NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program
Annex F
Iraq's WMD > Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program > Annex F


Detailed Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Weapons Findings
Chemical Munitions—Other Finds


Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.

The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html


Since this report, the Chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released a report showing 500 separate instances of WMD's.

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/release062106num2.pdf

The ISG said "no stockpiles" not no WMD's and they were not degraded. The sarin gas discovered was Binary Sarin - and it was NOT degraded. We discovered enough Sarin gas to make 911 look like a Sunday picnic.

We also discovered Cyclo sarin, which is 1000 times more powerful than regular binary Sarin.

We discovered admittedly degraded Mustard gas. But the condition of the WMD's is not relevent in any way whatsoever. We went into Iraq because Saddam refused to show us that he had destroyed the weapons we KNEW he had. How did we Know he had them - well he DECLARED them to the UN. We have not been given evidence of their destruction, not even to this date. We DO have evidence that they exist - we are finding them all of the time (again, just not the large stockpiles).


We also have evidence that they went to Syria. Charles DUelfer - the head of Iraq Survey group said there was "sufficiently credible" evidence that they went to Syria.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

We also have the testimony of the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Airforce - he said he personally supervised 56 jumbo jet flights of WMD's out of the country.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514





1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260069/104-8745493-4487920?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

More capitalist propaganda.

Why does any of this 'require wealth'?

Does that mean a society which had no concept of 'wealth', would not need water, would not manage to obtain it?


The people who charge for water are charging the cost of gas, labor etc for them to BRING it to a place that is convenient for you to access it.

It isn't all that hard.:rolleyes:

he is right though,
Why Are preople sewing rightwinger as socialist>?
This is a major question in the drebate,since the ZZZUs see ChiraC AS A COMMUNIST.
:p
PS,,, Decode it

USAlpenStock - could it be?

Unused weapons from the Iran/Iraq war, most likely actually given to Iraq by the US?

I won't pretend to be as educated on the subject as some posters, but the problems with capitalism (as observed in the U.S/American system) seem to me to be these:

1. Purely capitalistic businesses have it as their goal to increase their wealth by any means necessary. This means laying off workers in one country to hire cheap labor in another; keeping wages depressed below what people can actually live on, etc. Result: the working poor are kept so busy scrambling to survive, there's little time for anything else, including building up wealth to escape poverty.

2. Because of this riches-by-any-means mentality, business seek to worm their way into the politcal system, usually by corruption of the government (both legally and illegally). Their aim is to turn the government from protecting the people to protecting business. Thus, you see big, multibillion dollar corporations getting tax breaks and even subsidies from the government. You see the minimum wage set far below the poverty line. You see businesses not being prosecuted for illegally hiring undocumented workers, etc. Result: There's not as much money for things like Pell Grants, which help the poor escape poverty. Wages stay below poverty level, and the end result is the same as above.

3. Capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. The son of a CEO can get into Harvard, inherit his father's wealth, and live a life of luxury and increasing wealthy pretty easily, unless he's incredibly stupid. (And let's face it, even then his daddy probably has rich friends who can bail him out.) For the majority of the working poor, especially with the social safety net being steadily chopped away, there is no way to accumulate even a modest savings. I can't explain it very well, but in order to pull oneself up by the bootstraps, one has to have bootstraps first, and too many of our poorest citizens don't have the resources to better themselves.

I'm not arguing for complete state control of the economy, but as capitalism exists today, and as it would exists if it were unrestrained by any "socialistic" rules, there is such an inherent unfairness to it.

I'd clarify & clean up this post more, but I must get to work.

That answers why people DO bottle and sell it... not why it SHOULD be bottled and sold.

It's not a question of should; these companies have property that contains water resources and they take advantage of it to make money. It's the same as having any natural resource on property you own; the water they are selling would not be used at all were they not bottling it and selling it, so it's not like they're taking water that could be used somewhere else and selling it for profit.

Even water that is sold by utilities is priced; the market is the only way that scarce resources like water can be rationed without a black market. There's little difference between a company selling bottled water and a utility selling it through their distribution system.

USAlpenStock - could it be?

Unused weapons from the Iran/Iraq war, most likely actually given to Iraq by the US?


Nope.


(cue Saddam-Rumsfeld handshake photo :rolleyes: )

We absolutely did not sell him WMD's. The CLOSEST thing that you can claim is that the Center for Disease control sent him some anthrax bacteria so they could make vaccines. It was not weaponised and NONE of it has been found in a WMD.

Surely if you follow rugged individualism to its logical conclusion aiming for a true meritocracy, then all children should be separated from their parents at or before birth and educated identically so that the best do truely end up with the most. Which sounds remarkably like the more socialist idea of governmental education.

it is becoming even funnier
We absolutely did not sell him WMD's.
Socialism çommunism...
Funny thread
i'll keep an eye on it,
As a wmd weapon.
(I will sherish it ):upyours:

Nope.
Some proof would be spiffingly excellent.

And you're right - the US sold him nothing - it was all a gift.

I won't pretend to be as educated on the subject as some posters, but the problems with capitalism (as observed in the U.S/American system) seem to me to be these:

1. Purely capitalistic businesses have it as their goal to increase their wealth by any means necessary. This means laying off workers in one country to hire cheap labor in another; keeping wages depressed below what people can actually live on, etc. Result: the working poor are kept so busy scrambling to survive, there's little time for anything else, including building up wealth to escape poverty.


Capitalism has a built in check on this. Talented labor has the CHOICE to work wherever they wish. Those companies that pay the better compensation get the most productive workers. There are inherent costs associated with sending labor overseas, including but not limited to transportation costs, taxes and bribes in foriegn countries. Even if the costs are not completely made up there are still checks to keep this under control - things like consumer sentiment. If a company is truly irresponsible in this manner (and most are not) consumers will weigh that "cost" against the cost savings they recieve because of that move offshore. It also allows more advanced nations to make products that require higher skilled labor - these are jobs that pay well instead of the low skilled labor that tends to go overseas. That is why we have created a net INCREASE of over 5 million Jobs since the 2003 tax cuts and the average hourly wage is higher than at any point in our history. Even after adjusting for inflation, they are higher than ANY point since Jimmy Carter obliterated our economy in the mid-late seventies.

http://data.bls.gov

2. Because of this riches-by-any-means mentality, business seek to worm their way into the politcal system, usually by corruption of the government (both legally and illegally). Their aim is to turn the government from protecting the people to protecting business. Thus, you see big, multibillion dollar corporations getting tax breaks and even subsidies from the government. You see the minimum wage set far below the poverty line. You see businesses not being prosecuted for illegally hiring undocumented workers, etc. Result: There's not as much money for things like Pell Grants, which help the poor escape poverty. Wages stay below poverty level, and the end result is the same as above.

How many people actually receive minimum wage??? What is the make-up (age and education) of those who do recieve it???

If you look beyond the hype, you will see that VERY few people actually make only minimum wage and of those, the VAST majority are students - they are (with VERY few exceptions) not trying to support a family on it.

It is NOT the huge multi-nationals who benefit from minimum wage laws, it is the small businessman who is trying to compete with the multinationals.

3. Capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. The son of a CEO can get into Harvard, inherit his father's wealth, and live a life of luxury and increasing wealthy pretty easily, unless he's incredibly stupid. (And let's face it, even then his daddy probably has rich friends who can bail him out.) For the majority of the working poor, especially with the social safety net being steadily chopped away, there is no way to accumulate even a modest savings. I can't explain it very well, but in order to pull oneself up by the bootstraps, one has to have bootstraps first, and too many of our poorest citizens don't have the resources to better themselves.

There is absolutely no basis for this. In fact, there is FAR greater income mobility in Capitalist countries than in Socialist countries. Please show me some actual data to back this up.



There does need to be a few (VERY few) regulatory checks on business, but what we have in the US is keeping many people from earning what they are worth.

Some proof would be spiffingly excellent.

And you're right - the US sold him nothing - it was all a gift.


I would submit that you are asking me to prove a negative - a classic "have you stopped beating your wife." proposition.

I think it is more appropriate that YOU supply the proof, especially since you made the unsubstantiated claim in the first place.


This is also a very nice example of misdirection. What does that have to do with whether or not Saddam destroyed them, as the UN requested????

This is also a very nice example of misdirection. What does that have to do with whether or not Saddam destroyed them, as the UN requested????
Quite a lot, because he'd be storing them for if Iran attacked again. That's rather different to stockpiling WMDs for no reason.

I'm probably just saying what has been said a thousand times, but communism is the ideal system. A society where there is no class, where everyone gets everything in equal amounts, what could be better?

The problem is, it requires a perfect world. And this isn't a perfect world. Communism works in theory, and occasionally in small groups, but is doomed to fail on a global scale.

I'm probably just saying what has been said a thousand times, but communism is the ideal system. A society where there is no class, where everyone gets everything in equal amounts, what could be better?

The problem is, it requires a perfect world. And this isn't a perfect world. Communism works in theory, and occasionally in small groups, but is doomed to fail on a global scale.
theorise.and expand.

Quite a lot, because he'd be storing them for if Iran attacked again. That's rather different to stockpiling WMDs for no reason.


It does not matter what the reason he stored them for. He was required by the Cease-fire and by numerous UN resolutions to destroy them - ALL of them. It still is not relevent, but if you think so, fine.

I am still looking for your proof we sold/gave Saddam WMD's.

It does not matter what the reason he stored them for. He was required by the Cease-fire and by numerous UN resolutions to destroy them - ALL of them. It still is not relevent, but if you think so, fine.

I am still looking for your proof we sold/gave Saddam WMD's.
like (?11) There will be no proof
only war.
if you think it is not relevant.
Than,it is up to you
I'm waving the black flag

I'm probably just saying what has been said a thousand times, but communism is the ideal system. A society where there is no class, where everyone gets everything in equal amounts, what could be better?

The problem is, it requires a perfect world. And this isn't a perfect world. Communism works in theory, and occasionally in small groups, but is doomed to fail on a global scale.
Please it doesn't. Communism is not a utopain ideal. All Communists know this. It suffers from problems like every other system. I was never intended to be perfect. Just more efficient and fair.

As usual, socialism is being misrepresented. It is nothing like communism. Additionally, it was never intended as a form of government (in which, I think we all know it would not function); it was meant as a sort of philanthropic societal guideline. While the hardships of the Industrial Revolution fueled communism, the dangers of the aforementioned developements spurred socialism.

One of the great catalysts was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York City (It was either in 1910 or 1911; I really can't remember which.). The circumstances of this fire were that all of the exits of the building were locked (to stop the sweatshop workers from escaping), and so, when the flammable fabric filled skyscraper started burning, hundreds of the young (frequently underage) women inside either faced the choice of either burning to death in the fire or leaping 80-100 ft. to the concrete sidewalks below. These business practices were all legal at the time. As such, the workers suddenly, began demanding better working conditions (Such demands are socialistic, by the way.).

If you have a union (worker's union), get paid overtime, have a minnimum wage, standard working hours, don't have to pay to use the restrooms, have a sewer line connected to your house, have company benefits (such as healthcare), have mass transportation, have a fire department, donate to charity, use social security, etc. etc. then you are a socialist (whether you like it or not). Socialism is merely doing anything for a group of people as opposed to just yourself. Populism (such as charging low fares so that the average middle class family can participate) works hand in hand with it. Let me put it this way, if you've ever done a good deed for anyone you don't know (such as helping an old lady across the street), then you are a socialist. A common misconception is with laizes-faire, the free-market economy. Communism is that there shouldn't be one- everyone shares their possessions (The U.S.S.R. was not communism or socialism, by the way (It was merely isolationistic capitalism.).), while socialism's only effect of the free-market economy is to demand proper working conditions for employees. It's a good thing; trust me.

The people who charge for water are charging the cost of gas, labor etc for them to BRING it to a place that is convenient for you to access it.

It isn't all that hard.:rolleyes:

It may not be all that hard, but it isn't all that true, either.

Labour, for the purification of water, is insignificant in comparison to the capital outlay for the process, and the transport costs become irrelevent in comparison to unit costs.

Overall then, the only REAL cost for water, is the chemical/physical treatment... as it is necessary, and the initial outlay on capital materials... which is spread over the lifecycle of the product.

As usual, socialism is being misrepresented. It is nothing like communism.


Of course it is!!!! :rolleyes:

Communism advocates government ownership of the means of production,socialism merely advocates government control of the means of production.

Sort of like a distinction without a difference.

It's not a question of should; these companies have property that contains water resources and they take advantage of it to make money. It's the same as having any natural resource on property you own; the water they are selling would not be used at all were they not bottling it and selling it, so it's not like they're taking water that could be used somewhere else and selling it for profit.

Even water that is sold by utilities is priced; the market is the only way that scarce resources like water can be rationed without a black market. There's little difference between a company selling bottled water and a utility selling it through their distribution system.

Actually - SHOULD was the question the other poster asked.

