Your opinion on Communism [Archive] - Page 2

Jello Biafra

13-10-2005, 19:23

In other words, they have an economic incentive to do essential work.No, they have a basic need for survival, that's why they do the work.

There is no difference in a society where property rights are respected. One aspect of property rights is the right to charge a fee for its use. There is a moral right to commercial property, the generation of income through the property you own is a practice that harms no one, and violates none of their rights, in fact it benefits society because you will have the purchasing power that will stimulate more economic activity.Not at all. The U.S.'s acquisition of land from the natives was done by systematically murdering the natives or stealing from them. I'd say that someone was harmed.
And considering that there's no moral right to own property that you don't use, your point is invalid.

The government can only ensure equality of income if property and privacy rights are removed. There is no moral basis for ending privacy.It isn't necessary to end privacy rights, or even restrict them. Why would it be necessary to do so?

Really.

What you mean by that is that other people have different priorities to you, and should be forced into line. Why should people not be able to set their own priorities and act accordingly in the marketplace?What I mean is that there are studies that have been done that show that taller, better looking people make more money than shorter, uglier people, even in the same fields. Clearly, then, the market admires good looks and a good physique. Now, it is entirely possible for someone to do so secretly, but I highly doubt that someone is going to state at a council meeting that one plumber is more qualified than another because he has a nicer plumber's crack.

In other words, what people are prepared to pay. Generally, people try to get the most gain for the minimum of money, meaning minimum prices. People with different priorities will behave differently, but most of us look for the bargain.This is only relevant when people make informed, time consuming decisions on what to purchase. Most people don't do so. Decisions are often made on a whim.

It must be unanimous, or it rides roughshod over people's rights.I dunno, most people think that the illegalily of public nudity doesn't violate the rights of nudists. So how would nudists' complying with the law have their rights violated?

In other words, you haven't done your homework, and are falling back on the old Marxist fallacy of people falling into your model.

Under your system, the most productive and talented won't be better off, they will be worse off. For their superior qualities, they will receive no greater reward than the idle drunk.

They will seek life elsewhere. For your society to retain its talent, it will have to suppress freedom of movement so they can't go, and control all the flows of information within, and stop information coming in from outside. If you don't, they will see the life outside, they will see that their talents are given the recognition and reward they deserve, and they will resist you.

If your society fails to retain its talented members, it must collapse.Nope. Most of the most talented members in any other society will have someone in those societies with more power than they are. I know that it's in my best interests to remove all man-made concentrations of power, and I should think that that's in everyone's interests, as well. So the talented members of society would stay because the society that I propose is the only one in which no one would have power over them. Therefore, it is in their best interests to stay.

Not a free market practice. It is state interference in the economy.And, as I've stated, all economies eventually have state interference in them. Most of the time this is at the behest of the rich.

The Marshall Plan kept them alive for the first crucial years. Becoming independent of aid, and creating the Miracle Economy was something they did themselves.And how long did this "miracle economy" last, and what caused it to end?

That's weak, even for you.How is explaining the purpose of society weak?

Clearly you've not read what I said. There is no single entity called society with definable interests. There are only individuals, and each individual has his own interest. Talking about "society's interests" really means sacrificing the rights of some individuals for the interests of others.And you haven't read what I've written. Everyone who is in society is there because it is in their best interest to be there. Otherwise, they'd withdraw from society.
Therefore, the "single definable interest" of every single person in society is that participation in society is what's in their best interest.

No, it isn't. If it was, you would have put it as I did, as my statement contained no ambiguity about the position of an individual.Well then you're clearly seeing ambiguity where none exists.

The Soviet Union had a Constitution. National Socialist Germany had a Constitution.And neither country actually upheld what their Constitutions said. This further upholds the idea that governments don't protect the minority.

In the Commune, we find evidence of authoritarian measures, such as the Communards stealing the property of the Church, and forcing churches to open themselves to state surveillence.That was done beforehand, during the revolution. There's also parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War

A Constitution is a document, it doesn't do anything. Government is required to administer in accordance with the Constitution.

As for "direct democracy", your logic is faulty. Its along the lines of "my cat has four legs. That dog has four legs, therefore it is a cat". In your case "anything else must be better than government, 'direct democracy' is anything else, therefore it must be better"

You are going to have to provide more explaination.Society under a direct democracy would also be required to administer in accordance with the Constitution.
Furthermore, my reasoning for direct democracy isn't simply because it's "better than government." I view the purpose of democracy as to equalize power. I don't see how this "one time vote per term" nonsense as being particularly democratic. Most people would rather buy their goods directly from the supplier rather than buying them from a store. The store, in this case, is the middle man. People want to cut out the middle man. The same thing applies in this case. People want laws. It is better to have people directly make the laws, to cut out the middle man.

As in a market economy.Of course there are similarites, but it isn't exactly the same.

Nope. They are paid according to how much their services are valued, and according to the scarcity of people who can perform the job.And, as I've said in this post, when the value of things isn't decided publicly, that value is probably going to be flawed.

Really? You've provided no explaination.Few doctors become doctors simply because of the paycheck. There is almost always some idea of helping people in there. So a doctor would likely go to where their services are most likely to be in use. "Doctors Without Borders", except with pay.

You've proven my point. Your system is fundamentally incapable of tolerating dissent. The East German dictators tried to get people to realise that the communist system was better. People still tried to brave the wall, mines, barbed-wire, and AK-toting guards. You, like Marx, have utterly failed to account for the human equation. Do your homework, then defend your theory.? How was your point proven. I said nothing about dissent. (Incidentally dissent is acceptable, as the only way progress is made is through dissent and dissatisfaction.) The reason that the system is most likely going to be in someone's best interests is for reasons I've explained earlier in this post.

You don't read well, do you. I explained why the final utopian stage of communism is irrelevant to the discussion. I'll explain it again in big letters.

Marx failed to explain many things in The Communist Manifesto. These included:

Why state owned industries are more efficient than privately owned enterprises;

Why a state monopoly is a good thing, better than private-sector competition;

Why the state, given total powers in his plan, won't abuse these powers;

Why such an all-powerful state, governed by people who enjoy wielding these powers, will simply abolish itself at the appropriate time;

Why we must accept his false dilemma of communism versus his caricature of capitalism

The fifth ommission is the most important. Since he failed to explain it, the utpoian stateless, communist society is irrelevant to a discussion of communism.

All we have to consider that he does explain is his 10 point program, which I quoted, and tore to shread on page 6, or 7And I see that you still fail to consider the definitions of things. Here we go: none of the countries that practiced Communism fit the definition of Communism. Hell, they didn't even fit their own definitions of Communism.

But let's pretend that your big, big print is actually valid and is a persuasive argument. Yes, Marx did fail to explain a lot of those things. But one of the things that he did explain were the conditions under which Communism would happen. The very first thing on the list was that it had to happen in a capitalist society. This isn't some minor point that Lenin and the people who followed him disagreed with. This is a major point. None of the countries that instituted Communism had had capitalist systems. Therefore, they don't fit Marx's ideas, either.

And now I feel dirty for having to defend Marx.

Name five who do.There are plenty of people on NationStates who use the terms interchangably. There are also people who see the difference between Socialism and Communism, and say that Socialism is the workers' utopia, and that Communism is the process needed to create the utopia. There are others who view this the opposite way - that Communism is the utopia, including Marx.

Yup, leftist intolerance of religion is rampant.And rightist intolerance of abortion, homosexuality, drugs, out-of-wedleck sex, and various other things makes the right side of the U.S. political spectrum as a whole more intolerant than the left.

Why can people democratically impose socialism, but not a theocracy. Surely it is up to them. That is the case you made to me.I never said that people should "impose" anything. I stated that people who want socialism should be able to break off and form a socialist society. I stated that people who want a theocracy should be able to break off and form a theocracy.

So, you claim to favour democracy, and now you dictate the voters' reason for how they vote.

What you said is totally unacceptable. People can vote for whomsoever they like, for whatever reason they like. If you don't like it, I'll chip in for your move to North Korea. Pack a lunch, people in communist countries tend not to eat well.Nope. People can't vote for things that are Unconstitutional. If you don't like it, I suggest that you move to a theocracy.

You really didn't read my point, which was that no one does anything without a reason. To accept that point, a discussion of the various reasons isn't important, all that's important to recognise is that reason exists.I never disputed that a reason existed. It appeared as though you were saying that as long as the reason exists, the actual reason is irrelevant.

And none more important. If you're going to make the implausable argument that communism doesn't require authoritarian measures, then make the argument. Show me why, and in doing so, you must take into account human nature, not simply dismiss it as you have throughout this discussion."What we call human nature is in actuality human habit." But let's look at human nature, shall we? It is in a person's self-interest to be in societies. It is in a person's self-interest to ensure that others don't have power over them, because power can be abused. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is human nature to want positive recognition and the satisfaction of a job well done. The system I propose takes all of these things into account.
"More important" is relative. While Marx's ideas are the most widespread, he has mostly been discredited.

So, life's tough. There is a demand for those jobs, therefore someone will always be ready to do it, even if it is only Mr. Acne, our 15-year old after some spending money.So make it so that life isn't tough.

It is self-evident that economic incentive is a major reason for people to do anything. You only need to walk into McDonalds, or a supermarket to see that. Remove it, and you need something pretty damn compelling to replace it. An AK-47 is pretty damn compelling.It is self-evident that people want to live comfortably. Also, when people are living comfortably, economic incentive is minimized. And let's not go into the gun analogy, though I suppose it is appropriate.

Given the lack of facts in your posts, I can't fathom what you mean by this.

Given the lack of facts in your posts, I can't fathom what you mean by this.You're arguing in favor of capitalism. The facts aren't on your side.

Jello Biafra

13-10-2005, 19:26

Either way, that's not capitalism. Capitalism means no government involvement in the economy, i.e. no business regulations, no corporate welfare, free-trade, etc.But there haven't been societies without government involvement in the economy. Does this mean that capitalism is an impossible goal?

Vintovia

13-10-2005, 20:04

Leftist intolerance of religion? Thats not true. Only communisim doensnt tolerate religion. In fact, leftisim is partly based on tolerance.

Messerach

13-10-2005, 20:53

Leftist intolerance of religion? Thats not true. Only communisim doensnt tolerate religion. In fact, leftisim is partly based on tolerance.

Agreed. While "leftist" is a very broad term, I'd say the mainstream leftist view is that the private right to worship must be respected, which requires the seperation of church and state. Maybe people mistake opposition to religion mixing with politics for opposition of religion, but the reverse is true.

Disraeliland

14-10-2005, 02:13

No, they have a basic need for survival, that's why they do the work.

Driving a Mercedes instead of a Toyota, and living in the upmarket part of town is part of "a basic need for survival"? If you say so. Even if the latter weren't the case, you're still splitting hairs. The economic incentive is that through work, they will acquire the means with which they can obtain their wants and needs. It amounts to the same thing.

Not at all. The U.S.'s acquisition of land from the natives was done by systematically murdering the natives or stealing from them. I'd say that someone was harmed.

So, to argue that property rights aren't inheriently harmless, you put forward an example of government taking property from the people? I think you've got a wire crossed somewhere.

If you can find a correlation between that and a system that fully respects property rights of all people, then its relevant. Stealing is not something which indicates respect for property rights. You've in fact proven my point.

It isn't necessary to end privacy rights, or even restrict them. Why would it be necessary to do so?

Ensuring equality of income requires ending privacy so that the authorities necessary to enforce equality of income can ensure that no one is making any cash on the side. I've done more thinking about your idea than you have!

What I mean is that there are studies that have been done that show that taller, better looking people make more money than shorter, uglier people, even in the same fields. Clearly, then, the market admires good looks and a good physique. Now, it is entirely possible for someone to do so secretly, but I highly doubt that someone is going to state at a council meeting that one plumber is more qualified than another because he has a nicer plumber's crack.

And in a free market, people have a right to do that. You've not explained why they shouldn't, nor have you explained why people should be forced to accept your rules.

This is only relevant when people make informed, time consuming decisions on what to purchase. Most people don't do so. Decisions are often made on a whim.

Since they're the ones spending their money, I say you've no right to question their decision.

For someone who talks about rights and democracy, you sure seem anxious that people be forced into a common mould, and have to justify their decisions to you.

I dunno, most people think that the illegalily of public nudity doesn't violate the rights of nudists. So how would nudists' complying with the law have their rights violated?

That's because nudists have property rights, and can be nude on their own property, and can rent the use of others property in which they can be naked.

Nope. Most of the most talented members in any other society will have someone in those societies with more power than they are. I know that it's in my best interests to remove all man-made concentrations of power, and I should think that that's in everyone's interests, as well. So the talented members of society would stay because the society that I propose is the only one in which no one would have power over them. Therefore, it is in their best interests to stay.

Rubbish. Firstly, your model of society will require a totalitarian government to work. If it doesn't have a totalitarian government, equality of income won't happen (I don't accept your argument that people will simply decide to have it, there is no reason for them to make that decision, and there is no general social precedent for it) because people will try to make more than your government will allow them.

Talented people will leave because their talents aren't recognised and rewarded under your system.

And, as I've stated, all economies eventually have state interference in them. Most of the time this is at the behest of the rich.

Corruption doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that government of corrupt. Government interference is not in the interests of a group generally, it is in the interest of parts of the rich, namely the ones who propose the interference (an example being regulation, which increases the costs for a new competitor) and pay for it with a campaign donation, once again, corruption doesn't prove anything about how a market economy works. In fact, this point undermines your overall argument: under a system in which achievement and talent is recognised and rewarded, people will still try to corrupt it. How much more corruption would there be in a system in which talent and achievement are not recognised? Infinitely more!

Hong Kong did better economically when their government didn't even collect economic statistics for fear that the government might use them.

Secondly, the most talented members of your society are treated no better than the least talented, while in other societies they are treated better according to their talent.

And how long did this "miracle economy" last, and what caused it to end?

Its "Facts Lite" for you today, isn't it? You even refuse to do a little reading.

It lasted until the early 1970's when the system was corrupted by the SDP through extensive redistribution, and government interference. The result was a recession that lasted until the 1980's. The "party of the workers" managed to turn two million workers out into the cold.

How is explaining the purpose of society weak?

You didn't explain the purpose of society, you didn't even define a common interest. You merely took the individual's urge to survive, and took that further than you can justify.

And you haven't read what I've written. Everyone who is in society is there because it is in their best interest to be there. Otherwise, they'd withdraw from society.
Therefore, the "single definable interest" of every single person in society is that participation in society is what's in their best interest.

Yet you blither about "the common interest".

Either there is a common interest which we can define, or there isn't. You can't get away with sophistry like "the common interest is that everyone furthers his best interests". That statement proves itself false. Everyone has their own individual interests. There is no single definable common interest. Many different individuals may agree on interests, but that is merely an individual coincidence, they may well disagree on others.

Well then you're clearly seeing ambiguity where none exists.

Ambiguity is clear in the statement "individual decisions which wouldn't concern society."

There is no definable entity called society. There is only individuals. If you really means that an individual cannot make a decision that violates the rights of another individual, you would say it in that way. People who talk about "society" usually end up saying something along the lines "the rights of some indvididuals must be sacrificed for the interests of others". If you meant to speak of individuals, then speak of individuals. Then there will be no ambiguity. Then we will know you are speaking of individuals' rights.

And neither country actually upheld what their Constitutions said. This further upholds the idea that governments don't protect the minority.

Prove it. Let us take a typical communist constitution, the 1977 Soviet Constitution.

Article 50 guarantees "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations", Good start, yet elsewhere we see Article 36, which says "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law", and Article 52: "incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited", and the real turd in this little omlette , Article 39: Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state"

Contrast that with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now, in the Soviet Constitution, the free speech 'guaranteed' by Article 50 is snuffed out by Articles 36, 39, and 52. Therefore, in the Soviet Union, the punishment of someone who spoke out against communism is constitutional because what they say is a threat to the state.

Society under a direct democracy would also be required to administer in accordance with the Constitution

This is a very revealing statement. You've used the word "society" where the word "government" should be.

Furthermore, my reasoning for direct democracy isn't simply because it's "better than government."

You've not shown that direct democracy removes the needs for government. One step at a time, please.

I view the purpose of democracy as to equalize power. I don't see how this "one time vote per term" nonsense as being particularly democratic.

Then you've not understood the purpose of democracy. Its purpose is to place checks on government power by making the leaders of the government accountable to the people. It is also about questions of ownership. Arguments against "one time vote per term" are not arguments that support "direct democracy" (again, you repeat Marx's mistakes, he assumed that 'flaws' in capitalism meant support for his ideas).

Arguments against "one time vote per term" are support for having "recall" measures in a system (remember California, Davis being recalled? That's a recall).

Most people would rather buy their goods directly from the supplier rather than buying them from a store. The store, in this case, is the middle man. People want to cut out the middle man. The same thing applies in this case. People want laws. It is better to have people directly make the laws, to cut out the middle man.

Middle men are made necessary by the fact that production isn't totally decentralised. Going to China to buy clothes isn't a particularly efficient use of my time and resources. Paying people to move them from China to Australia is far more efficient.

Likewise, having (in my countries case), over 10 million adults making all the laws is very damned inefficient. We'd spend all our time legislating, and no production or trade could take place. Come to think, we wouldn't pass much legislation. So, we elect people to represent us. It isn't perfect, but its better than all the alternatives.

Of course there are similarites, but it isn't exactly the same.

Why not, unless you're really advocating a command economy, and just don't want to say it. This seems likely because when people do decide the value of things, you keep describing their decisions as "flawed".

And, as I've said in this post, when the value of things isn't decided publicly, that value is probably going to be flawed.

So you prefer a free-market economy? Or compulsory street haggling?

Few doctors become doctors simply because of the paycheck. There is almost always some idea of helping people in there. So a doctor would likely go to where their services are most likely to be in use. "Doctors Without Borders", except with pay.

Name five. Most doctors don't participate in DWB. Only the most committed idealists would. Your society would be a charity case in medical terms.

How was your point proven. I said nothing about dissent. (Incidentally dissent is acceptable, as the only way progress is made is through dissent and dissatisfaction.) The reason that the system is most likely going to be in someone's best interests is for reasons I've explained earlier in this post.

You're talking pure theory, an exercise in irrelevancy if ever I saw one. I am talking practical application. Simply saying that people will realise that your ideas are in their best interests doesn't make it so. I am living proof! Your explaination of why it would be in people's best interests fail to take practical realities into account.

Since your system relies on people believing in it, and you've not explained why they would, they must be forced. Capitalist systems produce tangible proof that they hold people's best interests.

And I see that you still fail to consider the definitions of things. Here we go: none of the countries that practiced Communism fit the definition of Communism. Hell, they didn't even fit their own definitions of Communism.

Yes, they did fit the definition of communism in the real world. I already explained why the utopian stage of communism is irrelevant to defining communism, just as Bush's utopian vision for the Middle East is irrelevant in evaluating the Iraq War.

But let's pretend that your big, big print is actually valid and is a persuasive argument

No need to pretend.

Yes, Marx did fail to explain a lot of those things. But one of the things that he did explain were the conditions under which Communism would happen. The very first thing on the list was that it had to happen in a capitalist society. This isn't some minor point that Lenin and the people who followed him disagreed with. This is a major point. None of the countries that instituted Communism had had capitalist systems. Therefore, they don't fit Marx's ideas, either.

Marx's determinism won't pull your coals out of the fire. He failed to explain that idea too.

There are plenty of people on NationStates who use the terms interchangably.

Name five.

There are also people who see the difference between Socialism and Communism, and say that Socialism is the workers' utopia, and that Communism is the process needed to create the utopia. There are others who view this the opposite way - that Communism is the utopia, including Marx.

Very post-modern of them.

And rightist intolerance of abortion, homosexuality, drugs, out-of-wedleck sex,

Which proves nothing more than the fact that idealists are inevitably intolerant.

and various other things makes the right side of the U.S. political spectrum as a whole more intolerant than the left.

Rubbish, all you've shown is that the right don't tolerate things that you prefer. Your own prejudices prove nothing.

I never said that people should "impose" anything. I stated that people who want socialism should be able to break off and form a socialist society. I stated that people who want a theocracy should be able to break off and form a theocracy.

You did. You said that it was a people's democratic right to impose socialism. You didn't say anything about socialists breaking away to form their own society. You only started talking about breaking away when I questioned why theocrats couldn't do the same.

Nope. People can't vote for things that are Unconstitutional. If you don't like it, I suggest that you move to a theocracy.

You said people must have non-religious reasons for voting. Clearly you believe that people should justify their votes to you.

How is voting in accordance with your faith "unconstitutional"?

I suppose it would be in a communist state, but in a free state, one can vote for whatever reason one wants. No one would know why, and it is no one else's concern. Your vote means your decision, and your conscience. It isn't my business who you vote for, and why, unless you wish to discuss it with me.

"What we call human nature is in actuality human habit."

Whoop-de-doo. I can quote the backs of matchboxes too.

It is in a person's self-interest to be in societies. It is in a person's self-interest to ensure that others don't have power over them, because power can be abused.

Both points aren't universally true. Some people might not see it as being in their interests to live in society. As to the latter point, it is untrue, because there would be no protection against having one's rights violated by other people.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You must go through a lot of matches at your place, though a look at any communist society certainly proves the truth of your statement.

Your model of society doesn't guarantee that no one will have power over anyone else. In fact, ensuring full equality of income requires that there be people with immense power to check that no one is supplementing his income.

It is human nature to want positive recognition and the satisfaction of a job well done. The system I propose takes all of these things into account.
"More important" is relative. While Marx's ideas are the most widespread, he has mostly been discredited.

The system you propose replaces a nice-big pay packet with a pat on the back. Not much of a replacement. It might be enough for you, but why should anyone else accept it?

So make it so that life isn't tough.

How old are you? I only ask because that is the statement of a child. Life is tough, the solution is to deal with it. Make your life easier for yourself. The world doesn't owe you an easy life, or even an easier life, and it is exceptionally arrogant for you to ask it for one.

It is self-evident that people want to live comfortably. Also, when people are living comfortably, economic incentive is minimized. And let's not go into the gun analogy, though I suppose it is appropriate.

You clearly didn't read what I said. Economic incentives work because they allow one to live comfortable. The "gun analogy" is not an analogy, it (and all other forms of violence) is a reality.

You're arguing in favor of capitalism. The facts aren't on your side.

This coming from someone who's only argument against the free market is that its decisions are sometimes "flawed"? Someone who's not shown why his ideas are better. The facts are on the side of capitalism. Hong Kong got where it is because the government stayed out of Hong Kong's economy.

Thats not true.

Yet left-wing groups oppose public expression of religion (trying to remove Nativity Scenes), and send monitors into churches.

But there haven't been societies without government involvement in the economy. Does this mean that capitalism is an impossible goal?

Hong Kong, when Sir John Cowperthwaite was Financial Secretary (1961-71), didn't have governmental interference in the economy. They didn't even collect statistics for fear that they would be used!

Jello Biafra

14-10-2005, 11:03

Driving a Mercedes instead of a Toyota, and living in the upmarket part of town is part of "a basic need for survival"? If you say so. Even if the latter weren't the case, you're still splitting hairs. The economic incentive is that through work, they will acquire the means with which they can obtain their wants and needs. It amounts to the same thing.The second half of the statement is what I am proposing, except in a different way.

So, to argue that property rights aren't inheriently harmless, you put forward an example of government taking property from the people? I think you've got a wire crossed somewhere.

If you can find a correlation between that and a system that fully respects property rights of all people, then its relevant. Stealing is not something which indicates respect for property rights. You've in fact proven my point.The point is that it is impossible for a system that fully respects property rights to exist anymore, due to government taking property from the people.

There is a thread currently called "F****** Moral Dilemma" which was started by a capitalist but he wondered why it is acceptable for people to own land. If you can go there and justify that, I'd love to see it. Until then, I've never seen a justification for owning land other than owning land based upon use.

Ensuring equality of income requires ending privacy so that the authorities necessary to enforce equality of income can ensure that no one is making any cash on the side. I've done more thinking about your idea than you have!No, it means that if there is a cash transaction on the side, some third party will likely see it. There aren't "authorities." And your thinking on the idea is clouded by your preconceived notions.

And in a free market, people have a right to do that. You've not explained why they shouldn't, nor have you explained why people should be forced to accept your rules.For an example of your preconceived notions clouding your thinking, let's look at the last sentence of this. I've never said anything about people being forced to accept my rules. I've said that most people would realize that it is not in their best interests to reward taller, better looking people, but instead reward job performance based upon how well the job is done. If people wish to publicly declare their preferences for better looking people, they're welcome to do so, but I find it highly unlikely that the majority of people would agree with them. Most likely they would be laughed at.

Since they're the ones spending their money, I say you've no right to question their decision.Since one of my arguments is for the abolition of money, I have every right to question their decision.
Secondly, that sentence wasn't questioning their decision, it was an argument against decisions the market being well-informed. Most of the time they aren't.

For someone who talks about rights and democracy, you sure seem anxious that people be forced into a common mould, and have to justify their decisions to you.In democracy, people have to justify their decisions to everyone. Otherwise people would not vote in their favor.

That's because nudists have property rights, and can be nude on their own property, and can rent the use of others property in which they can be naked.And likewise, it would be legal to own property which you use, but not legal to own property which you don't use.

Rubbish. Firstly, your model of society will require a totalitarian government to work. If it doesn't have a totalitarian government, equality of income won't happen (I don't accept your argument that people will simply decide to have it, there is no reason for them to make that decision, and there is no general social precedent for it) because people will try to make more than your government will allow them.If people try to make more than society allows them to, society would be upset as it shifts the balance of power.

Talented people will leave because their talents aren't recognised and rewarded under your system.Let's take the example of U.S. auto workers. Many auto workers hate their jobs. They despise going there. But when they come home, what do many of them do? They work on their cars. They enjoy working on their cars.
Now, tell me, if economic incentive is so great, why is it in this instance that without economic incentive, people are enjoying themselves more?

Corruption doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that government of corrupt. Government interference is not in the interests of a group generally, it is in the interest of parts of the rich, namely the ones who propose the interference (an example being regulation, which increases the costs for a new competitor) and pay for it with a campaign donation, once again, corruption doesn't prove anything about how a market economy works. Once again, all market economies eventually become corrupt. What, in your mind, could causee a market economy to not become corrupt?

In fact, this point undermines your overall argument: under a system in which achievement and talent is recognised and rewarded, people will still try to corrupt it. How much more corruption would there be in a system in which talent and achievement are not recognised? Infinitely more!No, it strengthen my argument. People would not be able to corrupt people because they would not have the power to do so. Let's look at your above example: campaign donations. Those with the ability to make campaign donations have the power to corrupt. The larger the donation, the more power to corrupt.
Now tell me, how in a society with equal distribution of wealth, would people be more able to cause corruption?
This brings me back to one of my original points. Money is power. Buying power = political power. (Though I know I didn't phrase this in this exact way in this thread.)

Hong Kong did better economically when their government didn't even collect economic statistics for fear that the government might use them.If economic statistics weren't collected, how do we know that they did better economically?

Secondly, the most talented members of your society are treated no better than the least talented, while in other societies they are treated better according to their talent.In other societies, there is less talent overall, since other societies would not foster talent as much as my society would.

Its "Facts Lite" for you today, isn't it? You even refuse to do a little reading.

It lasted until the early 1970's when the system was corrupted by the SDP through extensive redistribution, and government interference. The result was a recession that lasted until the 1980's. The "party of the workers" managed to turn two million workers out into the cold.It's not as though you provided a link to where I could look it up myself. And why should I prove your points for you?

You didn't explain the purpose of society, you didn't even define a common interest. You merely took the individual's urge to survive, and took that further than you can justify.Individuals can survive without societies, I don't see how this point is valid.

Yet you blither about "the common interest".

Either there is a common interest which we can define, or there isn't. You can't get away with sophistry like "the common interest is that everyone furthers his best interests". That statement proves itself false. Everyone has their own individual interests. There is no single definable common interest. Many different individuals may agree on interests, but that is merely an individual coincidence, they may well disagree on others.It is in everyone's interest in society that society continues to exist, since society furthers their own interest. Once again, that is the common interest.

Ambiguity is clear in the statement "individual decisions which wouldn't concern society."

There is no definable entity called society. There is only individuals. If you really means that an individual cannot make a decision that violates the rights of another individual, you would say it in that way. I've agreed that it is possible for people to make decisions which don't violate the rights of others. These decisions would not concern society.

people who talk about "society" usually end up saying something along the lines "the rights of some indvididuals must be sacrificed for the interests of others". If you meant to speak of individuals, then speak of individuals. Then there will be no ambiguity. Then we will know you are speaking of individuals' rights.Perhaps that's what most people do, but I haven't done so. For instance, while laws against shouting "fire" in a public theater could conceivably be argued to interfere with free speech, nobody is allowed to shout "fire." It is a restriction on everybody, not just some people. The same thing applies here. Either everyone would be allowed to do something or nobody would. To put restrictions on some people but not others upsets the balance of power.

Prove it. Let us take a typical communist constitution, the 1977 Soviet Constitution.

Article 50 guarantees "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations", Good start, yet elsewhere we see Article 36, which says "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law", and Article 52: "incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited", and the real turd in this little omlette , Article 39: Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state"

Contrast that with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now, in the Soviet Constitution, the free speech 'guaranteed' by Article 50 is snuffed out by Articles 36, 39, and 52. Therefore, in the Soviet Union, the punishment of someone who spoke out against communism is constitutional because what they say is a threat to the state.You've proven my point. The Soviets didn't uphold Article 50. Simply because it could be argued at some point that it is Constitutional does not mean that it is so. It was at one time considered to be Constitutional to have separate public schools based upon race. Does this mean that it was, in fact Constitutional to do so?

This is a very revealing statement. You've used the word "society" where the word "government" should be.I've already stated that there is no distinction between society and government.

You've not shown that direct democracy removes the needs for government. One step at a time, please.I'd much rather type out answers to your individual questions on the issue.

Then you've not understood the purpose of democracy. Its purpose is to place checks on government power by making the leaders of the government accountable to the people. Some people might view that as being the purpose of democracy, and they're within their rights to do so. That is, after all, what "representative democracy" is. However, direct democracy is called "true democracy" for a reason.

It is also about questions of ownership. Arguments against "one time vote per term" are not arguments that support "direct democracy" (again, you repeat Marx's mistakes, he assumed that 'flaws' in capitalism meant support for his ideas).No, but it is an argument against representative democracy.

Arguments against "one time vote per term" are support for having "recall" measures in a system (remember California, Davis being recalled? That's a recall).I'm aware of what a recall is. Interesting that you mention recalls, as people view recalls as being a step towards direct democracy.
With that said, however, it is still incredibly difficult to have a recall done. It takes a lot of time and money to do so. I don't believe that money should play a role in politics.

Middle men are made necessary by the fact that production isn't totally decentralised. Going to China to buy clothes isn't a particularly efficient use of my time and resources. Paying people to move them from China to Australia is far more efficient.Would it not be even more efficient to own the company that pays people to move the clothes from China to Australia?

Likewise, having (in my countries case), over 10 million adults making all the laws is very damned inefficient. We'd spend all our time legislating, and no production or trade could take place. Come to think, we wouldn't pass much legislation. So, we elect people to represent us. It isn't perfect, but its better than all the alternatives.Again with the emphasis on efficiency. Efficiency is not the end-all-be-all thing to look at. After all, decisions made under a dicatorship are more efficient than decisions made under a democracy. Does this make them better?
As far as 10 million adults go, I would argue that your country would be broken up into individual communes/countries.

Why not, unless you're really advocating a command economy, and just don't want to say it. This seems likely because when people do decide the value of things, you keep describing their decisions as "flawed".

So you prefer a free-market economy? Or compulsory street haggling?I prefer none of the above. I prefer a system of free distribution. The only exceptions to this would be trade with other countries/communes and those few resources which would be too scarce to have free distribution.

Name five. Most doctors don't participate in DWB. Only the most committed idealists would. Your society would be a charity case in medical terms.I should think that at least five doctors do. There are also plenty of doctors who take lower-paying jobs in the inner cities because that is where their talents are most needed.

You're talking pure theory, an exercise in irrelevancy if ever I saw one. I am talking practical application. Simply saying that people will realise that your ideas are in their best interests doesn't make it so. I am living proof! Well, this is for one of two reasons: your preconceived notions of what Communism is clouds everything that I say, or that you are one of the ones who would have power in another type of society. Naturally, it would not be in your best interests to give up that power. But most people don't have as much power in capitalist societies, so my society would be giving them more power, thus making living in my society in their best interests.

Since your system relies on people believing in it, and you've not explained why they would, they must be forced. Capitalist systems produce tangible proof that they hold people's best interests.Capitalist systems hold the best interests of capitalists. Most people aren't capitalists.

Yes, they did fit the definition of communism in the real world. I already explained why the utopian stage of communism is irrelevant to defining communism, just as Bush's utopian vision for the Middle East is irrelevant in evaluating the Iraq War.Not at all. If Bush's utopian version of the Middle East comes about, it casts a different light on the Iraq War than if his vision doesn't come about.

Marx's determinism won't pull your coals out of the fire. He failed to explain that idea too.Marx explained that idea very clearly. Do you not remember the passages about industrialization making it so many things were no longer scarce? Or the passages about the internal contradictions of capitalism making the revolution inevitable?

Rubbish, all you've shown is that the right don't tolerate things that you prefer. Your own prejudices prove nothing.Well, considering you used leftist intolerance of religion as your sole criterion for saying that the left is more intolerant than the right, I'll have to say you're being a hypocrite.

You did. You said that it was a people's democratic right to impose socialism. You didn't say anything about socialists breaking away to form their own society. You only started talking about breaking away when I questioned why theocrats couldn't do the same.Show me where I said "impose", or even said to do it against someone's will.

You said people must have non-religious reasons for voting. Clearly you believe that people should justify their votes to you.As I've stated, people have to justify their votes to society. People are welcome to vote based upon their religions, but they aren't going to convince anyone unless they have some non-religious reason for doing so, as well.

