicing your opinions is free. You are born with your vocal chords. Now, there are varying degrees of vocalization, that's where the inequality is. This is the baseline equality we should be concerned with. If you aren't allowed to speak, then a problem develops.

Now, there is inequality in the mass media, but the mass media are creations of individuals, not of society. Very little new is created by society, just more of the old.

Even if that is true, it doesn't cause any problems for socialism or socialist ideas. Socialist laws could simply say that you are allowed to own private property but you can't use it as private capital - just like you can own a bicycle but you can't ride it on the motorway, or how you can own a gun but you can't use it to shoot random people on the streets.
You seem to think that exploitation is just having the employer make more than the employee. BUT...there is a reason for this. The idea to produce the good was the owners. The machinery used to produce the good is the owners. Without it there would be no factory and no goods being produced. The ownership of these things is the direct result of the employers, or an acquaintance of the employer's labor.

The denial of use of private capital is a restriction on my liberty

Also, let me make one thing clear: Socialism is not opposed to you building an oven, baking bread and selling it to people. It's also not opposed to you baking bread in that oven with the help of a few friends, as long as all people involved are partners and owners of the oven and its products. What socialism is opposed to is the employer-employee relationship, in which you hire people to help you with the oven without giving them a share of ownership in your bread business.
First: Ahem...
Socialist laws could simply say that you are allowed to own private property but you can't use it as private capital
hmmmmmmm...

Secondly, what you're describing isn't socialism. Instead it's some form of communism. Under socialism there is a government that controls the means of production.

Even if it was my idea as to the creation of the bread? Intellectual property, ever heard of that? Intellectual property, the idea behind production, can only be created by an individual. He put labor into this creation, and clearly, if it hasn't been invented yet, it's a unique idea, that sprung forth only from this special individual. Does he not deserve reward for so improving society with his new idea? Yes. That's why employers are higher up. They have greater training, they have invested more into themselves. And, if the employee is paid, then they are receiving a share of the success of the company. A proportional share. The employee is replaceable, but the idea of the owner (his own property) is not.


Oh, good, then you cannot object to high taxes, or even a 100% tax rate. After all, if you don't like it, you can always leave the country, can't you?
That's correct. If you don't like your current conditions it's your responsibility to change them. NOT MINE. If I object, I can protest, I can move, but I'm not going to overthrow the government, espescially if it's the majorities opinon to do the 100% tax thing.

Thank you for coming and negating my work. Don't you have more constructive things to do?
Yes, becoming THE MAN, and oppressing the hell out of you.

"The workers would... if..."

That is very far from socialism, and sure as hell isn't Marx's dream. The workers can buy stock, just like Roman slaves could buy their way out of slavery, but this works very rarely in practice. The stock that the workers can afford to buy is MUCH less than their rightful share of ownership in the factory.

Besides, there aren't supposed to be any "if"'s. The workers should own the means of production, full stop.
Beyond that, the investment of the worker is not in cash, but in his labor, and he receives dividends in the form of the paycheck. It's exactly like owning stock, the more important you are (the more stock you own, the more unique your skill is) the more you receive in dividends.

Not necessarily. You see, abuses of the system can lead to this. You see, abuses of the system can lead to this, but minor governmental controls can avoid these abuses, you know, things like anti-monopoly laws, rules against lying to employees, etc.Trademark laws? Inheritance laws? Are they here to protect against abuse of the system?

Constantinopolis]Precisely. If you are somebody else's property, and if he has the right to do anything he wants with his property, then he obviously has the right to do anything he wants with you.
Welcome to the definition of slavery.

No, most wealthy individuals became wealthy because they had other people work hard for them. It's called owning a company and having employees. But that's beside the point.
Most wealthy people can trace their wealth back to a new, innovative idea. Be it their fathers idea, or their own. For, without that idea, they wouldn't have had others working for them. They'd be average without the idea.

The foundation of wealth is the idea!

Individuals create the new, society has never done that. Society is capable of creating the old, but so are individuals.

Perhaps no one "has" to go into debt, but if you DO find yourself in debt, you may have no choice but to sell yourself into slavery in order to pay off your debt. At least that's how it worked in ancient times.
You don't have to go into debt. That's the key thing here, it's your own fault for falling into debt. Not mine, not a bankers. You are the one who made the unwise decisions. It's on your shoulders. To say that is like saying there should be "stupid insurance."


If you can, that is. But if you can't find a better job or make one, you have a choice between your current job (or another similar job) or starvation.


In other words, "they can't be the same because I say so". :rolleyes:
You have a choice between your current job, another similar job, or taking a risk. You can go off and create an idea. Offer it to a company. The company likes it, they buy it. You can go work for the government, be a census guy, or in the military, or public works (Adam's describes important public works that the government should do.)

Or you can go be a hermit. You can live in the woods. Eat berries. The options are limitless, contrary to what you would have us believe.

Allow me to reiterate: If you own something, you can sell it. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself. Thus, slavery is the natural consequence of free market capitalism.

Slavery is abolished when you stop looking at people as property.
First off, capitalism dictates that you are not selling yourself. You are selling your skills. Your knowledge, your ability to do something. Your "to do", not your "to be." To sell your to be is inherently against capitalism.

Trademark laws? Inheritance laws? Are they here to protect against abuse of the system?
They are here to protect the results of my innovation.

They are here to protect the results of my innovation.
Or the ones of your ancestors... who are dead.

Andaluciae : owning the food/water/housing supply of one man is the same as owning the man. Owning his ideas/mobility/skills/knowledge is even worse.

I dont think economics is the issue here? Not in the sense of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services or that you own the economy.
Is it possible to own everything or own nothing?
Well maybe not, so we are somewhere in between. My comment is meant in the sense that, say we have one rich person and 100 poor people with the same wealth. Does not the rich individual have more choice and freedom in disposing of their wealth than one of the poor individuals alone? Is the rich person not more liberated and the poor person more oppressed?

Of course, collectively, the balance is somewhat restored for the poor people, but they are still individually poor.
Once again the baseline comes into effect. There is a minimal amount of liberty that cannot be denied. But beyond that liberty can go as high as it damn well pleases, just so long as it isn't used to harm others. And is the rich man harming the poor people by having wealth? Most certainly not. It's perfectly feasible that a poor man could come up with an idea that would revolutionize the population, and make him a rich man as well. The poor can achieve the same level of freedom, they just have to do something unique.

Once again, the assumption that the poor are oppressed by the rich man's possession of wealth. This simply isn't true.

Beyond that, there isn't a set amount of liberty. Liberty isn't a zero-sum game. Just as economics isn't a zero-sum game. As is detailed by Hayek. Your assumption that when someone gains, someone else loses is just plain false.

In fact, the existence of the fact of the fact that neither liberty no economics is zero-sum are visible in the US and western Europe, where quality of life has improved overall, for everyone over the last 100 years. An example that Smith brings up is the relationship between the English workingman and the American Indian Chief. The English workingman has more and better comforts than the chief. The home of the workingman is clean and well constructed, his clothes are neat, tidy and well constructed of new materials. While the American Indian chief lives in a shabbily constructed longhouse, sleeps on a bed of grass, has clothes made out of animal hides and a general lower quality of life than the English workingman. It's also viewable in nations that are now industrialising. The general wealth of humanity has increased worldwide since the industrial revolution and the development of capitalism. Hunger, famine, diesease and war have always existed. They will never go away. But, capitalism has, for the most part helped to alleviate much of the suffering, and lessen it, contrary to claims by some. In fact, the general quality of life of mankind has risen since 1800! So, it would appear that the out-spreading of wealth by capitalism, and the non-existence of a zero-sum game is fact.

