NationStates Jolt Archive

Social Democracy FTW!

Then neither is "work for one of us or starve".

I suppose the socialist mantra would be 'work for all of us or starve.' At least Capitalism offers a choice between oppressive employers. :p

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.

People aren't that bright. How many ordinary voters really understand macroeconomics? Or how the price of gasoline is set? Or the perverse incentives associated with progressive income taxes? Or the relative advantages of public vs. private utlity provision? Or the sustainability of fish stocks?

As a group, people don't know what's in their best interests. Individually, they do, but they tend to harm each other indirectly through their choices.

People aren't that bright. How many ordinary voters really understand macroeconomics? Or how the price of gasoline is set? Or the perverse incentives associated with progressive income taxes? Or the relative advantages of public vs. private utlity provision? Or the sustainability of fish stocks?

As a group, people don't know what's in their best interests. Individually, they do, but they tend to harm each other indirectly through their choices.

People don't need to understand macroeconomics, etc. That's why we have elected leaders in the first place. Democracy provides a seal of approval for our leaders. The average voter might not know the exact reasons for why the economy is functioning the way it is, but they can endorse their candidate if they feel they are doing a good job. More importantly, they can vote the bum out if it's obvious he's doing a piss-poor job.

I'm sure you don't have to know all of the geopolitical circumstances when the decision is whether or not your children will be sent off to war, or whether or not your nation will have an official church, or anything that will effect the everyday life of the voter. Without democracy, you make the assumption that you know what's best for people, which isn't necessarily true. Let the people decide for themselves.

People don't need to understand macroeconomics, etc. That's why we have elected leaders in the first place. Democracy provides a seal of approval for our leaders. The average voter might not know the exact reasons for why the economy is functioning the way it is, but they can endorse their candidate if they feel they are doing a good job. More importantly, they can vote the bum out if it's obvious he's doing a piss-poor job.

I'm sure you don't have to know all of the geopolitical circumstances when the decision is whether or not your children will be sent off to war, or whether or not your nation will have an official church, or anything that will effect the everyday life of the voter. Without democracy, you make the assumption that you know what's best for people, which isn't necessarily true. Let the people decide for themselves.

But then politicians will lie to them about how macroeconomics works (or something else at issue), and win a bunch of votes for having told the most attractive lie.

It's sub-optimal.

Plus how will they know if he's doing a bad job? What if the last guy gutted the future to make himself look good, quit, and then the economy tanks? Are the people going to realise that the guy in power has the best solution, or are they going to punish him because he was the guy standing there when everything went to hell?

But then politicians will lie to them about how macroeconomics works (or something else at issue), and win a bunch of votes for having told the most attractive lie.

It's sub-optimal.

Plus how will they know if he's doing a bad job? What if the last guy gutted the future to make himself look good, quit, and then the economy tanks? Are the people going to realise that the guy in power has the best solution, or are they going to punish him because he was the guy standing there when everything went to hell?

Yes that happens. But it happens in all other forms of government too. Monarchs are lied to by their advisors, fascists tell lies to the people, totalitarians find scapegoats the moment things go wrong.

Plus, a free media helps to clarify the issue. Politicians can say all they want, but there will usually be an opponent who says the opposite. A free media, with multiple viewpoints, help the average person to come to a decision when it comes time to vote.

Would you deny shareholders a vote in a stockholder meeting? Why should it be any different in government? I have stock in Marvel Comics. I don't have anything to do with the way the company is run, or have direct input into their planning decisions. But I have the option of voting agaisnt any proposals put forth at the stockholder meetings. I have a stake in it. Same goes with government, but the stakes are bigger. People can tell whether or not their stock is going up.

Since this is slightly off-topic, I should probably say something about socialism... hmm.. maybe later.

Yes that happens. But it happens in all other forms of government too. Monarchs are lied to by their advisors, fascists tell lies to the people, totalitarians find scapegoats the moment things go wrong.

Plus, a free media helps to clarify the issue. Politicians can say all they want, but there will usually be an opponent who says the opposite. A free media, with multiple viewpoints, help the average person to come to a decision when it comes time to vote.

Would you deny shareholders a vote in a stockholder meeting? Why should it be any different in government? I have stock in Marvel Comics. I don't have anything to do with the way the company is run, or have direct input into their planning decisions. But I have the option of voting agaisnt any proposals put forth at the stockholder meetings. I have a stake in it. Same goes with government, but the stakes are bigger. People can tell whether or not their stock is going up.

Since this is slightly off-topic, I should probably say something about socialism... hmm.. maybe later.

A free media does help with this.

This is what colours my perceptions, I suppose. As Canadians, we don't really have a free media. It's a heavily regulated media (CRTC), and large portions of it are directly controlled by the government (CBC).

A free media does help with this.

This is what colours my perceptions, I suppose. As Canadians, we don't really have a free media. It's a heavily regulated media (CRTC), and large portions of it are directly controlled by the government (CBC).

Ah, Albertans ... :p

Actually I agree with you on the CBC. With the possible exception of making sure every single Canadian knows the theme to hockey night in Canada and hinterland's who's who, I think we're well past the stage where we need a massive publicly funded media that couldn't survive commercially.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we don't have a free media. That's a bit of a stretch. At least, there's nothing stopping political pundits from arguing the pro's and con's of differing political views come election time.

Before posting on economic topics, you should master "supply and demand".So basically what you're saying is you want me to use your terminology even when it's wholly unnecessary?

They won't in socialism, unless "society" wants it. All capitalism needs is the voluntary cooperation enough people to turn a sufficient profit.And all socialism needs is the voluntary cooperation of enough people.

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.And in socialism, there is room to negotiate because those in power (if there is that type of a hierarchy, which I don't support) need to gain the support of the majority of people, therefore the negotiations would take the form of trying to make that person believe you have more support than you do.

In socialism, one can only seek the permission of the government. If that is denied, there is no room for negotiation.If push comes to shove, the 'government' gets voted out. If they refuse to leave, people vote with bullets instead of ballots.

Nonsense. You're using it as a rhetorical dodge to aviod looking like yet another statist socialist.No, I'm saying that I don't care whether or not direct democracy qualifies as a state or as a form of anarchism; I support anarchism because I believe in direct democracy, but if you want to argue that direct democracy isn't a form of anarchism, then I'm fine with that, too.

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.And the only thing that would matter in the scenario I propose is that the sewer got cleaned.

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!There are no good choices when it comes to bodily waste; better that since we all produce bodily waste that we all take part in disposing of it properly.

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.Yes.

Of course, no socialist economy could ever be prosperous to allow frivolities, they have never been able to crack essentials, let alone frivolities.Any socialist economy would be prosperous enough to allow frivolities.

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.A prison can provide full employment if it's a gulag, yes.

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. As would simply asking the people what ought to be produced, not be produced, and what is more highly valued.

False dichotomy. Anyway, I've not seen anyone convincingly demonstrate that having to obtain someone's voluntary cooperation restricts liberty.Because saying "work for one of us or starve" is no more voluntary than saying "work for one of us or we'll shoot you in the head". In both cases, the person either works or they die.

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. It could, however one of the reasons that beauty has become such a huge factor in the past 50 years is that capitalism has created a demand for it; without the market telling people they're supposed to feel bad about the way they look, they're less likely to.

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) That might be total employment in a capitalist system, but not in a socialist one.

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 :DYes, but it doesn't say whether or not someone buying something for 90 cents would be willing to pay more than 90 cents for it.

The most efficient government cannot perform the trillions of functions and price adjustments the free market makes daily. Most of those functions and price adjustments would be unnecessary without the free market.

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.I don't know of any socialist who doesn't believe in full employment.

I suppose the socialist mantra would be 'work for all of us or starve.' At least Capitalism offers a choice between oppressive employers. Nah, it would be "work for all of us or we'll refuse to associate with you and you'll have to work for yourself", or at least that's the mantra of the brand of socialism I support.

So basically what you're saying is you want me to use your terminology even when it's wholly unnecessary?

No, I want you to master a basic economic concept.

One you've shown no evidence of having heard of, let alone mastered.

And all socialism needs is the voluntary cooperation of enough people.

No, it doesn't. It needs the cooperation of all people, voluntary or otherwise.

And in socialism, there is room to negotiate because those in power (if there is that type of a hierarchy, which I don't support) need to gain the support of the majority of people, therefore the negotiations would take the form of trying to make that person believe you have more support than you do.

One man against the entire establishment? Anyway, what you propose is infinitely worse than capitalism in which one only has to convince a few people, those directly affected.

If push comes to shove, the 'government' gets voted out. If they refuse to leave, people vote with bullets instead of ballots.

Nonsense. Anyway, capitalism provides an infinitely better, more efficient, and less violent solution.

And the only thing that would matter in the scenario I propose is that the sewer got cleaned.

So you propose the most cumbersome, least liberal arrangement possible?

There are no good choices when it comes to bodily waste; better that since we all produce bodily waste that we all take part in disposing of it properly.

And in a capitalist economy, everyone does by paying people who wish to do it.

Yes.

I think you've refuted your own ideas. Mine don't require reengineering the human to conform to what the state wishes. Mine simply lets humans act.

If you need social engineering, what you're saying is that your ideas are not compatible with reality. Mine not only are in theory, but have been proven in practice.

Any socialist economy would be prosperous enough to allow frivolities.

Yet the freer the economy, the more firvolities possible, and the less free the economy, the fewer available. You also, as always completely ignore the well known incentive, and informational problems inherient to any form of socialism.

As would simply asking the people what ought to be produced, not be produced, and what is more highly valued.

Yet it has never worked. The only way that has worked efficiently is the capitalist way.

Why is sending everyone constant surveys an efficient way to decide an economy? That is less efficient than central planning (which was so inefficient that the USSR had constant bread lines!)

Because saying "work for one of us or starve" is no more voluntary than saying "work for one of us or we'll shoot you in the head". In both cases, the person either works or they die.

You've not dealt with this idea that "work for me or starve" is a real dichotomy.

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

It could, however one of the reasons that beauty has become such a huge factor in the past 50 years is that capitalism has created a demand for it; without the market telling people they're supposed to feel bad about the way they look, they're less likely to.

So people are merely drones who can do nothing unless told.

Of course a socialist would think that way.

Most of those functions and price adjustments would be unnecessary without the free market.

They are necessary to ensure that supply and demand closely meet.

I don't know of any socialist who doesn't believe in full employment.

You can have full employment, and full security in terms of getting what you need to live in prison.

Nah, it would be "work for all of us or we'll refuse to associate with you and you'll have to work for yourself", or at least that's the mantra of the brand of socialism I support.

Yet you do not apply the same phrase to capitalism. Be consistant for once. The mantra of socialism is "work for the state or die".

Since you don't allow for private property, it is hard to see how he can make his own business, you would force him back to the most primitive level of existance.

You may well mention the possibility of leaving, and all that will result in is the departure of all of a society's most productive members to sunnier climes.

Your "socialism" would have to turn authoritarian rapidly, or it will simply die. The real question facing socialists is this: What price continued socialism? It seems to me that most socialists will accept the idea of a totalitarian police state is it is the price of maintaining socialism. Your usual dodge of arguing for the perspective of everyone agreeing beforehand is simply that, a dodge. You've provided no reason for them to agree beforehand, and no logical argument for the success that would guarantee continued support.

I don't know of any socialist who doesn't believe in full employment.

Nah, it would be "work for all of us or we'll refuse to associate with you and you'll have to work for yourself", or at least that's the mantra of the brand of socialism I support.

So socialism would ensure full employment by forcing people to work for the state/society. Face it some jobs would be more popular than others like being a teacher while cleaning the sewers won't be.

Now that means I'm eventually going to have to be forced to work a job against my will or I'll have all my welfare cut off. Basically this is than exacly like capitalism except people are dependent on the state/society to keep them alive and we have far less choice with what jobs we wish to persue.

Ah, Albertans ... :p

Actually I agree with you on the CBC. With the possible exception of making sure every single Canadian knows the theme to hockey night in Canada and hinterland's who's who, I think we're well past the stage where we need a massive publicly funded media that couldn't survive commercially.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we don't have a free media. That's a bit of a stretch. At least, there's nothing stopping political pundits from arguing the pro's and con's of differing political views come election time.

That's probably true. They're probably just catering to that huge market in Toronto that typically disagrees with everything I do.

Way to go, Oshawa. You don't have to freeze in the dark today.

Doesn't go far enough.

Socialism is the true way to a good world!

That's probably true. They're probably just catering to that huge market in Toronto that typically disagrees with everything I do.

Way to go, Oshawa. You don't have to freeze in the dark today.

Freeze in the dark? You've lost me there... are we leaving you albertans out in the cold or something? Besides, we need all that hydro to run our car assembly plants. That way we can churn out tanks if you Albertans get too pesky.

Your masters in Toronto only want what's best for you... okay maybe what's best for them... whatever, keep drilling the oil, or farming or whatever it is you're doing out there. *Tells GM to pull out the military blueprints*

Freeze in the dark? You've lost me there... are we leaving you albertans out in the cold or something? Besides, we need all that hydro to run our car assembly plants. That way we can churn out tanks if you Albertans get too pesky.

Your masters in Toronto only want what's best for you... okay maybe what's best for them... whatever, keep drilling the oil, or farming or whatever it is you're doing out there. *Tells GM to pull out the military blueprints*

It's an old saying. Back during the National Energy rogram (NEP) when Trudeau's government tried to kill our oil industry by instituting price controls, a popular bumper sticker out west read "Let Those Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark"

It's an old saying. Back during the National Energy rogram (NEP) when Trudeau's government tried to kill our oil industry by instituting price controls, a popular bumper sticker out west read "Let Those Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark"

Ooohhh... so that's why I live smack-dab between 2 nuclear plants! In case the westerners follow through on their threats!