But - I never said there WAS a difference between utilities and bottling companies... that's a strawman. The only difference there, is unit cost... people need to drink, they NEED water - WHY should we be charging them for water? We don't get away with it with air.

As usual, socialism is being misrepresented. It is nothing like communism. Additionally, it was never intended as a form of government (in which, I think we all know it would not function); it was meant as a sort of philanthropic societal guideline. While the hardships of the Industrial Revolution fueled communism, the dangers of the aforementioned developements spurred socialism.

One of the great catalysts was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York City (It was either in 1910 or 1911; I really can't remember which.). The circumstances of this fire were that all of the exits of the building were locked (to stop the sweatshop workers from escaping), and so, when the flammable fabric filled skyscraper started burning, hundreds of the young (frequently underage) women inside either faced the choice of either burning to death in the fire or leaping 80-100 ft. to the concrete sidewalks below. These business practices were all legal at the time. As such, the workers suddenly, began demanding better working conditions (Such demands are socialistic, by the way.).

If you have a union (worker's union), get paid overtime, have a minnimum wage, standard working hours, don't have to pay to use the restrooms, have a sewer line connected to your house, have company benefits (such as healthcare), have mass transportation, have a fire department, donate to charity, use social security, etc. etc. then you are a socialist (whether you like it or not). Socialism is merely doing anything for a group of people as opposed to just yourself. Populism (such as charging low fares so that the average middle class family can participate) works hand in hand with it. Let me put it this way, if you've ever done a good deed for anyone you don't know (such as helping an old lady across the street), then you are a socialist. A common misconception is with laizes-faire, the free-market economy. Communism is that there should be one- everyone shares their possessions (The U.S.S.R. was not communism or socialism, by the way (It was merely isolationistic capitalism.).), while socialism's only effect of the free-market economy is to demand proper working conditions for employees. It's a good thing; trust me.

Corruption.,
Laissez faire,it is.
i know it i'm french,
and somebody said once

The whole dream of democracy is to elevate the proletarian to the level of the imbecility of the bourgeois
and so to see are people here,really good in

is het socialist of communist?

Of course it is!!!! :rolleyes:

Communism advocates government ownership of the means of production,socialism merely advocates government control of the means of production.

Sort of like a distinction without a difference.

Actually - you are referring ONLY to Statist communism with your 'definition'... (for want of a better word...)

Actually - you are referring ONLY to Statist communism with your 'definition'... (for want of a better word...)


How about socialism - as I said, a distinction without a difference.

Rift Alpha---"I'm probably just saying what has been said a thousand times, but communism is the ideal system. A society where there is no class, where everyone gets everything in equal amounts, what could be better?"

Innsbrucklia---"Please it doesn't. Communism is not a utopain ideal. All Communists know this. It suffers from problems like every other system. I was never intended to be perfect. Just more efficient and fair."


what could be better? something that is "more efficient and fair" (which would certainly not be communism) it is a fact that not everybody can have everything. there is not enough land, labor, or resources for this to happen. the whole idea that people whom have not worked hard or achieved anything should be given more at the expense of others that are productive and hard-working is absurd.......and usually put forth by those that would rather take the fruits of somebody else's labor instead of using their own

How about socialism - as I said, a distinction without a difference.

Not really... the two are worlds apart.

In a communism, the means of production 'belong' to those producing.

In a socialist state, the social structure is geared towards ensuring the wellbeing and supply of needs of each individual.

Thus - a socialist state MIGHT be communist, might be Statist communist... but doesn't have to be.

Similarly, communism doesn't automatically equate to socialism.

You CAN argue that communism is a 'form' of socialism... but that isn't strictly true either.

I speak only for myself, but I am a Socialist because I cannot bear the sight of people such as landlords, factory owners etc. getting rich from other people's poverty. You think people are happy and prosperous under the current economic system, try coming round my way some time. I'll show you what capitalism is.

And as for communism...

Communism isn't a form of government; it is, in fact, its absense thereof. In communism, everyone is supposed to be perfectly equal. They share their possentions, and there is no currency. As I'm sure you've noticed by this description, the Soviets were not communists (despite their claims); they were just yet another totalitarian regime. There has actually only been one succesful example of communism; these are the Kibbutzim (farming communes) in parts of Israel. One of the largest problems with communism is that, due to the fact that everyone is of the same stature, if any one person even slightly rises above, they suddenly rocket to the top and can (with shrewd dealing) gain absolute power. My theory as to why this has never happened with the Kibbutzim is that there is simply nothing to control. What is the point of being the ruler of a farming commune?

A
But - I never said there WAS a difference between utilities and bottling companies... that's a strawman. The only difference there, is unit cost... people need to drink, they NEED water - WHY should we be charging them for water? We don't get away with it with air.

Think of it in terms of digging a well; if you do all of the work and hit water you can have it for free, but in order for that to happen you have to do the work yourself. It's a lot easier and more productive to buy water from someone willing to do the aquifier drilling, treatment, pumping, and distributing than it is to get it yourself from a self-dug well or a body of water near your house. To get free water, you'd have to physically get the water yourself and treat it as well as dispose of the waste; people don't want to do that, but they do want to have water and sewer service so they pay others to provide it for them.

The only way to have free water is to get it yourself, just like how you get air by doing the work of breathing.

Not really... the two are worlds apart.

In a communism, the means of production 'belong' to those producing.




In a socialist state, the social structure is geared towards ensuring the wellbeing and supply of needs of each individual.

Thus - a socialist state MIGHT be communist, might be Statist communist... but doesn't have to be.

Similarly, communism doesn't automatically equate to socialism.

You CAN argue that communism is a 'form' of socialism... but that isn't strictly true either.

And just what do you call a representative body of this type?? A government??

THere is no real practical difference semantic differences, yes, but not for practical purposes. Both are marxist philosophies and have far more in common than they have different.

And as for communism...

Communism isn't a form of government; it is, in fact, its absense thereof. In communism, everyone is supposed to be perfectly equal. They share their possentions, and there is no currency. As I'm sure you've noticed by this description, the Soviets were not communists (despite their claims); they were just yet another totalitarian regime. There has actually only been one succesful example of communism; these are the Kibbutzim (farming communes) in parts of Israel. One of the largest problems with communism is that, due to the fact that everyone is of the same stature, if any one person even slightly rises above, they suddenly rocket to the top and can (with shrewd dealing) gain absolute power. My theory as to why this has never happened with the Kibbutzim is that there is simply nothing to control. What is the point of being the ruler of a farming commune?

What system proports to ensure that all actually is shared equally???

something that is "more efficient and fair" (which would certainly not be communism)


'A' communism could be more efficient and fair than 'A' capitalism...


it is a fact that not everybody can have everything. there is not enough land, labor, or resources for this to happen. the whole idea that people whom have not worked hard or achieved anything should be given more at the expense of others that are productive and hard-working is absurd.......and usually put forth by those that would rather take the fruits of somebody else's labor instead of using their own

This is, of course, all propaganda, anyway. the argument isn't that people who have not worked should be given stuff is a red herring. The idea is that each takes what he/she needs, and each provides what he/she can.

It may not be all that hard, but it isn't all that true, either.

Labour, for the purification of water, is insignificant in comparison to the capital outlay for the process, and the transport costs become irrelevent in comparison to unit costs.

Overall then, the only REAL cost for water, is the chemical/physical treatment... as it is necessary, and the initial outlay on capital materials... which is spread over the lifecycle of the product.


What a crock! The capital outlay is part of the cost, the treatment and transprotation and labor costs are also very real - do I really need to provide copies of the payroll for a water providing company??? All of this adds up to the total cost to bring the water to people who WANT it and who are free to choose to buy it - or not. They can dig their own well - but most choose to hire others to supply them with water. It is their choice. Most people make the rational choice to have someone else to provide them with water and they gladly pay for that service.

Of course it is!!!! :rolleyes:

Communism advocates government ownership of the means of production,socialism merely advocates government control of the means of production.

Sort of like a distinction without a difference.

No, it isn't. True communism (of which there has only been one successful instance in history) has no government at all. Occassionally, there is a council, but the roles in this council are aquired by either election or simply alternating roles every month or so until that's where you end up. (It's a little like that sketch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.)

More importantly, however, I told you already that socialism was never intended as a system of government! It is merely a series of philanthropic societal guidelines! It still revolves around a democratic capitalist country!


Perhaps you're confusing it with the fact that it does advocate government control of social services?

Think of it in terms of digging a well; if you do all of the work and hit water you can have it for free, but in order for that to happen you have to do the work yourself. It's a lot easier and more productive to buy water from someone willing to do the aquifier drilling, treatment, pumping, and distributing than it is to get it yourself from a self-dug well or a body of water near your house. To get free water, you'd have to physically get the water yourself and treat it as well as dispose of the waste; people don't want to do that, but they do want to have water and sewer service so they pay others to provide it for them.

The only way to have free water is to get it yourself, just like how you get air by doing the work of breathing.

Preaching to the converted... I am on a well. Maybe worth pointing out that I still don't actually 'own' that water... and could find myself without water, at the caprice of the US government. I'm sure you can see that your idealised scheme only works where there is free access, and a limited demand on, the water source, also.

So - we use the 'convenience' of communal water... but the problem is - the guy who has the most money can easily monpolise that source... even if there are real needs under the influence of the same source... which means, those who 'need' water, have to shop further afield... and probably end up paying more. What starts out as a convenience of communal living, becomes the tool of the capitalists, and becomes inconvenient.

And just what do you call a representative body of this type?? A government??

THere is no real practical difference semantic differences, yes, but not for practical purposes. Both are marxist philosophies and have far more in common than they have different.

Brave assertion. Defend it with evidence.

Government is not 'required' for communism or socialism, implicitly. Such scenarios will usually end up governed, somehow... that is the human way... but, since one is really about a 'production' model, and the other about a 'distribution' model... neither is necessarily connected to any given government style.

No, it isn't. True communism (of which there has only been one successful instance in history) has no government at all. Occassionally, there is a council, but the roles in this council are aquired by either election


Sounds like the definition of a government to me!

No, it isn't. True communism (of which there has only been one successful instance in history) has no government at all. Occassionally, there is a council, but the roles in this council are aquired by either election


Sounds like the definition of a government to me!

What system proports to ensure that all actually is shared equally???

As far as I'm aware, there isn't one. Just the other people, I suppose. Yet another flaw with the system. (Hence why it has only worked on small farming communes :) .)

What a crock! The capital outlay is part of the cost, the treatment and transprotation and labor costs are also very real - do I really need to provide copies of the payroll for a water providing company???


Knock yourself out. And I can review the utility planning up until 2050 for the one I work at, in the highest certified position.

All of this adds up to the total cost to bring the water to people who WANT it and who are free to choose to buy it - or not.


Not really. One cannot choose to live without water.

They can dig their own well - but most choose to hire others to supply them with water. It is their choice. Most people make the rational choice to have someone else to provide them with water and they gladly pay for that service.

Or reluctantly pay for the service... if for example, they live within 5 miles of the watershed boundary of a drinkingwater supply plant.

Because capitolism has its faults. And like all economic systems man will create, it tends to destroy itself.
Destroy itself? Then why do you have to go to such Herculean efforts to overthrow it?

"'A' communism could be more efficient and fair than 'A' capitalism..."---Grave_n_idle

'A' dictatorship can be more efficient and fair than 'A' democracy......but in general, capitalism and democracy are more fair and efficient than communism and dictators. or, if this were an ideal world, we could discuss how the best of possible capitalisms is better than the best of possible communisms


"This is, of course, all propaganda, anyway. the argument isn't that people who have not worked should be given stuff is a red herring. The idea is that each takes what he/she needs, and each provides what he/she can."---Grave_n_idle

i'm sorry that you cannot distinguish between an obvious truth and propaganda. please enlighten the rest of us....since apparently you have discovered something new in the history of mankind's time on earth.....how exactly were you going to force people to provide what they can? on another note....why should those that are willing to work harder for what they want be punished for the sake of those that are not? once all my needs are satisfied and i work and extra few days to buy a television, it makes absolutely no sense that i should be forced to buy one for my neighbor just because he wasn't willing to do the extra work for one but would still like to have it.

UK doctors make a third of what American doctors make. The average life expectancy in the UK is two years longer than America. Talk amongst yourselves.

Knock yourself out. And I can review the utility planning up until 2050 for the one I work at, in the highest certified position.

So what? All of those are costs and no matter what you say, they are part of the cost of a service rendered to a willing customer.



Not really. One cannot choose to live without water.


No, but they can provide it themselves - if they wish. That is too much work for most people so they pay someone to do it for them. So yes it absolutely is a choice.


Or reluctantly pay for the service... if for example, they live within 5 miles of the watershed boundary of a drinkingwater supply plant.

Dig your own well!