Andaluciae : owning the food/water/housing supply of one man is the same as owning the man. Owning his ideas/mobility/skills/knowledge is even worse.
It clearly isn't.

What I'm saying is that an employer doesn't own a mans ideas/mobility/skills/knowledge. The employer can rent the mans i/m/s/k, but he can NEVER own them. They belong to the man, and can not be bought.

If the man wishes to leave, he can terminate the lease *snap* like that. And go elsewhere.

You can only own a man's food/water/housing if he permits it. If he chooses not to use what you offer, then he can. You do not own him. You own a potential source of sustenance, but most definitely not him. He is free to go elsewhere and do as he pleases.

Socialism has helped as well.

Socialism has helped as well.
Nowhere near the level of the aid of capitalism though. And beyond that, socialism hasn't been a major factor in the most successful nations until recently.

Once again, you'll find me saying that a little bit of socialism isn't bad, but, and this is a major but, too much socialism is dangerous and unhealthy for society.

I'd postulate that the level of socialism in Europe or Canada right now is near the upper limit.

(sorry about the slow reply, but the forums are acting funny on me)

It clearly isn't.

What I'm saying is that an employer doesn't own a mans ideas/mobility/skills/knowledge. The employer can rent the mans i/m/s/k, but he can NEVER own them. They belong to the man, and can not be bought.

If the man wishes to leave, he can terminate the lease *snap* like that. And go elsewhere.

You can only own a man's food/water/housing if he permits it. If he chooses not to use what you offer, then he can. You do not own him. You own a potential source of sustenance, but most definitely not him. He is free to go elsewhere and do as he pleases.
he is free to go elsewhere if he has the right to walk, but not if the route to somewhere is owned by another human.
And you don't lease someone's idea when you buy them. In fact it happens everyday.

Nowhere near the level of the aid of capitalism though. And beyond that, socialism hasn't been a major factor in the most successful nations until recently.

Once again, you'll find me saying that a little bit of socialism isn't bad, but, and this is a major but, too much socialism is dangerous and unhealthy for society.

I'd postulate that the level of socialism in Europe or Canada right now is near the upper limit.

(sorry about the slow reply, but the forums are acting funny on me)What is too much socialism? The one described by McCarthy?

Or the ones of your ancestors... who are dead.
But, wasn't it their conscious wish when alive to pass their success on to me, so as to make my life and success easier? To improve the good of the childs life, at the sacrifice of your own pleasure? Of course they could have gone and spent the money in Vegas, but they didn't. They followed every parents dream, to give their own child a life better than their own.

What is too much socialism? The one described by McCarthy?
Too much socialism...hmm...let's cook up criteria, and not all of these have to be met, just one of them.

1. Infringes upon people's ability to improve their lives by their own devices.
2. Infringes upon people's ability to harm themselves by their own devices.
3. Is seen to be to the detriment of society in general (lowering of the standard of life of given society)
4. Society having more control over your own economic affairs than you do.

These are four quick, off the top of my head criterion, so I hope they can be useful.

Now, I'd love to continue, but I have a two and a half hour philosophy lecture coming up soon, and I need to get my notes together for that. And my coffee.

But, wasn't it their conscious wish when alive to pass their success on to me, so as to make my life and success easier? To improve the good of the childs life, at the sacrifice of your own pleasure? Of course they could have gone and spent the money in Vegas, but they didn't. They followed every parents dream, to give their own child a life better than their own.But they destroyed the life of the poors who are now the slaves of the rich.

Too much socialism...hmm...let's cook up criteria, and not all of these have to be met, just one of them.

1. Infringes upon people's ability to improve their lives by their own devices.
2. Infringes upon people's ability to harm themselves by their own devices.
3. Is seen to be to the detriment of society in general (lowering of the standard of life of given society)
4. Society having more control over your own economic affairs than you do.

These are four quick, off the top of my head criterion, so I hope they can be useful.
But that is not what socialism is about. It is what McCarthy's socialism is about.
Socialism is a step beyond capitalism in order to improve the life for all.

Capitalism infringes upon most people's ability to improve their life by creating classes. the upper class has unlimited freedom while the lowest one has none.

But they destroyed the life of the poors who are now the slaves of the rich.
After reading this over, I don't even understand this argument. I thought that Andaluciae was saying that there are no slaves in a capitalist society. That you can take yourself and go anywhere?

And shouldn't what I think up in my own head by my property, and no one else's?

But that is not what socialism is about. It is what McCarthy's socialism is about.
Socialism is a step beyond capitalism in order to improve the life for all.

Capitalism infringes upon most people's ability to improve their life by creating classes. the upper class has unlimited freedom while the lowest one has none.
Going back to the dogma of socialism here. In reality we do see that the lowest, most poor people have freedom, I'd like to say that Anda highlighted this earlier.

But that is not what socialism is about. It is what McCarthy's socialism is about.
Socialism is a step beyond capitalism in order to improve the life for all.

Capitalism infringes upon most people's ability to improve their life by creating classes. the upper class has unlimited freedom while the lowest one has none.
Socialism is a system that theorizes that it can improve life for all. So is capitalism.

The creation of classes is a byproduct of capitalism, not a goal of it. And beyond that, classes are artificial constructs, lines drawn by people.

As I said before the baseline exists of freedom, even if you are dirt poor, you have this baseline, and that is enough.

Levels of freedom will always be variable anyways. Some people will just not be able to climb a mountain. They are afraid of heights. Is that unjust that they cannot? No, it isn't. Total equality is not possible.

Socialism is more about equality, not liberties.

If you want freedom, a place where the state takes half or more of everything you make would seem like a rather bad choice.

The "paradox" is nothing more than the hypocracy of those who claim that equality IS liberty.

Legal equality is the only sane goal for equality.

If I'm born smarter than someone, I should be able to utilize that to the fullest extent. Not my bloody fault someone else is less able than I am. Should I be allowed to actively -detriment- them? No. That's what economic laws are for (The US, theoretically, is against monopolies, at least when the democrats are in office).

Property is an entirely philosophical issue. Why can -I- be called a thief of land but the socialist government can't? At one point in US history, we had the notion of Squatters. You find a bit of land tha nobody gives a damn about, you work it for awhile, and its yours.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that the land belongs to the animals that are already there, in which case, I'll remind that every animal has taken its land from another animal.

Now, mind you, I'm all for some degree of socialized medicine and education (We already DO have socialized education, just not to the full possible extent).

But true socialism as a whole doesn't strike me as pleasant. Give me socialist capitalism, then we'll talk.

For the last time. Canada or Europe is not Socialist. There are only 2 or 3 nations that say they are "Socialist", North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. China, although ruled my the communist party is basically capitalist.

And of those 3

North Korea has evolved into a bizzare Stalinist Monorchy.

Vietnam is opening it economy to investment like the Chinese did 25 years ago.

Socialism is more about equality, not liberties.

If you want freedom, a place where the state takes half or more of everything you make would seem like a rather bad choice.

The "paradox" is nothing more than the hypocracy of those who claim that equality IS liberty.
yeah, what really cracks me up is when people equate democracy with "freedom" or "liberty." Americans are very fond of doing this.

Levels of freedom will always be variable anyways. Some people will just not be able to climb a mountain. They are afraid of heights. Is that unjust that they cannot? No, it isn't. Total equality is not possible.
quiet, you. i think that girl over there is oppressing me by being more attractive than i am; she has a wider range of opportunities in life than i do because she was born with better bone structure, and therefore she is infringing on my liberties! that chap next to her is taller than me, and thus is able to reach things i cannot...he is infringing on my liberties by having access to things i don't!