*checks thyroid*

No, I want you to master a basic economic concept.

One you've shown no evidence of having heard of, let alone mastered.I've heard of this basic economic concept, but as it isn't relevant to what I'm saying, it doesn't matter whether I can use it or master it.

No, it doesn't. It needs the cooperation of all people, voluntary or otherwise.No, it doesn't. It needs the majority of people to vote it in, and the rest of the people to accept that vote. They don't have to cooperate with it if they don't wish.

One man against the entire establishment? How is this different than one man disagreeing with a capitalist system?

Anyway, what you propose is infinitely worse than capitalism in which one only has to convince a few people, those directly affected.Ah, now I get to use that quote of yours.

"Everyone pays for everything, whether directly or indirectly."

Since everyone pays for everything, everyone should have a say in everything.

Nonsense. Anyway, capitalism provides an infinitely better, more efficient, and less violent solution.Capitalism doesn't provide a solution to the people who wish to withdraw from capitalism and support themselves.

So you propose the most cumbersome, least liberal arrangement possible?No, I propose the only acceptable arrangement possible.

And in a capitalist economy, everyone does by paying people who wish to do it.In which case they don't do it, other people do.

I think you've refuted your own ideas. Mine don't require reengineering the human to conform to what the state wishes. Neither do mine. Yours, however, require reengineering the human to conform to what the capitalist wishes.

Mine simply lets humans act.As does mine, and it provides a framework for them to act in.

If you need social engineering, what you're saying is that your ideas are not compatible with reality. Fortunately, I don't need social engineering.

Mine not only are in theory, but have been proven in practice.The idea of a truly free market hasn't existed in practice.

Yet the freer the economy, the more firvolities possible, and the less free the economy, the fewer available. Not really. Dictatorships provide a ton of frivolities - for the dictator.

You also, as always completely ignore the well known incentive, and informational problems inherient to any form of socialism.Because they aren't problems inherent to any form of socialism.

Yet it has never worked. The only way that has worked efficiently is the capitalist way.Of course if something has never been tried it will never work.

Why is sending everyone constant surveys an efficient way to decide an economy? It isn't an efficient way, it's a better way. Efficient =!= better, necessarily..

That is less efficient than central planning (which was so inefficient that the USSR had constant bread lines!)The USSR did not have to use bread lines because central planning was inefficient, they had to use bread lines because the planners were unconcerned with whether or not there were bread lines.

You've not dealt with this idea that "work for me or starve" is a real dichotomy. How is someone with no capital supposed to get food without working for someone else or applying for insufficient charity?

So people are merely drones who can do nothing unless told.No, however people react to their environments; if a person's environment tells them that they're supposed to feel bad about the way they look, they probably will.

Of course a socialist would think that way.Strawman.

They are necessary to ensure that supply and demand closely meet.Not when it isn't possible to ensure that there is enough supply to meet the demand.


You can have full employment, and full security in terms of getting what you need to live in prison.False dichotomy. I'm not suggesting forced labor, and there's nothing in what I've said to suggest this.

Yet you do not apply the same phrase to capitalism. Because the same phrase doesn't exist in capitalism.

Be consistant for once. The mantra of socialism is "work for the state or die". Show me where I've said it's necessary to work for the state or die.

Since you don't allow for private property, it is hard to see how he can make his own business, It's called personal property.

you would force him back to the most primitive level of existance.If he does not wish to live in a society, he would naturally be a hermit. Do hermits live in abundance?

You may well mention the possibility of leaving, and all that will result in is the departure of all of a society's most productive members to sunnier climes. It may result in that, it may not.

Your "socialism" would have to turn authoritarian rapidly, or it will simply die. If it would need to turn authoritarian, it would be better off dead; fortunately, it wouldn't need to.

The real question facing socialists is this: What price continued socialism? It seems to me that most socialists will accept the idea of a totalitarian police state is it is the price of maintaining socialism. Name most of the socialists in this thread who have advocated a totalitarian police state for any reason. I'd be surprised if you could name more than one.

Your usual dodge of arguing for the perspective of everyone agreeing beforehand is simply that, a dodge. You've provided no reason for them to agree beforehand, Are you suggesting that people don't agree with socialism? I'm not a scientist, I don't need to provide a reason for something that already occurs.

and no logical argument for the success that would guarantee continued support.The fact that socialism is in the best interests of socialists is not an argument for continued support?

I've heard of this basic economic concept, but as it isn't relevant to what I'm saying, it doesn't matter whether I can use it or master it.

Supply and demand are relevant to all economic discussions.

No, it doesn't. It needs the majority of people to vote it in, and the rest of the people to accept that vote. They don't have to cooperate with it if they don't wish.

Nonsense. It needs the forced cooperation of everyone. Those who are least likely to cooperate are the ones most necessary because they have the best reason to leave, being the most productive people.

How is this different than one man disagreeing with a capitalist system?

In a capitalist system, you only need the voluntary cooperation of a few people, or just one sometimes. Under socialism you need "society" to agree.

Since everyone pays for everything, everyone should have a say in everything.

You misunderstood, what I was saying was everything has to be paid for, and someone has to do it, even if its indirect.

Capitalism doesn't provide a solution to the people who wish to withdraw from capitalism and support themselves.

Yes it does. What it does not do is say such people can live at the expense of others.

No, I propose the only acceptable arrangement possible.

The arrangement you propose is tyrannical, inefficient, and simply can't work, as there is no rational basis for economic calculation.

Neither do mine. Yours, however, require reengineering the human to conform to what the capitalist wishes.

You admitted that your ideas do require social engineering. Capitalism doesn't, it channels human nature, and human action into the most productive uses, it does not require a new man, who will always be altruistic, and compliant with "society".

As does mine, and it provides a framework for them to act in.

No, it doesn't. It allows humans to be dominated by a collective, not act as individuals.

Because they aren't problems inherent to any form of socialism.

Nonsense, you have not shown that economic calculation is possible under socialism.

The USSR did not have to use bread lines because central planning was inefficient, they had to use bread lines because the planners were unconcerned with whether or not there were bread lines.

You really do need to read some economics. The central planners could never know whether or not resources were being used efficiently, they could never know whether or not there would be differences in demand. They could never take into account possible supply problems.

This could not be done because there was no rational price system. Your idea of constant surveys carries with it vast costs, those surveys must be made, sent, received, processed, and from the answers a central planned made. This is a hugely inefficient system, which is slower, and less accurate in determining consumer demand than capitalism.

You also don't take the supply side of the equation into account, simply assuming that what is asked for will be made in the requested quantities.

How is someone with no capital supposed to get food without working for someone else or applying for insufficient charity?

He could secure the voluntary cooperation of one of any number of individual businessmen. He has choice, he has alternatives. Under socialism, he must work for society, or starve.

Not when it isn't possible to ensure that there is enough supply to meet the demand.

Capitalism ensures this, it is quite simple. When demand outstrips supply, the prices rise, therefore the profits for producers rise, inducing them to produce more in anticipation of these profits.

Socialism, however, cannot do this due to the lack of a price system to show the way.

False dichotomy. I'm not suggesting forced labor, and there's nothing in what I've said to suggest this.

You are suggesting work for, and comply with all of society, or "back to the stone age with you!"

Why you think this would make people more free is a mystery.

It's called personal property.

If he uses his property to make his own business, it logically follows that the property in question ceases to be "personal" property, like my sandals, and becomes "means of production". And socialists do not advocate private ownership of the means of production.

Name most of the socialists in this thread who have advocated a totalitarian police state for any reason. I'd be surprised if you could name more than one.

Bollocks, all over this forum, and in general, so-called "democratic socialists" express their support for Castro, among others. They worship the increasingly authoritarian Chavez.

Are you suggesting that people don't agree with socialism? I'm not a scientist, I don't need to provide a reason for something that already occurs.

I am suggesting that no where near enough people have ever supported socialism on the scale you believe necessary.

The fact that socialism is in the best interests of socialists is not an argument for continued support?

No. You must gain support generally, and that means successes, which socialism cannot provide.

Supply and demand are relevant to all economic discussions.Supply and demand are not relevant to the fact that capitalism requires unemployment.

Nonsense. It needs the forced cooperation of everyone. Those who are least likely to cooperate are the ones most necessary because they have the best reason to leave, being the most productive people.Prove that the most productive people are the least likely to leave.

In a capitalist system, you only need the voluntary cooperation of a few people, or just one sometimes. Under socialism you need "society" to agree.No, society just needs to find it acceptable, or not disagree. It's entirely possible to abstain from a vote.

You misunderstood, what I was saying was everything has to be paid for, and someone has to do it, even if its indirect.No, I understand the context that you were using it in, but I thought that the quote was nice, so I took the quote without the context.
But again, why shouldn't everyone have a say in everything if everyone pays for everything?

Yes it does. What it does not do is say such people can live at the expense of others.Neither do most forms of socialism.

The arrangement you propose is tyrannical, inefficient, and simply can't work, as there is no rational basis for economic calculation.False, on all counts.

You admitted that your ideas do require social engineering. Yes, my ideas require society be engineered so that it doesn't have to obey capitalist laws.

Capitalism doesn't, it channels human nature,"What we call human nature is in actuality human habit."

and human action into the most productive uses, it does not require a new man, who will always be altruistic, and compliant with "society".Socialism does not require altruism. How does a person looking out for his best interests (i.e. being a socialist) mean he is altruistic?

No, it doesn't. It allows humans to be dominated by a collective, not act as individuals.Humans are free to act as individuals. The collective would put restrictions on this, but all societies do; after all, public nudity is banned.

Nonsense, you have not shown that economic calculation is possible under socialism.Yes, I have.

You really do need to read some economics. The central planners could never know whether or not resources were being used efficiently, they could never know whether or not there would be differences in demand. They could never take into account possible supply problems.

This could not be done because there was no rational price system. Your idea of constant surveys carries with it vast costs, those surveys must be made, sent, received, processed, and from the answers a central planned made. Really? Where would the vast costs be in starting a thread on this forum "what would you like for breakfast?" How difficult would it be to have people cook the required amount of eggs, sausage, french toast, etc.?

This is a hugely inefficient system, which is slower, and less accurate in determining consumer demand than capitalism.How is directly asking people what they want less accurate?

You also don't take the supply side of the equation into account, simply assuming that what is asked for will be made in the requested quantities.Not at all. There are plenty of options for an inability to make whatever is asked for in the requested quantities; however if it is possible to do so, it will be done.

He could secure the voluntary cooperation of one of any number of individual businessmen. He has choice, he has alternatives. And what if he wants to opt out of this voluntary arrangement but can't afford to?

Under socialism, he must work for society, or starve.Or work for himself gathering or farming his own food.

Capitalism ensures this, it is quite simple. When demand outstrips supply, the prices rise, therefore the profits for producers rise, inducing them to produce more in anticipation of these profits. Socialism, however, cannot do this due to the lack of a price system to show the way.You haven't proven that the price system is the only way of doing this.

You are suggesting work for, and comply with all of society, or "back to the stone age with you!"

Why you think this would make people more free is a mystery.Because it enables them to have access to all of the things that society produces, unlike capitalism, which only gives them access to the things that they have the money for.

If he uses his property to make his own business, it logically follows that the property in question ceases to be "personal" property, like my sandals, and becomes "means of production". And socialists do not advocate private ownership of the means of production.Socialists advocate worker ownership of the means of production; this individual turning his property into his business means that the worker is owning the means of production. Provided he doesn't hire a wage slave, this would be acceptable.

I would say that an exception to this would be if he used the things that society provided; if he wanted to use a fishing pole that society built he may not be allowed to, he would have to build his own.

Bollocks, all over this forum, and in general, so-called "democratic socialists" express their support for Castro, among others. They worship the increasingly authoritarian Chavez. Picking the least worst government leader is not the equivalent of worship.

I am suggesting that no where near enough people have ever supported socialism on the scale you believe necessary.How many people would I believe is necessary to support socialism? 1000? 10000? More?

No. You must gain support generally, and that means successes, which socialism cannot provide.If socialism is run properly, the only way it cannot succeed is through military invasion from a non-socialist country.

Hummm, well as a Social Democrat, I am broadly in favour of most socalist reforms. A balance has to be struck between getting too socalist, slipping into dictatorship and captalism. I support a Welfair State, pensions, benfits....i fact I'll just say how I think a coutnry should be run:
TAX:(Basic)

No tax on earners under £30,000.
Staggered tax up to 95% on those earning £10,000,000 or more. (85% on those earning £2,500,000 and graduating like that down by 5% each time.)
10-70% of all companys profits (Graduated like above) are taken by the state.

Wlfair State:
Equal pensions for all-state pension is equal from the lowest to the highest earners.
50% of Private Healthcares profits and taken and given to the NHS and other welfair services.
Full Welfair State.

Democracy:
Free and Fair elections at all levels-If you want to get rid of us you can.
No censorship at all on media-except for odvious reason (child Porn ect.)

Education:
Grammer Schools are abolished, 60% of private Schools fees are taken and given to the Comprehensives.

I could say mroe,b ut thats basically a few of my ideas.

So socialism would ensure full employment by forcing people to work for the state/society. Face it some jobs would be more popular than others like being a teacher while cleaning the sewers won't be.I've already given an example for how a job like sewer cleaning would be handled. As far as the teaching job, it's entirely possible for only the best teachers to be supported by society and the rest of the people who wish to be teachers needing to find a different job.