LOL

'A' dictatorship can be more efficient and fair than 'A' democracy......but in general, capitalism and democracy are more fair and efficient than communism and dictators. or, if this were an ideal world, we could discuss how the best of possible capitalisms is better than the best of possible communisms


Not true at all.

The MOST efficient form of government, by far, is the dictatorship. It also has the capacity to be the most fair... if you have a benign dictator.

That doesn't mean it is the most APPEALING (unless you ARE the dictator)... but that isn't what you argued.

As for capitalism versus communism... if both are 'ideal', then the communism would be VASTLY superior to the capitalism.. since there would be no hungry, no homeless... equality for all. Whereas, an 'ideal' capitalism must have some who are 'more' rewarded than others.


i'm sorry that you cannot distinguish between an obvious truth and propaganda. please enlighten the rest of us....since apparently you have discovered something new in the history of mankind's time on earth.....how exactly were you going to force people to provide what they can? on another note....why should those that are willing to work harder for what they want be punished for the sake of those that are not? once all my needs are satisfied and i work and extra few days to buy a television, it makes absolutely no sense that i should be forced to buy one for my neighbor just because he wasn't willing to do the extra work for one but would still like to have it.

What about the guy who spends a week busting his balls in the mines, to provide coal to fuel the powerstation that provides the electricity that powers that TV of yours?

Is it fair that you can be mattress tester for Sealy, and afford a TV from the benefits of your 'work', but the miner can only barely scrape together enough money for his mortgage and bills?

So what? All of those are costs and no matter what you say, they are part of the cost of a service rendered to a willing customer.


Negligible costs. Plus - as I said - the unit cost for process becomes almost nothing - even though it is a large outlay, because it is spread over the 50-100 year lifespan of the facility.

You claimed you were going to dazzle us with science, and I owned your ass, because this IS my field of expertise.

The costs are negligible... so why the big cost to the customer?


No, but they can provide it themselves - if they wish. That is too much work for most people so they pay someone to do it for them. So yes it absolutely is a choice.


No, they can't. If you want a well, and the municipality is permitted to draw the capacity of the watertable in your area, you are shit out of luck.


Dig your own well!

Already covered this. Please try to pay attention.

Negligible costs. Plus - as I said - the unit cost for process becomes almost nothing - even though it is a large outlay, because it is spread over the 50-100 year lifespan of the facility.

Labor costs are not, neither is transportation costs.

You claimed you were going to dazzle us with science,
I did????

and I owned your ass, because this IS my field of expertise. You did???

The costs are negligible... so why the big cost to the customer?

The cost is negligible.



No, they can't. If you want a well, and the municipality is permitted to draw the capacity of the watertable in your area, you are shit out of luck.

Ah!!!! SOCIALISM prevents it!!! Thank you!



Already covered this. Please try to pay attention.
You did no such thing. Certainly not to any sufficient degree.


You will have to do much better than that!

Is it fair that you can be mattress tester for Sealy, and afford a TV from the benefits of your 'work', but the miner can only barely scrape together enough money for his mortgage and bills?

Who chose his profession???? Who settled for the wage???

You will have to do much better than that!

You didn't actually address any of the points... that's all you've got?

Who chose his profession???? Who settled for the wage???

You are right. We should all be accountants. Every one of us.

Of course - then, where does the power for the electricity come from?

"The MOST efficient form of government, by far, is the dictatorship. It also has the capacity to be the most fair... if you have a benign dictator."---Grave-n-idle

a dictatorship can never be the peak of efficiency unless you find a dictator that knows the most efficient method for everything. as far as a benign dictator being the most fair----that makes absolutely no sense at all. history is littered with benign people doing what they thought was best for others......sometimes they were right and sometimes they were 180 degrees wrong. if a person was benign, then they couldn't be a dictator. looking out for the good of others and telling them what to do can never mesh completely.

"Whereas, an 'ideal' capitalism must have some who are 'more' rewarded than others."---Grave_n_idle

which is the ONLY fair way to do it. as long as some do more work than others....then giving to everyone equally will always cheat them.

"Is it fair that you can be mattress tester for Sealy, and afford a TV from the benefits of your 'work', but the miner can only barely scrape together enough money for his mortgage and bills?"---Grave_n_idle

as long as there is nobody actually preventing that miner from quiting that job and working for Sealy.....then yes, it is fair. heck, the fact that the miner is paying a mortgage is evidence that he or she has everything they need. they have money left over after the requirements of living and they are free to get a different job to get even MORE luxury items.

"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence." - Eugene V. Debs, speaking in 1918

"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence." - Eugene V. Debs, speaking in 1918
Well, the problem is that rich people do something that is useful. They get their money because someone gives them money, in exchange for doing something that is useful to them.

Your problem is that you assume some sort of universal usefulness, when there is no such thing. Usefulness can only be measured by what individual people think of it...and if they're willing to pay money for it, then they obviously think it's useful.

a dictatorship can never be the peak of efficiency unless you find a dictator that knows the most efficient method for everything. as far as a benign dictator being the most fair----that makes absolutely no sense at all. history is littered with benign people doing what they thought was best for others......sometimes they were right and sometimes they were 180 degrees wrong. if a person was benign, then they couldn't be a dictator. looking out for the good of others and telling them what to do can never mesh completely.


One assumes, you must not be a Christian... else the idea of a benign dictator (an eternal, unelected, one, no less) would not seem so unusual.

The dictator doesn't NEED to know the most efficient method for doing everything... all he (or she) needs to know is who DOES know the efficient methods. After all, a dictator has the power to delegate (against the wishes of the delegate, even) any responsibility.

As to - whether or not it is possible to BE a benign dictator:

"About Cincinnatus: Cincinnatus was plowing his field, when he learned he had been appointed dictator. The Romans had appointed Cincinnatus dictator for six months so he could defend the Romans against the neighboring Aequi who had surrounded the Roman army and the consul Minucius in the Alban Hills. Cincinnatus rose to the occasion, defeated the Aequi, made them pass under the yoke to show their subjugation, gave up the title of dictator sixteen days after it had been granted, and promptly returned to his farm.
Cincinnatus was appointed dictator for a later Roman crisis in the wake of a grain distribution scandal. According to Livy, Cincinnatus (Quinctius) was past 80 at the time:
"whilst those who knew nothing of the plot asked what disturbance or sudden outbreak of war called for the supreme authority of a dictator or required Quinctius , after reaching his eightieth year, to assume the government of the republic."" (About.com)


which is the ONLY fair way to do it. as long as some do more work than others....then giving to everyone equally will always cheat them.


But, even there - you add a provison 'as long as some do more work'. And yet - too often in our society, those who make the most money, are those who do the least work, or no work. That is why our disparity between highest and lowest earners is so great... there are a handful of those who never need to work, and become more and more rich, faster than they can spend it... and there are a huge number of people who can barely afford to make both ends meet.

"as long as there is nobody actually preventing that miner from quiting that job and working for Sealy.....then yes, it is fair. heck, the fact that the miner is paying a mortgage is evidence that he or she has everything they need. they have money left over after the requirements of living and they are free to get a different job to get even MORE luxury items.

Actually - the system is DESIGNED to stop the miner from quitting that job and working elsewhere... from the cost of education, to the requirements for layer upon layer of qualification, to the inability of those who NEED money to get credit, to the fact that those who work hardest physically, are those least likely to be able to attend further training or schooling.

I find it curious that you consider being able to own the walls around you, a 'luxury'.

Well, the problem is that rich people do something that is useful. They get their money because someone gives them money, in exchange for doing something that is useful to them.


And, hereditary wealth?

You are right. We should all be accountants. Every one of us.

Of course - then, where does the power for the electricity come from?


When enough people leave the mining industry, wages will rise. Simple supply and demand. Until then, they are willing to work for that wage, it is not like they were forced into it.

And, hereditary wealth?

Leaves a job open to someone willing to work their way up.

Because capitolism has its faults. And like all economic systems man will create, it tends to destroy itself.

I agree complete with Posi. We need the government to step in and provide direction to the economy. How can you expect the so-called "free" market to be able to provide this guidence without someone controlling it? For example, explain why we don't have clean burning energy with your "free" market?

When enough people leave the mining industry, wages will rise. Simple supply and demand. Until then, they are willing to work for that wage, it is not like they were forced into it.

Bullshit.

There is a reason we have the phrase 'wage slave'.

Most people cannot afford to take a couple of weeks off work, cannot afford to quit their job and hope for a new one, cannot get time away from work to get extra training or to attend interviews.

And, because it is in the interests of government and industry to KEEP people in menial jobs, that isn't going to change.

Add to that, the fact that a lot of places now hire on a 'no contract' basis, so that they can fire at the drop of a hat... a lot of people can't even get union representation, anymore... so they can't push any changes... because they have no power.

ANd, of course - since we have a large unemployed population, losing workers in poor-paying, menial or non-skilled trades is no big hardship... and the workers IN those trades know it, and KNOW they can't afford to be looking elsewhere, when they NEED the next paycheck on the table.

You live in some idealised fantasy land. You are lucky. I hope you never have to spend any real time in the real world.

Leaves a job open to someone willing to work their way up.

Pools wealth where it is not obtainable, no matter how hard you work.

How does one 'work their way up' to hereditary wealth, anyway?

Especially in an unemployment economy?

You live in some idealised fantasy land. You are lucky. I hope you never have to spend any real time in the real world.

I agree with Grave Idle and disagree strongly with Pen Stock. If the government didn't exercise control over the economy, we would all be in a race to the bottom, and all get paid $3/hour at Wal*Mart.

I'm lucky that I was born after the New Deal and Great Society, otherwise I would be so poor now.

Pools wealth where it is not obtainable, no matter how hard you work.

How does one 'work their way up' to hereditary wealth, anyway?

Especially in an unemployment economy?

When someone dies they should not be able to give it away to anyone they want to, because that means that it will go to someone who didn't earn it. It would be better if the government took it and put it into education and healthcare.

Bullshit.

There is a reason we have the phrase 'wage slave'.

Yeah - for propoganda purposes!

Most people cannot afford to take a couple of weeks off work, cannot afford to quit their job and hope for a new one, cannot get time away from work to get extra training or to attend interviews.

Did they have a choice as to what field they would pursue? Did they plan for their future or did they take the irresponsible way out?? Every company I know of gives people days off.

And, because it is in the interests of government and industry to KEEP people in menial jobs, that isn't going to change.

What a crock. government and industry need to develope highly skilled people in order to improve their own bottom lines. These people then have a skill that they can take wherever they want. Companies actually PAY to give their employees an education that they can then take to a competitor or to start their own business. It happens EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Add to that, the fact that a lot of places now hire on a 'no contract' basis, so that they can fire at the drop of a hat... a lot of people can't even get union representation, anymore... so they can't push any changes... because they have no power.

They have all the power they need. They have the skill that the employer NEEDS. If left alone, they will negotiate a wage that is suitable to both parties. Unions have dug thier own grave by insisting on inflexible work rules and by demanding an ever increasing piece of an increasingly smaller pie. In the United States, every industry that the unions were strong in, have either gone out of business, left the country or are on the way to one of those two options.

ANd, of course - since we have a large unemployed population, losing workers in poor-paying, menial or non-skilled trades is no big hardship... and the workers IN those trades know it, and KNOW they can't afford to be looking elsewhere, when they NEED the next paycheck on the table.

I don't know what country you live in, so I will not comment on that, but in the United States, we have more jobs now than at any time in our country's history. We also have historically high wages.


You live in some idealised fantasy land. You are lucky. I hope you never have to spend any real time in the real world.


I live in the real world, I was once VERY poor. I am now fairly well off. I am an economist, and there is not one true word in your post.

Pools wealth where it is not obtainable, no matter how hard you work.

How does one 'work their way up' to hereditary wealth, anyway?

Especially in an unemployment economy?


You work your way up to wealth, the heredity part clears the way for you. Those that inherit wealth, have no need to compete for your job.

Who has an unemployment economy??? If you do, and you live in a capitalist society, you can start your own business and provide jobs and services to those who need them.

Pool wealth??? I've got a little clue for you. Those with money invest it. They invest in businesses that people have just started. They invest in Ideas that provide future benefits to society. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. It is ever-increasing (at least in a CAPITALIST society!)

Preaching to the converted... I am on a well. Maybe worth pointing out that I still don't actually 'own' that water... and could find myself without water, at the caprice of the US government. I'm sure you can see that your idealised scheme only works where there is free access, and a limited demand on, the water source, also.

Limited demand=scarcity, which is the root of the entire reason why we pay for water. 12,000 years ago when human populations were small it was possible for people to have unlimited free water but as populations grew and the demand rose it was no longer possible to do so for a number of reasons. Until there's a significant change in either the world's water balance or population growth, that limitless supply will be unachievable except in a small number of cases.

So - we use the 'convenience' of communal water... but the problem is - the guy who has the most money can easily monpolise that source... even if there are real needs under the influence of the same source... which means, those who 'need' water, have to shop further afield... and probably end up paying more. What starts out as a convenience of communal living, becomes the tool of the capitalists, and becomes inconvenient.

