Your opionons on Socialism [Archive]

WangWee

12-05-2006, 20:40

Which country in Scandinavia in particular are you talking about?

While I generally support socialism, the massive car tax in Denmark means that it's also the country with the highest amounts of stolen cars. It's also got a lot of petty crimes (not murders or anything, but it does have the highest crime rate, mainly pickpocketing and stealing cars: www.nationmaster.com )

I am not too sure about the smarter part - the schools are growing too kind and too relaxed. They should tighten it a bit, to make sure that people actually work. Free education - yes, but you have to work if you want a good one.

There's also a few problems with the healthcare, but according to some studies it's apparently cheaper than in the US per capita, and I know for definite that I am less worried about going to the hospital when I am uncertain whether or not I should.

Finally, I don't believe ANY european country to have 90% of its voting population out voting. It just doesn't happen. One of the better voting percentages was in Peru where 80% went out and voted. So I doubt your 90% figure is correct.

Anyway, I support Socialism. I support Capitalism. The two are not mutually exclusive all the time and when they are, I support Socialism above Capitalism.

Iceland, scandinavian by culture, in between europe and america geographically.
Schools here are not any "easier" than anywhere else. I've been in school in europe and in Reykjavík...And, I lived and went to school in denmark for a short period of time...Did I mention we travel more as well? :p
Denmark does have some crime, but nothing like central Europe. It's one of the nicest places I've ever been to. And they've got something like 5000% fewer murders than the US.

The only problem in health-care that I'm aware of is the low wages of people working in health-care, but we're working on it.

And in Iceland, voter-turnout is usually around 90%.

Jello Biafra

12-05-2006, 20:44

Um, no. I've never heard of nazis/nationalist socialists being referred to as Prohibitionist Libertarians.No, it was more of an analogy type of thing. Nationalism is to socialism what prohibitionism is to libertarianism - i.e. incompatible.

INO Valley

12-05-2006, 23:15

I'm not sure any of you understand socialism. It works fine in Scandinavia.

No, the economy of every Scandinavian nation is based on market capitalism.

We've got a higher standard of living than any of you,

U.N. Human Development Index (2005):
1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Luxembourg Luxembourg
5. Canada Canada
6. Sweden Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Ireland
9. Belgium
10. United States
11. Japan
12. Netherlands
13. Finland
14. Denmark
15. United Kingdom

And the actual numerical difference between these top fifteen is virtually nil. ;)

around 90% of us vote,

Exaggerated and irrelevent.

we live longer,

Sweden has the seventh-highest life expectancy, Iceland the 11th Norway the 20th, and Denmark the 50th. Canada's at #12, Israel 21, the U.K. 39, Finland 40, and U.S. 47. Singapore and Hong Kong, which have the world's least-regulated economies, are at #4 and #5.

we've got fewer criminals...etc etc etc.
.
Actually, the Scandinavians countries are among the most crime-ridden in the developed world; Sweden the most, with a crime rate of 13,000/100,000 population per annum; compare to the U.S. at about 4000/100,000 population p.a.

And what about, say, unemployment? Scandinavia doesn't do so hot there. While grossly undercounted by the government, Sweden has an actual unemployment rate of about 11%, more than double the U.S. rate. However, officially, it's 5.6% -- but that does not include unemployed people in government programs, people on extended sick-leave and people in different welfare programs. Assuming that other Scandinavian governments similarly undercount the actual extent of unemployment, these countries compare poorly to economically freer nations like Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Furthermore, Scandinavia -- especially the large cities -- is a very expensive place to live.

If a bunch of folks decide to run a farm together and share the benefits equally, do you have a problem with that?

See, that's why democratic capitalism is supperior to socialism -- you can do that in a capitalist country. You can not, however, live freely in a socialist country.

Llewdor

12-05-2006, 23:21

No, socialism expects that all people will want to work and do what is best for society as a whole and thusly help themselves in the process. Some socialists rely on coercive force to redistribute wealth, but the ideology is not written so.

But what if some people don't behave like that? Are you supporting a socialist system that doesn't coerce them?

Like the aforementioned problem of emerging capitalism. What if some people start engaging in capitalism? You don't stop them?

INO Valley

12-05-2006, 23:24

Well, thank you kindly, sir. Chocolate chip?

Ma-tek

12-05-2006, 23:27

Sociocracy is better.

Llewdor

12-05-2006, 23:47

And they've got something like 5000% fewer murders than the US.

You can't have 5000% fewer. Mathematically impossible.

Francis Street

12-05-2006, 23:51

Socialism is a morally superior system to capitalism, in theory.

Errikland

12-05-2006, 23:54

INO, I think I am in love with you.
Wait, that may have been a bit extreme. Nevermind.
But still, that was brilliant. Very well laid out argument using evidence and everything. Not something one comes to expect in the General forums.

I could contribute my argument on why I despise socialism, but the people here seem to have mentioned almost all of it, so I would merely be repeating them.

Now I have a question: In what way are Nationalism (which I like) and Socialism (which I hate) incompatable? People could have a very stong national pride(etc.) and still be socialist. The key parts of socialism are government ownership of business and all of that related non-private business stuff. In what way does that deal with Nationalism? Perhaps you are thinking of Marxism, which has something that a person with a brain could call anti-nationalist (Workers of the world, unite! or something along those lines). Or perhaps I am missing something about socialism.

Also, to New Maastricht and all of that, Nazi is indeed short for National Socialist German Workers party. However, the thing we really associate with the absolute evil that the Nazis are recognized for is their genocidal rascism. Though I am not one to praise socialism, genocidal racism does not necessarily fall under either nationalism or socialism. It really depends on what nation you come from, though.

Mt-Tau

12-05-2006, 23:57

Socialism is a morally superior system to capitalism, in theory.

In honestly, I don't wish for a morally superior system. I would like a FREE system.

Soheran

12-05-2006, 23:57

Which is is it? Libertarianism or Socialism?

Both, I said.

You cannot have both and they sure as hell don't mix.

No, libertarianism and capitalism are inherently incompatible.

Socialist seem to believe that the State is more important than the individual

Wrong. Socialists believe that the means of production need to be owned by the people who work them.

while Lib's believe that the individual is more important than the State.

Libertarians believe in freeing the individual from tyranny, and capitalist tyranny can be even more brutal than statist tyranny. Opposing both is the only consistent position.

Freedom without equality is merely the freedom of the master to rule over everyone else.

Mt-Tau

13-05-2006, 00:00

Well, thank you kindly, sir. Chocolate chip?

Ok, I have one of those that are 8" ones, fresh out of the oven!

Thegrandbus

13-05-2006, 00:45

God iz not socialist, I know that because I say it, I'm the Scriptures editor in chief.

The High Priest
- Not Socialist -
Hello there Jesuites I'd like to introduce you to my good friend Acts

There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.:D

Posi

13-05-2006, 00:51

I really can't see why people dislike National Socialism so much. It takes the best things from capitalism and socialism and puts them together. Excluding the extreme racism, nationalism and militarialism, it is the perfect system. And this isn't like communism when people say that is the perfect system. National Socialism has actually been proved to work very well.
How much of the success could be attributed to the government finding a profitable way (read:work them to death) to kill all people that opposed them? or the "increase your productivity or we'll shoot you" way of motivating the countries workers?

Blood has been shed

13-05-2006, 01:15

we live longer, .

If the cost of living longer means giving the majority of my money to the government, I'd rather take my early grave.

The Chinese Republics

13-05-2006, 01:52

I dispise the nanny state attitude it fosters.
Then what's the point of having a government?

Disraeliland 3

13-05-2006, 02:04

Hello there Jesuites I'd like to introduce you to my good friend Acts

Who promptly informs us that God is not a socialist, he believes in private charity. Private charity and welfare are not comprable. Welfare means extracting wealth at the threat of violence, and distributing it to those the government deems worthy. Private charity is giving of one's self, voluntarily to help the needy.

I disagree. There is no incentive problem, the idea of worrying about a new capitalism arising is the equivalent of worrying about a new despotism or feudalism arising, and as there is no need for prices, there is no need to worry about a pricing system.

There is an incentive problem. Socialism's pretence of caring for everyone means there's no need to work, and certainly no need to work hard, and efficiently.

As to a new capitalism arising, it happens every time socialism is tried in the form of the black market. Because socialism creates disincentives to produce, and has no rational price system, goods are highly scarce in the official market (Soviet bread lines for example), and there is no profit selling them in the official market. Goods are therefore diverted into the black market. People are eager to pay higher black market prices because the black market is reliable in bringing the goods people want.

Without a price system, a society cannot make any sort of economic calculation.

You have made absolutely no attempt to prove that the price system is not necessary.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 02:13

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!"

That is what they will say, and never stop to think about it. They judge human beings, just as all humans judge everything. It is what we need to do to survive.

Yet they don't think that ability - the ability to survive, the ability to make ones life easier, the ability to succeed - should be the measure of worth. No, they believe that need - the inability to fulfill one's desires and wishes, the inability to change the world to suit us, the inability to live - should be the measure.

Who is worthy? Is it the sprinter who wins the gold medal, or the couch potato who can do nothing but lament the unfairness of it all? Is it the student who gets an A on every test, or the student who fails? Is it the CEO who earns millions, or the bum who earns nothing?

And if you still think that need should be the measure of worth - then what would your world look like in ten years? In a hundred? In a thousand?
Humans will strive to be more worthy. If inability to live is worthy - then that will be the world you will get.

I wrote this on another forum as a speech yesterday, that's why it's formulated a little bit strange. But that is where Socialism falls down, IMHO.

Ma-tek

13-05-2006, 02:17

I wrote this on another forum as a speech yesterday, that's why it's formulated a little bit strange. But that is where Socialism falls down, IMHO.

Rather picky of me, I know, but what the devil does a CEO do to warrant millions in pay? Ah, yes, that's right. He has the privelige of governing people's income, and a good chunk of their daily lives.

Wait.

He gets paid for a privelige?

simple.]

Soheran

13-05-2006, 02:21

I wrote this on another forum as a speech yesterday, that's why it's formulated a little bit strange. But that is where Socialism falls down, IMHO.

You have the concept of "need" wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with being incapable; it has everything to do with being human. Starve the smartest, most talented human being in the world, and he will still die.

You are confusing socialism with extremist welfare statism, which it is not.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 02:35

Rather picky of me, I know, but what the devil does a CEO do to warrant millions in pay? Ah, yes, that's right. He has the privelige of governing people's income, and a good chunk of their daily lives.
You're one of those people who think a factory is a natural resource, don't you? That it doesn't take a human brain to conceive and create a factory, but that a factory somehow creates a human brain?

Starve the smartest, most talented human being in the world, and he will still die.
But the point is that you can only starve the smartest and most talented by using force. "Dumb and untalented" humans manage to starve themselves without any influence bar the demands of reality.

Soheran

13-05-2006, 02:40

Who promptly informs us that God is not a socialist, he believes in private charity. Private charity and welfare are not comprable. Welfare means extracting wealth at the threat of violence, and distributing it to those the government deems worthy. Private charity is giving of one's self, voluntarily to help the needy.

God thinks a lack of "voluntary charity" is such an atrocity that cities need to be burned and nations dispersed over it. Read Isaiah, Amos, and Lamentations.

And check out a few parts of the Pentateuch, too, which spell out a number of primitive social welfare programs, including a radical redistribution of land, and thus wealth, during the Jubilee year.

Not that all this stuff is confined to the Old Testament. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Soheran

13-05-2006, 02:43

But the point is that you can only starve the smartest and most talented by using force. "Dumb and untalented" humans manage to starve themselves without any influence bar the demands of reality.

The point is that the basis for distribution is not incapability, it is humanity. If you contribute "according to your ability," you receive "according to your need." A smart man needs food just as much as a stupid man; they both receive food.

Dosuun

13-05-2006, 02:49

I'm a libertarian boardering on anarchist. Do away with taxes and goverment as much as possible.

Socialism works on paper but not in practice.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 02:55

The point is that the basis for distribution is not incapability, it is humanity.
Humanity? What is that? What is your definition, and why is it universal?

Ma-tek

13-05-2006, 02:56

You're one of those people who think a factory is a natural resource, don't you? That it doesn't take a human brain to conceive and create a factory, but that a factory somehow creates a human brain?
<snip>

No... I'm not.

Nor is a factory designed by the CEO of a company, either. This may have once been the case, but it is no longer on the whole. The CEO hires someone who hires someone else who, in all likelihood, then hires someone else to subcontract the building work. So essentially, at least >2 people receive pay for paying someone else to do their job.

In fact, the CEO of an organisation hires people to do most of the work, if not ALL of the work. Their entire role is to hire and fire, which could be done for far less pay. Typically a CEO provides less capital return for a corporation than a shop floor worker, but can be paid up to one million times as much.

That is not a fair system, nor shall it ever be a fair system.

And I'm not a socialist, I'm a sociocrat.

Soheran

13-05-2006, 02:58

Humanity? What is that? What is your definition, and why is it universal?

Being a human being. It is not universal; rocks have a noticeable lack of that particular trait.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 03:01

In fact, the CEO of an organisation hires people to do most of the work, if not ALL of the work. Their entire role is to hire and fire, which could be done for far less pay. Typically a CEO provides less capital return for a corporation than a shop floor worker, but can be paid up to one million times as much.
An interesting thesis.

Interestingly enough though, it seems like companies (which are greedy, as in they exist only to maximise shareholder value) don't agree with you. Because for all the conspiracy theories and rhetoric, CEOs are the one's setting the strategic direction the firm is taking. Which is the ultimately biggest decision that can be made in a company - and apparently worth a lot of money to the shareholders.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 03:02

Being a human being. It is not universal; rocks have a noticeable lack of that particular trait.
That's mighty esoteric of you.

And what do humans do to not die out?

Culomee

13-05-2006, 03:08

I like to consider myself a centrist, though I tend to lean towards the left a little.

(Please note, in the next few paragraphs I am referring to the most radical socialists, that want Government owned everything, and zero private buisness. I do not refer to socialists in general. In fact, I myself believe in minor socialist economics.)

I dislike the more extreme forms of socialism. I see radical socialists as either misguided, greed-driven, or power-hungry. I see them as greed-driven, because radical socialists can't find a way to make a living on their own, and want a shitload of money they didn't earn. I see them as power-hungry, because any radical socialist not driven by the need to get government hand outs are politicians who want the power associated with the governmental control radical socialism brings. And any other radical socialist is misguided, because I see no way it can lead to a successful economy.

I think radical socialism is not fair in the least. You have lowlifes permanently attatched to the government's teat, not making a dime to support themselves, and you, who earned your living, have to pick up the tab.

However, I belive that it is essential for a government to include some form of socialism in it's economy. The government should help out any citizen who's fallen into hard times, and get them back on their feet, so they can become contributing members of society again. I don't think that the government should help out anyone who isn't even trying to get a job, and blows their welfare check on alcohol.

I think, however that the United States government has gone too far with welfare, and desperately needs reform. Social programs will soon become 50% of the national budget. I guarantee that half of that is going to people who don't even try to support themselves. In fact, it is easier to support yourself on welfare, than with a job. If my sister quit her job, she would be eligible for welfare, and she would make more on welfare than she would working. The only reason she doesn't is because she doesn't want to leech off of the rest of the citizens in the country. That is not right. The government is actually encouraging people to not work. That is real backwards.

Holy Hell, did I get off-topic. I'll stop ranting now :)

New Empire

13-05-2006, 03:09

The primary reason the government exists is to protect the rights of its people without violating those rights in the process. That's what liberty is. The freedom to do what you want without violating the rights of another.

Socialism, unless in a voluntary program, is economic coercion and violates the essential rights to individual choice and private property, ie, the rights to use them as one sees fit without violating the rights of another.

You can butter it up and say it's for the good of the people, but actual socialism assumes that property rights and individual liberties can be sacrificed in the 'interest of society', rather than allowing society to act independently.

It basically assumes the government knows what the people want and need better than they do.

(EDIT: Other note. If a socialist government is/becomes oppressive towards other personal rights, it can also blackmail the person into supporting the government by making them completely reliant on the government system. Are you really safe and free if you rely completely on the government for food, shelter, education, health, and all other aspects of life?)

Soheran

13-05-2006, 03:10

And what do humans do to not die out?

For individual survival, labor, to ensure a continued supply of necessities, and, of course, consumption of said necessities. For survival of the species, reproduction is also necessary.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 03:12

For individual survival, labor, to ensure a continued supply of necessities, and, of course, consumption of said necessities.
And if we were to assume that for some reason you were opposed to private individuals taking care of their own labour and what they do with it, how would we measure labour?

Soheran

13-05-2006, 03:17

(Please note, in the next few paragraphs I am referring to the most radical socialists, that want Government owned everything, and zero private buisness. I do not refer to socialists in general. In fact, I myself believe in minor socialist economics.)

I am one of the radical socialists, though I don't know if the form of societal organization I desire should be properly labeled a "government."

I dislike the more extreme forms of socialism. I see radical socialists as either misguided, greed-driven, or power-hungry. I see them as greed-driven, because radical socialists can't find a way to make a living on their own, and want a shitload of money they didn't earn.

Actually, I am more than content with what I have now. I am not a very materialistic person. I think it may have something to do with the lack of television.

I see them as power-hungry, because any radical socialist not driven by the need to get government hand outs are politicians who want the power associated with the governmental control radical socialism brings.

I am opposed to politicians. A democratic economy need not be statist.

And any other radical socialist is misguided, because I see no way it can lead to a successful economy.

Why?

I think radical socialism is not fair in the least. You have lowlifes permanently attatched to the government's teat, not making a dime to support themselves, and you, who earned your living, have to pick up the tab.

"From each according to his ability" means "from each according to his ability."

I think, however that the United States government has gone too far with welfare, and desperately needs reform. Social programs will soon become 50% of the national budget. I guarantee that half of that is going to people who don't even try to support themselves. In fact, it is easier to support yourself on welfare, than with a job. If my sister quit her job, she would be eligible for welfare, and she would make more on welfare than she would working. The only reason she doesn't is because she doesn't want to leech off of the rest of the citizens in the country. That is not right. The government is actually encouraging people to not work. That is real backwards.

Social Security and Medicare take up the vast majority of the social programs budget. They go to the elderly and the disabled, people who cannot work, not to the poor and unemployed. Means-tested programs are only a tiny portion of the budget.

Soheran

13-05-2006, 03:19

And if we were to assume that for some reason you were opposed to private individuals taking care of their own labour and what they do with it, how would we measure labour?

By time and intensity, in theory. Until someone comes up with a better method, in practice there would probably have to be higher levels of compensation for jobs nobody wanted to take, assuming equality of opportunity.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 03:23

By time and intensity, in theory.
Is work you do with your head measured differently to work done with your muscles?

How do you measure "intensity"? Some people are strong, they can lift a big weight with little effort. Others cannot.
The same goes for math problems, or ...let's say... factory design.

Soheran

13-05-2006, 03:24

Is work you do with your head measured differently to work done with your muscles?

How do you measure "intensity"? Some people are strong, they can lift a big weight with little effort. Others cannot.
The same goes for math problems, or ...let's say... factory design.

You can't. That's the problem, and why you would have to approximate it through some sort of supply and demand structure.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 03:32

You can't. That's the problem, and why you would have to measure it through some sort of supply and demand structure.
Oh...you mean like a market? Where a certain amount of labour can be sold and bought?

Let's just cut to the chase here:

There is no way a third party can measure how much I value the things I do and the things I own. It can't tell whether anything I own or do would be better applied anywhere else. There is no guarantee that its actions would improve anything. Indeed, if we assume that I know how to choose what seems best for me in any given situation, it's almost guaranteed to be worse.

That automatically excludes all forms of socialism which have a third party (government or otherwise) do distribution. Not only on the moral basis that is forcing people who have worked in expectation of a certain reward to get refused that reward, but on the practical basis that it will make most people worse off.

Which leaves only one thing: Contractarian agreements to share what is made, in a small group without involvement of a third party. In other words - Anarcho-Communism.

And another aspect of Anarcho-Communism is that it's all voluntary. If you don't want to live in that community, because you are simply more inclined to look after Number One, you can leave.

And other forms of society can be allowed to co-exist with Anarcho-Communism. There can be all sorts of communities, and they don't have to try to become all-inclusive.

And so, I can honestly say, I'm not particularly hostile to Anarcho-Communism. Because I would be free not to participate.

The Phalange

13-05-2006, 03:34

No, libertarianism and capitalism are inherently incompatible.

I've heard some stupid shit, but this really takes the cake. Libertarians favor minimal government. They are against nanny states, against governments controlling resources and telling people how they can spend their money, etc. Libertarians favor social and economic freedom.

Soheran

13-05-2006, 03:45

Oh...you mean like a market? Where a certain amount of labour can be sold and bought?

Yes, but the purchaser, instead of individual companies, would be some sort of democratic institution.

Let's just cut to the chase here:

There is no way a third party can measure how much I value the things I do and the things I own.

You, specifically, no. Society as a whole, yes.

It can't tell whether anything I own or do would be better applied anywhere else.

Sure it can, if its decisions are made on the basis of democracy. Because the distributor is under the control of the population, the resources distributed are distributed according to where they are most useful to the population.

There is no guarantee that its actions would improve anything.

Guarantee? No, there is not. There is no guarantee of anything.

Indeed, if we assume that I know how to choose what seems best for me in any given situation, it's almost guaranteed to be worse.

No, it's not. As I said, as long as the distributors are held accountable, many benefits can be wrought, because the equality in power eliminates the privilege of the powerful (not the capable, which is a different argument, but the powerful) that causes much of the inequity of capitalism.

That automatically excludes all forms of socialism which have a third party (government or otherwise) do distribution. Not only on the moral basis that is forcing people who have worked in expectation of a certain reward to get refused that reward,

No. This would only happen, if at all, in the transition period. After that, everyone would be perfectly aware of what monetary gain they could expect from labor.

Which leaves only one thing: Contractarian agreements to share what is made, in a small group without involvement of a third party. In other words - Anarcho-Communism.

Not necessarily in a small group.

And another aspect of Anarcho-Communism is that it's all voluntary. If you don't want to live in that community, because you are simply more inclined to look after Number One, you can leave.

If you think the anarcho-communists are just going to leave the capitalists alone because they voluntarily choose not to participate, you are wrong about most anarcho-communists. Yes, people who don't like it will be allowed to leave, but the capitalists will not be permitted to keep the means of production. Monetary compensation, at least for small shareholders, should be given, but a system of exploitation will not be retained just because the exploiters want to retain it. The slave-owners may have claimed property rights over their slaves, but that didn't, and shouldn't have, stopped emancipation.

And other forms of society can be allowed to co-exist with Anarcho-Communism. There can be all sorts of communities, and they don't have to try to become all-inclusive.

This is indeed true, and one of the reasons I like anarchism.

Soheran

13-05-2006, 03:47

I've heard some stupid shit, but this really takes the cake. Libertarians favor minimal government. They are against nanny states, against governments controlling resources and telling people how they can spend their money, etc. Libertarians favor social and economic freedom.

Right-libertarians; libertarian capitalists. Just because libertarian socialism has been disappeared from the US political scene doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Ma-tek

13-05-2006, 03:48

An interesting thesis.

Interestingly enough though, it seems like companies (which are greedy, as in they exist only to maximise shareholder value) don't agree with you. Because for all the conspiracy theories and rhetoric, CEOs are the one's setting the strategic direction the firm is taking. Which is the ultimately biggest decision that can be made in a company - and apparently worth a lot of money to the shareholders.

Not at all. The CEO selects the strategic direction the firm will take, from a raft of strategies presented by people hired to do the actual strategic planning for him. There are exceptions to this rule, but strategy (whether economic or militaristic) is frankly not taxing mentally, and certainly not worth a six-figure sum a year. Tactical thinking is, and this is where the true hard work is done - managers of local setups working far lower down the structure provide the bulk of the work, while those above sift and sort. They are buearacrats with delusions of grandeur.

As noted, there are exceptions, usually inside companies with a more thoughtful approach to employee management. But those exceptions are rare amongst those organisations capable of paying their top suits six-figure sums.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 04:09

Yes, but the purchaser, instead of individual companies, would be some sort of democratic institution.
And what is a democratic institution, but something that attempts to give every individual a voice? Well, guess what - in a market, I don't need representation, for I represent myself.

Society as a whole, yes.
That's silly.
Firstly - my point was about measuring how much I value me. "Society", whoever happens to represent it, can't do that.