What about indentured Servants: they are similar to slaves. And must work at least 7 years to pay off debt.
America is founded on them. We wouldn't have it without them.
1. That system no longer exists and is not applicable to the conversation at hand.
2. America would have existed with or without them.
3. No one HAS to go into debt.

yeah, what really cracks me up is when people equate democracy with "freedom" or "liberty." Americans are very fond of doing this.
Espescially negative liberties*1. An enlightened despot is just as capable of giving his people these as is the US.

Although there is a ground on which positive freedom*2 can be related to democracy

*1 Negative not meaning bad, just a type of freedom as defined by Isaiah Berlin. The freedom to do stuff.
*2 Positive liberty being the ability to participate in the political process.

quiet, you. i think that girl over there is oppressing me by being more attractive than i am; she has a wider range of opportunities in life than i do because she was born with better bone structure, and therefore she is infringing on my liberties! that chap next to her is taller than me, and thus is able to reach things i cannot...he is infringing on my liberties by having access to things i don't!

there is a meaningful distinction to be made between genetic differences and socially created ones. a class system, such as is found under capitalism, distributes opportunities and access to resources not on the basis of innate differences between people but almost entirely on the basis of class privilege.

If we don't even have innate knowledge about how to make fire - something we've been doing for tens of thousands of years - then how can you expect us to have innate knowledge about social interactions in capitalism, a system that has only existed for 300 years?
I disagree and would argue that capitalism is the oldest and simplest form of economics. Two cavemen can agree to exchange goods that they made, which is a form of capitalism. Any voluntary exchange between two willing parties is free market, and has been around since the dawn of man. Adam Smith simply quantified something that was already happening and that cannot be supressed.

Consider China, they are finding that they HAVE to allow capitalism in. The people are creating a domestic free market whether the government likes it or not. You have families cooking up extra food to take out and sell, making extra shoes to take out and sell, amongst other things.

The point is, capitalism works directly off of human nature, we will do whatever we can to improve our position. It promotes competition, which is one of the primary stimulus in scientific advancement.

yeah, what really cracks me up is when people equate democracy with "freedom" or "liberty."

democracy is not the same thing as freedom - obviously, you could have an unfree democracy. but democracy is necessary for the existence of freedom. as long as we are talking about humans living in social groups, anyways. if you don't have democracy in some form in a group, then you have a case where some people are making decisions for other people. which on the face of it is not freedom.

No, most wealthy individuals became wealthy because they had other people work hard for them. It's called owning a company and having employees. But that's beside the point.

PLEASE go read a book about wealth, and how wealthy men became so. On average, wealthy individuals work 60 hours a week. On average, workers work 40 hours a week. Therefore, in order to survive, you need to put in 40 hours, but in order to succeed, you need to put in far more. Go read "The Millionaire Next Door", "The Psychology of Success" or "Think and Grow Rich". Read ANY one of them and you'll have a much different outlook on those that have built wealth.

Perhaps no one "has" to go into debt, but if you DO find yourself in debt, you may have no choice but to sell yourself into slavery in order to pay off your debt. At least that's how it worked in ancient times.

We're not talking about "ancient times", so why bring it up?

If you can, that is. But if you can't find a better job or make one, you have a choice between your current job (or another similar job) or starvation.

There is always another job, it is simply a matter of whether or not one is willing to take that other job. One can always make a job, it is just a matter of whether one is willing to put in the hard work it takes to create and run a successful business. There is a reason not everyone owns a business, it's not easy, but if you want it bad enough, there is no reason you can't do it.

Allow me to reiterate: If you own something, you can sell it. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself. Thus, slavery is the natural consequence of free market capitalism.

You can't sell yourself in the free world, that is illegal. You can sell some of your time, but that is a VOLUNTARY transaction. Slavery is an INVOLUNTARY transaction.

I disagree and would argue that capitalism is the oldest and simplest form of economics. Two cavemen can agree to exchange goods that they made, which is a form of capitalism. Any voluntary exchange between two willing parties is free market, and has been around since the dawn of man.

and you would be wrong. trade ≠ capitalism.

But that is not what socialism is about. It is what McCarthy's socialism is about.
Socialism is a step beyond capitalism in order to improve the life for all.

Capitalism infringes upon most people's ability to improve their life by creating classes. the upper class has unlimited freedom while the lowest one has none.
Class is NOT created by capitalism, class is created by the existence of a social construct. If you have more then two people in one place, there is going to be a heirarchical seperation one way or another. That happens with chimps, do you think they live under capitalism? That happens with my dogs, do you think my dogs have a capitalistic system?

there is a meaningful distinction to be made between genetic differences and socially created ones. a class system, such as is found under capitalism, distributes opportunities and access to resources not on the basis of innate differences between people but almost entirely on the basis of class privilege.
Do you really think that the class system will cease to exist in a socialist or communist society? Sorry, but the class system is hard wired into our brains. We can't avoid a class system, all we can do is work within it as best we can to improve our lot, which is not possible in a socialist/communist society.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

This is the where Isaiah Berlin's theory of negative and positive liberty comes in handy.

Shortly put, negative liberty is what you are allowed to do. It's the absence of obstacles, be they legislative, social or even physical.

Positive liberty is having realistic possibilities to accomplish something.

It is important to separate these two. Socialism mainly promotes positive freedom. The paradox with positive freedom is that it often nibles a bit on one's negative liberty, therefore eliminating the concept of freedom as a single entity.

As an example, we can take a nation that has low taxes and tuition fees in universities. This nation offers great negative liberty as it's citizens can do whatever they want with their money. It is certainly not forbidden for poor people to go to university, but the problem is that they can't afford it. I.e. they have little positive freedom in that context.

Another nation offers it's citizens a lot of positive liberty. Taxing is progressive and quite strict for the wealthy, but universities are free and so everyone has a realistic chance of getting into unversity. The thing is that these people enjoy less of the freedom of being able to blow their money away on anything they like.

Anarchy is the state of ultimate negative freedom.
The ultimate state of positive fredom, however, is harder to define as peoples' perceptions of positive freedom varies somewhat.

and you would be wrong. trade ≠ capitalism.
Elaborate, otherwise your answer is trite and meaningless.

This is the where Isaiah Berlin's theory of negative and positive liberty comes in handy.

Shortly put, negative liberty is what you are allowed to do. It's the absence of obstacles, be they legislative, social or even physical.

Positive liberty is having realistic possibilities to accomplish something.

It is important to separate these two. Socialism mainly promotes positive freedom. The paradox with positive freedom is that it often nibles a bit on one's negative liberty, therefore eliminating the concept of freedom as a single entity.

As an example, we can take a nation that has low taxes and tuition fees in universities. This nation offers great negative liberty as it's citizens can do whatever they want with their money. It is certainly not forbidden for poor people to go to university, but the problem is that they can't afford it. I.e. they have little positive freedom in that context.

Another nation offers it's citizens a lot of positive liberty. Taxing is progressive and quite strict for the wealthy, but universities are free and so everyone has a realistic chance of getting into unversity. The thing is that these people enjoy less of the freedom of being able to blow their money away on anything they like.

Anarchy is the state of ultimate negative freedom.
The ultimate state of positive fredom, however, is harder to define as peoples' perceptions of positive freedom varies somewhat.

Uh, that's not exactly the theory of positive liberty I learned in my political theory class. You see, Berlin refers to positive liberty as the liberty of the ancients. By that he means the involvement of the Athenians in their democracy. Positive liberty is how "I wish my life and decisions to depend on myself, not on external forces of whatever kind." (Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty) Positive Liberty is the ability to involve itself in the process of politics, and to control one's future in however one see's fit.