Now that means I'm eventually going to have to be forced to work a job against my will or I'll have all my welfare cut off. Not at all. Society saying that they will not support a tanning booth lotioner is not the same thing as saying that you must be a sewer cleaner. You will get to pick the job you want, all you would need to do is convince society that the job is useful.

After all, who is going to do a job better? The person who wants the job and enjoys it, or the person who doesn't want it and doesn't enjoy it?

Basically this is than exacly like capitalism except people are dependent on the state/society to keep them alive and we have far less choice with what jobs we wish to persue.Not at all, you'd have far more choice at which jobs you wish to pursue. If you want to become a physicist, you have to have the money to afford an education, be able to get it from somewhere, or your out of luck. In socialism, you would need to convince society of the need for physicists and society would pay for your education; all you would need to do is put in the work to get educated. This goes for any job that requires an education.

Prove that the most productive people are the least likely to leave.

I said they were least likely to cooperate, and most likely to leave. The reason is obvious, they can gain more for their work in a free market.

Neither do most forms of socialism.

Nonsense.

Yes, my ideas require society be engineered so that it doesn't have to obey capitalist laws.

You have refuted your own ideas. Every attempt to reengineer society has failed, because it is based on a false premise (that a society can be reengineered)

Socialism does not require altruism. How does a person looking out for his best interests (i.e. being a socialist) mean he is altruistic?

Yes it does. Socialism is the rejection of self-interest, except for socialists who hope to swindle/slaughter their way into power through it.

Humans are free to act as individuals. The collective would put restrictions on this, but all societies do; after all, public nudity is banned.

Yet under socialism they cannot own property, except the petty personal property permitted by the state. Socialism does not allow an individual to act as an individual, only capitalism can.

Yes, I have.

No, you haven't. You've given us a little vague twaddle about surveying people constantly to find demand. You have not even mentioned supply, or how you could determine objectively whether or not production is efficient.

Really? Where would the vast costs be in starting a thread on this forum "what would you like for breakfast?" How difficult would it be to have people cook the required amount of eggs, sausage, french toast, etc.?

One has to process the answers into a concise form for planners to use, then one has to fit that information into an overall plan, then one has to administer the overall plan, and the small, specific plans eminating from it. There is no drive in this to reduce the costs of doing it because there is no profit in doing so.

How is directly asking people what they want less accurate?

It is slow, and it reflects an ideal, not what is possible, or what people would settle for in the way they do in a market with a rational price system.

Not at all. There are plenty of options for an inability to make whatever is asked for in the requested quantities; however if it is possible to do so, it will be done.

Rubbish. You have still not shown how you could work any of this out.

Or work for himself gathering or farming his own food.

But he cannot own private property. What he produces, under socialism, is taken by the state, or is this the new form of socialism that allows private property, and free trading of that property?

You haven't proven that the price system is the only way of doing this.

I don't need to. Nothing else has worked as well as the price system. History has shown that undemining the price system leads to economic chaos.

Because it enables them to have access to all of the things that society produces, unlike capitalism, which only gives them access to the things that they have the money for.

Under socialism they do not have free access to all of society's produce. They only have access to what the government gives them, when the government gives it, how the government gives it.

Under capitalism, he is free to make agreements with others.

Socialists advocate worker ownership of the means of production; this individual turning his property into his business means that the worker is owning the means of production.

So you advocate ownership by anyone except young children, retirees, and the disabled? Everyone else is a worker of one form or another.

If socialism is run properly, the only way it cannot succeed is through military invasion from a non-socialist country.

Socialism cannot be run properly, the information required to do so is not there, the means of putting that non-existant information to good decision-making are cumbersome, and the decision-making itself is too slow.

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

50% of Private Healthcares profits and taken and given to the NHS and other welfair services.

This will simply cause private providers to leave, and create a "health tourism" industry (just as Canada already has) of people arranging travel for Britons to foreign countries for medical treatment.

It also won't solve the NHS's problems, it will simply buy time before the whole thing crashes.

If one accepts that the state must fund healthcare, the least harmful way to do it is a reimbursement/voucher system. There is absolutely no need for a vast state bureaucracy.

No tax on earners under £30,000.

You'll find a lot of people who were before around £30000 cutting back to £29,999.95.

Staggered tax up to 95% on those earning £10,000,000 or more. (85% on those earning £2,500,000 and graduating like that down by 5% each time.)

Which will simply be evaded. Anyone making that much can afford to arrange his affairs to avoid paying that much tax. If they can't avoid it, they will simply leave.

10-70% of all companys profits (Graduated like above) are taken by the state.

That is simply a covert, dishonest additional VAT. You may as well be honest and make it a sales tax, because all company taxes are sales taxes. They must be paid from the money taken in through sales, and it will be passed on to consumers.

Grammer Schools are abolished, 60% of private Schools fees are taken and given to the Comprehensives.

They are forced to pay three times for taking responsibility for the education of their children?

More money will not solve the problems of public education. If one accepts that the state must fund the education of children, the least harmful way to do it is a reimbursement/voucher system. There is absolutely no need for a vast state bureaucracy.

Socialism is like bread and butter! But without the bread. And with margarine instead of butter. Yeah. A chunk of margarine.


socialism is like a fax machine you keep putting stuff in and then sometimes you get a busy signal then theres a beeping noise you get if you jam the paper in the wrong way where its a bunch of small beeps or...............actually i've never used a fax machine:confused:

In conclusion Socialism is complicated

*tries to work fax machine*

:D

Supply and demand are not relevant to the fact that capitalism requires unemployment.

Yes, they are. Firstly, without it, you the term "unemployment" is not comprehensible. Unemployment is a surplus, supply exceeds demand.

Socialism consistently spreads misery equally.

Socialism consistently spreads misery equally.

Personally, I think that's a good thing. I would rather have a society where everyone was a little bit miserable than one where a lot of people were extremely miserable and a few were very happy.

Not, of course, that happiness works like that...

Socialism consistently spreads misery equally.

Capitalism consistently spreads poverty.

The only type of Socialism I support is the forms of Syndicalism [Sans Anarcho]. Other forms put too much emphasis on the welfare state and less on creating an actual workers state and I don't support the welfare state.

Capitalism consistently spreads poverty.
Try telling that to those "evil" capitalists in Hong Kong, which changed from one of the poorest places in the world into one of the most wealthy places thanks to having the most free economy in the world. Capitalism doesn't create poverty, and it does a hell of a job at reducing it in the long run.

Your opinion on socialism?

I like that it starts with 's' and ends in 'm'! ;)

I said they were least likely to cooperate, and most likely to leave. The reason is obvious, they can gain more for their work in a free market.Except, of course, that gaining more for one's work is not the only consideration that people make when they decide to move.

Nonsense.Really? How many forms of socialism say that one can live at the expense of others?

You have refuted your own ideas. Every attempt to reengineer society has failed, because it is based on a false premise (that a society can be reengineered)Laws can't be changed?

Yes it does. Socialism is the rejection of self-interest, except for socialists who hope to swindle/slaughter their way into power through it.Nope. If wealth were redistributed, the majority of people would benefit.

Yet under socialism they cannot own property, except the petty personal property permitted by the state. Socialism does not allow an individual to act as an individual, only capitalism can.How does a lack of property ownership mean that a person can't be an individual?

No, you haven't. You've given us a little vague twaddle about surveying people constantly to find demand. You have not even mentioned supply, or how you could determine objectively whether or not production is efficient.Naturally you would not increase the supply of something without determining the demand first.
You can't determine objectively whether or not production is efficient, because efficient is a subjective term. One person's idea of efficiency might be goods produced more cheaply. Another person's idea might be less waste of raw materials. A third person's might be better quality goods produced. Which of them is right?

One has to process the answers into a concise form for planners to use, The poll in the thread would do this.

then one has to fit that information into an overall plan, then one has to administer the overall plan, and the small, specific plans eminating from it. There is no drive in this to reduce the costs of doing it because there is no profit in doing so.I would imagine that the farmers would be able to best figure out how to produce food, the chefs how to best cook it, and the transporters how to best transport it from one place to another.
The profit in reducing costs would be less spoiled food to eat, which means less work for everyone.

It is slow, and it reflects an ideal, not what is possible, or what people would settle for in the way they do in a market with a rational price system.The surveys are not meant to reflect what people will settle for, that would be done separately.

Rubbish. You have still not shown how you could work any of this out.Part of what the survey could ask is "How long are you willing to wait for item X?" Then the producers of item X would be asked "Can you produce Y number of these in Z amount of time?"

But he cannot own private property. What he produces, under socialism, is taken by the state, or is this the new form of socialism that allows private property, and free trading of that property?The form of socialism allows personal property, what he would produce he can use.
I am ambivalent about whether or not trading should be allowed, I think that as long as it doesn't get excessive it would be fine.


I don't need to. Nothing else has worked as well as the price system. History has shown that undemining the price system leads to economic chaos.Nothing else that has been tried has worked as well, my ideas haven't been tried.

Under socialism they do not have free access to all of society's produce. They only have access to what the government gives them, when the government gives it, how the government gives it.And since the 'government' would be giving it without restriction, people will have access to all of what society produces.

Under capitalism, he is free to make agreements with others.If he has something to offer.

So you advocate ownership by anyone except young children, retirees, and the disabled? Everyone else is a worker of one form or another.It would be argued that those people are also workers; nonetheless one of the requirements of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, so yes, ownership by anyone would be fine...after all, it would be their personal property.

Socialism cannot be run properly, the information required to do so is not there, the means of putting that non-existant information to good decision-making are cumbersome, and the decision-making itself is too slow.As long as people are willing to do the necessary work, it can be done.

Yes, they are. Firstly, without it, you the term "unemployment" is not comprehensible. Unemployment is a surplus, supply exceeds demand.That is one way of phrasing unemployment; another is phrasing it as there being an employment deficit. Nonetheless, my argument does not need to use the terms supply and demand, since the supply will always exceed the demand.

Laws can't be changed?

You've completely missed the point. Government edicts can't change people. The Soviets decreed that a New Soviet Man would come into being, and they failed. The Khmer Rouge tried to reform Cambodia, and only created starvation and death.

Nope. If wealth were redistributed, the majority of people would benefit.

The majority of the people produce wealth. They by definition do not benefit from its redistribution, nor does anyone benefit from disincentives to create wealth.

How does a lack of property ownership mean that a person can't be an individual?

He would be an individual in name only. He cannot act freely as he would own no property. His actions under socialism are only those the state orders him to carry out.

You can't determine objectively whether or not production is efficient, because efficient is a subjective term.

Capitalism has an objective way of determining efficiency, profit and loss.

I would imagine that the farmers would be able to best figure out how to produce food, the chefs how to best cook it, and the transporters how to best transport it from one place to another.

I'm sure they all have their ideal ways, but without a price system, there is no way of working out which is the most appropriate.

The surveys are not meant to reflect what people will settle for, that would be done separately.

Adding more layers of complexity would improve things?

Part of what the survey could ask is "How long are you willing to wait for item X?" Then the producers of item X would be asked "Can you produce Y number of these in Z amount of time?"

There is no reason for them to work on time, because there is no profit in speedy delivery.

And since the 'government' would be giving it without restriction, people will have access to all of what society produces.

All of the measures you advocate would disincentiveise production, or make it overly complex. Government must ration because you've not shown that your system can produce adequate amounts of goods. In fact, the central part of your ideas precludes any motive for doing so, except if they support your half-baked ideas.

If he has something to offer.

There are people without anything to offer?

It would be argued that those people are also workers; nonetheless one of the requirements of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, so yes, ownership by anyone would be fine...after all, it would be their personal property.

This "socialism" is pretty incoherient, first you say "no property", now "anyone can own property".

With the exception of retirees (and you have argued that they may not be an exception), all capitalist countries have already implemented systems of workers' ownership of the means of production. The only places that don't have it are socialist countries like North Korea and Cuba which have government ownership.

As long as people are willing to do the necessary work, it can be done.

It is simply not possible to make this work. It does not matter what they do, they are proceeding from a false premise (that an economy can be efficiently planned) with bad information to a conclusion which makes no sense, and isn't sustainable.

That is one way of phrasing unemployment; another is phrasing it as there being an employment deficit. Nonetheless, my argument does not need to use the terms supply and demand, since the supply will always exceed the demand.

You've made no cogent argument as to why that should be the case.

And since the 'government' would be giving it without restriction, people will have access to all of what society produces.
"Society" produces nothing. Only INDIVIDUALS produce.

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


If he has something to offer.
Why should it be any other way?

One is not entitled to consume more than he produces; thermodynamics gets in the way.

You've completely missed the point. Government edicts can't change people. The Soviets decreed that a New Soviet Man would come into being, and they failed. The Khmer Rouge tried to reform Cambodia, and only created starvation and death.Oh, but they can, over time. Slavery was legal, and most people looked down on blacks. Now it's illegal, and fewer people now look down on blacks. Government edicts can't change people against their will, but they can cause people do reevaluate their attitudes.

The majority of the people produce wealth. They by definition do not benefit from its redistribution, nor does anyone benefit from disincentives to create wealth.The majority of people produce wealth at different rates. They would benefit from being able to produce and receive wealth at a higher rate.

He would be an individual in name only. He cannot act freely as he would own no property. His actions under socialism are only those the state orders him to carry out.You still haven't shown that a lack of private property infringes on personal freedom.

Capitalism has an objective way of determining efficiency, profit and loss.But it does not have an objective way of determining whether or not a different system is better.

I'm sure they all have their ideal ways, but without a price system, there is no way of working out which is the most appropriate.The way of working out which is the most appropriate is by asking the people which they like better.

Adding more layers of complexity would improve things?Possibly. Simpler isn't always better.