Secondly, "society" is just a collection of individuals. What you are saying is that it's okay to hurt some individuals to help some others. That's not democratic, it's not in any way favourable to freedom and it does nothing but give every single human being an aura of the expendable:
You are unworthy, unnecessary, you don't even need to exist. Who cares about you?

Sure it can, if its decisions are made on the basis of democracy. Because the distributor is under the control of the population, the resources distributed are distributed according to where they are most useful to the population.
That is assuming that democracy, however you happen to define it, will always give you the best result. It doesn't. The Median Voter Theorem is just one example, rent-seeking behaviour another.
You think that participants in a democratic system will suddenly give up doing what is best for them? Think again.

Guarantee? No, there is not. There is no guarantee of anything.
There is a guarantee for one thing - you hurt those whose property you take. You're guaranteed to create some pain, for a chance to create some happiness.
It's not a good deal.

No, it's not. As I said, as long as the distributors are held accountable, many benefits can be wrought, because the equality in power eliminates the privilege of the powerful (not the capable, which is a different argument, but the powerful) that causes much of the inequity of capitalism.
"Equality in power"? How would you achieve that? Wouldn't some be able to convince many others? Aren't some people gifted speakers, or particularly charismatic? Aren't some people ruthless enough to use hate, irrationality or impossible promises to get support for their agendas?

Have you ever been to a meeting of the student union?

If a person is unskilled and uneducated enough to never be able to progress above the level of a cog in the machine created by another's mind - why would that change when you move from economics to politics?

No. This would only happen, if at all, in the transition period. After that, everyone would be perfectly aware of what monetary gain they could expect from labor.
Exactly. And if you can expect to only receive what you need, and you are virtually guaranteed this - then why bother?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Because your "democratic" institution will then proceed to punish you. Punish you for rational behaviour.

Not necessarily in a small group.
Well, coordination problems arise when you make the group larger. Then you start having to have a third party again, some form of government-like distribution agency.

If you think the anarcho-communists are just going to leave the capitalists alone because they voluntarily choose not to participate, you are wrong about most anarcho-communists. Yes, people who don't like it will be allowed to leave, but the capitalists will not be permitted to keep the means of production. Monetary compensation, at least for small shareholders, should be given, but a system of exploitation will not be retained just because the exploiters want to retain it. The slave-owners may have claimed property rights over their slaves, but that didn't, and shouldn't have, stopped emancipation.
Well, I operate from a purely theoretical point of view here. No anarchistic system can possibly succeed unless the world changes dramatically.

If it does, you are left in a world in which the means of production have to be rebuilt. Anarcho-Capitalists would proceed to do that, Anarcho-Communists depend on the few entrepreneurs in their midst to do it for them.

I suppose it is possible that Anarcho-Communists then become parasites and have to destroy the Anarcho-Capitalists (if they can - in a battle of the brain against the muscle) to own a little of the new capital for a while before they run it into the ground too.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 04:27

Not at all. The CEO selects the strategic direction the firm will take, from a raft of strategies presented by people hired to do the actual strategic planning for him.
Now, even if that were true, and the CEO wasn't involved with the creation of the strategies, and even if the action of selection wasn't the most difficult one - then you still ignore my point, which is that greedy shareholders obviously think that high CEO wages benefit them.

Ma-tek

13-05-2006, 04:45

Now, even if that were true, and the CEO wasn't involved with the creation of the strategies, and even if the action of selection wasn't the most difficult one - then you still ignore my point, which is that greedy shareholders obviously think that high CEO wages benefit them.

I read this several times because I'm fairly certain there's a joke in there somewhere. Considering the instability of the global market, you're bringing shareholder confidence in capitalism as a plus against socialism?

Somehow that doesn't add up.

Liberated Provinces

13-05-2006, 04:45

Giving money and power to the government is like giving alcohol and car keys to teenage boys.

Dissonant Cognition

13-05-2006, 05:03

Well, NationStates seems to have declared me a "democratic socialist." This is interesting because the government of Dissonant Cognition spends precisely 0% of its budget on welfare, healthcare, commerce, and social equality. And a politics test/quiz I took a couple of days ago classified me as a small government, liberal market, free trade, non-marxist socialist. I have noted that on the Political Compass test/quiz, my responses tend to fall along anti-corporation yet pro-free market lines.

I am fascinated by this ideological development. Considering myself, in any case, a libertarian, I would simply assert that so long as the economic model in question is participated in voluntarily, non-violently, and is free from the influences of government/state/corporate collusion, then whether it is "capitalist" or "socialist" is really entirely irrevelant. Indeed, under those conditions, the two systems of economic operation, I think, begin to converge onto exactly the same point: free association of free peoples :D

Slaughterhouse five

13-05-2006, 05:09

i would like to be a part of it. but i wouldnt want to give my paycheck away because of it

Soheran

13-05-2006, 05:14

And what is a democratic institution, but something that attempts to give every individual a voice? Well, guess what - in a market, I don't need representation, for I represent myself.

In the labor market, only those with capital are capable of representation on the "demand" side of things.

That's silly.
Firstly - my point was about measuring how much I value me. "Society", whoever happens to represent it, can't do that.

True.

Secondly, "society" is just a collection of individuals. What you are saying is that it's okay to hurt some individuals to help some others. That's not democratic, it's not in any way favourable to freedom and it does nothing but give every single human being an aura of the expendable:
You are unworthy, unnecessary, you don't even need to exist. Who cares about you?

The solution to this is free association. No one is compelled to participate; they are merely compelled not to exploit anybody else.

That is assuming that democracy, however you happen to define it, will always give you the best result. It doesn't. The Median Voter Theorem is just one example, rent-seeking behaviour another.

Always? No, of course not. But it is best, because any other system involves inequalities of power and thus a leadership that is privileged.

You think that participants in a democratic system will suddenly give up doing what is best for them? Think again.

No, I don't. Why should they? The system works fine if they do exactly that; since everyone has a voice and everyone uses that voice to pursue their own interests, everyone is provided for.

There is a guarantee for one thing - you hurt those whose property you take. You're guaranteed to create some pain, for a chance to create some happiness.
It's not a good deal.

Well, there are two ways we can approach this.

We can say that a person is the best arbiter of what they need, and thus we might as well assume that what they think they need is in fact what they need. In that case, it is not a "chance" at all - people know what best benefits them, and thus they organize a society that does so.

Or, we can say that a person is a poor arbiter of what they need, and that that assumption is an untenable one. In that case, yes, there is a chance that happiness will not be created for the recipients of the property taken - but there is also a chance that pain will not be created for those from whom property is taken.

"Equality in power"? How would you achieve that? Wouldn't some be able to convince many others? Aren't some people gifted speakers, or particularly charismatic? Aren't some people ruthless enough to use hate, irrationality or impossible promises to get support for their agendas?

Have you ever been to a meeting of the student union?

If a person is unskilled and uneducated enough to never be able to progress above the level of a cog in the machine created by another's mind - why would that change when you move from economics to politics?

You try to come as close as you can. Definitely, there will be demagogues and frauds, but at least if they are fallen for, the people have no one to blame but themselves.

Practically no one is naturally a cog in a machine. Powerlessness is rarely something that is freely chosen.

Exactly. And if you can expect to only receive what you need, and you are virtually guaranteed this - then why bother?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Because your "democratic" institution will then proceed to punish you. Punish you for rational behaviour.

You have a problem with denying things to people who don't do any work? Maybe you should give up on capitalism then.

Well, coordination problems arise when you make the group larger. Then you start having to have a third party again, some form of government-like distribution agency.

True. That is a very significant problem for me; the logic of comparative advantage and economies of scale compels some sort of large-scale economy, but management of such an economy would involve a level of centralization that is also problematic.

Ultimately, the voluntary nature of the associations will hopefully suffice to restrict top-down authority.

Well, I operate from a purely theoretical point of view here. No anarchistic system can possibly succeed unless the world changes dramatically.

If it does, you are left in a world in which the means of production have to be rebuilt. Anarcho-Capitalists would proceed to do that, Anarcho-Communists depend on the few entrepreneurs in their midst to do it for them.

The entrepreneurs who, with their wonderful mental capabilities, magically raise factories out of nothing just by conceiving of them?

I suppose it is possible that Anarcho-Communists then become parasites and have to destroy the Anarcho-Capitalists (if they can - in a battle of the brain against the muscle) to own a little of the new capital for a while before they run it into the ground too.

Because, naturally, anyone stupid enough to be an anarcho-communist is a talentless fool.

Frostralia

13-05-2006, 05:27

Social Security and Medicare take up the vast majority of the social programs budget. They go to the elderly and the disabled, people who cannot work, not to the poor and unemployed. Means-tested programs are only a tiny portion of the budget.
The elderly would be much better off if they invested their money privately, instead of having it taken by the government to be put into social security.

Neu Leonstein

13-05-2006, 05:56

I read this several times because I'm fairly certain there's a joke in there somewhere. Considering the instability of the global market, you're bringing shareholder confidence in capitalism as a plus against socialism?

Somehow that doesn't add up.
That's because you've got an interesting gift for random association. :p

I'm bringing up that shareholders regularly agree on giving CEOs huge amounts of money for the work that they do. And since shareholders are (and I think that is universally accepted) interested in maximising the value of their share, to them at least it must seem like the work a CEO does is tremendously important.

And at least in my view, that is good enough. No one forces the shareholders to give away some of their earnings.

In the labor market, only those with capital are capable of representation on the "demand" side of things.
And your solution to a market where only those with the money to pay a worker can play is a market with a monopoly?

The solution to this is free association. No one is compelled to participate; they are merely compelled not to exploit anybody else.
And if they wish to "exploit" someone, they can leave and live in a community where workers don't see it as being exploited. Very well.

Always? No, of course not. But it is best, because any other system involves inequalities of power and thus a leadership that is privileged.
I think we already established that some are better at playing the game of democracy than others. And we already established that in a democracy, everyone will still do what they consider best for themselves.
So why aren't those who are selfish and good at getting others to agree with them a privileged leadership?

We can say that a person is the best arbiter of what they need, and thus we might as well assume that what they think they need is in fact what they need. In that case, it is not a "chance" at all - people know what best benefits them, and thus they organize a society that does so.
The problem you now have is that you are supposing that everything is everyone's business. It isn't.
Most decisions and trades really just affect very few people in any significant way. Yet your "democratic entity" would make decisions for those few people by asking everyone.
And instead of vying for better deals through either offering more skill or more reward for skill, you do it through trying to convince random third parties.

Now, you could of course say that you'd make the decisions democratically on a smaller scale. But then, you wouldn't be talking about "society" anymore, but about a simple one-on-one fight in which one forces the other to comply without offering a reward.

You try to come as close as you can. Definitely, there will be demagogues and frauds, but at least if they are fallen for, the people have no one to blame but themselves.
Practically no one is naturally a cog in a machine. Powerlessness is rarely something that is freely chosen.
Powerlessness is a result of choice. People don't say "I choose to be powerless!", but they do say "I choose to not study for my exam! I choose to watch TV rather than attend extra training classes! I choose not to care what my boss thinks of me and my work!"
We live in a world in which everyone can potentially become anything they want. The only two factors are education (which can be gained through choosing to learn and work hard) and money (which is the reward for one's labour and skills).

What you are promising me is that I, who comes from a poor background at the moment, will never be able to succeed and become rich. Yet I will.

You have a problem with denying things to people who don't do any work? Maybe you should give up on capitalism then.
My point was that there is no difference. The ultimate only difference is that I believe in the potential of human beings to succeed if they so choose, and you believe in the futility of effort.

Ultimately, the voluntary nature of the associations will hopefully suffice to restrict top-down authority.
Why don't you believe that workers could voluntarily work for their bosses, in exchange for a wage? I mean, look around! They obviously do.

The entrepreneurs who, with their wonderful mental capabilities, magically raise factories out of nothing just by conceiving of them?
No. I think we talked about this before.
Not only can entrepreneurs use their hands as well as their minds, but there are workers who look at the world as a set of challenges to overcome. Those are the workers, however unskilled and poor they might start out as, who will support the entrepreneurs because they see that that is what is best for them, and consistent with their own values.

Because, naturally, anyone stupid enough to be an anarcho-communist is a talentless fool.
Not necessarily. But keeping in mind that people will generally expect a reward for extra work, most of the talented ones will probably end up leaving.
Only a hard core of talented people committed to the idea is left, and that may not be enough to run a sufficiently large economy.

INO Valley

13-05-2006, 06:21

In fact, the CEO of an organisation hires people to do most of the work, if not ALL of the work. Their entire role is to hire and fire, which could be done for far less pay.
You seem to have confuse the duties of a CEO with that of a human resources director.

Ok, I have one of those that are 8" ones, fresh out of the oven!
Excellent. :D

INO, I think I am in love with you.
Wait, that may have been a bit extreme. Nevermind.
But still, that was brilliant. Very well laid out argument using evidence and everything. Not something one comes to expect in the General forums.

Why, thank you very much. :)

Socialism is a morally superior system to capitalism, in theory.
Only if you believe that tyranny is morally superior to liberty.

It's better than Communism.
In the same sense that rape is better than murder.

Thegrandbus

13-05-2006, 06:37

Ma-tek

13-05-2006, 14:43

*shrug*

Soheran

13-05-2006, 18:52

And your solution to a market where only those with the money to pay a worker can play is a market with a monopoly?

Considering that I'm an anarchist, absolutely not.

And if they wish to "exploit" someone, they can leave and live in a community where workers don't see it as being exploited. Very well.

But will the workers contentedly agree to be exploited if there is an alternative?

I think we already established that some are better at playing the game of democracy than others. And we already established that in a democracy, everyone will still do what they consider best for themselves.
So why aren't those who are selfish and good at getting others to agree with them a privileged leadership?

Because the people themselves choose to let them take power, and have ultimate control over whether or not they will stay there.

The problem you now have is that you are supposing that everything is everyone's business. It isn't.
Most decisions and trades really just affect very few people in any significant way. Yet your "democratic entity" would make decisions for those few people by asking everyone.

Actually, no. The most significant small-scale decisions - consumer decisions on what to buy and labor decisions on where to work - are left to the individual. The only decisions that are made collectively are decisions that are often made on the large scale even today, only this time, instead of those decisions being made through essentially oligarchical structures like corporations, they are instead made through democratic means.

Powerlessness is a result of choice. People don't say "I choose to be powerless!", but they do say "I choose to not study for my exam! I choose to watch TV rather than attend extra training classes! I choose not to care what my boss thinks of me and my work!"
We live in a world in which everyone can potentially become anything they want. The only two factors are education (which can be gained through choosing to learn and work hard) and money (which is the reward for one's labour and skills).

This may be true for most people in the First World. It is definitely not true for most people in the Third World and definitely not true for many people at the bottom rungs of, say, the US economy.

More importantly, however, the fact remains that while through hard work and a great deal of talent some poor people may be able to advance, those already at the top need neither, and the question remains - why should hard work and talent be necessary at all? And even if it should be necessary, why do we make the poor "lift themselves up by the bootstraps" while we permit the rich to be already lifted up by an accident of birth?

And why do we make entrepreneurs without their own capital rely on those who do possess capital, however untalented or lazy they may be?

What you are promising me is that I, who comes from a poor background at the moment, will never be able to succeed and become rich. Yet I will.

I promise nothing of the sort. But it is likely that George W. Bush got into Yale and became rich with far less work than you have contributed and far less talent than you possess.

My point was that there is no difference. The ultimate only difference is that I believe in the potential of human beings to succeed if they so choose, and you believe in the futility of effort.

"Futility" is the wrong word. I believe that there are vast inequalities in necessary effort, and that a society which overworks and overstresses its participants is not a worthy society.

Why don't you believe that workers could voluntarily work for their bosses, in exchange for a wage? I mean, look around! They obviously do.

But that only proves - if we assume complete knowledge and rational behavior - that the job they choose is the best option of their options, not that their options are decent or just.

No. I think we talked about this before.
Not only can entrepreneurs use their hands as well as their minds, but there are workers who look at the world as a set of challenges to overcome. Those are the workers, however unskilled and poor they might start out as, who will support the entrepreneurs because they see that that is what is best for them, and consistent with their own values.

The point is that it is illusory to suppose that the only contributions will be from the entrepreneurs. And that error leads to the error you make in your next section:

Not necessarily. But keeping in mind that people will generally expect a reward for extra work, most of the talented ones will probably end up leaving.
Only a hard core of talented people committed to the idea is left, and that may not be enough to run a sufficiently large economy.

And what happens to the anarcho-capitalist society if everyone who does not meet its definition of "worth" - anyone without money, regardless of talent or work ethic - goes to the anarcho-communist society?

Santa Barbara

13-05-2006, 18:58

And what happens to the anarcho-capitalist society if everyone who does not meet its definition of "worth" - anyone without money, regardless of talent or work ethic - goes to the anarcho-communist society?

Ooh, I can answer this one!

It has an emigration rate above zero.

Neu Leonstein

14-05-2006, 01:24

Considering that I'm an anarchist, absolutely not.
I think we could agree that a world in which economics is 'fair' is (at least as it developed so far) not a default state, and requires some form intervention.
What we were talking about was the market as an ultimately free and democratic system, because every minority - every individual - can represent itself.
To which you replied that this is not true for those without money.

My question is who the alternative is, if not a monopolistic force that either does the hiring and firing alone, or at least forces individuals to act in a certain way.

But will the workers contentedly agree to be exploited if there is an alternative?
I know that many workers' movements presume that all workers see their bosses roughly the same way. But to be honest, I don't think that is true, at least not anymore.
If you go into the average factory, I don't think the people who reward their work as exploitation would even make the majority.

Because the people themselves choose to let them take power, and have ultimate control over whether or not they will stay there.
You know the power of a persuasive, charismatic politician. Whether or not he is in power becomes more a question of personal ambition than the masses. One human is smart - many humans together aren't.

The only decisions that are made collectively are decisions that are often made on the large scale even today, only this time, instead of those decisions being made through essentially oligarchical structures like corporations, they are instead made through democratic means.
So...does that go for all large-scale decisions? Like what sort of nuclear reactor type should be constructed? And we're gonna give everyone the rundown in nuclear physics?

This may be true for most people in the First World. It is definitely not true for most people in the Third World and definitely not true for many people at the bottom rungs of, say, the US economy.
These are two different categories though.
The former is true - these people do lack the basic structure around them they need to make something of themselves. However, it would be silly to blame capitalism, when the fault lies first and foremost with their own governments.
After the Korean War, South Korea was poorer than Ghana. Then their government became something sensible, did the right things and you know the result. What has happened to the government of Ghana meanwhile?

The second, I believe, is more a matter of a personal lack of perspective. Yes, it is incredibly difficult for the poorest in the US to make it. But again, I would look at the state of the public school system, the state of the US welfare system and the state of the US healthcare system.
Those are all government programs! And it's not the lack of spending (look at the figures), it's the incompetence of those who distribute it.

More importantly, however, the fact remains that while through hard work and a great deal of talent some poor people may be able to advance, those already at the top need neither...
That's not true. Money is not a guarantee to anything (especially not happiness). There have been thousands of cases of rich heirs losing their fortunes because they couldn't prove themselves equal to their parent's achievements.
Whether or not it is easier to lose a fortune than to gain it is another discussion though.

The question remains nonetheless: Are we going to build an economic system on envy?

Also interesting, although probably not up your alley, is this excerpt out of Atlas Shrugged about money. It was one of my favourite parts of the book.
http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

...and the question remains - why should hard work and talent be necessary at all?
I don't think that is for us to lament. Such is the reality of life - without work, there is no reward.

And why do we make entrepreneurs without their own capital rely on those who do possess capital, however untalented or lazy they may be?
If they were lazy and untalented, they wouldn't be in that business. Investment Banking is one of the hardest jobs there is on the planet. No factory worker (at least in the Western world) works 100 hour weeks, 100 hours of hard mental pressure and constant concentration. It burns a person out pretty quick unless they can prove themselves equal to the challenge.

As for the question why they exist: Banks are places where people store their money. There is nothing wrong with that.
Banks are also in the business of making that money (and therefore their own) grow. I don't think there is anything wrong with that either.
And because most people don't have millions under their mattresses (unless they're in Zimbabwe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4765187.stm) :p ), they need help. Banks provide that help, and at the same time function as a screening process for whether or not an idea is any good. Nothing wrong with that.
And a bank will never refuse a proposal that is properly worked out and looks promising. Banks can take greater risks than individuals anyways, and their only goal is for the people they loan money to to succeed.

But it is likely that George W. Bush got into Yale and became rich with far less work than you have contributed and far less talent than you possess.
That is true. But then, he failed at every business venture he ever got into. And then he instead tried the 'democratic institution' way, and lo and behold - the voters weren't as able as the market to measure the true worth of his contribution.

But that only proves - if we assume complete knowledge and rational behavior - that the job they choose is the best option of their options, not that their options are decent or just.
Yes. But then, there is little you can complain about. Whether it is economics, politics or simply choosing between being eating by a bear or climb up a tree and get stung by bees who got a nest there, the world is not utopian.

And if the option is between working hard themselves, or denying that their bosses work too, denying the product of their work and then proceeding to advocate the violent theft of that product, obviously most modern workers choose the former.

And what happens to the anarcho-capitalist society if everyone who does not meet its definition of "worth" - anyone without money, regardless of talent or work ethic - goes to the anarcho-communist society?
Well, in the Anarcho-Capitalist society, talent and work ethic must lead to money. So everyone of worth would have money or be on the way to making money.
But those who are not, yes, they might leave. But how talented those are is another question.

DHomme

14-05-2006, 01:29

http://www.barbashov.com/Assets/Images/CurrentNews/052005/red-flag-on-Reichstag-may-1.jpg

Soheran

14-05-2006, 01:43

http://www.barbashov.com/Assets/Images/CurrentNews/052005/red-flag-on-Reichstag-may-1.jpg

And here I was thinking you were a Trotskyist.... :p

Soheran

14-05-2006, 02:43

I think we could agree that a world in which economics is 'fair' is (at least as it developed so far) not a default state, and requires some form intervention.
What we were talking about was the market as an ultimately free and democratic system, because every minority - every individual - can represent itself.
To which you replied that this is not true for those without money.

My question is who the alternative is, if not a monopolistic force that either does the hiring and firing alone, or at least forces individuals to act in a certain way.

The worker's associations that would control the economy would not be monopolistic, because workers would be free to move from one to another, and also because anyone who so desired could ditch the community entirely and go someplace else.

I know that many workers' movements presume that all workers see their bosses roughly the same way. But to be honest, I don't think that is true, at least not anymore.
If you go into the average factory, I don't think the people who reward their work as exploitation would even make the majority.

That's irrelevant. What matters is whether the position of workers in the anarcho-socialist economy will be substantially better or worse than in the capitalist ones.

If it is substantially better, then it follows that labor will flock to the anarcho-socialist economies. If it is not, at least after a reasonable quantity of time for the system to get established, then the experiment has failed and deserves to die.

You know the power of a persuasive, charismatic politician. Whether or not he is in power becomes more a question of personal ambition than the masses. One human is smart - many humans together aren't.

Well, you would try to keep "leaders" in general out of it, as much as possible.

Popular involvement in decision-making actually has a pretty good track record; you, who kept on invoking Amartya Sen on that other thread, should surely be aware of that. Human beings may be stupid, gullible, etc., but they don't stop being any of those things when they are put at the top of hierarchies.

So...does that go for all large-scale decisions? Like what sort of nuclear reactor type should be constructed? And we're gonna give everyone the rundown in nuclear physics?

No, you'd delegate it to those with special knowledge. Do shareholders vote on every little detail of what their company is producing?

These are two different categories though.
The former is true - these people do lack the basic structure around them they need to make something of themselves. However, it would be silly to blame capitalism, when the fault lies first and foremost with their own governments.
After the Korean War, South Korea was poorer than Ghana. Then their government became something sensible, did the right things and you know the result. What has happened to the government of Ghana meanwhile?

Is a First World level of wealth viable for the whole world, whatever economic policies are adopted? With all the pollution and waste it produces, that's at best an open question, one we will probably have to answer within the next fifty or sixty years.

The second, I believe, is more a matter of a personal lack of perspective. Yes, it is incredibly difficult for the poorest in the US to make it. But again, I would look at the state of the public school system, the state of the US welfare system and the state of the US healthcare system.
Those are all government programs! And it's not the lack of spending (look at the figures), it's the incompetence of those who distribute it.

Oh, so the private sector would do better? And what magical tool will you use on them to make them care in the slightest about people from whom a profit cannot be made?

Countries like France, with all the evil government bureaucracy and inefficiency, have managed to do far better than the US at this in at least some respects, and that's because they have pursued more government intervention, not less.