How is voting in accordance with your faith "unconstitutional"?Familiar with the idea of "separation of church and state"?

Both points aren't universally true. Some people might not see it as being in their interests to live in society. And those people would not be living in society. I've already allowed for them.

As to the latter point, it is untrue, because there would be no protection against having one's rights violated by other people.There would be at least as many protections in a representative democracy, if not more.

Your model of society doesn't guarantee that no one will have power over anyone else. In fact, ensuring full equality of income requires that there be people with immense power to check that no one is supplementing his income.Nope, there are no guarantees, but my model makes it the least likely of all other models.

The system you propose replaces a nice-big pay packet with a pat on the back. Not much of a replacement. It might be enough for you, but why should anyone else accept it?Those people who do not wish to accept it would not be living in my society. They're welcome to do so.

How old are you? I only ask because that is the statement of a child. Life is tough, the solution is to deal with it. Make your life easier for yourself. The world doesn't owe you an easy life, or even an easier life, and it is exceptionally arrogant for you to ask it for one.I disagree, but here there are only opinions.

You clearly didn't read what I said. Economic incentives work because they allow one to live comfortable. There are other ways of allowing one to live comfortably without "economic" incentives.

The "gun analogy" is not an analogy, it (and all other forms of violence) is a reality. Well, since we haven't yet gotten into a discussion on coercion, I won't bring it up. But guns are usually used as an analogy when discussion coercion, and coercion usually comes up in debates of communism vs. capitalism.

Yet left-wing groups oppose public expression of religion (trying to remove Nativity Scenes), and send monitors into churches.Not at all. Left-wing groups oppose the government spending money on Nativity Scenes. They have no opinion on whether or not someone privately puts one in front of their house or in front of their church.

Hong Kong, when Sir John Cowperthwaite was Financial Secretary (1961-71), didn't have governmental interference in the economy. They didn't even collect statistics for fear that they would be used!So then it seems that you're saying is that a free market economy can last 10 or 20 years, max.

Incidentally, here is the Wikipedia link on Anarchism in Spain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
There is a lot that you'll have to wade through in order to get to the relevant point of during the Spanish Civil War.

Disraeliland

14-10-2005, 13:01

The second half of the statement is what I am proposing, except in a different way.

That's different from a free market how?

The point is that it is impossible for a system that fully respects property rights to exist anymore, due to government taking property from the people.

Government is corrupt, however, it is better to have some property rights than none at all (and I don't mean a little personal property, with everything else belinging to the state)

There is a thread currently called "F****** Moral Dilemma" which was started by a capitalist but he wondered why it is acceptable for people to own land. If you can go there and justify that, I'd love to see it. Until then, I've never seen a justification for owning land other than owning land based upon use.

Why is it acceptable for people to own shoes, or DVD players, or computers?

There are two types of property, one is purely personal, the other is used to gain income. There is no clear line between them, in fact a particular piece of property can go from one to the other. For example, a shop owner owns a DVD which is for sale, property for income. You buy it so you can watch it in your home, property for personal use. You get tired of it, and put it up for sale on E-Bay, property for income. In neither case is ownership harmful. Holding personal property doesn't harm anyone. Ownership for income helps people by proving for the wants and needs of the people buying the property or paying for its use, and it provides for the owner by giving him the financial means to satisfy his wants and needs.

No, it means that if there is a cash transaction on the side, some third party will likely see it. There aren't "authorities." And your thinking on the idea is clouded by your preconceived notions.

And he'll do what, say "tut tut!" The only way to enforce income is to have a bureau of people, with full powers to search anywhere and anything, and conduct total surveillence, backed up by many informers.

For an example of your preconceived notions clouding your thinking, let's look at the last sentence of this. I've never said anything about people being forced to accept my rules.

You've not satisfactorally explained why they would. Therefore we are left with force.

I've said that most people would realize that it is not in their best interests to reward taller, better looking people, but instead reward job performance based upon how well the job is done. If people wish to publicly declare their preferences for better looking people, they're welcome to do so, but I find it highly unlikely that the majority of people would agree with them. Most likely they would be laughed at.

Why should people not decide their own priorities? Why should they have to justify them to you. Has it occurred to you that such preferences are wired into the mind?

Since one of my arguments is for the abolition of money, I have every right to question their decision

No you don't. They acquired the money fairly (unless you can prove otherwise, like robbery), they can spend it as they wish. Once again, you show no respect for people's rights.

Secondly, that sentence wasn't questioning their decision, it was an argument against decisions the market being well-informed. Most of the time they aren't.

Questioning the decision and questioning the basis for the decision come to the same thing, you think people should have to justify to you how and why they exercise their rights. A despicable attitude.

In democracy, people have to justify their decisions to everyone. Otherwise people would not vote in their favor

The Government, and politicians must justify all their decisions to the people, I don't have to justify anything to you.

And likewise, it would be legal to own property which you use, but not legal to own property which you don't use.

Why not? Again, you show that your model requires the destruction of personal rights. How can the state determine that you are not using property? By invading your privacy.

Also, define use. If I put my computer up for sale, I am not using in the sense that I have it switched on, and use the various functions, but it does fulfill a purpose for me, namely generating cash. Anyway, purpose is a highly personal subjective matter. You may not think a particular piece of property is useful to me, but I might find it vital. Who decides? Certainly not the owner, your model could never work that way. The owner would simply say that it does fill a purpose. It must be the state.

If people try to make more than society allows them to, society would be upset as it shifts the balance of power.

You mean if the Government allows them to. In a market economy, if people overproduce, then prices will fall, giving a disincentive to produce, so production will fall,as it falls, prices go back to where they were. Restoring balance.

Why "society" (or government) needs to make decisions that the market will make itself is something you have failed to explain (aside from some twaddle about "flawed decisions").

Let's take the example of U.S. auto workers. Many auto workers hate their jobs. They despise going there. But when they come home, what do many of them do? They work on their cars. They enjoy working on their cars.
Now, tell me, if economic incentive is so great, why is it in this instance that without economic incentive, people are enjoying themselves more?

Firstly, you've shown no proof that amateur auto work is common among auto workers.

Secondly, I'd suggest that the workers engaged in this activity are doing it with special cars, while at work, they deal with the dull and ordinary family scar. For anyone interested in cars, there is a slight difference between a Pontiac Firebird, and a Toyota Corolla.

Thirdly, the nature of the work is different. In the factory, the work is repeating the same process over and over, with deadlines, and management breathing down your neck. In your own garage, you can be yourself, work to your own time in an environment you control. There's a diversity in what you do, and an art form at the end. If this ethos were followed in the car factories, the workers might like it better, but only the super-rich would ever drive (or be driven as the case may be).

Once again, all market economies eventually become corrupt. What, in your mind, could causee a market economy to not become corrupt?

All systems will tend to become corrupt. The answer is the same in all cases, restrict and check power, and watch those in power like hawks. Your system, which requires that huge amounts of power be placed at the top will become corrupt quickly.

No, it strengthen my argument. People would not be able to corrupt people because they would not have the power to do so

You really haven't thought about your idea. To ensure full equality of income, some people will have to be given immense power to keep watch, search anywhere and anything, and make seizures against anyone who makes a little on the side to enforce equality of income. Otherwise, your system will simply collapse.

If economic statistics weren't collected, how do we know that they did better economically?

Very high rates of Mercedes Benz ownership aren't exact statistics. (Are you seriously disputing Hong Kong's incredible prosperity?! What rock are you living under?)

In other societies, there is less talent overall, since other societies would not foster talent as much as my society would.

WTF?! You must be joking. You cannot for one moment justify that point, or does your vision of society involve genetically engineering a race of supermen?

Again, you show that you haven't thought about your idea. You, like that pompous hateful idiot Marx, simply (simplistically) assume it will work.

It's not as though you provided a link to where I could look it up myself. And why should I prove your points for you?

I don't want you to prove my points, though it would be nice if you'd prove your own.

Individuals can survive without societies, I don't see how this point is valid.

Simple, you've not shown that there is a common interest. Merely an individual's biological urge to survive.

It is in everyone's interest in society that society continues to exist, since society furthers their own interest. Once again, that is the common interest.

No, it isn't it is an individual's interest in survival. An individual only has a stake in the group insofar as being in the group fills his needs.

I've agreed that it is possible for people to make decisions which don't violate the rights of others. These decisions would not concern society.

There is no such thing as a single entity called "society", merely groups of individuals.

Perhaps that's what most people do, but I haven't done so. For instance, while laws against shouting "fire" in a public theater could conceivably be argued to interfere with free speech, nobody is allowed to shout "fire." It is a restriction on everybody, not just some people.

Allowing people to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre can be said to interfere with the property rights of the audience. They spent the money to acquire the tickets to see the show (or tickets were given as gifts, as the case may be). Their right to enjoy the show is their property rights. Gratuitously shouting fire violates their property rights.

Free speech is irrelevant as the exercise of rights violates the rights of others.

You've proven my point. The Soviets didn't uphold Article 50.

They upheld all their Constitution. There is no inherient reason to rank parts of a constitution. They upheld Article 50, but if someone said something that was "advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law", they got the book thrown at them.

But, in communist states, the judicial means of enforcement was loyal to the Communist Party only, so "advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law" would for them mean anything said against the communist party, senior members thereof, or communism in general.

I've already stated that there is no distinction between society and government.

Whoop-de-doo, you still use them interchangably.

Some people might view that as being the purpose of democracy, and they're within their rights to do so. That is, after all, what "representative democracy" is. However, direct democracy is called "true democracy" for a reason.

Not for a good reason. Direct democracy is simply not capable of functioning outside a small group.

No, but it is an argument against representative democracy.

Without a viable alternative that the aguments support, the criticism is irrelevant.

With that said, however, it is still incredibly difficult to have a recall done. It takes a lot of time and money to do so. I don't believe that money should play a role in politics.

Why shouldn't it. Why should people not be able to spend their money as they wish? You say that a recall is a step towards direct democracy, fine, but you now see the inefficiencies.

Would it not be even more efficient to own the company that pays people to move the clothes from China to Australia?

Just for my clothing needs? Overkill. Anyway, my talents and knowledge doesn't run in the direction of import/export. The people running it are doing fine. It is more efficient to pay them to continue to do so.

Again with the emphasis on efficiency. Efficiency is not the end-all-be-all thing to look at.

Straw-man. I never said efficiency was everything. I said it was necessary.

After all, decisions made under a dicatorship are more efficient than decisions made under a democracy. Does this make them better?

False-dilemma.

As far as 10 million adults go, I would argue that your country would be broken up into individual communes/countries.

My countries governed fairly well as it is. You've made no compelling case for change (perhaps you should fall on the standard Communist compelling case: comply or get shot)

I prefer none of the above. I prefer a system of free distribution. The only exceptions to this would be trade with other countries/communes and those few resources which would be too scarce to have free distribution.

Why? Why would that work better than a free-market, which has already shown it can better provide for people's needs than any other system?

I should think that at least five doctors do. There are also plenty of doctors who take lower-paying jobs in the inner cities because that is where their talents are most needed.

Isolated examples. In the last 3 weeks, I've seen a heck of a lot more than 5 doctors who don't.

Well, this is for one of two reasons: your preconceived notions of what Communism is clouds everything that I say, or that you are one of the ones who would have power in another type of society. Naturally, it would not be in your best interests to give up that power.

Ad-hominem rubbish.

But most people don't have as much power in capitalist societies, so my society would be giving them more power, thus making living in my society in their best interests.

"More power", yet they haven't the ability to increase their own incomes by a single cent, furthermore they must be watch all the time to see they don't try. Sounds like less power to me. You may claim to give them more power and removing government completely, but in reality, for your model to work you must take all power, and increase the burden of government.

Capitalist systems hold the best interests of capitalists. Most people aren't capitalists.

Really? Anyway, it fulfills the interests of all the people better than any other system would.

Not at all. If Bush's utopian version of the Middle East comes about, it casts a different light on the Iraq War than if his vision doesn't come about.

So what actually happens in the Iraq War is irrelevant to how its viewed? I support the war, and my consideration of it is coloured by how its gone.

Marx explained that idea very clearly. Do you not remember the passages about industrialization making it so many things were no longer scarce? Or the passages about the internal contradictions of capitalism making the revolution inevitable?

Industrialisation increasing production has helped capitalism immensely (the reason is that making production more efficient increases the wealth of society, that wealth creation fuels wealth creation elsewhere by investment).

As for "internal contradictions", lets evaluate Marx:

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."

This is Marx's premise, and its transparent rubbish. He neglects the middle-classes (who bridge the gap, because they not only work for their money, they have money working for them (investments). They also don't fight each other. The relationship goes along the lines, of investors provide capital for production, workers do producing and get the wages, products sold, some of the profits go back to the investors.

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells"

Here Marx portrays a strength of capitalism as a weakness! Capitalism doesn't need one person to control it, it requires control by the market place. The laws of supply and demand, and competition all play a part. The differences between the living standards of market economies and planned economies shows that the impossibility of single control is a good thing.

"It is enough to mention the commercial crises [recessions] that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly."

Marx makes the same mistake again. Capitalism is a self-regulating system. If capitalists do stupid things, recessions happen, telling them to get thier acts together.

"Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce"

Marx didn't like over-production either, however there are two good things about it, firstly: choice, Secondly: availability of necessities. The Soviet Union suffered grain failures because they didn't plan their pesticide production correctly. Western nations generally over-produce, so if luck runs out, there is pesticide available.

"Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him"

How would he know? Marx never worked a factory in his life.

Looks like Marx's explaination of "internal contradictions" fails too.

Well, considering you used leftist intolerance of religion as your sole criterion for saying that the left is more intolerant than the right, I'll have to say you're being a hypocrite.

You said "sole criterion", I merely used it as an example.

Show me where I said "impose", or even said to do it against someone's will.

You said that the people have a right to introduce a socialist society, you also said it didn't have to be unanimous, therefore it is an imposition, at least on the people who disagreed who must now have their property taken away.

As I've stated, people have to justify their votes to society. People are welcome to vote based upon their religions, but they aren't going to convince anyone unless they have some non-religious reason for doing so, as well.

Ever heard of a secret ballot, or freedom of conscience? I thought not. Why thius contempt for peoples' rights?

Why should anyone justify the way they vote? Its no one else's business.

Familiar with the idea of "separation of church and state"?

Yes. Its the reason Churches aren't taxed, and the state cannot establish a state religion. But if you think it means removing freedom of conscience, and voting rights, you've got another thing coming.

And those people would not be living in society. I've already allowed for them.

As I've pointed out (and you've not seriously contested), people with talent will leave your society. Now, people leaving a state are a threat to the state because they deprive the nation of their abilities. You have not shown how your society will attract, and retain, talent. I can show you why Australia and the US attract talent. They are societies where talented people from all over the world can earn a damned good wage for their talents.

Your society will suffer from the same problem East Germanyt did, talented people leaving for a better way of life. On one day, the entire Maths Department of the University of Leipzig went to the West! How could your society live, one day its Pythagoras, the next silence. Saying that "people will realise that my way is best" won't make it so. I'm sure some idealists in the East German communists thought the same. They still ended up building a wall, burying mines, and giving men guns and telling them to shoot anyone escaping.

There would be at least as many protections in a representative democracy, if not more.

How? The accepted model in the West is that government should be used to protect everyone's rights. Its not perfect, its damned unpleasent, but its better than lynch mobs and vigilantes. That's the reality of protection of rights without government, lynch mobs and vigilantes.

Those people who do not wish to accept it would not be living in my society. They're welcome to do so.

Then your society must fall. It gives people no real reason to stay, just platitudes.

I disagree, but here there are only opinions.

What gives you the right to ask people who've done it tough, who've dealt with it and made successes of themselves, to give you an easy life? What makes you so special? The world owes you nothing. You owe them nothing. You just have to get by for yourself as best you can.

There are other ways of allowing one to live comfortably without "economic" incentives.

And you certainly go into detail describing them. The only other ways are to impose a burden on the productive members of society, or opt out completely, and define confort down to a log cabin in the forest.

Well, since we haven't yet gotten into a discussion on coercion, I won't bring it up. But guns are usually used as an analogy when discussion coercion, and coercion usually comes up in debates of communism vs. capitalism.

Yes we have. I submit that your model will collapse without extensive coercion. You say that people will not need coercion, they have platitudes and slogans about equality. The fact that these have never worked before doesn't seem to have deterred you.

Not at all. Left-wing groups oppose the government spending money on Nativity Scenes. They have no opinion on whether or not someone privately puts one in front of their house or in front of their church.

Yes they have.

So then it seems that you're saying is that a free market economy can last 10 or 20 years, max.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that as soon as Cowerthwaite retired, Hong Kong drifted into state interference? Hong Kong is the most free economy in the world: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=HongKong

Jello Biafra

14-10-2005, 14:12

That's different from a free market how?In free markets, decisions are made by two people, the producer and the consumer. In the system I propose, decisions are made by everybody.

Government is corrupt, however, it is better to have some property rights than none at all (and I don't mean a little personal property, with everything else belinging to the state)Everything else belongs to society.

Why is it acceptable for people to own shoes, or DVD players, or computers?

There are two types of property, one is purely personal, the other is used to gain income. There is no clear line between them, in fact a particular piece of property can go from one to the other. For example, a shop owner owns a DVD which is for sale, property for income. You buy it so you can watch it in your home, property for personal use. You get tired of it, and put it up for sale on E-Bay, property for income. In neither case is ownership harmful. Holding personal property doesn't harm anyone. Ownership for income helps people by proving for the wants and needs of the people buying the property or paying for its use, and it provides for the owner by giving him the financial means to satisfy his wants and needs.There are differing viewpoints on this. Trade of things that are infinite, or potentially infinite, could be allowed. But trade of things that are finite and will always be finite should never be allowed.

And he'll do what, say "tut tut!" The only way to enforce income is to have a bureau of people, with full powers to search anywhere and anything, and conduct total surveillence, backed up by many informers.He may decide to report it at the next council meeting, and the council may decide to take action by asking the individual to leave the society.

You've not satisfactorally explained why they would. Therefore we are left with force.If they wouldn't without force, then the society I'm proposing would fail, and deservedly so.

Why should people not decide their own priorities? Why should they have to justify them to you. Has it occurred to you that such preferences are wired into the mind?If such preferences are wired in the mind the it would be quite easy to justify those priorities to society, since society would have the same preferences, would they not?
And people have to justify their priorities to society when it comes to spending the resources of society.

No you don't. They acquired the money fairly (unless you can prove otherwise, like robbery), they can spend it as they wish. Once again, you show no respect for people's rights."Fairly" is a relative term.

Questioning the decision and questioning the basis for the decision come to the same thing, you think people should have to justify to you how and why they exercise their rights. A despicable attitude.People have to justify to society how they spend society's resources.

The Government, and politicians must justify all their decisions to the people, I don't have to justify anything to you.In a direct democracy you would.

Why not? Again, you show that your model requires the destruction of personal rights. How can the state determine that you are not using property? By invading your privacy.No, it requires removing the myth that it is acceptable to allow ownership of land which you don't use.

Also, define use. If I put my computer up for sale, I am not using in the sense that I have it switched on, and use the various functions, but it does fulfill a purpose for me, namely generating cash. Anyway, purpose is a highly personal subjective matter. You may not think a particular piece of property is useful to me, but I might find it vital. Who decides? Certainly not the owner, your model could never work that way. The owner would simply say that it does fill a purpose. It must be the state.In such an instance of selling it, you would not be using it, the person who buys it would be. And society may very well allow the sale of computers, since computers can always be manufactured, thus creating a potentially infinite amount of them.

You mean if the Government allows them to. In a market economy, if people overproduce, then prices will fall, giving a disincentive to produce, so production will fall,as it falls, prices go back to where they were. Restoring balance.

Why "society" (or government) needs to make decisions that the market will make itself is something you have failed to explain (aside from some twaddle about "flawed decisions").Because society would do a better job of it than the market does, because, as I've stated, the market is flawed.
Your model also doesn't say anything about deliberate shortages, or monopolies.

Thirdly, the nature of the work is different. In the factory, the work is repeating the same process over and over, with deadlines, and management breathing down your neck. In your own garage, you can be yourself, work to your own time in an environment you control. There's a diversity in what you do, and an art form at the end. And there we have the crux of the matter. People enjoy being themselves, working in their own environments, and art forms. If society structures itself to foster this, economic incentives aren't necessary, provided that everyone will be comfortable.

If this ethos were followed in the car factories, the workers might like it better, but only the super-rich would ever drive (or be driven as the case may be).Such is capitalism.

All systems will tend to become corrupt. The answer is the same in all cases, restrict and check power, and watch those in power like hawks. Your system, which requires that huge amounts of power be placed at the top will become corrupt quickly.There is no top, so how can power be placed there?

You really haven't thought about your idea. To ensure full equality of income, some people will have to be given immense power to keep watch, search anywhere and anything, and make seizures against anyone who makes a little on the side to enforce equality of income. Otherwise, your system will simply collapse.No, everyone will be given power to keep watch. You really can't conceive of such a thing, can you?

Very high rates of Mercedes Benz ownership aren't exact statistics. (Are you seriously disputing Hong Kong's incredible prosperity?! What rock are you living under?)No, I'm not disputing Hong Kong's prosperity, I'm disputing the level of government involvement. If there are no statistics, how can it be proven whether or not the government got involved?

WTF?! You must be joking. You cannot for one moment justify that point, or does your vision of society involve genetically engineering a race of supermen?See my above point about the auto workers.

Again, you show that you haven't thought about your idea. You, like that pompous hateful idiot Marx, simply (simplistically) assume it will work.Again, I have thought about my ideas, your responses are colored by your misconceptions, and not related to my ideas at all.

Simple, you've not shown that there is a common interest. Merely an individual's biological urge to survive.No, as I've stated, individuals can survive outside of societies. There must be some further reason that individuals live in societies. After all, societies interfere with individualism. Why would someone give up a part of their individuality if it weren't in their best interests?

No, it isn't it is an individual's interest in survival. An individual only has a stake in the group insofar as being in the group fills his needs.And since few people leave societies, we can assume that societies tend to fill the needs of most individuals.

There is no such thing as a single entity called "society", merely groups of individuals.Who all benefit from coming together, otherwise they wouldn't do so.

Free speech is irrelevant as the exercise of rights violates the rights of others.Ah, and here is the conundrum - How do we determine every case in which someone's rights are being violated by someone else. There are plenty of grey areas.

They upheld all their Constitution. There is no inherient reason to rank parts of a constitution. They upheld Article 50, but if someone said something that was "advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law", they got the book thrown at them.So then Article 50 wasn't upheld, since it doesn't provide for exceptions.

But, in communist states, the judicial means of enforcement was loyal to the Communist Party only, so "advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law" would for them mean anything said against the communist party, senior members thereof, or communism in general.And in capitalist states, laws are typically made that favor the rich.

Whoop-de-doo, you still use them interchangably.Because in the instance of direct democracy, they are interchangable.

Not for a good reason. Direct democracy is simply not capable of functioning outside a small group.What do you consider a "small group"? How many people?

Why shouldn't it. Why should people not be able to spend their money as they wish? You say that a recall is a step towards direct democracy, fine, but you now see the inefficiencies.The inefficiencies are due to free speech being limited by the fact that in order to have your speech broadcast, you have to pay for it. Such an inefficiency wouldn't happen in the society I propose, everyone would be able to have their opinions broadcast.

Just for my clothing needs? Overkill. Anyway, my talents and knowledge doesn't run in the direction of import/export. The people running it are doing fine. It is more efficient to pay them to continue to do so.If you were to run a business of import/export, it would make sense.
And laws are the business of everyone, since they effect everyone.

Straw-man. I never said efficiency was everything. I said it was necessary.But nonetheless you seem to view it as all important. Sometimes less efficiency is better.

My countries governed fairly well as it is. You've made no compelling case for change (perhaps you should fall on the standard Communist compelling case: comply or get shot)Why should you have to settle for "fairly well"?

Why? Why would that work better than a free-market, which has already shown it can better provide for people's needs than any other system?Because the free market limits access to people who don't have the means to pay for it. Free distribution would not limit access to anyone.

Isolated examples. In the last 3 weeks, I've seen a heck of a lot more than 5 doctors who don't.How many doctors are you thinking are necessary to run a small society? I contend that there are enough "isolated examples" to do so.

"More power", yet they haven't the ability to increase their own incomes by a single cent, furthermore they must be watch all the time to see they don't try. Sounds like less power to me. You may claim to give them more power and removing government completely, but in reality, for your model to work you must take all power, and increase the burden of government.Their own incomes would be increased simply from the redistribution of wealth. The majority of people would benefit from such a thing.
And there you are again, falsely seeing power where none exists.

Really? Anyway, it fulfills the interests of all the people better than any other system would.You're welcome to insist as such. Considering that my system hasn't been tried, it's not as though I can provide real world examples of it. There are similar systems, such as the Paris Commune and parts of Spain, but while they are similar, they aren't exact.

So what actually happens in the Iraq War is irrelevant to how its viewed? I support the war, and my consideration of it is coloured by how its gone.No, but what actually happens in the Iraq War isn't the only consideration for how it's viewed.

Industrialisation increasing production has helped capitalism immensely (the reason is that making production more efficient increases the wealth of society, that wealth creation fuels wealth creation elsewhere by investment).And since the countries which tried Communism hadn't been industrialized, they fail the basic premise of Marxism.

As for "internal contradictions", lets evaluate Marx:

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."

This is Marx's premise, and its transparent rubbish. He neglects the middle-classes (who bridge the gap, because they not only work for their money, they have money working for them (investments). They also don't fight each other. The relationship goes along the lines, of investors provide capital for production, workers do producing and get the wages, products sold, some of the profits go back to the investors.

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells"

Here Marx portrays a strength of capitalism as a weakness! Capitalism doesn't need one person to control it, it requires control by the market place. The laws of supply and demand, and competition all play a part. The differences between the living standards of market economies and planned economies shows that the impossibility of single control is a good thing.

"It is enough to mention the commercial crises [recessions] that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly."

Marx makes the same mistake again. Capitalism is a self-regulating system. If capitalists do stupid things, recessions happen, telling them to get thier acts together.

"Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce"

Marx didn't like over-production either, however there are two good things about it, firstly: choice, Secondly: availability of necessities. The Soviet Union suffered grain failures because they didn't plan their pesticide production correctly. Western nations generally over-produce, so if luck runs out, there is pesticide available.

"Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him"

How would he know? Marx never worked a factory in his life.

Looks like Marx's explaination of "internal contradictions" fails too.Those aren't the only internal contradictions that Marx mentioned.
As far as the lack of a middle class, Marx didn't mention the middle class because there effectively wasn't one in 1848. This is another reason that the Communist Manifesto should mostly be discarded - that condititons have changed. Hell, they'd changed considerably by 1917. The Manifesto is outdated.

You said "sole criterion", I merely used it as an example.Well, it's the only example that you've mentioned. Do you have others? I mentioned 4.

You said that the people have a right to introduce a socialist society, you also said it didn't have to be unanimous, therefore it is an imposition, at least on the people who disagreed who must now have their property taken away.While I said it didn't have to be unanimous, I said that the people who didn't vote for the idea would have to realize that it is in their best interests to do so. Naturally it wouldn't be just to impose something on someone if it ultimately wasn't in their best interests.

Ever heard of a secret ballot, or freedom of conscience? I thought not. Why thius contempt for peoples' rights?

Why should anyone justify the way they vote? Its no one else's business.Yes, I've heard of secret ballots. They usually aren't used in direct democracy, but let's say that they are.
In order to get someone to vote for your position, you kind of have to explain it to them. It's highly unlikely that someone would vote based upon their religion unless someone stands up and says "let's vote based on our religions."
While individuals might do so, such an idea would be unlikely to have popular support unless the idea is discussed in public.

Yes. Its the reason Churches aren't taxed, and the state cannot establish a state religion. But if you think it means removing freedom of conscience, and voting rights, you've got another thing coming.And it's a reason that religious views aren't codified into law simply because they're religious. If lawmakers can't justify the reason for the law in practical, rather than nonreligious terms, the law will either fail or be overturned by the Supreme Court.

As I've pointed out (and you've not seriously contested), people with talent will leave your society. Now, people leaving a state are a threat to the state because they deprive the nation of their abilities. You have not shown how your society will attract, and retain, talent. I can show you why Australia and the US attract talent. They are societies where talented people from all over the world can earn a damned good wage for their talents.What do you mean I haven't contested it? I've given numerous reasons why they wouldn't leave - because it is in their best interests to not do so.

Your society will suffer from the same problem East Germanyt did, talented people leaving for a better way of life. On one day, the entire Maths Department of the University of Leipzig went to the West! How could your society live, one day its Pythagoras, the next silence. Saying that "people will realise that my way is best" won't make it so. I'm sure some idealists in the East German communists thought the same. They still ended up building a wall, burying mines, and giving men guns and telling them to shoot anyone escaping.East Germany was hardly a place where people would want to live. I'd leave, too, if I'd lived there.

How? The accepted model in the West is that government should be used to protect everyone's rights. Its not perfect, its damned unpleasent, but its better than lynch mobs and vigilantes. That's the reality of protection of rights without government, lynch mobs and vigilantes.Lynch mobs and vigilantes form when there are governments, too, unfortunately.
But nonetheless, I fail to see how everyone protecting the rights of everyone is somehow worse than the government (which is fewer people) protecting the rights of everyone.

Then your society must fall. It gives people no real reason to stay, just platitudes.If it falls, that's fine. But the reason it would most likely fall, is not because of your untrue contention, but rather because the people wouldn't be willing to do the work needed to make it succeed. And that would be their choice.

What gives you the right to ask people who've done it tough, who've dealt with it and made successes of themselves, to give you an easy life? What makes you so special? The world owes you nothing. You owe them nothing. You just have to get by for yourself as best you can.Most, if not all of those people have done so with some form of government intervention.

And you certainly go into detail describing them. The only other ways are to impose a burden on the productive members of society, or opt out completely, and define confort down to a log cabin in the forest.It is society's right to charge whatever fee is necessary in order to keep itself afloat.
And it's not as though there are societies that don't impose taxes, so I fail to see how this point is relevant, since they all do it.

Yes we have. I submit that your model will collapse without extensive coercion. You say that people will not need coercion, they have platitudes and slogans about equality. The fact that these have never worked before doesn't seem to have deterred you.They have worked before, in the Paris Commune and in parts of Spain during its Civil War.

Yes they have.Really? When have leftists in the U.S. been against private displays of Nativity Scenes?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that as soon as Cowerthwaite retired, Hong Kong drifted into state interference? Hong Kong is the most free economy in the world: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=HongKongAre you telling me that Hong Kong (and for that matter West Germany) didn't have income taxes? "Freest" and "free" aren't the same thing. Since it had an income tax, it, by definition, had government interference in the economy.

Disraeliland

14-10-2005, 17:38

In free markets, decisions are made by two people, the producer and the consumer. In the system I propose, decisions are made by everybody.

Which supports free markets. In free markets, the decisions are made by those affected by it, on a voluntary basis. Under your model, people without a stake in the decision can force their point of view.

Everything else belongs to society.

It comes to the same thing.

There are differing viewpoints on this. Trade of things that are infinite, or potentially infinite, could be allowed. But trade of things that are finite and will always be finite should never be allowed.

Why not? No one is harmed, and what is infinite?

He may decide to report it at the next council meeting, and the council may decide to take action by asking the individual to leave the society.

How can such a decision be administered without a state suthority? It can't. Lets us look at this without a state authority; if the individual refuses to leave and can't be forced to without authorities, then others with the same thought who may have prevously deterred by the thought of banishment, will realise the threat is empty and state making deals on the side. It would continue until your model collapsed.

With a state authority, your model of redistribution survives, and a valiant policeman escorts the perpetrator to the border, and gives him a hefty kick over the line.

If they wouldn't without force, then the society I'm proposing would fail, and deservedly so.

My point exactly, and you haven't shown why they would (and saying "people will realise that I have their best interests at heart" isn't sufficient, Kim Il Sung probably thought along the same lines)

If such preferences are wired in the mind the it would be quite easy to justify those priorities to society, since society would have the same preferences, would they not?
And people have to justify their priorities to society when it comes to spending the resources of society.

If they are wired into the mind, then I'd argue that their less easy to justify. Its the artificial preferences that are easy to justify, people think about those, they have to in creating such preferences.

For example, you may prefer PC to Mac, and can outline a number of reasons for this view, reasons which can be proven by testing PC's and Mac's.

They are bloody not spending the resources of their own society. They are spending their own resources!

"Fairly" is a relative term.

Rubbish. This is a fair acquisition of resources: I do a certain amout of work for my boss, and he pays me an amount agreed.

Here is an unfair acquisition of resources: You get a pistol, and hold up a shop.

In the first instance, there is a voluntary agreement to trade. In the second, violence is threatened so you can take comething to which you had no right.

People have to justify to society how they spend society's resources.

They're not spending society's resources. "Society" isn't an incorporated association with a postal address and an office. It is just individuals. If you mean "The State", then you would be correct.

In a direct democracy you would.

Why? Why must a direct democracy deny that most basic of privacies, namely, the inside of one's mind? Heck, even Castro lets you think what you like, providing you don't express it.

No, it requires removing the myth that it is acceptable to allow ownership of land which you don't use.

First you talk about property, then you talk about land. Make up your mind.

Why is land any different to any other type of property. It is either for personal use, or it is used to generate income. I may acquire vast lands so I don't have to live near anyone. You may not think the land isn't being used, but it fulfills a purpose for me, guaranteeing solitude.

So, I ask the question again: How would you determine if any piece of property isn't being used? Asking isn't good enough, the person will invariably say "Yes, I'm using it, I use it all the time", you must remove all rights to privacy, so you can make sure that property is being used. You must empower a police force to seize property that isn't being used so it can be redistributed.

In such an instance of selling it, you would not be using it, the person who buys it would be. And society may very well allow the sale of computers, since computers can always be manufactured, thus creating a potentially infinite amount of them.