There is no reason for them to work on time, because there is no profit in speedy delivery.But there is a profit in being able to keep one's job; a person who does the job poorly can likely be replaced.

All of the measures you advocate would disincentiveise production, or make it overly complex. Government must ration because you've not shown that your system can produce adequate amounts of goods. In fact, the central part of your ideas precludes any motive for doing so, except if they support your half-baked ideas.You haven't shown that the personal profit motive (in this case, getting rich)is the primary reason that people do things. Since there are other reasons for people to do things, it is not irrational to say that people will do their jobs for reasons other than to get rich.

There are people without anything to offer?Yes, there are people who don't have anything to offer that's in demand by the market.

This "socialism" is pretty incoherient, first you say "no property", now "anyone can own property".No private property, but personal property is acceptable.

With the exception of retirees (and you have argued that they may not be an exception), all capitalist countries have already implemented systems of workers' ownership of the means of production. The only places that don't have it are socialist countries like North Korea and Cuba which have government ownership.Those capitalist countries have examples of workers' ownership of the means of production, but not 100% or even nearing 100% of the time. The stock exchange doesn't count, as it allows non-workers to also own part of the company.

It is simply not possible to make this work. It does not matter what they do, they are proceeding from a false premise (that an economy can be efficiently planned) with bad information to a conclusion which makes no sense, and isn't sustainable.How is getting more accurate information (by asking people what they want) bad information?

You've made no cogent argument as to why that should be the case.It's quite obvious, for reasons I've outlined, why capitalism requires unemployment, you've made no cogent argument why this shouldn't be the case except with overtures to equilibrium.

**********

"Society" produces nothing. Only INDIVIDUALS produce.Most of the things that individuals produce can only be done by being part of a society.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, subhuman.You would do well by accepting the fact that Rand is a hack, even among right-wing libertarian philosophers. Although you seem to be on the way, you do realize that she's subhuman.

Why should it be any other way?

One is not entitled to consume more than he produces; thermodynamics gets in the way.Why should the system be set up to reduce the likelihood of a person having something to offer?

http://www.free-europe.org/blog/media/1/20030905-socialism_kills.jpg

Free markets reduce nations to poverty in the first place :)

Oh, but they can, over time. Slavery was legal, and most people looked down on blacks. Now it's illegal, and fewer people now look down on blacks. Government edicts can't change people against their will, but they can cause people do reevaluate their attitudes.

But government didn't change those attitudes. Those attitudes were changed before the government moved in, in fact the change was the cause of government action.

You still haven't shown that a lack of private property infringes on personal freedom.

Yes I have. The closest government ownership can get to guaranteeing the degree of personal freedom private property can is some easily discarded promise of "free access". The only way one can access anything under government ownership is with the express permission of government.

But it does not have an objective way of determining whether or not a different system is better.

Since capitalism is the best system in every respect, no such thing is necessary, and you are evading the point.

The way of working out which is the most appropriate is by asking the people which they like better.

Which still won't answer the question, I will add that your comment demonstrates that you don't understand the question.

Possibly. Simpler isn't always better

Under capitalism, the appropriate degree of complexity is easily determined, and that determination is objective. Under socialism, this can never be so.

But there is a profit in being able to keep one's job; a person who does the job poorly can likely be replaced.

That cannot be determined under socialism. Since socialism has no objective measure of economic efficiency, one cannot determine it, with obvious exceptions such as molesting the tea ladies, and burning the office down.

You haven't shown that the personal profit motive (in this case, getting rich)is the primary reason that people do things.

And the entire history of capitalism doesn't show it?

Yes, there are people who don't have anything to offer that's in demand by the market.

Nonsense.

No private property, but personal property is acceptable.

No, either you accept private property, or not. Dissembling over "personal property" just won't cut it. The chap to whom we are referring is using his property to produce wealth. Does socialism accept this? No. The fundamental tenet of socialism is that ownership of the means of production is to be taken out of private hands.

Those capitalist countries have examples of workers' ownership of the means of production, but not 100% or even nearing 100% of the time. The stock exchange doesn't count, as it allows non-workers to also own part of the company.

The stock exchange is simply a meeting place for the owners, all of these owners work, with the exception of those who are retired, and stocks being held in trust for children.

Calling for workers' ownership effectively means that only the retired, and the very young are excluded from ownership because they (generally) are the only ones who don't work.

How is getting more accurate information (by asking people what they want) bad information?

The information doesn't inform rational decision making.

It's quite obvious, for reasons I've outlined, why capitalism requires unemployment, you've made no cogent argument why this shouldn't be the case except with overtures to equilibrium.

No, its not obvious. Your argument boils down to the idea that the free market cannot reconcile supply and demand. Since the free market has been shown over the course of history as the only system which can, your argument is absurd.

Free markets reduce nations to poverty in the first place :)
I hope you are being sarcastic.

Raise your post count a couple of hundred and I'll answer :D

Raise your post count a couple of hundred and I'll answer :D
Wow, what a witty answer = "Shut up, you're new".

Wow, what a witty answer = "Shut up, you're new".

Yup. :)

Yup. :)
He's got a point. This is not a social thread, but a serious debate. Anything anyone says here must stand up to scrutiny from anyone else.

Your statement is a baseless assertion that runs counter to decades of evidence. So you'll have to back it up, regardless who asks for it and how many posts that person might have.

Lower your postcount by a couple of thousand and I'll answer.
:)

Lower your postcount by a couple of thousand and I'll answer.
Well, really I have to add another 3,386 to that - my old profile was deated after some...unpleasantness. ;)

6,398 + 3,386 = 9784.

Hehe, I might make the 10,000 this month. And no one will know.

Okay, lower your post couint by about 5,000 and I'll answer.

Doesn't have the same ring to it...

what the hell is "opionons"


Ohh I know this one, they're almost like normal onions but a little larger.

Why should the system be set up to reduce the likelihood of a person having something to offer?

BAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!!!

Only a socialist could take the view that thermodynamics is simple something set up to obstruct the workers!

BAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!!!

Only a socialist could take the view that thermodynamics is simple something set up to obstruct the workers!


It is? Then I say down with it!:rolleyes:

I hope you are being sarcastic.
The system created the poverty of Africa, it created the rape of their resources and land for Western markets. Its a true free market economy.

The system created the poverty of Africa, it created the rape of their resources and land for Western markets. Its a true free market economy.

Really, perhaps you could then explain how corruption at every level, high taxes, absurd regulations, and unlimited governments constitute a "true free market".

Or better still, explain how such companies as the British South Africa Company, with government granted monopolies, and private armies, constituted a manifestation of the free market?

Really, perhaps you could then explain how corruption at every level, high taxes, absurd regulations, and unlimited governments constitute a "true free market".
You mean after-the-fact manifestations?
Or better still, explain how such companies as the British South Africa Company, with government granted monopolies, and private armies, constituted a manifestation of the free market?
Because that's what happens anyway in a free market, any tactic can be used to ush out opponents; the private armies argue better my case than your own, I'm afraid.

You mean after-the-fact manifestations?

Don't dissemble. Answer the question.

Actually, I will answer it for you. African government policies are not in any way indicative of a free market, African countries are among the least free economically. You can't do anything in business without filling in piles of forms, and greasing the palms of dozens of officials. Do you know how long it takes to set up a business in some African countries? Months in some cases. Do you know how much some of these countries charge for importing items? Or how much red tape is necessary for it.

You are talking out of your hat, either that or you are pulling our legs.

Because that's what happens anyway in a free market, any tactic can be used to ush out opponents; the private armies argue better my case than your own, I'm afraid.

A free market involves companies being given government charter to operate as a monopoly? Surely you jest!

Would you mind telling me how a Royal Charter is compatible with a free market? Or even if you know what a free market is?

Private armies do not argue your case, because we are not simply talking about glorified security guards protecting company property, we are talking about regular police forces and armies.

But government didn't change those attitudes. Those attitudes were changed before the government moved in, in fact the change was the cause of government action.Not really, one could argue that the 13th Amendment was ratified primarily to piss off the South.

Yes I have. The closest government ownership can get to guaranteeing the degree of personal freedom private property can is some easily discarded promise of "free access". The only way one can access anything under government ownership is with the express permission of government.The existence of private property doesn't guarantee private ownership; does this mean that people who own property have more freedom than people who don't?

Since capitalism is the best system in every respect, no such thing is necessary, and you are evading the point.The only thing capitalism is better at than socialism is it's more efficient; capitalism is inferior in every other way.

Which still won't answer the question, I will add that your comment demonstrates that you don't understand the question.I would presume that your question has to deal with what is more profitable in a monetary sense, ignoring that there are other, sometimes better ways of doing things.

Under capitalism, the appropriate degree of complexity is easily determined, and that determination is objective. Under socialism, this can never be so.It shouldn't be objective, how complex the system is should depend on what the people living in the system want it to be.

That cannot be determined under socialism. Since socialism has no objective measure of economic efficiency, one cannot determine it, with obvious exceptions such as molesting the tea ladies, and burning the office down.There doesn't have to be an objective measure of economic efficiency; subjective measures will do just fine. A doctor who diagnoses things well but has a lousy bedside manner could be replaced if his patients just don't like him.

And the entire history of capitalism doesn't show it?The history of charity and of people doing pro bono work shows that it isn't the case that people do things to maximize their personal profit.

Nonsense.Really? So every single person in the entire world has a skill that's in demand by the market?

No, either you accept private property, or not. Dissembling over "personal property" just won't cut it. Personal property is different than private property, I don't see why I shouldn't acknowledge the distinction.

The chap to whom we are referring is using his property to produce wealth. Does socialism accept this? There's nothing within the concept of socialism itself that says this is unacceptable.

The fundamental tenet of socialism is that ownership of the means of production is to be taken out of private hands.No, that's the point; the fundamental tenet of socialism is that ownership of the means of production is to be in the hands of the workers. There's nothing about the concept of socialism that says some governmental body has to lord over things; there is at least one branch of socialism that involves individual co-ops trading with each other in a market system.

The stock exchange is simply a meeting place for the owners, all of these owners work, with the exception of those who are retired, and stocks being held in trust for children.

Calling for workers' ownership effectively means that only the retired, and the very young are excluded from ownership because they (generally) are the only ones who don't work.Not all of the owners of stock work in the company itself, which is the important distinction.

The information doesn't inform rational decision making.How does gathering information and doing research not inform rational decision making?

No, its not obvious. Your argument boils down to the idea that the free market cannot reconcile supply and demand. Since the free market has been shown over the course of history as the only system which can, your argument is absurd.No, my argument boils down to the idea that once unemployment drops low enough, it will no longer be profitable to employ anyone since the people being employed will demand more money. An influx of immigrants would not further lower the unemployment rate.

BAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!!!

Only a socialist could take the view that thermodynamics is simple something set up to obstruct the workers!The comment that he made wasn't about thermodynamics, he just put that in there because he thought it was humorous. The comment I was referring to was his reply to my statement that only people with something to offer can make voluntary trades. He said "why should it be any other way?" So, my reply was (to paraphrase) "why should the system be set up to reduce the likelihood of someone having something to offer?"

No, my argument boils down to the idea that once unemployment drops low enough, it will no longer be profitable to employ anyone since the people being employed will demand more money. An influx of immigrants would not further lower the unemployment rate.
You can call the market mechanism all sorts of things, but not that it can't adjust.

If companies could no longer hire people they would eventually fail and go bancrupt. Which breaks parts out of the economy, causing other firms to go out of business. And ultimately you get unemployment again.

Labour is not fundamentally different to any other services that can be supplied or demanded. If a firm was into cleaning shoes, and it kept raising the prices, you'd go to another. If there was no other, you'd instead try to get by with dirty shoes, until the firm must lower their prices. Monopolies can only exist if they stick to at least some level of rationality (indeed, the golden rule is Marginal Cost = Marginal Benefit, and that works always).

So in other words:
Does capitalism require unemployment? Well, I suppose the workings of an economy probably do.

But is a world without unemployment feasible? No, of course not. Indeed, the natural rate of unemployment is defined as simply being
a) people between jobs
b) people whose skills are no longer needed and who have to reskill
c) people whose skills are only needed during some seasons
Surely these are natural things and not to blame on capitalism. A socialist society will still be confronted with these three problems (even though perhaps they won't be as grave, since for some divine reason there is no scarcity).

Which leads me to a very central thesis: The reason capitalism and the modern world fit so well together is because they developed together. Modern Capitalism is a natural development that occured as a combination of humans' natural actions and perhaps some historical events. It is not imposed, not constructed and not artificial. Any modern alternative system is, was and likely will be.

Which necessarily leads to cases of that artificial system not matching the world, leading to all sorts of problems.

If companies could no longer hire people they would eventually fail and go bancrupt. This isn't true, a company only needs to hire someone if they plan to expand their business or if a current employee leaves. A company can remain profitable nearly indefinitely maintaining its current employee base.

Which breaks parts out of the economy, causing other firms to go out of business. And ultimately you get unemployment again.Yet another reason capitalism requires unemployment.

Labour is not fundamentally different to any other services that can be supplied or demanded. If a firm was into cleaning shoes, and it kept raising the prices, you'd go to another. If there was no other, you'd instead try to get by with dirty shoes, until the firm must lower their prices. Monopolies can only exist if they stick to at least some level of rationality (indeed, the golden rule is Marginal Cost = Marginal Benefit, and that works always).If a company produced a huge supply of shoes, the price of shoes would go down. If there was a huge supply of labor, the price of labor would go down. If the demand of shoes went up, so would the price, and again with labor.

Where the difference lies is that labor is a cost of doing business. If the cost of doing business is greater than the profits made from doing business, the business can't make a profit. This would eventually be the case as the unemployment level moves closer to zero.