That's not true. Money is not a guarantee to anything (especially not happiness). There have been thousands of cases of rich heirs losing their fortunes because they couldn't prove themselves equal to their parent's achievements.
Whether or not it is easier to lose a fortune than to gain it is another discussion though.

You're missing the point, though. They might lose their fortunes, but they hardly fall down into poverty (usually). They have far more opportunities, far more second chances, far more wiggle-room, than the children of the poor.

The question remains nonetheless: Are we going to build an economic system on envy?

No. An egalitarian economic system is not an economic system based on envy, it is an economic system based on justice.

Also interesting, although probably not up your alley, is this excerpt out of Atlas Shrugged about money. It was one of my favourite parts of the book.
http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

There is nothing wrong with money. The real issue is power, not pieces of paper with pictures and numbers on them, or even the resources they represent.

I don't think that is for us to lament. Such is the reality of life - without work, there is no reward.

If people are forced to work hard because of societal obstacles instead of natural law, certainly it is something that should be addressed.

If they were lazy and untalented, they wouldn't be in that business. Investment Banking is one of the hardest jobs there is on the planet. No factory worker (at least in the Western world) works 100 hour weeks, 100 hours of hard mental pressure and constant concentration. It burns a person out pretty quick unless they can prove themselves equal to the challenge.

But the worker is not the owner. I am talking about the people who own the money, not the people who make the decisions to lend it out.

As for the question why they exist: Banks are places where people store their money. There is nothing wrong with that.
Banks are also in the business of making that money (and therefore their own) grow. I don't think there is anything wrong with that either.
And because most people don't have millions under their mattresses (unless they're in Zimbabwe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4765187.stm) :p ), they need help. Banks provide that help, and at the same time function as a screening process for whether or not an idea is any good. Nothing wrong with that.
And a bank will never refuse a proposal that is properly worked out and looks promising. Banks can take greater risks than individuals anyways, and their only goal is for the people they loan money to to succeed.

I have nothing against banks, except when they indulge in the usurious super-exploitation of the poor. My question is not "why do we have banks?" but "why do we embrace a social system that needs them?"

That is true. But then, he failed at every business venture he ever got into. And then he instead tried the 'democratic institution' way, and lo and behold - the voters weren't as able as the market to measure the true worth of his contribution.

Lots of problems with this analogy.

1. The US political system is not exactly a pinnacle of democracy.
2. Bush is a mere figurehead, he contributes little. If he were really in charge he would have been annihilated electorally.
3. The "opposition" to Bush, as far as presenting an alternative, has been lackluster and spineless.

I will agree that private industry as a whole tends to be rather less religiously fundamentalist than the US population, and that undoubtedly has its effects. One of the best aspects of US free market capitalism is the way the mass consumer market it has created is wreaking havoc upon religious fundamentalism and puritanical moral values. If they were serious, Pat Robertson etc. would be ardent authoritarian leftists instead of all-around reactionaries. Something of this can be seen in the Middle East.

Yes. But then, there is little you can complain about. Whether it is economics, politics or simply choosing between being eating by a bear or climb up a tree and get stung by bees who got a nest there, the world is not utopian.

By the same logic, slaves had little to complain about, too; after all, they had the option of attempting escape.

And if the option is between working hard themselves, or denying that their bosses work too, denying the product of their work and then proceeding to advocate the violent theft of that product, obviously most modern workers choose the former.

At the moment, that is true.

Well, in the Anarcho-Capitalist society, talent and work ethic must lead to money. So everyone of worth would have money or be on the way to making money.

Theoretically. But countries like China didn't maximize the output of their talent and work ethic by leaving the economy alone, at least not at first; instead they invested in human capital and attained great dividends from it.

Without substantial interference in the ordinary workings of capitalism, class inequality will suppress talent in those at the bottom and degrade it in those at the top.

Jello Biafra

14-05-2006, 07:23

In honestly, I don't wish for a morally superior system. I would like a FREE system.Fortunately, socialism maximizes freedom.

There is an incentive problem. Socialism's pretence of caring for everyone means there's no need to work, and certainly no need to work hard, and efficiently.Most socialists would not care for someone who did not work. As Bakunin said "Labor being the sole source of wealth, everyone is free to die of hunger or to live in the deserts or the forests...but whoever wants to live in society must earn his living by his own labor."

As to a new capitalism arising, it happens every time socialism is tried in the form of the black market. Socialism has only been tried on a small scale, and there wasn't any particular black market arising from it.

(Soviet bread lines for example), One example of socialism not being tried on something other than a small scale.

Without a price system, a society cannot make any sort of economic calculation.Except of course, by asking people directly, without the inexact mechanism that is the price system.

Disraeliland 3

14-05-2006, 07:53

Fortunately, socialism maximizes freedom.

By eliminating private property? Sorry, a people without private property cannot by definition have any freedom.

Most socialists would not care for someone who did not work.

Rubbish. They do, and advocate exactly that.

Socialism has only been tried on a small scale, and there wasn't any particular black market arising from it.

Rubbish, large scale implementations of socialism, especially on the national scale, have always resulted in black markets for quite obvious reasons which I have already stated.

Except of course, by asking people directly, without the inexact mechanism that is the price system.

By asking hundreds of millions of people directly, and simply doing it?

You have absolutely no understanding of what prices are, and the role they play. You simply assume that there will always be enough to sayisfy everyone, and all that has to happen is that they be asked what they want.

Your response is nothing more than a collection of ommissions, and distortions. Just as most socialist responses are.

Dobbsworld

14-05-2006, 07:57

Just as most socialist responses are.This last was unneccesary, D3. No need to patronize. There aren't any Moscow agents hiding in your tea-kettle these days, after all.

Jello Biafra

14-05-2006, 07:59

By eliminating private property? Sorry, a people without private property cannot by definition have any freedom.The concept of property in and of itself is anti-freedom, as ownership is to restrict others from using a certain piece of property. A restriction on use = a restriction of freedom.

Rubbish. They do, and advocate exactly that.Some do, most don't.

Rubbish, large scale implementations of socialism, especially on the national scale, have always resulted in black markets for quite obvious reasons which I have already stated.Socialism has never been tried large scale, or on the national scale.

By asking hundreds of millions of people directly, and simply doing it?Not necessarily.

You have absolutely no understanding of what prices are, and the role they play. You simply assume that there will always be enough to sayisfy everyone, and all that has to happen is that they be asked what they want.I've never said that there will be enough to satisfy everyone, but asking people what they want is the first step to satisfying their wants.

Disraeliland 3

14-05-2006, 08:32

The concept of property in and of itself is anti-freedom, as ownership is to restrict others from using a certain piece of property. A restriction on use = a restriction of freedom.

Which is the same as saying that laws that require you to drive on a particular side of the road are a restriction on freedom of movement, and laws against murder are a restriction of the right to take life.

I suggest you read Chapter 1, Part B of Capitalism by George Reisman with specific regard to the passages on "The Rational Versus The Anarchic Concept of Freedom".

Socialism has never been tried large scale, or on the national scale.

The "no-true Scotsman" fallacy again.

The reason socialists depend on this logical fallacy is that it provides a convenient way to maintain the idea that socialism is viable, and can succeed. They achieve this cognitive dissonance by defining any failure, or criminality as not being socialist.

I've never said that there will be enough to satisfy everyone, but asking people what they want is the first step to satisfying their wants.

And you've no cogent ideas on the next steps. The free market has comprehensive solutions that work, and have worked in the real world. ALl you are posing is half-baked theories.

Mikesburg

14-05-2006, 13:52

By eliminating private property? Sorry, a people without private property cannot by definition have any freedom.

Does this imply that someone who doesn't own property isn't free? If you can own property, but don't have an official 'right' to property (i.e. Canada), does that imply that you lack freedom?

The concept of property in and of itself is anti-freedom, as ownership is to restrict others from using a certain piece of property. A restriction on use = a restriction of freedom.

The concept of property allows the individual the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours without interference from the state or the masses. What is yours is yours, and what is mine is mine. Delineating who owns what is the first step to preventing exploitation. By making my home and property 'mine', I grant myself freedom from people helping themselves to what I have worked for.

Disraeliland 3

14-05-2006, 14:15

Does this imply that someone who doesn't own property isn't free? If you can own property, but don't have an official 'right' to property (i.e. Canada), does that imply that you lack freedom?

To the first question: No. What I meant was one is free to own property.

To the second, you do not lack the right, but the right is difficult, or impossible to defend.

Swilatia

14-05-2006, 16:06

Socialism and Communism have something in common that you may not realise:THEY ARE BOTH EVIL!

Soheran

14-05-2006, 16:11

By eliminating private property? Sorry, a people without private property cannot by definition have any freedom.

That's a strange definition of freedom you have.

The elimination of private property does not, as some imagine, entail mass theft. Theft is the transference of justly owned property from one private owner to another private owner without the consent of the former. Common ownership is when property can be used by anyone, depending on need. How exactly that would eliminate freedom is beyond me.

Note also that socialism does not abolish private property entirely, merely private property over the means of production. Personally, I support maintaining rights over personal property, for purely practical reasons; it minimizes conflict, eliminates the necessity of creating complex rules for who needs what more, and allows for monetary compensation for exceptional labor. The basic concept of restricting property to what someone actively uses, however, makes sense to me.

Disraeliland 3

14-05-2006, 17:32

That's a strange definition of freedom you have.

Strange as in logically consistant, and widely accepted in that most of the world's human rights documents recognise a right to private property?

That's an odd type of strange. It seems more like commonplace.

Let us analyse freedom without private property, and freedom with private property from the point of freedom of speech.

With private property, you can own the means of speech which you can use as you see fit. You can own computers, radio transmitters and receivers, printing presses and materials etc. You can also own other forms of property, or cash which you can use to rent, or borrow these implements from others. You can own or rent meeting places in which you can give a speech, or show some sort of presentation. You can also own cahs with which to purchase tickets to attend such occasions. You can do this without any restriction because you have private property rights.

Let us now consider free speech without private property rights. You can't own any of the implements of speech, nor can you own anything with which to rent them.

The only speech allowed in such an order is that the government allows.

Theft is the transference of justly owned property from one private owner to another private owner without the consent of the former.

That is not consistant with any definition of theft of which I know. No definition of theft, other than that you've contrived describes the nature of the thief, merely that he takes property without the consent of its rightful owner.

Common ownership is when property can be used by anyone, depending on need. How exactly that would eliminate freedom is beyond me.

Someone must exert control over it. Someone must define "need", and decide which need is greater than the other. That someone is government.

The definition of freedom you are using would fit perfectly with the statement "if you outlaw murder, you remove my freedom to kill people".

I suggest you read Chapter 1, Part B of Capitalism by George Reisman with specific regard to the passages on "The Rational Versus The Anarchic Concept of Freedom".

The book can be downloaded for free at this link: http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

I will explain it in short:

Rational freedom presupposes that reality exists, and with it laws of nature, the necessity of making a choice among alternatives, and that if one resorts to force one will be met with force. Most importantly, it presupposes the necessity of obtaining the voluntary cooperation of everyone who is to aid in an activity, and the owner/s of any property to be involved.

Freedom is therefore, under a rational conception, the absence of force in relationships.

Irrational, or anarchic freedom seeks to eliminate the distinction between two sorts of obstacles, one sort is the facts of reality and includes the voluntary choices of others, the other is the threat or use of force.

The latter is what you have employed.

The rational concept of freedom is logically consistant, and fits in with reality. I cannot draw square circles. I cannot attempt to kill someone without facing resistance, and punishment by the law, I cannot do the horizontal mambo with Kate Ceberano (Australian singer) because she would not consent.

The fact that I cannot do these things I might like to do is not in any way a restriction of my freedom.

It would be a violation of my freedom if Kate Ceberano consented to have it off with me, and a police man arrested me in mid-shag.

The anarchic concept of freedom you are employing is usually employed as a cover for a real violation of freedom, in this case, private property rights.

Note also that socialism does not abolish private property entirely, merely private property over the means of production. Personally, I support maintaining rights over personal property

What a sales pitch! I can't invest savings in productive enterprises for my benefit, and that of my family, but no one will be after my sandals.

You have of course contradicted yourself, in that private property under socialism is, as you pointed out, a privilege allowed to the extent the rulers of socialism think it desirable. They can revoke it should it become inconvenient.

The basic concept of restricting property to what someone actively uses, however, makes sense to me.

I won't comment on the inner workings of your head, but what your theory means simply is that every man is the slave of his fellows.

Jello Biafra

14-05-2006, 17:34

Which is the same as saying that laws that require you to drive on a particular side of the road are a restriction on freedom of movement, and laws against murder are a restriction of the right to take life.No. The concept of property is defined by, maintained by, and in the interests of the ruling class. Property rights being based upon use is in the interests of everyone.

The "no-true Scotsman" fallacy again.

The reason socialists depend on this logical fallacy is that it provides a convenient way to maintain the idea that socialism is viable, and can succeed. They achieve this cognitive dissonance by defining any failure, or criminality as not being socialist.I suggest you read up on what the no-true Scotsman fallacy is. Using the correct definition of a word (socialism) and saying that something else doesn't fit that definition is not employing that fallacy, it is instead accurately describing something.

And you've no cogent ideas on the next steps. I haven't given my ideas on the next steps, it's rather presumptuous of you to say that they aren't cogent.

The free market has comprehensive solutions that work, and have worked in the real world. ALl you are posing is half-baked theories.The free market doesn't work in the real world, which is why governments interfere in the markets to at least some degree.

The concept of property allows the individual the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours without interference from the state or the masses. What is yours is yours, and what is mine is mine. Delineating who owns what is the first step to preventing exploitation. By making my home and property 'mine', I grant myself freedom from people helping themselves to what I have worked for.The ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labors is consistent with property rights being based upon use. It's rather silly to say that property rights allow this to be done without interference from the state, as it is the state who determines what is or what isn't rightfully owned property. What's yours is yours and mine is mine can be done through use, with the provision that when you stop using it, it's no longer yours. Unlike ownership, this prevents exploitation, as it becomes incredibly difficult to hoard things.

Mourningrad

14-05-2006, 17:45

I'm radically in favor of socialism - libertarian socialism, with some market mechanisms.

I've never understood the term "libertarian socialist", primarily because its seems so oxymoronic. True libertarianism advocates minimizing government regulations in social, political AND economic spheres. Regardless of what Chomsky says, I can't understand how socialism, which advocates strong economic and buisness restrictions, can be paired with libertarianism. Its a problematic term.

Disraeliland 3

14-05-2006, 17:53

No. The concept of property is defined by, maintained by, and in the interests of the ruling class. Property rights being based upon use is in the interests of everyone.

You've degenerated to Marxian conspiracy theories.

I suggest you read up on what the no-true Scotsman fallacy is. Using the correct definition of a word (socialism) and saying that something else doesn't fit that definition is not employing that fallacy, it is instead accurately describing something.

Nonsense, every socialist regime that socialists now claim to revile was praised highly until the failure, collapse, or sheer brutality came out.

At best you are using a minor variation of the no-true Scotsman fallacy in having a individual definition of socialism which is vague and leaves a great deal unresolved. Of course nothing in reality could meet such a definition because the definition itself is inconsistant with reality. Your own theories have been showed thus.

I haven't given my ideas on the next steps, it's rather presumptuous of you to say that they aren't cogent.

Yes you have. You've done it elsewhere. You seem to forget that I've rather a long memory, and remember your theories (if indeed, they are yours), and you could not produce much in the way of cogent solutions.

The free market doesn't work in the real world, which is why governments interfere in the markets to at least some degree.

Yes it does, and history has shown that the more free an economy, the more prosperous the society is.

The ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labors is consistent with property rights being based upon use.

No, it isn't. They are two totally different bases for defining property rights. One is based on homesteading and trade, the other on what third parties (which I shall take to be government) define as an acceptable use.

It's rather silly to say that property rights allow this to be done without interference from the state, as it is the state who determines what is or what isn't rightfully owned property.

In a free country, it doesn't. The most a free state does is provide a means to make such a determination.

Unlike ownership, this prevents exploitation, as it becomes incredibly difficult to hoard things.

You have unwittingly said something useful. Of course socialism must prevent any "hoarding", as socialism cannot produce in abundance, everything is in short supply, therefore everything must be rationed.

Soheran

14-05-2006, 17:57

Strange as in logically consistant, and widely accepted in that most of the world's human rights documents recognise a right to private property?

That's an odd type of strange. It seems more like commonplace.

A "right to private property" and an argument that such a right is essential to freedom are different things.

Let us analyse freedom without private property, and freedom with private property from the point of freedom of speech.

With private property, you can own the means of speech which you can use as you see fit. You can own computers, radio transmitters and receivers, printing presses and materials etc. You can also own other forms of property, or cash which you can use to rent, or borrow these implements from others. You can own or rent meeting places in which you can give a speech, or show some sort of presentation. You can also own cahs with which to purchase tickets to attend such occasions. You can do this without any restriction because you have private property rights.

Let us now consider free speech without private property rights. You can't own any of the implements of speech, nor can you own anything with which to rent them.

The only speech allowed in such an order is that the government allows.

By the same logic, someone without private property is also denied his freedom of speech, even if private property rights exist - something you explicitly denied.

Let's go over this again.

Under a situation of private property, the people who own the means of speech have authority over what is said and what is not said. Under a situation without private property, there are two possibilities:

1. The property is socially owned, and thus speech is only restricted by the restrictions society puts on it, which can range anywhere from "none" to "you can't say anything until it is approved by the majority." As long as society protects the right of free speech, freedom is not abridged. As long as you have a state the same is true even with private property.
2. The property has no owner, and can be used at will by anyone. Anyone who chooses can express himself freely.

That is not consistant with any definition of theft of which I know. No definition of theft, other than that you've contrived describes the nature of the thief, merely that he takes property without the consent of its rightful owner.

But in this case the "owner" can take it back whenever he wants to use it, and the "thief" cannot stop him, as he is not the owner.

Someone must exert control over it. Someone must define "need", and decide which need is greater than the other. That someone is government.

So how does social ownership restrict freedom? People living on a Kibbutz don't necessarily seem unfree to me.

The definition of freedom you are using would fit perfectly with the statement "if you outlaw murder, you remove my freedom to kill people".

Murder, obviously, entails the violation of someone's freedom. Whose freedom is being violated in this case?

I will explain it in short:

Rational freedom presupposes that reality exists, and with it laws of nature, the necessity of making a choice among alternatives, and that if one resorts to force one will be met with force. Most importantly, it presupposes the necessity of obtaining the voluntary cooperation of everyone who is to aid in an activity, and the owner/s of any property to be involved.

Freedom is therefore, under a rational conception, the absence of force in relationships.

Until someone's "right" is violated. And according to the disciples of property rights, as long as no one is holding a gun to your head the choice between starvation and superexploitation is perfectly free and uncoerced.

There is no "freedom" for the worker who lacks the capability to control his own life because "property rights" compel him to be a cog in the capitalist machine.

Freedom without egalitarianism is not freedom at all, merely license for the master to do as he pleases to those beneath him.

Irrational, or anarchic freedom seeks to eliminate the distinction between two sorts of obstacles, one sort is the facts of reality and includes the voluntary choices of others, the other is the threat or use of force.

The latter is what you have employed.

Actually, no. I do reject the non-coercion notion of freedom, because it has an absurd definition of "coercion," but I do not advocate the alternative presented here. I think of freedom not as mere free will, that is, the capability to choose between alternatives, but rather as the opportunity to have many alternatives, enough that the individual plays a meaningful rule in what his life constitutes. I also hold to egalitarianism, and thus reject the idea that any restriction on actions is a violation of freedom.

What a sales pitch! I can't invest savings in productive enterprises for my benefit, and that of my family, but no one will be after my sandals.

Exactly.

You have of course contradicted yourself, in that private property under socialism is, as you pointed out, a privilege allowed to the extent the rulers of socialism think it desirable. They can revoke it should it become inconvenient.

The state can always revoke private property if it sees fit, as long as it has the means of doing so, which at the moment it probably does.

I won't comment on the inner workings of your head, but what your theory means simply is that every man is the slave of his fellows.

Care to explain how?

Jello Biafra

14-05-2006, 18:02

You've degenerated to Marxian conspiracy theories.How interesting. Accurately describing the world is a conspiracy theory? I'll have to remember that.

Nonsense, every socialist regime that socialists now claim to revile was praised highly until the failure, collapse, or sheer brutality came out.Because they, like you, believed that when those regimes said they were socialist, they actually were. When the truth came out, it was revealed that those regimes weren't socialist.

At best you are using a minor variation of the no-true Scotsman fallacy in having a individual definition of socialism which is vague and leaves a great deal unresolved.Of course nothing in reality could meet such a definition because the definition itself is inconsistant with reality. Worker owned co-ops are inconsistent with reality? I suppose that all businesses being owned by the workers would be inconsistent with reality. Gee, thanks for showing me the light.

Yes you have. You've done it elsewhere. You seem to forget that I've rather a long memory, and remember your theories (if indeed, they are yours), and you could not produce much in the way of cogent solutions.How strange, as I remember it, you couldn't produce much in the way of cogent rebuttals.

Yes it does, and history has shown that the more free an economy, the more prosperous the society is.And the worse off the lower half is, if the lower half doesn't flee to better locales.

No, it isn't. They are two totally different bases for defining property rights. One is based on homesteading i.e. use

and trade, the other on what third parties (which I shall take to be government) define as an acceptable use.But then you get to the concept of ownership, which isn't limited to use.

In a free country, it doesn't. The most a free state does is provide a means to make such a determination.And provides guidelines with which to make the determination.

You have unwittingly said something useful. Of course socialism must prevent any "hoarding", as socialism cannot produce in abundance, everything is in short supply, therefore everything must be rationed.Further evidence that you don't understand what socialism is.

Soheran

14-05-2006, 18:04

Nonsense, every socialist regime that socialists now claim to revile was praised highly until the failure, collapse, or sheer brutality came out.

By some socialists.

The anarchists, Council Communists, etc. - the branch of socialism to which both Jello Biafra and I ascribe - opposed every one of them from the start. So did the social democrats, by which I mean the reformist parties which affiliated with the Second International instead of with the Comintern in 1917, not the present ideology, which is not really socialist at all.

Regardless, as John Maynard Keynes once said:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

Disraeliland 3

14-05-2006, 18:40

By the same logic, someone without private property is also denied his freedom of speech, even if private property rights exist - something you explicitly denied.

You have proven my point. Your definition of "freedom" is merely a cover for a violation of freedom.

Firstly, the "example" you have posed is entirely unrealistic, and badly thought out.'

Secondly, that he cannot use the property of others is not a restriction of his freedom. His freedoms don't extend to the property and lives of others.

Or are you saying that I should be allowed to have non-consensual sex with Ms. Ceberano? After, her refusal to consent is a restriction on what I want to do.

1. The property is socially owned, and thus speech is only restricted by the restrictions society puts on it, which can range anywhere from "none" to "you can't say anything until it is approved by the majority." As long as society protects the right of free speech, freedom is not abridged. As long as you have a state the same is true even with private property.

So my "free" speech exists only to the extent that everyone else permits me to speak.

That is not free speech.

2. The property has no owner, and can be used at will by anyone. Anyone who chooses can express himself freely.

Not realistic at all. Someone will claim it.

But in this case the "owner" can take it back whenever he wants to use it, and the "thief" cannot stop him, as he is not the owner.

So one man claim to use of an object automatically overrides another? If you're using the computer, I can take it back whenever I want to use it? In that case, I am the de-facto owner, and we have de-facto private property.

So how does social ownership restrict freedom? People living on a Kibbutz don't necessarily seem unfree to me.

Red herring, they agreed to common property for religious reasons, and the Kibbutzim draw considerable state subsidies. The people taxed are not free to cease paying.

Murder, obviously, entails the violation of someone's freedom. Whose freedom is being violated in this case?

But you've imposed a restriction on what I want to do. Otherwise, your taking of my property entails the violation of my freedom. You can't have it both ways, because you cannot separate property from person.

Until someone's "right" is violated. And according to the disciples of property rights, as long as no one is holding a gun to your head the choice between starvation and superexploitation is perfectly free and uncoerced.

Again, talk of "freedom" as a trojan horse for the elimination of freedom. His lack of good choices does not create an obligation on my part to create good choices for him.

Actually, no. I do reject the non-coercion notion of freedom, because it has an absurd definition of "coercion,"

Nonsense. The definition of coercion is perfectly logical, and consistant. It also maximises freedom for all, rather than your model of enslaving some to provide more "freedom" for others.