Its not being used until it finds a buyer, though it does, in prospect, fill a purpose for me. Therefore it is useful, my possession of the computer has purpose, if only in prospect.

Because society would do a better job of it than the market does, because, as I've stated, the market is flawed.
Your model also doesn't say anything about deliberate shortages, or monopolies.

Why would society do a better job? What do you mean by society? If you mean everyone, then you are talking about a market economy, but you deny that you are, so you must refer to the state.

Anyway, saying something is "flawed" isn't a criticism, it merely means it exists in the real-world.

A free market model says a lot about shortages. A shortage will increase prices. This will bring incentive to produce, which will bring the price into balance. What about deliberate shortages: they are done by certain producers to drive the price up, then, having such advanced knowledge, they can release stock while the competition is still putting its socks on, and turn a brief profit.

As for monopolies, monopolies are produced and/or sustained by state intervention. That's your department, your model is a total monopoly.

And there we have the crux of the matter. People enjoy being themselves, working in their own environments, and art forms. If society structures itself to foster this, economic incentives aren't necessary, provided that everyone will be comfortable.

Such a society will never produce what it needs. As I pointed out. The garage ethos is all very well and good for producing the occasional master piece, be it a hot rod, or a Rolls Royce, but a factory, with mass production can get the whole community mobile. Mass production bought the motor car to the masses.

Such is capitalism.

Bollocks. Capitalism is producing the most cars for the least money to appeal to the widest possible market.

The idea of dedicated artists handmaking all the cars for the super-rich is more like feudalism.

There is no top, so how can power be placed there?

There is a top. You've made no attempt to seriously say otherwise. You've not shown how your model can work without it.

No, everyone will be given power to keep watch. You really can't conceive of such a thing, can you?

Again, you admit that your model will require the destruction of personal rights. In this specific instance, privacy.

In the Soviet Union, every citizen had the power to watch the others, and if they told the KGB, they were rewarded. The bastards even made a statue of a boy who dobbed his parents in to the KGB.

No, I'm not disputing Hong Kong's prosperity, I'm disputing the level of government involvement. If there are no statistics, how can it be proven whether or not the government got involved?

Without government statistics, how could they get involved? Why would they want to get involved?

They had no information that would lead them to believe that interference should happen.

See my above point about the auto workers.

You said your society would bring more talent, and would inheriently create more talent. Your point about the auto-workers isn't justified by reality. Are you saying that someone who likes to tend a special care in an 'artistic' (for want of a better word) way, would want to make ordinary cars in the same way. The 'artistic' way is a nice and nostalgic thing to think about, but to satisfy a community's demand for cars, the work would be back breaking.

The 'artistic' way produces less than one car a year, perhaps. A community's demand for cars is doing to exceed less than one per year. Take Australia, population just over 20 million, next year, new car sales are projected to top 1 million. That's 1 in 5 Australians scoring a new set of wheels, not to mention all the used cars sold.

A few guys in garages in weekends could satisfy that? Not on your life.

Again, I have thought about my ideas, your responses are colored by your misconceptions, and not related to my ideas at all.

Saying you've done something, and displaying evidence of having done it are two different things.

I have solved pi to the last decimal place. I won't show you any evidence of having done it though. You'll just have to believe me. You expect the same of me.

No, as I've stated, individuals can survive outside of societies. There must be some further reason that individuals live in societies. After all, societies interfere with individualism. Why would someone give up a part of their individuality if it weren't in their best interests?

They believe their individual interest is best served in a society. That is not a collective belief, that is not a common interest. That is each individual deciding what is best for himself. Individual interests.

Who all benefit from coming together, otherwise they wouldn't do so.

Again, an individual serving his self-interest. That serving his self-interest also serves the interests of others is a pleasent coincidence.

Ah, and here is the conundrum - How do we determine every case in which someone's rights are being violated by someone else. There are plenty of grey areas.

Not really. You, freely exercising your property rights, buy a theatre ticket. You've clearly got the right to attend whatever show is being presented without unnecessary disturbance.

Someone gratuitously shouting "fire!" is clearly an unnecessary disturbance. Therefore, the shouter has effectively stolen from you the value of your ticket.

So then Article 50 wasn't upheld, since it doesn't provide for exceptions.

The whole constitution was upheld. The articles are quite clear, and Article 39 clearly states that exercise of the rights included must not be against the interests of the state. People speaking against the state are clearly exercising their rights in such a way that is against the state, so their imprisonment upholds the entire document, all its provisions are carried out.

The whole document is what matters. You can't single a piece out without considering it in context of the other pieces, especially if they relate to each other, and Articles 39 and 50 are clearly related, one grants a right, the other sets conditions under which that right cannot be exercised.

The whole document allows for free speech only where it serves, or at least doesn't injure the "interests of society or the state". Therefore, the USSR acted in a constitutional manner.

And in capitalist states, laws are typically made that favor the rich.

Yeah, 'progressive' income taxes, and luxury goods taxes sure benefit the rich.

Capitalist states make laws that favour winning the next election. That often means making laws against the rich, in order to play on envy.

Even right of centre parties aren't immune, the Liberal Party of Australia keeps federal taxes high, so they can boast of a huge surplus, and portray themselves as the party for fiscal responsibility.

Because in the instance of direct democracy, they are interchangable

And direct-democracy will still a set of institutions and a bureaucracy to carry out its laws, and necessary governmental operations (everything from cleaning the sewer, to maintaining an Army)

What do you consider a "small group"? How many people?

Tiny. A number is difficult to determine, but I could sort of make it work in school in a group that varied between 3 and 6 (depending on how many people decided to go truant), though I had to twist the odd arm. Attempts to find consensus over the whole class (about 25) failed.

The inefficiencies are due to free speech being limited by the fact that in order to have your speech broadcast, you have to pay for it. Such an inefficiency wouldn't happen in the society I propose, everyone would be able to have their opinions broadcast.

No, if anything, the need to pay for advertising is a good thing. It forces politicians to be discliplined because they've only so much money.

The inefficiency lies in each person needing to be heard, and having a response to each thing he hears, in a small group as I described earlier. You can get the discussion done with without too much bother, but once you hit about 25, then you hit snags. Discussions get dragged out. Each point is disputed again and again.

Consider this: It has taken the Australian Parliament, which has 150 lower house members, and 74 upper house over 9.5 years, 4 Federal elections, several pieces of legislation, and huge debates in both houses to sell a government owned corporation.

224 people, and during all that time the government party had a majority in the lower house.

Representative democracy is barely efficient in legislating.

If you were to run a business of import/export, it would make sense.

It would make sense for me to run an import/export business is I were to run an import/export business.

I haven't the foggiest idea about running an import/export business. It makes no sense at all, particularly as I don't need much. Only a little. It is best left to the people who are running it now. They've got a good handle on it.

And laws are the business of everyone, since they effect everyone.

Not necessarily. I don't invent things and I don't own or run manufacturing, so the patent laws are hardly relevant to me. Subtle points of international maritime law don't affect me since I am not in a business that operates on, in, or under the sea.

But nonetheless you seem to view it as all important. Sometimes less efficiency is better.

Seem? That's weak. In any case, since I pay for part of government, and I'm a citizen, I've a right to demand efficiency from government.

Why should you have to settle for "fairly well"?

Good government is like the arabian phoenix. No one's seen it, but everyone swears it exists. I settle for it because the alternative is a bloody-lot worse. That's the point.

Because the free market limits access to people who don't have the means to pay for it. Free distribution would not limit access to anyone.

That statement taken by itself might be true, but when taken in context with everything else you've said, its clear access would be limited by scarcity. Your way provides little, is any, incentive to work and produce. The 'artistic' methods you advocate only make that problem worse by inefficiently using the limited, and dwindling talent your society would have it is disposal.

How many doctors are you thinking are necessary to run a small society? I contend that there are enough "isolated examples" to do so.

So your society must be a charity case for Doctors Without Borders? There are people in the world with medical problems that have been inflicted on them, without DWB having to send you doctors because all the ones you had left for sunnier climes.

It places a burden on the world where charity is in short supply.

Their own incomes would be increased simply from the redistribution of wealth. The majority of people would benefit from such a thing.
And there you are again, falsely seeing power where none exists.

But your society has little, or no incentive to produce, so incomes would have to progressively decrease because production is decreased.

Once again, to make your model work, government will require immense power. It will simply collapse otherwise. Dogmatically saying it isn't so changes nothing. You've produced nothing resembling a solid argument that would indicate that such a model can work without a repressive regime.

No, but what actually happens in the Iraq War isn't the only consideration for how it's viewed.

While the practical necessities of your system cannot be considerd if they disagree with your dogma?

Those aren't the only internal contradictions that Marx mentioned.

Which internal contradicton did he mention that were true? Considering the start we've seen from him, I'm not hopeful.

And since the countries which tried Communism hadn't been industrialized, they fail the basic premise of Marxism.

Earth fails the basic premise of Marxism. Besides, the East-European countries had been industrialised (although a large amount of it didn't survive the war, none the less, those nations had gone through industrialisation), not only did Marxism fail there, some of the greatest resistance to it was there. Solidarity, the Prague Spring, The Hungarian Uprising, the East German Uprising (1953), and thousands of brave Germans defecting to the West.

While I said it didn't have to be unanimous, I said that the people who didn't vote for the idea would have to realize that it is in their best interests to do so. Naturally it wouldn't be just to impose something on someone if it ultimately wasn't in their best interests.

"Just have to realise that it is their best interests"? Why should they? You've not even shown that it can work, let alone satisfy anyone's interests.

In order to get someone to vote for your position, you kind of have to explain it to them. It's highly unlikely that someone would vote based upon their religion unless someone stands up and says "let's vote based on our religions."
While individuals might do so, such an idea would be unlikely to have popular support unless the idea is discussed in public

It doesn't require that at all.

Catholics are the easiest example. They are brought up in that belief system. In your direct democracy, someone proposes a law allowing abortion. The catholics are going to vote against it. They may not need to discuss it then and there, for they have been brought up with the catholic ethics on contraception and abortion. People vote according to their beliefs, whether religious or secular.

There is no reason such speech should have little popular support. Depends on the people, and discussion need not be public, it may be confined to the church.

And it's a reason that religious views aren't codified into law simply because they're religious. If lawmakers can't justify the reason for the law in practical, rather than nonreligious terms, the law will either fail or be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Religous views get codified into law if the people elect leaders who do that. To prove a law that brings in some religous principle unconstitutional, it must be proven to establish a state religion, and of course they can get around it by not mentioning the religious considerations at all, or camouflage it by talking about "community sentiment", or some wishy-washy tripe like that.

They don't have to provide a non-religious justification. The justification for making the law is in fact never religious, it is that those who made it have the support of so many voters whom they serve.

The FDMA clearly has religous origins, yet no one has proven it unconstitutional, and it can be legally justified by saying that one state should not make the marriage laws of the whole union because that state government doesn't represent the whole union. You might view it as unconstitutional (as you might view any law you don't like), but if you can't prove it before the properly constituted courts, it stands.

What do you mean I haven't contested it? I've given numerous reasons why they wouldn't leave - because it is in their best interests to not do so.

That is not numerous reason. That is single excuse. You've failed to answer my questioning of that statement, nor have you dealt with the reasons I gave for people to go, you merely state your dogmatic view that "it is in their best interests".

Lynch mobs and vigilantes form when there are governments, too, unfortunately.
But nonetheless, I fail to see how everyone protecting the rights of everyone is somehow worse than the government (which is fewer people) protecting the rights of everyone.

Because vigilantes and lynch mobs are damn succeptable to passion and blood-lust. With government, we can bring in a semblence of due process, or rule of law.

Your idea fails to take into account human nature. In the Southern US, during the 1950's and 1960's, lynchers outnumbered cops, but justice certainly wasn't served, though they did partly sate their blood lust and racism.

If it falls, that's fine. But the reason it would most likely fall, is not because of your untrue contention, but rather because the people wouldn't be willing to do the work needed to make it succeed. And that would be their choice.

Actually that is exactly the reason it will fall. No one will be willing to work for it, for the reasons I outlined.

Most, if not all of those people have done so with some form of government intervention

Evidence? Anyway, did they tell society that they were owed an easy life? No. Most made it themselves, and if they did get help from government, they had that and more taxed back when they made it.

It is society's right to charge whatever fee is necessary in order to keep itself afloat.

Society isn't a single entity, what you're really saying is that some individuals have (for reasons you don't outline) a right to live of the proceeds of others' work without contributing.

I wasn't referring to essential taxes to run essential public services. I'm talking about the state guaranteeing a comfortable way of life, by taking away from the talented, able, and industrious. Guaranteeing a comfortable way of life is not an essential public service.

Are you telling me that Hong Kong (and for that matter West Germany) didn't have income taxes? "Freest" and "free" aren't the same thing. Since it had an income tax, it, by definition, had government interference in the economy.

Even the most libertarian of economists, like Hazlitt, recognise there is such a thing as essential public works, for which taxes are required.

The point is that a free economy will do as little as necessary in this areas as efficiently as possible.

Jello Biafra

14-10-2005, 19:00

Which supports free markets. In free markets, the decisions are made by those affected by it, on a voluntary basis. Under your model, people without a stake in the decision can force their point of view.Because everyone has a stake in every decision.

Why not? No one is harmed, and what is infinite?People are harmed by others' possession of finite things such as land because this means that the use of such things is not open to everyone. The fact that certain things would be available, but restricted to some is harmful.

How can such a decision be administered without a state suthority? It can't. Lets us look at this without a state authority; if the individual refuses to leave and can't be forced to without authorities, then others with the same thought who may have prevously deterred by the thought of banishment, will realise the threat is empty and state making deals on the side. It would continue until your model collapsed.

With a state authority, your model of redistribution survives, and a valiant policeman escorts the perpetrator to the border, and gives him a hefty kick over the line.The individual in question would no longer be living in society. Since land ownership is based upon use, the individual would simply cease to be a part of society, and would either have to subsistence farm/food gather, or join another society.

My point exactly, and you haven't shown why they would (and saying "people will realise that I have their best interests at heart" isn't sufficient, Kim Il Sung probably thought along the same lines)They would because most likely they would already think about things the same way that I do - why else would they join the type of society that I propose?

If they are wired into the mind, then I'd argue that their less easy to justify. Its the artificial preferences that are easy to justify, people think about those, they have to in creating such preferences.I disagree. If something occurs naturally, it is easier to justify to others than an artificial decision.

For example, you may prefer PC to Mac, and can outline a number of reasons for this view, reasons which can be proven by testing PC's and Mac's.This is entirely different than saying someone should be paid (more) to do a job simply because they're better looking than someone else.
As far as the PC to Mac example goes, that's what I'm talking about. People would be voicing their opinions, and hearing constructive criticism or alternate opinions.

They are bloody not spending the resources of their own society. They are spending their own resources!Only the resources that someone has left are their own resources. Most resources are owned by society.

Rubbish. This is a fair acquisition of resources: I do a certain amout of work for my boss, and he pays me an amount agreed.

Here is an unfair acquisition of resources: You get a pistol, and hold up a shop.

In the first instance, there is a voluntary agreement to trade. In the second, violence is threatened so you can take comething to which you had no right.I wouldn't say that it is the threat of violence that compels the shopowner to hand over the money, but rather the fear of death.

They're not spending society's resources. "Society" isn't an incorporated association with a postal address and an office. It is just individuals. If you mean "The State", then you would be correct.In the example of direct democracy, society is the state.

Why? Why must a direct democracy deny that most basic of privacies, namely, the inside of one's mind? Heck, even Castro lets you think what you like, providing you don't express it.People are free to think whatever they like, but it will be impossible for anyone to convince someone of their opinion without voicing said opinion. It would also be acceptable to voice said opinion, but (unless the society is a theocracy) the opinion would be discounted if it contains religious reasons for doing something, but not non-religious reasons.

First you talk about property, then you talk about land. Make up your mind.Land is an example of property, and one of the more important ones.

Why is land any different to any other type of property. It is either for personal use, or it is used to generate income. I may acquire vast lands so I don't have to live near anyone. You may not think the land isn't being used, but it fulfills a purpose for me, guaranteeing solitude.Because land is a primary example of a finite resource.

So, I ask the question again: How would you determine if any piece of property isn't being used? Asking isn't good enough, the person will invariably say "Yes, I'm using it, I use it all the time", you must remove all rights to privacy, so you can make sure that property is being used. You must empower a police force to seize property that isn't being used so it can be redistributed.Then it may become necessary to determine which uses are acceptable and which aren't.

Its not being used until it finds a buyer, though it does, in prospect, fill a purpose for me. Therefore it is useful, my possession of the computer has purpose, if only in prospect.Prospect isn't good enough. Someone else could be using the computer in the meantime.

Why would society do a better job? What do you mean by society? If you mean everyone, then you are talking about a market economy, but you deny that you are, so you must refer to the state.Everyone is the state.

Anyway, saying something is "flawed" isn't a criticism, it merely means it exists in the real-world.Fine. Everyone making decisions democratically in the method that I propose is less flawed than the market system.

A free market model says a lot about shortages. A shortage will increase prices. This will bring incentive to produce, which will bring the price into balance. What about deliberate shortages: they are done by certain producers to drive the price up, then, having such advanced knowledge, they can release stock while the competition is still putting its socks on, and turn a brief profit.And you don't see how deliberate shortages interfere with the free market?

As for monopolies, monopolies are produced and/or sustained by state intervention. That's your department, your model is a total monopoly.And since there will always be state intervention, I don't really see the point here.

Such a society will never produce what it needs. As I pointed out. The garage ethos is all very well and good for producing the occasional master piece, be it a hot rod, or a Rolls Royce, but a factory, with mass production can get the whole community mobile. Mass production bought the motor car to the masses.There is a middle point between the two. There is also the idea of having a vast system of public transit.

Bollocks. Capitalism is producing the most cars for the least money to appeal to the widest possible market.Capitalism is about making money.

The idea of dedicated artists handmaking all the cars for the super-rich is more like feudalism.Since everyone will be equally-rich, I don't see the issue here.

There is a top. You've made no attempt to seriously say otherwise. You've not shown how your model can work without it.There isn't a top. You've not shown that you can conceive of a society without one.

Again, you admit that your model will require the destruction of personal rights. In this specific instance, privacy.If you do something within my view, is there an expectation of privacy?

In the Soviet Union, every citizen had the power to watch the others, and if they told the KGB, they were rewarded. The bastards even made a statue of a boy who dobbed his parents in to the KGB.In every country, citizens have the power to watch the others.

Without government statistics, how could they get involved? Why would they want to get involved?

They had no information that would lead them to believe that interference should happen.They might want to get involved in order to make the situation better.

You said your society would bring more talent, and would inheriently create more talent. Your point about the auto-workers isn't justified by reality. Are you saying that someone who likes to tend a special care in an 'artistic' (for want of a better word) way, would want to make ordinary cars in the same way. The 'artistic' way is a nice and nostalgic thing to think about, but to satisfy a community's demand for cars, the work would be back breaking.Someone who likes to make cars in an artistic fashion would probably be able to come up with a way to do the same with ordinary cars, if given the power to do so.

The 'artistic' way produces less than one car a year, perhaps. A community's demand for cars is doing to exceed less than one per year. Take Australia, population just over 20 million, next year, new car sales are projected to top 1 million. That's 1 in 5 Australians scoring a new set of wheels, not to mention all the used cars sold.

A few guys in garages in weekends could satisfy that? Not on your life.In this instance, the demand of cars by Australians is created by capitalism. Capitalism, while it meets demands well, creates them even more. Do we really need 50 different kinds of cars?

Saying you've done something, and displaying evidence of having done it are two different things.

I have solved pi to the last decimal place. I won't show you any evidence of having done it though. You'll just have to believe me. You expect the same of me.The evidence that I've done it is right in front of you.

They believe their individual interest is best served in a society. That is not a collective belief, that is not a common interest. That is each individual deciding what is best for himself. Individual interests.If everyone believes that taking action X is a good thing, then that is a common belief, and a common interest. In this case "action X" is being a part of a society.

Not really. You, freely exercising your property rights, buy a theatre ticket. You've clearly got the right to attend whatever show is being presented without unnecessary disturbance.

Someone gratuitously shouting "fire!" is clearly an unnecessary disturbance. Therefore, the shouter has effectively stolen from you the value of your ticket.But shouldn't the shouter have the right to express him or herself? Who are you to decide when it is an appropriate forum to do so?

The whole constitution was upheld. The articles are quite clear, and Article 39 clearly states that exercise of the rights included must not be against the interests of the state. People speaking against the state are clearly exercising their rights in such a way that is against the state, so their imprisonment upholds the entire document, all its provisions are carried out.

The whole document is what matters. You can't single a piece out without considering it in context of the other pieces, especially if they relate to each other, and Articles 39 and 50 are clearly related, one grants a right, the other sets conditions under which that right cannot be exercised.

The whole document allows for free speech only where it serves, or at least doesn't injure the "interests of society or the state". Therefore, the USSR acted in a constitutional manner.Then why does Article 50 state differently? Why weren't Article 50 and Article 39 both made into the same article?

Yeah, 'progressive' income taxes, and luxury goods taxes sure benefit the rich.Well, they keep capitalism from being overthrown, so I'd guess so.

Capitalist states make laws that favour winning the next election. Very seldomly is this done without the support of the rich.

That often means making laws against the rich, in order to play on envy.

Even right of centre parties aren't immune, the Liberal Party of Australia keeps federal taxes high, so they can boast of a huge surplus, and portray themselves as the party for fiscal responsibility.Do the rich support the Liberal Party? Does the Liberal Party have a lot of power?

And direct-democracy will still a set of institutions and a bureaucracy to carry out its laws, and necessary governmental operations (everything from cleaning the sewer, to maintaining an Army)Naturally there will be a process for determining these things in a direct democracy. For instance, the usage of delegates might be in order. However, a delegate is different than a representative because a delegate can be immediately recalled.

Tiny. A number is difficult to determine, but I could sort of make it work in school in a group that varied between 3 and 6 (depending on how many people decided to go truant), though I had to twist the odd arm. Attempts to find consensus over the whole class (about 25) failed.Consensus is a different idea. Consensus means that everyone has to agree, or a decision isn't carried out. It is, however, a form of direct democracy.
Direct democracy is different. It means that if the majority agree on something, the decision is carried out, but that the minority agrees to abide by the decision.

No, if anything, the need to pay for advertising is a good thing. It forces politicians to be discliplined because they've only so much money.

The inefficiency lies in each person needing to be heard, and having a response to each thing he hears, in a small group as I described earlier. You can get the discussion done with without too much bother, but once you hit about 25, then you hit snags. Discussions get dragged out. Each point is disputed again and again.An answer to the conundrum that you posed might be to limit the amount of time that everyone gets to speak. Access would be limited, but to everyone equally. This isn't the case where people pay to have their voices heard - someone could buy up all the advertising time, thus silencing the opposition.

Consider this: It has taken the Australian Parliament, which has 150 lower house members, and 74 upper house over 9.5 years, 4 Federal elections, several pieces of legislation, and huge debates in both houses to sell a government owned corporation.

224 people, and during all that time the government party had a majority in the lower house.

Representative democracy is barely efficient in legislating.Perhaps the rules in Australia are different. I know that the U.S. has the filibuster, which can often be an impediment to decision making - this can be both a good or a bad thing.
But if "fairly well" is the best that you can conceive, maybe it's best that the government makes decisions so slowly.

It would make sense for me to run an import/export business is I were to run an import/export business.

I haven't the foggiest idea about running an import/export business. It makes no sense at all, particularly as I don't need much. Only a little. It is best left to the people who are running it now. They've got a good handle on it.Fine. If you were running an import/export business, wouldn't it make sense to buy clothing from yourself?

Not necessarily. I don't invent things and I don't own or run manufacturing, so the patent laws are hardly relevant to me. Subtle points of international maritime law don't affect me since I am not in a business that operates on, in, or under the sea.Patent laws are certainly relevant to you, as (depending on what they are) they would restrict new ideas coming to you.
And you could conceivably start a business that runs on the sea.

Seem? That's weak. In any case, since I pay for part of government, and I'm a citizen, I've a right to demand efficiency from government.Well, I can't see inside of your head, so I can only determine things from what you've typed. And based upon what you typed, it seemed as though you felt a certain way.
As far as efficiency goes, you're welcome to want it, but other people might rather have other things. And even you realize that other things, such as a basic democratic process are more important than efficiency.

Good government is like the arabian phoenix. No one's seen it, but everyone swears it exists. I settle for it because the alternative is a bloody-lot worse. That's the point.If you can't conceive of a better way to run things, then that's unfortunate.

That statement taken by itself might be true, but when taken in context with everything else you've said, its clear access would be limited by scarcity. Your way provides little, is any, incentive to work and produce. The 'artistic' methods you advocate only make that problem worse by inefficiently using the limited, and dwindling talent your society would have it is disposal.The artistic method is just one of reasons why I believe my society would be better.
The incentive to produce would be there because it would be a requirement to be a part of my society.

So your society must be a charity case for Doctors Without Borders? There are people in the world with medical problems that have been inflicted on them, without DWB having to send you doctors because all the ones you had left for sunnier climes.Not exactly a charity case. It is clear, though, that the people who join DWB have other reasons than an economic incentive to join.
Furthermore, there are people of all professions who believe in the ideals of anarcho-communism. I personally know a lawyer who does, so it is not inconceivable to me that there would be doctors who do, too.

But your society has little, or no incentive to produce, so incomes would have to progressively decrease because production is decreased.Simply because the economic incentive isn't there doesn't mean there is no incentive.

Once again, to make your model work, government will require immense power. It will simply collapse otherwise. Dogmatically saying it isn't so changes nothing. You've produced nothing resembling a solid argument that would indicate that such a model can work without a repressive regime.Once again, there will not be immense power required. Dogmatically saying it is so changes nothing.

While the practical necessities of your system cannot be considerd if they disagree with your dogma?Since my "dogma" considers the practical necessities, I don't see the point here.

Which internal contradicton did he mention that were true? Considering the start we've seen from him, I'm not hopeful.Well, for starters, the contradiction that the government would interfere in the economy at the behest of the rich, this making the rich richer. We see this today, for example, with the existence of the WTO.

Earth fails the basic premise of Marxism. Besides, the East-European countries had been industrialised (although a large amount of it didn't survive the war, none the less, those nations had gone through industrialisation), not only did Marxism fail there, some of the greatest resistance to it was there. Solidarity, the Prague Spring, The Hungarian Uprising, the East German Uprising (1953), and thousands of brave Germans defecting to the West.Of course the main resistence to it was there, they were the sweatshops of the U.S.S.R. This is one of the main arguments in favor of the idea that the U.S.S.R. was state capitalism - that it required a "third world" outside of its borders in order to sustain its own population's happiness.

"Just have to realise that it is their best interests"? Why should they? You've not even shown that it can work, let alone satisfy anyone's interests.The first step is to show that it satisfies everyone's interests, since if it does so, then that means that it would probably work.

It doesn't require that at all.

Catholics are the easiest example. They are brought up in that belief system. In your direct democracy, someone proposes a law allowing abortion. The catholics are going to vote against it. They may not need to discuss it then and there, for they have been brought up with the catholic ethics on contraception and abortion. People vote according to their beliefs, whether religious or secular.Then this particular direct democracy would be a theocratic direct democracy. This is fine, for those who wish to live in one.

There is no reason such speech should have little popular support. Depends on the people, and discussion need not be public, it may be confined to the church.In a theocracy, I would agree with you.

Religous views get codified into law if the people elect leaders who do that. To prove a law that brings in some religous principle unconstitutional, it must be proven to establish a state religion, and of course they can get around it by not mentioning the religious considerations at all, or camouflage it by talking about "community sentiment", or some wishy-washy tripe like that."Community sentiment" or "for the good of society" is a non-religious argument.

The FDMA clearly has religous origins, yet no one has proven it unconstitutional, and it can be legally justified by saying that one state should not make the marriage laws of the whole union because that state government doesn't represent the whole union. You might view it as unconstitutional (as you might view any law you don't like), but if you can't prove it before the properly constituted courts, it stands.This is because it hasn't come before a court to prove it unconstitutional.

That is not numerous reason. That is single excuse. You've failed to answer my questioning of that statement, nor have you dealt with the reasons I gave for people to go, you merely state your dogmatic view that "it is in their best interests".It is in my best interests, it is highly unlikely that it would not be in some other people's best interests, also.

Because vigilantes and lynch mobs are damn succeptable to passion and blood-lust. With government, we can bring in a semblence of due process, or rule of law.

Your idea fails to take into account human nature. In the Southern US, during the 1950's and 1960's, lynchers outnumbered cops, but justice certainly wasn't served, though they did partly sate their blood lust and racism.I wouldn't think that vigilantes and lynch mobs are particularly concerned about justice.

Actually that is exactly the reason it will fall. No one will be willing to work for it, for the reasons I outlined.And the reasons you outlined don't apply to those who will be willing to work for it.

Evidence? Anyway, did they tell society that they were owed an easy life? No. Most made it themselves, and if they did get help from government, they had that and more taxed back when they made it.Let's see. If they went to a public school, that is evidence that government intervention helped them.
As far as the end result of getting taxed back, naturally someone who benefits from the interference of government should give back.

Society isn't a single entity, what you're really saying is that some individuals have (for reasons you don't outline) a right to live of the proceeds of others' work without contributing.I never said that there would be people not contributing.

I wasn't referring to essential taxes to run essential public services. I'm talking about the state guaranteeing a comfortable way of life, by taking away from the talented, able, and industrious. Guaranteeing a comfortable way of life is not an essential public service.What is an essential public service is a matter of opinion.

Even the most libertarian of economists, like Hazlitt, recognise there is such a thing as essential public works, for which taxes are required.Even you concede that government intervention in the economy is inevitable.

But I will have to disagree with your "libertarian of economists" statement. David Friedman is an example of an economist who proposes the abolition of government, and he is also a capitalist.

Disraeliland

14-10-2005, 20:21

Because everyone has a stake in every decision.

You have a stake in my buying a bottle of milk from someone other than you? How?

People are harmed by others' possession of finite things such as land because this means that the use of such things is not open to everyone. The fact that certain things would be available, but restricted to some is harmful.

Why should it be harmful? Why does everything need to be open to everyone? It is harmful to open every space to everyone. With no ownership, there's no incentive to care for it. It is called "The tragedy of the commons".

The individual in question would no longer be living in society.

Why? The individual refuses to leave. Seems to me that if someone refuses to leave, and is not forced to leave then he remains.

Since land ownership is based upon use, the individual would simply cease to be a part of society, and would either have to subsistence farm/food gather, or join another society.

No, it isn't. Land ownership is based upon someone having sole title upon the land.

They would because most likely they would already think about things the same way that I do - why else would they join the type of society that I propose?

You are not going to do an end run around your obligation to explain your ideas by saying that everyone will a priori be in agreement with you. You must provide some real reasoning as to why they would, or how they can be induced. I have done all the thinking about those points.

I disagree. If something occurs naturally, it is easier to justify to others than an artificial decision.

An artificial decision must be considered. Justification is inherient in an artificial decision. It is not in a natural, or primal decision. An artifical decision cannot be made without some justification, a natural decision can be.

This is entirely different than saying someone should be paid (more) to do a job simply because they're better looking than someone else.
As far as the PC to Mac example goes, that's what I'm talking about. People would be voicing their opinions, and hearing constructive criticism or alternate opinions.

I know. I said it was. The decision to favour PC over Mac is an inheriently artificial decision. I justify coming to that decision by pointing to the muct lower cost of PC's (in terms of a comparison of the specifications), and my nastry experience with a Mac in Uni.

Can you point to an actual case in which pay was differed solely on the grounds of appearance (excepting jobs in which a good appearaence is necessary). Also, what do you mean by better looking. If I was interviewing two people for a receptionists job, one coming in a suit, the other in a wetsuit smelling of the beach, I'll probably hire the one in a suit because his appearance communicates to me that he takes the job seriously, and takes care in the impression he makes to others, which is essential in such a job.

More detailed thought needed on your part.

Only the resources that someone has left are their own resources. Most resources are owned by society.

Define society. The resources that one has a right to are the ones that one has acquired through rightful means, voluntary trade for example.

I wouldn't say that it is the threat of violence that compels the shopowner to hand over the money, but rather the fear of death.

Don't split hairs, it is a sign of pettiness. Threat of violence and fear of death are essentially the same thing when threatened with a lethal weapon. It is the same urge that forces compliance.

In the example of direct democracy, society is the state.

The state is a set of institutions which monopolise ultimate decision making over a society.

People are free to think whatever they like, but it will be impossible for anyone to convince someone of their opinion without voicing said opinion. It would also be acceptable to voice said opinion, but (unless the society is a theocracy) the opinion would be discounted if it contains religious reasons for doing something, but not non-religious reasons.

A religious opinion can theoretically persuade anyone, particularly someone of faith. Theocracy isn't required, nor is a situation in which people vote according to their faith theocract. Theocracy is government by clergy.

There is no inherient reason for the discounting of religious arguments.

Land is an example of property, and one of the more important ones.

Marbles are an example of property, and importance depends on the owner, and whatever a buyer is prepared to pay for it. It does not necessarily vary by arbitrary category. The more important you think a piece of property, the more you will pay to buy it, and the more you will demand to sell it. Whether its land or marbles.

The problem is you attach a special significance to land. A significance you haven't justified.

Because land is a primary example of a finite resource

That depends on how you use it. Theoretically, if one could build infinitely high structures, land would not be a finite resources.

Then it may become necessary to determine which uses are acceptable and which aren't.

For someone who talks about democracy, and rights, and equal power, you seem awfully keen to regulate people to within an inch of their lives.

What gives anyone the right to determine how I use my property is I harm no one? Where is the moral basis for depriving an individual of his rights? "Common interest", no more than code for "the interests of favoured individuals are more important than the rights of non-favoured individuals"

You do see how such an arrangement can be easily corrupted?

Prospect isn't good enough. Someone else could be using the computer in the meantime.