Negative liberty is the liberty of the moderns, the ability to do stuff with minimal restrictions.

Elaborate, otherwise your answer is trite and meaningless.

every society has participated in trade at some level. saying that trade is capitalism is equivalent to saying that everything is capitalism. including the old fuedal system and the system in place in pol pot's cambodia. personally, i prefer my terms for economic systems to be useful. but if you want to use the word 'capitalism' to mean trade, that's fine. but then you have to give us a word for the current economic system to distinguish it from other possible and historic systems.

there is a meaningful distinction to be made between genetic differences and socially created ones. a class system, such as is found under capitalism, distributes opportunities and access to resources not on the basis of innate differences between people but almost entirely on the basis of class privilege.
Not really. We might see that a person who has a most excellent idea, and dedication to selling this idea being poor, becoming rich fairly quickly in capitalism.

Meanwhile, a rich person can become poor if they fail to do so, and frivolously waste their money.

Capitalism is a system of rewards for the more capable, and detractions from those who are less so.

And we can tell that individual determinism doesn't really exist in any sort of full blown form. We know that certain basic attitudes are formed in our genes. Things like aggressiveness, intelligence, emotions, etc. Our thoughts are not pre-coded, but the basic building blocks of our personalities are. Something that is an innate difference and inequality.

every society has participated in trade at some level. saying that trade is capitalism is equivalent to saying that everything is capitalism. including the old fuedal system and the system in place in pol pot's cambodia. personally, i prefer my terms for economic systems to be useful. but if you want to use the word 'capitalism' to mean trade, that's fine. but then you have to give us a word for the current economic system to distinguish it from other possible and historic systems.

I'd say that while capitalism isn't synonymous with trade, capitalism is the system which most inspires free trade. Capitalism is government saying "Trade whatever the hell you want, just don't kill, steal or commit fraud."

I propose that trade is good. The more of it the better.

Capitalism is the system of private ownership of capital.
Free trade when used by capitalists means free trade of capital.
The free market of capital is in direct conflict with the free market of good and services.
Basically, the one who controls the capital controls the goods and services which are derived from this capital. So if you give up democratic control of the capital to some private people they will constitute the ruling class and they will set the prices of goods and services and the market will be as free as they want it to be (if they are philanthropic and let it free, it is purely by chance, but you don't know what their successors will decide).

In other words, the free market of everything is impossible, because you can't give people the freedom to kill and the freedom not to be killed at the same time to all the people. Likewise, you can't give to somebody the freedom to put barbed wires around his piece of land and the freedom to somebody else to cross tis same land and the same time.

Freedom is used as a propaganda tool by any side. Socialists say something (like a school or a train system) is free when it is public. Capitalists say it is free when it is private. The people who talk about economic freedom are confused by propaganda, because freedom applies only to willing and conscious entities. The economy is neither willing nor conscious, it is just a tool. Human freedom is more important than economic freedom.

Human freedom is more important than economic freedom.
The essence of the arguement, no?

I'd disagree, as economic freedom is human freedom in my view, but, hey, we're dealing with normative politics. All individually subjective. How we as individuals view stuff as we think it should be.

The essence of the arguement, no?

I'd disagree, as economic freedom is human freedom in my view, but, hey, we're dealing with normative politics. All individually subjective. How we as individuals view stuff as we think it should be.
Basically, you are never free. You just think you are free after a long process of brain washing, in any system, because when you have been programmed you don't know anything else than what you have been programmed for. So you think you are free to do whatever you like because you can't imagine to do things other than the ones for which you were programmed.
When you were born in capitalism as upper class, you have been programmed to make money with your capital. So, you naturally think that freedom consists as being able to make money with your capital. You can't imagine that being able to milk a cow for the lower class is freedom, because it is in conflict with the freedom of the cow owner to make money out of that cow.
However, if you grant the freedom of ownership of the cow to one guy, you deny the freedom to milk it to all the other single guys. If you grant the freedom of ownership of the cow to all the people, you give them all the freedom they can have. Their freedom can only be limited by democracy (in other words the freedom of others).

I think it is what socialists are saying. Freedom is for everybody.

democracy is not the same thing as freedom - obviously, you could have an unfree democracy. but democracy is necessary for the existence of freedom. as long as we are talking about humans living in social groups, anyways. if you don't have democracy in some form in a group, then you have a case where some people are making decisions for other people. which on the face of it is not freedom.
i don't agree at all...i think it is quite possible to have freedom without democracy. furthermore, DEMOCRACY is a case where some people are making decisions for other people, by definition!

i don't agree at all...i think it is quite possible to have freedom without democracy. furthermore, DEMOCRACY is a case where some people are making decisions for other people, by definition!
Elected officials are making the decisions. The people do have a voice, and they excercise at the voting booths.

Elected officials are making the decisions. The people do have a voice, and they excercise at the voting booths.
so? the majority of Americans once supported slavery. the majority of Americans once supported denying women the right to vote. it was only because of "activist judges" and elected officials that those majority opinions were over-ruled. allowing the majority to rule is the fastest way to establish consistent oppression of all minorities.

so? the majority of Americans once supported slavery. the majority of Americans once supported denying women the right to vote. it was only because of "activist judges" and elected officials that those majority opinions were over-ruled. allowing the majority to rule is the fastest way to establish consistent oppression of all minorities.
And your point is? Are you saying that a select few "wise men" should govern all?

Of Questionable Relevance: I've never started such a (well ok sort of) popular thread! Yay!

And your point is? Are you saying that a select few "wise men" should govern all?
no, i am simply saying that pure democracy is antithetical to freedom for all citizens.

that's the beauty of the way America was founded; the framers of the Constitution designed things in such a way that pure democracy would not be possible. they built a core of fundamental rights that no majority would have the power to overrule, and which (at least in theory) no leader would have the power to override. though the Constitution was meant to be somewhat fluid, and was meant to be adapted to changing conditions over time, there were essential threads of essential liberties that are guaranteed to all persons...no matter what the majority, minority, or current government has to say about it.

i think that's pretty cool

If the men deny the right to vote to the women, it is not a democracy.

If the men deny the right to vote to the women, it is not a democracy.
actually, the majority of Americans--including women--opposed giving women the vote. so, paradoxically, even if women's votes were included in the count, women would have been denied the right to vote.

fun feminist trivia :).

actually, the majority of Americans--including women--opposed giving women the vote. so, paradoxically, if women had been given the right to vote on the issue, they would have denied themselves the right to vote.

fun feminist trivia :).
Democracy is not just the right to vote.
BTW fortunatelly the world is not america.

no, i am simply saying that pure democracy is antithetical to freedom for all citizens.

that's the beauty of the way America was founded; the framers of the Constitution designed things in such a way that pure democracy would not be possible. they built a core of fundamental rights that no majority would have the power to overrule, and which (at least in theory) no leader would have the power to override. though the Constitution was meant to be somewhat fluid, and was meant to be adapted to changing conditions over time, there were essential threads of essential liberties that are guaranteed to all persons...no matter what the majority, minority, or current government has to say about it.

i think that's pretty cool
I agree with what you say. However, with the exception of Supreme Court Justices, the people can for the most part, remove officials that are not representing the majority of those voters that elected them.

Democracy is not just the right to vote.

pure democracy is a system of government in which each citizen is given equal say, and in which the majority rules in each given situation.

BTW fortunatelly the world is not america.what a random statement.