Exactly.

You favour eliminating my right to use my mind and hands to provide for myself and those I love, in return allowing my the great privilege due to Kings of keeping my sandals.

I prefer rationality, individualism, and liberalism. I can have freedom, provide for my family, and keep my sandals.

**************************

Because they, like you, believed that when those regimes said they were socialist, they actually were. When the truth came out, it was revealed that those regimes weren't socialist.

Yeah, right. As soon as the bad news comes out, they are suddenly non-socialist. How convenient.

Worker owned co-ops are inconsistent with reality? I suppose that all businesses being owned by the workers would be inconsistent with reality. Gee, thanks for showing me the light.

Worker's coops are not socialistic. If a group of workers can get the capital together, either from their own savings, or by gaining the support of venture capitalists, they can buy or start a coop.

Such a thing is entirely consistant with capitalism, and happens under capitalist systems. How is it that your idea of socialism is perfectly reconcilable with capitalism?

How strange, as I remember it, you couldn't produce much in the way of cogent rebuttals.

Mule fritters. You could not answer basic questions regarding your ideas, so you simply ignored the questions. You certainly couldn't explain why it would work better than a free market. You couldn't explain the lack of incentives (apart from some wishy-washy, evasive twaddle about a priori agreement with your ideas, which is like saying everyone would be a good Christian is everyone fully believed in and understood what Christianity requires), nor could you explain the efficiency and informational problems associated with your theories.

And the worse off the lower half is, if the lower half doesn't flee to better locales.

Nonsense. Poverty is worst in unfree economies.

i.e. use

E gads, homesteading requires that the resources with which labour is mixed are previously unowned. Homesteading creates ownership because the homesteader improves the resources by his own efforts. His personality is mixed with the land, and therefore the fruits of his labour are his own.

Further evidence that you don't understand what socialism is.

I understand it quite well. That is why I oppose it. You are the one who doesn't understand socialism, which is why you deny the idea that there are problems with it.

Zispin

14-05-2006, 18:46

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62

I get confused by a lot of things, but the op asked about my opinions on socialism, so I'm going to try and answer them.

I have been told I'm a Socialist. I am against large corporations, especially those that exploit the poor. I feel the government should be in control of those services necessary for the stable running of the country (such as electricity, gas, water, health, the railways) while still allowing private business to exist. I feel that those who work should be entitled to a living wage, and that those who genuinely cannot work should be given help. Those who can work but don't shouldn't be given any help (other than to get a job, or they help the community in some way- I think voluntary work should be a requirement for being on unemployment benefit).

There should be social housing, and healthcare should be free at the point of delivery. I feel you should be free to live your life as you want, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom. I think that prisons should be primarily about rehabilitation, and that they should equip the prisoner with skills so they can contribute to society when they are released. On the other hand I don't think that dangerous prisons should be released early- but they should be able to contribute in some way.

As for the op, there are many different types of socialism, and I don't understand them all. I'm not even entirely sure what socialism is, but am trying to educate myself. I also know that a lot of people don't agree with my views, but I respect their right to hold their own, and to express them, even if I strongly disagree with them.

Disraeliland 3

14-05-2006, 18:50

You aren't a socialist.

You seem to favour what Ludwig von Mises termed a "hampered market economy" (hampered by government, that is).

DHomme

14-05-2006, 18:55

And here I was thinking you were a Trotskyist.... :p

I am. Ignoring the context of the situation it's pretty damn awesome.

ShoeChew

14-05-2006, 19:01

So, fat ignorant unhealthy unvoting criminal yanks with bad teeth and moronic offspring, please tell me whats wrong with our way of living.

:eek: LOL

Dissonant Cognition

14-05-2006, 19:25

You've degenerated to Marxian conspiracy theories.

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… [When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen."
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"But what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about. These gradually furnished the great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them."
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The author, the cornerstone of economic study, responsible for writing one of the most famous defenses of capitalism and self-interest, recognized the existence of such conspiracies as well. Suddenly the "ewwwwwwww Marx!?!" line doesn't seem so effective. :)

Jello Biafra

14-05-2006, 19:39

Yeah, right. As soon as the bad news comes out, they are suddenly non-socialist. How convenient.No, as soon as evidence comes out that they aren't socialist, they aren't socialist.

Worker's coops are not socialistic. If a group of workers can get the capital together, either from their own savings, or by gaining the support of venture capitalists, they can buy or start a coop.Certainly. And if all business are worker owned coops, even better.
Such a thing is entirely consistant with capitalism, and happens under capitalist systems. How is it that your idea of socialism is perfectly reconcilable with capitalism?Because capitalism allows for the red herring of "ownership".

Mule fritters. You could not answer basic questions regarding your ideas, so you simply ignored the questions. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You certainly couldn't explain why it would work better than a free market. You couldn't explain the lack of incentives (apart from some wishy-washy, evasive twaddle about a priori agreement with your ideas, Why would someone decide to live in a socialist society if they didn't agree with the society?

which is like saying everyone would be a good Christian is everyone fully believed in and understood what Christianity requires), If they did, they would.

nor could you explain the efficiency and informational problems associated with your theories.The goal is to take the best system and make it more efficient, not to take the most efficient system and make it better.

Nonsense. Poverty is worst in unfree economies.You mean the unfree economies of Scandinavia?

E gads, homesteading requires that the resources with which labour is mixed are previously unowned. Homesteading creates ownership because the homesteader improves the resources by his own efforts. His personality is mixed with the land, and therefore the fruits of his labour are his own.Yes, and you never explained why someone should be able to "own" a resource on his land that he did not mix his labor with, other than vague statements about it being "his".

I understand it quite well. That is why I oppose it. You are the one who doesn't understand socialism, which is why you deny the idea that there are problems with it.There are problems with some forms of socialism, but I don't support those forms.

Jello Biafra

14-05-2006, 19:40

The author, the cornerstone of economic study, responsible for writing one of the most famous defenses of capitalism and self-interest, recognized the existence of such conspiracies as well. Suddenly the "ewwwwwwww Marx!?!" line doesn't seem so effective. :)Ah, thank you. I knew I wanted to read that book, now I think I'll bump it way up on my list of books to read.

Dissonant Cognition

14-05-2006, 19:48

Ah, thank you. I knew I wanted to read that book, now I think I'll bump it way up on my list of books to read.

Indeed. I haven't read The Wealth of Nations entirely, however, what I have read demonstrates to me that the "left" and the "right" are both wrong about Smith. No, he did not justify or legitimize cutthroat selfishness (edit: there is a difference between selfishness untempered by any moral fiber and self-interest that drives the economic process Smith describes). His thesis seemed to me to be that good things can happen despite cutthroat selfishness, not because of it. Additionally, his work shows that the development of capitalism was motovated by a desire to liberate society from the feudalist/merchantilist masters he describes (the masters that we continue to fight even today...)

At any rate, read his The Theory of Moral Sentiments first. That book I have read entirely, and it provides a moral background/foundation to what he discusses in The Wealth of Nations. It is in The Theory of Moral Sentiments where he first describes the concept of the "invisible hand."

Frangland

14-05-2006, 20:05

a little bit is necessary:
Those who cannot work to support themselves should receive support from the government (which means the support is coming from Joe Taxpayer).

But we need to be careful not to give too much:
If you give people everything they need, some will take advantage of it and choose to do nothing... in effect mooching off the work of others, providing nothing in return (which hurts the economy), etc.

As for hard-core socialism:
NO
Economic freedom must be valued above forced economic equality. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs, and full-fledged socialism does not reward risk.

Tangled Up In Blue

14-05-2006, 20:19

Socialism is predicated on the following two notions:
1) Altruism is a virtue
2) The collective is more important than the individual

Thus, socialism is both (a) incorrect and (b) pure evil.

You would all do well to familiarize yourselves with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Tangled Up In Blue

14-05-2006, 20:22

a little bit is necessary:
Those who cannot work to support themselves should receive support from the government (which means the support is coming from Joe Taxpayer).

No, they shouldn't.

Maybe their situation isn't their fault. So what?

Their need is not a valid claim on my life (and, since property is morally equivalent to life, my property).

It doesn't matter that it's not the poor person's fault. That's no excuse to enslave others.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Thriceaddict

14-05-2006, 20:23

You would all do well to familiarize yourselves with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
I haven't read any non-fiction work of hers, but as far as novel-writing goes, it belongs in the fireplace.

Narache

14-05-2006, 21:06

It's intentions are honourable but not possible

Frangland

14-05-2006, 21:09

No, they shouldn't.

Maybe their situation isn't their fault. So what?

Their need is not a valid claim on my life (and, since property is morally equivalent to life, my property).

It doesn't matter that it's not the poor person's fault. That's no excuse to enslave others.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

RINGS LOUD BELL

I've read Ayn Rand.

I don't like welfare, don't get me wrong -- the less welfare, the better. The more people who are responsible for themselves -- who contribute to the economy -- the better.

But someone in a wheelchair, someone without sight (etc.)... while it'd be nice if there were dependable charities to fund his existence... might need help.

Strasse II

14-05-2006, 21:28

Its a nice sounding lie that has resulted in the deathes of over 100 million human beings worldwide.

Tangled Up In Blue

14-05-2006, 21:40

But someone in a wheelchair, someone without sight (etc.)... while it'd be nice if there were dependable charities to fund his existence... might need help.

That's not the issue.

The issue, which you're shamelessly evading, is: How does the mere fact of his need justify forcing others to fulfill it?

Tangled Up In Blue

14-05-2006, 21:41

It's intentions are honourable but not possible

Honorable?

There's nothing honorable about slavery.

There's nothing honorable about coercion.

There's nothing honorable about expropriation.

There's nothing honorable about placing arbitrary limits on man's capacity for heroic selfish achievement.

Those are socialism's intentions. Not just its effects, but its actual INTENTIONS.

Soheran

14-05-2006, 21:44

You have proven my point. Your definition of "freedom" is merely a cover for a violation of freedom.

Firstly, the "example" you have posed is entirely unrealistic, and badly thought out.'

No, actually it's not. It's essential to the whole issue. You are blind to the way private property can impede the expression of freedom. For an obvious way in which this applies today, take most forms of media - newspapers, television, radio. All require money to use. Those with less money have less representation, and the result is that a few corporate conglomerates dominate most of the major media.

Secondly, that he cannot use the property of others is not a restriction of his freedom. His freedoms don't extend to the property and lives of others.

You are criticizing me for using an absolutist standard (even though I never used one), but then you use an absolutist standard yourself. Explain to me this, then - what exactly is the basis for anyone's claim on any property?

Or are you saying that I should be allowed to have non-consensual sex with Ms. Ceberano? After, her refusal to consent is a restriction on what I want to do.

This is a blatant straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I have been advancing. I explained exactly what my concept of freedom was in my last post, and the fact that you saw fit to ignore it does not make it imply what you want it to.

So my "free" speech exists only to the extent that everyone else permits me to speak.

That is not free speech.

So the US doesn't have free speech, either, because if someone with a gun - and there are plenty of them here, both from the state and not - decides that he doesn't like what you are saying, he can force you to be quiet?

There is always the potential for violations of free speech. The test is whether or not it is actually violated.

Not realistic at all. Someone will claim it.

In which case it has become private property, and you still don't have an argument.

So one man claim to use of an object automatically overrides another? If you're using the computer, I can take it back whenever I want to use it? In that case, I am the de-facto owner, and we have de-facto private property.

No. The system is based on need, as I said, and requires one of two things:

1. A system for resolving conflicts if more are needed than are available;
2. Sufficient supply that conflicts are negligible.

Red herring, they agreed to common property for religious reasons, and the Kibbutzim draw considerable state subsidies. The people taxed are not free to cease paying.

The Kibbutzim were initially radically secular, actually (I mean radically secular, in the "religion is a reactionary abomination that interferes with the liberation of the proletariat" sense), and did not receive state subsidies until the state actually came into existence. Nor did I say that their economic model worked. My only point is that the residents of the Kibbutz were not denied freedom, despite your assertion that property rights are essential to freedom.

But you've imposed a restriction on what I want to do.

And as you have helpfully pointed out an inordinate number of times, that can be done to protect other objectives.

Otherwise, your taking of my property entails the violation of my freedom. You can't have it both ways, because you cannot separate property from person.

What does your property have to do with your freedom, especially in a society where nobody owns anything? Perhaps I could see the argument in a society where you agreed to do a certain quantity of labor in trade for a certain quantity of property, but in the society we are discussing there would never have been any such deal, because there wouldn't be any private property. There is absolutely no reason that private property is essential to freedom, except in the "means" sense you pointed out, which, since capitalism tends to involve the denial of such means to some and their concentration in the hands of others, ends up backfiring against you anyway.

Again, talk of "freedom" as a trojan horse for the elimination of freedom. His lack of good choices does not create an obligation on my part to create good choices for him.

No, according to your conception of freedom it doesn't. As I said, the freedom of the master to do as he pleases, while those beneath him are screwed.

Nonsense. The definition of coercion is perfectly logical, and consistant. It also maximises freedom for all, rather than your model of enslaving some to provide more "freedom" for others.

It denies freedom to anyone who doesn't own property, or to those who don't own sufficient property, by denying them basic opportunities. The problem is not with coercion, it is with your concept of coercion. This concept assumes that the only sort of coercion is armed coercion, ignoring the fact that material things - not the right to own material things, which is irrelevant if you don't have any, but rather actual material things - are essential to the freedom (not to mention survival) of the individual.

You favour eliminating my right to use my mind and hands to provide for myself and those I love, in return allowing my the great privilege due to Kings of keeping my sandals.

If you want to be a King, you will have to go with capitalism and the divine (sorry, "natural") rights of the master.

I prefer rationality, individualism, and liberalism.

Rationality, individualism, and certain aspects of liberalism are all fine with me.

I can have freedom, provide for my family, and keep my sandals.

You can under socialism, too.

Letila

14-05-2006, 21:49

Its a nice sounding lie that has resulted in the deathes of over 100 million human beings worldwide.

This coming from a fan of the Nazis.:rolleyes:

Strasse II

14-05-2006, 21:51

This coming from a fan of the Nazis.:rolleyes:

Well at least the nazis were honest about what they wanted to do.

Thriceaddict

14-05-2006, 21:52

Honorable?

There's nothing honorable about slavery.

There's nothing honorable about coercion.

There's nothing honorable about expropriation.

There's nothing honorable about placing arbitrary limits on man's capacity for heroic selfish achievement.

Those are socialism's intentions. Not just its effects, but its actual INTENTIONS.
Comedic gold. Even more so considering you actually believe it.

Soheran

14-05-2006, 22:00

That's not the issue.

The issue, which you're shamelessly evading, is: How does the mere fact of his need justify forcing others to fulfill it?

What's wrong with forcing anyone, if nobody has any legitimate claim on anybody else?

Egrev

14-05-2006, 22:06

Their need is not a valid claim on my life (and, since property is morally equivalent to life, my property).

It doesn't matter that it's not the poor person's fault. That's no excuse to enslave others.

That's quite the leap of logic, from property to life. How do you define property as the moral equivalent to life? What the hell does that mean?

And just one more thing. You keep referring to socialism as slavery. Another giant leap of logic. Tax does not equal slavery.

You are doing a decent job of making a very defensible position look absurd.

Not bad

14-05-2006, 22:15

I used to think socialism couldnt work at all due to the nature of humans to be selfish. But with proper indoctrination from birth Sweden does pretty well at it. It pretty much sucks everywhere else though. It tends to foster a part of the population who generation after generation sit on their asses and whine about how the government should give them more,.

Soheran

14-05-2006, 22:20

2) The collective is more important than the individual

What is "the collective"? A bunch of individuals. So when you say that socialism claims that "the collective is more important than the individual," what you mean is that socialism stands up for the right of individuals not to be harmed by the tyranny of another individual just because that individual claims it is his "right."

Precisely.

Letila

14-05-2006, 22:32

There's nothing honorable about placing arbitrary limits on man's capacity for heroic selfish achievement.

What exactly is that? Saving yourself from a burning building?:D Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

The Techosai Imperium

14-05-2006, 23:52

...

I believe the best way to scrutinise the value of Socialism is to extrapolate an 'end' (or near-end) result of its implementation and then to compare that to the 'end/near-end' result of the implementation of its antithesis, namely individualism.

Taken to the extreme, Socialism would have the individual's value subsumed by the collective good. It mandates equality, even to the exclusion of rewarding exemplary effort or motivation. It would take from the advantaged and reapportion that excise to the disadvantaged, perhaps removing the incentive to innovate, to excel, and ultimately to express one's self, as every person's value becomes dissociated from the qualities of the person and instead becomes a dictate of the society. The individual is effectively destroyed-- made modular and expendable.

Taken to the extreme, Individualism would elevate the individual above the community. It mandates autonomy and independence, tacitly rewarding the person who possesses the superior talents or the inherited advantage, essentially negating the interdependence of people in societies. It precludes any concept of the individual having a responsibility for the well-being of those around him/her, allowing those with the ability or the will to work harder to advance unhindered, and those without the ability or the will to work as hard to fall behind. The sovereignty of the individual is rendered supreme, and society-- the community-- is relegated to being the stage or forum in which anyone can do good or ill, succeed or fail, live or die, share with or neglect others above reproach.

The best questions to ask, then, become: "which system has the greatest potential to stabilise before becoming overly-extreme?" "which system is most sustainable?" or, at a more sentimental level, "which would you rather live in?" One where nothing is truly yours-- everything you produce is taken from you, and everything that you do have is allocated to you by the society-- where you are withheld in absolute equality with your peers and may or may not be spent like cannon fodder? Or one where you can achieve as little or as much as you set out to, prosper and survive or stagnate and die according purely to your individual qualifications and have no one to thank for your success and no one to blame for your failure but yourself, and as such, where you are required to give nothing to anyone but cannot expect to receive anything from anyone, regardless of your need?

In that context, it would seem that anyone humble enough to see their own limitations and observant enough to recognize the vast instability inherent to life, ought to aspire to some compromise between Socialism and Individualism.

Szanth

15-05-2006, 00:03

I'm incredibly socialist/monarchist/democratic.

Weird combination, I know, but in my head it works.

Mt Sam

15-05-2006, 00:19

Capitalism is a virus philosophy, it encourages people to take great swathes of what they have not earned and alienates workers from their labour.
Do you honestly think the CEO of a logging company works any harder than the loggers?

Of course no one HAS to protect the weak with welfare. But in a capitalist system (which always leads to over-consumption - if all countries lived the same lifestyles as rich americans we would need the resources of nine planets) a lot of the rich's money is not rightfully theirs. Forceful redistribution is entirely legitimate. If we did not force the rich to contribute back to the society they are raping the entire system would implode

Mikesburg

15-05-2006, 00:34

The ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labors is consistent with property rights being based upon use. It's rather silly to say that property rights allow this to be done without interference from the state, as it is the state who determines what is or what isn't rightfully owned property. What's yours is yours and mine is mine can be done through use, with the provision that when you stop using it, it's no longer yours. Unlike ownership, this prevents exploitation, as it becomes incredibly difficult to hoard things.

There's nothing really silly about it. What it means is that yes, the state acts as arbiter in the case of civil litigation in concern to property, but with a right to property, the state can't just arbitrarily take what is your's lawfully. They must come to some economic agreement with you in order to purchase the property.

Property rights based upon use don't necessarily have to be about the fruits of your labour, but rather based upon need. You need a house, society provides it. It doesn't mean you have to labour for it, or expend capital to gain it.

If I live in an economic system that gaurantees my right to private property, and I spend 20 years paying a mortgage, I believe I've earned the right to keep that house, regardless of whether or not I decide to live in it. The same goes with risking capital to purchase aditional property. If my family and I start a business, taking all the financial risks and doing so results in my family being in a better economic position, good for me and my family. We took the risk, and could just as easily suffer the consequences. Without the right to property, the state can seize any property we purchased without redress.

And as far as ownership lasting as long as 'someone uses it', that's a serious disincentive to the creation of consumer goods. Why would I purchase something if I just have to wait for my neighbour to finish with it? What defines 'need'? Do you 'need' your neighbour's widescreen TV? Without a serious market, where's the incentive to create new and improved products? This is the line of thinking where society creates products based upon 'need', as opposed to consumer spending. It's the kind of thinking that had the common person in the USSR wiping their ass with rough sandpaper-esque toilet paper while the Kremlin was importing TP from the US.

True freedom includes economic freedom, which true socialism restrains. (Although I agree with some degree of state assistance to enhance the common man's economic position.)

Michaelic France

15-05-2006, 00:39

I support socialism, unless it's as far right as regulated capitalism. I prefer the communist wing of socialism, marxism-leninism in particular.

Kzord

15-05-2006, 00:48

Socialism is like a religion. And like a religion it's pointless trying to get anything past the zealot's mental barriers. So I won't.

DHomme

15-05-2006, 00:50

I support socialism, unless it's as far right as regulated capitalism. I prefer the communist wing of socialism, marxism-leninism in particular.

Wait a second. You were trying to get me to vote UDCP. Since when have you thrown your hat in with the leninists?

Vetalia

15-05-2006, 00:51

Capitalism is a virus philosophy, it encourages people to take great swathes of what they have not earned and alienates workers from their labour. Do you honestly think the CEO of a logging company works any harder than the loggers?

Working hard is meaningless; it's how much demand there is for the services rendered, and how many people that supply it that determines the value of work. Otherwise, there would be zero incentive to be a computer programmer or a financial analyst because you would make more money working as a logger with less demanding requirements for education.

The CEO earns their pay as much as any employee; experienced management and visionary leadership are extremely valuable to any company, because without them there would not be the money or the growth necessary to hire and pay the workers at the bottom.

Of course no one HAS to protect the weak with welfare. But in a capitalist system (which always leads to over-consumption - if all countries lived the same lifestyles as rich americans we would need the resources of nine planets) a lot of the rich's money is not rightfully theirs. Forceful redistribution is entirely legitimate. If we did not force the rich to contribute back to the society they are raping the entire system would implode

Socialist nations were many, many times more wasteful than the capitalist ones in real and per capita terms. The only reason why they did not consume more was because their economy was smaller; for example, the USSR consumed more natural gas than the US but had an economy only 30-40% of its size. They also consumed a disproportionate amount of oil and had an energy intensity double that of the US.

In a socialist nation, there is no market mechanism to allocate resources, and price controls drive up demand and encourage waste and inefficiency. Americans only waste so much because they can afford to do so; however, if supply becomes tight prices will rise and people will cut back.

The rich do contribute to society, and a lot at that; they buy a lot of manufactured goods and services and pay a lot of taxes that provide services to the classes below them. Many peoples' jobs are tied to the purchases and demands of the wealthy, and getting rid of them would greatly reduce employment. Case in point: In 1990, the US placed a tax on luxury goods that drove up their price considerably; shortly thereafter, unemployment soared as thousands were laid off due to reduced demand for high end products as wealthy consumers bought from importers instead.

Disraeliland 5

15-05-2006, 00:57

Why would someone decide to live in a socialist society if they didn't agree with the society?

Since you've given no rationale for anyone agreeing with your half-baked theories, you are simply doing an end-run around the burden you have undertaken to prove your theories.

If they did, they would.

Christianity can be said to offer something to believers, there are reasons for becoming a Christian, you've not even shown your theory is possible, except with a priori agreement and support, yet to gain such support, you would have to show that it is possible.

The goal is to take the best system and make it more efficient, not to take the most efficient system and make it better.

Which is not even a simple answer, let alone an explaination.

Yes, and you never explained why someone should be able to "own" a resource on his land that he did not mix his labor with, other than vague statements about it being "his".

Actually, I did. You simply ignored it. A man claims land, this is the only feasable way to establish claims, as opposed to claiming the actual resources in the land (Mr. Smith claims the gold under the soil, while Mr. Jones claims a right to farm the soil, obviously they aren't compatible), and the products of his effort being mixed with the land must be his because they couldn't have arisen without his work. He has title to the fruits of his labours.

None of this is particularly new, or difficult to understand. It is basic.

****************

No, actually it's not. It's essential to the whole issue. You are blind to the way private property can impede the expression of freedom. For an obvious way in which this applies today, take most forms of media - newspapers, television, radio. All require money to use. Those with less money have less representation, and the result is that a few corporate conglomerates dominate most of the major media.

No one is being forced here. It is you who are proposing that people be forced.

You are criticizing me for using an absolutist standard (even though I never used one), but then you use an absolutist standard yourself. Explain to me this, then - what exactly is the basis for anyone's claim on any property?