The only way someone else could be using the computer legitimately is if he bought it from me? Anything else is stealing, a crime.

Everyone is the state.

"All within the state" as Benito Mussolini said.

Theoretically, in any democracy, everyone is the state, or at least everyone has a voice in the state.

Fine. Everyone making decisions democratically in the method that I propose is less flawed than the market system.

Why? All but two of the people making the decision have no stake in it.

And you don't see how deliberate shortages interfere with the free market?

I do, I also see that the market can handle it.

And since there will always be state intervention, I don't really see the point here.

The point is that monopolies are the result of state corruption. Not capitalism.

There is a middle point between the two. There is also the idea of having a vast system of public transit.

Which will still require a highly efficient production system. There are also implications for freedom of movement. If the ways to get around are walk, ride a bike, or take the state-owned mass transit system, then outside your immediate area, where you can go is controlled by the state. No freedom of movement.

Capitalism is about making money.

And for the car business, that means exactly what I said it would mean.

Since everyone will be equally-rich, I don't see the issue here.

Since your artists will only be able to handbuild a few cars a year, who should get them? For the few handbuilding firms today (Ferarri, etc), price decides. Who would decide under your system. Certainly the decision wouldn't be made by direct democracy, everyone would say he deserved the car.

There isn't a top. You've not shown that you can conceive of a society without one.

I don't need to. You're the one making radical propositions.

Supposing the existing order in a particular society is overthrown. What will replace it? Who will ensure the essential functions of government are carried out?

The answer is this: a new governmental class, similar to the old one must rise to do these tasks. This group will not be the ordinary folk who overthrew the old order, but a group fully cognisant in the ways of government. The means of appointing it may change, as will the ideology, but such a class is essential, to do otherwise merely leave society in the hands on incompetents, and that can be deadly.

If you do something within my view, is there an expectation of privacy?

Who said anything about doing it near other people? What if I make such transactions within my own home?

In every country, citizens have the power to watch the others.

In certain settings. You don't have the right to surveil my house.

They might want to get involved in order to make the situation better.

But if they had no knowledge to go on, how would they know? How could they know what to change? Or even if improvement is possible?

Someone who likes to make cars in an artistic fashion would probably be able to come up with a way to do the same with ordinary cars, if given the power to do so.

Really? And can you explain why they haven't already?

In this instance, the demand of cars by Australians is created by capitalism. Capitalism, while it meets demands well, creates them even more. Do we really need 50 different kinds of cars

They want it. Why not? Its their money they are spending. Besides, having competition between various manufacturers will improve quality. Having a sinlge car will mean something like the Trabant for decades, or do you promise a Rolls for each citizen in your utopia?

Anyway, capitalism can handle the demands, and fact, in terms of Australian builders, it could handle a lot more demand.

The evidence that I've done it is right in front of you.

I've seen you repeat the phrase "everyone will realise that it is in their best interests", without you going further.

If everyone believes that taking action X is a good thing, then that is a common belief, and a common interest. In this case "action X" is being a part of a society.

The common interest is a collectively held idea, not coincidental self-interest.

In any case, it doesn't support the argument that common interest is essential to society.

But shouldn't the shouter have the right to express him or herself? Who are you to decide when it is an appropriate forum to do so?

He is violating your rights. Get this through your head, anyone's ability to legitmately exercise their rights ends when it violates anyone else's rights.

Then why does Article 50 state differently? Why weren't Article 50 and Article 39 both made into the same article?

Both articles can be reconciled, and Article 39 covers all the 'freedoms' in the Soviet Constitution, not just Article 50. It is better writing, more concise.

Very seldomly is this done without the support of the rich.

The rich don't elect Labor governments.

Do the rich support the Liberal Party? Does the Liberal Party have a lot of power?

Yes, and sort of.

Naturally there will be a process for determining these things in a direct democracy. For instance, the usage of delegates might be in order. However, a delegate is different than a representative because a delegate can be immediately recalled.

A "representative" can be recalled is the relevant laws and constitution allow for it. Semantics won't get you off the hook.

An answer to the conundrum that you posed might be to limit the amount of time that everyone gets to speak. Access would be limited, but to everyone equally. This isn't the case where people pay to have their voices heard - someone could buy up all the advertising time, thus silencing the opposition.

So people will not be able to fully express themselves, nor do you allow for much debate. Merely a perfunctory 30 second sound-bite from everyone.

No one has ever attempted to buy up all the advertising time, and such a move wouldn't be effective anyway.

Perhaps the rules in Australia are different. I know that the U.S. has the filibuster, which can often be an impediment to decision making - this can be both a good or a bad thing.
But if "fairly well" is the best that you can conceive, maybe it's best that the government makes decisions so slowly.

We don't really have a filibuster, though getting things passed the Senate is damn near impossible.

Fine. If you were running an import/export business, wouldn't it make sense to buy clothing from yourself?

Not really. I just move the stuff.

If you can't conceive of a better way to run things, then that's unfortunate.

Given enough power, government could be fully efficient.

The artistic method is just one of reasons why I believe my society would be better.

The artistic method is fine for hobbies, and OK for the most exclusive markets, but for the mass market. It is simply too inefficient.

The incentive to produce would be there because it would be a requirement to be a part of my society.

A priori full agreement? The Pope has less faith than that.

Not exactly a charity case. It is clear, though, that the people who join DWB have other reasons than an economic incentive to join.
Furthermore, there are people of all professions who believe in the ideals of anarcho-communism. I personally know a lawyer who does, so it is not inconceivable to me that there would be doctors who do, too.

Yes a charity case.

And, other than than idological furvour, you've not shown a single reason for people to enter your society, or stay.

Simply because the economic incentive isn't there doesn't mean there is no incentive.

Quite right, and in the absence of economic incentive you'd have to fall back on force.

Once again, there will not be immense power required. Dogmatically saying it is so changes nothing.

Because everyone will be a true believer? You can't make an end run around explaining how your ideas will work by saying everyone will support you. Its likely as not they will oppose you.

Since my "dogma" considers the practical necessities, I don't see the point here.

No, it doesn't.

Well, for starters, the contradiction that the government would interfere in the economy at the behest of the rich, this making the rich richer. We see this today, for example, with the existence of the WTO.

What's contradictory about that? Politicians are generally corrupt, and businessmen has businesses to run.

Of course the main resistence to it was there, they were the sweatshops of the U.S.S.R. This is one of the main arguments in favor of the idea that the U.S.S.R. was state capitalism - that it required a "third world" outside of its borders in order to sustain its own population's happiness.

Rubbish. The Soviet Union was subsidising all of them (not least by taking most of their defensive burden). That was part of the problem. Nevertheless, these were industralised states in which communism was tried, and not only did it fail, not only did they resist it more strongly than others, but after it fell, they went almost to the other extreme, democratically.

The first step is to show that it satisfies everyone's interests, since if it does so, then that means that it would probably work.

No, a system must work before it can satisfy anyone's interests. By definition, a failed system hasn't served the people it was intended to serve.

Then this particular direct democracy would be a theocratic direct democracy. This is fine, for those who wish to live in one.

No, it would be a direct democracy.

"Community sentiment" or "for the good of society" is a non-religious argument.

But the community is highly religous, so their sentiment will be coloured by their religion, as will their idea of what's good for them.

This is because it hasn't come before a court to prove it unconstitutional.

Is anyone bringing a case?

It is in my best interests, it is highly unlikely that it would not be in some other people's best interests, also.

Name five?

I wouldn't think that vigilantes and lynch mobs are particularly concerned about justice.

Which is why an organised, professional government and judicary is better.

I never said that there would be people not contributing

Every society has its layabouts. I don't see why your's would be any different.

What is an essential public service is a matter of opinion.

Not really. What politicians out to buy votes with the public purse call an esential public service is a matter of opinion, but really, all that's essential is maintenance of essential instrastructure, and "public goods" (things like the sewers), defence of the nation, and defence of people's rights.

Even you concede that government intervention in the economy is inevitable.

But I will have to disagree with your "libertarian of economists" statement. David Friedman is an example of an economist who proposes the abolition of government, and he is also a capitalist.

Have you read Hazlitt?

Jello Biafra

15-10-2005, 13:24

You have a stake in my buying a bottle of milk from someone other than you? How?It means that I am not doing my job to provide you with milk, and therefore I would have a stake in it because (presumably) I would want to provide you a better service.

Why should it be harmful? Why does everything need to be open to everyone? It is harmful to open every space to everyone. With no ownership, there's no incentive to care for it. It is called "The tragedy of the commons".Why should access to everything be restricted to certain people?
If nobody cares for it, then they can hardly use it, can they?

Why? The individual refuses to leave. Seems to me that if someone refuses to leave, and is not forced to leave then he remains.Nobody will feed him, so he will have to leave in order to raise food for himself, or buy it from another society.

No, it isn't. Land ownership is based upon someone having sole title upon the land.Except when it isn't.

You are not going to do an end run around your obligation to explain your ideas by saying that everyone will a priori be in agreement with you. You must provide some real reasoning as to why they would, or how they can be induced. I have done all the thinking about those points.Why would people vote to implement the system that I propose if it wasn't in their best interests to do so?

An artificial decision must be considered. Justification is inherient in an artificial decision. It is not in a natural, or primal decision. An artifical decision cannot be made without some justification, a natural decision can be.But what is a natural decision to you might not be to me, so you would have to justify it to me.

I know. I said it was. The decision to favour PC over Mac is an inheriently artificial decision. I justify coming to that decision by pointing to the muct lower cost of PC's (in terms of a comparison of the specifications), and my nastry experience with a Mac in Uni.Or the decision for society to raise wheat instead of corn, etc.

Can you point to an actual case in which pay was differed solely on the grounds of appearance (excepting jobs in which a good appearaence is necessary). Also, what do you mean by better looking. If I was interviewing two people for a receptionists job, one coming in a suit, the other in a wetsuit smelling of the beach, I'll probably hire the one in a suit because his appearance communicates to me that he takes the job seriously, and takes care in the impression he makes to others, which is essential in such a job.

More detailed thought needed on your part.Since the article I read was of generalization, I cannot. But I can tell you that there is currently a class action suit against Wal-Mart by over a million women alleging gender discrimination in advancement within the company. There is also a lawsuit brought forward by a woman who claims that she was fired for gaining weight (she was a waitress.)

Define society. The resources that one has a right to are the ones that one has acquired through rightful means, voluntary trade for example.Society is a group of individuals who come together for a common purpose.
In theory, it is possible for someone to voluntarily trade while subsistence farming/food gathering, but it is highly unlikely that they would have the extra resources to do so. It will also be impossible for them to manufacture anything, unless they mine the metal to build the machines, as well as do everything else required by themself.
Can you conceive of a person who doesn't interact with anyone else directly or indirectly that doesn't have to gather food for themselves?

Don't split hairs, it is a sign of pettiness. Threat of violence and fear of death are essentially the same thing when threatened with a lethal weapon. It is the same urge that forces compliance.But it is entirely possible to take advantage of someone's fear of death and get them to do what you want without the threat of violence.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that threatening someone with violence will have an effect on them if they aren't afraid of dying, unless they have a huge aversion to pain. This is why I was drawing a distinction between the two.
The state is a set of institutions which monopolise ultimate decision making over a society.And what happens when society monopolizes ultimate decision making over itself? Is there no state, or does society become the state?

A religious opinion can theoretically persuade anyone, particularly someone of faith. Theocracy isn't required, nor is a situation in which people vote according to their faith theocract. Theocracy is government by clergy.

From www.dictionary.com

the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

Would not a state where decisions are based on religion be, by definition, subject to religious authority?

There is no inherient reason for the discounting of religious arguments.If a society states that no decisions will be based upon religious arguments, then there is an inherent reason to discount them.

Marbles are an example of property, and importance depends on the owner, and whatever a buyer is prepared to pay for it. It does not necessarily vary by arbitrary category. The more important you think a piece of property, the more you will pay to buy it, and the more you will demand to sell it. Whether its land or marbles.

The problem is you attach a special significance to land. A significance you haven't justified.Without land, where will someone play marbles? Or live? Or work? Or sleep? Now, it is conceivable that someone might shoot themselves into space, but it is highly unlikely.

That depends on how you use it. Theoretically, if one could build infinitely high structures, land would not be a finite resources.I concede this point. But, we all know how much fun theories are when applied to the real world. :)

For someone who talks about democracy, and rights, and equal power, you seem awfully keen to regulate people to within an inch of their lives.

What gives anyone the right to determine how I use my property is I harm no one? Where is the moral basis for depriving an individual of his rights? "Common interest", no more than code for "the interests of favoured individuals are more important than the rights of non-favoured individuals"

You do see how such an arrangement can be easily corrupted?By restricting my use of your property, I am harmed.
If you don't allow me into your hospital, how will I have necessary surgery? If you don't let me use your roads, how will I get to the hospital? Do you not see how this can be harmful, without harming someone directly?

It would not be easily corrupted, no. I am a member of a group which uses a form of direct democracy at its yearly meetings (the IWW). Now, while there are people who say that circumstances and procedures favor other people, they cannot come up with a Constitutional argument against this (the IWW has a Constitution.) The Constitution is taken very seriously by IWW members. So if you have a society where the Constitution is taken very seriously, you could conceivably take care of many of these problems within the Constitution itself.

The only way someone else could be using the computer legitimately is if he bought it from me? Anything else is stealing, a crime.In Australia, yes. In the society that I propose, it would not be stealing, and therefore not a crime.

"All within the state" as Benito Mussolini said.

Theoretically, in any democracy, everyone is the state, or at least everyone has a voice in the state.Interesting, now you're the one bringing up theories. In practice, however, this is not the case.

Why? All but two of the people making the decision have no stake in it.Even if this were true, decisions made by third parties are often more reasonable than the decision would be if left to the two people involved. Usually, we call this third party a "court of law."

I do, I also see that the market can handle it.How about arbitrage? Is that something that the market can handle?

The point is that monopolies are the result of state corruption. Not capitalism.Capitalism in and of itself does nothing. It is how people react in capitalism that matters.

In any society that uses money, money is power.
In capitalism, some people have more money than others.
Therefore, some people have more power than others.
Do you think it's realistic that they wouldn't use that power to change the laws to benefit them? Or would they say "no, it would interfere in the free market, I couldn't do that."

Which will still require a highly efficient production system. There are also implications for freedom of movement. If the ways to get around are walk, ride a bike, or take the state-owned mass transit system, then outside your immediate area, where you can go is controlled by the state. No freedom of movement.If this is the case, and is a problem with some people, then perhaps they can trade their artistic cars to another society in exchange for ordinary cars.
In any case, in capitalism, freedom of movement is restricted to people who can't afford cars.

And for the car business, that means exactly what I said it would mean.It could mean exactly what you said, yes.

Since your artists will only be able to handbuild a few cars a year, who should get them? For the few handbuilding firms today (Ferarri, etc), price decides. Who would decide under your system. Certainly the decision wouldn't be made by direct democracy, everyone would say he deserved the car.This would fall under the scarce resources. Scarce resources would be handled as follows:

1) A list of all of the people in the society is randomly generated.
2) At the societal meetings, the chair asks "Who wants item X?"
3) If there is enough of item X for everyone who wants it, no change is made to the list, however if there isn't enough of item X, then the people who are higher up on the list get item X.
4) Since the people higher on the list got item X, they are moved to the bottom of the list.
5) The process is repeated.
6) Presumably there would be various items brought up at a particular meeting. The order of these items would be determined randomly, as well.
7) Since the order of the items would be random, most likely people would hold out for the item that they really want. Or they could take the chance on a lesser item, and hope that the list comes back around to them.

But with cars, I think most likely what would happen is they would be converted into taxis, which preference of who gets to use the taxis first given by order on the list.

Supposing the existing order in a particular society is overthrown. What will replace it? Who will ensure the essential functions of government are carried out?I don't support violence, except in self-defense or in the defense of others. With that said, I realize that oftentimes, in order to make a democratic system from an undemocratic one, you sometimes have to use violence, so I can't condemn violence, either.
But I support the changing of society via democratic procedures. In the U.S., there is a procedure for establishing a town, city, etc. There is also precedence for a state breaking off from another one. The only procedure that hasn't been done democratically (yet) is seceding from the country, but I believe that it can happen.

The answer is this: a new governmental class, similar to the old one must rise to do these tasks. This group will not be the ordinary folk who overthrew the old order, but a group fully cognisant in the ways of government. The means of appointing it may change, as will the ideology, but such a class is essential, to do otherwise merely leave society in the hands on incompetents, and that can be deadly.Why can't the "ordinary folk" also be the group fully cognizant in the ways of government? While I don't necessarily mean that everyone will know every step, it is possible that an individual could be knowledgeable about a particular step, and together, the ordinary folk could comprise an effective government.

I'm not going to take offense to your "class of incompetents", because I realize that a lot of people feel this way. But I believe that 1) if people are incompetent, then they will be unable to choose competent leaders, and 2) that if people are incompetent, then they will be made competent by participating in the political process. The reason that people do so badly in these things, is, in my opinion, a direct result of being excluded from the political process.

With that said, and this is completely my opinion, I would rather participate in making a bad decision than have a bad decision made without my participation.

Who said anything about doing it near other people? What if I make such transactions within my own home?Perhaps it will be a matter of the possibility of such things happening that will make it necessary for society to make it legal to trade potentially infinite things. <shrug>. But the trading of a finite thing would be apparent, and action would be taken.

In certain settings. You don't have the right to surveil my house.Technically, this is true, but I don't think it would be necessary to do so.

But if they had no knowledge to go on, how would they know? How could they know what to change? Or even if improvement is possible?How would someone else know that in that society improvement is impossible?

Really? And can you explain why they haven't already?Because employers don't typically leave decisions on the process of making something to the employees. Employees have to do as the employer says, or get fired.

They want it. Why not? Its their money they are spending. Besides, having competition between various manufacturers will improve quality. Having a sinlge car will mean something like the Trabant for decades, or do you promise a Rolls for each citizen in your utopia?Presumably, the society I propose would take these things into account. It is evident that the U.S.S.R. didn't take the effects of the Trabant into account when they authorized its production. If they had, they would have created a car that was better - if it's better, then their employees can get to work in a more timely manner, and would consume fewer resources to run it.

Anyway, capitalism can handle the demands, and fact, in terms of Australian builders, it could handle a lot more demand.But you do realize that a lot of the demands that capitalism creates are artificial, right? And, therefore society could handle potentially having less production, since artificial demands aren't necessary to the running of said society.

The common interest is a collectively held idea, not coincidental self-interest.

In any case, it doesn't support the argument that common interest is essential to society.Why do people join (or remain in) societies if it is not in their best interest to do so? After all, society does require something from them. This is most often done through a government, and governments love to tax people. By being taxed, is not someone giving up something? Why would someone give something up if it was not in their best interests to do so?

He is violating your rights. Get this through your head, anyone's ability to legitmately exercise their rights ends when it violates anyone else's rights.I agree that it is unacceptable to violate someone else's rights. But in the case of the theater, loud talking isn't illegal. Why is loud talking legal? By your scenario, it should be illegal since it, too, violates the rights of the person trying to enjoy the show in the theater.

Both articles can be reconciled, and Article 39 covers all the 'freedoms' in the Soviet Constitution, not just Article 50. It is better writing, more concise.So then if a Constitution said "there will be free speech for all", it is perfectly acceptable to then say "except for Jews"?

The rich don't elect Labor governments.It is arguable. In the U.S. (I apologize for being U.S.-centric, but it is what I know best) during the 1930, socialist activism was at an all-time high. It was also then that the welfare state was introduced here. Coincidence? Perhaps. But if it was a deliberate act in order to keep the basic foundations of capitalism, then it makes sense that it would happen. The rich would support it, since the amount that they give up to the welfare state is much less than they would lose if the country had become a socialist country.
So if this is true, it is entirely within reason that the rich would elect a Labor party - Labor parties help keep the peace, and help maintain stability.

A "representative" can be recalled is the relevant laws and constitution allow for it. Semantics won't get you off the hook.Representatives typically serve for terms, while delegates don't.

So people will not be able to fully express themselves, nor do you allow for much debate. Merely a perfunctory 30 second sound-bite from everyone.Presumably the ads would not be released all at once, but over a period of time. Or there would be no ads, and all talking would be done at the meeting.
Not everyone would have to speak. If you say the exact same thing I would, it isn't necessary for me to repeat it.

No one has ever attempted to buy up all the advertising time, and such a move wouldn't be effective anyway.Why would such a move not be effective?

Not really. I just move the stuff.So it would make more sense for you to sell the stuff to a store and then buy it back from the store?

Given enough power, government could be fully efficient.So you support more governmental power? Interesting.

The artistic method is fine for hobbies, and OK for the most exclusive markets, but for the mass market. It is simply too inefficient.In and of itself it is, yes.

And, other than than idological furvour, you've not shown a single reason for people to enter your society, or stay.Ideological fervor is enough for starters. If the society is effective, would that not motivate others to either join the society or start their own? After all, people join worker run cooperatives for a reason.

Quite right, and in the absence of economic incentive you'd have to fall back on force.Or a combination of the artistic method and other things.

Because everyone will be a true believer? You can't make an end run around explaining how your ideas will work by saying everyone will support you. Its likely as not they will oppose you.If they oppose me enough, then that would be a reason for me to withdraw from the society.

What's contradictory about that? Politicians are generally corrupt, and businessmen has businesses to run.It's not contradictory. But it is odd that: you find that that system works "fairly well"; you said you supported giving the government power; and you don't se how this relates to capitalism.

Rubbish. The Soviet Union was subsidising all of them (not least by taking most of their defensive burden). That was part of the problem. Nevertheless, these were industralised states in which communism was tried, and not only did it fail, not only did they resist it more strongly than others, but after it fell, they went almost to the other extreme, democratically.The Soviet Union was subsidizing all of them, yes, but it also rode them harder than it did people within its own borders.

No, a system must work before it can satisfy anyone's interests. By definition, a failed system hasn't served the people it was intended to serve.True, but the idea that the system working would satisfy a person's interests would motivate the person to try to make it work, wouldn't it?

No, it would be a direct democracy.A direct democracy that is theocratic.

But the community is highly religous, so their sentiment will be coloured by their religion, as will their idea of what's good for them.And they would most likely want to live in a society where laws can be made for religious reasons, would they not?

Is anyone bringing a case?Most of the focus is on getting individual states to overturn their anti-marriage acts and/or getting individual states to legalize gay marriage. Most of the anti-marriage acts that have been heard by courts have been repealed.

Name five?Five people on NationStates that support the idea of direct democracy mixed with Communism that I support: Letila, Refused Party Program, The similized world, Potaria, Free Soviets. They might not view things exactly as I do, but their versions are similar, and a compromise could easily be reached between all of us as to how things should be run.

Which is why an organised, professional government and judicary is better.I agree, but I disagree with the idea that everyone couldn't be the professional government and judiciary.

Every society has its layabouts. I don't see why your's would be any different.Because my society wouldn't support layabouts. This is different in most societies: they have unemployment rates. Since those societies have unemployment rates, then some people are, by definition, not working. My society is different - it would have full employment.
(People who are incapable of work or children would be exceptions here, society would take care of them. But people who can work but don't wouldn't get sympathy from society.)

Not really. What politicians out to buy votes with the public purse call an esential public service is a matter of opinion, but really, all that's essential is maintenance of essential instrastructure, and "public goods" (things like the sewers), defence of the nation, and defence of people's rights.Do you consider public schools essential infrastructure? How about colleges?

Have you read Hazlitt?No, I haven't. Can you recommend anything by him?
Ludwig von Mises is also an anarcho-capitalist economist: www.mises.org

Leonstein

15-10-2005, 13:29

Ludwig von Mises is also an anarcho-capitalist economist: www.mises.org
And I reckon he would've had heaps of fun on NS...
INTERVIEWER: Some of those debates became very, very heated. I think [Ludwig] von Mises once stormed out.

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes, he did. Yes, in the middle of a debate on the subject of distribution of income, in which you had people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian -- people like Lionel Robbins, like George Stigler, like Frank Knight, like myself -- Mises got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists," and walked right out of the room. (laughs) But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion.

Jello Biafra

15-10-2005, 13:32

And I reckon he would've had heaps of fun on NS...Lol. Well, as long as he can debate his opinions...or not.

Leonstein

15-10-2005, 13:36

Lol. Well, as long as he can debate his opinions...or not.
Well, he was a smart cookie that guy. You don't become the mentor of an entire school of economics for nothing.
His early, more mathematical work on why socialism allegedly can't work is very sophisticated, and he managed to take Friedrich von Hayek, who was a socialist (!) at the time and turn him into the same man who wrote "The Road to Serfdom".
So he probably did have something up his sleeve.

Jello Biafra

15-10-2005, 13:41

Well, he was a smart cookie that guy. You don't become the mentor of an entire school of economics for nothing.
His early, more mathematical work on why socialism allegedly can't work is very sophisticated, and he managed to take Friedrich von Hayek, who was a socialist (!) at the time and turn him into the same man who wrote "The Road to Serfdom".
So he probably did have something up his sleeve.Admittedly I am not familiar with his work. But I am familiar with more than one NationStates poster who defends his work...I remain unconvinced about his ideas.

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 15:23

It means that I am not doing my job to provide you with milk, and therefore I would have a stake in it because (presumably) I would want to provide you a better service.

I didn't know you were in the dairy business (one would think that such a business wouldn't leave time for posting here)

Anyway, the decision about who I buy milk on isn't societies. It is mine, because I am the one seeking to exchange cash for milk. If your competitors provide milk at a better price, or a type of milk that better suits my specific requirements (perhaps you don't sell low-fat milk), then I will buy from them.

Either way, your stake, and that of the rest of the dairy industry is to compete for my business. There is no cause for using the coercive power of the state to restrict competition.

Why should access to everything be restricted to certain people?

You didn't answer my question. As to yours, I purchased what I own with cash generated by my efforts. I have the right to own the proceeds of my own production. No one else has the right to take them away.

If nobody cares for it, then they can hardly use it, can they?

Which is the "tragedy of the commons." Everyone has access to it without ownership, so everyone thinks "it'll be OK, someone else is responsible for this", and everntually it gets ruined.

Nobody will feed him, so he will have to leave in order to raise food for himself, or buy it from another society.

He'll simply steal.

Except when it isn't.

Which is nowhere. Land ownership everywhere on earth is based upon sole title to a piece of it. Even land which no one buys if referred to in this way (Crown Land as its known in Australia, in other words, if no one else has bought it, it belongs to The Queen)

Why would people vote to implement the system that I propose if it wasn't in their best interests to do so?

Why is in their best interests? What would they gain?

But what is a natural decision to you might not be to me, so you would have to justify it to me.

One can determine the differencer by looking at the brain, but my freedom of conscience means I don't have to justify anything to you.

Since the article I read was of generalization, I cannot. But I can tell you that there is currently a class action suit against Wal-Mart by over a million women alleging gender discrimination in advancement within the company. There is also a lawsuit brought forward by a woman who claims that she was fired for gaining weight (she was a waitress.)

If a matter is sub judice, it is irrelevant to the debate because nothing's been proven. We may find that the waitress was rude to customers, and constantly late.

In theory, it is possible for someone to voluntarily trade while subsistence farming/food gathering, but it is highly unlikely that they would have the extra resources to do so. It will also be impossible for them to manufacture anything, unless they mine the metal to build the machines, as well as do everything else required by themself.

Depends on where they live, what their requirements are, and how much effort they put into it.

But it is entirely possible to take advantage of someone's fear of death and get them to do what you want without the threat of violence.

I think we can safely say that someone with a gun pointed at him isn't thinking of the possibility of dying of skin cancer.

On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that threatening someone with violence will have an effect on them if they aren't afraid of dying, unless they have a huge aversion to pain. This is why I was drawing a distinction between the two.

A distinction without a difference. By definition, a nitpick.

And what happens when society monopolizes ultimate decision making over itself? Is there no state, or does society become the state?

Nothing. What you describe is theoretically how all democracies work.

the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

Would not a state where decisions are based on religion be, by definition, subject to religious authority?

No, a state which is "subject to religious authority" is run by the clergy. Iran is an example, a council of Mullahs are the ultimate rulers of Iran. The Vatican City is a theocracy, its head of state is the pope, and its legislature is a council of cardinals.

A democratic state in which the majority of people happen to have strong faith, and vote in accordance with the precepts of that faith is a democracy. The only difference between that democracy and another is who is likely to win the elections.

If a society states that no decisions will be based upon religious arguments, then there is an inherent reason to discount them.

Why should anyone discount an argument before hearing it? You've made an absurd point.

Without land, where will someone play marbles? Or live? Or work? Or sleep?

They can rent. Either way, there is no argument against land ownership. It doesn't harm anyone in and of itself.

By restricting my use of your property, I am harmed.

You've no right to use it in the first place. Therefore, no harm. You lose nothing.

It would not be easily corrupted, no.

What? A system in which the state can decide what is and is not a valid use of property is not easily corrupted?

I am a member of a group which uses a form of direct democracy at its yearly meetings (the IWW). Now, while there are people who say that circumstances and procedures favor other people, they cannot come up with a Constitutional argument against this (the IWW has a Constitution.) The Constitution is taken very seriously by IWW members. So if you have a society where the Constitution is taken very seriously, you could conceivably take care of many of these problems within the Constitution itself.

The Soviet Union took its 1977 Consitution seriously. They murdered thousands in support of it. You can't get much more serious than that!

In Australia, yes. In the society that I propose, it would not be stealing, and therefore not a crime.

Stealing is depriving someone of his property without his permission (basically), so you again prove that your society rests upon the destruction of individual rights to favour the interests of others.

Interesting, now you're the one bringing up theories. In practice, however, this is not the case

You've not shown how your state can run differently.

Even if this were true, decisions made by third parties are often more reasonable than the decision would be if left to the two people involved. Usually, we call this third party a "court of law."

A court of law decides disputes between two parties. It is not necessary in cases where two parties agree to a mutually beneficial exchange of property.

How about arbitrage? Is that something that the market can handle?

Yes, it has.

Capitalism in and of itself does nothing. It is how people react in capitalism that matters.

Nitpick.

In any society that uses money, money is power.
In capitalism, some people have more money than others.
Therefore, some people have more power than others.
Do you think it's realistic that they wouldn't use that power to change the laws to benefit them? Or would they say "no, it would interfere in the free market, I couldn't do that."

And that disproves my point how?

If this is the case, and is a problem with some people, then perhaps they can trade their artistic cars to another society in exchange for ordinary cars.

What are you babbling about?

In any case, in capitalism, freedom of movement is restricted to people who can't afford cars.

People who can't afford cars in a capitalist society don't have their freedom of movement restricted by the state, and can still access cars, through renting or borrowing. A socialist state, with all transport centralised within the state restricts freedom of movement by controlling the means of movement.

It could mean exactly what you said, yes.

If they wanted to stay in business it would mean exactly what I said, the only exceptions could be the niche companies that cater to extremely rich customers like Ferarri, or Rolls Royce.

This would fall under the scarce resources. Scarce resources would be handled as follows:

1) A list of all of the people in the society is randomly generated.
2) At the societal meetings, the chair asks "Who wants item X?"
3) If there is enough of item X for everyone who wants it, no change is made to the list, however if there isn't enough of item X, then the people who are higher up on the list get item X.
4) Since the people higher on the list got item X, they are moved to the bottom of the list.
5) The process is repeated.
6) Presumably there would be various items brought up at a particular meeting. The order of these items would be determined randomly, as well.
7) Since the order of the items would be random, most likely people would hold out for the item that they really want. Or they could take the chance on a lesser item, and hope that the list comes back around to them.

State allocation of resources.

You've proven my point, though. Your method cannot provide what society needs and wants, so state rationing becomes necessary. Its much less efficient than the market economy, which provides incentives to eliminate scarcity, and prices scarce objects accordingly.

But with cars, I think most likely what would happen is they would be converted into taxis, which preference of who gets to use the taxis first given by order on the list.

Again, state allocation of resources.

I don't support violence, except in self-defense or in the defense of others. With that said, I realize that oftentimes, in order to make a democratic system from an undemocratic one, you sometimes have to use violence, so I can't condemn violence, either.

How nice.

But I support the changing of society via democratic procedures. In the U.S., there is a procedure for establishing a town, city, etc. There is also precedence for a state breaking off from another one. The only procedure that hasn't been done democratically (yet) is seceding from the country, but I believe that it can happen.

It is unconstitional for a State to seceed from the Union.

Why can't the "ordinary folk" also be the group fully cognizant in the ways of government?

Because they've all been butchers, and bakers, etc. Not public servants and legislators. Those jobs have particular talents associated with them.

While I don't necessarily mean that everyone will know every step, it is possible that an individual could be knowledgeable about a particular step, and together, the ordinary folk could comprise an effective government.

You don't understand the division of labour, do you?

I'm not going to take offense to your "class of incompetents", because I realize that a lot of people feel this way. But I believe that 1) if people are incompetent, then they will be unable to choose competent leaders, and 2) that if people are incompetent, then they will be made competent by participating in the political process. The reason that people do so badly in these things, is, in my opinion, a direct result of being excluded from the political process.

There is no justification for point 2. Here is a fact for you, the best-run governments in the world have a group of professional civil servants carrying out the wishes of the government.

Perhaps it will be a matter of the possibility of such things happening that will make it necessary for society to make it legal to trade potentially infinite things. <shrug>. But the trading of a finite thing would be apparent, and action would be taken

Not necessarily. I'll give you an example. The United States Navy operated battleship off the coast of Vietnam to provide fire-support to troops with their 16in guns. They were to be withdrawn because the USN believed that it had run out of liners for the barrels. After the withdrawal, the USN found a whole field full of gun liners. Hiding transactions is easy. Hiding stock shortfalls is easy. The people making illicit transactions would have access to the means to hide the loss.

Technically, this is true, but I don't think it would be necessary to do so.

Because I have rights (unless I decide to live in your society, then I'd have none)

How would someone else know that in that society improvement is impossible?

