NationStates Jolt Archive

Now before everyone on all sides of the political landscape explode hear me out. I understand that there can be abuses in all forms of government and economic models. I just want to have a discussion on the founding principles between a free market and socialism. This question was asked of me by a favorite professor of mine.

In the free market DEMAND is what dictates price and worth. Meaning if you are making money it can only be because you are supplying a product or service that others need or want. In other words you are contributing to society.

In socialism WORK is what dictates price and worth. This means that you could work on digging a ditch in the middle of nowhere and rightfully demand payment for it. You do not have to contribute anything to society.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?

Socialism is selfish... in the minds of people who don't like socialism.

capitalism is inherently selfish in that it is greed that drives demand

socialism is not as it is the desire for equality for all that drives work and the ideal itself

That's not really socialism... Socialism is where resources are distributed, by the government, according to need and availability. Everyone works to provide for the whole. Human need is the "demand" here, whereas in capitalism both need and any other wants constitute demand.

Neither socialism nor capitalism are selfish. People are.

Neither socialism nor capitalism are selfish. People are.
So true.

capitalism is inherently selfish in that it is greed that drives demand

socialism is not as it is the desire for equality for all that drives work and the ideal itself


What is wrong with a little greed? They are only profiting from things YOU buy. Greed is a great motivational tool.

And socialism is terrible in its desire for "equality." It would rather lower the standards of the wealthy than help those who are in need. Socialists would like us to judge them based off of their good intentions rather than their results. Where are the results?

i believe that this argument is flawed for two reasons,

firstly the idea that supply and demand is automatically working for soceity is incorrect,the demand could be for nuclear weapons or narcotics, neither of which are constructive to soceity although people want them for various reasons.

secondly this notion of digging a ditch getting you paid is wrong, in a socialist soceity it ois not simply WORK that has worth it is work for the benefit of the soceity.

i thought that was pretty clear,.... but hey

Now before everyone on all sides of the political landscape explode hear me out. I understand that there can be abuses in all forms of government and economic models. I just want to have a discussion on the founding principles between a free market and socialism. This question was asked of me by a favorite professor of mine.

In the free market DEMAND is what dictates price and worth. Meaning if you are making money it can only be because you are supplying a product or service that others need or want. In other words you are contributing to society.

In socialism WORK is what dictates price and worth. This means that you could work on digging a ditch in the middle of nowhere and rightfully demand payment for it. You do not have to contribute anything to society.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?

Socialism is not selfish its capitalism ho is selfish.

socialism are about we poeple are on the world together. no man is a island our action has consequence for that reason we olso have to take consideration about the consequence about are action.

Socialism think we shall to society after ability and receive after need.

liberalism is selfish in the name of freedom rish poeple have right to make mony of child labour in extrem case, its not freedom are worker how is dependence of employer. Freedom can you only got we the people not is dependence of dominate class.

Neither socialism nor capitalism are selfish. People are.

capitalist people, that is,
people do not have a 'default setting' to be selfish, thats why people love their families and friends and feel remorse, being social animals we benefit from colectivity, as the group makes what we can acheive greater

What is wrong with a little greed. They are only profiting from things YOU buy. Greed is a great motivational tool.

And socialism is terrible in it's desire for "equality." It would rather lower the standards of the wealthy than help those who are in need. Socialists would like us to judge them based off of their good intentions rather than their results. Where are the results?
Note: Socialism has never been successfully practiced. And, to add, neither has capitalism. The closest the US has gotten to pure capitalism, for example, was in the late 1800's - the Gilded Age - when, in a completely free market, gigantic monopolies were able to form, thus squelching out competition and ending the brief episode of capitalism in favor of an oligarchic plutocracy.

And what was practiced in the Soviet Union was never Socialism, either. It was merely a government monopoly, where the government was a company competing on the world stage for its own customers. The residents of the USSR were simply like the workers in the company towns of the 1800's, forced to buy from only the company store.

And so on. Both capitalism and socialism are idealisms, impossible in their pure and undiluted forms without destroying themselves as long as one person has any desire to lift him/herself above another.

i believe that this argument is flawed for two reasons,

firstly the idea that supply and demand is automatically working for soceity is incorrect,the demand could be for nuclear weapons or narcotics, neither of which are constructive to soceity although people want them for various reasons.

secondly this notion of digging a ditch getting you paid is wrong, in a socialist soceity it ois not simply WORK that has worth it is work for the benefit of the soceity.

i thought that was pretty clear,.... but hey

I undestand there are abuses in free markets. I am not against a little regulation and I never said otherwise. I still think that part of the example holds up for the most part.

And I have not seen this socialism where people work for the good of the society in common practice... unless you are talking about star trek which I doubt. If it were the case that socialism worked for the betterment of the society why do they constantly produce lower quality goods more inefficiently? And most socialist trial communities that I have heard of end in poverty. If someone can mention one that worked I would be very greatful.

In the free market DEMAND is what dictates price and worth. Meaning if you are making money it can only be because you are supplying a product or service that others need or want. In other words you are contributing to society.
First of all, you need to recognize that not all forms of socialiam interfere with the free market. Most Anarchists are socialist or even communist. Anarchists do not, however, advocate the patriarchal kind of forced socialization of authoritarian socialists. Furthermore, forcing people to contribute to an individualistic infrastructure through mandatory taxes interferes with the free market just as much as forced collectivization.

In socialism WORK is what dictates price and worth. This means that you could work on digging a ditch in the middle of nowhere and rightfully demand payment for it. You do not have to contribute anything to society.
That is an aweful straw-man fallacy. All socialist governments that have ever existed have at least tried to limit this sort of abuse of the system. Admittedly, many of them have had difficulty achieving this goal, but socialists aren't as simple minded as you make them out to be.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?
Let me remind you that capitalists coined the phrase "Greed is good."

Socialism is not selfish its capitalism ho is selfish.

socialism are about we poeple are on the world together. no man is a island our action has consequence for that reason we olso have to take consideration about the consequence about are action.

Socialism think we shall to society after ability and receive after need.

liberalism is selfish in the name of freedom rish poeple have right to make mony of child labour in extrem case, its not freedom are worker how is dependence of employer. Freedom can you only got we the people not is dependence of dominate class.

Wait... what?

What is wrong with a little greed? They are only profiting from things YOU buy. Greed is a great motivational tool.

And socialism is terrible in its desire for "equality." It would rather lower the standards of the wealthy than help those who are in need. Socialists would like us to judge them based off of their good intentions rather than their results. Where are the results?

socialism hight the standards of wealthy in the contry becuse poeple are not so poor anymore and becuse people have more mony thay can bay things to.

liberalism is terrible its desiere thay want people to work for lite mony the consequence is poeple dont have have enough money to bay thing. And company are going bankrupt.

Selfish? No.
Short sighted and self-righteous? Most definitely.

Where are the results?
Canada.

Now before everyone on all sides of the political landscape explode hear me out. I understand that there can be abuses in all forms of government and economic models. I just want to have a discussion on the founding principles between a free market and socialism. This question was asked of me by a favorite professor of mine.

In the free market DEMAND is what dictates price and worth. Meaning if you are making money it can only be because you are supplying a product or service that others need or want. In other words you are contributing to society.

In socialism WORK is what dictates price and worth. This means that you could work on digging a ditch in the middle of nowhere and rightfully demand payment for it. You do not have to contribute anything to society.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?

First of all, let's be clear about what is being discussed here: the labor theory of value versus the market theory of value.

According to the labor theory (which, incidentally, is not a theory exclusive to Marxism; it was originally developed by one John Locke), the value of an object is dependent upon the quality and quantity of the labor that went into producing it. According to the market theory of value, a good is worth only as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

Put that way, I would say that neither theory is selfish per se, as either can work within the context of a self-interested model. That being said, you can be an altruist and be a socialist, but there is some question in my mind whether you can truly be an altruist and a capitalist. In other words, I can see how you could be selfish and operate in a labor theory system (I.E. you spend your time and effort constructing the most elaborate ditch ever in the hope that people will pay for that effort, hence your professor's argument), and I can also see how people can be selfish and operate in a capitalist system (i.e. you get the best deal on goods, even if the effort that went into them vastly outstrips your payment for those goods). I can also see how people could be altruistic and operate in a socialist system. I have difficulty seeing how the desire to get the best market rate can coincide with fairly paying a person for the full value of their effort, however, so I have a hard time seeing how capitalism and altruism mix.

As a side note, I would also say that Marx was pretty emphatic that the effort should be socially beneficial. So the massive one-man earthworks project wouldn't necessarily be a way to make a living in a practical Marxist society.

Socialism, or rather a 'good' socialist is selfish only in the abstract sense that ever human act is selfish, I'm not a socialist, but I'm loathed to parody it as you opening statement does, but I cant hold you to blame, as the media has been largely in the hands of capitalists since before socialism (under that name) existed. Also one must remember that the largest socialist experiment (the soviet block) was subverted by a Stalin, psychotic dictator (in NS parlance ;) ) so don't judge socialism (the idea, or it's practicality) purely by this 'example'.

One could say socialism is selfish, in that the workers just want more of the pie, and this, I think, is true, but not a bad thing.

And before I go elsewhere, we live, or I live, in a capitalist society, I have had, and seen, many jobs, I am not convinced that a majority of them contribute to society, and those that are neutral (we'd get along fine without) consume resources which, frankly, I'd rather we left to someone who might do something useful with them. I've nothing against pillars of the community, like cleaners, barmen, and maybe even prostituted (I'd rather not sit in judgement), but cold callers, data entry clerks, loan sharks, politicians (sorry! couldn't resist)... Products of capitalism....

a lot of people who dont subscribe to or even claim to dislike socialism often seem to cite the fact that there has not yet been a sucseeful socialist state as their main problem with it,
i subscribe to socialism because i agree with its ideals,
so do most people agree with the ideals (id be worried about you as a person if you didnt) but worry about the practicalities?