That is not something I have to show. Private property is the accepted way, it is you who propose a new way, and you have to show why I don't have a claim to my property, and why my claim violates the real freedoms of another. The basis for private property has been established time and time again by a huge number of scholars.

This is a blatant straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I have been advancing. I explained exactly what my concept of freedom was in my last post, and the fact that you saw fit to ignore it does not make it imply what you want it to.

No it isn't, and no you didn't. Your concept of freedom is vague, highly subjective, and seems to allow for no freedom except that which everyone else permits an individual. By definition, this is not freedom.

So the US doesn't have free speech, either, because if someone with a gun - and there are plenty of them here, both from the state and not - decides that he doesn't like what you are saying, he can force you to be quiet?

He cannot do so legitimately, that is the point.

As I said, you have no real idea what freedom is. You cannot distinguish between the obstacles presented by nature and the absence of voluntary cooperation of others on the one hand, and the initiation of force on the other.

This is a fundamental and important difference.

That you do not require the voluntary cooperation of everyone who participates in an act, your concept of freedom is simply a trojan horse for tyranny.

No. The system is based on need, as I said, and requires one of two things:

1. A system for resolving conflicts if more are needed than are available;
2. Sufficient supply that conflicts are negligible.

Since socialism has been shown to have inherient incentive, and informational problems to a great extent, your second condition is a pipe dream. Your first is revealing in that it effectively sets in stone the central idea of socialism: an individual doesn't live for his own sake, he lives for the sake of others and must be forced to serve their interests.

This is simply a disgusting philosophy.

What does your property have to do with your freedom, especially in a society where nobody owns anything? Perhaps I could see the argument in a society where you agreed to do a certain quantity of labor in trade for a certain quantity of property, but in the society we are discussing there would never have been any such deal, because there wouldn't be any private property.

We are discussing the legitimacy of removing private property rights, and a society in which no one owns anything is impossible.

There is absolutely no reason that private property is essential to freedom, except in the "means" sense you pointed out, which, since capitalism tends to involve the denial of such means to some and their concentration in the hands of others, ends up backfiring against you anyway.

No one is being denied anything to which he has a legitimate claim, except under socialism in which he is denied everything to which he has a legitimate claim. That hardly sounds better, especially in exchange for the promise that he might get to use it a little if everyone else agrees to let him.

It denies freedom to anyone who doesn't own property, or to those who don't own sufficient property, by denying them basic opportunities. The problem is not with coercion, it is with your concept of coercion. This concept assumes that the only sort of coercion is armed coercion, ignoring the fact that material things - not the right to own material things, which is irrelevant if you don't have any, but rather actual material things - are essential to the freedom (not to mention survival) of the individual.

It denies no freedom, because no one is denied anything to which he has a legitimate claim. Your idea is contradictory, you say that material things are essential to freedom, yet you say if an individual hasn't enough (in your eyes), he is entitled to steal from others.

You can under socialism, too.

No, I can't. I can provide for "society" which may give me a few crumbs (and this will be all they can spare).

What is "the collective"? A bunch of individuals. So when you say that socialism claims that "the collective is more important than the individual," what you mean is that socialism stands up for the right of individuals not to be harmed by the tyranny of another individual just because that individual claims it is his "right."

No, what he means is that under socialism, an individual doesn't live for himself, he lives for the collective, and this is the line that runs through all socialism.

Soheran

15-05-2006, 01:03

Otherwise, there would be zero incentive to be a computer programmer or a financial analyst because you would make more money working as a logger with less demanding requirements for education.

Sure there would be. It isn't as if someone performing unskilled labor would be lazing away while everyone else went through college; he would instead begin his job earlier than them.

Vetalia

15-05-2006, 01:05

Sure there would be. It isn't as if someone performing unskilled labor would be lazing away while everyone else went through college; he would instead begin his job earlier than them.

Why go to college if you're going to get paid more as an unskilled laborer?

Infinite Revolution

15-05-2006, 01:09

...

i :fluffle: socialism as long as it's libertarian.

Soheran

15-05-2006, 01:23

No one is being forced here. It is you who are proposing that people be forced.

And you again confirm the point I've been making all along. Your conception of "coercion" is one that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. According to it, if I am starved on the street, incapable of moving because I haven't eaten in two weeks, I am "free" because nobody has coerced me (except by defending property rights, which is irrelevant because they, unlike the right to life, are allowed to be absolute).

That is not something I have to show. Private property is the accepted way, it is you who propose a new way, and you have to show why I don't have a claim to my property, and why my claim violates the real freedoms of another. The basis for private property has been established time and time again by a huge number of scholars.

No. I have already explained a justification for why someone should give up their property - to expand someone else's opportunities. You rejected this on the basis of a right to property. I want to know the basis for that right.

I am familiar with most of the arguments for private property, but it would be unfair of me to attack an argument you have not advanced.

No it isn't, and no you didn't. Your concept of freedom is vague, highly subjective, and seems to allow for no freedom except that which everyone else permits an individual. By definition, this is not freedom.

Of course freedom is "vague," in the same sense that any other very broad concept is "vague." I think what I mean by it is perfectly understandable, however - the capability of the individual to control his life, to, within the best of the available means, adapt his life and circumstances to those which he prefers.

He cannot do so legitimately, that is the point.

And why does socialism preclude the illegitimacy of restrictions on free speech?

As I said, you have no real idea what freedom is. You cannot distinguish between the obstacles presented by nature and the absence of voluntary cooperation of others on the one hand, and the initiation of force on the other.

This is a fundamental and important difference.

That you do not require the voluntary cooperation of everyone who participates in an act, your concept of freedom is simply a trojan horse for tyranny.

Do you require the "voluntary participation" of the murderer in his arrest?

Since socialism has been shown to have inherient incentive, and informational problems to a great extent, your second condition is a pipe dream.

I suggest you stop breathing, then, until the air is privatized.

Your first is revealing in that it effectively sets in stone the central idea of socialism: an individual doesn't live for his own sake, he lives for the sake of others and must be forced to serve their interests.

No, all it means is that the human being must not be permitted to trample on other people's freedom.

This is simply a disgusting philosophy.

As is any philosophy that permits the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.

We are discussing the legitimacy of removing private property rights, and a society in which no one owns anything is impossible.

That is flatly untrue; the Kibbutzim are a perfect example of such a society. And you still have not addressed the point, that the best basis for a "right to property" would be irrelevant in a society without it.

No one is being denied anything to which he has a legitimate claim, except under socialism in which he is denied everything to which he has a legitimate claim. That hardly sounds better, especially in exchange for the promise that he might get to use it a little if everyone else agrees to let him.

Except the same is true for all property, not just for his.

It denies no freedom, because no one is denied anything to which he has a legitimate claim.

Everyone has a legitimate claim to controlling their own lives.

Your idea is contradictory, you say that material things are essential to freedom, yet you say if an individual hasn't enough (in your eyes), he is entitled to steal from others.

There's absolutely nothing contradictory about that. Everyone has the right to defend their own freedom.

No, I can't. I can provide for "society" which may give me a few crumbs (and this will be all they can spare).

No, what he means is that under socialism, an individual doesn't live for himself, he lives for the collective, and this is the line that runs through all socialism.

These two arguments parallel one another.

Your problem is not with socialism, it is with any economy, in which people depend on one another for satisfying their needs and thus must satisfy others' needs as well. Capitalist, socialist, feudal - pretty much every economy the human species has ever seen has had this feature. We can debate its merits, but trying to change it is impossible.

Soheran

15-05-2006, 01:25

Why go to college if you're going to get paid more as an unskilled laborer?

Because you enjoy education more than manual labor?

Neu Leonstein

15-05-2006, 02:04

You would all do well to familiarize yourselves with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
Now, if you read the thread, you'll see that we stand on pretty much the same side.

But still, your unwarranted arrogance is disturbing. I know, warranted arrogance is okay in your view. But you have done absolutely nothing here to warrant it. You speak to people who obviously know a lot about the issue, and you post a sentence like this? As if not everyone in this thread knew who Ayn Rand (Why did she change her name? To please everyone else?) was and what she wrote?

Earn your respect first, then start boasting. And one tip: Simply posting lines out of books isn't quite enough to build a coherent argument.

That is flatly untrue; the Kibbutzim are a perfect example of such a society.
Do you know what became of the Kibbutzim?

Disraeliland 5

15-05-2006, 02:19

And you again confirm the point I've been making all along. Your conception of "coercion" is one that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. According to it, if I am starved on the street, incapable of moving because I haven't eaten in two weeks, I am "free" because nobody has coerced me (except by defending property rights, which is irrelevant because they, unlike the right to life, are allowed to be absolute).

Defending property rights is no more coercive than defending the right to life, and your rights cannot come at the expense of the rights of others.

You are free in that situation.

Your idea of freedom isn't freedom because the unfortunate, under your way, get opportunities at the expense of others.

Under a system of real freedom (by which I mean the absence of force), he is free to try to improve his situation by using his mind and hands, and he would be able to keep the fruits of his labour. If he becomes prosperous, good. In your order, if he became prosperous, he would be shackled and robbed for the demands of others.

That does rather remove the incentive to improve one's life. You're provided for anyway, and if you do succeed, you become the enemy!

No. I have already explained a justification for why someone should give up their property - to expand someone else's opportunities. You rejected this on the basis of a right to property. I want to know the basis for that right.

Firstly, that justification is not sufficient, it suggests that if someone is unfortunate I should be enslaved.

Of course freedom is "vague," in the same sense that any other very broad concept is "vague." I think what I mean by it is perfectly understandable, however - the capability of the individual to control his life, to, within the best of the available means, adapt his life and circumstances to those which he prefers.

It is not perfectly understandable. As to the capability of an individual to control his life, you already have refused that when you say he has no claims to the fruits of his labours.

And why does socialism preclude the illegitimacy of restrictions on free speech?

Under socialism, there is no right to access the means of speech because there is no private property. Access is controlled by those who govern society.

Do you require the "voluntary participation" of the murderer in his arrest?

You really don't understand any rational concept of freedom.

No, all it means is that the human being must not be permitted to trample on other people's freedom.

Yet you assert a claim to all of my property. Anyway, since you've no coherient, rational concept of freedom, it is difficult to see how you can advance that argument.

As is any philosophy that permits the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few

Since no socialist has ever come up with a cogent, objective definition of expoitation, you cannot advance that argument.

Everyone has a legitimate claim to controlling their own lives.

By denying people a claim to the fruits of their pabour, and denying people a claim to that for which they have contracted, you are impinging their freedom to control their lives. The very idea of basing property claims in "use" utterly removes the freedom to control one's life. One's life is in the hands of those who arbitrate conflicting claims over which is the better need for an object.

Your problem is not with socialism, it is with any economy, in which people depend on one another for satisfying their needs and thus must satisfy others' needs as well. Capitalist, socialist, feudal - pretty much every economy the human species has ever seen has had this feature. We can debate its merits, but trying to change it is impossible.

Nonsense. In capitalism, I provide for myself, my cooperation with other members of society is voluntary, I am not forced, and I can choose the best people with which to cooperate. Under socialism I become the property of society, I would have no individual interests except that society permits.

If you can't understand the difference between voluntary cooperation (which is the basis of capitalism), and being forced to serve the interests of "society" (which is the basis of socialism), you shouldn't be commenting.

Vetalia

15-05-2006, 02:36

Because you enjoy education more than manual labor?

But education is a time consuming investment; a person interested in computers might take classes to learn it as a hobby or for their own use, but almost no one would willingly get a computer science major in order to program banking, accounting, or inventory-management software all of which are vital to corporate management.

Soheran

15-05-2006, 02:45

Do you know what became of the Kibbutzim?

Yes. They still exist, but in a mostly perverted form; a good number hire outside labor, in blatant violation of their founding principles, and they aren't really all that productive. I don't support the Kibbutz model. I was making two points in that regard:
1. Private property is not essential to human society;
2. Private property is not essential to freedom.

Soheran

15-05-2006, 03:15

You are free in that situation.

According to you. And that is where we disagree. Your only concept of "freedom" is the absence of force aiming at objectives that do not meet your approval. If my choices are death and essential slavery, but nobody is actively holding a gun to my head, I am "free." This is, obviously, nonsense.

Your idea of freedom isn't freedom because the unfortunate, under your way, get opportunities at the expense of others.

That's the way all rational moral systems work. My right to life comes at the expense of your freedom to shoot guns.

Under a system of real freedom (by which I mean the absence of force), he is free to try to improve his situation by using his mind and hands, and he would be able to keep the fruits of his labour. If he becomes prosperous, good.

In other words, he is "free" to please the owners of property to the best of his ability, and is permitted to receive the scraps they toss at him. If they are not sufficiently generous, well, too bad for him.

But his lack of freedom is irrelevant, because the only coercion involved is coercion in defense of the property-owners?

In your order, if he became prosperous, he would be shackled and robbed for the demands of others.

Under my order, he would not be "robbed" of anything. He would provide his labor, and receive money with which to buy goods in return, as in capitalism.

That does rather remove the incentive to improve one's life. You're provided for anyway, and if you do succeed, you become the enemy!

To the contrary. If freedom is served by requiring effort for higher levels of compensation, as is probably the case, it would be done.

Firstly, that justification is not sufficient, it suggests that if someone is unfortunate I should be enslaved.

No, it suggests that you do not have any greater right to freedom than anybody else.

It is not perfectly understandable.

What exactly about it is so difficult to understand? A person should be free to act freely, as long as he does not violate anyone else's rights. Furthermore, he should have the necessary opportunities to allow him to make his life as suitable to his preferences as possible, under the condition of equality - that is, he cannot deprive anybody else of that capability in exercising it.

As to the capability of an individual to control his life, you already have refused that when you say he has no claims to the fruits of his labours.

What are the "fruits of his labours"? If they are what others give to him in exchange for his labor, without property already existing they are irrelevant. If they are something else - say, property garnered from nature - he is merely stealing.

Under socialism, there is no right to access the means of speech because there is no private property. Access is controlled by those who govern society.

The "right to access the means of speech" does not depend on private property over the means of speech, merely on the right to access said means.

You really don't understand any rational concept of freedom.

My apologies. Next to your supreme intellect, I am but a bug.

Yet you assert a claim to all of my property.

Not really. You can keep those sandals.

Anyway, since you've no coherient, rational concept of freedom, it is difficult to see how you can advance that argument.

You have yet to explain how my concept of freedom lacks in coherence or rationality.

Since no socialist has ever come up with a cogent, objective definition of expoitation, you cannot advance that argument.

Good to know I was responding to a non-sequitur, then.

By denying people a claim to the fruits of their pabour, and denying people a claim to that for which they have contracted, you are impinging their freedom to control their lives. The very idea of basing property claims in "use" utterly removes the freedom to control one's life. One's life is in the hands of those who arbitrate conflicting claims over which is the better need for an object.

While today one's life is in the hands of those who own property.

Nonsense. In capitalism, I provide for myself,

In the same sense as you do in socialism - you exchange your labor in trade for goods.

my cooperation with other members of society is voluntary,

As it is in socialism, in the same sense that it is in capitalism; you are free not to cooperate, but if you do not, the consequences are likely to be harsh (unemployment.)

and I can choose the best people with which to cooperate.

Any form of socialism that does not permit you to choose your place of employment is an authoritarian perversion that should be opposed.

Under socialism I become the property of society, I would have no individual interests except that society permits.

This is utter nonsense. You are not your property.

If you can't understand the difference between voluntary cooperation (which is the basis of capitalism), and being forced to serve the interests of "society" (which is the basis of socialism), you shouldn't be commenting.

As I already pointed out, the coercion is of the same sort. Until you are capable of providing for yourself without aid from anyone else, you will always be dependent on pleasing others. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not "voluntary cooperation" versus "coercion", it is merely the nature of the party with which you are dealing.

Soheran

15-05-2006, 03:23

But education is a time consuming investment; a person interested in computers might take classes to learn it as a hobby or for their own use, but almost no one would willingly get a computer science major in order to program banking, accounting, or inventory-management software all of which are vital to corporate management.

But as an alternative to, say, logging?

Let's say you're right, though. In such a circumstance, with the justification being the higher level of labor of the computer programmer, he would receive greater compensation, to make the supply meet the demand.

I don't believe, however, that under capitalism there exists a level of equality of opportunity where differences in compensation are justified to such a degree.

Disraeliland 5

15-05-2006, 03:44

Your only concept of "freedom" is the absence of force aiming at objectives that do not meet your approval.

Mule fritters, my concept of freedom is the absence of the initiation of force.

That's the way all rational moral systems work. My right to life comes at the expense of your freedom to shoot guns.

No, it doesn't I can shoot all I like, provided I violate no one elses rights.

That is not in accordance with your moral system in which one does not have rights because one cannot have private property, so one must conform to government.

In other words, he is "free" to please the owners of property to the best of his ability, and is permitted to receive the scraps they toss at him. If they are not sufficiently generous, well, too bad for him.

You should read a book on free market economics. A worker is not paid out of generosity.

Anyway, he is free to do this trade, and free to keep what he gets for his work.

Under my order, he would not be "robbed" of anything. He would provide his labor, and receive money with which to buy goods in return, as in capitalism.

Now you are going back on your arguments. You have stated time and time again that those who own property should have it taken away to give opportunities to those without. Since our propertyless man now has property, you must logically take it away to support others who have none.

If freedom is served by requiring effort for higher levels of compensation, as is probably the case, it would be done.

Nonsense. He has no incentive, since if he gain more property, it will be taken away to give to those who have none. Anyway, before this process, our propertyless man, under your system, is already given what he needs. Why need he try when it is simply given to him?

A person should be free to act freely, as long as he does not violate anyone else's rights.

That is right.

Furthermore, he should have the necessary opportunities to allow him to make his life as suitable to his preferences as possible, under the condition of equality - that is, he cannot deprive anybody else of that capability in exercising it.

That contradicts what you said above.

What are the "fruits of his labours"? If they are what others give to him in exchange for his labor, without property already existing they are irrelevant.

Property does exist. It is a matter of ownership, and you propose that what an individual creates be taken away from him by "society". No matter what rhetorical dodges you use, that is what it comes down to.

If they are something else - say, property garnered from nature - he is merely stealing.

From whom? Mother nature? What is the maximum sentence for "theft from pseudo-divine entities"?

Anyway, since, as you say, property doesn't exist, how can it be stealing? If there's no property, there are obviously no owners of property to be deprived of it without consent.

If there's no property, there is by definition no theft.

The "right to access the means of speech" does not depend on private property over the means of speech, merely on the right to access said means.

No such right to access can exist without private property rights. In the absence of private property rights, access depends on gaining the permission of those who control society.

In the same sense as you do in socialism - you exchange your labor in trade for goods.

It is not the same. In capitalism, I have the freedom to choose with whom I cooperate. In socialism, I am forced to work for "society", and must accept what "society" gives me in exchange.

Any form of socialism that does not permit you to choose your place of employment is an authoritarian perversion that should be opposed.

Mule fritters. Socialism always tends to degenerate towards authoritarianism, and cannot allow choice of employment.

As I already pointed out, the coercion is of the same sort.

You stated it, however, the closest you have given to a consistant definition of coercion is "not having all the choices one wants, regardless of the circumstances or the effect on others". This is an absurd definition of coercion. Am I being coerced because I don't get offered $5 million a year jobs every day?

The difference between socialism and capitalism is not "voluntary cooperation" versus "coercion", it is merely the nature of the party with which you are dealing.

No, the difference is coercion versus voluntary cooperation because socialism gives me no choice. I must work for "society", and I must accept whatever "society" gives me in exchange.

Jello Biafra

15-05-2006, 10:10

Since you've given no rationale for anyone agreeing with your half-baked theories, you are simply doing an end-run around the burden you have undertaken to prove your theories. I don't have to, as that is not what we're discussing. We are discussing socialism, which, obviously, means the time after my theories are implemented. Whether or not my theories can be implemented would be part of a discussion on whether or not socialism can be implemented properly. Since the subject is the time after my theories are implemented it only makes sense to discuss what the problems would be with socialism after they are implemented.

Christianity can be said to offer something to believers, there are reasons for becoming a Christian, you've not even shown your theory is possible, except with a priori agreement and support, yet to gain such support, you would have to show that it is possible.I believe I would already have such support, I am hardly the only one with similar theories. Soheran and I, although we disagree on the concept of the market, could probably compromise enough to work together.

Which is not even a simple answer, let alone an explaination.The point was that while I realize that the system I propose isn't as efficient as the price system, it is ultimately better.

Actually, I did. You simply ignored it. A man claims land, this is the only feasable way to establish claims, as opposed to claiming the actual resources in the land (Mr. Smith claims the gold under the soil, while Mr. Jones claims a right to farm the soil, obviously they aren't compatible), and the products of his effort being mixed with the land must be his because they couldn't have arisen without his work. He has title to the fruits of his labours.

None of this is particularly new, or difficult to understand. It is basic.This isn't exactly what I was talking about, but we'll go with it. What if Mr. Smith claimed the soil in order to strip mine it? After he was done strip mining it, why couldn't Mr. Jones claim the soil to farm it?

No one is being denied anything to which he has a legitimate claimDefine "legitimate" objectively.

Not bad

15-05-2006, 10:19

Originally Posted by Tangled Up In Blue
You would all do well to familiarize yourselves with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

RANDROID ALERT!!! :p

Jello Biafra

15-05-2006, 10:38

There's nothing really silly about it. What it means is that yes, the state acts as arbiter in the case of civil litigation in concern to property, but with a right to property, the state can't just arbitrarily take what is your's lawfully. They must come to some economic agreement with you in order to purchase the property. The state decides what is a lawful use and what is not a lawful use. All they would have to do is change the law.

Property rights based upon use don't necessarily have to be about the fruits of your labour, but rather based upon need. You need a house, society provides it. It doesn't mean you have to labour for it, or expend capital to gain it. If a particular society wishes to run itself that way, they're welcome to, but I personally am against the idea of supporting people who can work but choose not to.

If I live in an economic system that gaurantees my right to private property, and I spend 20 years paying a mortgage, I believe I've earned the right to keep that house, regardless of whether or not I decide to live in it. I disagree with that type of economic system, therefore I am against the idea of someone keeping something they don't use.

The same goes with risking capital to purchase aditional property. If my family and I start a business, taking all the financial risks and doing so results in my family being in a better economic position, good for me and my family. We took the risk, and could just as easily suffer the consequences. If all capital is pooled, more risks can be taken, and the consequences felt by any particular individual would be fewer. It's worth pointing out that much of the technology we use today was invented by governments, who then sold it to private companies to develop and create demands for.

Without the right to property, the state can seize any property we purchased without redress. The state can seize it even with the right to private property if they change the definition of rightful ownership. The same is true for property rights being based on use. However, if property rights are based upon use, and someone is using something legitimately, then the state cannot seize it.

And as far as ownership lasting as long as 'someone uses it', that's a serious disincentive to the creation of consumer goods. Why would I purchase something if I just have to wait for my neighbour to finish with it? That depends. I am against the concept of markets, but I would imagine that you would purchase that something in order to retain exclusive use of it. If enough people in the society wanted to use something exclusively, and there was a way of making enough of that something for everyone, then the society would do so.

What defines 'need'? Well, I think 'need' is a very basic definition. Certainly, things should go to people who need them, but if a society can only provide for people's basic needs, then it's not going to last very long; after all, people can subsistence farm without a society. Therefore, a society is going to have to fulfill some or all of a person's wants, too, in order to last.

Do you 'need' your neighbour's widescreen TV? No, but I would like to use it sometimes.

Without a serious market, where's the incentive to create new and improved products? With everyone in the society potentially demanding new and improved products, this creates more of an incentive than if it's just a few people who have all of the wealth of that society.

This is the line of thinking where society creates products based upon 'need', as opposed to consumer spending. This is the kind of thinking that had the common person in the USSR wiping their ass with rough sandpaper-esque toilet paper while the Kremlin was importing TP from the US.Ah, thank you for that example. This is evidence that the USSR wasn't socialist, as one of the requisites of socialism is a classless society. If the society was classless, then everyone would be using the same toilet paper.

True freedom includes economic freedom, which true socialism restrains. I disagree. True freedom includes access to everything the society has to offer, which socialism maximizes.

(Although I agree with some degree of state assistance to enhance the common man's economic position.)I'll keep this in mind when taking your future comments into account.

Neu Leonstein

15-05-2006, 11:04

I was making two points in that regard:
1. Private property is not essential to human society;
2. Private property is not essential to freedom.
So was I.

I watched a documentary about the Kibbutzim a while back, and one reason they became the empty shadows that they are today is precisely because people wanted to be individuals and own stuff. They had interviews and all the rest of it.