That's true, and it's one of the reasons why most modern water (and electric) distribution systems don't allow one company to own all of the infrastructure in a given area; for example, company A might have control over the pumping and treatment system while company B maintains the pipe networks that deliver it to the houses.

The fact that utilities are a natural monopoly requires strict regulation; it would be foolish to allow the private sector to have total control over these public goods because they are so vital to the functioning of the economy and our very well being.

And, hereditary wealth?
For example, they lend the money to others, who think this to be so great that they are willing to pay interest on it.

Why are there socialists and communists? Simple. Like how the majority of people are religious to a degree, people are inherently looking for a means on which they can place an implausible situation as a means of "a better life". Note that as a communist myself, I am not trying to bash my fellow members. I am not speaking on my fellow communists, I am speaking from what I believe.

Most communists from what I have seen are aware of the fact that communism is not a completely plausible system, though we still believe in it because it in essence and theory is a better ideal. It's the idea of the Utopia that keeps us what we are, nothing else.

And the fact that dim-witted trolls will attempt to flamebait us. ^^

Not sure if it has already been posted or not, but here is the Definition and history of Socialism/Marxism/Communism.


Reading Information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Throughout history it is observed that those who are able to get wealth have also managed to get political power.


I would assert that the historical record shows that those who have gained such power typically use it to subvert democratic processes, as well as the establishment of free and competitive enterprise, as both are contrary to the aim and goal of the continued concentration of wealth and power.


The market allows for subjective valuation while being collective through competition and substitution.

It is also collective through what stands as the gun being held to the middle of my forehead in order to ensure that I operate according to the values of the society in question. Of course, in 99.9% of observed cases, this "gun" is refered to as the "state" (people claim that Somalia is an exception, an anarcho-capitalist paradise. I disagree with both the "anarcho" and "paradise" bits, however; the rest of us with our fancy "governments" just want to pretend that our politicians are somehow different from the average warlord...)

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
Because the pinko lefty homo commies bring them up in camps and brainwash them. Obviously. You idiot.
Why are some people Christians when there isn't a God?
It's perfectly obvious there isn't, because if there was He wouldn't let all the commies exist...

Because the pinko lefty homo commies bring them up in camps and brainwash them. Obviously. You idiot.
Why are some people Christians when there isn't a God?
It's perfectly obvious there isn't, because if there was He wouldn't let all the commies exist...


He wouldn't let trolls exist, either.

LOL nonsense. You think the guys slogging away in Mcdonalds for a couple of dollars an hour haven't embraced capitalism? how rich are they?

Botswana is a country rich in diamonds, that had the guts to take control of it's own national resources (a move that America always hates in a foreign country as we witness in Iraq).

Africa is poor because American Corporations rape their economy and abuse and enslave their workers. Because for every £1 in aid they receive the world bank takes back more than twice that.

It is no myth, rich people exploit poor people and get rich. We see this every day. It is an undeniable fact

No, Africa is generally poor because of two reasons: they have subsistance as their economic system in many areas and the second is that their contienent has been tearing itself with war. War is the biggest factor because all sensible economic systems fail when the people and the resources to sustain them are being blown to shit.

No, Africa is generally poor because of two reasons: they have subsistance as their economic system in many areas and the second is that their contienent has been tearing itself with war. War is the biggest factor because all sensible economic systems fail when the people and the resources to sustain them are being blown to shit.

They've been in poverty since they adapted socialism.

War is absolutely part of the equation. But without capitalism and property rights, they will never pull themselves out of poverty.

Us left-wingers are actually working in conjunction with Satan to destroy all that is good and capitalist, and bing in an age of grayness.

Us left-wingers are actually working in conjunction with Satan to destroy all that is good and capitalist, and bing in an age of grayness.

But Satan (with a cleverly disguised name) heads up one of the most capitalist holidays of all.

Us left-wingers are actually working in conjunction with Satan to destroy all that is good and capitalist, and bing in an age of grayness.

Yup. You bring disease and pestilence where ever you gain control.

But Satan (with a cleverly disguised name) heads up one of the most capitalist holidays of all.

Silly Aeson. That is to give leftists ammunition in our campaign against the joys of capitalism.

Down with kittens and puppies! Death to orphans!

Silly Aeson. That is to give leftists ammunition in our campaign against the joys of capitalism.

Down with kittens and puppies! Death to orphans!

Aha. Incidentally, yes, left wingers are responsible for the Great Depression, the hole in the ozone layer, both World Wars, the Kennedy assassination, the dust bowl, and the song 'It's A Small World After All'.

I personally was tasked by Satan with travelling back in time and giving kalashnikovs to the Bolsheviks.

Aha. Incidentally, yes, left wingers are responsible for the song 'It's A Small World After All'.

And the world rues the day!:D

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

Because the free market has proven no such thing. In a capitalist system it will be the tendency of monied interests to accumulate greater and greater power and then use that power in a way to create artificial advantages for themselves in the market without concern for the consumers needs. Take a look at American car companies, Ford's recent "restructuring," phase and so on. Car companies were esentially coerced into producing electric cars, but then recalled them as soon as they got the opportunity. Then they used their dominance of the market to start pushing gas guzzling SUV's and Hummers even though there was not a strong market for them. Now they're reaping the fruit of that folly.

If they had been broken up into smaller companies, or forced to compete on a more level playing field with foreign car companies they would have pursued hybrids and low emissions vehicles. These were what the consumer wanted, all other things being equal, but the companies thought "we'd get a bigger profit if people wanted SUV's and Hummers, so let's push those."

Even Adam Smith said that the function of government is to break up large powerful business interests that use their power to control the competition (Bush's corporate socialist Energy Bill for Exxon/Mobile). The Free Market system just lets them get as big and powerful as they like. If someone steps in to break them up then you don't get socialism, because managed capitalism keeps things fairly stable. You get socialism when people like Bush let the system get so far out of balance and too large a divide grows between the upper and lower classes.

Think of capitalism like the circulatory system, and wealth is cholesterol. A certain amount of it is necessary. In fact, it doesn't matter how much there is as long as it keeps moving. If it starts to sit in one place however, you're headed for a heart attack. Socialism is like a coronary artery bypass graft. Sure cutting open people's chests tends not to be conducive to long-term health, but you've got a problem that needs drastic measures to fix. Then, hopefully, things can get back to normal.

Just like governments have to tip to the right in wartime to organize national defense, they have to tip to the left in depression time in order to organize economic stability.

Pool wealth??? I've got a little clue for you. Those with money invest it. They invest in businesses that people have just started. They invest in Ideas that provide future benefits to society. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. It is ever-increasing (at least in a CAPITALIST society!)

That's one of the most disasterous oversimplifications of the Free Market proponents. Ownership of wealth does not lead to its investment, it's only a prerequisite. It's like saying that firefighters all tend to be physically fit and decent cooks, so if we push phys ed. and home ec. for boys we'll get more fire-fighters.

Demand creates investment. When people see a demand for a service they will beg, borrow, or steal to raise the capital needed to meet it. If they don't, then it doesn't matter how much money they have. The only thing they'll invest it in is a savings account and a mutual fund. Technically an investment, but it serves to take more money out of the system than it puts in.

That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly. Socialism/Communism (ideally) ensures that nobody goes through this. And you must remember, Socialism and Communism, in their pure forms, do not neccesarily prevent Democracy.

Oh, that's great. So in a world where everybody was perfect and the word flaw wasn't even in the dictionary the systems of socialism or communism might be viable economic systems. Excuse me for being less than eager to set up my own communist state.

I live in the real world, I was once VERY poor. I am now fairly well off. I am an economist, and there is not one true word in your post.

Much as I'd love to rip this to pieces... I'm not going to keep covering for your apparent inability to work out how to use the quote function.

I'll answer the part that managed to make it out of your 'edit of death', though...

An 'economist' is a parasite. It is a field that contributes nothing, except perpetuating it's own basis... the artificial construct of currency.

How do I know? Because I studied economics, finance and business at University before I got a real job.

Thanks, it's been swell. But now the swelling has gone down.

You work your way up to wealth, the heredity part clears the way for you. Those that inherit wealth, have no need to compete for your job.

I suspect you know that this is rubbish, really. Which makes me wonder why you say it. Currency that is not in circulation creates an imbalance... it is still legal, but it is contained, thus, unusable.


Who has an unemployment economy??? If you do, and you live in a capitalist society, you can start your own business and provide jobs and services to those who need them.

The US has an unemployment economy. I assumed you were from the US, I am willing to stand corrected.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
I favour a form of socialism because I think that it's the only system of government that does the job that government is meant to do. That is, govern for the benefit of the majority and not an elite minority.

That said, capitalism is a necessary step in the progress of a country, before socialism can be implemented.

Look at Western Europe. In the 19th century, unregulated capitalism lifted many out of poverty. Then in the 20th century, implementation of some socialist policies made everyone more prosperous.

The US has an unemployment economy. I assumed you were from the US, I am willing to stand corrected.

That's a good thing. Frictional unemployment is the sign of a healthy economy and a strong labor market; it also keeps inflation modest allowing people to see real growth in income and benefits. Without frictional unemployment, we would have constant severe inflation; that is far more undesirable than short-term unemployment caused by switching jobs or technological antiquation.

That's a good thing. Frictional unemployment is the sign of a healthy economy and a strong labor market; it also keeps inflation modest allowing people to see real growth in income and benefits. Without frictional unemployment, we would have constant severe inflation; that is far more undesirable than short-term unemployment caused by switching jobs or technological antiquation.

Are you really saying it's a good thing for some people to not have jobs, because it keeps stuff cheaper for everyone else?

last time I checked, the greatest famines were ALL in socialist/communist countries. china, north korea, USSR

"One assumes, you must not be a Christian... else the idea of a benign dictator (an eternal, unelected, one, no less) would not seem so unusual."---Grave_n_idle

"I find it curious that you consider being able to own the walls around you, a 'luxury'."---Grave_n_idle

one assumes you must know nothing about Christianity since you don't seem to understand the concept of freedom of choice.

as far as the mortgage---it IS a luxury. a mortgage means you have the money to pay others to build a house for you. that is not a requirement, and millions of people all over the world do just fine without. my parent's house....no mortgage required because we actually did most of the work. there is no reason that the majority of people cannot do most of the work on their own living quarters. paying others to do work for you is a luxury

Are you really saying it's a good thing for some people to not have jobs, because it keeps stuff cheaper for everyone else?

It doesn't just keep things cheaper, it keeps us from entering a hyperinflationary spiral that would reduce us to poverty.

Forcing the labor market to full capacity causes severe and worsening inflation; everyone's working, but what they recieve for their work is progressively less until it's no different than slavery. The only way to get 0% unemployment is to force all capable people to work and to ban them from changing jobs for their entire life...and that's pretty much no different than slavery especially when one considers that inflation is reducing their real wages to nothing.

Also, there are multiple types of employment. When the economy is at full employment, the only people unemployed:

A. Recently quit their job and are looking for a new one which they will be able to find because of the strength of the economy.

B. Are new entrants to the labor force who haven't found a job yet.

C. Structurally unemployed due to antiquated skills. They could get a job if their skills were up to date.

All three categories are perfectly capable of finding jobs, so the myth of the unemployment economy is specious because it assumes that there is a permanent underclass of the unemployed when in fact the average length of individual unemployment is on average little more than two months and far less depending on the occupation.

I favour a form of socialism because I think that it's the only system of government that does the job that government is meant to do. That is, govern for the benefit of the majority and not an elite minority.


There it is.
We can now answer the question which started the thread:
Some people are socialist/communist because: they have an idealistic view of human nature. They believe that it can and will improve, and therefore a system which aims directly for the happiness and wellbeing of all people can work, rather than becoming a tyranny.

Capitalism merely permits the same selfishness and competitiveness which has historically condemned real-world Communism to tyranny. The idea that pursuing one's interests at the expense of others is an artifact of capitalism, doesn't stand up to an examination of other historical systems (theocracy, feudalism, monarchy, take your pick.) EDIT: Reference to Marx removed here.

A capitalism consisting only of selfless idealists, and a communism consisting only of selfless idealists, would be essentially the same. A paradise.

"One assumes, you must not be a Christian... else the idea of a benign dictator (an eternal, unelected, one, no less) would not seem so unusual."---Grave_n_idle

"I find it curious that you consider being able to own the walls around you, a 'luxury'."---Grave_n_idle

one assumes you must know nothing about Christianity since you don't seem to understand the concept of freedom of choice.

as far as the mortgage---it IS a luxury. a mortgage means you have the money to pay others to build a house for you. that is not a requirement, and millions of people all over the world do just fine without. my parent's house....no mortgage required because we actually did most of the work. there is no reason that the majority of people cannot do most of the work on their own living quarters. paying others to do work for you is a luxury

One assumes you are unfamiliar with the 'form of government' which is believed to come with the return of Jesus. But - I'm the one who is unfamiliar with Christianity, right?