I agree with what you say. However, with the exception of Supreme Court Justices, the people can for the most part, remove officials that are not representing the majority of those voters that elected them.
oh, absolutely...the framers included elements of democracy, in that they wanted the people to have a very large degree of control over government. however, the framers did not have high opinions of democracy in its pure form (i can find quotes if necessary), and took great pains to ensure that America would not de-evolve into a full democracy.

pure democracy is a system of government in which each citizen is given equal say, and in which the majority rules in each given situation.
what a random statement.Democracy is literally the rule of the people. I suppose the people is all the people, or it would say democracy is the rule of part of the people. Pure democracy would be concensus.

The random statement was a response to the random talks about the founding fathers and american flag waving. It makes me laugh.

furthermore, DEMOCRACY is a case where some people are making decisions for other people, by definition!

if you have a group of people, there are only two basic ways for decisions affecting that group to be made. either everyone in the group has a say in the outcome or only some people have a say. the first is democracy. how could the second be an instance of freedom?

if you have a group of people, there are only two basic ways for decisions affecting that group to be made. either everyone in the group has a say in the outcome or only some people have a say. the first is democracy. how could the second be an instance of freedom?
While it isn't an instance of positive freedom (involvement in the making of governmental decisions) you can have loads of negative freedom (the ability to do what you want with yourself) with an enlightened despot.

Do you really think that the class system will cease to exist in a socialist or communist society? Sorry, but the class system is hard wired into our brains. We can't avoid a class system, all we can do is work within it as best we can to improve our lot, which is not possible in a socialist/communist society.

yes, by definition. if classes, then not communism.

and a class system is not hardwired into our brains, as we have numerous examples of human cultures that lacked class systems. in fact, as far as we can tell, class systems have only existed for less than 10% of human existence. and for most of that 10%, they were a strange anomoly found only in a tiny minority of cultures. this is like arguing that using the internet is a hardwired behavior.

While it isn't an instance of positive freedom (involvement in the making of governmental decisions) you can have loads of negative freedom (the ability to do what you want with yourself) with an enlightened despot.

only for as long as the despot lets you have them. that ain't proper freedom, that's just a bit of privilege your ruler allows you to enjoy.

and free speech isn't much of a consolation prize when your ruler can unilaterally decide to start a war of aggression with resources collected from you.

However, if you grant the freedom of ownership of the cow to one guy, you deny the freedom to milk it to all the other single guys. If you grant the freedom of ownership of the cow to all the people, you give them all the freedom they can have. Their freedom can only be limited by democracy (in other words the freedom of others).

I think it is what socialists are saying. Freedom is for everybody.
What the hell are you talking about? Who is prohibited from owning cows? Do you really think anyone should be able to milk any cow? Who should take care of the cows? For the record, I don't own any cows and don't want to. I'd rather buy my milk. If you want to milk a cow, buy a damn cow.

though the Constitution was meant to be somewhat fluid, and was meant to be adapted to changing conditions over time
What makes you say this?

if you have a group of people, there are only two basic ways for decisions affecting that group to be made. either everyone in the group has a say in the outcome or only some people have a say. the first is democracy. how could the second be an instance of freedom?
freedom isn't determined by how many people "have a say," because if there is a majority-rules situation then the "say" of the minority doesn't matter in the slightest. if everybody has a say, but the majority vote is that the minority should be executed at dawn, then the minority doesn't have much freedom.

look at the Iraqi election, for example: if a pure, democratic election occured, sans US mediation, you almost certainly would get a Shiite majority insitituting a theocratic government based on their beliefs. yes, that would be totally democratic, but do you think the Sunni Arabs or the Kurds would be free?

besides, you are creating a totally false dichotomy; those aren't the only two options available in government structure.

What makes you say this?
the men who wrote it said so. there are two ways to amend the Constitution that are spelled out IN THE CONSTITUTION. i think that's a good hint that the framers knew their work shouldn't be set in stone.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

It's simple. You owning your property is denying me the right to own your property. :P

It's simple. You owning your property is denying me the right to own your property. :P
and me breathing is denying you the right to breath those air molecules. me eating an apple denies you the right to eat that apple. me drinking a cup of water denies you the right to drink that cup of water.

well, i guess we all just oppress the hell out of each other, in that case. it's a pity that socialists aren't prepared to go get their own damn cup of water. :)

What the hell are you talking about? Who is prohibited from owning cows? Do you really think anyone should be able to milk any cow? Who should take care of the cows? For the record, I don't own any cows and don't want to. I'd rather buy my milk. If you want to milk a cow, buy a damn cow.I'd buy cows if they were for sale. Unfortunatelly they belong to private people who make money out of it. Maybe the market of cows is free because the owners let it free, but take the oil market for instance. Can you buy a oil field and start your oil business? NO! Why? Because those who own the oil don't want to sell it. It is like that. The freedom of the capital is in conflict with the freedom of the market. If the owner is free to dictate his policies on his oil fields, oil fields are not free. The only things you can buy are the things the owners don't want.

and me breathing is denying you the right to breath those air molecules. me eating an apple denies you the right to eat that apple. me drinking a cup of water denies you the right to drink that cup of water.

well, i guess we all just oppress the hell out of each other, in that case. it's a pity that socialists aren't prepared to go get their own damn cup of water. :)
Socialism is not about your damn cup of water. It is about the whole damn river.
It is about nuclear plants, oil fields, cows and car factories.
I don't give a damn about your apple. I'm just conserned about you eating the whole damn national production of apple trees.

Capitalists always accuse socialists of wanting to take your pants and tooth brush. Can't they learn that it has nothing to do with the matter?

I'd buy cows if they were for sale. Unfortunatelly they belong to private people who make money out of it. Maybe the market of cows is free because the owners let it free, but take the oil market for instance. Can you buy a oil field and start your oil business? NO! Why? Because those who own the oil don't want to sell it. It is like that. The freedom of the capital is in conflict with the freedom of the market. If the owner is free to dictate his policies on his oil fields, oil fields are not free. The only things you can buy are the things the owners don't want.
i guarantee you that you absolutely CAN purchase an oil field. you simply have to have enough money. just because you don't have enough money doesn't mean it's impossible. i don't have enough money for a rack of lamb at the grocery store, so should i expect the grocer to just give it to me?

i guarantee you that you absolutely CAN purchase an oil field. you simply have to have enough money. just because you don't have enough money doesn't mean it's impossible. i don't have enough money for a rack of lamb at the grocery store, so should i expect the grocer to just give it to me?
Can you please explain to me why the saudis would want to sell their oil fields to me?
Also lamps are not capital. Yes I know you will say they can be, but they are not when you buy them. They become capital when you start using it for producing something.

Can you please explain to me why the saudis would want to sell their oil fields to me?
offer enough money, i guarantee they will sell. the reason they don't want to sell to you right now is that you don't have enough money.


Also lamps are not capital. Yes I know you will say they can be, but they are not when you buy them. They become capital when you start using it for producing something.
i have no idea what point you are trying to make. what does the buying of lamps have to do with anything?

offer enough money, i guarantee they will sell. the reason they don't want to sell to you right now is that you don't have enough money.
So you mean I'm free to buy their oil field in order to become as rich as them, but only if I'm richer than them.

i have no idea what point you are trying to make. what does the buying of lamps have to do with anything?
Replace lamps with rack of lambs.