Aschan Shiagon

15-05-2006, 11:12

At heart I am a Communist Anarchist (No laws, no state, no government but helping each other as in a community) So Liberal Socialism would be better than nothing. Therefore Yay for Socialism, as long as its not trying to take my personal freedom.

Neu Leonstein

15-05-2006, 11:32

Therefore Yay for Socialism, as long as its not trying to take my personal freedom.
I take it then that you don't consider the right to your work as a freedom, nor the right to exchange your goods and services freely for those of others?

Disraeliland 5

15-05-2006, 11:51

I don't have to, as that is not what we're discussing. We are discussing socialism, which, obviously, means the time after my theories are implemented. Whether or not my theories can be implemented would be part of a discussion on whether or not socialism can be implemented properly. Since the subject is the time after my theories are implemented it only makes sense to discuss what the problems would be with socialism after they are implemented.

Various types of socialism have been tried, and all have had similar problems.

I see no reason for your theories to be different.

I believe I would already have such support, I am hardly the only one with similar theories. Soheran and I, although we disagree on the concept of the market, could probably compromise enough to work together.

You've provided no reason for such support existing.

The point was that while I realize that the system I propose isn't as efficient as the price system, it is ultimately better.

No, it isn't. The destruction of the price system induces economic chaos, and there is no way to solve that except through the price system.

This isn't exactly what I was talking about, but we'll go with it. What if Mr. Smith claimed the soil in order to strip mine it? After he was done strip mining it, why couldn't Mr. Jones claim the soil to farm it?

Firstly, his claim endures, if he wanted to abandon it, or sell it, he can. The land becomes his because oif his mixing his labour with it. Secondly, strip mining tends to be fairly ruinous to land from the point of view of farming. It is easier for Mr. Jones to homestead land elsewhere. Thirdly, homesteading is based on unowned resources. Since Mr. Smith already owns it, it is not unowned.

Define "legitimate" objectively.

Look it up. My use of it in perfectly in line with the normal use of it. It needs no further definition here.

However, if property rights are based upon use, and someone is using something legitimately, then the state cannot seize it.

Utter rubbish. Firstly, the idea of "property rights based on use" is a contradiction in terms. You either have property rights, or you don't. Setting a condition of "use" makes it a privilege, not a right.

Secondly, since you accept that the state can arbitrate such disputes through courts, the state will decide what is and is not a legitimate use, and which uses are more legitimate than others, and as you said "All they would have to do is change the law."

With everyone in the society potentially demanding new and improved products, this creates more of an incentive than if it's just a few people who have all of the wealth of that society.

What profit is there in fulfilling such a demand? Why would they bother to fulfill a demand unless it would personally profit them?

This is evidence that the USSR wasn't socialist, as one of the requisites of socialism is a classless society. If the society was classless, then everyone would be using the same toilet paper.

That certain parts of socialist theory cannot be reconciled with reality does not prove than any attempt at socialism that was a failure, or attracted bad publicity was no in fact socialist.

An attempt to reconcile socialist theory with reality (which is what the Soviet system, particularly Stalinism was) does not make such an attempt non-socialist.

True freedom includes access to everything the society has to offer, which socialism maximizes.

Since socialism disincentivises productive activity, there cannot be access by everyone to everything he wants, rationing must be instituted.

You should read this: http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

Look for the parts that deal with The Rational versus the Anarchic Concept of Freedom, just go to page 79 in the .pdf (press Shift+Ctrl+N, then type 79 in the box, and press Enter, it isn't hard) It is free, and since you've no understanding of what freedom is, I suggest you read it.

Mikesburg

15-05-2006, 15:27

The state decides what is a lawful use and what is not a lawful use. All they would have to do is change the law.

If they change the law, then I would argue that they aren't really supporting private property rights. (Damn it, you made me use a natural law argument!)

If a particular society wishes to run itself that way, they're welcome to, but I personally am against the idea of supporting people who can work but choose not to.

I agree with you, although there is something to be said about stability in society by removing people from the streets and having children grow up with a roof over their heads.

I disagree with that type of economic system, therefore I am against the idea of someone keeping something they don't use.

Fair enough. I just have a hard time imagining a different system functioning. Not to mention that it would be almost impossible to 'start from scratch', so there would be many disaffected people who are going to resent when the 'collective' takes what they believe to be theirs.

If all capital is pooled, more risks can be taken, and the consequences felt by any particular individual would be fewer. It's worth pointing out that much of the technology we use today was invented by governments, who then sold it to private companies to develop and create demands for.

The same could be said about shareholder capitalism, except at least in capitalism you have competing brands in order to offer a better deal to the consumer. By investing their capital into the company, they are endorsing the work of that company. Can the same be said about a socialist society? It's difficult to imagine getting anything done without some level of coercion.

As far as much of technology we use today being invented by governments, there's a give and take on both ends. Often it's the case that the government is simply the consumer for a private contractor. The potential for the private companies to turn a profit, creates incentive to envision new products for the marketplace. Sometimes the consumer is the government, and sometimes the consumer is 'the average joe'.

The state can seize it even with the right to private property if they change the definition of rightful ownership. The same is true for property rights being based on use. However, if property rights are based upon use, and someone is using something legitimately, then the state cannot seize it.

Again, you've got me resorting to a natural law argument. I hate you. At any rate, I don't believe that the government is supporting private property rights the moment they 'change the rules to suit their need.'

And there's nothing to stop the state from seizing something if you are using it either. Plenty of historical examples of that.

That depends. I am against the concept of markets, but I would imagine that you would purchase that something in order to retain exclusive use of it. If enough people in the society wanted to use something exclusively, and there was a way of making enough of that something for everyone, then the society would do so.

It's difficult to imagine any world without markets. But supposing that such a thing were to happen in our modern industrialized world, I'm sure you'll end up lining up for green sausage just like they did in the USSR.

Well, I think 'need' is a very basic definition. Certainly, things should go to people who need them, but if a society can only provide for people's basic needs, then it's not going to last very long; after all, people can subsistence farm without a society. Therefore, a society is going to have to fulfill some or all of a person's wants, too, in order to last.

Which is what market forces are all about. The trick is to find solutions to making everyone have enough purchasing power to not only meet their basic 'needs', but also to meet a certain degree of entertainment as well.

And good luck trying to convice most people to 'subsistence farm.'

No, but I would like to use it sometimes.

Make friends with your neighbour. He might even throw in a beer or two.

With everyone in the society potentially demanding new and improved products, this creates more of an incentive than if it's just a few people who have all of the wealth of that society.

That's what market forces do. By consumers creating a demand with their purchasing power, companies find ways to bring their products to the market at a price that will pay the companies bills. There's some awful socialist thinking involved when people think that capital controlled by the wealthy doesn't somehow contribute to society. Unless all of their capital is hoarded in a private vault (and I'll admit to a certain degree of this happening), their purchasing power affects the marketplace as well. Even providing capital for banks to loan out to smaller businesses, etc., creates a dynamic marketplace.

Ah, thank you for that example. This is evidence that the USSR wasn't socialist, as one of the requisites of socialism is a classless society. If the society was classless, then everyone would be using the same toilet paper.

But would soft and cushy 2-ply exist without the capitalist marketplace of the west? Would the Kremlin be wiping with tree bark too?

I disagree. True freedom includes access to everything the society has to offer, which socialism maximizes.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I believe that society making my economic choices for me is a restriction of my freedom. But if you envision a world without market forces or currency, then good luck with that. I think it's about as realistic as riding that little trolley in Mr. Roger's house into the magical puppet kingdomland on the other side of his wall.

I'll keep this in mind when taking your future comments into account.

Please do. I think democracy trumps capitalism anyway. I believe in capitalism, but it should exist in a framework that benefits society.

Severidom

15-05-2006, 16:09

Blood has been shed

15-05-2006, 16:59

people who are less qualified in life should not be handed things by the government, or should people who are incredibly qualified be restricted by the government. We do not need governments controlling our money. If you can't do it yourself, I don't think you deserve to.

Socialism is more than just welfare and every country needs it to some extent.. be it education, roads, education, a transport service ect..

It should be about what is most economically efficient and productive, this basically means free market economics most of the time but if the state investing in good quality transport in a city centre can encourage extra tourism and thus improve the economy that let it be.

Michaelic France

15-05-2006, 19:50

The major problem with capitalism is that people who actually create the wealth, be it through skilled labor or not, aren't recognized and given a large enough share of that wealth.

Llewdor

15-05-2006, 19:52

So let me get this straight? "Libertarin socialism" holds that no one should be allowed to own property, but that those who don't produce anything will not be cared for.

So the natural incentive there is for people to produce as little as possible in order to qualify for support. I'll do what I need to do to count as productive, and not one step further, because I don't benefit from it. No one will work hard. Everyone will work just hard enough. Nice recipe for widespread poverty, there.

As such, would anyone ever invent anything? Why would they bother? Wouldn't this lead to an end to things like medical research?

Incentives matter. If no one is allowed to own the means of production, no one is going to build the means of production.

Modokov

15-05-2006, 20:10

Socialism is the way to communism. Thus, I like the idea. Althought socialism was going to be "the thing to happen", not necessarily a political movement, it was succesfully converted to be a political thought and basis of many political parties. Because of it there has been many changes in the society, to the better direction.

So yes, I like socialism.

Dempublicents1

15-05-2006, 21:15

A decent enough idea, in a perfect world where everyone was wonderful to each other and people did their best just because it was their best and nobody wanted more than they needed.

Kind of like pure capitalism is a good idea, in a perfect world where everyone will treat everyone else with respect, where no one will pay less than work deserves, no one will want more for their work than they deserve, no one will purposely keep out more qualified competition, etc.

Problem is, this isn't a perfect world. So, in the end, we have to try and find a happy medium.

Dissonant Cognition

15-05-2006, 22:18

So let me get this straight? "Libertarin socialism" holds that no one should be allowed to own property

Not necessarily. Typically, what is rejected is "property" as instituted and protected by the coercive force of the state. Naturally, as Libertarian Socialism assumes anarchy, no such state can exist, and, therefore, property in that sense cannot exist either. Some within the greater "Libertarian Socialist" recognize and acknowledge "property" in the sense of personal possession or that which is created by one's own labor or peaceful interaction with other individuals, though not guaranteed by the coercive force of any state. Some of these "Libertarian Socialists" also acknowledge and encourage the production and trade of such property according to market principles and mechanisms; see also: Mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon).

Naturally, I would assume that since Libertarian Socialists tend to oppose the existance of the state, they also tend to oppose the existance of the welfare state. Thus, it does not necessarily follow to assume that incentives to work or achieve will not exist because everything will be handed out for free. Although I don't see why there cannot be peaceful/voluntary charity.

If no one is allowed to own the means of production, no one is going to build the means of production.

It is my understanding that Libertarian Socialists tend to advocate the ownership of the means of production by the workers/employees (the cooperative is one example of such an arangement). As such, individuals would indeed have a stake in building and using the means of production to maximum effect; their individual and collective success and wealth depends on it. Again, because of the inherent opposition to the state, the ownership does not belong to some detached authority to whom everyone else is subjugated. If anything, ideally, ownership (and therefore control) is expanded to everyone who has a stake in the given venture.

Jello Biafra

15-05-2006, 22:47

Various types of socialism have been tried, and all have had similar problems.

I see no reason for your theories to be different.Not really, most of the types of socialism that have been tried have failed due entirely to outside forces; for instance during the Spanish Civil War, there were various socialistic communes.

You've provided no reason for such support existing.Are you suggesting that socialists don't exist?
Anyway, I can't claim to know why other people believe in and support socialism, I am not a mindreader, but I do know that they exist. I know my reasons for doing so: that it is in my best interests to. I would imagine that this is true for others, but I can't say for sure.

No, it isn't. The destruction of the price system induces economic chaos, and there is no way to solve that except through the price system.The destruction of the price system means that people have to find a different way to value things for them personally, but as far as the society would be concerned, it would treat their valuations equally.

Firstly, his claim endures, if he wanted to abandon it, or sell it, he can. The land becomes his because oif his mixing his labour with it. Secondly, strip mining tends to be fairly ruinous to land from the point of view of farming. It is easier for Mr. Jones to homestead land elsewhere. Thirdly, homesteading is based on unowned resources. Since Mr. Smith already owns it, it is not unowned.Why should his claim endure?
Does this mean that if I dig a hole on some unowned land, that it is mine?

Look it up. My use of it in perfectly in line with the normal use of it. It needs no further definition here.Not at all. I have my own use of the word "legitimate". I don't support a society that would take legitimately owned property. Fortunately, I don't believe it is impossible to legitimately own something, so I don't have to reconcile socialism with that belief.

Utter rubbish. Firstly, the idea of "property rights based on use" is a contradiction in terms. You either have property rights, or you don't. Setting a condition of "use" makes it a privilege, not a right.I disagree. If using property is afforded to everyone with the society, then it is a right. Simply because there are conditions on the right does not make it a priviledge. Is voting the priviledge of people over 18? (Here in the U.S. you have to be 18 to vote.)

Secondly, since you accept that the state can arbitrate such disputes through courts, the state will decide what is and is not a legitimate use, and which uses are more legitimate than others, and as you said "All they would have to do is change the law."Exactly, this is no different than the system that you propose, in this respect. The reconciliation here is that you would have to accept that property rights aren't sacrosanct; legitimate ownership can be changed by the state.

What profit is there in fulfilling such a demand? Why would they bother to fulfill a demand unless it would personally profit them?I am going to have to thank Dissonant Cognition for this, he said it as well as I could have, and the paragraph is right above me, so I will copy and paste. (Thank you again, DC.) (Emphasis mine.

"It is my understanding that Libertarian Socialists tend to advocate the ownership of the means of production by the workers/employees (the cooperative is one example of such an arangement). As such, individuals would indeed have a stake in building and using the means of production to maximum effect; their individual and collective success and wealth depends on it. Again, because of the inherent opposition to the state, the ownership does not belong to some detached authority to whom everyone else is subjugated. If anything, ideally, ownership (and therefore control) is expanded to everyone who has a stake in the given venture."

So, to answer your question, it does personally profit them, just not in the same way that capitalism does.

That certain parts of socialist theory cannot be reconciled with reality does not prove than any attempt at socialism that was a failure, or attracted bad publicity was no in fact socialist.
An attempt to reconcile socialist theory with reality (which is what the Soviet system, particularly Stalinism was) does not make such an attempt non-socialist.If socialism couldn't be reconciled with reality and if Stalinism was an attempt to do so, you would have a point, however Stalinism was not socialism nor an attempt to reconcile socialism with reality.

Since socialism disincentivises productive activity, there cannot be access by everyone to everything he wants, rationing must be instituted.Isn't the pricing system a form of rationing?

You should read this: http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

Look for the parts that deal with The Rational versus the Anarchic Concept of Freedom, just go to page 79 in the .pdf (press Shift+Ctrl+N, then type 79 in the box, and press Enter, it isn't hard) I'll think about it. Mises isn't very interesting, but at least you're not giving me Narveson.

It is free, and since you've no understanding of what freedom is, I suggest you read it.Lol. You're the one who's confusing freedom with "absence of force", which totally ignores all of the freedoms that can be impugned without using force.

DesignatedMarksman

15-05-2006, 22:48

Tangled Up In Blue

15-05-2006, 22:51

Do you honestly think the CEO of a logging company works any harder than the loggers?
That's not relevant. What is relevant is the value of what he produces.

Forceful redistribution is entirely legitimate.

Not at all. It's the moral equivalent of slavery, subhuman.

Jello Biafra

15-05-2006, 23:05

If they change the law, then I would argue that they aren't really supporting private property rights. (Damn it, you made me use a natural law argument!)Ha ha. Unfortunately, natural law does not support private property rights, but rather property use. Natural law says that you are allowed to use property to secure your own existance and life - but no further.

I agree with you, although there is something to be said about stability in society by removing people from the streets and having children grow up with a roof over their heads.True, but this problem exists in capitalism. Capitalism requires unemployment, which can lead to homelessness. This means that even if somebody wants to work, they can't. Socialism is different; anyone who wants to work can do so.

Fair enough. I just have a hard time imagining a different system functioning. Not to mention that it would be almost impossible to 'start from scratch', so there would be many disaffected people who are going to resent when the 'collective' takes what they believe to be theirs.I don't see why there would be more people then than now who bitch about taxes. I think the collective would be different, as how the resources are used would be up to each member of the collective, whereas how taxation is used in a representative democracy is handled by, well, representatives.

The same could be said about shareholder capitalism, except at least in capitalism you have competing brands in order to offer a better deal to the consumer. By investing their capital into the company, they are endorsing the work of that company. Can the same be said about a socialist society? Yes. Insert "labor" where you have "capital". By investing their labor into the company (and therefore the society), they are endorsing the work of the society.

It's difficult to imagine getting anything done without some level of coercion.Possibly. I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept of kicking people out of the society who don't want to work. I do realize that allowing them to subsistence farm isn't quite the same thing as letting them starve, but I dislike it all the same.

As far as much of technology we use today being invented by governments, there's a give and take on both ends. Often it's the case that the government is simply the consumer for a private contractor. The potential for the private companies to turn a profit, creates incentive to envision new products for the marketplace. Sometimes the consumer is the government, and sometimes the consumer is 'the average joe'.True, but either way this involves a large amount of capital; capital an individual company is unlikely to expend on its own.

Again, you've got me resorting to a natural law argument. I hate you. At any rate, I don't believe that the government is supporting private property rights the moment they 'change the rules to suit their need.'I don't believe governments support private property rights unless the rules suit them.

And there's nothing to stop the state from seizing something if you are using it either. Plenty of historical examples of that.Yep, eminent domain is rampant.

It's difficult to imagine any world without markets. But supposing that such a thing were to happen in our modern industrialized world, I'm sure you'll end up lining up for green sausage just like they did in the USSR. I doubt it; it's entirely possible to ascertain how much sausage you need without markets; you can simply ask the people if they want sausage.

Which is what market forces are all about. The trick is to find solutions to making everyone have enough purchasing power to not only meet their basic 'needs', but also to meet a certain degree of entertainment as well.I don't believe this would work, you would have free market capitalists wondering why "their labor" is going to entertain others.

And good luck trying to convice most people to 'subsistence farm.' No, I'm trying to avoid that. One of the reasons people live in societies is to avoid having to subsistence farm. Therefore, it is in their best interests to want to be a part of (most) societies.

Make friends with your neighbour. He might even throw in a beer or two.True, but I am usually uncomfortable in other people's houses.

That's what market forces do. By consumers creating a demand with their purchasing power, companies find ways to bring their products to the market at a price that will pay the companies bills. There's some awful socialist thinking involved when people think that capital controlled by the wealthy doesn't somehow contribute to society. Unless all of their capital is hoarded in a private vault (and I'll admit to a certain degree of this happening), their purchasing power affects the marketplace as well. Even providing capital for banks to loan out to smaller businesses, etc., creates a dynamic marketplace. True, but if you analyze this paragraph carefully, you're basically saying that the rich only use their capital to help society when it suits them.

But would soft and cushy 2-ply exist without the capitalist marketplace of the west? Would the Kremlin be wiping with tree bark too?I find the latter very unlikely; the people in power didn't have to help the commoners because they could import their own TP; they didn't have to use the Soviet-made stuff. Everyone would be using the same stuff in a society that was actually communist; if there were leaders they would make sure that they had the nice stuff.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I believe that society making my economic choices for me is a restriction of my freedom. I don't believe that the society would make your economic choices for you. You would be welcome to use or not use one of society's computers or Ferraris if you don't want to.

Please do. I think democracy trumps capitalism anyway. I believe in capitalism, but it should exist in a framework that benefits society.
I think democracy trumps socialism; I just don't think that democracy exists in capitalism, and I also don't think capitalism benefits society.

Llewdor

15-05-2006, 23:10

Lol. You're the one who's confusing freedom with "absence of force", which totally ignores all of the freedoms that can be impugned without using force.

I honestly can't think of such a freedom.

Llewdor

15-05-2006, 23:15

Do you honestly think the CEO of a logging company works any harder than the loggers?

No. But he has much rarer skills.

Jello Biafra

15-05-2006, 23:18

I honestly can't think of such a freedom.Really? I'll give an example. Let's say you own a piece of property. Now, I buy all of the property surrounding yours. Then, I put up an electrified fence 15 feet high on the border between your property and mine. I have impugned your freedom of movement, without using any force on you.

Llewdor

15-05-2006, 23:39

Really? I'll give an example. Let's say you own a piece of property. Now, I buy all of the property surrounding yours. Then, I put up an electrified fence 15 feet high on the border between your property and mine. I have impugned your freedom of movement, without using any force on you.

I don't actually object to what you've just done. Since I didn't have any explicit right to have access to my land, and I didn't have the forethought to plan access to my land, you win.

Jello Biafra

15-05-2006, 23:55

I don't actually object to what you've just done. Since I didn't have any explicit right to have access to my land, and I didn't have the forethought to plan access to my land, you win.Thank you. What I am saying is that you should have the explicit right to have access to your land.

Mikesburg

16-05-2006, 00:32

Ha ha. Unfortunately, natural law does not support private property rights, but rather property use. Natural law says that you are allowed to use property to secure your own existance and life - but no further.

Really? Are there hard and fast rules for Natural Law? Written in our DNA somewhere? I've always pegged Natural Law as a wishy-washy fountain of knowledge that we draw Positive Law from.

True, but this problem exists in capitalism. Capitalism requires unemployment, which can lead to homelessness. This means that even if somebody wants to work, they can't. Socialism is different; anyone who wants to work can do so.

There's no reason why Capitalist countries can't answer the problems of homelessness. It's rather disheartening. It's a matter of allocating state resources, and realizing it's better for everyone to get them off the street.

Also, I've never been one of the die-hard Capitalists who maintain that capitalism requires unemployment for a labour pool. After all, that's what immigration is all about. There are options for capitalist countries to decrease unemployment, such as Keynesian methods, however there's a cost to doing this; either borrow the money to pay for the employment, or tax the rich. When given a choice, many in a democracy don't want to pay that price.

I don't see why there would be more people then than now who bitch about taxes. I think the collective would be different, as how the resources are used would be up to each member of the collective, whereas how taxation is used in a representative democracy is handled by, well, representatives.

I was referring more to property than paying taxes. Let's assume that private property is eliminated in a formerly capitalist country. We suddenly need to find homes for thousands of people let's say. Who determines who lives where? If you were living in an apartment, but want a waterfront property that was available only to the rich before, should you get it? Who determines who gets this? If you owned a large home before, will you be forced to admit strangers to live in your home until construction of new homes begin? How big and luxurious are the new dwellings that are built going to be? Will everyone who didn't have a home before be forced into apartment buildings?

Parkwood Estate is just around the corner from my house (a mansion featured in several movies, including X-men, Billy Madison, the Tuxedo, etc.) Who get's to live there?

I don't believe governments support private property rights unless the rules suit them.

We get the government we deserve.

I doubt it; it's entirely possible to ascertain how much sausage you need without markets; you can simply ask the people if they want sausage.

You don't think the people of the Soviet Union wanted sausage? And fresh sausage at that? It's not like they could just take their business elsewhere, they had to get the sausage they were allocated.

Sausage. Just had to say it one more time. Sausage.

I don't believe this would work, you would have free market capitalists wondering why "their labor" is going to entertain others.

That's the whole idea of the 'social safety net' and Keynesian principles. It sounds like you've lived too long in the US. Canada's not exactly perfect, but it's possible for everyone to meet their basic needs and enjoy some entertainment.

True, but I am usually uncomfortable in other people's houses.

That's kind of a funny statement coming from a socialist. You need another beer.

True, but if you analyze this paragraph carefully, you're basically saying that the rich only use their capital to help society when it suits them.

I'm saying that in Capitalism, everyone uses their purchasing power for their own interest, and as long as everyone is 'using' their purchasing power, the currency will stay in circulation and ensure a dynamic market. The danger lies in capital flight or recession.

I find the latter very unlikely; the people in power didn't have to help the commoners because they could import their own TP; they didn't have to use the Soviet-made stuff. Everyone would be using the same stuff in a society that was actually communist; if there were leaders they would make sure that they had the nice stuff.

I think you're missing what I'm getting at. Let's assume that you had a hypothetical USSR with a big wall around it, and it had no contact with the outside world. Would they have developed comfy 2-ply toilet paper without market demands, or would their command economy continue to churn out rough butt-chafing sandpaper?

In a market economy, one company may decide to make 'comfier' TP in the expectation of making a profit. All of the other TP manufacturer's have to compete if they want to stay in business and increase the quality of their TP.