(i ask this question assuming most people on a forum such as this will know the true ideals behind socialism regardless of their political persuasion)

capitalist people, that is,
people do not have a 'default setting' to be selfish, thats why people love their families and friends and feel remorse, being social animals we benefit from colectivity, as the group makes what we can acheive greater

In my honest opinion, that's one of the major errors of socialism and one of the reason it failed.
Yes, people have the social capacity to think and act selfless, but only to some extent. Evolutionary, being selfish is the older and more basic urge, self-preservation is one of our innermost biological urges.
Selflessness and social life are comparatively new and therefore not quite as strong (even though there are some people who will put others before themselves, no doubt, but they tend to be a minority).

People are more or less the same both in capitalist and in socialist societies, even though their ideals will differ. If people weren't selfish, socialist society wouldn't even exist, as we would already be living in a communist paradise. Unfortunately, we don't. Attempts to force communism into existence failed because people are selfish.

In my honest opinion, that's one of the major errors of socialism and one of the reason it failed.
Yes, people have the social capacity to think and act selfless, but only to some extent. Evolutionary, being selfish is the older and more basic urge, self-preservation is one of our innermost biological urges.
Selflessness and social life are comparatively new and therefore not quite as strong (even though there are some people who will put others before themselves, no doubt, but they tend to be a minority).

People are more or less the same both in capitalist and in socialist societies, even though their ideals will differ. If people weren't selfish, socialist society wouldn't even exist, as we would already be living in a communist paradise. Unfortunately, we don't. Attempts to force communism into existence failed because people are selfish.

thats a bit defeatist isnt it, if you can see a better world dont just give in because its hard.
and on the topic of evolution, i think the best society humans could hope to evolve would be similar to socialism if not socialism

Note: Socialism has never been successfully practiced. And, to add, neither has capitalism. The closest the US has gotten to pure capitalism, for example, was in the late 1800's - the Gilded Age - when, in a completely free market, gigantic monopolies were able to form, thus squelching out competition and ending the brief episode of capitalism in favor of an oligarchic plutocracy.

And what was practiced in the Soviet Union was never Socialism, either. It was merely a government monopoly, where the government was a company competing on the world stage for its own customers. The residents of the USSR were simply like the workers in the company towns of the 1800's, forced to buy from only the company store.

And so on. Both capitalism and socialism are idealisms, impossible in their pure and undiluted forms without destroying themselves as long as one person has any desire to lift him/herself above another.


I think is impossible got pure economy system this is alway some part ho is state are private.

I dont think its the best thing either. what we need is a mixed economy.

To call people selfish in the blunt sense I read you as doin Cabra West, and to call it biology, is simplification to the exclusion of truth. Humans are a phenominlay sucessfull species, cooperation has been fundamental to this, this cooperation is evolved, just as it is in ants, cod, seaguls, and many other sucessfull species. Enlightened self interest is my favorite term for it, selfish only in an abstract way, which I don't think pertains to this conversation.

In my honest opinion, that's one of the major errors of socialism and one of the reason it failed.
Yes, people have the social capacity to think and act selfless, but only to some extent. Evolutionary, being selfish is the older and more basic urge, self-preservation is one of our innermost biological urges.
Selflessness and social life are comparatively new and therefore not quite as strong (even though there are some people who will put others before themselves, no doubt, but they tend to be a minority).

People are more or less the same both in capitalist and in socialist societies, even though their ideals will differ. If people weren't selfish, socialist society wouldn't even exist, as we would already be living in a communist paradise. Unfortunately, we don't. Attempts to force communism into existence failed because people are selfish.

communism failed becuse is dont have democracy.

social democracy want socialism whit democracy.

I don't think all socialists reject private enterprise, afterall, they would have to ban you doing your own cooking! Exploitation, and poverty are the real foes, not enterprise and freedom!

To call people selfish in the blunt sense I read you as doin Cabra West, and to call it biology, is simplification to the exclusion of truth. Humans are a phenominlay sucessfull species, cooperation has been fundamental to this, this cooperation is evolved, just as it is in ants, cod, seaguls, and many other sucessfull species. Enlightened self interest is my favorite term for it, selfish only in an abstract way, which I don't think pertains to this conversation.

i agree with this statement and on the subjecty iw would make the point that humans have developed free thought and the ability tio overide our animal instincts and urgeswhen we know theres a better way to do something, this is one of the primary reasons for our sucess and any society is built on this idea of control we call being 'civilized'.... think about it

communism failed becuse is dont have democracy.

social democracy want socialism whit democracy.

actually i think youll find that one of the core principles of socialism is the right of the people to choose their leaders, its just most nations who have calimed to be socialist (ussr etc.) have conveniently ignored this

thats a bit defeatist isnt it, if you can see a better world dont just give in because its hard.
and on the topic of evolution, i think the best society humans could hope to evolve would be similar to socialism if not socialism

It's realistic, that's all. It doesn't mean that I would throw socialit ideals overboard, just because I know that human nature opposes their realisation.
"If the mountain won't come to the prophet, the prophet has to come to the mountain"
If the ideal doesn't fit, don't try to shape people to fit it (especially not against their will), but try to reshape the ideal to make it practical.

Comunism (or something bearing that name) is alive and well in Cuba, a country which has been under threat since Castro took over. Communist Russia had one of the most traumatic early histories of any political experiment, and was subverted from within, Stalin was not a socialist!

To call people selfish in the blunt sense I read you as doin Cabra West, and to call it biology, is simplification to the exclusion of truth. Humans are a phenominlay sucessfull species, cooperation has been fundamental to this, this cooperation is evolved, just as it is in ants, cod, seaguls, and many other sucessfull species. Enlightened self interest is my favorite term for it, selfish only in an abstract way, which I don't think pertains to this conversation.

You can hardly claim that humans cooperate in the same manner as ants, or that seagulls make an effort to distribute goods evenly. Analogies don't work, because they essentially describe other things. There is no denying that though humans have the capacity to cooperate - and often do - they often let personal gain outweigh an opportunity to help their fellow men. Which means that to some extent, they are inherently selfish.

I don't think all socialists reject private enterprise, afterall, they would have to ban you doing your own cooking! Exploitation, and poverty are the real foes, not enterprise and freedom!

mixed economy its good

All this bending of people to fit! I say again I am not a socialist, I don't feel qualified to call myself such, but I'm rushing to their defence as they are being maligned, and missrepresented. Socialist ideas have been put into practice with sucess and failure, the princaples of socialism, however, to my mind have been an unreserved success. Just because perfection is impossable thats no reason not to organise ouselves, and our resorces to make the best of it we can.

You can hardly claim that humans cooperate in the same manner as ants, or that seagulls make an effort to distribute goods evenly. Analogies don't work, because they essentially describe other things. There is no denying that though humans have the capacity to cooperate - and often do - they often let personal gain outweigh an opportunity to help their fellow men. Which means that to some extent, they are inherently selfish.

Read my post, then comment.

It's realistic, that's all. It doesn't mean that I would throw socialit ideals overboard, just because I know that human nature opposes their realisation.
"If the mountain won't come to the prophet, the prophet has to come to the mountain"
If the ideal doesn't fit, don't try to shape people to fit it (especially not against their will), but try to reshape the ideal to make it practical.

well i just think that the very fact we have to ask the question of selfishness is because WE have been shaped to the capitalist system, non capitalist systems have existed for many hundreds or thousands of years due to a different mindset of the people Ancient Sparta (an extereme example and not very friendly but nevertheless an example of a different mindset) and the recently discovered indus valley civilization which had no currency, religion or classes.

odd choices of examples mabey but it is true that we often limit our discussion to the 20th century which is a very narrow slice of human history, and not to nice a slice either

well i just think that the very fact we have to ask the question of selfishness is because WE have been shaped to the capitalist system, non capitalist systems have existed for many hundreds or thousands of years due to a different mindset of the people Ancient Sparta (an extereme example and not very friendly but nevertheless an example of a different mindset) and the recently discovered indus valley civilization which had no currency, religion or classes.

odd choices of examples mabey but it is true that we often limit our discussion to the 20th century which is a very narrow slice of human history, and not to nice a slice either

I agree in general, but you are overstating what is known about Indus valley civilization, no solid evidence of war, religion, or hierarchy does not mean they where absent!

All this bending of people to fit! I say again I am not a socialist, I don't feel qualified to call myself such, but I'm rushing to their defence as they are being maligned, and missrepresented. Socialist ideas have been put into practice with sucess and failure, the princaples of socialism, however, to my mind have been an unreserved success. Just because perfection is impossable thats no reason not to organise ouselves, and our resorces to make the best of it we can.

The real problem is that there are always those who would exploit weaknesses in the system and so, the ideal that "we" as a whole could organize to create a fair system is defeated by the fact that not everyone would follow the ideal. It is unreasonable to think they would.

I agree in general, but you are overstating what is known about Indus valley civilization, no solid evidence of war, religion, or hierarchy does not mean they where absent!

true, forgive my optimism, but i dont think im overstepping too much youd think they wouldve found a coin or at least a temple or administrative building by now

a lot of people who dont subscribe to or even claim to dislike socialism often seem to cite the fact that there has not yet been a sucseeful socialist state as their main problem with it,
i subscribe to socialism because i agree with its ideals,
so do most people agree with the ideals (id be worried about you as a person if you didnt) but worry about the practicalities?

(i ask this question assuming most people on a forum such as this will know the true ideals behind socialism regardless of their political persuasion)


I do not agree with the ideals of socialism... you can start worrying now. I find it wrong to take from someone who has earned and give it to someone who has not. HOWEVER, I do support trying to help people help themselves. (ie. teach a man to fish) I would like to see all people become sucessful.

i agree with this statement and on the subjecty iw would make the point that humans have developed free thought and the ability tio overide our animal instincts and urgeswhen we know theres a better way to do something, this is one of the primary reasons for our sucess and any society is built on this idea of control we call being 'civilized'.... think about it

Yes, we did develop civilisation. Yes, we are capable of cooperation, but take a good look at the world around you. And inside yourself as well. While our brains sometimes realise that cooperation is the better option, we inadvertedly feel that we may have gained more on our own, or that we should receive more reward for our contribution.
While people know that being selfless is better, we feel more satisfaction in selfishness. As a result, we tend to act selfish more often than we care to admit...