So you mean I'm free to buy their oil field in order to become as rich as them, but only if I'm richer than them.

you are free to buy their oil field for whatever price they choose to set on it. if that means you have to become extremely wealthy before you can buy an oil field, then so be it.

this is about an agreed exchange. if i have a necklace that you want, you can try to give me something in exchange for the necklace. if i don't especially care about the necklace i may be willing to accept a very low amount of money or a cheap trade for it, but if the necklace has high value to me i will probably demand a lot of money or an expesive trade of some kind. you are free to decide that it's not worth it, that you would rather not have to exchange so much for a necklace, and i am free to decide whether your offer is worth it for me.

you are not free to decide how much the necklace is worth to me, and you are not free to decide for me whether i will accept a trade, because that is theft. however, you are free to try to convince me, and to offer me various things in the hopes that i will agree to the trade. similarly, i am not free to force you to pay an ammount you feel is unfair, because you always retain the right to take your money and leave.


Replace lamps with rack of lambs.
again, i don't see what you are trying to say. if a rack of lamb isn't capital when i buy it, it only becomes capital when i use it to produce, then an oil field isn't capital when you buy it, it only becomes capital when you use it to produce. so what's your point?

A person is oppressed no more under a socialist system than an equivalent capitalist system. The oppression is just divided equally.

you are free to buy their oil field for whatever price they choose to set on it. if that means you have to become extremely wealthy before you can buy an oil field, then so be it.

this is about an agreed exchange. if i have a necklace that you want, you can try to give me something in exchange for the necklace. if i don't especially care about the necklace i may be willing to accept a very low amount of money or a cheap trade for it, but if the necklace has high value to me i will probably demand a lot of money or an expesive trade of some kind. you are free to decide that it's not worth it, that you would rather not have to exchange so much for a necklace, and i am free to decide whether your offer is worth it for me.

you are not free to decide how much the necklace is worth to me, and you are not free to decide for me whether i will accept a trade, because that is theft. however, you are free to try to convince me, and to offer me various things in the hopes that i will agree to the trade. similarly, i am not free to force you to pay an ammount you feel is unfair, because you always retain the right to take your money and leave.
In the mean time the owner is free to do whatever the fuck he wants with the oil fields and you are free to shut your mouth. So this is what you call freedom.
If you were free to use the oil, it would be theft.
Isn't theft the real freedom then?

again, i don't see what you are trying to say. if a rack of lamb isn't capital when i buy it, it only becomes capital when i use it to produce, then an oil field isn't capital when you buy it, it only becomes capital when you use it to produce. so what's your point?I was supposing you were going to say rack of lambs were capital. I was wrong. rack of lambs is not the same as oil fields because they don't have products.

In the mean time the owner is free to do whatever the fuck he wants with the oil fields and you are free to shut your mouth. So this is what you call freedom.

just like i am free to do whatever the fuck i want with my necklace, and you are free to shut your mouth. just like i am free to cook up the pasta in my cupboard in whatever way i like, and you are free to shut your mouth about it. would you consider things more free if you had the right to come into my home, take my necklace, and cook up my pasta for yourself?


If you were free to use the oil, it would be theft.
Isn't theft the real freedom then?

how so? you would have taken something of value from another person, making no effort to compensate them for the loss. they "paid" for the field in the effort they expended to find and harvest it, or they exchanged something of value for it, but now you are going to take it from them simply because you want it. that seems a little childish, and not just a little unfair.


I was supposing you were going to say rack of lambs were capital. I was wrong. rack of lambs is not the same as oil fields because they don't have products.
and oil field, alone, has no product. you can buy and oil field and then sit there staring at it, and i promise you that it won't produce a damn thing any more than my rack of lamb will if i stare at it. you have to expend time, effort, and money to obtain the value from an oil field. sure, the oil field will be naturally producing raw oil somewhere deep under ground, but you have to expend time, effort and money to be able to GET that oil.

just like i am free to do whatever the fuck i want with my necklace, and you are free to shut your mouth. just like i am free to cook up the pasta in my cupboard in whatever way i like, and you are free to shut your mouth about it. would you consider things more free if you had the right to come into my home, take my necklace, and cook up my pasta for yourself?I don't care about my freedom to take your pasta so long as I have enough pasta to feed myself. I don't care about my freedom to take your pants because they're not my size. I don't care about my freedom to kill you because it will give me nothing. Actually I'd rather have the valuable freedom to have my pants than the freedom to take it from somebody else and I'd rather have the valuable freedom not to be killed than the freedom to kill.
I care about my freedom to have your beach because I want to surf, and I care about my freedom to have oil because I need it for my car.

how so? you would have taken something of value from another person, making no effort to compensate them for the loss. they "paid" for the field in the effort they expended to find and harvest it, or they exchanged something of value for it, but now you are going to take it from them simply because you want it. that seems a little childish, and not just a little unfair.
In fact they inherited their oil field and they didn't pay anything. They were just lucky.

and oil field, alone, has no product. you can buy and oil field and then sit there staring at it, and i promise you that it won't produce a damn thing any more than my rack of lamb will if i stare at it. you have to expend time, effort, and money to obtain the value from an oil field. sure, the oil field will be naturally producing raw oil somewhere deep under ground, but you have to expend time, effort and money to be able to GET that oil.
oh no, you just have to call halliburton and share half the profits with them.

I have a question: how can socialists claim that they promote maximum civil liberties while they blatantly don't even support a person's right to his own property?

Your mistake is in equating a capitalistic ethos with a socialist one. Socialism is a completely different economic and political philosophy than capitalism.

I suggest you read up on socialism and then many of your questyions may be answered. A good (simplistic) start may be "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell, it's avery good introduction to explaining Socialism by taking apart and criticising the corruption and greed inherant within capitalism, ohh and it deals with how to respond to those unwilling to embrace new concepts.

Enjoy the book, I did and I'm not a Socialist.

I don't care about my freedom to take your pasta so long as I have enough pasta to feed myself. I don't care about my freedom to take your pants because they're not my size. I don't care about my freedom to kill you because it will give me nothing. Actually I'd rather have the valuable freedom to have my pants than the freedom to take it from somebody else and I'd rather have the valuable freedom not to be killed than the freedom to kill.

so we determine what freedoms to allow based on how much you, personally, desire certain objects? since you, personally, don't want my pasta, we conclude theft of pasta is wrong, but because you want an oil field that means it's okay for you to steal one?

I care about my freedom to have your beach because I want to surf, and I care about my freedom to have oil because I need it for my car.

last i checked, it was possible to purchase oil for my car without needing to own an oil field.


In fact they inherited their oil field and they didn't pay anything. They were just lucky.
so? everybody has benefits from the accident of birth. one person is smarter, another is better looking, another is more wealthy at birth. as a parent, i should have the right to give my children gifts whenever i like, provided those gifts are mine to give, and that should apply regardless of if the gift is a watch or a dog or an oil field. if it belongs to me i may give it; if it doesn't belong to you, you may not take it.

so we determine what freedoms to allow based on how much you, personally, desire those freedoms?Well, if a handfull set of big capitalist owners' freedom is in conflict with the freedom of all the rest of the world, we have to choose one or the other.
I let you choose.

last i checked, it was able to purchase oil for my car without needing to own an oil field.
You're lucky coz your country is raping Iraq for those oil fields. Some people are not able to purchare a car, they would be happy even if they had enough food to eat.

so? everybody has benefits from the accident of birth. one person is smarter, another is better looking, another is more wealthy at birth. as a parent, i should have the right to give my children gifts whenever i like, provided those gifts are mine to give, and that should apply regardless of if the gift is a watch or a dog or an oil field. if it belongs to me i may give it; if it doesn't belong to you, you may not take it.
Who decide what belong to who? God? You?