Regarding the mortgage thing... actually, the reasons most people get mortgages, would be because they need to live in a certain area, maybe on short notice... and thus cannot build their own home, or wouldn't be ALLOWED to build their own home.

I wonder if your parent's house is made of fruit? Otherwise, the chances are that the materials didn't grow on trees... I also find myself wondering where you live that has such lax building codes.

last time I checked, the greatest famines were ALL in socialist/communist countries. china, north korea, USSR

Like the Federal Republic of Ethiopia?

What makes a famine 'great'?

It doesn't just keep things cheaper, it keeps us from entering a hyperinflationary spiral that would reduce us to poverty.


A brave conjecture... that you fail to support. One could say that hyperinflation is the result of negligent mismanagement by the treasury.


Forcing the labor market to full capacity causes severe and worsening inflation; everyone's working, but what they recieve for their work is progressively less until it's no different than slavery.


Again - big talk. But, no logical connection. Your assertion relies on the fact that wages will drop in real terms, and inflation will rise. Of course - both these things are CURRENTLY true, without complete employment...


The only way to get 0% unemployment is to force all capable people to work and to ban them from changing jobs for their entire life...


Not even vaguely true.


C. Structurally unemployed due to antiquated skills. They could get a job if their skills were up to date.


But those skills are NOT up-to-date, you said yourself. So - we discard people once their skills become obsolete... they are STILL unemployed.


All three categories are perfectly capable of finding jobs, so the myth of the unemployment economy is specious because it assumes that there is a permanent underclass of the unemployed when in fact the average length of individual unemployment is on average little more than two months and far less depending on the occupation.

And, those people 're-entering' the market are flipping burgers. They've discovered the other side of the American Dream.

Like the Federal Republic of Ethiopia?

What makes a famine 'great'?
When you manage to get several million people to die of starvation.

I think when talking about those famines, we should be talking about the preventable ones, as opposed to the ones that would have happened regardless of human actions. The famines in the USSR, PRC, DPRK and other places were caused by economic mismanagment, the famine in Ethiopia is being caused by environmental factors.

A brave conjecture... that you fail to support. One could say that hyperinflation is the result of negligent mismanagement by the treasury.
Both reasons are plausible.



Again - big talk. But, no logical connection. Your assertion relies on the fact that wages will drop in real terms, and inflation will rise. Of course - both these things are CURRENTLY true, without complete employment...

Unemployment is a sign of a vibrant, growing economy, espescially when it stays down in the 4-5% range. These unemployed are typically people who are in transition between jobs, and will soon be re-employed. If you are seek policies to ensure complete employment, you will limit the flexibility and adaptability of the economy. This is precisely what has happened in western Europe since the collapse of Communism. Their economies have solidified, and the change that is required to be competitive in the modern world is very tough and painful in a stagnant economy.



But those skills are NOT up-to-date, you said yourself. So - we discard people once their skills become obsolete... they are STILL unemployed.
Not exactly. They are afforded the opportunity to attend a community college or technical school to get their skills up to date rather rapidly. Once they have finished a course of study or training, they are more fit to enter the market all over again, and will also make more money most likely.



And, those people 're-entering' the market are flipping burgers. They've discovered the other side of the American Dream.
Flipping burgers is a transitional position, not a permanent one.

When you manage to get several million people to die of starvation.

I think when talking about those famines, we should be talking about the preventable ones, as opposed to the ones that would have happened regardless of human actions. The famines in the USSR, PRC, DPRK and other places were caused by economic mismanagment, the famine in Ethiopia is being caused by environmental factors.

Not at all. A large part of Ethiopia's problem has been mismanagement, or misappropriation of resources. Not all, certainly... onbviously there are envronmental factors also... but the same is true anywhere.

If China fails to manage to produce enough food for a billion people... people are going to start dying... and that is whether the central government mismanages, or there is not enough rainfall, or whichever cause. The same in the former USSR... huge land area, not all suitable for farming, a population well spread out.

Of course - none of these 'famines' is ENTIRELY one thing or the other. Environment plays a part, obviously... since we haven't yet found a way to effectively make food without relying on our environment to some extent. Bad management and corruption are perhaps bigger problems... but that is not peculiar to one government type.

Both reasons are plausible.


Knowing how flawed humans are, I'd say one was a lot more plausible than the other.


Unemployment is a sign of a vibrant, growing economy, espescially when it stays down in the 4-5% range. These unemployed are typically people who are in transition between jobs, and will soon be re-employed. If you are seek policies to ensure complete employment, you will limit the flexibility and adaptability of the economy. This is precisely what has happened in western Europe since the collapse of Communism. Their economies have solidified, and the change that is required to be competitive in the modern world is very tough and painful in a stagnant economy.


I think, maybe, you mean Eastern Europe?

People keep talking about the flexibility and adaptability of the economy. If you have no money, If you are not working, it doesn't MATTER how 'flexible' the economy is.

On the other hand, a model that ensures complete employment means that EVERYONE can buy food this week, not just those who are lucky enough to be working... 'flexible economy' be damned.


Not exactly. They are afforded the opportunity to attend a community college or technical school to get their skills up to date rather rapidly. Once they have finished a course of study or training, they are more fit to enter the market all over again, and will also make more money most likely.


Really? Everyone gets to go to college for free?

Do you not see the irony in talking about inflation at the start of the comment, and suggesting EVERYONE can get paid more at the end?


Flipping burgers is a transitional position, not a permanent one.

A transition which doesn't pay enough to escape the cycle. Which is why there are people making careers in McDonalds, and people coming up on retirement age that are still on minimum wage.

Really? Everyone gets to go to college for free?


In some socialist countries one can get grants that amount to the same thing. If you do not get a decent job afterwards despite looking you do not have to repay the loan.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

please supply links.

In terms of social mobility (as in moving up), the economist recently wrote an article showing how the socialist systems of western europe offer far more opportunities for someone to improve his or her lot in life. Have'nt got the article at hand (will have a look later) but it was from 4 to 6 weeks ago.

Knowing how flawed humans are, I'd say one was a lot more plausible than the other.

Not really.


I think, maybe, you mean Eastern Europe?

Most certainly not! Eastern European economies are expanding rapidly, creating new opportunities for anyone willing to make the appropriate investment to take advantage of it.

People keep talking about the flexibility and adaptability of the economy. If you have no money, If you are not working, it doesn't MATTER how 'flexible' the economy is.
That's a major if. As it turns out, people in the United States do have money, even after losing a job. The flexibility of the economy not only means that it's somewhat easier to lose a job, but it's also far easier to get a new one.

On the other hand, a model that ensures complete employment means that EVERYONE can buy food this week, not just those who are lucky enough to be working... 'flexible economy' be damned.



Really? Everyone gets to go to college for free?
No, thilly. People can invest their time and money (and I'm willing to allow for a more than just a tiny bit of taxpayer dollars to help them out, espescially if they cannot afford it. I'm a strong proponent of making education as accesible as possible) to improve their positions in life. It's not incredibly cheap, but a little sacrifice never hurt anyone (unless you get your heart ripped out by an Aztec priest, but that's a whole different story...)

Do you not see the irony in talking about inflation at the start of the comment, and suggesting EVERYONE can get paid more at the end?
This is a non-inflationary action. The money that is being payed out is money that is already in the system, waiting to be invested.



A transition which doesn't pay enough to escape the cycle. Which is why there are people making careers in McDonalds, and people coming up on retirement age that are still on minimum wage. There are very few people making careers at McDonalds, and more often than not it's because of actions of their own.

please supply links.

In terms of social mobility (as in moving up), the economist recently wrote an article showing how the socialist systems of western europe offer far more opportunities for someone to improve his or her lot in life. Have'nt got the article at hand (will have a look later) but it was from 4 to 6 weeks ago.
This has more to do with the flaws of the American educational system than with the economic policies of Social Democrats.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people.

Look, I've been downright objectivist at times, but even I find that statement laughable. The free market most certainly has NOT been proven to provide the most prosperity to the most people, and has often been the specific reason why a great many people are blocked from enjoying prosperity. Don't blind yourself to the flaws in a system, even if you think it's the best system in the end.


And generally free markets= free people and elected governments.

Yeah, like the "elected" government we've got in America right now...


So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
They've got plenty of reasons. I may not happen to agree with them, but I'd have to be a damn fool to not know about their reasons by now. I suggest you simply try listening to socialists and communists when they tell you their reasons...around here, there's no shortage of people willing to do that. :)

That's a major if. As it turns out, people in the United States do have money, even after losing a job. The flexibility of the economy not only means that it's somewhat easier to lose a job, but it's also far easier to get a new one.


Actually, if I were to quit my job without having another lined up to walk into... I could survuve only as long as I have holiday time to cover me.

And a lot of jobs don't pay you for 2 weeks to a month after you start.


No, thilly. People can invest their time and money (and I'm willing to allow for a more than just a tiny bit of taxpayer dollars to help them out, espescially if they cannot afford it. I'm a strong proponent of making education as accesible as possible) to improve their positions in life. It's not incredibly cheap, but a little sacrifice never hurt anyone (unless you get your heart ripped out by an Aztec priest, but that's a whole different story...)


I can't. I looked into it. I literally cannot afford to go to college.

Thus, the assertion that anyone can. is false.


This is a non-inflationary action. The money that is being payed out is money that is already in the system, waiting to be invested.


There is already nough money in the job market, to pay EVERYONE more?

I've seen no evidene to support that.


There are very few people making careers at McDonalds, and more often than not it's because of actions of their own.

What have you got to support that... why should I ignore my OWN witness testimony?

A brave conjecture... that you fail to support. One could say that hyperinflation is the result of negligent mismanagement by the treasury.

It's also the product of forcing people to work. There is an exponential relationship between unemployment and inflation that sets in as the economy surpasses full employment.



Again - big talk. But, no logical connection. Your assertion relies on the fact that wages will drop in real terms, and inflation will rise. Of course - both these things are CURRENTLY true, without complete employment...

Here's a good example. From 1966-1970 unemployment fell from 5% in January of 1965 to 3.4% in December 1969. Over that period inflation rose from 1.6% to 5.9%. As a result, real wages during that period only rose by $0.11 or 0.0003% over the four year period; compared to the 1962-1966 period where real wages rose 5.2% and inflation was only 1.2% with an average 5% unemployment. Another is in 2000, where unemployment fell to 3.9% yet real wages only rose by 0.36%; during 1997-1999, they rose by 5.7% with unemployment ranging between 4.4 and 5.3%.

However, the current situation is different because rising commodity prices are making inflation worse and are eroding real wages and income; nominal wages are rising by about 4.2% but inflation is at around 4.1% meaning real wages are only growin by 0.1%. Unemployment is falling and is producing wage inflation but at the same time rising supply prices are causing additional inflation beyond that produced by the demand side.

Not even vaguely true.

Then tell me how exactly one reduces unemployment to 0%. Even during WWII the US economy still had an unemployment rate of 1.9%, and that was with virtually all resources utilized for the war effort.

But those skills are NOT up-to-date, you said yourself. So - we discard people once their skills become obsolete... they are STILL unemployed.



And, those people 're-entering' the market are flipping burgers. They've discovered the other side of the American Dream.

If they're skilless they are. But that's nobody's fault but their own so it's hardly a criticism of capitalism or the

It's also the product of forcing people to work. There is an exponential relationship between unemployment and inflation that sets in as the economy surpasses full employment.


Is there? Where. And what shows that one is causative to the other?


Here's a good example. From 1966-1970 unemployment fell from 5% in January of 1965 to 3.4% in December 1969. Over that period inflation rose from 1.6% to 5.9%. As a result, real wages during that period only rose by $0.11 or 0.0003% over the four year period; compared to the 1962-1966 period where real wages rose 5.2% and inflation was only 1.2% with an average 5% unemployment. Another is in 2000, where unemployment fell to 3.9% yet real wages only rose by 0.36%; during 1997-1999, they rose by 5.7% with unemployment ranging between 4.4 and 5.3%.


I see no proof of causality. Maybe more people took shitty jobs BECAUSE of the high inflation?


However, the current situation is different because rising commodity prices are making inflation worse and are eroding real wages and income; nominal wages are rising by about 4.2% but inflation is at around 4.1% meaning real wages are only growin by 0.1%. Unemployment is falling and is producing wage inflation but at the same time rising supply prices are causing additional inflation beyond that produced by the demand side.


Overall, maybe 'real wages' may be climbing... but mine aren't... the problem is, the disparity between the rich and poor is so great now, that a statistic like 'real wages' becomes a nonsense.

Most people are losing money in REAL terms, but some are making HUGE amounts, that balances the statistic.