That's a theoretical question. But without information, they wouldn't know what could be improved because they would not know how it was doing.

Because employers don't typically leave decisions on the process of making something to the employees. Employees have to do as the employer says, or get fired.

But if the artistic was more efficient, then the firms not using it would be at a disadvantage.

Presumably, the society I propose would take these things into account. It is evident that the U.S.S.R. didn't take the effects of the Trabant into account when they authorized its production.

The Trabant was made in East Germany.

The reason General Motors improve their products has nothing to do with the effects of the car itself, it has to do with what its competitors are doing. General Motors want people to buy General Motors' cars, and they get people to do it by providing the best cars at the best price.

The East Germans had no need to build anything better than the Trabant because there was no competition.

There is no reason for your society to take any of these things into account.

But you do realize that a lot of the demands that capitalism creates are artificial, right?

Why is that a problem?

And, therefore society could handle potentially having less production, since artificial demands aren't necessary to the running of said society.

Who are you to tell people what's necessary for them? For someone who claims to like democracy, you certainly seem keen to dictate.

Why do people join (or remain in) societies if it is not in their best interest to do so?

They serve their individual interests.

I agree that it is unacceptable to violate someone else's rights. But in the case of the theater, loud talking isn't illegal.

It is if the theatre owners say it is. They've the right to control their property.

So then if a Constitution said "there will be free speech for all", it is perfectly acceptable to then say "except for Jews"?

Not to me, but the point I was making is that a Constitution doesn't necessarily protect people's freedoms. The 1977 Soviet Constitution certainly doesn't.

It is arguable. In the U.S. (I apologize for being U.S.-centric, but it is what I know best) during the 1930, socialist activism was at an all-time high. It was also then that the welfare state was introduced here. Coincidence? Perhaps. But if it was a deliberate act in order to keep the basic foundations of capitalism, then it makes sense that it would happen. The rich would support it, since the amount that they give up to the welfare state is much less than they would lose if the country had become a socialist country.
So if this is true, it is entirely within reason that the rich would elect a Labor party - Labor parties help keep the peace, and help maintain stability.

Yet the rich support the Liberal Party. That is a fact. The closest the Labor Party gets to having rich people support it is some drug-addled lefty rock star.

Representatives typically serve for terms, while delegates don't.

Depends on the assembly, and the way its run.

Presumably the ads would not be released all at once, but over a period of time. Or there would be no ads, and all talking would be done at the meeting.
Not everyone would have to speak. If you say the exact same thing I would, it isn't necessary for me to repeat it.

Either way, it is a poor substitute for existing systems.

Why would such a move not be effective?

The saturation would put people off.

So it would make more sense for you to sell the stuff to a store and then buy it back from the store?

Maybe. My business might only move baby clothes.

So you support more governmental power? Interesting.

Don't put words in my mouth. Anyone who managed to struggle through 3rd grade english can see what I was saying.

In and of itself it is, yes.

Then why would it serve the needs of a whole society?

Ideological fervor is enough for starters. If the society is effective, would that not motivate others to either join the society or start their own? After all, people join worker run cooperatives for a reason.

You've not shown why it would be effective. Assuming that your idea's going to work won't get you out of having to explain it, and why anyone would want to supprt it.

Or a combination of the artistic method and other things.

But artistic method isn't effective in meeting the needs of society, and will inevitably cause shortages. What "other things"?

If they oppose me enough, then that would be a reason for me to withdraw from the society.

You didn't answer the question. "My way or the highway" isn't an explaination.

But it is odd that: you find that that system works "fairly well"; you said you supported giving the government power; and you don't se how this relates to capitalism.

I said nothing of the sort, you idiot. I said "If governments were given full powers, they could be fully efficient". I didn't say I supported it.

The Soviet Union was subsidizing all of them, yes, but it also rode them harder than it did people within its own borders.

Prove it. Anyway, the subsidies, along with the free access to technology, and the underwriting of defence needs would make up for Soviet demands. The subsidies in fact weakened the Soviet Union.

True, but the idea that the system working would satisfy a person's interests would motivate the person to try to make it work, wouldn't it?

You've not shown that it would work. You've not shown that if it did work, it would satisfy people's best interests. You've not shown that it could stand resistance.

A direct democracy that is theocratic.

Theocracy is government by clergy, like Iran.

Five people on NationStates that support the idea of direct democracy mixed with Communism that I support: Letila, Refused Party Program, The similized world, Potaria, Free Soviets. They might not view things exactly as I do, but their versions are similar, and a compromise could easily be reached between all of us as to how things should be run.

Good Lord, you actually answered a question. You might make it work with 6, but the society would be a charity case, a burden on societies surrounding it. They should not have to accept the burden.

I agree, but I disagree with the idea that everyone couldn't be the professional government and judiciary.

That's a contradiction in terms. Everyone doesn't have the talents to be a professional civil servant, or be a lawyer distinguushed enough to merit appointment as a judge.

Because my society wouldn't support layabouts

It has no means of getting rid of them.

This is different in most societies: they have unemployment rates. Since those societies have unemployment rates, then some people are, by definition, not working. My society is different - it would have full employment.
(People who are incapable of work or children would be exceptions here, society would take care of them. But people who can work but don't wouldn't get sympathy from society.)

In other words, they'd be forced to work.

Do you consider public schools [public goods]? How about colleges

Its debatable. While education is a necessity that the state has a legitimate role in providing, the question of whether the state should operate schools, or not (the involvement then becomes giving money to parents to send their kids to whatever school they think fit) is debatable.

No, I haven't. Can you recommend anything by him?

"Economics in One Lesson" Just enter that into google, and you can download a copy.

MostlyFreeTrade

15-10-2005, 16:24

Beer and Guns

15-10-2005, 16:43

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 16:47

I think that communism, in theory, would be the best form of government known to man. However, time and time again we have shown that we are not yet ready to form a 'perfect' society so I would say it is, as of yet, impractical. If somebody ever manages to pull it off, hats off to them - I'll be the first to move there.

Communists advocated forcin children into the mines and factories as their "education".

Would a 10-year old mining for coal believe he is in a "perfect" society? He might not even consider the question, he'd have more important things to worry about, like turning 11.

Even theoretical communism is a hell hole.

Maineiacs

15-10-2005, 16:49

If Communism is such a " good " system why must it imposed by force ?
I cant get around the fact that any system , that must be imposed and maintained by force , can be any good . If you can vote it in go for it .
What Communist government was ever VOTED in ? Did it last ?

Communism must be maintained by force because of human nature. We're all greedy, selfish, nasty pricks who won't do anything good for someone else unless we think we'll get something for it or unless someone holds a gun to our heads. Altruism is a myth.

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 17:00

Communism must be maintained by force because of human nature. We're all greedy, selfish, nasty pricks who won't do anything good for someone else unless we think we'll get something for it or unless someone holds a gun to our heads. Altruism is a myth.

What libelous rubbish. People do altruistic things all the time. Anyway, what has communism, with its total destruction of rights, got to do with altruism.

Communism must be maintained by force because people know better than to support it.

Maineiacs

15-10-2005, 17:28

First of all, don't ever say something like that to me again. Who do you think you are? Some of the others may be willing to put up with your name-calling, but I will not. If you can't keep a civil tongue, perhaps you should go some place where you won't have to deal with people disagreeing with you, since it seems to upset you so much. And my point is that no one does anything unless there's something in it for them; unless they can profit from it. Communism is evil only because it relies on violence and terror, not because it violates your precious "property rights". Why should property rights be so sacrosanct when human rights are not? A communistic society must be maintained through terror because we, as a species, are not mature enough to handle it. Utopia is unattainable, and it's our own fault.

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 17:47

First of all, don't ever say something like that to me again. Who do you think you are? Some of the others may be willing to put up with your name-calling, but I will not.

Keyboard tough guy? Anyway, you did libel the entire human race without any cause, or justification, so you are hardly in a position to accuse people of name-calling.

And my point is that no one does anything unless there's something in it for them; unless they can profit from it.

Then you're wrong. In any case, discussing a lack of atlruism might be relevant is we were lamenting the small amount of donations to the Salvation Army, but it is not relevant to a discussion of communism.

Communism is evil only because it relies on violence and terror, not because it violates your precious "property rights". Why should property rights be so sacrosanct when human rights are not?

Property rights are human rights. Without property rights, there can be no other human rights because the state controls all the means for exercising those rights.

Take freedom of movement. A state can recognise its citizens' freedom of movement, but if the people in that state takes all property, as you communists advocate, they can't exercise that right. They can only can only go where the state allows than because the state owns all the means of getting there.

Have you done any thinking about rights, and exercising rights? Evidently not, though someone who distinguished human rights from the right to property isn't capable of such thought.

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 17:49

A communistic society must be maintained through terror because we, as a species, are not mature enough to handle it. Utopia is unattainable, and it's our own fault.

Am I supposed to say its a great pity people don't like the idea of having everything they own stolen by the state, having their families broken up, and having their children sent into mines and factories for an education?

Doesn't quite sound like utopia.

Utopia being unattainable is not our fault. Perfection is impossible. You seem to have thought less about life than the people who made up religion. They were smart enough to realise that utopia on earth was impossible, and attempting to create it would only sink the world into an abyss (and every attempt to bring utopia on earth has confirmed this), so they decided that utopia was something you'd reach after you died if you lived a good, and honest life.

Maineiacs

15-10-2005, 18:05

Keyboard tough guy? Anyway, you did libel the entire human race without any cause, or justification, so you are hardly in a position to accuse people of name-calling.

Cute. No, I'm not trying to be a "tough guy", I'm just showing you the same respect you show to those who disagree with you -- none whatsoever.

Then you're wrong.

Property rights are human rights. Without property rights, there can be no other human rights because the state controls all the means for exercising those rights.

There are lots of human rights that don't relate to property.

Take freedom of movement. A state can recognise its citizens' freedom of movement, but if the people in that state takes all property, as you communists advocate, they can't exercise that right. They can only can only go where the state allows than because the state owns all the means of getting there.

I'm not a communist. Don't call me one.

Have you done any thinking about rights, and exercising rights? Evidently not, though someone who distinguished human rights from the right to property isn't capable of such thought.

Now who's libeling who?

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 18:15

disagree with you -- none whatsoever

I don't mind disagreement. I do mind people who unjustifiably libel all humanity for not being good enough for a political system, expecially one that has brought the amount of pain suffering and death as communism.

There are lots of human rights that don't relate to property.

There are many different rights, and no good reason to divide freedoms.

The exercise of all rights requires property rights, because in exercising rights, we use property.

You are exercising your right to free speech.

To do that, you need the right to own a computer, or (if you in a net cafe, etc), the right to own what ever property you exchanged for the use of a computer.

If you had no property rights, with the state owning all the computers, you could only access one if the state said yes, and if you were known as someone who said things they didn't like, they'd just say no. You may well say in replay that you can always stand in the street and shout, but could you get there without the right to property? No, you couldn't own transport, nor could you exchange property for a ride. And no one likely to give you a free ride would own transport. You might walk, but without the right to own shoes that'd be difficult, and without the right to own clothes, you'd be arrested for public obscenity.

I'm not a communist. Don't call me one.

Yet you call communism a "utopia", and bemoan the fact that we mere mortals aren't good enough for it.

Now who's libeling who?

Don't make simplistic points, then. I call it as I see it, and I see a complete lack of thought in your posts.

Maineiacs

15-10-2005, 18:22

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 18:28

*laughs @ the funny little troll* Was that supposed to hurt? Dude, you just pissed me off, is all. If you want to hurt my feelings, you'll have to try harder than that. But fine, have it your way. I'll leave you to your own ramblings.

Give yourself a pat on the back with your free hand.

If you are prepared to put a little thought into your posts, instead of telling us were all fallen souls, then we could have a discussion.

Jello Biafra

15-10-2005, 18:29

I didn't know you were in the dairy business (one would think that such a business wouldn't leave time for posting here)<Shrug> If I'm a good capitalist, I can have my underlings do all of the real work for me.

Anyway, the decision about who I buy milk on isn't societies. It is mine, because I am the one seeking to exchange cash for milk. If your competitors provide milk at a better price, or a type of milk that better suits my specific requirements (perhaps you don't sell low-fat milk), then I will buy from them.But the decision of who you buy milk from is only half of the decision. The other half of the decision is the decision to sell milk to you. Since society would be in the business of supplying milk, society would have a stake in the decision.

You didn't answer my question. As to yours, I purchased what I own with cash generated by my efforts. I have the right to own the proceeds of my own production. No one else has the right to take them away.Cash and efforts both that could have only come with the existence of society. Society has every right to charge what it wants for someone to use its utility - provided that that charge isn't more than what someone would be making outside of society.
Unless you're going to have cash without a society, that is.

Which is the "tragedy of the commons." Everyone has access to it without ownership, so everyone thinks "it'll be OK, someone else is responsible for this", and everntually it gets ruined.Then everyone will suffer, which, if it is the decision that everyone makes, is fine. Who am I to tell someone that they can't suffer if they want to?

He'll simply steal.And get shot trying.

Which is nowhere. Land ownership everywhere on earth is based upon sole title to a piece of it. Even land which no one buys if referred to in this way (Crown Land as its known in Australia, in other words, if no one else has bought it, it belongs to The Queen)Nope. Even in the present day, there are still tribal societies which have collective use of land.

Why is in their best interests? What would they gain?They would gain the knowledge of knowing that there isn't someone in the society with more (man made) power than they have, for starters.

One can determine the differencer by looking at the brain, but my freedom of conscience means I don't have to justify anything to you.If you want me to agree to carry out your decision with you, you do. Why would I agree to help you if you don't justify the decision to me?

If a matter is sub judice, it is irrelevant to the debate because nothing's been proven. We may find that the waitress was rude to customers, and constantly late.That may be, but in this case, the company has a policy against getting fat. The lawsuit is dealing with whether or not such policies are legal or not.

Depends on where they live, what their requirements are, and how much effort they put into it.Typically people living outside of societies spend most of their time concerned with the idea of food. Shelter is also a consideration. Clothing is, too, but a minor one.
Can you give a scenario where someone would be able to provide these things from scratch without help where it wouldn't take up most of his time?

I think we can safely say that someone with a gun pointed at him isn't thinking of the possibility of dying of skin cancer.No, but he is thinking of his imminent death, not his death somewhere down the road.

A distinction without a difference. By definition, a nitpick.Except that there is a difference. But nice of you to pretend there isn't when you can't argue against it.

Nothing. What you describe is theoretically how all democracies work.The type of democracy that I propose would be the closest to actually make the theory a reality, if it doesn't actually make the theory a reality.

No, a state which is "subject to religious authority" is run by the clergy. Iran is an example, a council of Mullahs are the ultimate rulers of Iran. The Vatican City is a theocracy, its head of state is the pope, and its legislature is a council of cardinals.What if the state is made up of nothing but clergy? Or the leader of the state who isn't a clergyman but kowtows to them, perhaps out of fear of divine wrath?

A democratic state in which the majority of people happen to have strong faith, and vote in accordance with the precepts of that faith is a democracy. The only difference between that democracy and another is who is likely to win the elections.And the fact that their faith plays a major role in decision-making, whereas many other societies would have science play a major role in decision-making.

Why should anyone discount an argument before hearing it? You've made an absurd point.An argument made from solely a religious perspective is pretty much automatically going to be irrelevant to someone who doesn't follow that religion.

They can rent. Either way, there is no argument against land ownership. It doesn't harm anyone in and of itself.Restricting access to only people who can afford to pay rent harms those who can't afford to pay rent.

You've no right to use it in the first place. Therefore, no harm. You lose nothing.You have no right to restrict my access to the land in the first place.

What? A system in which the state can decide what is and is not a valid use of property is not easily corrupted?Not as easily as when an individual can decide what is and and not a valid use of property.

The Soviet Union took its 1977 Consitution seriously. They murdered thousands in support of it. You can't get much more serious than that!They'd have murdered thousands anyway.

Stealing is depriving someone of his property without his permission (basically), so you again prove that your society rests upon the destruction of individual rights to favour the interests of others.It would no longer be your property once you are no longer using it, so therefore it would not be stealing.

You've not shown how your state can run differently.You've not shown that people would risk expulsion from the society to do it.

Yes, it has.Really? I know of at least one supporter of capitalism who views arbitrage as interference in the free market, and who would make it illegal.

And that disproves my point how?It doesn't, it contributes to your point - that people are corrupt, and would have more oppurtunity to make use of corruption in a capitalist society than they would in my society.

What are you babbling about?Uh...the concept of trade. You've heard of it, right?

People who can't afford cars in a capitalist society don't have their freedom of movement restricted by the state, and can still access cars, through renting or borrowing. A socialist state, with all transport centralised within the state restricts freedom of movement by controlling the means of movement.It isn't relevant who restricts freedom of movement, what is relevant is that movement is restricted. Why should some people have fewer restrictions on movement than others?

If they wanted to stay in business it would mean exactly what I said, the only exceptions could be the niche companies that cater to extremely rich customers like Ferarri, or Rolls Royce.Or they could have the government make policies which favor them in addition.

State allocation of resources.All resources would initially be society's, so naturally this would be the case.

You've proven my point, though. Your method cannot provide what society needs and wants, so state rationing becomes necessary. Its much less efficient than the market economy, which provides incentives to eliminate scarcity, and prices scarce objects accordingly.No, what I've done is provided a process to deal with the possibility of scarcity. I didn't say that scarcity would necessarily take place.

Again, state allocation of resources.Again, all resources are the state's.

It is unconstitional for a State to seceed from the Union.It may be, but it hasn't been tried in a court of law.

Because they've all been butchers, and bakers, etc. Not public servants and legislators. Those jobs have particular talents associated with them.Could they not read books or take classes or get an education in public service or legislating?

You don't understand the division of labour, do you?Apparently not. Why don't you enlighten me?

There is no justification for point 2. Here is a fact for you, the best-run governments in the world have a group of professional civil servants carrying out the wishes of the government.But the majority of the population are not professional civil servants. And there is plenty of justification for point 2, the very act of participation in the political process would give someone an idea of how it works.

Not necessarily. I'll give you an example. The United States Navy operated battleship off the coast of Vietnam to provide fire-support to troops with their 16in guns. They were to be withdrawn because the USN believed that it had run out of liners for the barrels. After the withdrawal, the USN found a whole field full of gun liners. Hiding transactions is easy. Hiding stock shortfalls is easy. The people making illicit transactions would have access to the means to hide the loss.Hiding transactions is easy when there are institutions, such as banks, that make it easy to do so by not asking for personal information.

Because I have rights (unless I decide to live in your society, then I'd have none)My society equalizes rights. The only way you would have fewer rights in my society is if you have more rights than other people in the society in which you live.

But if the artistic was more efficient, then the firms not using it would be at a disadvantage.If it ever occurred to them to use it in the first place. It is also possible that the costs of changing production to the artistic method might be too much of a risk to take(because after all, no firm knows something will work before they try it.)

The Trabant was made in East Germany.

The reason General Motors improve their products has nothing to do with the effects of the car itself, it has to do with what its competitors are doing. General Motors want people to buy General Motors' cars, and they get people to do it by providing the best cars at the best price.

The East Germans had no need to build anything better than the Trabant because there was no competition.

There is no reason for your society to take any of these things into account.There is no reason for my society not to take those things into account, and every reason for them to do so.

Why is that a problem?Because it shows that capitalism is more concerned with providing for wants than it is with providing for needs.

Who are you to tell people what's necessary for them? For someone who claims to like democracy, you certainly seem keen to dictate.People would have to convince other people that having 50 kinds of cars is necessary. If they can, then wonderful, but I find it unlikely that they could. This is what democracy is.

They serve their individual interests.By serving their common interest, they serve their individual interests.

It is if the theatre owners say it is. They've the right to control their property. Interesting. So if all property is society's, then society has a right to control its property?

Not to me, but the point I was making is that a Constitution doesn't necessarily protect people's freedoms. The 1977 Soviet Constitution certainly doesn't.And neither do governments. The 1977 Soviet Constitution proves that, as well.

Yet the rich support the Liberal Party. That is a fact. The closest the Labor Party gets to having rich people support it is some drug-addled lefty rock star.Which party best serves the interests of the rich?

Depends on the assembly, and the way its run.I suppose they could use a different word for "representative" or "delegate", but the concept remains the same.

Either way, it is a poor substitute for existing systems.Everyone having their voice heard is a poor substitute for only some people having their voice heard?

The saturation would put people off.They wouldn't necessarily use the time to advertise their own opinion; they could conceivably sell it to someone else who isn't a political opponent.

Maybe. My business might only move baby clothes. If your business involved importing clothes that you would be interested in wearing, does it make more sense for you to buy from yourself rather than from another store?

Don't put words in my mouth. Anyone who managed to struggle through 3rd grade english can see what I was saying.Really? Because the context was this: "If you can't conceive of a better way to run things, then that's unfortunate." You answered "Given enough power, the government could be fully efficient." So either you support the idea of giving the government more power, or you are against the idea of a better government.

Then why would it serve the needs of a whole society?Because it is not the only thing that matters to people when they choose which job to take. There is the artistic method; there is also the satisfaction of a job well done; there is also the satisfaction of having other people admire your work; there is simply the satisfaction of doing something which you enjoy; and there is the satisfaction of doing something that interests you. There are numerous reasons other than making as much money as possible that someone would choose which job to take.

You've not shown why it would be effective. Assuming that your idea's going to work won't get you out of having to explain it, and why anyone would want to supprt it.I wouldn't have to explain it to people who value direct democracy and equality above other considerations.
But if the society works, people who might not be concerned with direct democracy and equality might view it as working in their best interests because they would be able to live comfortably in the society, but not in the societies in which they already live.

I said nothing of the sort, you idiot. I said "If governments were given full powers, they could be fully efficient". I didn't say I supported it.So then you're against the idea of making government better?

Prove it. Anyway, the subsidies, along with the free access to technology, and the underwriting of defence needs would make up for Soviet demands. The subsidies in fact weakened the Soviet Union.The subsidies would go to the government of the particular satellite to use as they wish, the subsidies would not necessarily make their way down to the people. And I highly doubt the people were all that concerned about being invaded - they might have thought it a good thing.

You've not shown that it would work. You've not shown that if it did work, it would satisfy people's best interests. You've not shown that it could stand resistance.I've given examples of societies in which it did work, at least in the short term. It is true that there was resistence, but not from within the society itself.

Good Lord, you actually answered a question. You might make it work with 6, but the society would be a charity case, a burden on societies surrounding it. They should not have to accept the burden.6 out of how many people on NationStates? This doesn't count the people I didn't name, or the people who don't go on NationStates who agree with the concept. I know of at least 20 in my city, and I'm not especially active in that scene.

That's a contradiction in terms. Everyone doesn't have the talents to be a professional civil servant, or be a lawyer distinguushed enough to merit appointment as a judge.Prove it.

It has no means of getting rid of them. It doesn't have to, it will ignore them. They will have to go away or die of starvaiton.

In other words, they'd be forced to work.They'd be forced to work if they want society to support them. They're welcome to try to find a society in which they wouldn't have to work - good luck to them. I can't think of any unless you have an awful lot of money.

Its debatable. While education is a necessity that the state has a legitimate role in providing, the question of whether the state should operate schools, or not (the involvement then becomes giving money to parents to send their kids to whatever school they think fit) is debatable.Is the state providing for public schools a good investment for the state to make? Do the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs?

"Economics in One Lesson" Just enter that into google, and you can download a copy.All right, thank you. Are you familiar with Pierre Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, or Pyotr Kropotkin?

Xenophobialand

15-10-2005, 18:45

What do you guys think about communism. Is it bad? Good? So and so? I'm especially interested in knowing if you have personally experienced communism and still think it's a good ideology.

The best answer I can give is "I don't know." Marx is a very careful and articulate thinker, and a lot of his points make a great deal of sense. Put in sum total, his theory is probably one of the most comprehensive and internally consistent theories of political-social life in humans ever laid down.

Nevertheless, since I haven't seen man outside of the rabid capitalist phase of development, I have no idea whether or not the rampant egoism we see in man today is really the full-flowering of something that is innate, or just something that flourishes in our world-historical era. I don't know if communism is really just making the perfect the enemy of the good (which is by and large what regulated capitalism is).

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 19:27

But the decision of who you buy milk from is only half of the decision. The other half of the decision is the decision to sell milk to you. Since society would be in the business of supplying milk, society would have a stake in the decision.

Society does not supply the milk. The farmer supplies the milk. He sells it in bulk to the milk company, they do their thing (homogenised etc) and bottle it. They sell it to the shop. The shop sells it to you. At each stage, an individual makes a decision based upon what he sees as his best interest (or the best interest of those he is employed to represent). The rest of society isn't involved.

Cash and efforts both that could have only come with the existence of society. Society has every right to charge what it wants for someone to use its utility - provided that that charge isn't more than what someone would be making outside of society.

You're referring to society as though it had an office. Society is just a bunch of individuals, who had naff all to do with my arrangements with my employer.

And get shot trying.

Now you're thinking. You'll have to have a government with the power to kill.

Nope. Even in the present day, there are still tribal societies which have collective use of land.

Nevertheless, land ownership is based upon a single entity having title over it. The specific instance you bring up is akin to government ownership.

They would gain the knowledge of knowing that there isn't someone in the society with more (man made) power than they have, for starters.

But the collective has absolute powers over him, and his needs won't be met unless he wins the "lottery" (your random list thing) that day.

If you want me to agree to carry out your decision with you, you do. Why would I agree to help you if you don't justify the decision to me?

But I don't. I just want to have my vote, and be done. Your decision is none of my business.

That may be, but in this case, the company has a policy against getting fat. The lawsuit is dealing with whether or not such policies are legal or not.

That may not be discrimination on the grounds of appearance, that may simply be the company trying to cut its insurance costs.

Nevertheless, appearance is important in some jobs, and certainly important in applying for them.

No, but he is thinking of his imminent death, not his death somewhere down the road. Except that there is a difference. But nice of you to pretend there isn't when you can't argue against it.

Firstly, if you remember far enough, the difference doesn't actually change my argument.

Secondly, when being threatened with a lethal weapon, the threat of violence, and danger of death are the same.

Thirdly, you've not shown that there's a real difference, certainly not in influencing behavior.

What if the state is made up of nothing but clergy? Or the leader of the state who isn't a clergyman but kowtows to them, perhaps out of fear of divine wrath?

A state made up on no one but clergy is by definition a theocracy. Kow-towing to clergy doesn't make the state a theocracy, it merely makes the politician what he already was: someone prepared to brown-nose anyone to enter, and remain in office.

And the fact that their faith plays a major role in decision-making, whereas many other societies would have science play a major role in decision-making.

Which is what I said from the perspective of government. It doesn't make society theocratic, it makes society democratic, just with a faithful demos. In any case, the people have the right to make their decisions according to their beliefs, whether faithful or scientific.

An argument made from solely a religious perspective is pretty much automatically going to be irrelevant to someone who doesn't follow that religion.

Depends on the argument.

Restricting access to only people who can afford to pay rent harms those who can't afford to pay rent.

Why? They lose nothing.

You have no right to restrict my access to the land in the first place.

To acquire it, I exchanged property for it. Therefore I do have that right.

Not as easily as when an individual can decide what is and and not a valid use of property.

From one point of view, that's a distinction without a difference because a person (a civil servant in this case) actually makes the decision.

Anyway, no individual, or state has the right to decide what a valid use of property is.

It would no longer be your property once you are no longer using it, so therefore it would not be stealing.

Yes it would. I would still have sole title to it. Whether I use it or not is irrelevant.

This again shows that your system relies on destroying the rights of some to favour the interests of others.

Really? I know of at least one supporter of capitalism who views arbitrage as interference in the free market, and who would make it illegal

A: Irrelevant to the point

B: An example of the appeal-to-authority fallacy

It isn't relevant who restricts freedom of movement, what is relevant is that movement is restricted. Why should some people have fewer restrictions on movement than others?

Someone owning a car doesn't restrict anyone else's freedom of movement.

The state's ownership of all transport restricts everyone's freedom of movement. That is the point against your ideas. Showing that capitalism isn't perfect doesn't constitute an argument in support of your ideas.

Or they could have the government make policies which favor them in addition.

Showing that the state can be corrupted is an argument against your points, because the state is far more powerful.

All resources would initially be society's, so naturally this would be the case.

Why would this be better?

No, what I've done is provided a process to deal with the possibility of scarcity. I didn't say that scarcity would necessarily take place.

Scarcity is a reality of your system because it fosters inefficiency, and removes the incentive to be efficient. The market has shown that it is better placed to deal with scarcity, raising prices, which gives incentive to produce more. Eventually the amount reaches the point where prices are bought back into balance.

It may be, but it hasn't been tried in a court of law.

After what happened last time, I don't think anyone else will try.

Could they not read books or take classes or get an education in public service or legislating?

My point exactly, removing one group of rulers makes it necessary for a new one to rise in its place. That new class will be quite similar to the old one.

But the majority of the population are not professional civil servants. And there is plenty of justification for point 2, the very act of participation in the political process would give someone an idea of how it works.

I have some idea about farming. That doesn't mean I could do it.

Hiding transactions is easy when there are institutions, such as banks, that make it easy to do so by not asking for personal information.

Hiding transactions is easy, period.

My society equalizes rights.

Your society eliminates rights.

If it ever occurred to them to use it in the first place. It is also possible that the costs of changing production to the artistic method might be too much of a risk to take(because after all, no firm knows something will work before they try it.)

If its so much better, then the risk is worth it.

There is no reason for my society not to take those things into account, and every reason for them to do so.

There is no reason for them to do so. General Motors has reason, several billion of them in fact. In your society, in which all production is monopolised in the state, there is no reason. If the state produces a bad car, it won't go out of business. If any monopolist produces a bad car, that doesn't mean it will go out of business.

Because it shows that capitalism is more concerned with providing for wants than it is with providing for needs.

No, it isn't. It just doesn't see any need for a difference between them. The people buying will see the difference, but to the people producing and selling, it doesn't matter. Whether the people want somethingor need it, they will buy it.

People would have to convince other people that having 50 kinds of cars is necessary. If they can, then wonderful, but I find it unlikely that they could. This is what democracy is.

No they wouldn't. Each different producer would try to convince the people that their own car is better than the competitors' equivilants.

By serving their common interest, they serve their individual interests.

You haven't shown that the common interest even exists. All that you've shown is that people serving their individual interests tend to prefer society. Which is true.

Interesting. So if all property is society's, then society has a right to control its property?

The state has no inherient right to take people's property away from them.

And neither do governments. The 1977 Soviet Constitution proves that, as well.

I know that, (is it Nitpick Day around here?). The point is that Governments will enforce a constitution. If that constitution is a good one, then freedoms are secured by a governent enforcing it.

Which party best serves the interests of the rich?

Irrelevant question. My point, that political parties in a capitalist state aim to win elections, and will get support from whereever they can to do it, is proven. It doesn't matter who the rich support, it only matters that the parties try to win.

Everyone having their voice heard is a poor substitute for only some people having their voice heard?

They can't have their voices heard. The only way to assure time and space is to ration it so small that they can hardly get a word in before its the next person's turn.

They wouldn't necessarily use the time to advertise their own opinion; they could conceivably sell it to someone else who isn't a political opponent.

Nevertheless, you're debating an essentially irrelevant point.

If your business involved importing clothes that you would be interested in wearing, does it make more sense for you to buy from yourself rather than from another store?

Maybe, though I doubt I'd have time to go sifting through shipping containers trying things on. I don't think the stores selling the clothes would like that either. They'd probably use my competitors. In any case, I probably won't ever physically see the stock.

Really? Because the context was this: "If you can't conceive of a better way to run things, then that's unfortunate." You answered "Given enough power, the government could be fully efficient." So either you support the idea of giving the government more power, or you are against the idea of a better government.

You ommit things. I said my country's government ran things "fairly well", then you said what you quote above.

False dichotomies won't get you anywhere.

Because it is not the only thing that matters to people when they choose which job to take. There is the artistic method; there is also the satisfaction of a job well done; there is also the satisfaction of having other people admire your work; there is simply the satisfaction of doing something which you enjoy; and there is the satisfaction of doing something that interests you. There are numerous reasons other than making as much money as possible that someone would choose which job to take.

The artistic method won't serve the needs of all society because it isn't efficient enough to produce what society needs.

It will serve the interests of a small sector of society, which was one of the complaints you make about capitalism.

I wouldn't have to explain it to people who value direct democracy and equality above other considerations.

You won't get off the hook by assuming that people already agree with you.

But if the society works, people who might not be concerned with direct democracy and equality might view it as working in their best interests because they would be able to live comfortably in the society, but not in the societies in which they already live.

You won't get off the hook by assuming that it works.

The subsidies would go to the government of the particular satellite to use as they wish, the subsidies would not necessarily make their way down to the people.

That's why you don't let the state run the economy.

And I highly doubt the people were all that concerned about being invaded - they might have thought it a good thing.

Nevertheless, they were spared the need to fund large armies, and airforces themselves.

Prove it.

You've never heard of someone failing a law course, or a civil servant's exam? Can you not even conceive of it? Sheltered life you lead.

It doesn't have to, it will ignore them. They will have to go away or die of starvaiton.

Or they can nick what they want, or they can persuade others to resist.

They'd be forced to work if they want society to support them.

I, on the other hand enter into voluntary agreements to provide what I want and need. Rather than being forced to work so I can get a chance in the "lottery" to get something.

Is the state providing for public schools a good investment for the state to make? Do the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs?

That's what I meant by it being debatable. Some say yes it is, some say no. About all people can agree on is that they don't like the status quo.

Are you familiar with Pierre Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, or Pyotr Kropotkin?

I'll give them a look.

Disraeliland

15-10-2005, 19:33

The best answer I can give is "I don't know." Marx is a very careful and articulate thinker, and a lot of his points make a great deal of sense. Put in sum total, his theory is probably one of the most comprehensive and internally consistent theories of political-social life in humans ever laid down.