Well, if a handfull set of big capitalist owners' freedom is in conflict with the freedom of all the rest of the world, we have to choose one or the other.
I let you choose.
The freedom of the rest of the world is NOT in conflict with that of the employers. Conflict only exists in situations where something is limited. Freedom is NOT a zero sum game. There is the potential for unlimited freedom for everyone. You have to do stuff to earn the freedom, beyond a certain level it is not innate. There is no conflict, unless the freedom goes below a certain level (intentional, direct oppression, shooting dissidents in the bed, etc..)

-snip, as this doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the philosophical part of the arguement-

Who decide what belong to who? God? You?The individual's labor decides what belongs to whom. Basically, your labor and intelligence belong to you. What you mix those with belongs to you. If other people desire what you have, then they can either steal it, or have to offer you something (in any post-tribal society, this is money) in return for that. With that money, you can a) subsist, perhaps improve your personal situation a bit, take some time off, stuff like that, but that's about it. b) Invest the money, gain the ability to produce more of a certain object, if people are willing to buy it, then you get more money.

In the end, it's the individual's labor all the same, as people consent to give him their resources in return for the fruits of his labor.

That's how property comes into being an individuals.

Well, if a handfull set of big capitalist owners' freedom is in conflict with the freedom of all the rest of the world, we have to choose one or the other.
I let you choose.

you have utterly failed to establish that conflict of freedoms. you simply skipped over the part where i demonstrated that no such conflict existed, and now demand that i abide by your fraudulent dichotomy.

You're lucky coz your country is raping Iraq for those oil fields. Some people are not able to purchare a car, they would be happy even if they had enough food to eat.

random emotive material is not in any way a sufficient response to my points. you are embarassing yourself.


Who decide what belong to who? God? You?
since the existence of God can never be proven or disproven, it would not be logical to determine ownership based on what a human being claims that a non-proven God-entity desires. it would also be illogical to give such power to me, since i have neither the time nor the inclination to oversee all property disputes in the world. i have given you a very clear system for determining ownership, and you have ignored it. i see no reason to re-type material that you have elected not to read.

The freedom of the rest of the world is NOT in conflict with that of the employers. Conflict only exists in situations where something is limited. Freedom is NOT a zero sum game. There is the potential for unlimited freedom for everyone. You have to do stuff to earn the freedom, beyond a certain level it is not innate. There is no conflict, unless the freedom goes below a certain level (intentional, direct oppression, shooting dissidents in the bed, etc..) It doesn't seem to me that the owners of the oil fields did stuff to earn their freedom. And if there was no conflict I could have this oil for free and they could make money at the same time.

-snip, as this doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the philosophical part of the arguement-

The individual's labor decides what belongs to whom. Basically, your labor and intelligence belong to you. What you mix those with belongs to you. If other people desire what you have, then they can either steal it, or have to offer you something (in any post-tribal society, this is money) in return for that. With that money, you can a) subsist, perhaps improve your personal situation a bit, take some time off, stuff like that, but that's about it. b) Invest the money, gain the ability to produce more of a certain object, if people are willing to buy it, then you get more money.Good I agree with you. So oil fields belong to nobody since they are not labor nor intelligence?

In the end, it's the individual's labor all the same, as people consent to give him their resources in return for the fruits of his labor.

That's how property comes into being an individuals.
The problem is that if you don't put limit on the property you give to private people, they will become a ruling class because they will control more and more resources generation after generation.
I think oil fields should belong to the state and only be rented to individuals, never sold.

you have utterly failed to establish that conflict of freedoms. you simply skipped over the part where i demonstrated that no such conflict existed, and now demand that i abide by your fraudulent dichotomy.I didn't get it

random emotive material is not in any way a sufficient response to my points. you are embarassing yourself.
It is only random because you don't understand it

since the existence of God can never be proven or disproven, it would not be logical to determine ownership based on what a human being claims that a non-proven God-entity desires. it would also be illogical to give such power to me, since i have neither the time nor the inclination to oversee all property disputes in the world. i have given you a very clear system for determining ownership, and you have ignored it. i see no reason to re-type material that you have elected not to read.
Your system of ownership is flawed because it creates classes and reduces the freedom of most people.

so hows your feudilistic goverment doing my capitilist friends.because its definitly not a capitilist system where everything you get must be earned.the rich were born rich,the poor born poor.tis feudilism.

so hows your feudilistic goverment doing my capitilist friends.because its definitly not a capitilist system where everything you get must be earned.the rich were born rich,the poor born poor.tis feudilism.


I disagree, because in feudalism you must have 100% employment of the masses. According to Alan Greenspan full employment (which is defined as a 95% employment rate) is bad for a capitalist nation. This is simply because if everyone (except the 5% who are unable to work for any reason) had a job, then the large corporations couldn't exploit anyone. If the only unemployed people are unable to work, then the UNIONS BECOME MORE POWERFUL. If there's a strike, the union will always kick the corporation's ass. This would eventually lead to one of two possibillities:

1: Corporations become totalitarian governing entities within a nation

or

2: Capitalism collapses because the corporations will have to charge more for products, which leads to an increase in cost of living, which leads to the unions wanting pay raises. All of this eventually leads to either massive inflation which will make the nation poor as hell or it could lead to possbility
#3

3: A few major companies bankrupt because the labor costs are too high. This leads to the employment rate being below 95%. This could become a cycle.

With all of this said, how can you support anything that relies on poverty and exploitation to sustain itself? :eek: Is your mind sufficiently blown?

freedom isn't determined by how many people "have a say," because if there is a majority-rules situation then the "say" of the minority doesn't matter in the slightest. if everybody has a say, but the majority vote is that the minority should be executed at dawn, then the minority doesn't have much freedom.

i already said it was a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. you can quite easily have democracy without freedom. but you cannot have freedom without democracy. 'freedom' without equal say in group decisions is nothing more than privilege granted by those who have control over such matters. privilege they could take away, or privilege they could grant differently.

besides, you are creating a totally false dichotomy; those aren't the only two options available in government structure.

what other options are there for making group decisions besides 'everyone gets a say' and 'not everyone gets a say'? 'nobody gets a say'? that is only possible if people no longer do things in groups. and i assume you would like to still have humans live and work in groups. so what else is there?

It doesn't seem to me that the owners of the oil fields did stuff to earn their freedom. And if there was no conflict I could have this oil for free and they could make money at the same time.
Good I agree with you. So oil fields belong to nobody since they are not labor nor intelligence?
While this seems to be the logical conclusion, "obvious logic" is so very often wrong. You, see what the oil fields are are natural resources, just as land is. When you mix your labor with any natural resource, then it is yours. And how is the labor mixed with the oil fields? Duh! Drilling the wells and maintaining them. It's like how fencing in a lot of land makes it yours in a state of nature. Of course, this is a state of nature arguement, so it's important to make a now arguement as well.

The government right off owns the land, when no one lays claim to it, BUT, a private individual comes along and pays the government for the land, thus, mixing his labor with it, and making it his.

The problem is that if you don't put limit on the property you give to private people, they will become a ruling class because they will control more and more resources generation after generation.
Why shouldn't they? People obviously want the good, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. And if they thought a family was becoming to monopolistic, then they can just not buy the good. And the original inventor wanted the intellectual property to stay with his family, so as to ease his children's lives.

Beyond that: They may become wealthy, but not necessarily a ruling class. Espescially if there are levels of popular opinion factored into the government, and the people play some role in the decision making process.

Your situation CAN happen, but it is not a necessity that it WILL happen.

You don't just rule by ownership of resources. And it's impossible for a small group of people to own all the resources without force or fraud (something the government can interfere in) and not compensate (justly, as the government will stop a deal if fraud is in progress) those who are giving it up.