Then tell me how exactly one reduces unemployment to 0%. Even during WWII the US economy still had an unemployment rate of 1.9%, and that was with virtually all resources utilized for the war effort.


So - you favour one model, I favour another... but you want ME to tell YOU, how to fix the flaws in yours?


If they're skilless they are. But that's nobody's fault but their own so it's hardly a criticism of capitalism or the

What an enigmatic finish. I'm quivering with anticip.







..ation.

It is no ones fault but their own that their skills became outdated?

Is there? Where. And what shows that one is causative to the other?

Economic theory and empirical observation support it, but there's no "proof" in the sense of a definitive case. However, when we went against the trend in 1970-1975 the economy was seriously harmed and inflation went out of control.

The labor market tightens below full employment due to economic growth, pushing up wages. At first, those are real wage gains because the rise in prices by businesses to cover the rising labor costs have not yet been put in to the economy. However, the price increases eventually make their way through the economy and the real gains start to decline due to inflation. If the labor market is still tight the workers will demand another raise, increasing real wages again. To cover costs, companies raise their prices and that reduces real wages. This continues ad infinitum unless there is a recession or a rise in unemployment.

(This also reflects the importance of productivity; if productivity grows as fast or faster than the rate of wage growth, companies will not raise their prices as much or as often and the real wages will not be reduced to the same degree by rising costs)

I see no proof of causality. Maybe more people took shitty jobs BECAUSE of the high inflation?

That would only occur if inflation was caused by a surge in the money supply combined with a supply-shock (1973 oil embargo) recession that reduced the availability of higher-end jobs while simultaneously making it more difficult not to work.

Normally, the unemployment rate would be so low in a wage-inflation environment that the bottom-end jobs would have to offer significant benefits and higher wages to attract employees. Recall in the late 90's that fast-food places were offering $8 or $10 per hour because they couldn't get people to work.

Overall, maybe 'real wages' may be climbing... but mine aren't... the problem is, the disparity between the rich and poor is so great now, that a statistic like 'real wages' becomes a nonsense.

They're not climbing; a 0.1% rise in real wages is virtually no change, and real wages have been falling since 1973. Even the strong economy of the 1990's barely recovered real wages to their pre-1991 level and were still nearly $50/week below their 1973 level.

Most people are losing money in REAL terms, but some are making HUGE amounts, that balances the statistic.

No, most people are doing decent to good; it's generally wage earners are seeing their purchasing power fall while salary earners and professionals have seen their incomes rise significantly. Since the majority of US workers are salaried they have seen their income remain stable or even rising despite inflation; this is one of the reasons why there is a discrepancy between public opinion on the economy and public opinion of their personal finances.


So - you favour one model, I favour another... but you want ME to tell YOU, how to fix the flaws in yours?

Well, if you're going to say it's possible to have 0% unemployment without coercion I'd like to know how to do it.

What an enigmatic finish. I'm quivering with anticip...ation.
It is no ones fault but their own that their skills became outdated?

Yes, if they chose not to keep their education up to date; people have a responsibility to keep learning and expanding their possibilities if they want to maintain job opportunities and advance their careers. Technology doesn't remain constant and the economy doesn't remain in a steady state, so it's stupid to assume your skills never need improvement or updating.

"One assumes you are unfamiliar with the 'form of government' which is believed to come with the return of Jesus. But - I'm the one who is unfamiliar with Christianity, right?"---Grave_n_idle

obviously you are unfamiliar. if you were, you would know that the second coming of the savior has nothing to do with government.

"Regarding the mortgage thing... actually, the reasons most people get mortgages, would be because they need to live in a certain area, maybe on short notice... and thus cannot build their own home, or wouldn't be ALLOWED to build their own home."---Grave_n_idle

there are very few people that NEED to live in ANY particular place. if you don't want to live where you are, then go somewhere else

"I wonder if your parent's house is made of fruit? Otherwise, the chances are that the materials didn't grow on trees... I also find myself wondering where you live that has such lax building codes."---Grave_n_idle

no, the material didn't grow on trees, but because my family designed and built a house using onlyl what it could afford, there was no reason to find building materials falling from the sky, growing on trees, or at the end of a rainbow. no thank you, we don't like meeting building codes...the house far exceeds those existing for private residences of this size in this nation.

obviously you are unfamiliar. if you were, you would know that the second coming of the savior has nothing to do with government.


Not going to perpetuate the off-topic. Just going to suggest you might not have read your material so thoroughly as you think. What do you think happens AFTER this whole 'second coming' thing?

The interests of the working class are incompatable with those of the class which owns and/or controls the means of production. Capitalism is a transitional phase in the political/social/ economic evolution of human societies. Capitalism will collapse under the weight of its own condradictions. The development of the world economy and the inevitable demise of the Petrochemical Age presage the collapse. Putative Marxist states which have collapsed do not follow the patterns of development envisioned by Marxism; their collapse was the consequence of misguided implementation. History, like geology involves time; patience with the process of inevitable change is advisable.

NV Mihn

after the second coming?

i'm sorry, but eternity is a little long to explain in one post.....could you narrow the time and place down a little bit? maybe focus your question a little tighter than that. give a when, where, who, what, sort of thing.

Putative Marxist states which have collapsed do not follow the patterns of development envisioned by Marxism; their collapse was the consequence of misguided implementation.
Which of course had absolutely nothing to do with the gigantic theoretical holes in what Marx and Engels left behind.

How is more control and collectivism going to eliminate control and collectivism? I sure don't know, and it seems that neither did Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

It's easy for you guys to blame the individuals for what they did, but the fact of the matter is that every one of them was a fanatical communist, probably better versed in the theory than everyone on this forum, and they did what they thought they had to do to fill the holes left by Marx and Engels.

after the second coming?

i'm sorry, but eternity is a little long to explain in one post.....could you narrow the time and place down a little bit? maybe focus your question a little tighter than that. give a when, where, who, what, sort of thing.

I already said I don't want to push the matter further off track. I've given you clues enough to work out the point I wa making, if you have even a passing familiarity with the scripture. (Especially given the context).

I'll indulge you no further, in tracking further off-topic.

Which of course had absolutely nothing to do with the gigantic theoretical holes in what Marx and Engels left behind.

How is more control and collectivism going to eliminate control and collectivism? I sure don't know, and it seems that neither did Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

It's easy for you guys to blame the individuals for what they did, but the fact of the matter is that every one of them was a fanatical communist, probably better versed in the theory than everyone on this forum, and they did what they thought they had to do to fill the holes left by Marx and Engels.

Capitalism must run its course. Russia, Cambodia, et. al. were not the environments Marx would choose as the incubators of a Marxist state.
The soil must be prepared and the season must be ripe for the seed to germinate. Tinture of time will show the arch of history.

Because I know that not all poor people are lazy? Because I want everyone to have an equal chance in life? Because having to pay for healthcare and education is frightening? Because I wasn't born with the silver spoon?

Tinture of time will show the arch of history.
Right then.

So for the time being: "commies of the world, relax and let capitalists do what they do."

No need to start big redistribution campaigns and welfare. Afterall, no welfare might make people even angrier, and destroy capitalism even sooner! In fact, why aren't commies joining the anarcho-capitalists?

"Because having to pay for healthcare and education is frightening?"---Terrorist Cakes


now, now.....that doesn't make any sense. there are only two options: paying for healthcare and education or not having them. very VERY few people ever take a stance against healthcare or education.....the debate all lies in who will be doing the paying

"Because having to pay for healthcare and education is frightening?"---Terrorist Cakes


now, now.....that doesn't make any sense. there are only two options: paying for healthcare and education or not having them. very VERY few people ever take a stance against healthcare or education.....the debate all lies in who will be doing the paying

Step outside of the capitalist blinkers for a second... in a society that didn't use concepts like currency and ownership, there would be no 'payment'.

Step outside of the capitalist blinkers for a second... in a society that didn't use concepts like currency and ownership, there would be no 'payment'.
In a society without currency and ownership we wouldn't have society. What system do you propose, slavery? No society has ever banished self-interest, even within the church there have always been problems with corruption and greed. Do you think that a society as massive as ours could ever escape this problem based upon differing interests and personal desires? If so then you are a more idealistic person than I am. People have a right to payment for their services because the fundamental concept of ownership ultimately falls down to a right to one's self. Slaves cannot ask for payment but freemen can.

In a society without currency and ownership we wouldn't have society. What system do you propose, slavery? No society has ever banished self-interest, even within the church there have always been problems with corruption and greed. Do you think that a society as massive as ours could ever escape this problem based upon differing interests and personal desires? If so then you are a more idealistic person than I am. People have a right to payment for their services because the fundamental concept of ownership ultimately falls down to a right to one's self. Slaves cannot ask for payment but freemen can.

I hate to barge in here, but how did you move from "society with no ownership" to "slavery"?

"Step outside of the capitalist blinkers for a second... in a society that didn't use concepts like currency and ownership, there would be no 'payment'."---Grave_n_idle

there is always payment....if you do away with concepts such as property or currency, then you are just boiling it all down to the basic form of payment---Labor.

somebody has to provide their labor so that doctors can be doctors instead of farming to feed themselves. someone has to provide labor so that researches can spend their time creating new medicines. you are still left with the exact same debate as before....who is going to pay for it(with their labor). communism provides no incentive to work harder----after all, you will only reap a tiny, fractional bit of the fruit of your labor. if your amount of return is based upon the amount of labor you provide(capitalism), then you are free to determine how much you value; and thus how much you are willing to work towards, certain ends.

as i value my freedom to determine what i value and how hard i will work to get it, i do not favor the communist system

The particular brand of "self-interest" that plagues us as a species is attributable to mental defect, and to those who ape that defect in the mistaken belief that everything is just tickety-boo in a world full of sociopaths.

How is more control and collectivism going to eliminate control and collectivism? I sure don't know, and it seems that neither did Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

quiet you, talk like that will get you expelled from the first international

I hate to barge in here, but how did you move from "society with no ownership" to "slavery"?
Quite simple, ownership is the result of trade. Trade is the result of the right to one's own property. We own things because we work or because somebody else has and given the goods to us. Another poster put it quite nicely about the value of labor. The entire need for currency is based upon trade and the desire for us to have a standard thing to work with. I argued based upon slavery because the poster claimed that there would be no need for payment when I view a lack of payment as a sign of slavery or brainwashing, in a society full of people with different desires they will all want something to fulfill their own, brainwashing eliminates the different desires.

In a society without currency and ownership we wouldn't have society. What system do you propose, slavery? No society has ever banished self-interest, even within the church there have always been problems with corruption and greed. Do you think that a society as massive as ours could ever escape this problem based upon differing interests and personal desires? If so then you are a more idealistic person than I am. People have a right to payment for their services because the fundamental concept of ownership ultimately falls down to a right to one's self. Slaves cannot ask for payment but freemen can.

I don't think you've thought about this... I think you've just learned the easy, conditioned response.

In a society without currency and ownership... how would there be slavery? A slave is a person owned by another... the slave IS the currency. You didn't think very thoroughly about the premise.

I have to take on the idea of 'massive' societies... since you are building more assumptions in... why do we need to be talking about 'massive societies'? Why not a number of smaller units?

I also have to take on the idea that no method can banish self-interest... since, I know a number of people who do/have done important work, entirely voluntarily - for no reason other than to make life better for all.

So - it IS possible to work selflessly, and it is possible to do so without any system of reward or ownership of the result of the work.

If there is a problem with this scenario - it is the fact that a lot of people do not WANT to work selflessly... a holdover from more primitive times.

The question is - why do we indulge this neanderthal behaviour? Because it is easy, I suspect... and requires the least effort on the part of those that NEED to change.

I view a lack of payment as a sign of slavery or brainwashing

sounds like a personal problem to me

Quite simple, ownership is the result of trade. Trade is the result of the right to one's own property. We own things because we work or because somebody else has and given the goods to us. Another poster put it quite nicely about the value of labor. The entire need for currency is based upon trade and the desire for us to have a standard thing to work with. I argued based upon slavery because the poster claimed that there would be no need for payment when I view a lack of payment as a sign of slavery or brainwashing, in a society full of people with different desires they will all want something to fulfill their own, brainwashing eliminates the different desires.

This is missing the point, surely... if we do away with trade, do away with the need for personal ownership, do away with the idea of personal property, then the arguments you make are about meaningless.

Sure - we need food, and one assumes we would still be willing to work enough to feed ourselves, etc. Of course - it doesn't TAKE every person to feed themselves, especially with modernised agriculture... one person can feed hundreds... so some of those people can be artisans and craftspeople... making essentials like clothing and blankets. Still others can be our teachers, our priests, our artists, if we feel that is important.

And - since we are an educated people... perhaps we'll have a computer for every adult, with an internet connection even... making this big world of small groups, into a kind of homogenous society.

But we won't OWN those computers, any more than we own air... they'll just be part of our environment... like our houses.