Yes, we did develop civilisation. Yes, we are capable of cooperation, but take a good look at the world around you. And inside yourself as well. While our brains sometimes realise that cooperation is the better option, we inadvertedly feel that we may have gained more on our own, or that we should receive more reward for our contribution.
While people know that being selfless is better, we feel more satisfaction in selfishness. As a result, we tend to act selfish more often than we care to admit...

well nobody is perfect, we all act selfishly, but i think that it is possible that at the level of a state it becomes more likely, if a more social mindset becomes the social norm, i dont think any society will ever function perfectly, but i think an imperfect socialism is better than an imperfect capitalism,

im enjoying this discussion

well i just think that the very fact we have to ask the question of selfishness is because WE have been shaped to the capitalist system, non capitalist systems have existed for many hundreds or thousands of years due to a different mindset of the people Ancient Sparta (an extereme example and not very friendly but nevertheless an example of a different mindset) and the recently discovered indus valley civilization which had no currency, religion or classes.

odd choices of examples mabey but it is true that we often limit our discussion to the 20th century which is a very narrow slice of human history, and not to nice a slice either

I think you will find that the more socialist societies (no currency, no classes, etc) existed throughout history and still do today, but there are a few determining factors to them:

1) They are small. Very small. Tribal societies, at maximum a city state. They depend on close social interaction and cease to function when reaching a certain size and a certain physical and emotional distance between their individuals.

2) Specialisation. Most of those societies were simple, basic human cultures, and I don't mean that in a demeaning sense. However, they would have been societies without trades, without different professions or occupations, unspecialised. Therefore, no profession or occupation could be valued above another. As soon as specialisation of any kind entered a society like that, it was bound to change into a more capitalistic direction.

3) Wealth. Those societies would have to live in a period of at least moderate or supply of food. If there wasn't enough and people still tried sharing, the whole society would starve.

well nobody is perfect, we all act selfishly, but i think that it is possible that at the level of a state it becomes more likely, if a more social mindset becomes the social norm, i dont think any society will ever function perfectly, but i think an imperfect socialism is better than an imperfect capitalism,

Amen to that. But the problem is that as people grow more wealthy, they tend to grow more reluctant towards sharing. It's happening in Scandinavia. Tax cuts and privatising public services become more and more effective to gain the support of the dessert-generation.

I think you will find that the more socialist societies (no currency, no classes, etc) existed throughout history and still do today, but there are a few determining factors to them:

1) They are small. Very small. Tribal societies, at maximum a city state. They depend on close social interaction and cease to function when reaching a certain size and a certain physical and emotional distance between their individuals.

2) Specialisation. Most of those societies were simple, basic human cultures, and I don't mean that in a demeaning sense. However, they would have been societies without trades, without different professions or occupations, unspecialised. Therefore, no profession or occupation could be valued above another. As soon as specialisation of any kind entered a society like that, it was bound to change into a more capitalistic direction.

3) Wealth. Those societies would have to live in a period of at least moderate or supply of food. If there wasn't enough and people still tried sharing, the whole society would starve.

i agree with the analysis that capitalism does grow naturally out of more primitive cultures but i also do see it is the adolecence of civilization, in more ways than one

well nobody is perfect, we all act selfishly, but i think that it is possible that at the level of a state it becomes more likely, if a more social mindset becomes the social norm, i dont think any society will ever function perfectly, but i think an imperfect socialism is better than an imperfect capitalism,

I think a balance between the two is the best option. Use people's greed to grow the economy, tax the economy and use the money for social causes... How much tax and what social causes would depend on the culture you come from, really.

i agree with the analysis that capitalism does grow naturally out of more primitive cultures but i also do see it is the adolecence of civilization, in more ways than one

So... what would it be like in its adult state, then?

I think a balance between the two is the best option. Use people's greed to grow the economy, tax the economy and use the money for social causes... How much tax and what social causes would depend on the culture you come from, really.

i would agree witht that entirely, if i were to agree with the idea of an economy,

id vote for that if i could today

I have seen that people say in a few posts that we individually behave selfishly in capitalist systems. That may be true but that does not make free markets selfish. I think there is something beautiful in using an individuals selfishness to better society. I know you purists will hate me for this example but just think back to the berlin wall. The communist east Berlin was filled with poor masses with crappy standards of living. (An example: their cars ran on the equivalent of our lawnmower engines.) And don't tell me that that government did not fit your definition of communism or socialism people because none of you purists can point to one anyway. Oh and on a side note... the wall was built to keep eastern Berliners from fleeing to the west. I rarely hear of the masses fleeing to socialistic countries.

So... what would it be like in its adult state, then?

well in my opinion something more like socialism, i thought the name would have made that clear, lol :)

capitalism is inherently selfish in that it is greed that drives demand
Correct. And it's also greed that sees that this demand is met. It works out.

socialism is not as it is the desire for equality for all that drives work and the ideal itself
'Equality for all' my ass. Would a CEO and a bum pay the same amount of money for the same medical prodecure under a socialist system? Of course not. That [along with any other welfare/subsidy program you'd care to name] sort of precludes it being "equal" in any conceivable sense of the word.

I have seen that people say in a few posts that we individually behave selfishly in capitalist systems. That may be true but that does not make free markets selfish. I think there is something beautiful in using an individuals selfishness to better society. I know you purists will hate me for this example but just think back to the berlin wall. The communist east Berlin was filled with poor masses with crappy standards of living. (An example: their cars ran on the equivalent of our lawnmower engines.) And don't tell me that that government did not fit your definition of communism or socialism people because none of you purists can point to one anyway. Oh and on a side note... the wall was built to keep eastern Berliners from fleeing to the west. I rarely hear of the masses fleeing to socialistic countries.

That's what tends to happen in dictatorships. I never heard of people flocking to Spain during Franco's reign, either.
You see, communism is a theoretical concept. In Eastern Europe, communism and socialism was forced on the people and didn't work. Karl Marx's idea was that the communist movement would come from the people themselves, that the people would take over not only the governmental powers but also the economy, not that a governemt would claim to act in the name of the people and decree what the economy would have to be like.
In reality, communism failed because humans are inherently selfish. As long as they are, communism will inevitably fail. As soon as people act selfless, capitalism will no longer be viable and communism would be the natural form of society.

Correct. And it's also greed that sees that this demand is met. It works out.


'Equality for all' my ass. Would a CEO and a bum pay the same amount of money for the same medical prodecure under a socialist system? Of course not. That [along with any other welfare/subsidy program you'd care to name] sort of precludes it being "equal" in any conceivable sense of the word.

well under socialism there wouldnt be any 'bums' or 'CEO's' or costs for medical procedures

or people using offensive names for the homeless

well in my opinion something more like socialism, i thought the name would have made that clear, lol :)

Well, if socialism was the early form of society, its childhood, and capitalism now is its adolesence, then its adult state would have to be something entirely different, wouldn't it?

no everyone gets a fair share

Well, if socialism was the early form of society, its childhood, and capitalism now is its adolesence, then its adult state would have to be something entirely different, wouldn't it?

well i dont think the first civilisation was really socialism, it just happened to be the same because people had to band together to survive, but in the future socialism would arise because people choose it rather than as a matter of necessity

and i think that is a good question you ask, we must not allow ourselves to fall into a narrow left-right view, as much as i like what i think of as the left

well under socialism there wouldnt be any 'bums' or 'CEO's' or costs for medical procedures
Depends on what brach of socialism you choose to enact. There are many different forms of it; so many in fact that when I decry one form, my opponents invariably prefess to subscribe to a different brand of socialism. I've given up trying to differentiate anymore, since no matter what ideology I care to define and refute, you won't happen to belong to it once I'm done explaining.

or people using offensive names for the homeless
Grow a skin. If you think "bum" is offensive, the real world probably won't be a very forgiving place for you.

socialism is basically the idea that everyone works and everyone gets an equal share the reason it fails is because people are lazy
For example
Person A-Works his butt off and tries his best
Person B-Parties all night long
However in the end both of them recieve an equal share
Now in a better world Person B would get up on his ass and work since he's so inspired by Person A but the sad truth is Person A just becomes lazy too since no matter what the government will give him an equal share

Thats the basic reason Socialism fails, in truth its actually a great idea but the creators forgot about human nature

well in my opinion something more like socialism, i thought the name would have made that clear, lol :)


But you still have not shown how capitalism or the free market are "infants" of socialism.

On a side note before I step out for a little while I am really impressed with all the comments so far. I am pretty new to these forums but I have looked over many threads in the last few weeks and this thread is filled with well articulate and suprisingly polite debating points. I just wanted to thank you all for contributing in this way and I look forward to talking with you more. Even though I consider myself a rightwinger my favorite friends have always been my radically liberal ones. I mean of course you are wrong but you at least argue for something you believe in! ;)

'Equality for all' my ass. Would a CEO and a bum pay the same amount of money for the same medical prodecure under a socialist system? Of course not. That [along with any other welfare/subsidy program you'd care to name] sort of precludes it being "equal" in any conceivable sense of the word.

Good way of demonstrating my point that people are too selfish for communism.
In a capitalist view, there are two people who might be doing the exact same amount of work, but one has high respect and a lot of money, the other gets abused and has to beg or steal for a living.

Socialism/communism/a selfless society would treat them equally, as human beings.
In capitalism/a selfish society, you would first have to buy the right to be treated as human being. Trade money for dignity, basically.

That's what tends to happen in dictatorships. I never heard of people flocking to Spain during Franco's reign, either.
Good point well made, however people did flock to the defence of the socialist government he overthrew ;)
And don't tell me that that government did not fit your definition of communism or socialism people because none of you purists can point to one anyway. This is realy damn stupid, and shows you've not been paying much attention, the soviet block was a dictatiorship, it not about different definitions of socialism, socialists do not support dictatorships, I may as well say Argentenas economy collapsed a few years ago, therefore capitalist countries are all destined for poverty, the soviet block failed because it was, in many ways, horrible place to live, because the economy was missmanaged, and because it took some of the poorest parts of the world, and put them head to head against all the richest, best educated, and most powerfull countries. Russia was a basket case at the time of the revolution!

But you still have not shown how capitalism or the free market are "infants" of socialism.