Meanwhile, back in our hypothetical isolated USSR, the only thing that might change the nature of TP, would be a massive demand for change. People might not even think that 2-ply comfort is even possible.

There's a reason why western capitalist nations were turning out better products than the Eastern Bloc. (With the possible exception of the AK-47.)

I don't believe that the society would make your economic choices for you. You would be welcome to use or not use one of society's computers or Ferraris if you don't want to.

Regardless of whether or not the person who use to own the Ferrari objects to it? Who's doing the sewer-treatment work in this scenario? And who gets the job handing out lotion at the tanning booth?

I think democracy trumps socialism; I just don't think that democracy exists in capitalism, and I also don't think capitalism benefits society.

Come on now. Democracy existed in it's purest form in ancient Greece. Athens was comparable to a capitalist nation (unless you subscribe to the view that capitalism only exists in industrialized societies.) It certainly wasn't socialist. And there has to be some benefits to capitalism. We're communicating with one right now.

Llewdor

16-05-2006, 00:43

Thank you. What I am saying is that you should have the explicit right to have access to your land.

Guaranteed by whom? There's no coercive force.

Llewdor

16-05-2006, 00:44

I think democracy trumps socialism; I just don't think that democracy exists in capitalism, and I also don't think capitalism benefits society.

I don't think democracy benefits society.

Mikesburg

16-05-2006, 03:25

I don't think democracy benefits society.

:rolleyes:

There's a whole other thread for this, but just for a moment here; what would you propose instead?

Soheran

16-05-2006, 03:46

Mule fritters, my concept of freedom is the absence of the initiation of force.

Yes; it's an absurd one, when combined with a concept of "initiation of force" as including the violation of someone's property, and I have explained why several times.

No, it doesn't I can shoot all I like, provided I violate no one elses rights.

But your freedom to shoot is restricted by my right to life; you cannot shoot me.

That is not in accordance with your moral system in which one does not have rights because one cannot have private property, so one must conform to government.

Only if the government sets restrictions. Which it can regardless of property capabilities, as long as it has the necessary means of violence.

You should read a book on free market economics. A worker is not paid out of generosity.

Irrelevant. He is still dependent on them and their actions, and he still must meet their approval.

Anyway, he is free to do this trade, and free to keep what he gets for his work.

As he is in socialism.

Now you are going back on your arguments. You have stated time and time again that those who own property should have it taken away to give opportunities to those without. Since our propertyless man now has property, you must logically take it away to support others who have none.

Nonsense. He has no incentive, since if he gain more property, it will be taken away to give to those who have none. Anyway, before this process, our propertyless man, under your system, is already given what he needs. Why need he try when it is simply given to him?

Once socialism has been established, there is no point to taking away anyone's property. You are confusing two things - the legitimacy today of seizing the property of the rich, and the societal organization of a socialist society after the means of production are already under social ownership.

That contradicts what you said above.

Because I do not adhere to absolutist notions of rights?

Property does exist. It is a matter of ownership, and you propose that what an individual creates be taken away from him by "society". No matter what rhetorical dodges you use, that is what it comes down to.

But mere exchange does not give us an origin for private property, merely a justification for its ownership. If the origin of private property is illegitimate, so is its ownership through exchange.

From whom? Mother nature? What is the maximum sentence for "theft from pseudo-divine entities"?

No, from everyone else. It belonged to no one, and he made it his own; there was no exchange, he merely usurped everyone else's claim to it by force.

Anyway, since, as you say, property doesn't exist, how can it be stealing?

I said private property rights don't exist, at least not in the absolutist form you advocate, not that private property doesn't exist.

No such right to access can exist without private property rights. In the absence of private property rights, access depends on gaining the permission of those who control society.

And in any society ruled by a state, access depends on the state not shooting you for saying something. Rights always depend on people not violating them.

It is not the same. In capitalism, I have the freedom to choose with whom I cooperate. In socialism, I am forced to work for "society", and must accept what "society" gives me in exchange.

"Society" is not and has never been a monolithic entity; just because you must work for it doesn't mean that your actual options are limited.

Mule fritters. Socialism always tends to degenerate towards authoritarianism,

Leninist distortions of socialism, maybe.

and cannot allow choice of employment.

Nonsense. Sure it can.

You stated it, however, the closest you have given to a consistant definition of coercion is "not having all the choices one wants, regardless of the circumstances or the effect on others". This is an absurd definition of coercion. Am I being coerced because I don't get offered $5 million a year jobs every day?

I think "coercion" as a concept is rather incoherent when it comes down to it, but that is another discussion. Here I was using your definition of coercion.

Remotstad

16-05-2006, 03:52

I've always associated Socialism with the Nazis of Germany in WWII, and I'm Jewish. So yeah. :upyours:

Soheran

16-05-2006, 04:00

I've always associated Socialism with the Nazis of Germany in WWII, and I'm Jewish. So yeah. :upyours:

So how does the ardent socialism of much of the opposition to the Nazis fit into that framework?

Psychotic Mongooses

16-05-2006, 04:04

I've always associated Socialism with the Nazis of Germany in WWII, and I'm Jewish. So yeah. :upyours:

You always associated Socialism with the Nazis...?
Riight.

Maybe its just me, but I always associated Socialism with the Soviet Union. But hey, thats just me....

Europa Maxima

16-05-2006, 04:06

Although Socialism is an ideology that does not appeal to me in any way, I can at least see the ideological reasons for which some support it. That said, it is not for me.

Europa Maxima

16-05-2006, 04:31

I've always associated Socialism with the Nazis of Germany in WWII, and I'm Jewish. So yeah. :upyours:
So which planet did you descend to Earth from?

Dobbsworld

16-05-2006, 04:48

So which planet did you descend to Earth from?
Planet Amurricka. Where nobody knows their right from their left, and every political party is a conservative party.

Europa Maxima

16-05-2006, 04:51

Planet Amurricka. Where nobody knows their right from their left.
Must make driving a real bitch.

Xazikstan

16-05-2006, 04:53

Most people have a skewed view on what socialism is. This is because of many things which I will not go into because it will just spark emotional responses from people rather than intelligent ones. I suggest deciding how you feel about socialism only after you have educated yourself on it. Education means studying both sides and considering both. Most the people here who give there opinions havent read a lick about socialism... or haven't understood it. This is why you cannot use this thread as a way to educate yourself about socialism. You can only do that by reading multiple history books, and books from socialist icons and leaders, as well as modern socialist ideas and texts.

You can tell that people do not understand it because they automatically associate it with large-government or centralized government... like totalitarianism or authoritarianism.

A large, overwhelming majority of Socialists do not support large government or authoritarianism, or totalitarianism. We do not support the "national socialism" of nazi germany. Stalin's USSR was more related to fascism than it was towards socialism.

Most socialists are democratic socialists, and think the states function is to destroy itself after society has prepared itself for a time so they can live without the state and without classes.

We simply want the surplus wealth that goes to wealthy business owners to go to the working class which originally created that wealth. It is not idealism, it is something that can be acheived. Not easily, not in every society. It takes cultural change and education.

We do not intend on forcing our ideas on anyone who does not want them, we simply want to live in a society which has a higher standard of morals and ethics. Times have changed since Marx, and so has socialism. It is hard to get an accurate grasp of the socialist movement when your only source of information is from capitalists. Capitalists naturally will make up any lie, and spread any misinformation, to further their own goals and aims.

Lenin once said (and I in no way "idolize" Lenin), "Under socialism, all will govern, until everyone is accustomed to no one governing"

And that is one simplistic idea that most socialists have. We do not want a large state... Quite the opposite... we want to destroy the state, and minimize it as much as possible... just as much as any so-called "libertarian" would.

We realize that our ideas and economics can only be acheived in a society that wants them. Like I said before, we do not intend on forcing it on anyone, but we will defend workers rights across the globe... whether they are in america, poland, or under sweatshops in indonesia or china.

Like I said before, one must educate themselves thoroughly before they can come to any educated decision on where to stand on the capitalist vs socialist argument. It takes a lot of education, something that exceeds simply listening to your parents tell you what they think... Something that exceeds reading a few threads and the masses opinion. It takes years and years of studying various books and historical events to arrive at an educated decision... I have been studying socialism for 8-9 years and I still have a long way to go... there are lots more books to read.

Education means far more than accepting 1 mans rhetoric, it means being open minded, and considering all possibilities. Once you have educated yourself you can last in an economic debate without being torn to shreds, or left with nothing but cheap tactics.

Economic theory is much more complicated than most people would like to believe. The majority arrive at such irrational opinions, and haven't bothered to scratch the surface of socialist ideology... or capitalist ideology for that matter.

Im not trying to convert anyone to think any certain way, although I am well aware that a lot of you will disagree with me. I simply ask that you go beyond the capitalist realm to teach yourself on what socialism is, and what it isn't. Once you have learned and can explain the different ideas of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Makhno, Mao, Che, and others... Once you learn how they differ, once you learn the history of every socialist revolution... you can give an informed opinion... Until than, hit the books.
Read capitalist economic ideology too. It is much more complicated than what people like to think...

And now I sound like a broken record, so I will end it at this.
I just ask that people give us freedom to have our own opinions, and that you do not jump to conclusions about our beliefs before you ask us personally. There are many different flavors of socialism.

It is not great hate which inspires people, but great love... and that is important to remember... we do not want to be tyrants, we do not want to oppress anyone... just as im sure a lot of you do not wish on anyone either...

It is important to know that mostly everyone, regardless their different political and economic beliefs, is only doing what they think is best for everyone.

Dobbsworld

16-05-2006, 04:54

Must make driving a real bitch.
I think they just turn on the ignition and cross their fingers. Steering wheels? Thing of the past.

DesignatedMarksman

16-05-2006, 04:55

Thank you. What I am saying is that you should have the explicit right to have access to your land.

And your money. And the right to practice religion freely, and the right to use your money in whatever way you want. And to buy whatever you want. And to own whatever 'dangerous' things you want (Machine guns come to mind, and so do SUVs. Controlled substances are a different thing).

And a working government that doesn't steal your tax dollars to give to illegal aliens/never do wells.

Europa Maxima

16-05-2006, 04:57

Im not trying to convert anyone to think any certain way, although I am well aware that a lot of you will disagree with me. I simply ask that you go beyond the capitalist realm to teach yourself on what socialism is, and what it isn't. Once you have learned and can explain the different ideas of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Makhno, Mao, Che, and others... Once you learn how they differ, once you learn the history of every socialist revolution... you can give an informed opinion... Until than, hit the books.
Read capitalist economic ideology too. It is much more complicated than what people like to think...
The most excellent advice one could conceivably offer.

Europa Maxima

16-05-2006, 05:01

I think they just turn on the ignition and cross their fingers. Steering wheels? Thing of the past.
In true American style. Reminds me of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, when Sean Connery said to the young American dude "Oh, I saw... Very American. Fire enough bullets and hope to hit the target. ".

Disraeliland 5

16-05-2006, 05:39

Yes; it's an absurd one, when combined with a concept of "initiation of force" as including the violation of someone's property, and I have explained why several times.

No, you haven't. You've stated why you think it, however, you've not actually provided an explaination of why you can divorce property from person.

Irrelevant. He is still dependent on them and their actions, and he still must meet their approval.

He has the option of self-employment, and he has the option to find another employer.

The employer is just as dependent on the worker as he on the employer. Of course, government, in "protecting" the worker has made the worker more dependent on the employer because all of these government "protections" make employing people expensive and risky, so there is less demand for labour, more unemployment in other words.

As he is in socialism.

No, he isn't, unless you're talking about some new sort of socialism that is identical to capitalism.

But mere exchange does not give us an origin for private property, merely a justification for its ownership. If the origin of private property is illegitimate, so is its ownership through exchange.

You haven't read much about the subject on which you're commenting.

No, from everyone else. It belonged to no one, and he made it his own; there was no exchange, he merely usurped everyone else's claim to it by force.

If it belinged to no one, how could he steal it from everyone? To steal is to deprive an owner of his property without his consent. By definition, you cannot steal something which is owned by no one.

He has usurped no one else's claim because they've not made a claim.

Nonsense. Sure it can.

How? Who would choose to clean the sewers? Are you saying there are people with some affinity for spending their days 6 inches deep in shit? Since socialism removes the economic incentives for cleaning the sewers, I don't see why anyone would choose to do it.

"Society" is not and has never been a monolithic entity; just because you must work for it doesn't mean that your actual options are limited.

Yes it does. "Society" dictates the terms of such a transaction, and "society" rations the jobs, and the wealth generated. My options are limited to what "society" permits.

The only option I have to use my mind and hands to improve my lot in the way I see fit is to leave society. The poverty socialism invariably brings is a good inducement to leave.

I think "coercion" as a concept is rather incoherent when it comes down to it, but that is another discussion. Here I was using your definition of coercion.

Your definition of coercion is certainly not coherient, nor is it objective. Mine is. Under my definition, anyone can tell by looking at the facts whether or not someone has been coerced. If someone has threatened violence there is coercion.

Under your definition, no amount of looking at the facts can clearly show whether or not someone has been coerced, the determination is dependent entirely on the personal prejudice of the observer.

So how does the ardent socialism of much of the opposition to the Nazis fit into that framework?

Quite easily. The root of the socialist opposition to the National Socialists was that they wanted to be in power instead of the National Socialists. Likewise, the National Socialist emphasis on its socialist opposition was rooted in the similarity of their policies, the German people had turned overwhelmingly to forms of socialism, making socialists other than the National Socialists the most potent opposition.

The Most Holy Dragon

16-05-2006, 05:40

I think that the concept of socialism is grand in theory, the idea of everything belonging to the community and all the sleflessness. But once it goes from theory to practice, you find trouble. The problem is, everyting present through human action has the chance to, and almost always is, corrupted by greed, lust, pirde and all sorts of selfish human emotions. The hardest part about a good idea is its practical application.

Secret aj man

16-05-2006, 05:57

It has its uses. When applied properly it can be used to convince certain unreasonable people to accept reforms that benefit the individual through society.

i would prefer to benefit myself thru myself...not thru society.
i also as someone else said..despise nanny staters

no offense to you,but just because you think you have(or socialism) has the way for me to live in harmony with all,i dont care,i hate people or philosphys that claim they know what is best for me...reeks of elitist and snobs,and the whole "i know better then you ivory tower types"

maybe i am a bit sensitive on the subject?

it is like some judge passing judgement on me,that has no clue who i am as a person,but is convinced they know what is best for me?

now multiply that by a thousand wannabe know it alls,and toss in a big ass buaracracy(sp)and you have a recipe for disaster and "witch burning"

no thanks...socialism may work with a few people on an island that like each other,and only maybe then...most likely personalities will soon bare their ugly heads,and friends will soon hate each other.

yes i have that little faith in people..sucks...but that is life.

Mt-Tau

16-05-2006, 06:07

In true American style. Reminds me of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, when Sean Connery said to the young American dude "Oh, I saw... Very American. Fire enough bullets and hope to hit the target. ".

That is more of a west side thing.

Mt-Tau

16-05-2006, 06:14

You always associated Socialism with the Nazis...?
Riight.

Maybe its just me, but I always associated Socialism with the Soviet Union. But hey, thats just me....

Eh, they both suck in thier own ways. Atleast they match up in the killing unwanteds department.

Soheran

16-05-2006, 06:25

No, you haven't. You've stated why you think it, however, you've not actually provided an explaination of why you can divorce property from person.

Because someone isn't what they own. I think this follows pretty logically from any theory of personal identity that makes an occassional brush with sanity. I am not my computer.

He has the option of self-employment, and he has the option to find another employer.

Even in the case of self-employment, he needs capital to start, and he needs people to buy his goods.

The employer is just as dependent on the worker as he on the employer.

Nonsense. The employer has capital to fall back on, he has other workers he can hire, etc. In almost all cases his position is superior to that of the worker. And interdependence still exists under a socialist system.

No, he isn't, unless you're talking about some new sort of socialism that is identical to capitalism.

He has the right to take the money he attains and buy goods for his personal use, or for his family's use, with it. Why else give him money in the first place?

You haven't read much about the subject on which you're commenting.

An actual response would be appreciated. You have not explained how one could argue that an exchange was perfectly legitimate if one of the goods exchanged was illegitimately owned.

If it belinged to no one, how could he steal it from everyone? To steal is to deprive an owner of his property without his consent. By definition, you cannot steal something which is owned by no one.

And by definition, you cannot own something that is owned by no one, too.

He has usurped no one else's claim because they've not made a claim.

So it's a simple question of who makes the claim first? Thus, if I claim ownership of all the uninhabited portions of universe and use that as justification for enforcing my exclusive right to Mars' resources, the fact that nobody has done so beforehand makes that legitimate?

If he has the right to make a claim, everyone else has the right to make a claim, too; if everyone has the right to make a claim, it is not his private property.

How? Who would choose to clean the sewers? Are you saying there are people with some affinity for spending their days 6 inches deep in shit? Since socialism removes the economic incentives for cleaning the sewers, I don't see why anyone would choose to do it.

Socialism does not necessarily remove the economic incentives for cleaning the sewers. One of the major reasons my prefered model of socialism does not abolish money is precisely that problem, but if you want to use that argument you will have to use it against someone who does advocate such a thing, not me.

Yes it does. "Society" dictates the terms of such a transaction, and "society" rations the jobs, and the wealth generated. My options are limited to what "society" permits.

Your options always are, in any economy where it is extremely difficult to be self-sufficient.

Your definition of coercion is certainly not coherient, nor is it objective.

I do not recall giving a definition of coercion anywhere. Care to point to it?

Mine is. Under my definition, anyone can tell by looking at the facts whether or not someone has been coerced. If someone has threatened violence there is coercion.

Right, but the key element in coercion, the reason why it is morally relevant, is the lack of choices faced by the victim. He can accept the conditions of the deal or violence is dealt against him. Assuming the existence of human free will, it is not in dispute that in the circumstance the person is freely choosing the preferable option for him; the question is whether the other option is so horrid that his choice cannot be considered willing. Yet here the concept breaks down; where is the line drawn? Is the threat of unemployment coercion, if the result will be death by starvation? What about prison, or a mere fine, or expulsion from the community?

Quite easily. The root of the socialist opposition to the National Socialists was that they wanted to be in power instead of the National Socialists. Likewise, the National Socialist emphasis on its socialist opposition was rooted in the similarity of their policies, the German people had turned overwhelmingly to forms of socialism, making socialists other than the National Socialists the most potent opposition.

So the blatant racism and nationalism of the Nazis, compared to the (at least rhetorical) class-based internationalism of the Socialists, had absolutely nothing to do with it?

The fact is that there are quite obvious differences between the modern socialist movements and the Nazis, even completely leaving aside the economics (where there were still significant differences.)

Disraeliland 5

16-05-2006, 08:17

Because someone isn't what they own. I think this follows pretty logically from any theory of personal identity that makes an occassional brush with sanity. I am not my computer.

No, but your property is either the fruit of your labours, or what you've contracted for. It stems from you.

Even in the case of self-employment, he needs capital to start, and he needs people to buy his goods.

And all he needs to do is convince others to loan him the capital, and convince others to buy his goods.

Nonsense. The employer has capital to fall back on, he has other workers he can hire, etc. In almost all cases his position is superior to that of the worker. And interdependence still exists under a socialist system.

He only has them to the extent that others voluntarily provide them. He must meet the approval of the people who provide the capital, and he must provide a deal with which workers will approve, of the workers can find a deal with which they do approve.

He has the right to take the money he attains and buy goods for his personal use, or for his family's use, with it. Why else give him money in the first place?

But socialism denies private property. Under capitalism he has those rights. Under socialism, he cannot have them because there are no private property rights.

And by definition, you cannot own something that is owned by no one, too.

Yes, I can. I can make a claim on it.

So it's a simple question of who makes the claim first? Thus, if I claim ownership of all the uninhabited portions of universe and use that as justification for enforcing my exclusive right to Mars' resources, the fact that nobody has done so beforehand makes that legitimate?

As I've said before, you've not read anything about which you're commenting. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, and as you can find if you would bother looking, he must do something to establish his claim. He must mix his labour with the unownedf land.

Your options always are, in any economy where it is extremely difficult to be self-sufficient.

Self-sufficiency is not only always difficult, it is completely insane. Anyway, the need to secure the voluntary cooperation of others is hardly a restriction on one's liberty.

I do not recall giving a definition of coercion anywhere. Care to point to it?

You have referred to coercion in the context of someone not having all the choices he wants. Honestly, if you must evade you should just stop posting.

Right, but the key element in coercion, the reason why it is morally relevant, is the lack of choices faced by the victim.

No, it isn't the lack of choice when faced with violence, it is the total absence of choice when faced with violence. There is a huge difference between a lack of choice, and the absence of choice.

Also, your solution to the lack of choice is more coercion.

Where I draw the line is simple, the threat of violence. Where you draw the line is entirely subjective.

He can accept the conditions of the deal or violence is dealt against him.

Which is not relevant to a rational concept of freedom of capitalism. It is only relevant to socialism.

Is the threat of unemployment coercion, if the result will be death by starvation?

The question is based on a false premise, i.e. that that actually is the result of unemployment.

If he wanted another job, he would find one. It may not be a very good job, but it will be a job.

In any case, it is not up to the employer to make sure there are good choices available to the employee.

So the blatant racism and nationalism of the Nazis, compared to the (at least rhetorical) class-based internationalism of the Socialists, had absolutely nothing to do with it?

No, the racial views of the National Socialists were in general acceptable to the Germans. The Germans were generally anti-Semitic, and Russo-phobic. Europeans are still quite ready to believe Jewish conspiracy theories, and attack Jews.

****************************

But your freedom to shoot is restricted by my right to life; you cannot shoot me.

I don't have a right to initiate force against another. Most people would consider shooting someone an initiation of force. You see how simple it is? How easy it is to place things properly?

Cameroi

16-05-2006, 09:38

if conservatives gave a dam about morality we'd all be eco-socialist anarcho-pacifists

=^^=
.../\...

Disraeliland 5

16-05-2006, 09:44

Conservatives have usually been ready to invest in major infrastructure projects.

Don't troll, son.

Jello Biafra

16-05-2006, 11:41

Guaranteed by whom? There's no coercive force.There are ways of doing it. One way would be for everyone in the society to refuse to associate with the person who is attempting to deprive you of access to the land.

I don't think democracy benefits society.I don't think there's a better way of benefitting society than democracy; of course, my reasons are entirely subjective.

Jello Biafra

16-05-2006, 11:57

Really? Are there hard and fast rules for Natural Law? Written in our DNA somewhere? I've always pegged Natural Law as a wishy-washy fountain of knowledge that we draw Positive Law from.Natural law, as all laws should be, is consistent, it's not some random mish mash of maxims.

There's no reason why Capitalist countries can't answer the problems of homelessness. It's rather disheartening. It's a matter of allocating state resources, and realizing it's better for everyone to get them off the street. True, but good luck with that.

Also, I've never been one of the die-hard Capitalists who maintain that capitalism requires unemployment for a labour pool. After all, that's what immigration is all about. But if too many people immigrate, some people will be unemployed. If everyone is employed, they can demand more wages from their employers; the threat of losing their job wouldn't matter as they could easily find another.

There are options for capitalist countries to decrease unemployment, such as Keynesian methods, however there's a cost to doing this; either borrow the money to pay for the employment, or tax the rich. When given a choice, many in a democracy don't want to pay that price. Yes, it's sad, but true.

I was referring more to property than paying taxes. Let's assume that private property is eliminated in a formerly capitalist country. We suddenly need to find homes for thousands of people let's say. Who determines who lives where? If you were living in an apartment, but want a waterfront property that was available only to the rich before, should you get it? Who determines who gets this? It could be determined randomly, or all of the houses bulldozed and built from scratch.

If you owned a large home before, will you be forced to admit strangers to live in your home until construction of new homes begin? I do believe in a rota system for lots of things, but not for living quarters. You would probably be encouraged to do so, though.

How big and luxurious are the new dwellings that are built going to be? I imagine the sizes would initially be standard, but people would have the option of adding on later; also customized homes could be built.
Will everyone who didn't have a home before be forced into apartment buildings? I imagine there will be both free standing houses and apartment buildings.

Parkwood Estate is just around the corner from my house (a mansion featured in several movies, including X-men, Billy Madison, the Tuxedo, etc.) Who get's to live there?It could be done randomly, or converted into apartments.

We get the government we deserve. True.

You don't think the people of the Soviet Union wanted sausage? And fresh sausage at that? It's not like they could just take their business elsewhere, they had to get the sausage they were allocated.