So - how does this equate to slavery? Each person provides what they can, of what they do best... and each person has their most basic needs met. And - the more successful our society, the better 'equipped' it becomes.

It would require a change of mindset for some... some are far too readily convinced by the brainwashing they have received every day since infancy... and if you question that idea, maybe you aren't paying enough attention to the subtler message of advertising.

"Step outside of the capitalist blinkers for a second... in a society that didn't use concepts like currency and ownership, there would be no 'payment'."---Grave_n_idle

there is always payment....if you do away with concepts such as property or currency, then you are just boiling it all down to the basic form of payment---Labor.

somebody has to provide their labor so that doctors can be doctors instead of farming to feed themselves. someone has to provide labor so that researches can spend their time creating new medicines. you are still left with the exact same debate as before....who is going to pay for it(with their labor). communism provides no incentive to work harder----after all, you will only reap a tiny, fractional bit of the fruit of your labor. if your amount of return is based upon the amount of labor you provide(capitalism), then you are free to determine how much you value; and thus how much you are willing to work towards, certain ends.

as i value my freedom to determine what i value and how hard i will work to get it, i do not favor the communist system

Labour isn't the form of payment... labour is something that people DO. It's not the currency, any more than breathing is currency... it is just a fact.

You say communism provides no incentive to work harder, because everything is communal... but that just shows you don't have the frame of mind to grasp how this model can excel... what if EVERY person in that society is working harder? What does everyone gain? A tiny increment?

As for the idea that capitalism rewards amount of labour... you must not visit reality very often. Those who labour hardest are rarely those with the most of anything, in a cpaitalist society.

You say you 'value your freedom to determine what you value'... but, what I suspect you mean is - you want to OWN things, and that means you don't want to share them... and you will put as much effort as you can into making sure you don't have to. It's understandable... capitalism IS legitimised selfishness.

But, damn... it's about time this species evolved past it's 'squirrel hoarding nuts' mentality.

In a society without currency and ownership... how would there be slavery? A slave is a person owned by another... the slave IS the currency. You didn't think very thoroughly about the premise.
Slavery does not exist in the modern society and slavery is pretty much defined as one who does not own themselves and is owned by another. Now, it is true that in the past capitalist systems have had slaves, however, that does not mean that a communist system couldn't make everyone slaves. Pretty much your denial of the right to compensation for services pretty much is a declaration of slavery.


I have to take on the idea of 'massive' societies... since you are building more assumptions in... why do we need to be talking about 'massive societies'? Why not a number of smaller units?
Efficiency, there is the fact that smaller units have problems with scales of economy. After all, it would not be economically efficient for them to work independently of one another. So therefore either we accept increased inefficiency or the economies must be interconnected. Interconnectedness either means large centralized, controlled economies or large levels of economic freedom. The latter is what we have now, the former is what the soviet union had as well as many other totalitarian states.

I also have to take on the idea that no method can banish self-interest... since, I know a number of people who do/have done important work, entirely voluntarily - for no reason other than to make life better for all.
And they did that work because they wanted to, they felt it was important, capitalism allows that, communism demands that. In order to banish self-interest in all men we must have cultural control, cultural control is propaganda, propaganda is what every totalitarian dictator uses to command the population to follow their plans even despite their own self-interest telling them not to. Now, of course, self-interest can even be ideological as well, I might want money to support my favorite cause such as the whales, a love of country music, etc, it really doesn't matter but in every state individuals will not always agree with their society's stated goals so it is good to give them the freedom to follow their own. It is self-interest why many Americans distrust W, while under a culturally controlled, self-interest lacking world we would all be in Iraq by now.

So - it IS possible to work selflessly, and it is possible to do so without any system of reward or ownership of the result of the work.
It is not possible to force such upon society, and it is not possible to get everyone to agree where society should go. That is why it is best to give people the freedom to go their own path and yet bind them by self-interest. After all, it was the glory of the community that caused the soviet soldier to die at his leader's command, yet it was the interest of the self that led the American businessman to innovate.

If there is a problem with this scenario - it is the fact that a lot of people do not WANT to work selflessly... a holdover from more primitive times.
So, you are the enlightened leader to impose your will upon us? Please, do not tell me what I should believe and what I shouldn't. The entire result of that is totalitarianism, the entire result of your beliefs being imposed upon a society is death no matter how you might want to cover up your words in fancy rhetoric. Hitler made promises of peace and glory, Mussolini promised a better world, Stalin was the hero of his people, yet they all were some of the most murderous people of the world. Maybe you have utopian ideals but the path of glorification of the society and individual sacrifice is the path that has been betrayed and destroyed so many times before, even by the well-meaning.

The question is - why do we indulge this neanderthal behaviour? Because it is easy, I suspect... and requires the least effort on the part of those that NEED to change.
Neanderthal? I would say human behavior, the fact is that humanity has engaged in it as well. I mean, the catholic church of old sold indulgences and was horribly corrupt, the Roman empire of old was at times kept up by bread and circuses, the entire idea behind our government was even the fear of corruption by competing self-interest. Self-interest is not something to be denied, it does exist, and it would take dystopic mind-control to destroy it.

sounds like a personal problem to me
Let me put it this way, if Bush put you in some oil field and only gave you bread and water saying "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need and you have ability and I need oil" would that be any less of slavery? Compensation is the result of an individuals right to their own labor, to lack that right is slavery.

"what if EVERY person in that society is working harder? What does everyone gain? A tiny increment?"---Grave_n_idle

there is your problem....you place your trust very poorly. i trust in myself far more than i trust a bunch of lazy wellfare bums, african warlords, terrorists, etc.
if you cannot trust yourself more than all those people, then you have a big problem.

as for labor....labor is the most basic form of human currency. that was the currency we had before we invented the concept of money.

"You say you 'value your freedom to determine what you value'... but, what I suspect you mean is - you want to OWN things, and that means you don't want to share them"---Grave_n_idle

another flaw of yours, you made a blatantly wrong assumption when you could have just asked. guess what, i want good health care. i am willing to work for this health care.....for me AND my family. there is no intelligent reason that i should lower my standards of health care just so that somebody else that values it less can have more of it.

"It's understandable... capitalism IS legitimised selfishness."---Grave_n_idle

communism is every single bit as selfish as capitalism. at least capitalism is being selfish for what you have worked for instead of communism's selfishness for the work of others

Slavery does not exist in the modern society


Please tell me you don't HONESTLY believe that. And I don't just mean 'wage slaves'... I mean real slavery, on this 21st Century world.

...and slavery is pretty much defined as one who does not own themselves and is owned by another. Now, it is true that in the past capitalist systems have had slaves, however, that does not mean that a communist system couldn't make everyone slaves.


Of course it doesn't mean that. Capitalists have a long, LONG history of slaveholding. It is unlikely that EVERY communist model would refuse to follow the same path.

That doesn't make slavery automatically part of communism, though.


Pretty much your denial of the right to compensation for services pretty much is a declaration of slavery.


Not at all. The compensation is collective. There is no slavery, no man owns any other.


Efficiency, there is the fact that smaller units have problems with scales of economy. After all, it would not be economically efficient for them to work independently of one another. So therefore either we accept increased inefficiency or the economies must be interconnected.


Not all things NEED to be 'efficient'... it's such an amorphous term.

But - where 'efficiency' IS needed, and can only be gained in scale... it would be in the interest of a series of small groups to help maintain one 'efficiency' unit. No problems.

Interconnectedness either means large centralized, controlled economies or large levels of economic freedom. The latter is what we have now, the former is what the soviet union had as well as many other totalitarian states.


Because, of course, controlled economies are alien to capitalism? You keep making the connection to totalitarian regimes... where no connection is required.


And they did that work because they wanted to, they felt it was important, capitalism allows that, communism demands that. In order to banish self-interest in all men we must have cultural control, cultural control is propaganda, propaganda is what every totalitarian dictator uses to command the population to follow their plans even despite their own self-interest telling them not to.


And, you honestly think that people in capitalist societies are free from propaganda? I shudder at the thought of such naivete.

Now, of course, self-interest can even be ideological as well, I might want money to support my favorite cause such as the whales, a love of country music, etc, it really doesn't matter but in every state individuals will not always agree with their society's stated goals so it is good to give them the freedom to follow their own. It is self-interest why many Americans distrust W, while under a culturally controlled, self-interest lacking world we would all be in Iraq by now.


Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Even if Bush were a madman, it would serve no purpose to have ALL of us in Iraq.


It is not possible to force such upon society,


Who said anything about force?

...and it is not possible to get everyone to agree where society should go. That is why it is best to give people the freedom to go their own path and yet bind them by self-interest.


No - that is NOT 'best'... it might be 'best' for a person here and there, but it's pretty shitty for most of the rest.

After all, it was the glory of the community that caused the soviet soldier to die at his leader's command, yet it was the interest of the self that led the American businessman to innovate.


False dichotomy... unless you honestly believe no US seviceman ever died for the flag.

So, you are the enlightened leader to impose your will upon us?


Am I? How did that happen? I was aware of no 'imposition'?

Please, do not tell me what I should believe and what I shouldn't.


Why not? You are doing exactly the same thing.

The entire result of that is totalitarianism,


Not at all. There COULD be totalitarianism... but that is true of ANY model.

..the entire result of your beliefs being imposed upon a society is death no matter how you might want to cover up your words in fancy rhetoric.


Why - thank you, I guess.

Hitler made promises of peace and glory, Mussolini promised a better world, Stalin was the hero of his people, yet they all were some of the most murderous people of the world.


And? They were murderous because of the fact they were murderous. Popular revolution is a tool.

Maybe you have utopian ideals but the path of glorification of the society and individual sacrifice is the path that has been betrayed and destroyed so many times before, even by the well-meaning.

Neanderthal? I would say human behavior, the fact is that humanity has engaged in it as well. I mean, the catholic church of old sold indulgences and was horribly corrupt, the Roman empire of old was at times kept up by bread and circuses,


Bread and circuses... like we have now?

...the entire idea behind our government was even the fear of corruption by competing self-interest. Self-interest is not something to be denied, it does exist, and it would take dystopic mind-control to destroy it.

I've not said we SHOULD destroy it... just redirect it.

This is missing the point, surely... if we do away with trade, do away with the need for personal ownership, do away with the idea of personal property, then the arguments you make are about meaningless. If we do away with the right to one's own labor then this still is slavery. Just compensation is based upon individual choice, not one of a society.

Sure - we need food, and one assumes we would still be willing to work enough to feed ourselves, etc. Of course - it doesn't TAKE every person to feed themselves, especially with modernised agriculture... one person can feed hundreds... so some of those people can be artisans and craftspeople... making essentials like clothing and blankets. Still others can be our teachers, our priests, our artists, if we feel that is important.
Right, there is a division of labor. However, how will rational accounting for the needs of society take place without the existence of a system of pricing. How do we account for individual desires and the greater economic need? Is there any incentive for fulfilling societal desires? What if we have less than the necessary ratio of farmers to the rest of society in order to provide food? How do we pick up the slack, by mandates, by differences in pay?

And - since we are an educated people... perhaps we'll have a computer for every adult, with an internet connection even... making this big world of small groups, into a kind of homogenous society. Perhaps you will get more computers but computers do not make a homogenous society. Homogenous societies are a result of one cultural background. Also, how will computers improve without the incentive to do so, what will drive people into these professions. Right now computer engineering and such is driven by men following their self-interest. Certainly if we drop down wages to the average we will also have a decrease in the number of individuals that work in the computer industry. I mean, unless you think that supply and demand are based upon the evils of the old-society and that such models cannot describe your perfectly designed, government mandated economy.

But we won't OWN those computers, any more than we own air... they'll just be part of our environment... like our houses. Well, who owns the labor that created those computers, both in terms of schematics and in terms of industry? The workers did, of course you either must enslave them or get them to unanimously agree with giving everything to society. The same with the workers who created the houses. However, a society so "communally" driven will find itself quickly threatened by whomever has the control over the economy, as after all, centralized planning always has the problem of centralized control.


So - how does this equate to slavery? Each person provides what they can, of what they do best... and each person has their most basic needs met. And - the more successful our society, the better 'equipped' it becomes. Well, each person should be a willing part of this economy, not have it forced upon them by government mandate. Besides, Marxism is a stupid philosophy anyway, where is his prediction that the bourgeois would decrease? If anything they have increased since he wrote his manifesto!

It would require a change of mindset for some... some are far too readily convinced by the brainwashing they have received every day since infancy... and if you question that idea, maybe you aren't paying enough attention to the subtler message of advertising. Change of mindset sounds like the basis of some gulag or the systems of 1984. Advertising does not constitute brainwashing as you most certainly are evidence of. Of course, in our system you have the right to believe whatever cracked idea you want, we don't require a change of mindset like your system seems to.

there is your problem....you place your trust very poorly. i trust in myself far more than i trust a bunch of lazy wellfare bums, african warlords, terrorists, etc.
if you cannot trust yourself more than all those people, then you have a big problem.