On a side note before I step out for a little while I am really impressed with all the comments so far. I am pretty new to these forums but I have looked over many threads in the last few weeks and this thread is filled with well articulate and suprisingly polite debating points. I just wanted to thank you all for contributing in this way and I look forward to talking with you more. Even though I consider myself a rightwinger my favorite friends have always been my radically liberal ones. I mean of course you are wrong but you at least argue for something you believe in! ;)

on the infants point, that is simply the conclusion i come to when i really think about it, all societies have the same goals 9i would hope) of doing whats in the best interests of the people, i just think that socialism is the purest, most effective means of this,

and yes, i agree, this discussion is rather good

Before someone pickes me up on it I'd like to appologise to the Mighty Right for drifting into angry mode ;)

Russia was a basket case at the time of the revolution!

Russia was also a pre-industrialised, agricultural society. The irony is that the communist theory is conceived for an industrialised society and culture, which did cause immense problems.

as muich as we all hate stalin, the economic policies his government implamented turned russia from backwater to superpower

socialism is basically the idea that everyone works and everyone gets an equal share the reason it fails is because people are lazy
For example
Person A-Works his butt off and tries his best
Person B-Parties all night long
However in the end both of them recieve an equal share
Now in a better world Person B would get up on his ass and work since he's so inspired by Person A but the sad truth is Person A just becomes lazy too since no matter what the government will give him an equal share

Thats the basic reason Socialism fails, in truth its actually a great idea but the creators forgot about human nature
ummm... I think Marks once said something like, 'If thats Marksism, I'm not a Marxist'! I'm not a marxist, or anything of the ilk, but comunist historicaly have not had much patience for social paracites, they have tended to avocate rewarding work, and contibution (regardles of what they have done in practice!).

Look there will always be social pariacitism, I used to argue with socialists & anarchists, and dissmiss them on that point, then, one day (one mourning after) I listened to myself, and for once (on that one point) I shut up :) There are paracites under capitalism, there are people who exploite, there is self interest, this will always be. Self interest is a glorious thing, I want to live, I want to be happy, and fed, I want status, and use. Not I, nor anyone else will ever be 'perfect', but cooperative (in it's broadest sense) systems can, and do work.

I agree, and I'm not even a damn socialist.

You know, you guys are a lot like the Catholics to me, If I'd met lots of love thy fellow man type Christians, or Socialists, I'd probably have converted, but I met lots of the dogmatic hellfire sort, and now I may be out of the fold till the day I die.

Good way of demonstrating my point that people are too selfish for communism.
In a capitalist view, there are two people who might be doing the exact same amount of work, but one has high respect and a lot of money, the other gets abused and has to beg or steal for a living.
People are abused under capitalism, people are abused under communism, fascism, oligarchy, empire, theocracy, and any and all modes of life you could possibly care to name. These are not products of selfishness, they are products of irrationality.

Honesty is the selfish desire to refuse to fake the terms of reality to oneself in one's actions and beliefs--it's the idea that things are a certain way, and I refuse to see them for anything other than what they actually are. By hurting other people, therefore, one stops being 'selfish' when physical harm is initiated, because he's fabricating reality to allow for his double standard to exist. In causing harm to others, you are irrationaly subverting the laws of value and morality to suit your own ends. For this reason it is an enormous misnomer to decry all violence or force as the product of selfishness.

In short, your example is a very unimpressive one. If I was interested in posting a weak, knee-jerk reply , I would simply respond that under socialism, all men are forced to work for the benefit of someone else. Pointing out that people suffer in this world and are likely to continue to do so isn't sufficient to prove the merits of this ideology.

Socialism/communism/a selfless society would treat them equally, as human beings.
And I would argue that that 'equality' comes at the cost of life; or at the very least, the loss of the [i]product of that life. It puzzles me muchly considering that most socialists actually have a head on their shoulders and most of them realize the reasons for certain civil liberties to exist. Most of the one's I've met have been more or less on the same page with me concerning social rights. Why these concepts never bothered to transfer to the arena of economics is something that's been puzzling me for years.

In capitalism/a selfish society, you would first have to buy the right to be treated as human being. Trade money for dignity, basically.
I don't believe this for a second. When you walk into a restaurant, do the waiters throw drinks at you and make with catcalls until you pay? When you order a pizza, does the clerk take 2 hours to deliver your food and call you a mealy-mouthed crotch pheasant when you call to complain? When you go through the drive through, does the man behind the register greet you with "You'd better have my goddamn money?"

I don't happen to think I'm losing dignity because I'm reimbursing a restaurant owner for the food he took the time to cook and feed to me. I don't happen to think that upholding property rights [which, by the way, follow rationally from man's existence] strips anyone of their dignity. The assertation that it does, however, should be sufficient enough to keep me amused for the rest of the night. Thanks for that.

EDIT: and by the way, selflessness doesn't work because people are "selfish," it doesn't work because selflessness doesn't even fucking exist. As I just got done saying in another thread, life is the root of value because, simply put, you cant value anything if you're not alive. Since we techincally do have the choice to end or lives whenever we please, it is fairly safe to assume that anyone who has not yet committed suicide values their life first and foremost. Without life, you have no means to be "selfless" in the first place.

Thus, the concepts of "value" [and therefore morality, since morality is the acheivement of values] rely entirely on the supposition that our life above all other concepts is of greatest value to us.

Socialist epistemology, however, seems to be telling us that equality is the standard of value, which is an exasperating concept to say the least.

The answer is yes and no.

For those with the long view, socialism is entirely driven by self-interest.

It's driven by the knowledge that people are generally greedy and selfish and cannot be relied upon to help out of their own good will.

It's driven by the deep understanding of "There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch", and if you don't take care of the poor and the sick now, you'll end up paying for the crime and the disease later.

And most importantly, it's driven by the realization that "There, but for the grace of $DIETY||CHAOS_THEORY, go I."

For those without the long view? I imagine it's some kind of warm fuzzy thing that makes them feel good.

People are abused under capitalism, people are abused under communism, fascism, oligarchy, empire, theocracy, and any and all modes of life you could possibly care to name. These are not products of selfishness, they are products of irrationality.

Honesty is the selfish desire to refuse to fake the terms of reality to oneself in one's actions and beliefs--it's the idea that things are a certain way, and I refuse to see them for anything other than what they actually are. By hurting other people, therefore, one stops being 'selfish' when physical harm is initiated, because he's fabricating reality to allow for his double standard to exist. In causing harm to others, you are irrationaly subverting the laws of value and morality to suit your own ends. For this reason it is an enormous misnomer to decry all violence or force as the product of selfishness.

In short, your example is a very unimpressive one. If I was interested in posting a weak, knee-jerk reply , I would simply respond that under socialism, all men are forced to work for the benefit of someone else. Pointing out that people suffer in this world and are likely to continue to do so isn't sufficient to prove the merits of this ideology.


And I would argue that that 'equality' comes at the cost of life; or at the very least, the loss of the [i]product of that life. It puzzles me muchly considering that most socialists actually have a head on their shoulders and most of them realize the reasons for certain civil liberties to exist. Most of the one's I've met have been more or less on the same page with me concerning social rights. Why these concepts never bothered to transfer to the arena of economics is something that's been puzzling me for years.


I don't believe this for a second. When you walk into a restaurant, do the waiters throw drinks at you and make with catcalls until you pay? When you order a pizza, does the clerk take 2 hours to deliver your food and call you a mealy-mouthed crotch pheasant when you call to complain? When you go through the drive through, does the man behind the register greet you with "You'd better have my goddamn money?"

I don't happen to think I'm losing dignity because I'm reimbursing a restaurant owner for the food he took the time to cook and feed to me. I don't happen to think that upholding property rights [which, by the way, follow rationally from man's existence] strips anyone of their dignity. The assertation that it does, however, should be sufficient enough to keep me amused for the rest of the night. Thanks for that.


do you really think it was meant in such narrow terms as the 'goddamn money' point?

do you really think it was meant in such narrow terms as the 'goddamn money' point?
Try reading the whole post. It's a lot longer than two words, and when viewed against the backdrop of the post I was answering, actually has a point.

You can lead a horse to water...

People are abused under capitalism, people are abused under communism, fascism, oligarchy, empire, theocracy, and any and all modes of life you could possibly care to name. These are not products of selfishness, they are products of irrationality. How so? Depending on what I want done I could rationaly get up to all sorts of mischife to make it so!
And I would argue that that 'equality' comes at the cost of life; or at the very least, the loss of the product of that life. I don't understand you...
When you walk into a restaurant, do the waiters throw drinks at you and make with catcalls until you pay? No, they don't because that would not be selfish, it would be liable to get them both assulted and fired. Being a compleat sod is a high risk, low reward stratergy, people see you as a threat, and will not bargain with you.

Try reading the whole post. It's a lot longer than two words, and when viewed against the backdrop of the post I was answering, actually has a point.

You can lead a horse to water...

i did read the whole post

capitalism is inherently selfish in that it is greed that drives demand

socialism is not as it is the desire for equality for all that drives work and the ideal itself

Capitalism is not selfish, as it allows all to treat property and labor in whatever way they see fit.

Socialism is selfish, as it tries to govern the way people treat property and labor according the beliefs and interests of a few.

Now before everyone on all sides of the political landscape explode hear me out. I understand that there can be abuses in all forms of government and economic models. I just want to have a discussion on the founding principles between a free market and socialism. This question was asked of me by a favorite professor of mine.

In the free market DEMAND is what dictates price and worth. Meaning if you are making money it can only be because you are supplying a product or service that others need or want. In other words you are contributing to society.

In socialism WORK is what dictates price and worth. This means that you could work on digging a ditch in the middle of nowhere and rightfully demand payment for it. You do not have to contribute anything to society.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?

Socialism doesn't mean that at all. Socialism simply means that the people who do the work are considered to own the work.

You own a barn in bangladesh and pay disposessed peasants pocket change to make shoes, that's capitalism.

You own a barn, so a bunch of disposessed peasants rent it from you so that they can use it to make shoes, that's socialism.

Where the government enters into it is just in creating the environment that makes one of those events more likely than the other.