Sausage. Just had to say it one more time. Sausage. I'm saying that the government didn't need to be concerned with what the people had since they (the government) received different allocations.

That's the whole idea of the 'social safety net' and Keynesian principles. It sounds like you've lived too long in the US. Canada's not exactly perfect, but it's possible for everyone to meet their basic needs and enjoy some entertainment. Canada does sound lovely, I'm tempted to move there.

That's kind of a funny statement coming from a socialist. You need another beer.Heh. I don't think it's funny, I think it's more just operating in an environment that I'm not accustomed to.

I'm saying that in Capitalism, everyone uses their purchasing power for their own interest, and as long as everyone is 'using' their purchasing power, the currency will stay in circulation and ensure a dynamic market. The danger lies in capital flight or recession.Right, and if capital flight is in the interest of the person with capital, they will do so. The people without capital are at the mercy of the people with capital.

I think you're missing what I'm getting at. Let's assume that you had a hypothetical USSR with a big wall around it, and it had no contact with the outside world. Would they have developed comfy 2-ply toilet paper without market demands, or would their command economy continue to churn out rough butt-chafing sandpaper? I believe so, yes.

In a market economy, one company may decide to make 'comfier' TP in the expectation of making a profit. All of the other TP manufacturer's have to compete if they want to stay in business and increase the quality of their TP.

Meanwhile, back in our hypothetical isolated USSR, the only thing that might change the nature of TP, would be a massive demand for change. Yes, there would need to be a demand for change. I don't see this as being different than a market demand for change; instead of demanding change with one's wallet, one does so with one's voice.
People might not even think that 2-ply comfort is even possible.I think they'd be willing to experiment.

There's a reason why western capitalist nations were turning out better products than the Eastern Bloc. (With the possible exception of the AK-47.) Those in charge in the Eastern Bloc weren't concerned with churning out better products.

Regardless of whether or not the person who use to own the Ferrari objects to it? It depends. If the person is using the Ferrari, that would be legitimate and they would be uninterfered with. If not, <shrug>. I was referring more to Ferraris that society itself would manufacture.

Who's doing the sewer-treatment work in this scenario?Well, it's true that it's unlikely that someone could be convinced to do it full time, but there are other options. One would be for everyone who wishes to have sewer-treatment to take turns doing it via a rota system. Those individuals who didn't wish to do sewer-treatment would not be allowed to use the sewers and can use buckets instead.

And who gets the job handing out lotion at the tanning booth? Lol. I don't think society would feel that that's a necessary job.

Come on now. Democracy existed in it's purest form in ancient Greece. Yes and no. It was much more direct than ours today, but only men who owned property were allowed to vote. So much for universal suffrage.

Athens was comparable to a capitalist nation (unless you subscribe to the view that capitalism only exists in industrialized societies.) It certainly wasn't socialist. And we all know how long democracy lasted there.
And there has to be some benefits to capitalism. We're communicating with one right now.Oh, there are benefits to capitalism; it's hardly the worst system ever. I simply believe there are better systems.

Jello Biafra

16-05-2006, 11:59

And your money. And the right to practice religion freely, and the right to use your money in whatever way you want. And to buy whatever you want. And to own whatever 'dangerous' things you want (Machine guns come to mind, and so do SUVs. Controlled substances are a different thing).

And a working government that doesn't steal your tax dollars to give to illegal aliens/never do wells.I can agree with the right to practice religion freely. I don't have a problem with gun ownership. I don't agree with the other things you've said.

Disraeliland 5

16-05-2006, 13:00

But if too many people immigrate, some people will be unemployed. If everyone is employed, they can demand more wages from their employers; the threat of losing their job wouldn't matter as they could easily find another.

You've not heard of the "invisible hand", have you?

Excessive immigration is a problem inherient in hampered market economies (which is the model for practically everywhere in the West). In a real capitalist economy, people would come for jobs, or as family members of the former. Supply and demand applies as much for labour as for light bulbs. A surplus of labour (unemployment) would simply drive people out of the country. A shortage would induce people to come. This is supply and demand, and the price system telling people what is profitable in which place.

Yes, there would need to be a demand for change. I don't see this as being different than a market demand for change; instead of demanding change with one's wallet, one does so with one's voice.

There is a difference. Market demand must be fulfilled by sellers, or those sellers will go out of business. Under socialism, "demand" is merely a request. The government would not go out of business by not meeting the demands of the people. I know you like talking in terms of "society" controlling the economy, but you mean government.

Those in charge in the Eastern Bloc weren't concerned with churning out better products.

Most politicians aren't concerned with better products. Politicising the economy tends to lead to the economy being hugely out of touch with the people. In market economies, sellers have to stay well in touch with what the people want, otherwise they will go out of business.

Well, it's true that it's unlikely that someone could be convinced to do it full time, but there are other options. One would be for everyone who wishes to have sewer-treatment to take turns doing it via a rota system. Those individuals who didn't wish to do sewer-treatment would not be allowed to use the sewers and can use buckets instead.

I've a much easier solution. One that works for everyone. It is not a job people would like, and it is highly necessary. Paying them well, which would give them an economic inducement to spend 40 hours a week knee-deep in shit.

Incidently, to enforce your "no clean, no toilet rule", you would need a comprehensive secret police apparatus, to ensure that no unauthorised flushing takes place. Like most socialist measures, this requires a totalitarian police state to enforce it.

Lol. I don't think society would feel that that's a necessary job.

Then why do they exist? That it exists shows that some people feel it necessary. I do not, I do not use such places, but there are those who do.

JB, you blither on about how a socialist system, and the destruction of the price system will make an economy better for the people, yet everything you would have government (sorry, "society", can't have people thinking you're just another state socialist) do the free market does better, more accurately, and more efficiently.

Llewdor

17-05-2006, 00:29

:rolleyes:

There's a whole other thread for this, but just for a moment here; what would you propose instead?

True democracy doesn't pace any limits on what the majority can decide. I want very firm limits on that so as to avoid majority tyranny.

But that raises the question of who chooses those limits. It's a never ending cycle.

I'd prefer some sort of meritocracy where the decisions are made by the person or group which has satisfied some sort of objective criterion.

Neu Leonstein

17-05-2006, 01:28

I'd prefer some sort of meritocracy where the decisions are made by the person or group which has satisfied some sort of objective criterion.
Like creating wealth?

Dobbsworld

17-05-2006, 01:57

Like creating wealth?
How about like providing gainful employment?

Neu Leonstein

17-05-2006, 01:59

How about like providing gainful employment?
Almost the same thing, isn't it?

Dobbsworld

17-05-2006, 02:03

Almost the same thing, isn't it?
Not necessarily.

Neu Leonstein

17-05-2006, 02:08

Not necessarily.
Well, "gainful employment" presumes that those who are employed get paid some amount of money.

That money has got to come from somewhere. In most cases, that is done by someone who coordinates the work of his or her employees to create wealth.

Sure, someone who doesn't create wealth could theoretically "employ" someone, but there wouldn't be a wage or salary, so it wouldn't be "gainful", at least in a materialistic sense.

Dobbsworld

17-05-2006, 02:14

Well, "gainful employment" presumes that those who are employed get paid some amount of money.

That money has got to come from somewhere. In most cases, that is done by someone who coordinates the work of his or her employees to create wealth.

Sure, someone who doesn't create wealth could theoretically "employ" someone, but there wouldn't be a wage or salary, so it wouldn't be "gainful", at least in a materialistic sense.
Compensation could take on any number of forms. Why be constrained by existing mediums of exchange of capital?

Dissonant Cognition

17-05-2006, 02:16

I'd prefer some sort of meritocracy where the decisions are made by the person or group which has satisfied some sort of objective criterion.

But that raises the question of what "objective criterion." Intelligence? Running faster? Jumping higher? Ability to point the most guns at the most foreheads? What exactly?

Mikesburg

17-05-2006, 02:17

True democracy doesn't pace any limits on what the majority can decide. I want very firm limits on that so as to avoid majority tyranny.

But that raises the question of who chooses those limits. It's a never ending cycle.

I'd prefer some sort of meritocracy where the decisions are made by the person or group which has satisfied some sort of objective criterion.

The problem with the meritocracy idea, is that it makes the assumption that the majority of people don't know what's in their best interest, which is a kind of disgusting paternalistic attitude in my view. The people who actually run for government are, for the most part, the ones who are going to be instrumenting change and control of the nation. Democracy simply gives the people's 'seal of approval' if you will. It provides legitimacy.

Now, there are certainly ways to reform democracy, to make sure that the leaders are slightly 'more' qualified, or perhaps that the voters are more qualified, but in the end, without some sort of democratic legitimacy, you'll always end up with a select few whose only interest is to constantly stay in power.

Democracy provides stability, in the form of being able to transfer between governments in a legitimate and non-violent fashion. Any other system either results in a) difficulties in transfering between governments and open hostilities, or b) an elite group who can't possibly understand what's in the best interest of the people its governing.

Neu Leonstein

17-05-2006, 02:17

Compensation could take on any number of forms. Why be constrained by existing mediums of exchange of capital?
Whatever you use, it'll be some expression of 'material wealth'. Non-material wealth doesn't feed us, and wealth is by definition something desirable we strive for, ie an incentive, a gain.

Undelia

17-05-2006, 02:19

Compensation could take on any number of forms. Why be constrained by existing mediums of exchange of capital?
Because that’s reality?

Dobbsworld

17-05-2006, 02:23

Because that’s reality?
Some reality.

Kitsolvnira

17-05-2006, 02:27

There are way too many different kinds, for starters. It gets confusing. Some types get along, others are sworn enemies. Some are nearly identical, others are polar opposites. As for me, I think many socialists have good intentions. They honestly want a better world, but IMO, no offense, they are misguided. Socialism is a flawed system, and economically very unsound and unproductive. It's a colossal failure. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's increased living standards phenomenally. And while I detest socialism, I do not detest socialists. Two of my very closest friends are, in fact, very left-wing.
Well i guess its increased living standards for the RICH around the world but it just screws the poor over more what about the idea of capitalism which includes social programs so that people have an equal chance to make it not just those with rich parents

Holyawesomeness

17-05-2006, 02:27

Just compromise with a republic, that way most of your leaders will be corrupt puppets influenced by groups with power and influence and yet the masses will still have some influence and feel satisfied(most don't vote anyway).

Undelia

17-05-2006, 02:32

Some reality.
Your opinion on the state of reality is irrelevant. What matters is that you know how to work within it and stay away from actively supporting naïve and unrealistic ideals.

Dobbsworld

17-05-2006, 02:35

Your opinion on the state of reality is irrelevant. What matters is that you know how to work within it and stay away from actively supporting naïve and unrealistic ideals.
Don't lecture me. Naivete doesn't just flow one way.

Dissonant Cognition

17-05-2006, 05:03

Your opionons on Socialism

I just read this, and I think it is an excellent summary for how I feel on the "Socialism vs. Capitalism" issue:

"Socialism is right to protest against political economy and say that it is simply an unthinking mechanism, and political economy is right to say that socialism is merely an unrealistic utopia which cannot possibly come into being. But since each in turn is denying something, socialism humanity's past experience and political economy humanity's reason, both are inadequate statements about the truth of human life."
-- System of Economic Contradictions or the Philosophy of Poverty, Volume II, by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Undelia

17-05-2006, 05:13

Don't lecture me. Naivete doesn't just flow one way.
You are correct. The notion that modern society could somehow function without a welfare state is just as naïve as the belief that it could function without capitalism.

Soheran

17-05-2006, 07:38

No, but your property is either the fruit of your labours, or what you've contracted for. It stems from you.

And your circumstances.

And all he needs to do is convince others to loan him the capital, and convince others to buy his goods.

And all he needs to do in socialism is convince society that his contributions are useful - just as in capitalism.

He only has them to the extent that others voluntarily provide them. He must meet the approval of the people who provide the capital, and he must provide a deal with which workers will approve, of the workers can find a deal with which they do approve.

But if he has more capital, he has more options. That is the crucial element.

But socialism denies private property. Under capitalism he has those rights. Under socialism, he cannot have them because there are no private property rights.

Socialism denies private property over the means of production, not necessarily private property over objects for personal use.

Yes, I can. I can make a claim on it.

So can anybody else. Who owns it?

he must do something to establish his claim. He must mix his labour with the unownedf land.

And that changes what? He performs an activity; how does that make anything his property? Why does altering the state of something give him the right to it?

Self-sufficiency is not only always difficult, it is completely insane. Anyway, the need to secure the voluntary cooperation of others is hardly a restriction on one's liberty.

Dependency is always a restriction on one's liberty. It means that other people have a limited veto power over one's actions.

You have referred to coercion in the context of someone not having all the choices he wants. Honestly, if you must evade you should just stop posting.

I evaded nothing. I don't believe I have defined coercion anywhere, merely freedom; if that is not accurate, or if I have used coercion in a way that is ambiguous, point it out, and I will clarify my meaning. Most of the time, I believe I have used it according to your definition.

No, it isn't the lack of choice when faced with violence, it is the total absence of choice when faced with violence. There is a huge difference between a lack of choice, and the absence of choice.

No. Free will does not disappear. The person still has choices, merely unpleasant ones:
1. Accede to the demands of the person threatening him with violence;
2. Refuse to accede to the demands of that person, and suffer the consequences.

Also, your solution to the lack of choice is more coercion.

Just as both of our solutions to preventing murder involves restricting the freedom of potential murderers.

Where I draw the line is simple, the threat of violence. Where you draw the line is entirely subjective.

I don't draw the line anywhere. As I said earlier, I think the concept of "coercion" is rather incoherent, at least in the context of moral judgement. I explained why in my last post.

Which is not relevant to a rational concept of freedom of capitalism. It is only relevant to socialism.

"Rational," maybe, but morally irrelevant.

The question is based on a false premise, i.e. that that actually is the result of unemployment.

I included the "if" for a reason.

If he wanted another job, he would find one. It may not be a very good job, but it will be a job.

Not necessarily.

In any case, it is not up to the employer to make sure there are good choices available to the employee.

No, it's not, because the employer does not control all the circumstances of the person's life.

No, the racial views of the National Socialists were in general acceptable to the Germans. The Germans were generally anti-Semitic, and Russo-phobic. Europeans are still quite ready to believe Jewish conspiracy theories, and attack Jews.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that there were real ideological differences between the Nazis and the Socialists, differences that amounted to more than different sides in a power struggle.

Disraeliland 5

17-05-2006, 09:05

And your circumstances.

WHich is another way of saying it stems from the person. His circumstances are irrelevant if he does not take advantage of them.

And all he needs to do in socialism is convince society that his contributions are useful - just as in capitalism.

No, in capitalism, I don't have to convince "society", I have to convince some individuals. "Society" as an entity does not play a part, only those individuals who do so of their own free will.

But if he has more capital, he has more options. That is the crucial element.

As I said, he only has capital to the extent that he can convince others to give/lend it to him.

Socialism denies private property over the means of production, not necessarily private property over objects for personal use.

In other words, socialism denies an individual the right to use his mind and hands to improve his living.

So can anybody else. Who owns it?

Seriously, read about homesteading.

And that changes what? He performs an activity; how does that make anything his property? Why does altering the state of something give him the right to it?

As I said he mixes his labour with the land. What is produced is his because it could not have arisen without his effort.

Dependency is always a restriction on one's liberty. It means that other people have a limited veto power over one's actions.

Having to secure the voluntary cooperation of others is not a restriction on one's liberty. Why? Because removing such a requirement restricts their liberty.

I evaded nothing. I don't believe I have defined coercion anywhere, merely freedom; if that is not accurate, or if I have used coercion in a way that is ambiguous, point it out, and I will clarify my meaning. Most of the time, I believe I have used it according to your definition.

You have referred to coercion throughout your posts, you have also referred to freedom (which cannot be seriously discussed without some sort of definition of "coercion", in the same way light cannot be discussed without reference to dark).

The closest you have come to a defintion of coercion (as indicated by your posts) is not having the amount of choices you think fit.

No. Free will does not disappear. The person still has choices, merely unpleasant ones:
1. Accede to the demands of the person threatening him with violence;
2. Refuse to accede to the demands of that person, and suffer the consequences.

Free will may not disappear, but it is still no choice.

Just as both of our solutions to preventing murder involves restricting the freedom of potential murderers.

Mine does not, I define freedom as "the absence of the initiation of force in relationships", since murder is an initiation of force, no liberty is restricted.

I included the "if" for a reason.

Not necessarily.

Oh please. There is always something, unless one actively chooses nothing.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that there were real ideological differences between the Nazis and the Socialists, differences that amounted to more than different sides in a power struggle.

It was you who pointed to the National Socialists' racial agenda as an area of difference. The economic differences between them amounted to nothing more than different routes to a state controlled economy.

Jello Biafra

17-05-2006, 14:29

You've not heard of the "invisible hand", have you?

Excessive immigration is a problem inherient in hampered market economies (which is the model for practically everywhere in the West). In a real capitalist economy, people would come for jobs, or as family members of the former. Supply and demand applies as much for labour as for light bulbs. A surplus of labour (unemployment) would simply drive people out of the country. A shortage would induce people to come. This is supply and demand, and the price system telling people what is profitable in which place.And either too many immigrants would come to a new country, resulting in unemployment, or not enough immigrants would, which would cause companies to leave to seek out workers, resulting in unemployment.

Nonetheless, total employment in capitalism is impossible regardless of immigration.

There is a difference. Market demand must be fulfilled by sellers, or those sellers will go out of business. But if something is demanded that doesn't exist, the market will attempt to make it exist, just as in socialism.

Under socialism, "demand" is merely a request. And if I'm only willing to pay part of what those selling something want me to pay, that too is only a request.

The government would not go out of business by not meeting the demands of the people. Yes, it would, it would either be overthrown or those in power would not be elected.

I know you like talking in terms of "society" controlling the economy, but you mean government.It depends on whether one believes that a government made up of everyone within an area is possible or not; personally, I don't find the question a matter of concern.

Most politicians aren't concerned with better products. Politicising the economy tends to lead to the economy being hugely out of touch with the people. Not if the people are also the politicians.

In market economies, sellers have to stay well in touch with what the people want, otherwise they will go out of business.As would a socialist economy.

I've a much easier solution. One that works for everyone. It is not a job people would like, and it is highly necessary. Paying them well, which would give them an economic inducement to spend 40 hours a week knee-deep in shit.No, that doesn't work for everyone, it merely works for the people who get to feel superior to the people who clean the sewers.

Incidently, to enforce your "no clean, no toilet rule", you would need a comprehensive secret police apparatus, to ensure that no unauthorised flushing takes place. Like most socialist measures, this requires a totalitarian police state to enforce it.No, it requires that a person's toilet not be hooked up to the sewer system, and a plumber to hook up or unhook the toilets. If unauthorized flushing took place, the person in question would get to deal with sewage back flowing into their bathroom.

Then why do they exist? That it exists shows that some people feel it necessary. I do not, I do not use such places, but there are those who do.People who have nothing better to do with their money, perhaps. If the socialist economy is so prosperous that there can be such people, fine, but I'd rather see a society where people are unconcerned with such ridiculous notions of body image.

JB, you blither on about how a socialist system, and the destruction of the price system will make an economy better for the people, yet everything you would have government (sorry, "society", can't have people thinking you're just another state socialist) do the free market does better, more accurately, and more efficiently.Define "better" objectively. I would say that better means total employment, which the free market can't provide. The free market is not more accurate, whether or not someone is willing to pay 90 cents for something says nothing about whether or not they're willing to pay a dollar for it, unless you're suggesting that people barter. It does do so for efficiently, but there are numerous examples of things that are more efficient that aren't better; the most efficient government is made up of one person.

Free will may not disappear, but it is still no choice.Then neither is "work for one of us or starve".

Disraeliland 5

17-05-2006, 16:46

And either too many immigrants would come to a new country, resulting in unemployment, or not enough immigrants would, which would cause companies to leave to seek out workers, resulting in unemployment.

Nonetheless, total employment in capitalism is impossible regardless of immigration.

Before posting on economic topics, you should master "supply and demand".

But if something is demanded that doesn't exist, the market will attempt to make it exist, just as in socialism.

They won't in socialism, unless "society" wants it. All capitalism needs is the voluntary cooperation enough people to turn a sufficient profit.

And if I'm only willing to pay part of what those selling something want me to pay, that too is only a request.

It is a bid, and the two cases could not be more different. In capitalism, there is room to negotiate because the seller ultimately wants to sell. In socialism, one can only seek the permission of the government. If that is denied, there is no room for negotiation.

It depends on whether one believes that a government made up of everyone within an area is possible or not; personally, I don't find the question a matter of concern.

Nonsense. You're using it as a rhetorical dodge to aviod looking like yet another statist socialist.

No, that doesn't work for everyone, it merely works for the people who get to feel superior to the people who clean the sewers.

Yes it does work for everyone. It works for the people in general because the sewer gets cleaned. It works for the Sanitation Department because the job they've been assigned is done, and it works for the sewer cleaners because they're getting the money.

No, it requires that a person's toilet not be hooked up to the sewer system, and a plumber to hook up or unhook the toilets. If unauthorized flushing took place, the person in question would get to deal with sewage back flowing into their bathroom.

Totalitarian or disgusting? You socialists aren't exactly in the business of offering people good choices. Yet you charge capitalists with not offering people enough good choices!

People who have nothing better to do with their money, perhaps. If the socialist economy is so prosperous that there can be such people, fine, but I'd rather see a society where people are unconcerned with such ridiculous notions of body image.

A "New Soviet Man" would be unconcerned with appearances. However, it is their money, if they wish to spend it in frivolities, fine, no one is harmed.

Of course, no socialist economy could ever be prosperous to allow frivolities, they have never been able to crack essentials, let alone frivolities.

I would say that better means total employment, which the free market can't provide.

That is a non sequitor, and a prison provides full employment. One can have full employment be simply destroying every labour saving technology ever invented.

Of course, that might not be a good thing for us.

The free market is not more accurate, whether or not someone is willing to pay 90 cents for something says nothing about whether or not they're willing to pay a dollar for it, unless you're suggesting that people barter.

It is more accurate in that the prices produced in a free market price system send exacting signals as to what ought be produced, and what ought not be produced. It also sends signals as to where goods and services are most highly valued.

Then neither is "work for one of us or starve".

False dichotomy. Anyway, I've not seen anyone convincingly demonstrate that having to obtain someone's voluntary cooperation restricts liberty.

Somearea

17-05-2006, 17:02

Couldn't taste worse than McDonalds.

It can and it would. McDonald's has to sruvive because people chose to consume their product. Imagine how bad a burger would taste if consumers had no choice!

Do you know how much money could be saved if they made burgers out of entrails? It'd be for the good of society of course.

Here's the thing that socialists living in wealthy western countries refuse to understand (even though it's right in front of them). You know those "evil" power hungry people that take the reigns of the despised big corporations?

Those are the same type of people that are going to take the reigns of the socialist hierarchies. Only now they don't have to persuade you to be their customers and buy their proucts, they get to coerce you to do their bidding with violent coercive force (government) legitamized as for the common good.

Yea, sure government burgers couldn't be worse then McDonalds. Ha!

Blood has been shed

17-05-2006, 18:00

People who have nothing better to do with their money, perhaps. If the socialist economy is so prosperous that there can be such people, fine, but I'd rather see a society where people are unconcerned with such ridiculous notions of body image.

Well when everyones got the same ammount of money/status I would hazzard a guess that beauty will become even more important as its still going to be one of the main things that seperate us.

Define "better" objectively. I would say that better means total employment, which the free market can't provide. The free market is not more accurate, whether or not someone is willing to pay 90 cents for something says nothing about whether or not they're willing to pay a dollar for it, unless you're suggesting that people barter. It does do so for efficiently, but there are numerous examples of things that are more efficient that aren't better; the most efficient government is made up of one person.

Then neither is "work for one of us or starve".

Total employment isn't neccessarily a good thing. If everyone had a job there would be little competition in the market so wages would have to rise to accomidate to attract people and tada inflation emerges. In which everyone suddenly becomes worse off (kinda like heavily socialist economys)

If something is selling for 90 cents and the demand is really high its possible that it may raise to 1 dollar to accomidate for the demand, either than or the supply will increase and it can still afford to sell at 90 cents in which case people are buying a product at a lower price :D

The most efficient government cannot perform the trillions of functions and price adjustments the free market makes daily.

And does socialism not advocate working for someone or starving anyway, the only difference is they're given artifically increased wages. Unfair on those making what their value is, I think.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Your opionons on Socialism