I think oil fields should belong to the state and only be rented to individuals, never sold.
This of course leads to the incredibly dangerous "government as landlords" concept.

i already said it was a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. you can quite easily have democracy without freedom. but you cannot have freedom without democracy. 'freedom' without equal say in group decisions is nothing more than privilege granted by those who have control over such matters. privilege they could take away, or privilege they could grant differently.
As I pointed out before, this statement is not entirely true. You cannot have 'positive' freedom without democracy, but you can have 'negative' freedom out the arse. I believe that it is commonly recognized that there are two different sorts of freedom.

And now that I think about it, you do have a level of positive freedom. As no dictatorship has ever been ruled without the support of some portion of the populace. Even the Nazis caved to public pressure every so often. So, your statement is like the good-evil thing. There are shades of grey. You're just being too simple minded to see it.

(Wow, I never thought I'd use the shades of grey analogy...)

As I pointed out before, this statement is not entirely true. You cannot have 'positive' freedom without democracy, but you can have 'negative' freedom out the arse. I believe that it is commonly recognized that there are two different sorts of freedom.

while there may be two distinct sorts of freedom, i am interested in expanding freedom as far as i can. so both sorts matter.

while there may be two distinct sorts of freedom, i am interested in expanding freedom as far as i can. so both sorts matter.
But, I think what he's saying is that your statement that you cannot have freedom without democracy is a incorrect.

But, I think what he's saying is that your statement that you cannot have freedom without democracy is a incorrect.

if freedom is made up of two different things - freedom1 and freedom2 - then you cannot have freedom if you only have freedom1. i disagree that freedom1 by itself even counts; but if it does, it is only half of the concept freedom.

so i guess we might be talking past each other.

i already said it was a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. you can quite easily have democracy without freedom. but you cannot have freedom without democracy.

and i am saying that your claim is incorrect. was i somehow unclear about that? you can very easily have freedom with NO DEMOCRACY AT ALL.


'freedom' without equal say in group decisions is nothing more than privilege granted by those who have control over such matters. privilege they could take away, or privilege they could grant differently.

so? 'freedom' based on democracy is exactly as carpricious; the majority group can give or withhold your freedoms as it pleases.


what other options are there for making group decisions besides 'everyone gets a say' and 'not everyone gets a say'? 'nobody gets a say'? that is only possible if people no longer do things in groups.

quite wrong. as i have detailed before, you can have a situation where NOBODY has the power to change a given rule or rules (and thus nobody "has a say") but where everybody "has a say" on the majority of subjects as long as those rules are not broken.

that's the idea behind the Constitution, that there are certain rights which no majority, no leader, and no government body has the right to overrule. now, America is doing a piss-poor job of actually LIVING by this system, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or even unrealistic...indeed, the whole problem right now is that the "majority rules" system is being given far too much leeway.

quite wrong. as i have detailed before, you can have a situation where NOBODY has the power to change a given rule or rules (and thus nobody "has a say") but where everybody "has a say" on the majority of subjects as long as those rules are not broken.

that's the idea behind the Constitution, that there are certain rights which no majority, no leader, and no government body has the right to overrule. now, America is doing a piss-poor job of actually LIVING by this system, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or even unrealistic...indeed, the whole problem right now is that the "majority rules" system is being given far too much leeway.

I had understood that written constitutions, such as the US one, can be changed. The rules to do so are a little tougher than the rules to change less enshrined laws, but it is changeable all the same.
Now if it is changeable, then somebody has a say in changing it. This somebody, could be everyone, but in the US case it isn't, or it could be a select group. (Potentially it could also be a unique individual, as is the case in the UK with the monarchy).
Where rules exist, then it is generally not a good idea to keep changing them. So in general rules set conditions which, on a day by day basis, nobody has a say in. However the rules have to be changeable , so at another level some group does have a say. There is a change of perspective involved, from day to day, to long term.

I had understood that written constitutions, such as the US one, can be changed. The rules to do so are a little tougher than the rules to change less enshrined laws, but it is changeable all the same.

again, the IDEA of the Constitution was that there would be certain core rights that nobody could monkey with. technically speaking, if we do monkey with those rights, then we are no longer practicing the form of government directed by the Constitution.


Now if it is changeable, then somebody has a say in changing it. This somebody, could be everyone, but in the US case it isn't, or it could be a select group. (Potentially it could also be a unique individual, as is the case in the UK with the monarchy).

yeah, this is where it get a little messy; the framers clearly intended for it to be possible to modify the Constitution, but they also engineered a complex system of how that would have to occur. they built this system in such a way that both the elected officials (who would be more informed about the political workings of the government) and the people (who are the whole reason to be making governments and laws in the first place) would have to be involved in changing the Constitution.


Where rules exist, then it is generally not a good idea to keep changing them. So in general rules set conditions which, on a day by day basis, nobody has a say in. However the rules have to be changeable , so at another level some group does have a say. There is a change of perspective involved, from day to day, to long term.
exactly, and that's why i find the American Constitution so wonderful. it's not perfect, don't get me wrong, but i honestly believe it is the best codified set of rules for government than any human civilization has produced yet. well, at least, any civilization for which we have solid records of such matters...who knows what information has been lost over the ages?

and i am saying that your claim is incorrect. was i somehow unclear about that? you can very easily have freedom with NO DEMOCRACY AT ALL.

what exactly is the reasoning behind the idea of free speech or any of the other freedoms people like? why do we get to have them, what is the argument for them? there are approximately three ways you can go with this. either the practical argument (not punishing people for certain actions leads to a 'better' society), the leviathan argument (you are allowed to do whatever the sovereign says you can - there is no need for reasoning beyond that), or the argument that some choices rightfully belong to the individual (what to think, what to say, etc). the first two are wide open to your 'freedoms' being changed or done away with, either because the government decides 'hell, why not?' or because some matter of practicality leads them to believe there is good reason to stop certain actions.

the third idea is the one i hold. decisions that affect the individual are properly made by the individual. this is what freedom is. if people make decisions for you that properly should be yours to make, then you are unfree. it follows from this conception that freedom in group interactions requires equal say in group decisions. the only way for us to each be free when it comes to decisions that affect both us and other people is for us all to have a say in them.

and please note that this in no way requires the existence of simple majoritarian systems. democracy means more than whatever gets 50%+1 wins.

quite wrong. as i have detailed before, you can have a situation where NOBODY has the power to change a given rule or rules (and thus nobody "has a say") but where everybody "has a say" on the majority of subjects as long as those rules are not broken.

no you can't. rules do not just spring up from the ground. some people were involved in making the decision as to what those rules would be. they had a say. and the tyrrany of old dead guys doesn't seem to enticing to me. what happens when in the course of events it turns out that some of their ideas were misguided or just plain stupid?

if freedom is made up of two different things - freedom1 and freedom2 - then you cannot have freedom if you only have freedom1. i disagree that freedom1 by itself even counts; but if it does, it is only half of the concept freedom.

so i guess we might be talking past each other.
No, freedom is not one solid object. Freedom is a fluid object, there are multiple versions of it. Just like there are granny smith apples and Macintosh apples. You get rid of Granny Smith's, you can still have Macintosh apples.

No, freedom is not one solid object. Freedom is a fluid object, there are multiple versions of it. Just like there are granny smith apples and Macintosh apples. You get rid of Granny Smith's, you can still have Macintosh apples.
I think we should fight to have Macintosh and Granny Smith's apples and let the rotten apples where they are. They may have been good in the past but now they have became worthless.