As far as whether or not it's selfish, it depends on what position you're in. If you're in a position to claim the profits of the work of others then capitalism is selfish and socialism is very generous. If you're the laborer and the capital holders aren't willing to pay you a living wage even though they would still make a large profit if they did so, then socialism is selfish (though you could hardly be chastized for it, clearly no one else is looking out for you) and capitalism, well, not exactly generous, because that implies helping those in need, but it's certainly self-sacrificing.

Capitalism is not selfish, as it allows all to treat property and labor in whatever way they see fit.

Socialism is selfish, as it tries to govern the way people treat property and labor according the beliefs and interests of a few.

Socialism tries to govern the way people treat people.
Capitalism tries to govern people as property.

Capitalism is not selfish, as it allows all to treat property and labor in whatever way they see fit.

Socialism is selfish, as it tries to govern the way people treat property and labor according the beliefs and interests of a few.

capitalism is selfish because what you say is open to exploitataion

socialism is not selfish by definition, a collective cannot be selfish, a collective is ambitious

Socialism tries to govern the way people treat people.
Capitalism tries to govern people as property.

yup

How so? Depending on what I want done I could rationaly get up to all sorts of mischife to make it so!
The mere fact that you can do something doesn't make it rational or even advisable in and of itself.

I don't understand you...
Most people don't. I regard property as an extention of the self because frankly, it represents the things you've worked for in producing a service for others. Despite their abhorrence of the idea, property would still continue to exist under Communism, but only in the mind of the individual; it wouldn't be recognized by the state.

When I say that "'equality' comes at the cost of life," I'm intentionally using this line of wording to provoke the very inquiry you provided me with. Since property is an extention of the self [and the value derived from this property is, like any value, contingent to and dependent on his life] any attempt to reallocate amounts to the belief that it is justified to compromise one's life for the beneft of another.

This, in turn, is an epistemic blunder which tells us that life is not the root of value [rather that happiness is], which is just nonsense.

No, they don't because that would not be selfish, it would be liable to get them both assulted and fired. Being a compleat sod is a high risk, low reward stratergy, people see you as a threat, and will not bargain with you.
Exactly. Thank you.

I don't happen to think being selfish is a bad thing. I think when people act in a selfish capacity [mind you, a rational capacity, I'm not a subjective egoist], they do a better job of securing a better life for themselves and I become less likely to have to pay their damn bills. In a moral sense, selfish folks benefit the rest of us by opening businesses, providing new and better products and services, and creating goddamn jobs.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?Perhaps. After all, the majority of people would benefit from a redistribution of wealth. But "enlightened self-interest" (as another poster mentioned) is a far better term.

The real problem is that there are always those who would exploit weaknesses in the system and so, the ideal that "we" as a whole could organize to create a fair system is defeated by the fact that not everyone would follow the ideal. It is unreasonable to think they would.Nor would they have to. Those who do not wish to follow the ideal are free to live in another society of their own ideals.

I find it wrong to take from someone who has earned and give it to someone who has not."Earned" is a relative term.

I think you will find that the more socialist societies (no currency, no classes, etc) existed throughout history and still do today, but there are a few determining factors to them:

1) They are small. Very small. Tribal societies, at maximum a city state. They depend on close social interaction and cease to function when reaching a certain size and a certain physical and emotional distance between their individuals.

2) Specialisation. Most of those societies were simple, basic human cultures, and I don't mean that in a demeaning sense. However, they would have been societies without trades, without different professions or occupations, unspecialised. Therefore, no profession or occupation could be valued above another. As soon as specialisation of any kind entered a society like that, it was bound to change into a more capitalistic direction.

3) Wealth. Those societies would have to live in a period of at least moderate or supply of food. If there wasn't enough and people still tried sharing, the whole society would starve. Being a small society is fine, societies don't need to be huge.
Specialization doesn't have to lead to capitalism, or start the path to capitalism. No one can be a specialist in any society without the non-specialist jobs, such as farming.
There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone many times over.

I think there is something beautiful in using an individuals selfishness to better society.This would happen easily in a socialist society, also.

And don't tell me that that government did not fit your definition of communism or socialism people because none of you purists can point to one anyway.You mean like the Paris Commune, or the Spanish anarchists, or many of the other tribal civilizations that have been mentioned already?

Correct. And it's also greed that sees that this demand is met. It works out.Not all demands should be met. The earlier post about nuclear weapons and narcotics is a good example for this.

socialism is basically the idea that everyone works and everyone gets an equal share the reason it fails is because people are lazy
For example
Person A-Works his butt off and tries his best
Person B-Parties all night long
However in the end both of them recieve an equal shareIn no form of socialism would both person A and B receive an equal share.

In capitalism/a selfish society, you would first have to buy the right to be treated as human being. Trade money for dignity, basically.And you see this as a good thing?

socialism is not selfish by definition,...

With all due respect attempts to define reality are not the reality.

a collective cannot be selfish, a collective is ambitious

If you think that hiveminds are incapable of being selfish then watch competing ant nests in action. :p

Socialism tries to govern the way people treat people.
Capitalism tries to govern people as property.

That is ridiculous.

1. Socialism makes no effort to change the way people interact. It takes money away in the form of taxes, pools them under the government, then redistributes them by way of services. Can you tell me at what point socialism tries to affect behavior between people.

2. It is completely illogical to say that capitalism treats people as property. Capitalism does not govern people at all. In a pure capitalistic economy, there would be absolutely no economic governing of the people.

capitalism is selfish because what you say is open to exploitataion

socialism is not selfish by definition, a collective cannot be selfish, a collective is ambitious

Capitalism is not selfish, people are allowed to act selfishly and do act selfishly under a capitalistic system. Don't blame the system for the actions of the people. More crime occurs under liberal political systems, as it allows more freedoms of thought and action, does that make liberal systems more violent?

Socialism is not a collective, it is a moral imposition upon society based upon the will of those who have political power. Communism in its pure form is a collective, I know you don't confuse the two.

VO, Capitalism is selfish; they're right about that part. That's why it works and why it's right. It's a validation of capitalism, not a condemnation.

VO, Capitalism is selfish; they're right about that part. That's why it works and why it's right. It's a validation of capitalism, not a condemnation.

In the terms that I am referring to it, it is not selfish. Where socialism attempts to instill one set of morality onto society, capitalism does not.

I agree that capitalism becomes selfish, as people are always struggling to become more happy. I also agree that the system becomes efficient because the selfish acts of people. However, the idea of capitalism is one of economic liberty and is in no way selfish.

The mere fact that you can do something doesn't make it rational or even advisable in and of itself. This does not satisfy me, for an action to be rational (to my mind) it has to be towards a goal, this goal can be anything, selfish, brutal, or otherwise, my question stands!
I regard property as an extention of the self because frankly, it represents the things you've worked for in producing a service for others.I am sympathetic to this idea, if not in compleat agreement, but are you using it to support capitalism? Where many people produce things that are taken away for anothere profit?

When I say that "'equality' comes at the cost of life," I'm intentionally using this line of wording to provoke the very inquiry you provided me with. Since property is an extention of the self [and the value derived from this property is, like any value, contingent to and dependent on his life] any attempt to reallocate amounts to the belief that it is justified to compromise one's life for the beneft of another. This happend, in a massive scale under capitalism, granted it would happen under socialism, I don't see what bearing the nature of the thing taking control of your property away from you has.

Interesting points though!

In the terms that I am referring to it, it is not selfish. Where socialism attempts to instill one set of morality onto society, capitalism does not. I tend to dissagree, as an amoralist the persuit of wealth in a capitalist system seems to be regarded as moraly good...

[QUOTE=Vittos OrdinationI agree that capitalism becomes selfish, as people are always struggling to become more happy. I also agree that the system becomes efficient because the selfish acts of people. However, the idea of capitalism is one of economic liberty and is in no way selfish.[/QUOTE] I think you should concider the difference between what the system does, and how efficiently it does it, Chenghis Kahn and Hitler are two examples of leaders who created spectacularly efficient systems. On a less extreme level, America is time efficient, give it a year it will make more money than anyone else, how oil efficient is it?

Most people don't. I regard property as an extention of the self because frankly, it represents the things you've worked for in producing a service for others. Despite their abhorrence of the idea, property would still continue to exist under Communism, but only in the mind of the individual; it wouldn't be recognized by the state.

But property is also those things you've been scammed out of, or had stolen from you. There comes a point in contract law where the line between a legitimate deal, a scam, and "signing under duress" where things get iffy. A hard right on capitalism means that if you can get someone to sign a piece of paper, by fair means or foul, then everything you do is just fine. The classic picture would be the guy with the top hat and handlebar moustache tying the girl to the train tracks because she won't sell the farm.

When I say that "'equality' comes at the cost of life," I'm intentionally using this line of wording to provoke the very inquiry you provided me with. Since property is an extention of the self [and the value derived from this property is, like any value, contingent to and dependent on his life] any attempt to reallocate amounts to the belief that it is justified to compromise one's life for the beneft of another.

So what you're saying is that you're deliberatly spouting a load of crap?

I don't happen to think being selfish is a bad thing. I think when people act in a selfish capacity [mind you, a rational capacity, I'm not a subjective egoist], they do a better job of securing a better life for themselves and I become less likely to have to pay their damn bills. In a moral sense, selfish folks benefit the rest of us by opening businesses, providing new and better products and services, and creating goddamn jobs.

And by stealing, imbezzling, defrauding, and cheating. Selfishness is by definition shortsighted destructive behavior. "Enlightened self-interest" means that you also look out for the benifit of those around you (such as your employees and neighbors) because if you let them wallow in shit, you still have to live with the stink. There's an old Japanese saying that translates as "A man in a stone house is still not safe if his neighbor's house is made of wood."

Unrestrained capitalism leads to the assendency of those who enjoy the stink because it reminds them what it is they're supposed to feel superior to.

This does not satisfy me, for an action to be rational (to my mind) it has to be towards a goal, this goal can be anything, selfish, brutal, or otherwise, my question stands!
It depends on the goal, and to be honest your line of logic here is a bit hard to follow. An action is not rational simply because it works towards a goal. By that logic, Stalin's purges were rational because he wanted to...ahh.... he wanted to ensure that... errr...who knows. I don't know why he did it but my point remains.