So in other words:
Does capitalism require unemployment? Well, I suppose the workings of an economy probably do.

But is a world without unemployment feasible? No, of course not. Indeed, the natural rate of unemployment is defined as simply being
a) people between jobs
b) people whose skills are no longer needed and who have to reskill
c) people whose skills are only needed during some seasons
Surely these are natural things and not to blame on capitalism. No, and if A means people voluntarily between jobs, then unemployment wouldn't be something to worry about.

A socialist society will still be confronted with these three problems (even though perhaps they won't be as grave, since for some divine reason there is no scarcity).I wouldn't say that the reason is divine, no.

Which leads me to a very central thesis: The reason capitalism and the modern world fit so well together is because they developed together. Modern Capitalism is a natural development that occured as a combination of humans' natural actions and perhaps some historical events. It is not imposed, not constructed and not artificial. Any modern alternative system is, was and likely will be.

Which necessarily leads to cases of that artificial system not matching the world, leading to all sorts of problems.But the point is that modern capitalism isn't the same thing as the free market capitalism that libertarians espouse. Modern capitalism involves government intervention in the economy, often in large amounts. At the very least a libertarian capitalist nation is just as artificial as a socialist one.

This isn't true, a company only needs to hire someone if they plan to expand their business or if a current employee leaves. A company can remain profitable nearly indefinitely maintaining its current employee base.
If the world remained static, yes. But if it remained static, socialism would work too. :D

Where the difference lies is that labor is a cost of doing business. If the cost of doing business is greater than the profits made from doing business, the business can't make a profit. This would eventually be the case as the unemployment level moves closer to zero.
Meaning that business activity goes down and reduces employment levels.

No, and if A means people voluntarily between jobs, then unemployment wouldn't be something to worry about.
Who says that it is?
Yes, one can make an argument that the government can help reduce cyclical, and perhaps some structural unemployment through monetary and fiscal policy and encouraging education respectively. But transitional unemployment is not something to worry about, no (and yes, that includes people getting fired).

At the very least a libertarian capitalist nation is just as artificial as a socialist one.
Touché.

If we assume t=0 to be today in our world, yes, there'd have to be some exogenous force to create a libertarian nation. That shock would likely be smaller than the one required to move towards socialism.

Nonetheless, the idea of exchange of goods and services is not artificial. The idea of person's gathering wealth is not artificial. And those two tenets are the two things that describe capitalism, libertarian or otherwise.

If the world remained static, yes. But if it remained static, socialism would work too. :D I fail to see why most companies would be forced to hire more workers in order to survive; usually they need to fire people to survive.

Meaning that business activity goes down and reduces employment levels.Right, meaning that unemployment goes up, meaning that it exists.

Who says that it is?
Yes, one can make an argument that the government can help reduce cyclical, and perhaps some structural unemployment through monetary and fiscal policy and encouraging education respectively. But transitional unemployment is not something to worry about, no (and yes, that includes people getting fired).Depends what you mean by transitional. Five days between jobs is fine. Five months is not. Five years is unacceptable.

Touché.

If we assume t=0 to be today in our world, yes, there'd have to be some exogenous force to create a libertarian nation. That shock would likely be smaller than the one required to move towards socialism.I suppose it may depend on what kind of people we're dealing with.

Nonetheless, the idea of exchange of goods and services is not artificial. The idea of person's gathering wealth is not artificial. And those two tenets are the two things that describe capitalism, libertarian or otherwise.I would agree with you on these points, but a lot of things aren't artificial and yet we form societies and governments to get away from them or be protected from them - murder, for instance, is perfectly natural, and the idea of having courts to try murderers is artificial. Something artificial isn't in and of itself a bad thing.

I fail to see why most companies would be forced to hire more workers in order to survive; usually they need to fire people to survive.
Occasionally firms have to take advantage of opportunities, in which case they may need extra workers. Or they need a new set of skills in their labour force.
Suffice to say that a firm that cannot adjust its labour pool is in trouble.

Depends what you mean by transitional. Five days between jobs is fine. Five months is not. Five years is unacceptable.
You can't force a firm to accept someone it doesn't think is of benefit to them. That would be forcing people (literally by threatening them with the gun) to do things they don't want to do - in fact things they may not be able to reasonably do.
Believe me, finding a job isn't that difficult if you are flexible. People aren't necessarily flexible enough, and I acknowledge that. But the answer lies not in measures that make it easier for people if to be inflexible.

Something artificial isn't in and of itself a bad thing.
Certainly not. Our greatest inventions are by definition artificial.
The problem is that something as artificial and rigid as socialism simply cannot be expected to solve more problems than it causes.

Not really, one could argue that the 13th Amendment was ratified primarily to piss off the South.

That's your argument? All you've shown is that the US political system (at least at the time) favoured the North over the South.

The existence of private property doesn't guarantee private ownership; does this mean that people who own property have more freedom than people who don't?

Yes it does to the first question. It is obvious. To the second, they have the same freedoms.

It shouldn't be objective, how complex the system is should depend on what the people living in the system want it to be

A meaningles statement if ever I heard one.

There doesn't have to be an objective measure of economic efficiency; subjective measures will do just fine.

No, they won't.

Really? So every single person in the entire world has a skill that's in demand by the market?

Yes. Or they (in unskilled jobs) have time and energy.

Personal property is different than private property, I don't see why I shouldn't acknowledge the distinction.

No, it isn't. Either you accept private property, or communal property. Anyway, the scenario we were discussing doesn't involve personal property, the property involved is being used to produce wealth.

There's nothing within the concept of socialism itself that says this is unacceptable.

Nonsense.

No, that's the point; the fundamental tenet of socialism is that ownership of the means of production is to be in the hands of the workers.

No it isn't. Workers' ownership is a meaningless concept, as I've shown.

Not all of the owners of stock work in the company itself, which is the important distinction.

Not really. There is no need for them to.

How does gathering information and doing research not inform rational decision making?

The most relevant information cannot be produced except through the price system.

Socialism- what's not to like? Big government bureaucracy, heavy taxes, a nanny state, and now, a bitter underclass of immigrant workers! Or an incompetent Soviet-style economy complete with murderous secret police for all you hard-core Marxists in the crowd. On second thought, maybe you should just go join a trade union if you're so keen on uniting the workers.

Occasionally firms have to take advantage of opportunities, in which case they may need extra workers. Or they need a new set of skills in their labour force.
Suffice to say that a firm that cannot adjust its labour pool is in trouble.It's rare that a firm not being able to take advantage of opportunities results in the dissolution of the firm. The firm can adjust its labor pool by retraining workers if need be.
Nonetheless, even if you are right, this would lead to increased unemployment, further evidence that capitalism requires unemployment.

You can't force a firm to accept someone it doesn't think is of benefit to them. That would be forcing people (literally by threatening them with the gun) to do things they don't want to do - in fact things they may not be able to reasonably do.True, but on the other hand, in a capitalist system, a lack of work over an extended period of time usually leads to death. If the person were a hermit somewhere living outside of any system, they could squat on some land and farm their own food and in the meantime forage for what they need. In this case, the capitalist system leaves people worse off than they would ordinarily be without it. A system that leaves people worse off with it than without it doesn't deserve to exist.

Believe me, finding a job isn't that difficult if you are flexible. People aren't necessarily flexible enough, and I acknowledge that. But the answer lies not in measures that make it easier for people if to be inflexible.Yes, the answer lies in measures that make it easier for people to be flexible - free education, so a person can actually acquire new skills, for instance.

Certainly not. Our greatest inventions are by definition artificial.
The problem is that something as artificial and rigid as socialism simply cannot be expected to solve more problems than it causes.I don't agree that socialism will cause more problems than it solves, unless it is imposed upon people who do not want it; most socialists disagree with the idea of forcing people to accept it who don't want it.

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

That's your argument? All you've shown is that the US political system (at least at the time) favoured the North over the South.Which is different than saying that people recognized blacks as people as opposed to pack animals.

Yes it does to the first question.Nope. The legality of people owning things doesn't necessarily mean people will have the ability to own things.

To the second, they have the same freedoms.If they have the same freedoms, then the person with more property can have their property confiscated to the point of the person with less property without a reduction in freedom.

A meaningles statement if ever I heard one.Then you obviously don't listen to yourself speak.

No, they won't. Yes, they will. Prove your objective measure of economic efficiency is better.

Yes. Or they (in unskilled jobs) have time and energy.Most, if not all unskilled jobs, require physical labor. A person physically incapable of doing that type of job would be unable to do that type of labor.

No, it isn't. Either you accept private property, or communal property. Anyway, the scenario we were discussing doesn't involve personal property, the property involved is being used to produce wealth.Or personal property, which is different than private property and communal property.
You unwittingly mentioned the distinction yourself - the property is being used. Personal property is property that is being used; personal property in land means occupancy and use. If someone is occupying and using their land, it is their personal property. There's nothing within the concept of socialism that means there are restrictions on what a person can do with their personal property, though different forms of socialism may individually impose restrictions.

Nonsense. Then you're clearly not as informed about socialism as you'd like to claim. Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

No it isn't. Workers' ownership is a meaningless concept, as I've shown.No, you haven't. What you've done is taken the capitalist idea of ownership and transposed it onto the socialist idea of ownership and pretended the ideas fit together. They don't. Socialist ownership is different than capitalist ownership.

Not really. There is no need for them to.The need for them to work in the company itself means that they don't own the company in the socialist sense if they don't work in the company. The link above explains why.

The most relevant information cannot be produced except through the price system.The price system doesn't produce the most relevant information, at best it produces a segment of the most relevant information.

It's rare that a firm not being able to take advantage of opportunities results in the dissolution of the firm.
You should read the Financial Times a little bit more. It's a cut-throat competition out there, wherever you look.
Good thing too, gave us all the great stuff we're enjoying today.

True, but on the other hand, in a capitalist system, a lack of work over an extended period of time usually leads to death.
But is there such a thing as a 'lack of work'?
Your hermit is working. He's farming food, foraging and just generally being busy. In exchange, he creates the things he needs to live.
Now, if the hermit also wanted a TV, and he wasn't able to build a TV himself, he might exchange some of his food (or wisdom, whatever he might have to offer...:p) for a TV.
Voila, that is capitalism. Using your brain to direct your muscles to do things to cope with the challenges of reality. No more, no less.

Yes, the answer lies in measures that make it easier for people to be flexible - free education, so a person can actually acquire new skills, for instance.
Well, you'd know as well as I do that there is no such thing as 'free' anything. Someone will always be paying/producing for something to be created.
But I agree with you, education is important. A system like HECS in Australia (of low-interest loans which are paid off with the money you make thanks to your education) would be a good way to have both - affordable education even for the very poor, and a level of responsibility for one's own actions that would not be there if the education was completely free of charge to the individual.

You should read the Financial Times a little bit more. It's a cut-throat competition out there, wherever you look.
Good thing too, gave us all the great stuff we're enjoying today.I might start to read the business section of the newspaper, it isn't as boring as it should rightfully be.

But is there such a thing as a 'lack of work'?
Your hermit is working. He's farming food, foraging and just generally being busy. In exchange, he creates the things he needs to live.Yes, but in capitalism he can't do this if someone else 'owns' the land, and there's no particular reason to believe that land would be unowned.

Now, if the hermit also wanted a TV, and he wasn't able to build a TV himself, he might exchange some of his food (or wisdom, whatever he might have to offer...:p) for a TV.
Voila, that is capitalism. Using your brain to direct your muscles to do things to cope with the challenges of reality. No more, no less.Well, yes, that's why people join societies, to get things that they can't get themselves.

Well, you'd know as well as I do that there is no such thing as 'free' anything. Someone will always be paying/producing for something to be created.True, but it won't be the person getting the education, and that's the important part.

But I agree with you, education is important. A system like HECS in Australia (of low-interest loans which are paid off with the money you make thanks to your education) would be a good way to have both - affordable education even for the very poor, and a level of responsibility for one's own actions that would not be there if the education was completely free of charge to the individual.I'm not quite certain how free education leads to a lack of responsibility, unless you're suggesting that it would also be unlimited.
I also don't agree with the idea of loans for education - there's no guarantee that an education will lead to someone making more money.

Opposed based upon the fact that as an economic system, it's never worked anywhere it's implemented. All one has to do is look at our SS system here in the US and the impending implosion of the vaster Euro welfare states to see that it's sustainable only by raising taxes which does nothing more than stagnate the national economy. Take money from individuals and corporations to provide a handout as opposed to investing that money into R&D, manufacturing and job creation = no GDP growth. That's Econ 101 folks.

As a political system, well lets see, Communism, Fascism and National Socialism were all inherently based upon state control of the economy and the individual and we see what that did for the world so no thanks. I'll stick with being a greedy capitalist pig.

Yes, but in capitalism he can't do this if someone else 'owns' the land, and there's no particular reason to believe that land would be unowned.
True. But then there is really nothing in the way of this wannabe hermit and the owner of the land to come to an agreement.

I'm not quite certain how free education leads to a lack of responsibility, unless you're suggesting that it would also be unlimited.
I'm just noticing that in Germany, where tertiary education is largely free (or used to, it's like 500 Euros a year now) people stay at uni for waaay too long.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,408465,00.html
So something needs to be done, because if price is low, demand can be high...perhaps higher than necessary if the price is artificially low.

I also don't agree with the idea of loans for education - there's no guarantee that an education will lead to someone making more money.
Not if you're gonna rest on your laurels, no.

True. But then there is really nothing in the way of this wannabe hermit and the owner of the land to come to an agreement.Of course there is - the hermit has to have something to offer.