Nevertheless, since I haven't seen man outside of the rabid capitalist phase of development, I have no idea whether or not the rampant egoism we see in man today is really the full-flowering of something that is innate, or just something that flourishes in our world-historical era. I don't know if communism is really just making the perfect the enemy of the good (which is by and large what regulated capitalism is).

Marx isn't that careful. His basic premise is rubbish. He committs the basic fallacy that any flaw in capitalism he points to (even if it a strength) is automatically evidence in support of his 'solution.

His main point, that the process is inevitable, makes no sense. His proposals for what a state should do to bring about the utopoan society he advocates are in some cases downright frightning, in others of dubious effectivness. He doesn't explain why a centrally planned state monopoly will be more effective than the market, nor does he explain why a state with total powers (which he advocates) will not abuse it powers, nor does he explain why it will dissolve itself.

Joaoland

15-10-2005, 21:36

In my opinion, communism is crap. It's proved and tested that it doesn't work. In fact, a liberal democracy with a market economy is WAY better than a communist regime when it comes to labour rights and personal freedoms (Western Europe vs. China/USSR...)

Xenophobialand

15-10-2005, 22:19

Marx isn't that careful. His basic premise is rubbish. He committs the basic fallacy that any flaw in capitalism he points to (even if it a strength) is automatically evidence in support of his 'solution.

I for one fail to see how this is a "fallacy", per se. Usually, when you point out a weakness in an opponent's position, that enhances the strength of your own argument.

Maybe if you were more clear or gave examples, I'd understand.

His main point, that the process is inevitable, makes no sense. His proposals for what a state should do to bring about the utopoan society he advocates are in some cases downright frightning, in others of dubious effectivness. He doesn't explain why a centrally planned state monopoly will be more effective than the market, nor does he explain why a state with total powers (which he advocates) will not abuse it powers, nor does he explain why it will dissolve itself.

1) I fail to see how his argument about the process is anything but crystal clear. Capitalism does good things, but it sets up the means by which it is replaced, just as any non-communist world-historical epoch does. It does so by increasing production above and beyond what is needed, leading to market fluctuations which eventually bring about a market-collapsing deflationary crash, at which point the poor seize control over the means of production.

Like I said, crystal clear.

2) The proletariat isn't going to be doing anything the bourgeoisie didn't do to the nobility of the feudal order. Granted that doesn't make it ultimately right, but it does give the capitalist order no leg to stand on in criticizing proletarian tactics.

3) Marx never argues for state-planned production. After the revolution, the state was supposed to wither away. During the revolution, it will be the proletariat acting, not the government. Before the revolution, the government, like all superstructure concerns, will be actively repressing the proletariat in the interests of perpetuating the bourgouis economic system.

Are you sure we're reading the same texts?

Disraeliland

16-10-2005, 02:50

I for one fail to see how this is a "fallacy", per se. Usually, when you point out a weakness in an opponent's position, that enhances the strength of your own argument.

Maybe if you were more clear or gave examples, I'd understand.

Point out a weakness in an opponent's position is pointing out a weakness in an opponents position. What you describe is in fact the false dilemma fallacy. There is no reason for us to accept either capitalism (which Marx misrepresents) or communism to the exclusion of all else.

For a weakness in an opponent's position to be support for your own, you must link that weakness to an equivilent strength in your own, describing how you would do it better.

Now, some examples (by the way, I have done this before in this thread, why did you not trouble yourself to read it?):

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."

This is Marx's underlying assumption, and its utter rubbish. Society was less and less splitting into two classes, with the rise of the middle class, and those classes don't fight each other.

Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.

Here Marx describes as a "weakness" something which is a strength. No one has to be in control, and the disparity in living standards between, for example, East and West Germany, or North and South Korea show that market economies are superior in providing for a peoples' wants and needs.

Marx never explains why central planning (which he advocates) is inheriently better.

It is enough to mention the commercial crises [recessions] that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly

Marx makes the same mistake again. Capitalism is a self-regulating system, recessions tell the market that they're doing something wrong. Under capitalism, the masses are the ones who really control the economy, each dollar is a vote.

Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce

Strike Three, You're Out.

Over-production is also a good thing, it means that necessities are available if things turn for the worse, it also means there is choice.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him

This shows the arrogance and ignorance of Marx. He never worked in a factory in his life, yet he thinks he knows all about it!

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer

Here is another demonstration of Marx's ignorance. The price of one's labour depends on how "in demand" one's skills and services are, and how scarce they are. If your only skill is "spoken and written English", you won't get paid much. If your skills are scarce, or heavily in demand, you can command higher wages.

Why people think Marx is some sort of genius is beyond me. He didn't even understand basic supply and demand.

they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole

Do you believe this horseshit? That peoplle in communist movements have only the workers' interests at heart?!

If you do, I have a real estate opportunity on Pluto you might be interested in.

1) I fail to see how his argument about the process is anything but crystal clear. Capitalism does good things, but it sets up the means by which it is replaced, just as any non-communist world-historical epoch does. It does so by increasing production above and beyond what is needed, leading to market fluctuations which eventually bring about a market-collapsing deflationary crash, at which point the poor seize control over the means of production.

Like I said, crystal clear.

Capitalism doesn't set up the means of its replacement. Capitalist systems firstly, need over-production, and secondly, can deal with over-production so great that it must have economic impact (the price system). Marx has shown that he cannot understand how basic supply and demand works. There is no reason for production to simply increase without reference to anything else. There is no profit in making things that can't be sold. What happens when there is too much over-production is that prices go down. This price reduction is language, which tells capitalists "make less". Capitalism is a self-regulating system.

Why he thought it was inevitable is not clear, therefore, the very notion that it could happen is called into question.

2) The proletariat isn't going to be doing anything the bourgeoisie didn't do to the nobility of the feudal order. Granted that doesn't make it ultimately right, but it does give the capitalist order no leg to stand on in criticizing proletarian tactics.

What on earth are you babbling about?

Can you tell me what isn't downright frightning in combining childrens' education with production? Or confiscating all the property of anyone who tries to leave a communist regime, or speaks out against it (all things Marx advocated)? Not to mention the destruction of the family.

Anyway, capitalism, unlike feudal systems, or any socialist system, is based upon voluntary mutual beneficial exchange. Capitalists certainly have a leg to stand on in criticising communist tactics.

Also, what's all this twaddle about "proletarian tactics", no communist movement have ever been proletarian, nor has it had much proletarian involvement. Communist movements are the province of over-educated idle middle class people (the exception being the United States, where the upper classes are involved). Why do you buy into the Marxist claptrap about their movement being proletarian, when even a cursory look at communist movements shows that is not the case?

3) Marx never argues for state-planned production. After the revolution, the state was supposed to wither away. During the revolution, it will be the proletariat acting, not the government. Before the revolution, the government, like all superstructure concerns, will be actively repressing the proletariat in the interests of perpetuating the bourgouis economic system.

Are you sure we're reading the same texts?

Really? Marx refers to centralising production within the state all the time:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

State seizure of all real estate.

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly

State seizure of all financial institutions.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state

State seizure of all communications and transport. This has implications for free speech and freedom of movement. To the former, one can only speak if the state will allow access to communications, to the latter, one can only go where the state allows you to because the state is in charge of the means of getting there.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

Common plan for state owned enterprises. That sounds like state central planning to me.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country

More evidence of state central planning, advocated by Marx.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

State seizure of privately owned schools, and also we see Marx advocating tearing children from living homes to be sent to toil in the mines and factories as an "education".

A disgusting person this Marx, if he were not dead, I would thump him.

During the revolution, it will be the proletariat acting, not the government.

I've already explained why this is yet another fallacy. Workers' control of the factory is the easiest example to use.

Let us say that a factory is sold to its workers. Now they are in charge. How do they run the factory? They might just decide to run it themselves, but they do not have the skills of management, so the factory will not be well run, and production will fall. If, on the other hand some workers learn the ways of management, and put themselves in offices, etc, then the production need not fall. They might even be better at it. The point is that people in government have specific talents and skills that make it work. Some of a communist movement will have to become a government.

In reality, government power is always in the hands of a few. Marx commits the "have your cake and eat it" fallacy.

Kimia

16-10-2005, 05:17

Dis- you are so stupid and ignorant it is not funny.

Potaria

16-10-2005, 05:19

It's funny how you guys assume we're Marxists.

Disraeliland

16-10-2005, 05:39

Dis- you are so stupid and ignorant it is not funny.

And you do a great job of showing it by producing absolutely no arguments and no evidence. :rolleyes:

Bugger off, troll.

Random Kingdom

16-10-2005, 10:35

I live in England, one of the least Communist nations on Earth. Although I hate CAPITALISM (excuse the possible pun), I'm not so passionate about Communism (sharing everything would be good in theory but would never work out, and owning private property isn't a sin IMO), so I stick with its cousin, Socialism.

Communism isn't the perfect ideology, but it certainly beats Capitalism :p

Leonstein

16-10-2005, 10:50

Marx commits the "have your cake and eat it" fallacy.
I reckon you need to post a complete list of all the logical fallacies that can be committed, cuz I've seriously never heard of the Cake-Fallacy.

Madnestan

16-10-2005, 12:43

Communism has some damn serious problems with huge nations (China, USSR), or in the third world (Kambodza was first in my mind) except perhaps Cuba, in where it has done pretty well, atleast better than under Batista's rule, and Vietnam, somehow.

Yugoslavia is an example of a good try. In there the fall of Soviet Union and the centuries-old hatred between different nationalities (supported from outside) tore it apart, but the nation itself wasn't rotten. In fact, it worked out pretty damn well.

My conclusion is, however, that communism, or better still anarchosyndicalism, is best in small communities. Katalonia in 36', parts of Ukraine in 19-20', East Siberia and some Cossack hosts in Kuban and Terek.
In those occasions, it worked. This is, of course, the amin weaknes of it too. Small community cannot fight the massive one, which lead to the destruction and defeat of these attempts.

Disraeliland

17-10-2005, 10:52

Communism has some damn serious problems with huge nations (China, USSR), or in the third world (Kambodza was first in my mind) except perhaps Cuba, in where it has done pretty well, atleast better than under Batista's rule, and Vietnam, somehow.

Under Batista there was at least the opportunity to earn a living on your own terms. The only way a Cuban now can earn a living on his own terms is brave Castro's Navy, and all the sharks and go to the US.

Yugoslavia is an example of a good try. In there the fall of Soviet Union and the centuries-old hatred between different nationalities (supported from outside) tore it apart, but the nation itself wasn't rotten. In fact, it worked out pretty damn well.

Yugoslavia experenced the same problems as the other communist countries, though the effect was slightly lessened by better relations with the West (because Tito was perceived as standing-up to the Russians)

My conclusion is, however, that communism, or better still anarchosyndicalism, is best in small communities. Katalonia in 36', parts of Ukraine in 19-20', East Siberia and some Cossack hosts in Kuban and Terek.
In those occasions, it worked. This is, of course, the amin weaknes of it too. Small community cannot fight the massive one, which lead to the destruction and defeat of these attempts.

For any socialist ways to work, the community in which they are tried must be very small (like a commune), entirely voluntary, and isolated. It is too inefficient to work for large communities, involuntary socialism requires a large unproductive weight of police and bureaucracy adding to the inefficiencies inherient in socialism, this weight of bureaucracy also contributes of a negative general mood of the people (the latter also being heightened by the shortages caused by inefficient production, and the impossibility of getting certain things). Isolation is necessary not only for the reason you mention, but because without it people will see the alternatives.

Here is a video which explains it better than I can: http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/ss05/ss05-Reisman.wmv

Here is the site, which also contains many other interesting videos, and mp3 lectures: http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=82, and http://www.mises.org/media.aspx

Lewrockwellia

17-10-2005, 19:05

Communism has some damn serious problems with huge nations (China, USSR), or in the third world (Kambodza was first in my mind) except perhaps Cuba, in where it has done pretty well, atleast better than under Batista's rule, and Vietnam, somehow.

Yugoslavia is an example of a good try. In there the fall of Soviet Union and the centuries-old hatred between different nationalities (supported from outside) tore it apart, but the nation itself wasn't rotten. In fact, it worked out pretty damn well.

My conclusion is, however, that communism, or better still anarchosyndicalism, is best in small communities. Katalonia in 36', parts of Ukraine in 19-20', East Siberia and some Cossack hosts in Kuban and Terek.
In those occasions, it worked. This is, of course, the amin weaknes of it too. Small community cannot fight the massive one, which lead to the destruction and defeat of these attempts.

Under Batista, Cuba was a First World country.

The blessed Chris

17-10-2005, 19:46

Would all the communists I now see like to justify the removal of all personal property form those who do happen to possess the means to luxury, to ensure the "auream mediocrem" for all?

Marxism, communism, however one will nominally refer to it, it is a fallacy, a fraudulent dream of egalitarian equality adhered to by those whose fate deigns to grant others greater favour.

Compuq

17-10-2005, 20:41

Under Batista, Cuba was a First World country.
Who are you? Disraeliland's cheerleader?

Maybe for rich foreign tourests and plantation owners, but the life for the average Cuban was brutal. Although Fidel at limited alot of things, living standards improved greatly. Cuba is an interesting issue, because although many people like Cuba because it defys the US. Yet it is a bad dictatorship. If it was pro-US then everyone would probably hate it

Melkor Unchained

17-10-2005, 20:47

Who are you? Disraeliland's cheerleader?

What, we're not allowed to post in support of people we agree with? This is news to me.

Compuq

17-10-2005, 20:59

For any socialist ways to work, the community in which they are tried must be very small (like a commune), entirely voluntary, and isolated. It is too inefficient to work for large communities, involuntary socialism requires a large unproductive weight of police and bureaucracy adding to the inefficiencies inherient in socialism, this weight of bureaucracy also contributes of a negative general mood of the people (the latter also being heightened by the shortages caused by inefficient production, and the impossibility of getting certain things). Isolation is necessary not only for the reason you mention, but because without it people will see the alternatives.

I agree that socialism can only work and be a success when people want it and are ready for it, just like democracy.

Just out of curiousity Disraeliland, What do you think Marx thought about democracy?

Compuq

17-10-2005, 21:06

What, we're not allowed to post in support of people we agree with? This is news to me.
Disraeliland, as much as I disagree with him on his interperations of Marx, has very logical, intelligent arguements and comments.

Lewrockwellia, just agrees with Disraeliland or makes false statements. Maybe he/she does'nt have time to write out long responses. I do not know.

Compuq

17-10-2005, 21:11

Disraeliland, as much as I disagree with him on his interperations of Marx, has very logical, intelligent arguements and comments.

Lewrockwellia, just agrees with Disraeliland or makes false statements. Maybe he/she does'nt have time to write out long responses. I do not know.
Sorry Lewockwellia, that was rude. I apologize

La Habana Cuba

18-10-2005, 07:46

The Cuba of today under President Dictator for life Fidel Castro,
and I know many of you have seen my posts before.

1. Yes free education and free healthcare.

2. Voluntary compulsory no pay work brigades, if you dont volunteer
you can loose any of your so-called privlleges including your ration card.

3. Commitees for the defense of the revolution that report you to the police if you disagree with any government policy.

4. In your work center they keep a record if you attended a pro government
march or not when told to do so.

5. Pro government mobs that can beat you or harass you if you dont agree with any government policy while the police stand by and dont help you.
6. Ration cards that give you the privilege of much you can buy of certain products, and at what store on a specific date.

7. Tourists zones with Restaurants and hotels for tourists and Cuban Americans or Cuban Europeans visiting their relatives, paying in Dollars or Euros, or Cuban Convertible Pesos the same thing Where the average Cuban Citizen is not allowed to stay at with any kind of currency. And where the government elite is allowed to stay at.

8. Hospitals for tourists only with hard currency, and for the government elite.

9. Access to computers, satelite dishes or cable service not allowed unless your are of the government elite, or strictly government controlled.

10. The best beaches in the nation reserved for the tourist and the government elite where the average Cuban Citizen is not allowed.

11. Government stores that sell to the average Cuban, in Cuban Convertible Pesos, that is Dollars or Euros sent by Cuban Americans or European Cubans to their relatives in Cuba exchanged by the Cuban government into Cuban Convertible Pesos.

12. A one political party state.

13. No diffrent political partys offering diffrent economic, political and social points of views like those enjoyed in the European Union nations with all its merits and faults allowed.

14. A National Assembly Parliment that passes all laws 100 percent for 0 against, that meets twice a year or when convened by President Dictator Fidel Castro for life, when not in session the laws are made by the Council of Ministers and the Council of state, of wich Fidel Castro is the President off and he is also a member of the National Assembly Parliment.

15. Where according to the Cuban government over 98 percent of eligible voters vote and over 98 percent of voters support the government.

16. In a nation that has and needs an immigration agreement with the USA for
a minimum of 20,000 immigration visas a year for the USA.

17. In a nation where thousands of Cubans leave on rafts, innertubes, boats,
floating trucks and taxi cars each year on anything that floats across 90 miles of shark infested waters.

18. Where a site like Nationstates where we can discuss, debate and express our diffrent economic, political and social views is not allowed.

19. Hard currency stores that are filled with American, Canadian and European products.

20. In a nation that trades with the European Union Nations, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, Mexico, Japan and Others, including the USA.

21. The so-called embargo has a big hole, While it is true Cuba is not selling products to the USA, it does buy American Products on a Cash as you buy basis what it lacks its American Credits, and receives credits from Mexico, Venezuela, and Europe, which it owes billions of dollars to.

A female relative of mine who recently emigrated legally to the USA a few months ago says I work at at a McDonalds its alot of work, we are always busy but going back to Cuba with Fidel Castro ni loca (litterally translated) not even crazy.

She emigrated with her husband and young son, they now live in Miami
and are making a decent living, her husband is an electrician.

Disraeliland

18-10-2005, 08:51

"Just out of curiousity Disraeliland, What do you think Marx thought about democracy?"

Firstly, a genuine democracy requires not only the right of the majority to appoint the rulers, who then have a mandate to carry out the policies they proposed during the election campaign, but also respect for peoples' individual rights, one of these being the right to property and we know Marx's attitude to private property, so we already see that Marx has some contempt for democracy.

Marx, in the second part of the Manifesto speaks of confiscating the property if rebels. How does one define rebel? He is one who opposes the government and/or operates, so are the words "terrorist" and "rebel" synonymous?

No, simply operating against the government does not make one a terrorist. Opposition parties operate against the government by trying to persuade people to remove it at the next election, and (in Westminster systems) by asking the government questions in Parliament that it would rather were not asked.

What distinguishes a terrorist is the fact that he uses violence, but in that case, existing legal codes already provide for his punishment for the violent acts (murder, arson, etc, so the only reason to specifically refer to "rebels" as Marx does is to attack those who oppose a communist government in non-violent ways.

Marx also talks (in the same line) about confiscating the property of emigrants, people who leave the state. People leaving the state committ no crime as people like us, living in a democratic West, understand the meaning of the word "crime", it is one's right to live where one chooses, but people leaving the state are a threat to the interests of the state because their tax base is reduced, and productive workers are lost. This is aggravated by the fact that it is the most talented and productive members of society who are most induced to leave because under a socialist system, it is for these people that the gap between reward and talent in greatest, and then in a negative sense.

This is of course a problem in democratic states too, but democratic states usually deal with the problem by a change in policy that induces people to stay. An example can be found in Australia. In 1978, the Queensland Government, led by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, abolished death taxes. Death taxes are payable in the state where the person dies, not in the state in which beneficiaries of the will are located. This abolition meant that old people went to Queensland in large numbers, with them followed businessmen wanting to make retirement homes and nursing homes, as well as those workers who are in the aged care industry.

By 1981, every other state in Australia abolished death taxes.

The most notorious case of a communist state trying to prevent people leaving was of course the Berlin Wall.

By centralising property within the state, other freedoms are removed. Centralisation of transport removes freedom of movement. Freedom of movement means you can go where you please (provided you don't violate anyone elses' rights) without interference from the state, but if the state controls all the transport, then by default the only place you can go is where the state allows you to go.

Likewise freedom of speech, in a capitalist western society, if you want to print something, posters for example, you not only exercise the right to free speech, but property rights. This means you exchange some property (money) for the use of a privately owned printer. The print owner doesn't have to let you of course, but if he doesn't, one of his competitors will, so you can print whatever you like without the interference of the state.

In a communist society, the printers are all state-owned, so the only things you can print are those of which the state approves.

In general, socialist regimes must be imposed.

1. Yes free education and free healthcare.

The education provided is wholely dedicated to the interests of the state, and includes compulsory military classes. Castro also accomplished the 10th of Marx's steps, namely, sending children to work as their 'education', slaves on the plantation, and communists have the hide to accuse capitalists of being responsible for slavery.

http://therealcuba.com/FreeEducation.htm

As for the free healthcare, Cubans get what they pay for, their healthcare facilities (for ordinary Cubans) are third rate. In the West, not only would such facilities be shut down, but the owners or operators would probably go to prison.

Here are pictures of such facilities: http://therealcuba.com/page3.htm http://therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

On this page, we see what things were like before Castro "improved" things: http://therealcuba.com/Health%20Services%20in%20Cuba%20B.C..htm

Health care facilities for foreigners (with US dollars), and the Party elite are first class, of course. Just another example of Castro's Apartheid.

Cuba also practices a form of apartheid that is more familiar: http://therealcuba.com/Page21.htm

Maybe for rich foreign tourests and plantation owners, but the life for the average Cuban was brutal. Although Fidel at limited alot of things, living standards improved greatly. Cuba is an interesting issue, because although many people like Cuba because it defys the US. Yet it is a bad dictatorship.

Living standards for Cubans have been in decline for decades. They are now down to rationed rice, and state provided rice cookers.

http://therealcuba.com/nacional%20de%20espejos%20sin%20cristalesR.jpg

This is the National Glass and Mirrors Factory in Cuba, which has many of its own windows broken. (Source http://therealcuba.com/page2.htm )

Lewrockwellia

18-10-2005, 16:00

Who are you? Disraeliland's cheerleader?

Maybe for rich foreign tourests and plantation owners, but the life for the average Cuban was brutal. Although Fidel at limited alot of things, living standards improved greatly. Cuba is an interesting issue, because although many people like Cuba because it defys the US. Yet it is a bad dictatorship. If it was pro-US then everyone would probably hate it

In 1958, Cuba had double Taiwan's per capita income. Immigrants from around the world (including the First World) flocked to Cuba in droves. From 1903-1957, Cuba took in over one million Spanish immigrants and 65,000 U.S. immigrants. Under Batista, more Americans lived in Cuba than Cubans lived in the U.S. To poor Cubans, especially poor blacks, Batista (who was the descendant of slaves) was a hero. Cuban labor got a higher percentage of the national GDP than Switzerland’s and France’s at the time (just think how much more successful Cuba would have been without those impediments to business!). Jamaicans and Haitians used to jump on rafts in order to get into Cuba. Now, Cubans jump on rafts in order to get out of Cuba. Hell, even Haitians turn up their noses at the place. Cuba's infant mortality rate today is 24th lowest in the world. Under Batista, it was 13th lowest in the world. It ranked first in Latin America in national income invested in education and its literacy rate was 84 per cent. In 1958 Cuba had more female college graduates (to scale) than the U.S. Of course, it wasn't all rosy though. Batista was a political hoodlum, governmental corruption was rampant, and at times he was ruthless in crushing dissent. Batista was certainly no saint. But Cuba, under his rule, was far better than it is today.

Jello Biafra

18-10-2005, 18:33

For any socialist ways to work, the community in which they are tried must be very small (like a commune), entirely voluntary, and isolated. So then you admit that socialism can work? :)

Jello Biafra

18-10-2005, 18:33

Would all the communists I now see like to justify the removal of all personal property form those who do happen to possess the means to luxury, to ensure the "auream mediocrem" for all?As a communist, I don't recall ever advocating the removal of all personal property. Can you show me where I did so?

Disraeliland

18-10-2005, 18:47

So then you admit that socialism can work? :)

"Socialism" is a model for a state. I said "socialist ways", there is a difference in that a non-state can adopt them, the most basic example is the traditional family.

As a communist, I don't recall ever advocating the removal of all personal property.

That like a National Socialist saying he doesn't advocate anti-Jewish measures.

The removal of private property is integral to communism. Are you referring to "petty" property like a pair of shoes?

Jello Biafra

18-10-2005, 18:50

"Socialism" is a model for a state. I said "socialist ways", there is a difference in that a non-state can adopt them, the most basic example is the traditional family.Is there a difference between "socialism" and "socalist ways" other than that a state adopts socialism but not socialist ways?

The removal of private property is integral to communism. Are you referring to "petty" property like a pair of shoes?I don't know that I'd call personal property petty, but yes, I am.

Potaria

18-10-2005, 21:33

The removal of private property is integral to communism. Are you referring to "petty" property like a pair of shoes?

There's a difference between "personal" and "private" property, being that private property has to do with business. This isn't saying your belongings are going to be up for grabs (they definitely won't). It's just saying there won't be any businesses that have private premises and all the "benefits" that pertain to them.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 03:51

Is there a difference between "socialism" and "socalist ways" other than that a state adopts socialism but not socialist ways?

Socialism explicitly refers to the state. The term "Socialist ways" does not, you should have read this into my post, as the groups I've used as examples are certainly not state actors.

There's a difference between "personal" and "private" property, being that private property has to do with business. This isn't saying your belongings are going to be up for grabs (they definitely won't). It's just saying there won't be any businesses that have private premises and all the "benefits" that pertain to them.

There are two types of property, that which is used personally, and that which is used to generate income. There is no clear divide between them, with a particular piece of property changing from one category to the other several times in its life.

Ultimately, however, the right to generate income from ones property is no different from the right to generate income from the sale of one's labour services. The desire to remove the right to use property to generate income is in fact advocacy of the removal of property rights.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 12:04

Socialism explicitly refers to the state. The term "Socialist ways" does not, you should have read this into my post, as the groups I've used as examples are certainly not state actors.And my last question asked whether or not there was a difference between the two other than that "socialism explicitly refers to the state."

There are two types of property, that which is used personally, and that which is used to generate income. There is no clear divide between them, with a particular piece of property changing from one category to the other several times in its life.The clear divide is that one is used personally, and one is not.

Ultimately, however, the right to generate income from ones property is no different from the right to generate income from the sale of one's labour services. The desire to remove the right to use property to generate income is in fact advocacy of the removal of property rights.Of course there's a difference. Land isn't created from someone's labor, and it never was created from someone's labor. This is entirely different from something that was created from the labor of someone.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 12:17

And my last question asked whether or not there was a difference between the two other than that "socialism explicitly refers to the state."

That is the difference and it is a vital difference because the state is a coercive, monopolistic entity.

The clear divide is that one is used personally, and one is not.

A particular piece of property (as I have explained to you before, I read what you post, please do me the same courtesy, or refrain from replying) can change from one to the other. Take your computer. When it was at the computer shop (or whereever you got it), it was a piece of property being held in order to generate income. Now you have it, and use it to not read by posts, it is a piece of property held for personal use.

Some time down the track, you might decide to sell it. It then becomes a piece of property being held in order to generate income.

What I meant about there not being a clear divide is that one cannot discretely classify property as one or the other.

Of course there's a difference. Land isn't created from someone's labor, and it never was created from someone's labor. This is entirely different from something that was created from the labor of someone.

Only if you accept the absurd fallacy of the Labour Theory of Value.

Why is it absurd. Let us take some property, say an uncooked steak and raw vegetables. Using my great talent with steak, I cook it to perfection, and the vegetables too, and I top it off with a succlent sauce.

Then I try to sell it in a vegetarian restaurant.

All the people eating there are vegetarians, steak has no value to them, therefore in that market place, steak has no value. Steak, no matter how skillfully I cook it will only have value in a market place that demands skillfully cooked steak, and only because they want it.

Labour by itself has no innate value. It only has value because people value it, and are willing to pay for it.

Labour is no different to any other commodity, be it steaks, or land, or pin cushions. A commodity only has value where there are people who demand it.

Handecia

19-10-2005, 12:39

State capitalism is quite possibly the natural follow-up of any collectivist revolution in a society large enough to require a great degree of specialisation of labour. Not my cup of tea, state capitalism. It's menacing on paper and terrible in practice.

Communism as a political ideology doesn't interest me too much. Marxism as 'science' is a whole another kettle of fish. It is often useful and has given us much, I admit, but it is nonetheless overall a flawed socioeconomic theory.

Leonstein

19-10-2005, 12:43

Labour by itself has no innate value. It only has value because people value it, and are willing to pay for it.
But that is only because you define value as what people are willing to pay.

As far as is my understanding, "value" is considered something that is inherent in the amount of yourself that you put into it.
According to that then the steak is worth the amount of your life that you spent on preparing it.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 12:48

That is the difference and it is a vital difference because the state is a coercive, monopolistic entity.So then if a society were to form that wasn't coercive or monopolistic, then the society would have socialist ways, but not be socialist?

A particular piece of property (as I have explained to you before, I read what you post, please do me the same courtesy, or refrain from replying) can change from one to the other. Take your computer. When it was at the computer shop (or whereever you got it), it was a piece of property being held in order to generate income. Now you have it, and use it to not read by posts, it is a piece of property held for personal use.

Some time down the track, you might decide to sell it. It then becomes a piece of property being held in order to generate income.

What I meant about there not being a clear divide is that one cannot discretely classify property as one or the other.I've read your posts, your explanation simply isn't sufficient.
While you can't classify property as being one or another and use it as a be all end all definition, you can classify property as being one or another relative to its present condition.

Only if you accept the absurd fallacy of the Labour Theory of Value.

Why is it absurd. Let us take some property, say an uncooked steak and raw vegetables. Using my great talent with steak, I cook it to perfection, and the vegetables too, and I top it off with a succlent sauce.

Then I try to sell it in a vegetarian restaurant.

All the people eating there are vegetarians, steak has no value to them, therefore in that market place, steak has no value. Steak, no matter how skillfully I cook it will only have value in a market place that demands skillfully cooked steak, and only because they want it.

Labour by itself has no innate value. It only has value because people value it, and are willing to pay for it.

Labour is no different to any other commodity, be it steaks, or land, or pin cushions. A commodity only has value where there are people who demand it.The issue here isn't whether or not there are people who demand it. (I agree with your point about the steaks, by the way.) The issue is the justification that there is with regard to forcing people to pay for something. The typical justification is that if you have put labor into it, then you have the right to demand payment for it. However, in the case of land, it isn't created by labor, so it fails the typical justification.

(The F****ing Moral Dilemma thread was changed to Mmm...Moral Dilemma, by the way.)

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 12:53

But that is only because you define value as what people are willing to pay.

As far as is my understanding, "value" is considered something that is inherent in the amount of yourself that you put into it.
According to that then the steak is worth the amount of your life that you spent on preparing it.

I'm flattered, but it has no real use in economics, unless you get a third party (the state) to place an arbitrary value on the amount of my life spent over the stove, so what you have is price and wage controls.

State capitalism is quite possibly the natural follow-up of any collectivist revolution in a society large enough to require a great degree of specialisation of labour. Not my cup of tea, state capitalism. It's menacing on paper and terrible in practice.

"State capitalism" doesn't seem to have any real difference to communism, except that the notion admits that state owned property will always be used to further the intersts of the state (unlike communists, who flannel on about how they act in the interests of the "proletariat"). Its main use seems to be as a swear word.

Leonstein

19-10-2005, 12:56

I'm flattered, but it has no real use in economics, unless you get a third party (the state) to place an arbitrary value on the amount of my life spent over the stove, so what you have is price and wage controls.
So you're being a materialist when it comes to the value of stuff, but when it comes to property, you're happily adhering to moral philosophy?

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 13:00

So then if a society were to form that wasn't coercive or monopolistic, then the society would have socialist ways, but not be socialist?

Yes, a commune could be an example of a non-state actor that has socialist ways, as can a family.

While you can't classify property as being one or another and use it as a be all end all definition, you can classify property as being one or another relative to its present condition.

True, but remember that any piece of property can be classified as any category.

The issue here isn't whether or not there are people who demand it. (I agree with your point about the steaks, by the way.) The issue is the justification that there is with regard to forcing people to pay for something. The typical justification is that if you have put labor into it, then you have the right to demand payment for it. However, in the case of land, it isn't created by labor, so it fails the typical justification.

"The right to demand payment"? Any goods and services can be exchanged voluntarily for an agreed amount of money.

Land is simply a commodity, like any other, as is labour.

A commodity can be bought and sold under mutual voluntary terms. I see no difference because labour has no innate value. The value of labour is what the market demands.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 13:04

So you're being a materialist when it comes to the value of stuff, but when it comes to property, you're happily adhering to moral philosophy?

Oh no, I'm crossing philosophical lines. Call the Church Police.

There is a clear thread running through what I've written, namely the primacy of the individual, and his will.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 13:05

Yes, a commune could be an example of a non-state actor that has socialist ways, as can a family.Ah, I see. Then the society which I propose is not socialist, but it has socialist ways. I can see how this might have led to a lot of confusion between us in this thread.

True, but remember that any piece of property can be classified as any category.Conceivably, yes.

"The right to demand payment"? Any goods and services can be exchanged voluntarily for an agreed amount of money.

Land is simply a commodity, like any other, as is labour.

A commodity can be bought and sold under mutual voluntary terms. I see no difference because labour has no innate value. The value of labour is what the market demands.Yes, but land does have an innate value. The value certainly depends on the eye of the beholder, but nonetheless, there is a value there.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 13:10

Yes, but land does have an innate value. The value certainly depends on the eye of the beholder, but nonetheless, there is a value there.

That's a contradiction in terms. The "beholder" may think that a piece of land is worthless. To him, land has no value. To someone else, it has immense value, but value is subjective.

Conceivably, yes.

Think of this, even a machine who's sole purpose is factory work can be held for solely personal use, by a collector for example.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 13:30

That's a contradiction in terms. The "beholder" may think that a piece of land is worthless. To him, land has no value. To someone else, it has immense value, but value is subjective.There is no worthless land. Simply standing on the land gives it a value. Worthless land would have no value, but I've stated that all land has value, but the value of which depends upon the eye of the beholder.