I am sympathetic to this idea, if not in compleat agreement, but are you using it to support capitalism? Where many people produce things that are taken away for anothere profit?
Your last desription, ironically, is infinately more prevalent under socialism than under capitalism. It's a self contradictory argument: "So many people are being exploited, having their life's work and acheivements be put to work solely for the benefit of someone else," and then in the next breath; "We must ensure that everyone has an equal share of resources by allocating them properly and making sure any one person doesn't have too much." Socialism makes a policy of people producing things that are taken away for another's benefit.

In Captialism, it happens, but the government doesn't make it happen or insist that it needs to happen every day.

This happend, in a massive scale under capitalism, granted it would happen under socialism, I don't see what bearing the nature of the thing taking control of your property away from you has.

Interesting points though!
Wait, what? What happened? Youre telling me that under capitalism, the capitalists redistributed wealth as I described initially? If they did, where did all these leftist complaints come from; the ones that tell us that resources aren't being allocated sufficiently?

I tend to dissagree, as an amoralist the persuit of wealth in a capitalist system seems to be regarded as moraly good...

Yes, but if you're going to limit your appeals to moral principles that aren't self-evidently a load of crap then you have to look a little harder to justify that one. The pursuit of wealth in a capitalist system works more like a force of nature. Water is a nice thing to have in the world, but in a meteorological system it is not regarded as morally good. It just does what it does and makes the world work. Just like money in a country or blood in a body. But unrestrained capitalism is like that sad state of European medicine after hippocrates and witches but before the enlightenment.

On a less extreme level, America is time efficient, give it a year it will make more money than anyone else, how oil efficient is it?

Capitalism is efficient in using and distributing resources, but is not at all concerned with conservation of them, if that is what you are getting at.

Yes, but if you're going to limit your appeals to moral principles that aren't self-evidently a load of crap then you have to look a little harder to justify that one. The pursuit of wealth in a capitalist system works more like a force of nature. Water is a nice thing to have in the world, but in a meteorological system it is not regarded as morally good. It just does what it does and makes the world work. Just like money in a country or blood in a body. But unrestrained capitalism is like that sad state of European medicine after hippocrates and witches but before the enlightenment.

Harsh, my morals govern all of my behaviour, I value lazyness, drunkenness, selfinterest, also alturism. I dont have an inhuman ideal of what I should be, therefore when captalism is presented to me as the free persuit of wealth, and a good cappitalist as one who persues wealth, in my tearms persuit of wealth is virtue. If you conceave morrals differnetly, well, thenwe differ, that's a different arguement.

But property is also those things you've been scammed out of, or had stolen from you.
What?

There comes a point in contract law where the line between a legitimate deal, a scam, and "signing under duress" where things get iffy. A hard right on capitalism means that if you can get someone to sign a piece of paper, by fair means or foul, then everything you do is just fine. The classic picture would be the guy with the top hat and handlebar moustache tying the girl to the train tracks because she won't sell the farm.
And if you do sign that paper, whos responsibility is it for having signed? Did that 'greedy capitalist bastard' actually sign the paper for you? No. If he does happen to hold a gun to your head, this amounts to the rather obvious initiation of physical force, which [along with any form of duress you care to mention] is not a policy I'm prepared to endorse.

Please stop assuming that because I believe in free trade means I believe in its exact opposite at the same time. Coercion precludes anything being "free."

So what you're saying is that you're deliberatly spouting a load of crap?
Try answering the points as they're mentioned; it's what intelligent people do when they debate. I'm sure you would feel the same annoyance as I feel right now if I responded to your points thusly. If it's such a load of crap, try telling me why.

And by stealing, imbezzling, defrauding, and cheating. Selfishness is by definition shortsighted destructive behavior.
Ah, the old "corruption is the only road to success" argument. Boy howdy, does that one get more fun every time it's trotted out. I'm prepared to admit that people in the private sector do this, and possibly quite frequently. But people don't not do it simply because they work for the government, either. This argument is a two way street, buddy. People can be corrupt no matter where they decide to work.

EDIT: and if you think that's the definition of selfishness, I would suggest investing in a dictionary.

Selfishness is defined as having one's primary concern be the betterment of one's own life and/or circumstance. In order for selfishness to be adhered to, this requires that the person involved think and act in a long term, goal-oriented fashion. Saying that selfisheness is self-destructive is a blatant contradiction.

"Enlightened self-interest" means that you also look out for the benifit of those around you (such as your employees and neighbors) because if you let them wallow in shit, you still have to live with the stink. There's an old Japanese saying that translates as "A man in a stone house is still not safe if his neighbor's house is made of wood."
I know what Enlightened Self Interest means; I'm glad to see that you're actually paying attention in philosophy class. However, jsut because I should be allowed to keep my money in a free society does not necessary automatically mean that everyone will be "wallow[ing] in shit." I've lived in welfare neighborhoods, and they're not exactly what I would call hunkey dorey. If your argument is going to turn into "well, it could be worse," I don't frankly see how, unless I all of a sudden endorse the idea of tearing down these people's tenements for no reason.

Unrestrained capitalism leads to the assendency of those who enjoy the stink because it reminds them what it is they're supposed to feel superior to.
Ascendancy. And no, no one likes the stink no matter how much you would prefer it if they did. People rise to the top because they want to provide a better life for themselves. If they're legitimate businessmen, they provide a better life for others in the process, by giving them jobs or services.

Capitalism is efficient in using and distributing resources, but is not at all concerned with conservation of them, if that is what you are getting at.
My point is that one mans efficiency is another mans poison, just saying efficient is not enough, you have to say what you do efficiently, I'm all for inefficiency in persuing goals I don't like!

My point is that one mans efficiency is another mans poison, just saying efficient is not enough, you have to say what you do efficiently, I'm all for inefficiency in persuing goals I don't like!
In my opinion, people are too concerned with efficiency. I mean, it's nice, but not a goal that should be pursued at the cost of all other goals.

My point is that one mans efficiency is another mans poison, just saying efficient is not enough, you have to say what you do efficiently, I'm all for inefficiency in persuing goals I don't like!

I agree with you, but I am not going to decide for others what economic goals they should seek.

In my opinion, people are too concerned with efficiency. I mean, it's nice, but not a goal that should be pursued at the cost of all other goals.

It is not a goal of capitalism, it is a beneficial side effect.

That is ridiculous.

1. Socialism makes no effort to change the way people interact. It takes money away in the form of taxes, pools them under the government, then redistributes them by way of services. Can you tell me at what point socialism tries to affect behavior between people.

It tries to get them to redistribute their wealth by redistributing their wealth. Would you be willing to chip in to the "food stamps pool" if your town opened one up? What if it explicitly told you that all the money in that pool would be going to some other community?

It also limits the forms of exploitation available to the wealthy. In unrestrained capitalism groups of employers can get together to ensure that they are in a position to refuse good wages. They can afford a war of attrition with the labor force because the rich have the resources to wait out the negotiation, the working class do not. Socialist reforms mean that the government steps in and says "you gotta pay a subsistence level salary at the minimum, and don't think about firing them for bargaining, we're not going to have an unemployed mob on our hands just because you want to widen your profit margin"

2. It is completely illogical to say that capitalism treats people as property. Capitalism does not govern people at all. In a pure capitalistic economy, there would be absolutely no economic governing of the people.

So then who would enforce contract law? Who would honor land titles? A capitalist economy means that the government calculates everything in money and nothing else.
Even a human life is only worth that person's annual taxable income + cost of training a replacement. Did you ever see Fight Club? Remember that guy's job? His job was to figure out how many cars were likely to go up in flames so that the company could figure out which costs more, the law suits or telling people about the problem and fixing it? In a pure economy as you present it there would be no threat from such lawsuits, so there would be no recall, no matter how dangerous the product was.

An action is not rational simply because it works towards a goal. By that logic, Stalin's purges were rational because he wanted to...ahh.... he wanted to ensure that... errr...who knows. I don't know why he did it but my point remains. Agreed, Starlin was, to an extent rationaly persuing absolute power, this he acheived!

Your last desription, ironically, is infinately more prevalent under socialism than under capitalism. It's a self contradictory argument: "So many people are being exploited, having their life's work and acheivements be put to work solely for the benefit of someone else," and then in the next breath; "We must ensure that everyone has an equal share of resources by allocating them properly and making sure any one person doesn't have too much." Socialism makes a policy of people producing things that are taken away for another's benefit. perhaps, however if i made the second arguement, I recant, I have never heald such beleifs, and if I apper to have done so, it is no small part due to trying to keep up with your posts!
Wait, what? What happened? Youre telling me that under capitalism, the capitalists redistributed wealth as I described initially? If they did, where did all these leftist complaints come from; the ones that tell us that resources aren't being allocated sufficiently? Not sure we got each other, I meant to say that the work of ones hands is taken away under capitalism, and socialism, so I fail to see the objection being used just against socialism, unless you are talking about your work, and, assuming you are well enough off, capitalism is for you, you start with the advantage and it will be exagurated!

Again I say, I am not a socialist, however, as long as their ideas are being abused and missrepresented, I will feel inclined to side with them!

It is not a goal of capitalism, it is a beneficial side effect.Perhaps not, but when people suggest that modifications be made to capitalism, people usually critique those modifications with "but that's not efficient!" as though efficiency were highly important.

i think it needs to besaid that there is no guiding principle in capitalism other than the accumulation of wealth or 'capital' das kapital....
this in itself is not inherently bad, it is the means that must be used to acheive it that opresses and restrains people
the capitalist system is a pyramid shape, for every person at the tiop there must be a thousand at the bottom

whereas in socialism the guiding principle is to move forward and improve society for all, in capitalism you are trying to reach higher by standing on ohters, in socialism you all get together and build some stairs

Even a human life is only worth that person's annual taxable income + cost of training a replacement. Did you ever see Fight Club? Remember that guy's job? His job was to figure out how many cars were likely to go up in flames so that the company could figure out which costs more, the law suits or telling people about the problem and fixing it? In a pure economy as you present it there would be no threat from such lawsuits, so there would be no recall, no matter how dangerous the product was.