I'm just noticing that in Germany, where tertiary education is largely free (or used to, it's like 500 Euros a year now) people stay at uni for waaay too long.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,408465,00.html
So something needs to be done, because if price is low, demand can be high...perhaps higher than necessary if the price is artificially low.I'm not certain that it's possible to get too much education, but if it is, Germany can always limit the amount of education a person can get.

Not if you're gonna rest on your laurels, no.Or if the field you became educated in is no longer in demand by the time your education ends, or if you don't begin a type of education that would get you a lucrative career in the first place.

Nope. The legality of people owning things doesn't necessarily mean people will have the ability to own things.

Yes it does. Private property rights mean legitimate ownership. Where they are not recognised, private property exists only to the extent that it can be hidden, or defended by force.

If they have the same freedoms, then the person with more property can have their property confiscated to the point of the person with less property without a reduction in freedom.

Poppycock. Everyone has the right ot own property. Quantity doesn't come into it. This is without doubt the most absurd objection you've ever made, and you've quite a record.

Yes, they will. Prove your objective measure of economic efficiency is better.

I don't have to. History proves me right. Profit and loss, which are objective measures, are the best.

Most, if not all unskilled jobs, require physical labor. A person physically incapable of doing that type of job would be unable to do that type of labor.

Nevertheless, everyone has something to offer, or can change himself to have something to offer.

You unwittingly mentioned the distinction yourself - the property is being used. Personal property is property that is being used; personal property in land means occupancy and use. If someone is occupying and using their land, it is their personal property.

It is not a distinction. Use is irrelevant. I've never heard of personal property being described in those terms, it has always been used in the personal sense, as in such things as clothing. Never simply "use".

I've told you, the concept of basing property rights on use is a contradiction. To base "rights" on use of property means two things, firstly, permission from some authority must be sought to own the property (in terms of their checking to see that it is being used), and that authority deciding which use is the more important in the event of competing claims. With full private property rights, the government does neither of these things.

In terms of adjudication, the government, through the courts, looks into the facts to determine who has the rightful claim.

"Property rights based on use" is nothing more than a code for "government ownership of all property".

No, you haven't. What you've done is taken the capitalist idea of ownership and transposed it onto the socialist idea of ownership and pretended the ideas fit together. They don't. Socialist ownership is different than capitalist ownership.

Of course it is different. Capitalist ownership is based on the voluntary mutual consent of free people acting in cooperation.

Socialist ownership is based on state violence.

I have shown it meaningless because the term "workers" isn't effectively defined.

The price system doesn't produce the most relevant information, at best it produces a segment of the most relevant information

The price system produces the determation of profit and loss. This is the most relevant piece of information. If the amount of profit is the desirable one, the business is running as efficiently as it needs to, its sales are at a good amount, and its costs are under control. It is running well. If it isn't, that points to the need for improvement, and closer examination of the business reveals where the improvements must take place.

Take away private property rights, and prices cannot be set rationally so the price system is destroyed. Take away the price system, and there is no real way to discover whether or not a business is running as well as it needs to.

Yes, but in capitalism he can't do this if someone else 'owns' the land, and there's no particular reason to believe that land would be unowned.

If someone else owns the land, all he need do is buy it, or convince someone to give it to him. Anyway, as he's a hermit, he presumably owns the place in which he enjoys his solitude, so he'd farm on that land.

As for unowned land, whether or not there is reason to believe it unowned is entirely dependent on the situation.

Well, yes, that's why people join societies, to get things that they can't get themselves.

You've missed the point. You talk of society as though it is a single entity with some hold over the individual. Society is merely a collection of individuals who gather together because of the self-interest of each individual.

If the person were a hermit somewhere living outside of any system, they could squat on some land and farm their own food and in the meantime forage for what they need.

Wow, you've actually discovered homesteading.

Of course there is - the hermit has to have something to offer.
Well, since you posited that he can grow food and so on, he does. If he didn't have any skills, he'd be dead, capitalism or not.

Or if the field you became educated in is no longer in demand by the time your education ends, or if you don't begin a type of education that would get you a lucrative career in the first place.
In both cases you'll have to bear the cost of that decision. It's a little bit like your hermit: He's got the choice to pick flowers and collect them, or go an grow food. Making a choice means to forsake one of the alternatives.

Yes it does. Private property rights mean legitimate ownership. Where they are not recognised, private property exists only to the extent that it can be hidden, or defended by force.Nope. Private property rights mean that people can only own things that they pay for; someone unable to pay for something would be unable to own something.

Poppycock. Everyone has the right ot own property. Quantity doesn't come into it. This is without doubt the most absurd objection you've ever made, and you've quite a record.Quantity does come into it; either a person with more property has more freedom, or the removal of most property is not an interference of freedom. It must be one or the other, it can't be neither.

I don't have to. History proves me right. Profit and loss, which are objective measures, are the best.Out of all of the systems that have been tried, perhaps, but not out of all possible systems.

Nevertheless, everyone has something to offer, or can change himself to have something to offer.Nevertheless, as I have demonstrated, everyone does not have something to offer, and cannot change themselves to have something to offer without being able to purchase an education.

It is not a distinction. Use is irrelevant. I've never heard of personal property being described in those terms, it has always been used in the personal sense, as in such things as clothing. Never simply "use".I don't see a distinction between use and items used in a personal sense; any item that's being used is used in a personal sense. Using your house to live in is using the house as a personal sense.

I've told you, the concept of basing property rights on use is a contradiction. To base "rights" on use of property means two things, firstly, permission from some authority must be sought to own the property (in terms of their checking to see that it is being used), and that authority deciding which use is the more important in the event of competing claims. With full private property rights, the government does neither of these things.False. In order to own something in a capitalist society, permission from some authority must be sought. This permission takes the form of a deed. The government can validate or invalidate deeds as it sees fit.

In terms of adjudication, the government, through the courts, looks into the facts to determine who has the rightful claim.And in disputes over rightful uses, the government looks into the facts and determines who has the rightful claim. No distinction there.

"Property rights based on use" is nothing more than a code for "government ownership of all property".No, but "private property rights" is nothing more than a code for "all property in the hands of a few, screw the rest".

Of course it is different. Capitalist ownership is based on the voluntary mutual consent of free people acting in cooperation.

Socialist ownership is based on state violence.No, socialist ownership is based on the voluntary mutual consent of free people acting in cooperation, capitalist ownership is based on state violence at the behest of capitalists.

I have shown it meaningless because the term "workers" isn't effectively defined.Defining "workers" as people who work, i.e. put their labor into the company isn't an effective definition?

The price system produces the determation of profit and loss. This is the most relevant piece of information. If the amount of profit is the desirable one, the business is running as efficiently as it needs to, its sales are at a good amount, and its costs are under control. It is running well. If it isn't, that points to the need for improvement, and closer examination of the business reveals where the improvements must take place.

Take away private property rights, and prices cannot be set rationally so the price system is destroyed. Take away the price system, and there is no real way to discover whether or not a business is running as well as it needs to.Of course there is, there are lots of ways. You could base it on the amount of free time the business's employees have. You could base it on the amount of stuff the business has left after it's completed all its transactions. All are equally valid.

If someone else owns the land, all he need do is buy it, or convince someone to give it to him. Anyway, as he's a hermit, he presumably owns the place in which he enjoys his solitude, so he'd farm on that land.No, a hermit presumably squats on land that nobody is actively enforcing a claim to.

You've missed the point. You talk of society as though it is a single entity with some hold over the individual. Society is merely a collection of individuals who gather together because of the self-interest of each individual.And the fact that a society is meant to advance the self-interest of an individual means that an individual should be better off as a result of being part of that society. A society which makes individuals worse off than they would be from not being part of that society doesn't deserve to exist.

Wow, you've actually discovered homesteading.No, I've given an example of property rights being based upon use.

Well, since you posited that he can grow food and so on, he does. If he didn't have any skills, he'd be dead, capitalism or not.If he doesn't have the skill of growing food, he can gather it, gathering food doesn't necessarily take any skill.

In both cases you'll have to bear the cost of that decision. Or, the preferable third option, that education be free so that the cost of the decision is merely wasted time.

It's a little bit like your hermit: He's got the choice to pick flowers and collect them, or go an grow food. Making a choice means to forsake one of the alternatives.I suppose this analogy is somewhat right; making the wrong choice is death, or a lifetime of debt.

If he doesn't have the skill of growing food, he can gather it, gathering food doesn't necessarily take any skill.
One can gather food in exchange for money or a place to live. As long as one can do something that could be valuable to someone else, one is fit to exist in capitalism. And since there are plenty of people in the world, virtually any action a human can perform will be demanded somewhere by someone.

And if not, there is still charity.

Or, the preferable third option, that education be free so that the cost of the decision is merely wasted time.
And wasted money from everybody else - as well as wasted time for the lecturers, and the opportunity cost associated with the wrong decision.

Everyone ends up getting hurt, except the person who made the mistake. You're essentially giving an incentive to not think about your decisions carefully and make mistakes.

One can gather food in exchange for money or a place to live. As long as one can do something that could be valuable to someone else, one is fit to exist in capitalism. I'm not certain that a person could be paid more to gather food for someone else than they would receive from simply consuming the food.

And since there are plenty of people in the world, virtually any action a human can perform will be demanded somewhere by someone.I don't know that this is true, but even if it is, that doesn't mean that someone will have the information to know who is demanding an action that they can provide, or have the ability of getting there.

And if not, there is still charity.Which would be insufficient.

And wasted money from everybody else - as well as wasted time for the lecturers, and the opportunity cost associated with the wrong decision.I don't know about the last part, could you explain this further? As far as the first part, the people with lucrative jobs can afford it. The second part is arguably true, though.

Everyone ends up getting hurt, except the person who made the mistake. You're essentially giving an incentive to not think about your decisions carefully and make mistakes.And you're giving an incentive to not get an education in the first place.

I'm not certain that a person could be paid more to gather food for someone else than they would receive from simply consuming the food.
Well, since the person apparently can't find a bit of space that doesn't belong to someone who won't let them stay, I don't think there are much better options.

I don't know that this is true, but even if it is, that doesn't mean that someone will have the information to know who is demanding an action that they can provide, or have the ability of getting there.
It's getting easier with the internet and all that.

Which would be insufficient.
Is that your standard answer to anything involving charity?
If just one person was looking for some support, they could probably find it somewhere. And besides, state-owned charity hasn't exactly got a record of effectiveness.

I don't know about the last part, could you explain this further?
Opportunity Cost is the value of the second-best alternative. In other words, if a person chooses to study arts of Ancient Egypt, an opportunity cost might have been to spend that time working at a cornerstore and earning money.

And you're giving an incentive to not get an education in the first place.
That's not true, I'm merely adding a factor of risk to a decision involving many thousands of dollars.

Nope. Private property rights mean that people can only own things that they pay for; someone unable to pay for something would be unable to own something.

You don't understand private property rights, in spite of many explainations. Private property rights means you can own property, homestead unowned resources, and engage in mutually consensual transfers of property.

Quantity does come into it; either a person with more property has more freedom, or the removal of most property is not an interference of freedom. It must be one or the other, it can't be neither.

Nonsense. Everyone has the same freedom to own property. Any nonconsensual removal of that property is a removal of that freedom.

Quantity has no bearing on that. You can't lose a little free speech. You have it, or you don't.

Nevertheless, as I have demonstrated, everyone does not have something to offer, and cannot change themselves to have something to offer without being able to purchase an education.

Assertion =!= demostration.

I don't see a distinction between use and items used in a personal sense; any item that's being used is used in a personal sense. Using your house to live in is using the house as a personal sense.

Every other socialist does, hence all the talk about "means of production".

False. In order to own something in a capitalist society, permission from some authority must be sought. This permission takes the form of a deed. The government can validate or invalidate deeds as it sees fit.

No, the government exists merely defend that right. It does not give permission to own property, it defends the preexisting right so to do. Validating, or invalidating claims is not a matter of permission, but determining which is the rightful claim.

And in disputes over rightful uses, the government looks into the facts and determines who has the rightful claim. No distinction there.

There is a distinction, because a claim on property is enduring. This "use" business does not deal with an enduring claim. My claim on my property lasts until I freely decide to give it away (or trade it, or abandon it), or until I die, in which case it goes to whomever I see fit.

No, but "private property rights" is nothing more than a code for "all property in the hands of a few, screw the rest".

I notice you don't even attempt to refute me, choosing instead childish quipping.

No, socialist ownership is based on the voluntary mutual consent of free people acting in cooperation, capitalist ownership is based on state violence at the behest of capitalists.

Rubbish. This definition does not correspond to any version of socialism posited. Your definition of capitalist ownership is ridiculous.

Voluntary mutual consent is capitalism. People choose to exchange goods and services freely. Socialism explicitly prohibits this.

The idea that capitalism is based on state violence is absurd since the only thing that has ever stood in the way of capitalism is state violence.

Defining "workers" as people who work, i.e. put their labor into the company isn't an effective definition?

Bill Gates is therefore a worker, as is Rupert Murdoch. Not people most socialists see as workers.

Enron executives were workers.

Of course there is, there are lots of ways. You could base it on the amount of free time the business's employees have. You could base it on the amount of stuff the business has left after it's completed all its transactions. All are equally valid.

A four hour tea breaks, and no sales means the most efficient company around, because its workers have half of the day on a tea break, and they choose to enter into no sales.

No, a hermit presumably squats on land that nobody is actively enforcing a claim to.

He's homesteading.

No, I've given an example of property rights being based upon use.

No such thing. It is a contradiction in terms.