Think of this, even a machine who's sole purpose is factory work can be held for solely personal use, by a collector for example.Yes, I can see how in a state where both uses are acceptable, that an item could conceivably be either.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 13:39

There is no worthless land. Simply standing on the land gives it a value. Worthless land would have no value, but I've stated that all land has value, but the value of which depends upon the eye of the beholder.

Of course there's worthless land. It is worthless is no one is willing to buy it. There are many factors which may influence him, but if he isn't willing to pay anything for it, it is worthless. An example, you might be selling a block of land which has had hundreds of nuclear tests performed on it, above it, and below it. I wouldn't give you a penny for it. Therefore it is worthless.

Or are you saying that "all land has a value, even if it is zero".

You've not shown that all land has an innate value, in fact you have stated that it doesn't by conceding to the subjectivity of value ("eye of beholder")

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 13:40

Of course there's worthless land. It is worthless is no one is willing to buy it. There are many factors which may influence him, but if he isn't willing to pay anything for it, it is worthless. An example, you might be selling a block of land which has had hundreds of nuclear tests performed on it, above it, and below it. I wouldn't give you a penny for it. Therefore it is worthless.It would have value as land to conduct nuclear tests on.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 13:45

It would have value as land to conduct nuclear tests on.

Since I don't conduct nuclear tests, that's not much good to me, therefore the land is worthless to me.

You might find that a country's Department of Defence would find it useful, therefore it is valuable to that Government.

Value is subjective, different parties have different perspectives on what they want.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 13:47

Since I don't conduct nuclear tests, that's not much good to me, therefore the land is worthless to me.

You might find that a country's Department of Defence would find it useful, therefore it is valuable to that Government.

Value is subjective, different parties have different perspectives on what they want.You might be able to sell it to the Department of Defense.

Or, perhaps, there's another way of saying it: every piece of land has value to somebody. This is not true for every type of labor.

OutpostCommand

19-10-2005, 13:48

Communism !
Communism !
Yes ! Communism !
Best system ever introduced !

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 13:57

You might be able to sell it to the Department of Defense.

Or, perhaps, there's another way of saying it: every piece of land has value to somebody. This is not true for every type of labor.

Your first point still supports my thesis that value is subjective. I must be able to see such a use for the land.

All you're actually saying is that land has a high demand.

Another thing, a different way to express what you might be saying is that "all property has value to someone, even if only for him to sell it to someone else", but that is fallacious. Selling requires certain talents which not all people have.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 14:02

Your first point still supports my thesis that value is subjective. I must be able to see such a use for the land.I wasn't arguing that value was subjective, but I was arguing that it was also objective. (Perhaps my definition of "objective" is wrong, but if I'm right, it means that there is a set value for something, which isn't what I was saying.)

All you're actually saying is that land has a high demand.Labor does, too, but not all labor does. This is different from land.

Another thing, a different way to express what you might be saying is that "all property has value to someone, even if only for him to sell it to someone else", but that is fallacious. Selling requires certain talents which not all people have.I disagree. Anyone can sell something,* but the people who are good at selling can sell something at a price that they want. It is quite easy to sell something, as long as you're willing to accept next to nothing for it.

*Provided that that something has a high demand, such as land.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 14:10

I wasn't arguing that value was subjective, but I was arguing that it was also objective. (Perhaps my definition of "objective" is wrong, but if I'm right, it means that there is a set value for something, which isn't what I was saying.)

The term "subjective" basically means that its down to individual preferences, which in determining value would seem self-evident.

"Objective" in this context means:

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic;

So, for something to have an "objective value", it must be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Labor does, too, but not all labor does. This is different from land.

No it isn't. Both are saleable commodities.

I disagree. Anyone can sell something,* but the people who are good at selling can sell something at a price that they want. It is quite easy to sell something, as long as you're willing to accept next to nothing for it.

*Provided that that something has a high demand, such as land.

Where is the demand threshold? In any case, values are still determined by what people are willing to part with for it. There is no other measure of value relevant in an economic context.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 14:15

The term "subjective" basically means that its down to individual preferences, which in determining value would seem self-evident.

"Objective" in this context means:

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic;

So, for something to have an "objective value", it must be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.Ah, I see. This was different than what I was thinking of. But that's fine, it proves that things do have objective values at times. For instance, when a court compensates a family for the loss of a loved one, they are stating an objective value to it (we have to presume that the courts are uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, otherwise courts are useless.)

No it isn't. Both are saleable commodities.In states that allow the sale of both, yes.

Where is the demand threshold? In any case, values are still determined by what people are willing to part with for it. There is no other measure of value relevant in an economic context.I suppose the demand threshold would be if something would always have a value, but that the value would depend on a person's subjective opinion of it.

OutpostCommand

19-10-2005, 14:19

Communism !
For the industry !
Communism !
For the people !
Communism !
For the world !

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 14:24

Ah, I see. This was different than what I was thinking of. But that's fine, it proves that things do have objective values at times. For instance, when a court compensates a family for the loss of a loved one, they are stating an objective value to it (we have to presume that the courts are uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, otherwise courts are useless.)

The presumption is not at all merited, remember the case of the woman in McDonalds with the coffee? Courts are run by people, which means that there is inevitably subjectivity in the damages they award.

In states that allow the sale of both, yes.

Exactly my point, where property rights are respected, labour and land are indistinguishable.

I suppose the demand threshold would be if something would always have a value, but that the value would depend on a person's subjective opinion of it.

That is a contradiction. Either something simply has value, or someone assigns it value. You cannot have it both ways.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 14:37

The presumption is not at all merited, remember the case of the woman in McDonalds with the coffee? Courts are run by people, which means that there is inevitably subjectivity in the damages they award.I don't know the facts in the case, so I don't know if the courts were wrong to award her damages or not.

Exactly my point, where property rights are respected, labour and land are indistinguishable.Where a certain type of property rights are respected, labor and land are indistinguishable.

That is a contradiction. Either something simply has value, or someone assigns it value. You cannot have it both ways.
If I use an algebra equation for land, it would be: Infinity > X > Zero, where X is the value of the land. An individual could plug in a value for X, thus making the value subjective, but it is objective to say that land is not worthless.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 14:43

I don't know the facts in the case, so I don't know if the courts were wrong to award her damages or not.

I thought it was well known, that one where the idiot woman spilled coffee on herself, and walked off with several hundred thousand nicker.

If I use an algebra equation for land, it would be: Infinity > X > Zero, where X is the value of the land. An individual could plug in a value for X, thus making the value subjective, but it is objective to say that land is not worthless.

Objectivity isn't an issue in determining values. An individual could decide that X=0.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 14:45

I thought it was well known, that one where the idiot woman spilled coffee on herself, and walked off with several hundred thousand nicker.Oh, I know of what you mean, but I don't know whether or not McDonald's was somehow culpable in it or not. I do agree that on the surface, it was silly for the courts to have given the woman money.

Objectivity isn't an issue in determining values. An individual could decide that X=0.Perhaps then, there is a problem with assigning monetary terms to value?

Whallop

19-10-2005, 14:45

If I use an algebra equation for land, it would be: Infinity > X > Zero, where X is the value of the land. An individual could plug in a value for X, thus making the value subjective, but it is objective to say that land is not worthless.
Actually for me that nuke testing terrain is worthless.
The only thing that makes it worth anything is if someone is willing to pay for the terrain and then only it is only worth something to the buyer(s) and the seller(s).

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 14:54

Perhaps then, there is a problem with assigning monetary terms to value?

In an economic sense, there is no other measure of value. We debate what value is in philosophical terms until the sun goes Red Giant, and get no where. Economics is what we're discussing, so value is monetary.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 14:58

In an economic sense, there is no other measure of value. We debate what value is in philosophical terms until the sun goes Red Giant, and get no where. Economics is what we're discussing, so value is monetary.Ah, I see. Fair enough. Perhaps this is another problem with economics. But I digress.

Can you conceive of a piece of land that would have no value to anyone?

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 15:02

Not a relevant question. What I think is valuable doesn't mean anything except to me and to whomsoever I buy land from.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 15:04

Not a relevant question. What I think is valuable doesn't mean anything except to me and to whomsoever I buy land from.
So then I take it you're against minimum wage laws, or laws that say that milk can't cost most than X, too, eh?

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 15:07

So then I take it you're against minimum wage laws, or laws that say that milk can't cost most than X, too, eh?

Yes, minimum wage laws drive up unemployment, and price controls ensure shortages.

The video link I posted explains why these controls are not a good thing.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 15:09

Yes, minimum wage laws drive up unemployment, and price controls ensure shortages.

The video link I posted explains why these controls are not a good thing.Well, at least you're consistent.
But minimum wage laws are an example of what I was talking about. The government has stated that labor is worth something, $5.15 or more per hour. The company and the employee together subjectively determine how much more, if anything, as long as it's $5.15 per hour.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 15:16

But minimum wage laws are an example of what I was talking about. The government has stated that labor is worth something, $5.15 or more per hour. The company and the employee together subjectively determine how much more, if anything, as long as it's $5.15 per hour.

The minimum wage is still subjective, in this case the subjective views of those in government.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 18:02

The minimum wage is still subjective, in this case the subjective views of those in government.True, but in the eyes of the law, it is both objective and subjective. I suppose it's the perspective that you take.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 18:08

Well, government is a bunch of people.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 18:12

Well, government is a bunch of people.Hm. Going back to the land argument - how does one enforce one's claim to the land without appealing to the government?

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 18:18

Firstly, the main purpose of government is to protect rights, as I said earlier.

As for non-governmental means, I'm sure you can use your imagination, here's a webiste that is relevant though: www.armalite.com

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 18:20

Firstly, the main purpose of government is to protect rights, as I said earlier.True, but in this case, aren't rights dependant upon what the government stipulates?

As for non-governmental means, I'm sure you can use your imagination, here's a webiste that is relevant though: www.armalite.comWell, naturally people can attempt to defend themselves, but in that case all you would have is two people fighting, with the stronger person getting the spoils.

Cluichstan

19-10-2005, 18:20

I don't have any "oppinion."

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 18:27

True, but in this case, aren't rights dependant upon what the government stipulates?

It requires that government be checked in its power by such means as elections, and the separation of powers etc.

Well, naturally people can attempt to defend themselves, but in that case all you would have is two people fighting, with the stronger person getting the spoils.

"Armed society is polite society", a society in which most are armed, criminals aren't sure what they'll find should they attempt a crime.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 18:30

It requires that government be checked in its power by such means as elections, and the separation of powers etc.True. I suppose, then, that we'll have to agree to disagree on the actual powers that a government should have.

"Armed society is polite society", a society in which most are armed, criminals aren't sure what they'll find should they attempt a crime.I'm not saying that people shouldn't be armed, all I'm saying is that armed individuals should be the last line of defense against crime, not the first line of defense.
On this topic, I think that the government should have programs that train people how to effectively use firearms safely and effectively.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 18:36

True. I suppose, then, that we'll have to agree to disagree on the actual powers that a government should have.

I've not proposed a perfect solution. Frankly what I'd like to see is something like the US in its early years (i.e. before people like Lincoln and FDRoosevelt [spit])

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be armed, all I'm saying is that armed individuals should be the last line of defense against crime, not the first line of defense.
On this topic, I think that the government should have programs that train people how to effectively use firearms safely and effectively.

The use of a weapon should be the last resort, but the threat of shooting is present at all levels.

Government programs about firearms use could violate the beliefs of some parents, not mine, but there are some pissy weaklings who think weapons are bad, and they have a right to their beliefs, and a right to bring up their children in accordance with them.

Lewrockwellia

19-10-2005, 18:37

I've not proposed a perfect solution. Frankly what I'd like to see is something like the US in its early years (i.e. before people like Lincoln and FDRoosevelt [spit]).

Hear, hear!

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 18:40

I've not proposed a perfect solution. Frankly what I'd like to see is something like the US in its early years (i.e. before people like Lincoln and FDRoosevelt [spit])Yikes. Well, I'll try to put aside my prejudices against the era...what about that era appeals to you?

Government programs about firearms use could violate the beliefs of some parents, not mine, but there are some pissy weaklings who think weapons are bad, and they have a right to their beliefs, and a right to bring up their children in accordance with them.So? Corporate welfare violates my beliefs, but the government does it time and time again. So I don't really see how the government providing free training classes interferes with those families' beliefs more than corporate welfare violates mine.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 18:44

Yikes. Well, I'll try to put aside my prejudices against the era...what about that era appeals to you?

Minimal government, no Federal Reserve, stuff like that.

So? Corporate welfare violates my beliefs, but the government does it time and time again. So I don't really see how the government providing free training classes interferes with those families' beliefs more than corporate welfare violates mine.

One violation by government doesn't justify the next. Government shouldn't be propping up businesses that can't survive in the marketplace, and it shouldn't dictate how people bring up their kids.

Jello Biafra

19-10-2005, 18:46

Minimal government, no Federal Reserve, stuff like that.And do you believe that society in that era was one where you'd like to live? (I don't mean the slavery part, either.)

One violation by government doesn't justify the next. Government shouldn't be propping up businesses that can't survive in the marketplace, and it shouldn't dictate how people bring up their kids.I suppose that's true.

WestCorvinus

20-10-2005, 01:38

The basic idea of communism, that "all people should be equal" is a good one. But it's never worked I'm sad to say, and the system/state just oppressed the individuals.

But pure capitalism is no better, where the state has no care for the individual except in its capacity as a consumer.

Capitalism and Communism both have their victems and their horror stories. I think ideally the answer has to be some kind of middle ground.

Beer and Guns

20-10-2005, 02:03

All people are not equal . You can attempt to make them equal under the law . One of the reasons Communism fails is because it does'nt recognise that all people are not equal .

Mods can be so cruel

20-10-2005, 03:56

All people are not equal . You can attempt to make them equal under the law . One of the reasons Communism fails is because it does'nt recognise that all people are not equal .

Not true. "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs"

New Barvaria

20-10-2005, 07:43

Communism is one of the worst forms of government ever, possibly worse than Nazism. I've read Karl Marx's books, and there nothing but silly ideas.

Leonstein

20-10-2005, 08:32

...I've read Karl Marx's books, and there nothing but silly ideas.
Explain.
What would you say about alienation? Doesn't that make sense?

Whallop

20-10-2005, 12:10

Not true. "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs"
Then how do you objectively find out what someone can do?
How do you objectively find out what someones needs are?
How do you get the most out of someone if you only give that person what (s)he needs?

Ham-o

20-10-2005, 14:57

Lewrockwellia

21-10-2005, 22:30

Communism is bad merely because it cannot work because of human nature.

I said its worse than nazism because people haven't realized its horrible enough that it will be tried again. Nazism, however, will almost certainly never take control of a nation again.

And besides, while Hitler killed 6-7 million on race/some other reasons, Stalin killed 10 million innocent people in the great purges.
Killing is killing no matter who does it.

The Nazis actually killed 20-25 million people, although Stalin killed much more. The total death toll of communism is at least 4 times greater than the number of people killed by Nazism.

Handecia

24-10-2005, 13:54

I firmly believe there's a lot of truth in that "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles" and that "in the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank."

Especially in relation to Communist societies. Note how I'm not putting the word in those indignant little quotation marks? The ones that say, you know, if *I* had been consulted things would've went differently?

I'm not all that interested in what Communism looks in some fancy Platonic idea world, or "on paper, without all these humans messing things up." I also quietly think the people who say the system looks good on paper have never actually seen it described on paper.

Communism practically equates to a command economy - a system of 1) state capitalism and 2) an extremely high aggregate tax rate. The very foundation of Communist planning is the reduction or elimination of property rights. I'm pretty sure we can agree on that much. That's basically the pattern which specialisation of labour has inflicted upon Communist societies.

But there's more! The characteristics of Communism have (obviously) also often included lockdowns on the freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of conscience and worship. The civil rights records of Communist countries aren't very good when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses or free marketers or anyone else who doesn't behave. I'm not only talking about the realpolitik countries of all denominations practice. I'm also talking about life within the country. I'm pretty confident a transition from a western liberal democracy to a Communist system of government and economic organisation would entail just that. How could the "clerks, professors and capitalists", the bourgeoisie, be represented in a democracy pretty much sworn to obliterate it?

Me, I'm opposed to the practicalities of Communism. I'm more partial to a low aggregate tax rate, a contained government, very moderate regulation on the domestic market and free labour unions. I like a non-interventionist state apparatus. Borders aren't particularly relevant to me, so I don't support the sort of barriers you hear Communists talking about these days. Protectionism is very much in the interests of a few rich industrialists on the expense of masses of consumers. Just look at the trouble Europe and the US go to protect, for instance, their cotton and textile industries from certain "greedy" developing countries.

I don't particularly trust politicians and bureaucrats to be either liberal or rational if they were given free reign with civil, religious and lifestyle issues. Communism easily mandates these things be taken out of my hands because it is a nonpluralist system and therefore the state requires me to at least pay lip service to to the state ideology! To live in a country where religion has taken over and instructs government is a terrible thing, and in regards to an individual's freedom of conscience Communism accomplishes pretty much the same thing. I'm a social liberal, a pluralist. I've got no reason to push my atheism on other people by force or support a system of government that does so. And I certainly don't want the state to take much from others, because it'd soon end up taking from me too.

Don't get me wrong, I've got tolerance for a degree of socialism in society. I don't vote for the Social Democrats, but I am rather happy they're there if I ever need them. It's democratic. Mixed economies are nice and moderate and reasonable, even if they tax way too much. But Communism? Hell no, I'm a supporter of a market economy and am perfectly ready to translate that into political action. Underground, anti-state, "fascist" political action is what it'd be called if I lived in an orthodox Communist country. I prefer the security, convenience and predictability of private property and seek a social system that allows me to accumulate it. I'm not all too shy about it, either. I disagree with the collectivist logic of Communism.

That, I think, is a kind of a key problem for the apologetic non-violent, non-repressive Communist utopia you see some modern intellectuals point to as a kind of an escape door for an otherwise bankrupt ideology. Governments, revolutionary or otherwise, aren't non-violent and they are not, by nature, non-repressive. The overall historic trend of governments is for them to assume more power, not less power. I don't see why this shouldn't be true for Communist governments as well. And of course, to build any kind of utopia you have to quietly get rid of the people who don't agree with the principles of the utopia, the people who want something else, other kinds of rights secured, other kinds of privileges recognized. A single-party system is not a liberal democracy and can't be one.

I'm not entirely sure how Communist officials could possibly deal with me except by coercion - denying me an income, cutting me off from means of mass communication and then finally implementing house arrest, containment, imprisonment and some sort of physical brutality. I'd probably become a part of what Zagladin called the "liquidation of the bourgeois class" and what the Cultural Revolution told us was "re-education".

Lenin said something like "liberty is precious; so precious that it must be rationed". The practicalities of bringing about a Communist state leads to exactly that. Some bearded dude rationing my liberty.

(Long story short, Disraeliland and others get a cookie for having mad economics skillz. Yeah.)

Compadria

24-10-2005, 17:51

For me, Communism was a great theory on paper and a lot can be applied to modern life for the better of society (i.e. From each according to his ability to each according to his need).

Yet I dislike extremism and I feel Communism has many un-democratic traits about it that are not good. The idea of a 'dictatorship of the proletariaat' strikes me as unrealistic and counter-productive to the goals of democracy and individual freedom.

I believe in Social-Democratism, which applies socialist (if you could call it that, though I consider myself a moderate) theory to a modern context and includes aknowledgement of the values of individuality, harmony between classes and progressive social (as well as economic) values.

Jocuri

22-11-2005, 20:44

Communism is bad, because I lived in it.:(

The worst way for a human to live in political inadequate system of fear and degradation of the human values.

Europa alpha

22-11-2005, 21:01

Fujibu

22-11-2005, 21:04

Communism is bad merely because it cannot work because of human nature.
Very true. My history class had a Chinese civil servent come in to talk to us a while back. People just don't want to be all the same. What's the point of working hard if you make the same amount as some lazy bum who hasn't worked an hour of his life? Human nature just doesn't allow. I believe China's survived so long because they recognized the need for more allowing capitalistic system. It's a great idea, but just not for humans. Good Idea, Wrong Species.

Letila

22-11-2005, 21:18

Fujibu

22-11-2005, 21:29

I can so imagine people in the past saying that democracy was a good idea, but that it couldn't work outside of paper. Indeed, I've heard that very same argument actually did exist against it in the days when monarchy was the norm.
Except democracy has been tried and has succeeded (argue otherwise, but you don't see the same extreme poverty and insecurity in the US as you did in the USSR) in most places it has been instated. Not to say it's perfect, but at least it WORKS. Every time communist has been tried it always seems like a good idea to start with, until it gets going. In america, as evil as taxes are, you CAN get health care, public education, ect. The civil servent from China who visited our class laughed at the idea of free public education (taxes aside, which you still have to pay in China). It just hasn't worked out. Maybe in some distant place in the future it will work. But I don't think anyone's going to want to try it again in the near future.

Rakiya

22-11-2005, 22:15

It may be an economic system but its consequences are the starvation and death of millions of people in the third world every year. To ensure its survival capitalism has also required a number of brutal regimes such as Nazi Germany or Fascist Chile. The endless capitalist pursuit of profit has fuelled European and now American imperialism over hundreds of years and many people have been murdered or enslaved as a result.

Starvation and death is happening in communist North Korea today. You can't really blame an economic system for starvation, when the real problem is corruption/incompetence in government.

Europa Maxima

22-11-2005, 22:20

When we find a way to suppress emotions and individuality, communism will work just fine. That, or whenever we are replaced by robots :) That said, Capitalism seems to be working to the same end, albeit through other routes. Basically, in Communism the Government is supreme, in Capitalism Corporations are supreme. Wow, amazing choice :rolleyes:

Fujibu

22-11-2005, 22:23

Starvation and death is happening in communist North Korea today. You can't really blame an economic system for starvation, when the real problem is corruption/incompetence in government.
Of course you can blame an inadequate economic system that doesn't meet the needs of the people. Not to say that government corruption in North Korea isn't a problem.

Fujibu

22-11-2005, 22:25

Europa Maxima

22-11-2005, 22:25

Absolutely. That said, how did the USA and full blown capitalism respond to Katrina? :)

Fujibu

22-11-2005, 22:37

Absolutely. That said, how did the USA and full blown capitalism respond to Katrina? :)
-_-'

Yes, inadequate LOCAL and STATE measures did cause problems in the Katriana relief as did inadequate STATE National Guard.

Europa Maxima

22-11-2005, 22:40

Psylos

22-11-2005, 22:41

Capitalism is the path to communism. No country has ever even claimed to be a communist country. Communism is not the same as anti-americanism. Socialism is an evolution to capitalism that grows inherently from capitalism. Even the US is growing a socialist system. Minimum wages and social education are a start but not the end of history. Socialism is spreading around the world and nothing can stop it. Nationalist propaganda and useless rethoric isn't going to stop it.

Europa Maxima

22-11-2005, 22:43

Precisely :) Yet capitalism is the risky high road to get to communism...ideally, scandinavian economies are the way to go...capitalism and communism are heavily flawed.

Green Solitude

22-11-2005, 23:11

The response to Katrina was flawed, but not terrible. It was slow, but help did get to those who needed it. Sure, they passed through times that were extremely trying and the states involved were unprepared. But, imagine of a storm of that same magnitude had struck an equally unprepared area in China, or North Korea. Would a few hundred people be lost? Not likely. The death toll would have been astronomical. Those affected that survived? All got at least temporary housing. Hotels, schools, even cruise ships were put at their disposal. New clothes, food, even cars got donated to them by strangers. Sure, things could have gone more smoothly, but that will be the case in every major natural disaster.
Pure capitalism hasl given way to socialism in the US, but to us it's a natural outgrowth of our civil liberties, not an evil to be avoided. We don't talk about it much, but we take many socialist programs for granted.

SMODEERF

22-11-2005, 23:13

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.

and you win!!!

on paper-:) :)

with Humans-- :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :eek:

Huckaber

22-11-2005, 23:19

You can't base a system on its failed attempts.

There are never perfect leaders, or perfect theories because they rely on people and every single being is subjective to the system, be it to corrupt it, deny it, or go with the flow.

There are only perfect situations, perfect oppurtunities for certain theories to thrive. The individualism of capitalism and the master/slave morality of the ruling class/worker class creates an unequal amount of work in many situations where it ends to the exploiters/exploited.
Communism may not have been implemented properly, as the basis of communism relies on a revolution, in some ideologies violent, in others nonviolent. Democratic soclialism relies on a nonviolent approach, while holding democracy to give each their own fair say while putting what they can towards the community and taking out what they need.

The history of capitalism that has come to pass in our own history is full of webs and reasoning for being and as the the master/slave over foreign trade, as laws of matter dictate, it is the same for cash flow, there is no creation of wealth, only distribution, the only creative process of capital is time and labor. Which in capitalism changes hands to the bourgeois as opposed to the people as a whole, to humanity.

A non-violent implementation would be to raise taxes severely scaled on income, along with corporations, to benefit social programs. Corporations aren't a bad thing though, when ran properly for the sake of need and betterment.
People do not need to survive on millions when there are children who survive and die on nothing.

Europa Maxima

22-11-2005, 23:24

All valid points.

I am somewhat in favour of corporations ruling countries, provided they run them well...an odd concept, yet the day that corporate police protect the state is not too far off. As I said, I love the scandinavian economic/ government systems, a combination of constitutional monarchy with benevolent capitalist/socialist mechanisms in place, though I see Corporate run states as the next stage in political "evolution".

Huckaber

22-11-2005, 23:30

Fujibu

22-11-2005, 23:31

Yet in capitalism shouldn't all adapt and sort out problems automatically? :) Hardly the well oiled, efficient machine its made out to be...please, if the wealthiest country in the world cannot respond to an emergency, then who can? The USA's response to it was appaling at best. Perhaps the USA is not as invulnerable as it would like to seem.
Not to re-ignite any Katrina controversy (which is pretty much exactly what im doing:) ), but it was an inadequate STATE response that kept the Kartina relief effort from being successful. You can have all the money in the world but whats the point if there's no orginization in the midst of a crisis? Hundreds of busses were left to rust in mass lots. Those couldn't have been used why? The only reasonable guy down there who hikjacked a bus and brought 40 people down to Houston was nearly arrested for god's sake! The state controls the National Guard and are responsible for the organization for relief of their area. Of course now with everyone complaining and complaining to the national government about the slow response its likely the national government will just step in and take control right from the begining. Just see how happy you are all you people complaining about the government's slow response when the Millitary comes to town and gives orders next time there's a flood at your local beach.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 00:06

I must say though, the only issue is the corporations which run as monarchies.
Where there is no chance for anyone who truly deserves the success to become a higher official within a company as there usually is a 'cutoff line' saved for family friends.
A company with a working workers union/council, and fair wages all around the 'ladder of success' while instead of growing as a pyramid, should grow as its own community.
There's too much worker abuse in the business world where money becomes more important than social welfare, well being of people.

p.s To hell with 'suggestive selling'
That's more like an absolute monarchy :P There are varying degrees of monarchy, as there are varying ways to run a corporation. Most are becoming more interested in their workers...and so are helping their communities. For all those who hate capitalism so much, its odd that they ignore this aspect of it.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 00:27

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 00:47

That's because capitalism isn't really applied globally...companies in some countries dominate those in others. For instance, most African countries do not have efficient political models so as to facilitate the emergence of capitalism. Its working for China...yet China is ready to accept it really.

I also like it because it preserves social hierarchies...capitalist elite are those wealthy from corporate investment, so you can always aim higher. You still have a middle class, an upper middle class, and the "aristocracy". Ideally, capitalism envisages to eliminate the lowest classes. If it succeeds in that, I'm all for it. I don't like completely flat systems where all are at the same level.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 01:15

Pure Metal

23-11-2005, 01:17

*yawns*

Fujibu

23-11-2005, 01:22

The only piece of capitalism i don't agree with is the minority of population owning the majority of the wealth, which mostly goes to luxury and leisure far passed in need by poverty and lack of necessities around the globe.

Giving enough to save face, isn't the same as working towards solving a problem.
It's not like all these rich people store all of this money away in mass vaults in their basement. Rich enterprenuers who spend lots of money on rennovated buildings are employing contractors, designers, managment, labor, and all kinds of people who have jobs from the project and benifieting. Even if the rich are spending money on luxury yachts or mansions, they're still employing architechts, contractors, boat builders. Those people who benefiet from the employment from the rich don't store it up either. They spend it on food, clothing, a vaction perhaps.... and then bakers, butchers, textile workers, and all kinds of others benefiet. Money doesn't dissapear when the rich have it. The idea of all of these rich people in bathtubs filled up with dollar bills is just rediculous.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 01:33

I know that.

I was just meaning how the majority of the wealth, and thusly as capitalism bites it, power, is given to the minority of the population. That there exists in north america, poverty. The spectrum goes both ways, sure it may not be as not as drastic in the negative as the positive. I'm sure if these luxurious are being taxed based on income and putting in a very just amount to social programs that help those not born into luxury the ability to participate in society as opposed to the poor being poorer and the rich being richer.

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 01:34

I do beleive Communism is evil. It is a prison. A prison of the mind, of ability, and of progress. It restricts humans from competing, and progessing. It assumes that people are equal, and not individuals. It totally throws away the word "unique", and assumes we are all cattle. And that, my friend, to me, is evil.

However, Communism does succeed in creating equality to 99% of the population. I have to give it that. They equally starve, are equally poor, are equally without say in the government, are equally without power, equally without freedom.............:rolleyes:

Gun toting civilians

23-11-2005, 01:37

I have never seen any incentive to take risks in modern communism. Of course a lot of communist believe in the outdated theory of the zero sum gain.

Gun toting civilians

23-11-2005, 01:39

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 01:39

I comprehend what you're saying, it just isn't very nice that the slave labor used in some other countries is much justifiable by 'giving them jobs'. Along the lines of the corporate without heart.

I do get the social hierarchies and I must agree, though I try to express a respect for humanity, equality and the such. Though there are some people who are more significant than others, though these people are still only people and are just as human. I have a thing against the plateau that the west raises celebrities upon.

I would fully encompass an idea of capitalism which has no lower classes, it leads to the same goal of human cooperation as any other. I just see the 'business mind' portrayed in the media as a bloodthirsty cold being, where dollars are equal to people. I think social welfare is a need, and that in a capitalist society there should be universal healthcare and social programs because if you're not helping against something you can, you should be just as much at fault.
Though I was raised by western media where 'sharing is caring' on the outside of the business.
Ah, then I must agree with you :) This is why I like Scandinavian capitalism. :) I also find myself to be in agreement with you as far as the celebrities are concerned. My idea of an elite is that of a well educated, sophisticated upper class, not low class celebrities who are only worshipped because they are as flawed as those who worship them, much like ancient greek gods. If the upper class is to lead us, it should be made of intellectuals, not barbie and ken dolls.

Yep, communism means everyone is 100% equal in being miserable ;)

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 01:40

Some one has it right

Thanks bro :p

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 01:49

And also, I have heard just about enough with "Communism is perfect on paper but flawed in practice". What the hell does that mean? I could take a crap and say it looks perfect on paper..........Who the hell cares if it looks good on paper if it cant be applied to real life. The whole point of philosphy and economics is to improve life, the economy, society ...etc. Not to just doodle and say...gee this would be perfect except for that one small detail, IT DOESNT WORK. Enough is e-freaking-nough.:headbang:

IF IT DOESNT WORK, ITS NOT PERFECT......I know its a very complex idea to {American} liberals (that was for you my german buddy, if your reading this), but with any hope you guys will be able to grasp it.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 01:49

Gun toting civilians

23-11-2005, 01:57

First, all major corporations started out as small businesses. No corporation is in such a position that they can never be touched. A new innovation could come along out of no where and take out anyone. The inventor, working long hours for little reward for a long time, is now rich. Should he not be able to reap the rewards of his labors?

I keep hearing the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but I don't see it. We have more home owners in america than ever before, and the largest health problem with the poor in america is obesity. The poor in the US have a standard of living that is higher than some of the rich in other parts of the world. Go somewhere where there are real poor and you will see the differance.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 01:57

I don't know so much your relation between celebrities and the ancient greek gods.

The ancient greek gods actually represented something, a story of morals and belief encompassed in that mythology.

I am a Nietszche hound on existentialism and when it comes to the greek gods and how he saw it, it was a beautiful thing to encompass the changing perceptions giving a 'yin/yang' term of effect of chaos and unity. The ancient greek gods were seen to be just as plausible as they did have their points that they were undeniably human. In comparison to the standards of today, comparing the greek gods to the everyday celebrity is quite unjust to the greek culture.

Well educated and sophisticated was that of the intellectual of greece, was it not?

I do agree with leadership being of the sophisticated and well educated, but for the times of greece, I'd say they were quite well off to be worth more than the possibilities of comparing them to celebrities of today, and certainly would be considered worthy of leadership. Quite a tad better in my opinion than the infinitely perfect god being to humble and save sin of the exploited class. ;o

Ah, I meant it in the sense that the gods represented the individuals who worshipped them, albeit in an archetypal rather than stereotypical form. Do realise that celebrities are worshipped as they are seen as archetypes as well. We idolise different concepts, on average, than those idolised by the ancient greeks, and although we deem ourselves to be ahead of them, I believe our mass culture is in fact behind. That was the point I sought to make. I am beginning to read some of Nietzsche's works, and I must say he is quite addictive and very well read.

Yes, greek aristocracy was indeed the upper crust. The word means aristos (the best) + kratos (power)...it means the best have power. A form of elitism. Yet even in societies such as Imperial Germany or Britain's, the aristocracy lived up to this reputation of being highly educated and sophisticated...there were those who were undeserving of their titles, but a large number of elites, especially in Germany, were the cream of the crop. The problem is that the system is hereditary. I believe those who fail to live up to their inherited title should be cast out of political power, whilst those who have the potential to attain excellence should be awarded with title. Thus, the aristocracy should be constantly manipulated so as to ensure the eltie rule, and not just idiots who inherit titles. This system could apply equally to the Monarch. I believe a country that is well run by a small group and beneficial to its citizens, remaining sensitive to their needs, is of far more merit than one that merely allows all to rule, yet is a mess. That kind of defeats the purpose. I am thus a proponent of elite monarchy. I detest all forms of partisan politics.