Yes yes let's remember that scene. And remember further that the auto industry IS regulated. Which means that the defects Jack was investigating passed the government standard. So in essence Jack was enforcing a higher safetey standard than the ineeficient government had imposed. If we lived in a socialist state then it would simply be that if the vehicle passed safety standards then the consumer would have no recourse. But since both the consumer and the producer have rights (that can be enforces by suit in a court of law) industries, even at their most cold-blooded self interest, set a higher safety standard than does the state.

It tries to get them to redistribute their wealth by redistributing their wealth. Would you be willing to chip in to the "food stamps pool" if your town opened one up? What if it explicitly told you that all the money in that pool would be going to some other community?

I would not be willing to do that, I am not very altruistic. Forced behavior at the point of the gun is not going to make me more altruistic. It would most likely make me less altruistic, as I would begin looking for ways to get around the system.

The only way to change behavior for good is to make sure there is a benefit for the behavior. Changing behavior through fear of punishment will not work, as the behavior will disappear once punishment is removed.

It also limits the forms of exploitation available to the wealthy. In unrestrained capitalism groups of employers can get together to ensure that they are in a position to refuse good wages. They can afford a war of attrition with the labor force because the rich have the resources to wait out the negotiation, the working class do not. Socialist reforms mean that the government steps in and says "you gotta pay a subsistence level salary at the minimum, and don't think about firing them for bargaining, we're not going to have an unemployed mob on our hands just because you want to widen your profit margin"

I disagree that in a developed economy the owners have unlimited power to do this, but we will get nowhere on that argument.

So then who would enforce contract law? Who would honor land titles? A capitalist economy means that the government calculates everything in money and nothing else.

Contracts are a legal concept, not property. Government will uphold contracts as a legal concept, and not interfere with the individual's property rights.

Even a human life is only worth that person's annual taxable income + cost of training a replacement. Did you ever see Fight Club? Remember that guy's job? His job was to figure out how many cars were likely to go up in flames so that the company could figure out which costs more, the law suits or telling people about the problem and fixing it? In a pure economy as you present it there would be no threat from such lawsuits, so there would be no recall, no matter how dangerous the product was.

People will never be valued as anything more than statistics to society, no matter what economic system is used. It is impossible to govern society with individual interest.

And why would there be no threat of lawsuit?

i think it needs to besaid that there is no guiding principle in capitalism other than the accumulation of wealth or 'capital' das kapital....
this in itself is not inherently bad, it is the means that must be used to acheive it that opresses and restrains people Agreed, in capitalism persuit of wealth is what you are supposed to be up to, it is virtue!
the capitalist system is a pyramid shape, for every person at the tiop there must be a thousand at the bottom Although I'm critical of capitalism I don't think this is necessarily true, in the west one could argue that it has lead to a huge middle class (admitisly supported by a far huger impoverished working class abroad). Whether capitalism is an improvement only on fudalism/theocracy, and whether it will lead to high standards of living all over the world, or just push poverty hither and thither, we have yet to find out!

Even a human life is only worth that person's annual taxable income + cost of training a replacement. Did you ever see Fight Club? Remember that guy's job? His job was to figure out how many cars were likely to go up in flames so that the company could figure out which costs more, the law suits or telling people about the problem and fixing it? In a pure economy as you present it there would be no threat from such lawsuits, so there would be no recall, no matter how dangerous the product was.

and thats a good thing???? :confused: :confused:

Agreed, in capitalism persuit of wealth is what you are supposed to be up to, it is virtue!
Although I'm critical of capitalism I don't think this is necessarily true, in the west one could argue that it has lead to a huge middle class (admitisly supported by a far huger impoverished working class abroad). Whether capitalism is an improvement only on fudalism/theocracy, and whether it will lead to high standards of living all over the world, or just push poverty hither and thither, we have yet to find out!

that is true in western countries, but we are a global economy, those thousands at the bottom are the starving of africa etc.

Although I'm critical of capitalism I don't think this is necessarily true, in the west one could argue that it has lead to a huge middle class (admitisly supported by a far huger impoverished working class abroad). Whether capitalism is an improvement only on fudalism/theocracy, and whether it will lead to high standards of living all over the world, or just push poverty hither and thither, we have yet to find out!Capitalism didn't lead to a huge middle class, the middle class came about as a result of the New Deal, which is contrary to the ideals of capitalism.

that is true in western countries, but we are a global economy, those thousands at the bottom are the starving of africa etc.
I agree that thisis the case, also I would say that capitalist policies hold some of the blame for the state of Africa, however, I simply do not know if this massive poverty is necessary for capitalism, or a necessary conciquence of it, or a conciquence of other factors.

Agreed, in capitalism persuit of wealth is what you are supposed to be up to, it is virtue!

Then why do we make villians out of misers like Ebenezer Scrooge and lump praise upon those who give to charity.

Striving for wealth is only a virtue within the job, outside of that, on a personal level, it is considered dispicable.

Next time you loan a friend money, charge him interest. Try to haggle the little girl selling lemonade on your street.

Capitalism didn't lead to a huge middle class, the middle class came about as a result of the New Deal, which is contrary to the ideals of capitalism.
Are you refering to America? In which case I can not comment, I think capitalism can be sighted as a reson for the rise of a small middle class in early industrial Britian, and played a role in bringing more people into the middle class, however you could say that this is only because socialists subverted the changes in society brought about by capitalism, and managed to get something for some of the workers, you may ne right.

Capitalism didn't lead to a huge middle class, the middle class came about as a result of the New Deal, which is contrary to the ideals of capitalism.

this may be true but there are plenty of western nation which have large 'middle classes' which didnt have the new deal or an equivalent

Now before everyone on all sides of the political landscape explode hear me out. I understand that there can be abuses in all forms of government and economic models. I just want to have a discussion on the founding principles between a free market and socialism. This question was asked of me by a favorite professor of mine.

In the free market DEMAND is what dictates price and worth. Meaning if you are making money it can only be because you are supplying a product or service that others need or want. In other words you are contributing to society.

In socialism WORK is what dictates price and worth. This means that you could work on digging a ditch in the middle of nowhere and rightfully demand payment for it. You do not have to contribute anything to society.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?


It may be...


But is capitalism any better? It's all about keeping the rich people rich.

Are you refering to America? In which case I can not comment, I think capitalism can be sighted as a reson for the rise of a small middle class in early industrial Britian, and played a role in bringing more people into the middle class, however you could say that this is only because socialists subverted the changes in society brought about by capitalism, and managed to get something for some of the workers, you may ne right.I apologize for my U.S.-centric view. I can't speak for Britain, or other nations. However, I must ask: when were welfare policies implemented there?

Then why do we make villians out of misers like Ebenezer Scrooge and lump praise upon those who give to charity. because we are not 'good' capitalists! I do respest wealth gereration, but not appropriation ;)
Striving for wealth is only a virtue within the job, outside of that, on a personal level, it is considered dispicable. then you ethics, by which I mean you instructions for living are of no interest to me, either I want to get wealthy or I don't you almost saying that I should work for as much money as possible, then dispise myself for doing so!

Next time you loan a friend money, charge him interest. Try to haggle the little girl selling lemonade on your street. Balls to that! I never claimed to be a good capitalist, and I value my friends, however, I would argue that a good capitalist should attempt to get a net profit from his friends, but not by exploiting them, simply because they would immediatly disert him and lose their value as friends!

Little girls do not sell lemonade on English street corners, but I see no wring in bartering!

I apologize for my U.S.-centric view. I can't speak for Britain, or other nations. However, I must ask: when were welfare policies implemented there?

Great Britain has had an extensive welfare movement since the 1800's and the chartism movement, as for other european countries i do not know, however i do know that france has one of the largest welfare systems, it has long been the opinion there that the government has a responibility to support a citizen, a kind of anti-laizzes-faire (or however yo spell it)

because we are not 'good' capitalists! I do respest wealth gereration, but not appropriation ;)
then you ethics, by which I mean you instructions for living are of no interest to me, either I want to get wealthy or I don't you almost saying that I should work for as much money as possible, then dispise myself for doing so!

Balls to that! I never claimed to be a good capitalist, and I value my friends, however, I would argue that a good capitalist should attempt to get a net profit from his friends, but not by exploiting them, simply because they would immediatly disert him and lose their value as friends!

Little girls do not sell lemonade on English street corners, but I see no wring in bartering!

You are describing what makes a good businessman, not what makes a good capitalist. A good capitalist only desires that people can do what they want with their money.

I apologize for my U.S.-centric view. I can't speak for Britain, or other nations. However, I must ask: when were welfare policies implemented there? No worries, it's one big place, and it casts a long shadow, my nation has had its hour in the sun, thank goodness! It's hard to say, for one I just do not know enough, but you coud say that the post WWII government did something comparable, and attempted to share what remained evenly, a lot of things like our national health service where started arround that time that where socialy inclusive, socialist no less :) However, Britian was, even after the war, a wealthy country, which could pay for these things.

You are describing what makes a good businessman, not what makes a good capitalist. A good capitalist only desires that people can do what they want with their money. I don't agree, to me that's like saying a christian (who beleives in church attendance) is still a good christian (by his own yardstick) if he never gos. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how it seems to me!

I don't agree, to me that's like saying a christian (who beleives in church attendance) is still a good christian (by his own yardstick) if he never gos. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how it seems to me!

Well, I see capitalism as a system of economic freedom, not economic efficiency. So in my opinion, a good capitalist is one who values economic freedom over economic efficiency.

But to practice capitalism, this to me means to aquire wealth, or atleast to attampt it, am I wrong, it does happen!

Socialism is Facism in a different uniform underneath a different flag. For Socalism to work you need a leader or party. They will always treat themselves above everyone else - thus the first step to socialism is the fatal step - Stalin was a perfect example of this. I know Socialism and Communism are different, but they are too similar to be totally seperated.

Its like the anarchist party - stupid. Look at what works in the modern world - the past two hundred years have proven that a democratic, capitalist government works best - so whatever that democratic government is (Socialist, Facist, Whatever) as long as it is 70-90% Capitalist it will work out.