Well, since the person apparently can't find a bit of space that doesn't belong to someone who won't let them stay, I don't think there are much better options.Revolution is a better option. As I said, a system which leaves people better off with it than without it doesn't deserve to exist.

It's getting easier with the internet and all that.How is a homeless person going to access the internet?

Is that your standard answer to anything involving charity?You don't actually believe private charity would be sufficient, do you?

If just one person was looking for some support, they could probably find it somewhere. True, but it isn't going to just be one person.

And besides, state-owned charity hasn't exactly got a record of effectiveness.That's true, but it's better than the alternative in a capitalist system.

Opportunity Cost is the value of the second-best alternative. In other words, if a person chooses to study arts of Ancient Egypt, an opportunity cost might have been to spend that time working at a cornerstore and earning money.I assume that opportunity cost involves only monetary concerns, and not other things, such as the cost of wasted time?

That's not true, I'm merely adding a factor of risk to a decision involving many thousands of dollars.And risk is an example of a disincentive.

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

You don't understand private property rights, in spite of many explainations. Private property rights means you can own property, homestead unowned resources, and engage in mutually consensual transfers of property.Yes, and nowhere in there does it say that a person will own property.

Nonsense. Everyone has the same freedom to own property. Any nonconsensual removal of that property is a removal of that freedom.But not everyone has the same freedom to have property, since there will inevitably be different levels of ownership.

Quantity has no bearing on that. You can't lose a little free speech. You have it, or you don't.Of course you can lose a little free speech. A person who can say "I'll give a thousand dollars to someone to kill my wife" has more free speech than someone who can't make such an offer, but they both have the right to free speech.

Assertion =!= demostration.That's true, a demonstration, which I've done, is a demonstration. You, as usual, chose to ignore it.

Every other socialist does, hence all the talk about "means of production".Yes, worker ownership of the means of production: i.e. the people who use it.

No, the government exists merely defend that right. It does not give permission to own property, it defends the preexisting right so to do. There is no prexisting right to own something you don't use. If there is, from where does it come?

Validating, or invalidating claims is not a matter of permission, but determining which is the rightful claim.Determining what is the basis for rightful claims is a matter of permission.

There is a distinction, because a claim on property is enduring. This "use" business does not deal with an enduring claim. My claim on my property lasts until I freely decide to give it away (or trade it, or abandon it), or until I die, in which case it goes to whomever I see fit.And the government decided to grant enduring claims.

I notice you don't even attempt to refute me, choosing instead childish quipping.There wasn't anything to refute, the statement you made was self-refuting. The ability to use property doesn't require a government or any validating authority, the ability to own it does.

Rubbish. This definition does not correspond to any version of socialism posited.It corresponds to every version of anarcho-socialism posited, and most versions of socialism that aren't anarchistic.

Your definition of capitalist ownership is ridiculous.

Voluntary mutual consent is capitalism. People choose to exchange goods and services freely. Socialism explicitly prohibits this.No, socialism does not prohibit this.

The idea that capitalism is based on state violence is absurd since the only thing that has ever stood in the way of capitalism is state violence.Wow, you really believe that, don't you? That's odd, you seem to be well-versed in history, and yet history has shown us that the only thing that can maintain capitalism is state violence.

Bill Gates is therefore a worker, as is Rupert Murdoch. Not people most socialists see as workers.

Enron executives were workers.Ah, you used the word "most". Good, blanket statements don't help you.

Anyway, it depends on what those people do to qualify them as workers. I would suggest that socialism could qualify someone in their positions as workers, but their compensation would be much more relative to the quantity of labor that they put in.

A four hour tea breaks, and no sales means the most efficient company around, because its workers have half of the day on a tea break, and they choose to enter into no sales.If the owners and employees of that company felt that that was better, then it would be up to them to decide that.

While some people might decide more money is better, others might decide more free time is better. Neither is provably better.

He's homesteading.Well, in that case it would arguably become his land, by your definition, but there might be a preexisting claim on the land that isn't being enforced.

No such thing. It is a contradiction in terms.Not if the term 'property' is redefined. I suppose I could not redefine the word property, but there isn't a better word to use.

You don't actually believe private charity would be sufficient, do you?
The Economist recently had a feature on the richest people in the world and their contribution to charity. It's actually quite a lot.
Also, privately run charity organisations that are structured like businesses are more effective and efficient than all warm and fuzzy sort of groups.
And even if less people donate to private charities, then that higher efficiency might still make that difference.

I assume that opportunity cost involves only monetary concerns, and not other things, such as the cost of wasted time?
In principle, opportunity cost can be anything. If I choose to work today, then my opportunity cost is not being able to watch X-Men 3, or go to uni (whichever I value more).
Usually accountants and economists will at least try to put a dollar-value on these things, but it's not always possible.

And risk is an example of a disincentive.
Yes, that is true. But risk is a natural part of decisionmaking, and especially in decisions involving a lot of money, taking away the risk can only lead to imbalance and imperfect outcomes.

The Economist recently had a feature on the richest people in the world and their contribution to charity. It's actually quite a lot.Do these rich people receive tax deductions for their contributions?

Also, privately run charity organisations that are structured like businesses are more effective and efficient than all warm and fuzzy sort of groups.
And even if less people donate to private charities, then that higher efficiency might still make that difference.I agree that a privately run charity is more efficient than a government run charity, but the contributions will be significantly lower, so that the net effect is less than that of government charity. I'll have more on this later.

In principle, opportunity cost can be anything. If I choose to work today, then my opportunity cost is not being able to watch X-Men 3, or go to uni (whichever I value more).
Usually accountants and economists will at least try to put a dollar-value on these things, but it's not always possible.Ah. Well, it seems to me that doing a job that you like and can support yourself on is always going to be better than job that you hate and will make you rich - but this doesn't mean that a person who can support themselves doing the job that they like will also be able to pay off loans in addition.

Yes, that is true. But risk is a natural part of decisionmaking, and especially in decisions involving a lot of money, taking away the risk can only lead to imbalance and imperfect outcomes.It seems to me that less education is a less perfect outcome than more education; a nation whose people are better educated would therefore be better. And it's not difficult to balance something when it's lying on the ground. (Ignore this metaphor.) Of course, that's just my opinion, I can't prove it.

Yes, and nowhere in there does it say that a person will own property.

Why should it? Free speech does not mean one will speak. Only that they may.

But not everyone has the same freedom to have property, since there will inevitably be different levels of ownership.

Yes, they will. The all have the same freedom to homestead unowned resources, own property, and engage in mutually consensual exchanges.

That there are different amounts of property owned by different people no less undermines property rights than people having differing abilities to persuade undermining free speech.

That's true, a demonstration, which I've done, is a demonstration. You, as usual, chose to ignore it.

No, you haven't. You've asserted it is possible, you've not explained anything about why it would be done, nor have you explained any of the necessary facts.

Determining what is the basis for rightful claims is a matter of permission.

No, it isn't. Rights are not a matter of permission. Determining who's claim is rightful is nothing more than determining who's rights apply. There is no permission, no one asks the government's permission to own it, the government merely provides a peaceful means to resolve conflicting claims.

And the government decided to grant enduring claims.

No, they don't grant the claims. No one is asking permission, what takes place is the government providing a peaceful, objective means of resolving a dispute.

No, socialism does not prohibit this.

So, socialism does not prohibit anything that is a part of capitalism? That is absurd. You have claimed yourself that only a limited amount of trading would be allowed under socialism.

Wow, you really believe that, don't you? That's odd, you seem to be well-versed in history, and yet history has shown us that the only thing that can maintain capitalism is state violence.

Where has capitalism been broken except through the state? And where has socialism been imposed except through the state?

Anyway, it depends on what those people do to qualify them as workers. I would suggest that socialism could qualify someone in their positions as workers, but their compensation would be much more relative to the quantity of labor that they put in.

It already is as far as the shareholders are concerned, and since it is their money, their opinion is the only one that matters.

If the owners and employees of that company felt that that was better, then it would be up to them to decide that.

You always seem to ignore the fact that people must interact with reality. Such a company must go out of business, their costs are going to be too high, production too low, and no sales.

How would such a company induce people to invest in it? How would their salaries be paid?

Well, in that case it would arguably become his land, by your definition, but there might be a preexisting claim on the land that isn't being enforced.

If there is a claim, it must be of a type which a reasonable person would understand. If the claimant has decided to abandon the claim, it is again unowned. All quite simple.

Not if the term 'property' is redefined.

What is property is quite clear to most.

but the contributions will be significantly lower,

Bollocks. Prove it.

Do these rich people receive tax deductions for their contributions?
Probably. But does it matter?

I agree that a privately run charity is more efficient than a government run charity, but the contributions will be significantly lower, so that the net effect is less than that of government charity.
That's one of those things that can only be cleared up with evidence, because theoretically it could go either way.

Well, it seems to me that doing a job that you like and can support yourself on is always going to be better than job that you hate and will make you rich...
That is a matter of personal priorities, and as such not only not up to me, but also not up to the government.

It seems to me that less education is a less perfect outcome than more education; a nation whose people are better educated would therefore be better.
But education costs money. And even though education is a very valuable thing, the effort spent on it is still a finite monetary value. And therefore it is possible to spend too much money and time on education, which is what is happening right now in Germany. Not that that makes the education there any better.

Why should it? Free speech does not mean one will speak. Only that they may.Yes, but if one chooses to exercise that right, one will have the same number of words to choose from as anyone else; a person cannot have less speech than somebody else if one does wishes to speak, but a person can have less property than somebody else even if they wish to have property.

Yes, they will. The all have the same freedom to homestead unowned resources, own property, and engage in mutually consensual exchanges.

That there are different amounts of property owned by different people no less undermines property rights than people having differing abilities to persuade undermining free speech.Not at all. Saying that everyone has the same capacity to own property is like saying that everyone has the same capacity to breathe - in other words, meaningless in and of itself. What really matters is what property a person is owning, just as a person being able to breathe is irrelevant if the person only has carbon monoxide to breathe.

No, you haven't. You've asserted it is possible, you've not explained anything about why it would be done, nor have you explained any of the necessary facts.I gave an example of a person being physically unable to do manual labor not being able to do unskilled labor, since most unskilled labor is manual labor.

No, it isn't. Rights are not a matter of permission. Determining who's claim is rightful is nothing more than determining who's rights apply. There is no permission, no one asks the government's permission to own it, the government merely provides a peaceful means to resolve conflicting claims.If rights are not a matter of permission, then what do you base the concept of property rights on?

No, they don't grant the claims. No one is asking permission, what takes place is the government providing a peaceful, objective means of resolving a dispute.And in doing so, determine which claims are acceptable and which aren't.

So, socialism does not prohibit anything that is a part of capitalism? That is absurd. You have claimed yourself that only a limited amount of trading would be allowed under socialism.I said it would probably be necessary to limit trading, not that all socialist theory believes this to be the case. Did you even read the article on mutualism?

Where has capitalism been broken except through the state? And where has socialism been imposed except through the state?People taking collective action and fighting against a state is not a state in and of itself, although those people usually establish a state afterwards.

It already is as far as the shareholders are concerned, and since it is their money, their opinion is the only one that matters.Yes, except that socialism aims to eliminate the shareholders, or limit the shareholders to the workers in the company.

You always seem to ignore the fact that people must interact with reality. Such a company must go out of business, their costs are going to be too high, production too low, and no sales.

How would such a company induce people to invest in it? How would their salaries be paid?Not necessarily, it's feasible for a company whose services are in such high demand for its employees only to work a couple of hours a day and still make a profit. Of course, they would make more profit if they worked longer, but that isn't necessarily better.
I'm not certain about investments, but really only capitalism has to worry about that.

If there is a claim, it must be of a type which a reasonable person would understand. If the claimant has decided to abandon the claim, it is again unowned. All quite simple. I'm not certain that the claim is necessarily abandoned, just not enforced at a particular moment in time, although this is a minor trivial point and doesn't really matter much.

What is property is quite clear to most.True, but there isn't a word for "something a person uses and has the right to use". Possession doesn't cut it, and it's possible to possess something without the right to, such as if you steal it.

Bollocks. Prove it.That private charity is insufficient is why the state got into it in the first place.

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

Probably. But does it matter?Yes, because it begs the question of whether or not these rich people would have donated to charity if it wasn't a tax break.

But education costs money. And even though education is a very valuable thing, the effort spent on it is still a finite monetary value. And therefore it is possible to spend too much money and time on education, which is what is happening right now in Germany. Not that that makes the education there any better.Oh, it's possible to have too much education, but I would say that it's better than having too little.

Yes, but if one chooses to exercise that right, one will have the same number of words to choose from as anyone else; a person cannot have less speech than somebody else if one does wishes to speak, but a person can have less property than somebody else even if they wish to have property.

One does not have the same number of works from which to choose as another, nor does one have the same degree of skill in their persuasive use as another.

That one man may be able to make eloquent speeches, persuading his audience, while another man is booed does not show they have different freedoms, merely different abilities in exercising them.

Not at all. Saying that everyone has the same capacity to own property is like saying that everyone has the same capacity to breathe - in other words, meaningless in and of itself. What really matters is what property a person is owning, just as a person being able to breathe is irrelevant if the person only has carbon monoxide to breathe.

No, it isn't the same at all. The right to own property is not merely the ability to own it. The right to own property means no one can legitimately deprive you of that property without consent.

I gave an example of a person being physically unable to do manual labor not being able to do unskilled labor, since most unskilled labor is manual labor.

You didn't give an example, you said there would be people with nothing to offer the market. This implies a total incapacity, and it is therefore an absurd example, not particularly useful to this discussion.

And in doing so, determine which claims are acceptable and which aren't.

No, they don't. They determine who has the rightful claim.