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 01:59

Gun toting civilians

23-11-2005, 02:03

I like this guy...I'm hoping your a fellow Republican?

Of course, and proud veteran of the War on Terror.

My Lovely Christine

23-11-2005, 02:08

*yawns*

Lol, typical commie response. Knows deep down communism is inferior, so doesn't even try to explain why.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 02:09

Yep :P

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 02:23

Yes lets all bandwagon on making fun of communism. Hurrah It was just because A. Countries wouldnt trade with them cos America's Republicanist government (Oh yes MUCH better than communism, Rugged individualism lets go spit on there graves) and because it had Militarist tendancies in Russia, which is NOT communism actually it is Lenin-Stalin-Marxism. Or Bolshevism.

You should have read earlier in the thread. I showed that the failures and crimes of communist countries were caused by communism.

Its not that the US, or the West in general refused to trade with communist countries, there was trade, but not much.

I would suggest that you have made absolutely no attempt to think of why they would not trade, thinking instead that the West had a duty to import the goods produced by communist countries.

Let me outline some reasons for you:

Shortages: Communist economics leads to perpetual shortages, how can one do foreign trade if domestic needs are never satisfied? One can't. People in communist countries experienced shortages in all goods, even bread!
Lack of incentive to improve. Let us take cars. Throughout the Cold War, the West's automotive technology continually improved, and still does so today, however, the only technical development in communist countries was in arms, why would a Westerner, looking for a cheap car in say, the late 1980's, buy a Trabant from East Germany, when he could buy a Toyota which would have more performance of reliability? He wouldn't. He would use his money to purchase the best goods. This leads to competition, which leads to improvement.
Currency: Currencies in communist nations were worthless.

Starvation and death is happening in communist North Korea today. You can't really blame an economic system for starvation, when the real problem is corruption/incompetence in government.

The basic problem is that the communist economic system cannot produce enough. It will always bring shortages, and misallocation of resources.

With the exception of a "Garden of Eden" situation, the only economic system that can bring propserity in the long term is the free market.

Absolutely. That said, how did the USA and full blown capitalism respond to Katrina?

You mean the government's response. In fact, private sector aid was turned away by the government.

Capitalism is the path to communism. No country has ever even claimed to be a communist country. Communism is not the same as anti-americanism. Socialism is an evolution to capitalism that grows inherently from capitalism. Even the US is growing a socialist system. Minimum wages and social education are a start but not the end of history. Socialism is spreading around the world and nothing can stop it. Nationalist propaganda and useless rethoric isn't going to stop it.

No, it was not a natural process, behind it there are men. The process of socialisation in the US was done by people with an agenda, but these people were not capitalists, they were in government, and held to the socialist ideologies. It was socialists pushing a socialist agenda, and it can be stopped because it cannot be sustained.

Its not an outgrowth of civil liberties, or rights, only the rhetoric is in such terms. It stems from the desire to have control over others.

You can't base a system on its failed attempts.

Bullshit, absolute f***ing bullshit. What else is there but experimentation? How else can you show that something works or not except by looking at attempts to try it.

What you're saying is that you can't judge national socialism on the Holocaust.

There are never perfect leaders, or perfect theories because they rely on people and every single being is subjective to the system, be it to corrupt it, deny it, or go with the flow.

Communism is posited as a perfect theory.

There are only perfect situations, perfect oppurtunities for certain theories to thrive.

So, no judgement of communism should ever take reality into account?

All you've posted is a bunch if circular rubbish, which I already refuted.

The individualism of capitalism and the master/slave morality of the ruling class/worker class creates an unequal amount of work in many situations where it ends to the exploiters/exploited.

"Master/Slave"? Put the sledgehammer down. Firstly, there are more than two classes, and secondly, the relationship between employer and employee is that of purchaser and seller. The employer buys services that the employee sells.

The history of capitalism that has come to pass in our own history is full of webs and reasoning for being and as the the master/slave over foreign trade, as laws of matter dictate, it is the same for cash flow, there is no creation of wealth, only distribution, the only creative process of capital is time and labor. Which in capitalism changes hands to the bourgeois as opposed to the people as a whole, to humanity.

Rubbish, wealth is created because creative and productive processes add value.

A non-violent implementation would be to raise taxes severely scaled on income, along with corporations, to benefit social programs. Corporations aren't a bad thing though, when ran properly for the sake of need and betterment.
People do not need to survive on millions when there are children who survive and die on nothing.

You should determine what people need? Ze Master Plann?

How do you give people benefit by raising the prices of everything? You are probably under the illusion that firms pay their taxes, instead of consumers. Any tax increase will simply be passed on, and price rises hit the poorest hardest. Tax increases also reduce incentive, so the unemployed stay out of work because there is no reason to hire them. A double-whammy for the poor, and you claim it is in their benefit.

I must say though, the only issue is the corporations which run as monarchies.

Depends on the firm. They are all controlled by their owners, however, in virtually all cases, the owners number in perhaps millions for a single firm, through the public listing and trading of shares. These owners then exercise their votes (number of shares). This is a democratic method.

Where there is no chance for anyone who truly deserves the success to become a higher official within a company as there usually is a 'cutoff line' saved for family friends.

Proof? A firm will, if it has its best interests at heart, promote the best.

I also like it because it preserves social hierarchies...capitalist elite are those wealthy from corporate investment, so you can always aim higher. You still have a middle class, an upper middle class, and the "aristocracy". Ideally, capitalism envisages to eliminate the lowest classes. If it succeeds in that, I'm all for it. I don't like completely flat systems where all are at the same level.

Hear, hear!

I was just meaning how the majority of the wealth, and thusly as capitalism bites it, power, is given to the minority of the population. That there exists in north america, poverty. The spectrum goes both ways, sure it may not be as not as drastic in the negative as the positive. I'm sure if these luxurious are being taxed based on income and putting in a very just amount to social programs that help those not born into luxury the ability to participate in society as opposed to the poor being poorer and the rich being richer.

How is poverty defined? And why do people define it?

For some people, there is an incentive to define poverty upwards all the time. Politicians do this to appear compassionate (why is it compassion for politicians to steal the property of the productive, and give it away, but criminal for me to rob you and give it to the poor, sounds like theft in both cases) and get votes, the various occupations which we can call "social" work define poverty upwards to keep themselves in unproductive work.

There is poverty in North America, let us analyse it. For the most part, "poverty" means having ones own dwelling (rented or bought); a car, one or more colour TV's; air conditioning. One of the hallmarks of "poverty" in North America isn't having no enough to eat, it is obesity!

As poverty goes, it doesn't look that bad! I'm middle class, and I don't have A/C!

You trot out the old fallacy of "Rich richer, and poor poorer". When has that ever been the case. The norm in all capitalist nations is the rich get richer and the poor get richer too.

You also trot out the other fallacy of increasing taxes increasing revenue. The Harding and Coolidge administrations, as well as the Bush Administration all cut income taxes, and saw revenue increase.

That information is not hard to find. It seems to me that the advocates of increased taxes are looking simply to take money away from people. Envy can be very dangerous. When you see someone rich, you shouldn't say "noone should have that!", you should say "how can I get that?"

This is why I like Scandinavian capitalism.

It can't be sustained in the long run.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 02:23

It is not what people do, but why they do it.

In the communism revisited thread, some very valid points are given. I'd like to see some capitalist opinions on those, such as the fishing boat example.

Though the job of a fisherman and other production jobs don't take much towards education opposed to experience in comparison to others.

Though, what social programs do scandinavian capitalism have? Universal healthcare, and the such?

Is the wealth generated, a byproduct of production of need, or is it the goal?
Is there such thing of overproduction? What happens in job loss in such of an example within 'the boat' example? How is it solved?

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 02:36

Of course, and proud veteran of the War on Terror.

I can honestly say that I am very proud of you, and everyone that is fighting for this country. I am glad that your on the right side.:p

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 02:38

Gun toting civilians

23-11-2005, 02:38

I can honestly say that I am very proud of you, and everyone that is fighting for this country. I am glad that your on the right side.:p

I appreciate your support.

Gun toting civilians

23-11-2005, 02:40

I can honestly say that I am very proud of you, and everyone that is fighting for this country. I am glad that your on the right side.:p

Thank you. As I tell people here all the time. You don't know what poor is untill you've seen a family of 4 living in a 1 room mud hut in the middle of nowhere.

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 02:42

Thank you. As I tell people here all the time. You don't know what poor is untill you've seen a family of 4 living in a 1 room mud hut in the middle of nowhere.

Exactly..living in poverty in this country is beyond the lifestyle that many people can even dream of....For some reason, liberals cant seem to understand that.

Magdha-

23-11-2005, 02:44

Absolutely. That said, how did the USA and full blown capitalism respond to Katrina? :)

Lol, only a moron would consider the U.S. "full blown capitalist."

Let's see, we have dozens of kinds of taxes, minimum wage laws, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Reserve System, corporate welfare, tariffs, government-controlled education, more than 50% of the land belongs to the federal government, FDA, shitloads of bureaucracies, etc. etc. etc.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 02:46

:rolleyes: Read all my other posts, then draw your conclusions, okay? :)

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 02:49

:rolleyes: Read all my other posts, then draw your conclusions, okay? :)

He can draw whatever conclusion he wants. Fact is you said the U.S. is full blown capitalist. Fact is, its not. Your wrong, he arrived at the conclusion that your wrong because of your false statement on a public forum. So pipe down, put your red tail between your legs, and relax.

Magdha-

23-11-2005, 02:49

:rolleyes: Read all my other posts, then draw your conclusions, okay? :)

No, you read my post, and explain how the fuck a country can have all the things I listed and be "full blown capitalist." The U.S. has elements of capitalism and socialism, it's not "full blown capitalist."

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 02:50

Thank you Disraeliland.

That was actually very well written for the majority of pieces, but even as such of the 'examples of communism in history' they were not true communism.

The 'circular arguments' I had though, i meant to shed light to that there have been fascist socialist leaders which take oppurtunities of struggle in capitalist societies, to a revolution. Thusly as i meant 'perfect situations'.

I would like to know why scandinavian capitalism would not sustain, and what your favored 'system' entails. More over though, I'd like to see you tackle someone with a bit more grasp on the entirety of the situation, e.g, the opinions in the 'communism revisited' thread. As I have only a dabbling of knowledge of the topic and workings on all broad scales.

edit- Though there are people who withhold the capitalist system that seem to think the war on terror was a fight 'for' the usa.

Basically greater protections for citizens, such as universal healthcare, free education, greater income redistribution and so on. I will admit that Scandinavia can afford such a system due to its wealth, yet Europe has great economic potential, so such a system would be suited for the entire region, once its potential is realised. Scandinavia is considered to be one of the safest and richest places in the world, with a good standard of life. I am even considering moving to Sweden.

Disraeliland, I agree completely :)

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 02:50

it's not "full blown capitalist."

Although I wish it was.:D

Magdha-

23-11-2005, 02:51

Although I wish it was.:D

Same here! :D

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 02:51

He can draw whatever conclusion he wants. Fact is you said the U.S. is full blown capitalist. Fact is, its not. Your wrong, he arrived at the conclusion that your wrong because of your false statement on a public forum. So pipe down, put your red tail between your legs, and relax.
That would be taking a piecemeal approach...nevertheless, the USA is considered to be the most capitalist country in the world, the closest thing to complete capitalism there is.

Shiwaitaoyuan

23-11-2005, 02:53

Sure, Communism is a failed expirement with regard to entire countries. But on the other hand, individual communes, founded on the basic ideals of communism (sharing of all property, all people working together for the common good) have not been nearly as bad off.
Utopianism all the way!

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 02:53

That would be taking a piecemal approach...nevertheless, the USA is considered to be the most capitalist country in the world, the closest thing to complete capitalism there is.

Actually..I know its not a country...technically...but Hong Kong is like the U.S. on steriods when it comes to capitalism....sorry, but once again, your wrong.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 02:54

Then I stand corrected. Should I be in tears? :rolleyes:

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 02:55

Same here! :D

Lol...I find that very strange but welcoming coming from a person that lives in your area of the country. Isnt it very Socialist/Democrat up there? Just what I heard, I'm not exactly sure.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 02:56

I must say though there is a clear line between the political system and economic system, if that hasn't been taken into place that 'true communism' is meant to be within a democracy than fascism.

Sweden, Is a socialist democracy. Ameliorating the capitalist system while carrying social benefits.
I must say they do have it going good.
I am still wondering though as to why Disraeliland would say a system as such would not sustain.

As to all of this 'oh man i wish we were full blown capitalist!" why deviate from social programs?

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 02:56

Then I stand corrected. Should I be in tears? :rolleyes:

Nah...tears can be faked....I want you to be in awe. I want you to be in awe of the truth coming from the alias The Atlantian Islands. I want you to be in awe of the aspects of Capitalism. And I want you to be in awe of America.....Then, I will be in tears.;)

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 02:58

I must say though there is a clear line between the political system and economic system, if that hasn't been taken into place that 'true communism' is meant to be within a democracy than fascism.

Sweden, Is a socialist democracy. Ameliorating the capitalist system while carrying social benefits.
I must say they do have it going good.
I am still wondering though as to why Disraeliland would say a system as such would not sustain.
Its based on the country having sufficient wealth to sustain it.

Atlantian Alias, if you were clever enough to read my previous posts, you would realise I am in awe of capitalism. In awe of the USA? Not happening :) So no need to shed a tear :)

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 02:59

That was actually very well written for the majority of pieces, but even as such of the 'examples of communism in history' they were not true communism.

That is a circular argument, and I have already shown that such regimes were communist through reference to the Manifesto. I have also shown that the failures, and crimes were the results of communism.

These posts are earlier in the thread.

The 'circular arguments' I had though, i meant to shed light to that there have been fascist socialist leaders which take oppurtunities of struggle in capitalist societies, to a revolution. Thusly as i meant 'perfect situations'.

The only real difference between fascism and communism is that communists exercise total control over the economy by seizing property. Fascists do it by exercising the powers of ownership, and determining the rewards, but still leaving the same name on the deeds.

I would like to know why scandinavian capitalism would not sustain, and what your favored 'system' entails. More over though, I'd like to see you tackle someone with a bit more grasp on the entirety of the situation, e.g, the opinions in the 'communism revisited' thread. As I have only a dabbling of knowledge of the topic and workings on all broad scales.

The high pensions, cradle-to-grave welfare, and universal healthcare are not bought by the creation of wealth. They are bought by parasitic government. To more fully develop the biological analogy, capitalism is like a human body, it gets blood by producing it. A mosquito gets it by taking it (being a parasite). In addition to parasitically sucking wealth from the economy, it reduces incentive to generate more. Combined with immigrants going directly onto welfare (as opposed to restricting immigration to those who can do vital work) means that these countries will eventually reach a point of critical mass, meaning that the situation will reach where declining wealth, and mounting obligations combined with the political impossibility of reducing entitlements will cause the system to crack.

I would prefer a Negative Income Tax, the 30/30 system. It is explained in detail here: http://www.ldp.org.au/tax.html

For services, all should be privatised, with those needing welfare getting vouchers which they can exchange for the services. Here is a more detailed explaination regarding education: http://www.ldp.org.au/school.html

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:01

That is pretty much why the scandinavian system can't run ad infinitum. It works well now though. The countries are essentially sustained by oil wealth, such as the case of Norway is. They are also becoming increasingly racist, as they find that immigrants are not pulling their weight, nor are they integrating as well as they should.

The thing with private market solutions is that people don't take advantage of the options offered to them. I am all for private market solutions.

Haroutioun

23-11-2005, 03:03

looks bad on paper and works even worse in practice?

I think communism looks good on paper but doesn't usually end up working out. If a nation worked at TRUE communism (which has never actually been accomplished) it would work out well I think.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:04

Define true communism as you see it.

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 03:04

Its based on the country having sufficient wealth to sustain it.

Atlantian Alias, if you were clever enough to read my previous posts, you would realise I am in awe of capitalism. In awe of the USA? Not happening :) So no need to shed a tear :)

Obviously not. However, if you are in awe of Capitalism, why arent you in awe of a country trying to use it as their economy?

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:06

The economy is but one aspect of a country.

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 03:09

Obviously not. However, if you are in awe of Capitalism, why arent you in awe of a country trying to use it as their economy?

They aren't. They did many years ago, before politicians discovered they could get in by being parasites and little dictators.

I would revise the 30/30 system to refuse any tax payment less then $500, accepting it would mean it costs more then $500 to process it.

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 03:09

I think communism looks good on paper but doesn't usually end up working out. If a nation worked at TRUE communism (which has never actually been accomplished) it would work out well I think.

EHEM...I beleive I already addressed this point........

And also, I have heard just about enough with "Communism is perfect on paper but flawed in practice". What the hell does that mean? I could take a crap and say it looks perfect on paper..........Who the hell cares if it looks good on paper if it cant be applied to real life. The whole point of philosphy and economics is to improve life, the economy, society ...etc. Not to just doodle and say...gee this would be perfect except for that one small detail, IT DOESNT WORK. Enough is e-freaking-nough.

IF IT DOESNT WORK, ITS NOT PERFECT......I know its a very complex idea to {American} liberals (that was for you my german buddy, if your reading this), but with any hope you guys will be able to grasp it.

The Atlantian islands

23-11-2005, 03:10

The economy is but one aspect of a country.

So you like our economy. What do you not like about us?

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:19

I never said I like your economy...I like what it could be. Lets just say I don't like the USA much, I have faith in Europe. I am bound to it by its culture, its history and its future, and its ideals and visions.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 03:19

I'd like it if you could explain the 30/30 reform a bit more Disraeliland, as I'm not much on mark to the workings of economics as I"m not a participating member of the work force.

You also keep saying 'communism is that communists exercise total control over the economy by seizing property'. I think communists hold there is no ownership of property and any it does 'seize' is during revolution which is then meant for equal distribution for housing or whatever that 'betters' the society, it's very hard to battle an umbrella term such as communism.

Also, I'd like to know that alongside capitalism, just what sort of political system would you run with?

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:21

Personally, I would run selective monarchies with powerful intellectual elites (the aristocracy) as their supporting base, as well as an opening to corporate power. The economy must not develop at the expense of the level of life and culture. Otherwise it becomes an end in itself, and not a tool for change. I am sympathetic towards the Platonic system of government, and benevolent capitalism.

Contiria

23-11-2005, 03:25

Communism is simply an ideology. It is impossible for a nation to have communism the closest thing to it would be socialism. Yet, leaders who used socialist style economics misused their power -- thats why there is such a bad rep for communism/socialism. Karl Marx said his biggest fear is not that socialism would never happen, it was that foolish leaders would misuse the power. And thats exactly what happened with Hitler, Stalin, Xiaoping and the like.

I am from the US and know for a fact that our country has also given Communism such a bad name. Truth of the matter is that Democratic nations can also be Socialist... its the US's Democratic Capitalist nation that its trying so hard to push on ever other country in the world.

So I say that the ideology behind Communism is a wonderful idea. Yet it is virtually impossible to have.

And as a side note, I think a lot of people, especially us Americans, are blinded by the sugar-coated bullshit that we were all taught of history in our elementary years of learning. The United States' history isn't very clean at all.

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 03:26

30/30 means this

Tax-free threshold of $30,000.

Everything above $30,000 is taxed at 30%

If you get below $30,000, you get 30% of the difference between what you get and $30,000.

This is a fairer system. It is more open because you know how much of your money goes to the government. It removes the need for the minimum wage, wages could be set in the market.

My idea of excluding payments under $500 is simply to make administration of this cheaper.

Of course there is ownership of property, under communism there is no private-property. Marx himself said it:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Political system: Federalism, bi-cameral parliament, with a lower house (House of Reps) elected by by the people in single-member electorates, an upper house (Senate) appointed by the state governments, which elects the President.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:33

Communism is simply an ideology. It is impossible for a nation to have communism the closest thing to it would be socialism. Yet, leaders who used socialist (in attempts to being a communist nation) style economics misused their power -- thats why there is such a bad rep for communism/socialism. Karl Marx said his biggest fear is not that socialism would never happen, it was that foolish leaders would misuse the power. And thats exactly what happened with Hitler, Stalin, and the like.

I am from the US and know for a fact that our country has also given Communism such a bad name. Truth of the matter is that Democratic nations can also be Socialist... its the US's Democratic Capitalist nation that its trying so hard to push on ever other country in the world. Socialism and Communism is the workers have more power over the wealthy company owners.

So I say that the ideology behind Communism is a wonderful idea. Yet it is virtually impossible to have. And as a side note, I think a lot of people, especially us Americans, are blinded by the sugar-coated bullshit that we were all taught of history in our elementary years of learning. The United States' history isn't very clean at all.
Very valid points. I will ask though, why the emphasis on workers having such power? People are content if they are well governed. Thus, why not leave power in the hands of an elite few, able of making crucial decisions whilst remaining aware of matters which concern the populace? Why this penchant for government by all? If people are happy under a system, they will only seek power out if they believe it suits their aspirations, and should only gain it if they are worthy of it. Giving workers power within a corporation is fine, yet when it comes to ruling a country, I disagree.

Sounds like a great system Disraeliland.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 03:38

So as it was running in the communism revisited thread.

It seems capitalism is seen as 'dog eat dog'
and socialism to come to 'people eat dog due to poverty'

If resources are renewable, shouldn't whatever basis of economic structure work in growth of industry? What's so bad about the lack of private property? I'm guessing property entails only as much as 'land'.

It feels like capitalism is portrayed as a hard life, where we MUST work for 'ourselves' for others, to get by.
While communism seems as we've eachothers back while it is still pretty much comparable to a corporate state, if ran correctly as if corporations can create economics plans to work for better industrialization, shouldn't a government be able to? The only difference being the 'equal' distribution of wealth as opposed to based salary.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:44

That's a somewhat harsh critique of capitalism...ideally, when it reaches the point that labour markets are completely flexible, poverty will be eliminated. This remains to be tested in practice. The problem is it is a system of dog eat dog due to one of the very basic principles of capitalism being breached: perfect information. People are not aware of how the system operates and of opportunities within it. Thus, they fail to exploit it as they should. Plus, its not left by governments to roam free, thus governments may actually inhibit its growth.

Now, that form of communism might work in tiny societies, which arguably leads back to forms of "tribes"...human nature being what its, that would never last. It simply does not work. Most countries are too massive for a government to plan for...if all consumers had the same tastes, they could. Its not so. Thus, capitalism is a superior system from this point of view. Capitalism is also more democratic in that by gaining cash, you can join in the power sharing. With Communism corrupt governments have little opposition, and its difficult to enter. An ideal combo would be elite, intellectual aristocracies combined with monarchies alongside corporate power.

Alchamania

23-11-2005, 03:44

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:46

Logically it should apply to wage earners only.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 03:51

So capitalism should reach a flexible point. What's that to mean?

Would capitalism in the end, lead to a utopia with less work needed and a greater standard of living? Through the amelioration of production, and the means of production and hard work and participation, that somewhere in its own success, could put people out of work itself, for there in truth being less work to be needed to be done?
Though if a situation like this would arise, wouldn't that mean there is enough wealth that these people could be paid a free ticket to life either way?

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 03:55

I feel as if all these times i've been striving for the egalitarian view of civil rights, but that in and of itself can be achieved through seperate means, such as capitalism, but i saw first that socialism encompasses the egalitarian view, but also in a monetary status of social classes, that no man should make more money than another, giving no incentive to work other than 'for the better good'.

but what is so bad about 'for the better good' ?

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 03:58

Flexible in that wages shift according to economic needs, thereby giving corporations price flexibility. Technology is already aiding this.

Ideally, that would happen in perfect capitalism...then the situation you described would more or less arise. Of course, work would be severely reduced, so people would work less, and the surplus wealth would mean higher salaries...great situation.

A society where noone had to work, except for the work they wanted to do, would be perfect. BUT it would stagnate, thereby ending civilisation. That is a nasty situation. There should always be a goal to strive for, else all stagnates. Thus, "for the better good" is flawed at that level.

Neu Leonstein

23-11-2005, 04:00

A society where noone had to work, except for the work they wanted to do, would be perfect. BUT it would stagnate, thereby ending civilisation. That is a nasty situation. There should always be a goal to strive for, else all stagnates.
Humans have in the past been able to motivate themselves without the profit motive...whether it be religion, nationalism or a thirst for fame and glory.
If we reach a stage where robots would do most if not all our work, we'd probably have to work towards the common goal of space exploration or scientific progress. I believe that is a valid way of motivating people.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 04:01

Ideally, yes. But again that would involve work, would it not? Space exploration cannot be achieved without massive effort.

Again though, first perfect capitalism must be allowed to develop, then only can such a goal be fulfilled. Other overriding objectives (such as nationalism, as you stated) may hinder this through wars and such. A global empire would have to form at some point to promote such a form of capitalism.

Neu Leonstein

23-11-2005, 04:10

Ideally, yes. But again that would involve work, would it not? Space exploration cannot be achieved without massive effort.
Work, yes. But not necessarily paid work.

Again though, first perfect capitalism must be allowed to develop, then only can such a goal be fulfilled. Other overriding objectives (such as nationalism, as you stated) may hinder this through wars and such. A global empire would have to form at some point to promote such a form of capitalism.
I'm not sure what you consider to be perfect capitalism...I would agree more with the Indian economist Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen) - inequality is a fact when you let freedom prevail, but if we want to allow it, first and foremost we must give everyone the chance to be free.
Laissez-Faire has never, and will never allow everyone to work to their full potential.

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 04:10

Utopianism? On that I am in agreement with most of the people who made up religion. Utopia is impossible on Earth, any attempt to introduce it will only lead to devastation, so utopia is something you get when you die if you lead a virtuous life.

With all the religion bashing around here, people miss the fact that some parts of it are pretty smart.

The point is that capitalism is the best system. Not a perfect system, just the best.

Would this only apply to people with steady employment or can people who do not work claim $9000 every tax season?

It would apply to everyone. If you earn nothing, you get 30% of $30,000, which is $9000.

Europa Maxima, it is illogical that it apply only to wage earners, the NIT is intended to replace the tax and welfare systems with something that is simple and creates incentive.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 04:15

I don't quite understand the concept of stagnation=end of civilization.
It seems to me that if we have no more work to do, our purpose is lost?
Thusly, purpose is necessity, and as these 'goals we strive for', why cannot they be common goals in a 'perfect capitalist' and 'perfect communist' society?

If you are willing to compare the faults of communism, you must equally show the faults of capitalism.

Over that, I think the two would work if effort was put into adjusting the systems for functionality. None of the nasty 'slaying of the counterrevolutionaries' or any of the such.

Perhaps we share the common goals, but it's just a matter of how it happens, that some would rather feel to be a part of the unity that works as a whole to its goal, just as same as the chaos of capitalism that we are all small communities ourselves doing what we can for 'the nation' of the dollar.

This is all about which system is infinitely better, but they both have their own 'perfect' system. It seems 'faulted' capitalism works better than what has been feared of communism. Though this is mostly by 'need' to survive in a nationalist state, compared to the communist attempt to satisfy need, which would be the need of survival.
The main difference of the systems being the worker has an equal power by right opposed to it being backed by money.
Money isn't even backed by anything these days, it only has value because we believe it does.

Froood

23-11-2005, 04:16

Ok I'm not in favour of Communism and wouldn't like to live in communist country. Also i haven't read all 32 pages fill me if I've missed anything.
Here's my two cents anyway.

Communism hasn't worked. Doesn't mean it can't. Every democracy that existed imploded until the late 18th century. It is theoretically possible that communism merely has....call 'em teething troubles. Capitalism, too, works much better in theory than it does in practice.

Now seems to me communism has two major flaws;a) it's revolutionary methods and b) most people just don't want to communists.

I half joked on another topic that you could make an area a communist sub-state by setting up loads of communes in an area and voting for "small government" parties until there wasn't any effective. However, I seriously think you could make communism work in one country (or more feasibly in area within country) as long as everybody was ideologically commited and there was some democratic frame work for decision making. As I said I wouldn't want to live there, but some people might. I have no problem with that.

And, who knows? Perhaps in a resource strapped future communism may seem attractive to the masses? Stranger things have happened.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 04:16

Ah, if it is to replace welfare, then yes, I see its merit.

Perfect capitalism is one able of generating a society where noone is poor, and ultimately, one where everyone can aspire to wealth, whether they achieve it in the end or not. If it generates a utopia that desires to explore space, so be it...if it is merely the best economic system to live by, again so be it. I am not religious, and I have no prejudices as to whether or not a utopia can be achieved...it would be an interesting experiment.

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 04:17

Humans have in the past been able to motivate themselves without the profit motive...whether it be religion, nationalism or a thirst for fame and glory.
If we reach a stage where robots would do most if not all our work, we'd probably have to work towards the common goal of space exploration or scientific progress. I believe that is a valid way of motivating people.

All of those are variations of the profit motive. You should have a less narrow definition of profit.

but what is so bad about 'for the better good' ?

Who defines it, and why?

Common interest doesn't exist, there is only the individual interest. They may coincide, or conflict. When we get into talk of the "common good", not everyone will agree on what it is, and if it really was in the best interests of everyone, would they not simply do it? "Common-good" really means that the interests of some individuals are higher then the rights of others.

Laissez-Faire has never, and will never allow everyone to work to their full potential.

Why not? Where has real laissez-faire ever been tried? What may have been called laissez-faire actually involved considerable government priviledge.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 04:20

Indeed, laissez-faire is untested in its fullest sense.

We lose desire to exist if we have no purposes. That leads to nihilism. Working towards something is a major aspect of humanity.

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 04:24

We lose desire to exist if we have no purposes. That leads to nihilism. Working towards something is a major aspect of humanity.

It is my experience that most can find purposes. Laissez-faire does remove one purpose: avoiding punishment. In an economy without compulsion, it logically follows that avoidance on punishment is gone. This is a good thing because force is only necessary to get the individual to do what is against his interests, or not to do something that advances his interests.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 04:25

I wasn't referring to laissez-faire with regard to purpose of being, yet I see your point. :)

Neu Leonstein

23-11-2005, 04:29

Why not? Where has real laissez-faire ever been tried? What may have been called laissez-faire actually involved considerable government priviledge.
As for your profit point...well, none of those systems were "capitalist", so there goes the point about other systems lacking incentives...

But here I ask you: What do you think "laissez-faire" means?

I'm not sure whether you are familiar with Sen's work, but he is probably one of the most sensible and realistic people on this planet, and everyone'd do well to read it.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 04:31

Why does it seem that civil rights are stripped from the people in a communist territory, when it is all about giving them?

Why would the distribution and allocation of goods in equal not be seen fit in comparison to capitalism?

'the common good' though, is as much the existence and furthered progress of civilization, of the standard of living and being, just as much as it seems to be in capitalism.

What is worth value, your inherent right of being, or what is in your pocket?

I find that one is based on need, and the other, revenue.

I do see your political views of democracy working, and i am meaning if we are shedding light on capitalism in democracy, it may as well be against a communist democracy.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 04:36

Personally, I would say enjoying your being is of most worth...any economic system that can achieve that result will leave me in awe.

Needs are limitless though, or rather should I say, wants that are disguised as needs are limitless. As long as their is a price on most "needs", revenue matters.

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 04:43

As for your profit point...well, none of those systems were "capitalist", so there goes the point about other systems lacking incentives...

The point is that other systems remove key incentives that work generally, like economic gain. Other incentives tend to be confined to small groups in certain activities.

Why does it seem that civil rights are stripped from the people in a communist territory, when it is all about giving them?

Its never about giving to people in communism. It is all about taking from them.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 04:44

I agree it is enjoying your being, your perception and day to day occurence of life and a content whole life.
I would say communism is the best means to enjoying your being.
If there is equal value and say, and equal oppurtunity, then we can do the things we want to do and value our being.
In capitalism though, it seems there are various barriers than can be encountered with monetary issues.

Though this is myself targeting issues such as the main need for any job, education, which costs a debt throughout life in the capitalist system of today.
Communism would not only make those who have the heart to be a doctor, able, but sure, divvying up sanitation work is fine in my opinion.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 04:49

In a communist democracy though, it's halfways perception. The aristocrats are having their land taken from them, but sure, so are the poor. They are being taken from, yes, and being given equality.
Perhaps the goal of life is not purpose of gain, but purpose to fill it with the things you want to do?

I'm an existentialist, and i share the yin/yang sentiment of chaos and unity fueling the two key perceptions of life.

Europa Maxima

23-11-2005, 04:50

If only things were that simple...for such a system to operate humanity would have to be shattered at its foundations and a new society created. Is anyone up for such a change though? When we have robots able to work for us, then perhaps we will be able to put such a system in place. Until then, capitalism is the best way to go.

Huckaber

23-11-2005, 04:56

You, the favor of the capitalist view of working with purpose, is instead apting, for apathy? How is it not that simple? An agreed doctrine on such principles based towards a democratic communist system, you are saying, would work, though would need, severe change?

Why would robots be needed?

I always had a passing thought that if we had robots to do the dirt work for us, we could further explore scientific progress while focusing on the arts and leisure which is in and of itself a full life, but it's only i'd like to live, but, different tastes.
The system i am rooting for though, seems to open this ability on a small scale.

As though, what is the end of capitalism? To work?
Communism is to create an equal oppurtunity and voice, is it not?

Disraeliland

23-11-2005, 04:57

Communist democracy?

Let me quote George Reisman, in his lecture "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian"

The government's control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?

The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.

But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.

Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.

In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of "economic crimes," in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people. If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)

Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government's regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.

Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.

SO, the destruction of the free-market's price system itself requires a totalitarian state.

Furthermore:

Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual's economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual's life a nightmare.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Your opinion on Communism - Page 2