Facist Germany 1933-1942/3 was the fastest growing nation in the space of time ever. I mean from nothing to global power by 1939, that takes alot. No democratic nation can equal the facist nation in those terms. So in nearly all cases Socialism doesnt work.

Just my thoughts ;)

"hasta la victoria siempre!"
Victory allways, bed now! Goodnight.

Here's my deal.

We cannot debate socialism and capitalism, as you cannot compare a political system with an economic system. :headbang: What everyone so far seems to be refering to is the ideal of communism, outlined by Karl Marx in Communist Manifesto.

To move onto a new point, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: communism, socialism, and democracy must be combined to work as a group. I believe that in America, we could cut government costs and devot taxes to paying off the national debt by replacing the legislative branch with the people of the United States (those qualified to vote). No more spending money on exuberant salaries of Senators and Representatives. The voting system wouldn't be cumpulsory, as forcing morons to vote can lead to no good. If you care enough to want an issue decided in a certain way, you care enough to vote. The "checks and balances" system would still be in place, as would the executive and judicial branches, as these are necessary. The president would need to make up some bills, though, just to replace the lawmakers who write bills currently. Citizens could get petitions to get him to write a certain law. We're all happy.

Good times.

Now before everyone on all sides of the political landscape explode hear me out. I understand that there can be abuses in all forms of government and economic models. I just want to have a discussion on the founding principles between a free market and socialism. This question was asked of me by a favorite professor of mine.

In the free market DEMAND is what dictates price and worth. Meaning if you are making money it can only be because you are supplying a product or service that others need or want. In other words you are contributing to society.

In socialism WORK is what dictates price and worth. This means that you could work on digging a ditch in the middle of nowhere and rightfully demand payment for it. You do not have to contribute anything to society.

So I ask all of you... Is socialism selfish in its very foundation?

I think you are confusing socialism with communism, even though both are bad. Socialism is pretty much government doesn't totally control the businesses but heavily regulates them, high taxes for everyone, but things like "free" health care, good roads, etc. I say "free" because people pay for it with high taxes whether or not they actually use it. I think it is greedy, but so are most people.

I think the biggest problem with socialism is that, in a socialist society, you get what you need, not what you deserve. A country can never be productive based on such principles.
I like social democracy, but socialism is too much of a utopia.

Socialism is pretty much government doesn't totally control the businesses but heavily regulates them, high taxes for everyone, but things like "free" health care, good roads, etc.

When you say Socialism you mean Social Democracy. In Socialism the government does control the businesses.

Okay as a socialist I must point out that no one is this thread is actually talking about socialism. Your talking about communism(which is probably the most misunderstood political ideology there is), a totally different ideology. Socialists believe that because Capitalism creates inequalities that benefits those with wealth. Socialists believe that Capitalism has done much to benefit society. It has further advanced technology and people have advanced much since it's creation. But they realize that after a while, pure capitalism leds to a concetration of wealth in the hands of a few.(Which is happening in the US, right now). But, It is not about making everyone equal. Wealth was nothing to do with equality. Nor could you force equality, that I believe is the inheritent flaw in marxism. What it's concerned about is making sure that everyone is able to simply live. They believe that everyone has a right to health care, believe in regulating businesses(but not owning them, except for businesses like health care and energy). Socialsim is about ensuring that everyone has an equal chance to succeed in life, because they don't in capitalism. Does anyone think it's bad thing for people to wake up in the morning and not have to worry about how they are going to feed themselves and their children because their job at GM that they had for 20 years laid them off and now they have nothing just because the CEO realized he could make another few thousand dollars to his multi-million dollar salary? Or that someone should be punished with thousands of dollars of medical expensives from a car accident or the like because their too poor to afford medical expensives? To answer this threads question the answer is yes and no. It is selfish for the poor and unfortunte to want socialism, but not for the rich who benefit so much from pure capitalism. And for those of you question whether or not it can work, it has in Sweden and other countries.

Don't threads like this just make you wanna puke...?

If I close this thread with this, it'd be fitting. If not, meh.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of
blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

~Winston Churchill

Before someone pickes me up on it I'd like to appologise to the Mighty Right for drifting into angry mode ;)

No hard feelings man... I look forward to argu.... debating with you in the future.

Much love

what we need is a mixed economy.

What do you mean?

I would not be willing to do that, I am not very altruistic. Forced behavior at the point of the gun is not going to make me more altruistic. It would most likely make me less altruistic, as I would begin looking for ways to get around the system.

By the same logic we should abolish murder laws. People not murdering people just because they'll get punished if they do isn't very humanitarian. People should be non-murderers because they're good people, not because they have to not murder people.

If, as you admit, you're not altruistic, then it doesn't really affect anyone that you're contrary enough to be even more tightfisted just because you don't like the idea that your tax dollars may be getting used to help people. I don't think that the people being helped will care very much if they find out that one of the people contributing didn't really want to. Socialist reform is not a means to force people to be altruistic, it is a sign that the society has actually managed to produce enough altruistic people that it becomes government policy.

The only way to change behavior for good is to make sure there is a benefit for the behavior. Changing behavior through fear of punishment will not work, as the behavior will disappear once punishment is removed.

There is a benifit to socialism. The poor have more money because they're getting subsidies from the government, the working class have more money because their bargaining power is backed by the government, the rich have more money because people can pay more for their services. What the rich don't like is that they don't have a larger percentage of the money, even if they have more in actual purchasing power, because the rich, by definition, already have all the purchasing power they want, the only way for them to be richer is to make others poorer. Not as a side effect of the means by which the rich seek to enrich themselves, but as the primary means to that end.

Contracts are a legal concept, not property. Government will uphold contracts as a legal concept, and not interfere with the individual's property rights.

Property is a legal concept. What makes your land yours other than the deed? If you provide a service then what entitles you to payment other than the contract? What is money if not a contract?

Also, government enforcing debt collections would stifle the business of collections agents and repo' men. That's economic interference, a capitalist taboo.

Without government interference you have no law. Without law your only economy is barter. The only land you own is that which you can defend from invasion. Your only defense is the friends you can make by your own personal charisma.

People will never be valued as anything more than statistics to society, no matter what economic system is used. It is impossible to govern society with individual interest.

Then why are juries willing to pay such large sums of money in court cases? Those juries are part of society. Why is "pain and suffering" a monetarily compensatable damage in court? Sexual offense has almost no measurable effect on any statistics chart, other than those that measure sexual offense rates, and are some of the most harshly punished and reviled crimes in our body of law.

And why would there be no threat of lawsuit?
If the government, which includes the courts, isn't going to take part in an economic matter then how is anyone going to get them to pay up? "Let the buyer beware," and all that.

By the same logic we should abolish murder laws. People not murdering people just because they'll get punished if they do isn't very humanitarian. People should be non-murderers because they're good people, not because they have to not murder people.

Apples and oranges.

Murder is an action, altruism is a motivation or belief. Actions can be disallowed and forced by government, motivations and beliefs cannot be disallowed or forced by government.

If, as you admit, you're not altruistic, then it doesn't really affect anyone that you're contrary enough to be even more tightfisted just because you don't like the idea that your tax dollars may be getting used to help people. I don't think that the people being helped will care very much if they find out that one of the people contributing didn't really want to. Socialist reform is not a means to force people to be altruistic, it is a sign that the society has actually managed to produce enough altruistic people that it becomes government policy.

The last sentence is only half correct. Socialist policies are a sign that the majority is altruistic, but it is also a government policy meant to force those who are not altruistic to be so. If the altruists of the population did not want to force others to be altruists, they could simply act through charity.

That is why it is selfish. They seek to impose their own moral structure and beliefs on all of society. It is no different than imposing civil moralities.

There is a benifit to socialism. The poor have more money because they're getting subsidies from the government, the working class have more money because their bargaining power is backed by the government, the rich have more money because people can pay more for their services. What the rich don't like is that they don't have a larger percentage of the money, even if they have more in actual purchasing power, because the rich, by definition, already have all the purchasing power they want, the only way for them to be richer is to make others poorer. Not as a side effect of the means by which the rich seek to enrich themselves, but as the primary means to that end.

The price of goods rises faster than taxes do. Any rise in taxes will compound throughout the production of the good and will cause even higher prices. So purchasing power will go down. The producers of goods are screwed as they are forced to pay their workers more, yet see no more profit as they are forced to assume more costs in the production of goods.

And the rich don't get richer by making others poorer, they generate wealth through specialised labor and risk.

Property is a legal concept. What makes your land yours other than the deed? If you provide a service then what entitles you to payment other than the contract? What is money if not a contract?

Property is a bundle of rights that stems from your claim to use land as you see fit. If you are able to protect your claim to the land, you have property rights, government or not.

Money is the representation of property. It is backed by a government contract, but is valued as property. In a true capitalist system, government cannot set value to the money, it can only maintain the contract behind it.

Also, government enforcing debt collections would stifle the business of collections agents and repo' men. That's economic interference, a capitalist taboo.

The government does not need to enforce debt collections. It must only state that the debt collection is legal. The private sector can take care of the rest.

Without government interference you have no law. Without law your only economy is barter. The only land you own is that which you can defend from invasion. Your only defense is the friends you can make by your own personal charisma.

Government will make laws to insure property rights. To completely insure property rights, it must forbid anyone or anything, including itself, from interfering with the valuation, use, and disposal of property. That means that government defends your property rights, not manipulate them.

Then why are juries willing to pay such large sums of money in court cases? Those juries are part of society. Why is "pain and suffering" a monetarily compensatable damage in court? Sexual offense has almost no measurable effect on any statistics chart, other than those that measure sexual offense rates, and are some of the most harshly punished and reviled crimes in our body of law.

The courts are ruled by precedent. They do not make off the cuff judgements from person to person.

If the government, which includes the courts, isn't going to take part in an economic matter then how is anyone going to get them to pay up? "Let the buyer beware," and all that.

To defend property rights, you must protect the person from theft. Breach of contract and fraud is a form of theft. The government is required to hold individuals responsible to their end of the contract.

Contracts are the trade of property, to insure the fair trade of property does not interfere with the property itself, in fact it guarantees the property is unharmed.

Don't threads like this just make you wanna puke...?

what a wonderful contribution to an otherwise intelligent conversation...