People taking collective action and fighting against a state is not a state in and of itself, although those people usually establish a state afterwards.

You seem to keep pulling in irrelevant comments.

Yes, except that socialism aims to eliminate the shareholders, or limit the shareholders to the workers in the company.

Irrelevant, someone has to determine it, and in socialism there is no objective data available to make such a determination. Prices under socialism are arbitrary.

Not necessarily, it's feasible for a company whose services are in such high demand for its employees only to work a couple of hours a day and still make a profit. Of course, they would make more profit if they worked longer, but that isn't necessarily better.

This company has no sales as I said, anyway, in socialism, how would you determine whether or not a profit has been made?

I'm not certain about investments, but really only capitalism has to worry about that.

No, socialism must worry about investments, they do not have to worry about private investments but it does have to consider investment, and has a much more difficult time of it, especially since in socialist countries, investment is always done on political lines.

True, but there isn't a word for "something a person uses and has the right to use". Possession doesn't cut it, and it's possible to possess something without the right to, such as if you steal it.

Rightful possession.

That private charity is insufficient is why the state got into it in the first place.

That is a circular argument. You claimed that state welfare is necessary because private contributions are insufficient, and you have proven it by saying the state system came into being because of insufficient contributions.

All without a single piece of evidence of the rationale of the politicians bringing in the programs, the motives of those behind the politicians, and the amount and efficacy of private charity.

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

Yes, because it begs the question of whether or not these rich people would have donated to charity if it wasn't a tax break.

To whom does that matter? The beneficiaries? Hell no. It only matters to people who hate the rich, and seek to find something bad in everything they do.

One does not have the same number of works from which to choose as another, nor does one have the same degree of skill in their persuasive use as another.

That one man may be able to make eloquent speeches, persuading his audience, while another man is booed does not show they have different freedoms, merely different abilities in exercising them.Here, let me try another analogy:

Situation 1:
Person A: Hello, I'd like to exercise my free speech rights.
Gov. Official: I'm sorry, but you'll have to pay somebody a fee in order to do that.

Situation 2:
Person A: Hello, I'd like to exercise my property rights.
Gov. Official: I'm sorry, but you'll have to pay somebody a fee in order to do that.

Now, does Person A have free speech rights in Situation 1? If yes, why? Does person A have property rights in Situation 2? If yes, why?
Notice that the government official's response is not that Person A has to pay the government.

No, it isn't the same at all. The right to own property is not merely the ability to own it. The right to own property means no one can legitimately deprive you of that property without consent.Which is a different statement than saying somebody has property rights, in the same way that saying someone has the right to life when you really mean that they have the right of freedom from murder.

You didn't give an example, you said there would be people with nothing to offer the market. This implies a total incapacity, and it is therefore an absurd example, not particularly useful to this discussion.How about a severely mentally retarded quadrapalegic? Would they be totally incapacitated?

No, they don't. They determine who has the rightful claim.You can't determine who has the rightful claim without determining what a rightful claim is.

You seem to keep pulling in irrelevant comments.How is a comment that communism wasn't imposed by a state irrelevant to your comment that communism was imposed by a state?

Irrelevant, someone has to determine it, and in socialism there is no objective data available to make such a determination. Prices under socialism are arbitrary.Only market socialism would have prices, and even then this does not mean they are necessarily arbitrary.

This company has no sales as I said, ?Well, in the case of a company having no sales whatsoever the company would go out of business. I would imagine that the workers would want the company to have some sales, but whether they would want the company to maximize its sales or have fewer sales and more free time is a different decision; I'd assume they'd want to strike a balance between the two.

anyway, in socialism, how would you determine whether or not a profit has been made?It depends on what kind of socialism. If it's mutualism in a barter system, the way a profit being made would be determined by counting how much stuff the company got by trading its wares and subtracting any non-wage-related business expenses from that. (Wage-related expenses are subtracted because that is the profit in an employee owned co-op.) That's one example, it could be done with money, too. Pretty much the same way as in capitalism. Are you suggesting that socialists are unable to count?

No, socialism must worry about investments, they do not have to worry about private investments but it does have to consider investment, and has a much more difficult time of it, especially since in socialist countries, investment is always done on political lines.It is true that they would have to consider certain investments, such as trying to attract people to invest their labor, if that's what you meant then I was wrong, but I assumed you meant a purely monetary investment. I would then repeat what I said before, that the company would be unable to go out of business if the workers never did any work, so the workers would presumably want to strike a fine balance between work and leisure time. This balance might attract people to invest their labor who wish to make a comfortable living but also have a nice amount of free time.

Rightful possession.The problem with that is that most people would use that interchangably with property, even though they aren't the same.

That is a circular argument. You claimed that state welfare is necessary because private contributions are insufficient, and you have proven it by saying the state system came into being because of insufficient contributions.

All without a single piece of evidence of the rationale of the politicians bringing in the programs, the motives of those behind the politicians, and the amount and efficacy of private charity.That's not a circular argument, that's restating the argument. I will have the proof shortly, it's taking a little longer than I thought. (I could explain why if you like, but it isn't because I need to make proof up.)

To whom does that matter? The beneficiaries? Hell no. It only matters to people who hate the rich, and seek to find something bad in everything they do.Uh, no. It matters because it isn't evidence that private contributions alone would be a necessary amount of charity in a libertarian system if those private contributions in a non-libertarian system are done not out of altruism but because of tax breaks; these tax breaks would not exist in a libetarian system.

Here, let me try another analogy:

Situation 1:
Person A: Hello, I'd like to exercise my free speech rights.
Gov. Official: I'm sorry, but you'll have to pay somebody a fee in order to do that.

Situation 2:
Person A: Hello, I'd like to exercise my property rights.
Gov. Official: I'm sorry, but you'll have to pay somebody a fee in order to do that.

Now, does Person A have free speech rights in Situation 1? If yes, why? Does person A have property rights in Situation 2? If yes, why?
Notice that the government official's response is not that Person A has to pay the government.

Situation 2 makes no sense whatsoever.

Situation 1, if it does not describe payment of fees to the government makes no sense, unless you think that a system of individual rights does not contain the necessity of obtaining the voluntary cooperation of everyone involved, and the owners of all the property involved.

If Situation 1 describes payment to third parties (people not in any way involved in the presentation), then it makes no sense whatsoever.

How is the necessity of obtaining the voluntary cooperation of all to be involved in a particular activity a restriction of liberty? This is the one question that has not been answered.

I shall answer it for you. It is not a restriction of liberty to have to obtain the voluntary cooperation of all to be involved in an activity since they too have liberties which must be respected.



Of course the real point is that this, like the ideas, examples, and analogies you tend to post, is so bereft of essential information as to render it useless.

Which is a different statement than saying somebody has property rights, in the same way that saying someone has the right to life when you really mean that they have the right of freedom from murder.

They are the same thing.

You can't determine who has the rightful claim without determining what a rightful claim is.

A claim is just that.

How is a comment that communism wasn't imposed by a state irrelevant to your comment that communism was imposed by a state?

The collective use of force you describe must take place with the approval of the state, or with the aim of setting up a new state. Either way, the argument still applies.

Only market socialism would have prices, and even then this does not mean they are necessarily arbitrary.

Without private property, prices are arbitrary.

That's one example, it could be done with money, too. Pretty much the same way as in capitalism. Are you suggesting that socialists are unable to count?

Without private property, prices are arbitrary, and therefore real profit or loss cannot be determined.

That's not a circular argument, that's restating the argument. I will have the proof shortly, it's taking a little longer than I thought. (I could explain why if you like, but it isn't because I need to make proof up.)

Nonsense. Anyway, if you do not have the evidence (and it has been well over a week in this thread, and you have been pushing this crap elsewhere for months at least), why did you go on this tangent? You have had months since you brought this up.

Uh, no. It matters because it isn't evidence that private contributions alone would be a necessary amount of charity in a libertarian system if those private contributions in a non-libertarian system are done not out of altruism but because of tax breaks; these tax breaks would not exist in a libetarian system.

The assumption that tax breaks are the reason for charitable contributions is not justifiable. Were it only tax breaks, there is nothing to say that they wouldn't simply arrange their affairs some other way to avoid taxation without making contributions.

You can't determine who has the rightful claim without determining what a rightful claim is.

The question is simple, and the answer universal. What is justly acquired property is either what you have homesteaded, or what you have been given in a mutually consensual contract.

Once again, it is not, and never has been a case of the government granting permission, merely looking at the facts to peacefully resolve a dispute.

If the dispute did not exist, there would be no need for the courts to be involved, so this does not involve the granting of permission by the state.

Only market socialism would have prices, and even then this does not mean they are necessarily arbitrary.

You keep showing this total ignorance of economics. Prices are important because fo the role they play. They allow all people to objectively evaluate goods and services. They allow producers to objectively evaluate their methods. They allow consumers to prioritise.

Socialism must do these things, but it has no real information upon which to base this. All they have are either the artificial priorities of central planners, the subjective evaluations of methods, and a vague list of preferences of consumers. Consumers take what the state will allow them to have, nothing more.

Which Socialism?
Saint-Simonism, Austro-Marxism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Social democracy, Luxemburgism, Marxism-Leninism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, Fabianism, National-syndicalism, Narodism, Juche, Autonomist Marxism...

Anarcho-syndicalism, definitely. If it's in a Monty Python film, it's gotta be good:D

Situation 2 makes no sense whatsoever.

Situation 1, if it does not describe payment of fees to the government makes no sense, unless you think that a system of individual rights does not contain the necessity of obtaining the voluntary cooperation of everyone involved, and the owners of all the property involved.

If Situation 1 describes payment to third parties (people not in any way involved in the presentation), then it makes no sense whatsoever.Situation 1 and Situation 2 are sensical and are equally sensical.

How is the necessity of obtaining the voluntary cooperation of all to be involved in a particular activity a restriction of liberty? This is the one question that has not been answered.The existence of private property rights is in themselves a restriction of liberty, in the same way that it would be a restriction of liberty that one would have to pay a fee to speak; the idea that someone could "own" speech is absurd.

I shall answer it for you. It is not a restriction of liberty to have to obtain the voluntary cooperation of all to be involved in an activity since they too have liberties which must be respected.Yes, except that they don't have liberties which must be respected except in the same way that the slaveowner had liberties which must be respected when it came time to free the slaves.

They are the same thing.No. The right to life means a right to the things that are needed to sustain life. Freedom from murder means just that, freedom from murder. It says nothing about the things needed to sustain life.

A claim is just that.And therefore can be dismissed or approved depending upon the whims of the government reviewing the claim.

The collective use of force you describe must take place with the approval of the state, or with the aim of setting up a new state. Either way, the argument still applies.A use of force aiming to set up a new state is not the use of force of a state by definition, as the state being set up wouldn't exist yet. Of course, this doesn't take into account the idea that setting up a new state might not be the goal of the revolutionaries, either.

Without private property, prices are arbitrary.

Without private property, prices are arbitrary, and therefore real profit or loss cannot be determined.Loss can be determined without both private property and prices.

Nonsense. Anyway, if you do not have the evidence (and it has been well over a week in this thread, and you have been pushing this crap elsewhere for months at least), why did you go on this tangent? You have had months since you brought this up.Sorry for the delay, here you go:

"Booth's most important discovery was that 30 percent of the million families in London lived at or below the bare minimum level for independent subsistence. His facts appeared, on one hand, to disprove the Marxist presumption of a massive, destitute proletariat and, on the other hand, to show the futility of private charity and the need for a program of welfare legislation.

Although Booth avoided specific recommendations, he concluded that the state must intervene to preserve capitalist competition by the "removal of this very poor class out of the daily struggle for existence." He envisaged a dual system of individualism and socialism under which Britain could "dispense with any socialistic interference in the lives of all [but the poor]." Booth's work did much to lay a statistical basis for the structure of the welfare state; old-age pensions, health and unemployment insurance, and minimum wages were all instituted between 1908 and 1911."

This is about the survey that Charles Booth did in London between the years of 1886 and 1903. The page I quoted this from is here: http://www.bookrags.com/biography-charles-booth/index.html

More specific info about the survey itself is here: http://booth.lse.ac.uk/



The assumption that tax breaks are the reason for charitable contributions is not justifiable. Were it only tax breaks, there is nothing to say that they wouldn't simply arrange their affairs some other way to avoid taxation without making contributions.There's nothing to say that there is a way for them to arrange their affairs without paying more taxes except via charitable contributions.

The question is simple, and the answer universal. What is justly acquired property is either what you have homesteaded, or what you have been given in a mutually consensual contract.

Once again, it is not, and never has been a case of the government granting permission, merely looking at the facts to peacefully resolve a dispute.

If the dispute did not exist, there would be no need for the courts to be involved, so this does not involve the granting of permission by the state.The idea that the government is using the definition of homesteading or something else is the government giving permission to own property via homesteading.

You keep showing this total ignorance of economics. Prices are important because fo the role they play. They allow all people to objectively evaluate goods and services. They allow producers to objectively evaluate their methods. They allow consumers to prioritise.You keep propagating the myth that economics is a science. You haven't shown that it is impossible to evaluate goods and services or to prioritize without prices.

Socialism must do these things, but it has no real information upon which to base this. All they have are either the artificial priorities of central planners, the subjective evaluations of methods, and a vague list of preferences of consumers. Consumers take what the state will allow them to have, nothing more.Why must socialism necessarily take individual valuations and priorities into account? It's entirely possible to set up a system in which people have their own valuations and priorities and the system can satisfy them without taking them into account.

Consumers in capitalism take only what they can afford, nothing more.

I dispise the nanny state attitude it fosters.

That is not socialism.