I don't place my trust poorly, at all. I trust me well enough... but I wouldn't trust you as far as I could kick you up a chimney.

However - if you create a scenario where mutual advantage is gained by mutual assistance, people trust each other and EARN trust, or they all suffer.


as for labor....labor is the most basic form of human currency. that was the currency we had before we invented the concept of money.


I think you think that SOUNDS good. Back it up, if you like. Cite?


another flaw of yours, you made a blatantly wrong assumption when you could have just asked. guess what, i want good health care. i am willing to work for this health care.....for me AND my family. there is no intelligent reason that i should lower my standards of health care just so that somebody else that values it less can have more of it.


That sounds almost exactly like what I described... maybe I wasn't as wrong as you think.

You create an artificial example. Why should your healthcare be lower in standard, just because someone else needs a doctor too? If that person AND you are providing some other service... why do YOU demand healthcare MORE than another?

communism is every single bit as selfish as capitalism. at least capitalism is being selfish for what you have worked for instead of communism's selfishness for the work of others

If you think 'selfishness' can apply collectively... then we are on the same page. A society that is COLLECTIVELY selfish, would be quite a good thing.

As for your red herring argument that communism is selfsih for the work of others... it is almost laughable. The paper-pusher in the tax office uses hios wage to buy what he needs and want... but all he 'does' is assay the value of how much I worked. My manager makes more 'money' than me... but I do the work.

Capitalism is very rarely a mechanism where the work of a person benefits THAT person. More often - those who see benefit, do so at a great remove from any danger of actual work.

If we do away with the right to one's own labor then this still is slavery. Just compensation is based upon individual choice, not one of a society.


Slavery is ownership of another person. You keep failing to grasp this concept, in order, I suspect, to 'appeal to emotion' with an emotionally charged word... no matter HOW irrelevent.


Right, there is a division of labor. However, how will rational accounting for the needs of society take place without the existence of a system of pricing. How do we account for individual desires and the greater economic need? Is there any incentive for fulfilling societal desires? What if we have less than the necessary ratio of farmers to the rest of society in order to provide food? How do we pick up the slack, by mandates, by differences in pay?


Differences in WHAT pay? You really aren't grasping the 'no currency' idea.

How do we account for needs? If we have ten families, we need ten houses. If we need a water tank for each house, we need ten water tanks. Not so hard.

If our society chooses to sponsor culture, for example, to fulfill societal desires, then our culture will pick up the slack for what they want. If they don't... the artist can still be artistic on their own time... just as many are in our current societal model.


Perhaps you will get more computers but computers do not make a homogenous society. Homogenous societies are a result of one cultural background. Also, how will computers improve without the incentive to do so, what will drive people into these professions. Right now computer engineering and such is driven by men following their self-interest.


Actually - currently, computers are largely held BACK by self-interest.

Certainly if we drop down wages to the average we will also have a decrease in the number of individuals that work in the computer industry.


What wages? You can't keep 'in character'.

I mean, unless you think that supply and demand are based upon the evils of the old-society and that such models cannot describe your perfectly designed, government mandated economy.
Well, who owns the labor that created those computers, both in terms of schematics and in terms of industry?


Nobody. Ownership is irrelevent.

The workers did, of course you either must enslave them or get them to unanimously agree with giving everything to society.


Again with the slavery? You show so little imagination.

What is wrong with the idea of getting people to agree?

The same with the workers who created the houses. However, a society so "communally" driven will find itself quickly threatened by whomever has the control over the economy, as after all, centralized planning always has the problem of centralized control.


Which centralised planning? You are throwing strawmen at the model.


Well, each person should be a willing part of this economy, not have it forced upon them by government mandate. Besides, Marxism is a stupid philosophy anyway, where is his prediction that the bourgeois would decrease? If anything they have increased since he wrote his manifesto!


I don't recall mentioning Marx.


Change of mindset sounds like the basis of some gulag or the systems of 1984. Advertising does not constitute brainwashing as you most certainly are evidence of. Of course, in our system you have the right to believe whatever cracked idea you want, we don't require a change of mindset like your system seems to.

Actually - I watched advertising, etc until I studied business at college. From that point onwards, I criticised every advertisement I saw or read. The same for political speeches, and 'things everyone knows'.

You'd be surprised how much you are absorbing, without even knowing.

Compensation is the result of an individuals right to their own labor, to lack that right is slavery.

that doesn't map very well onto human societies cross-culturally. shit, i'm not sure it works for this culture.

Please tell me you don't HONESTLY believe that. And I don't just mean 'wage slaves'... I mean real slavery, on this 21st Century world. Are you talking about the results of Communism, like North Korea? If so I would counter that they are not part of our society. Slavery is not the requirement of capitalism and is a breach upon anyone's rights under our system of government. Anyone who enslaves anyone else is a criminal.


Of course it doesn't mean that. Capitalists have a long, LONG history of slaveholding. It is unlikely that EVERY communist model would refuse to follow the same path.
Societies have had a long, LONG history of slaveholding. The fact that capitalism would inherit that peculiar institution is really no surprise, neither is it a surprise that our system was one of the few to abolish slavery. The Romans didn't abolish slavery, the feudal lords were fine with having serfs indebted to them, the systems of the past were inept to this problem yet capitalism worked to deal with it.

That doesn't make slavery automatically part of communism, though.

Unless every individual is a willing part of your system they are already slaves.


Not at all. The compensation is collective. There is no slavery, no man owns any other. Instead society owns all men? Men are the rightful owners of themselves and it is only they who are right to choose their masters. Unless your great plan gets 100% of the vote all men who did not choose this are slaves under your system.

Not all things NEED to be 'efficient'... it's such an amorphous term.

I would say that efficiency is one of the most necessary things in an economy. Efficient economies address the needs of those with demand most effectively and by such ultimately become better faster. It is the efficiency of capitalism that created consumer goods for the US and it is the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of communism that led their consumer goods to be a major cause of death(television fires were real big in the USSR).

But - where 'efficiency' IS needed, and can only be gained in scale... it would be in the interest of a series of small groups to help maintain one 'efficiency' unit. No problems. Major problem, after all, you have just created more centralization within the economy, greater centralization means that there will be more accountability problems because of the smaller scales ability to reduce corruption. This leads to inefficiency and ultimately harms your society more than a capitalist society would do.


Because, of course, controlled economies are alien to capitalism? You keep making the connection to totalitarian regimes... where no connection is required.Yes, controlled economies are counter to capitalism. Capitalism stands for competition between sellers for buyers. Controlled economies cannot have that. I make the connection to totalitarianism because whether you really notice that or not you are suggesting a totalitarian regime.



And, you honestly think that people in capitalist societies are free from propaganda? I shudder at the thought of such naivete.
Freedom of the press, the argument is not the elimination of propaganda but that greater freedom means that more people can hear news that counters propaganda. State control over the press means that all press tells is state interest.


Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Even if Bush were a madman, it would serve no purpose to have ALL of us in Iraq. Exaggeration to show a point. I did not say that Bush necessarily would but rather show a society where personal freedom is reduced before the glory of the community.



Who said anything about force?Well, without force all you have is farce. You are suggesting that man is more akin to an ant than a free mind with his own desires. If less than 100% of the people disagree without then it is force and I have never seen a populace outside of a totalitarian regime have 100% of the population agree on anything.



No - that is NOT 'best'... it might be 'best' for a person here and there, but it's pretty shitty for most of the rest.
Yeah, that is best. If I want something I have the freedom to get it. It is best for society to have the freedom to do what you want with the fruits of your labor whether that is charity or strip clubs. I mean, your argument is that humanity does not deserve the freedom to choose for itself what it wants. Frankly, I think it is best to have a society that allows me to make whatever choice I want economically.


False dichotomy... unless you honestly believe no US seviceman ever died for the flag. Perhaps exaggerated, however, the USSR was not known for being kind to its infantry and neither was North Vietnam. In fact, the USSR was very unkind to its generals and of course good generals being a threat to those in power were killed. America has taken great strain to make sure that Americans stay alive, perhaps that is because our free press and free society makes sure that we show such a desire.



Am I? How did that happen? I was aware of no 'imposition'?
Well, you cannot believe that in any democracy 100% of people agree on anything, of course if you force your policies on even .001% of people you would be denying them their rights. You claim that we are morally inferior because we disagree(neanderthal desire), you claim that the wants of the people are a primitive hold over. I mean, to claim that the wants of the people are just primitive things really seems sort of like an "enlightened" dictator would say. After all, in a democratic society the wants of the people are what is important, the same with a capitalist society, capitalism responds to the wants and rights of people.


Why not? You are doing exactly the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that you have a right to believe in your socialism. I may attack your arguments but that does not mean I am telling you what to believe. After all, you believe that socialism would be in your interest, either ideologically or personally at the interests of individuals is what my system protects.


Not at all. There COULD be totalitarianism... but that is true of ANY model.
So, all that talk about the wants of the people being primitive holdovers, and that their values were lacking is just talk? You have no desire to reshape and remold the people into individuals that you believe would work in your society? I mean, to restructure the culture of individuals as you would desire is at the heart of any totalitarian government.


Why - thank you, I guess. It wasn't so much of a compliment considering the death part of the quote. Also, calling rhetoric fancy really isn't much of a compliment either, it is rather a denial of the merits of your claims.


And? They were murderous because of the fact they were murderous. Popular revolution is a tool. They were murderous because they had the power to be murderous. Something can be said about a system that gives power to the people and keeps checks and balances on the government.


Bread and circuses... like we have now?Like all societies have. People have always had self-interest. Appealing to it gets one elected and gets one's product bought. Opposing it... well... is an exercise in futility considering how deeply our interests are a part of us. Even ideological interests are part of our self-interest in some regard, as we are attached to them as if they were a part of us.



I've not said we SHOULD destroy it... just redirect it.
Re-direct it? Well, it is already directed.
"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."

that doesn't map very well onto human societies cross-culturally. shit, i'm not sure it works for this culture.
I said that there is a right to compensation based upon a right to one's own body. Certainly that doesn't mean that every individual must demand compensation for everything they do, but rather that every individual has a right to ask for it.

Perhaps you should reconsider your idea of "free markets".First of all,there are no free markets if you observe globally.within the EU there is a sort of pseudo free market,but that is still undermined by national legislation in most of the countries.If you meant free markets in North America(NAFTA) you might want to ask the mexicans how they feel about that...Now,i don`t know what books of economic history you have been reading,but ANY factual book about global economics will tell you that post WW2,every single capitalist democracy have taken highly protectionist measures,while proclaiming the opposite.If you are from either within the EU,or from the U.S you might want to do some research in customs barriers...

Right then.

So for the time being: "commies of the world, relax and let capitalists do what they do."

No need to start big redistribution campaigns and welfare. Afterall, no welfare might make people even angrier, and destroy capitalism even sooner! In fact, why aren't commies joining the anarcho-capitalists?

Not exactly do nothing, but do what is strategic in service of the Peoples' Revolution. For example, it is incompatable with Marxist ideology that a subsistence level, 3rd World economy should skip the stage of Capitalist development to emerge as a viable Marxist state. Such premature blossoms are doomed to failure, notwithstanding their grandiloquent, psuedo-Marxist
rhetoric. It is not in the service of Marxism to encourage such vain efforts.

Neither is it in the interests of Marxism to attempt to ameliorate the effects of Capitalism, as such attempts at amelioration, if at all successful, merely retard the inevitable process of history. Capitalism, left to its own devices and contradictions, will itself create the conditions that will lead to the Workers' state.

"The last Capitalist will be delighted to sell us the rope with which we shall hang him" -- Lenin, Would that Comrade Lenin had been German, British or American, however.

N.V. Mihn

Slavery is ownership of another person. You keep failing to grasp this concept, in order, I suspect, to 'appeal to emotion' with an emotionally charged word... no matter HOW irrelevent.
Slavery is ownership by another. To lack the right to one's own labor means that one does not own one's own labor. Such constitutes slavery. The people in the gulags were slaves, however, they were not owned by Stalin himself, or by any individual in that society.


Differences in WHAT pay? You really aren't grasping the 'no currency' idea.

No, I get the 'no currency' idea. Differences in pay are used by the capitalist system to motivate people into certain positions. Positions that they might not otherwise take. The reason why I brought that up is because your system lacks that kind of ability.

How do we account for needs? If we have ten families, we need ten houses. If we need a water tank for each house, we need ten water tanks. Not so hard.and I want the house with the pink brick and the avocado door and 2 chimneys. Please, what we would end up with would be substandard and standardized as well. The argument would end up becoming that we have greater needs and your desire for your house would become subject to whatever some centralized planner thinks is best.

If our society chooses to sponsor culture, for example, to fulfill societal desires, then our culture will pick up the slack for what they want. If they don't... the artist can still be artistic on their own time... just as many are in our current societal model. So, pretty much you will have planned careers? After all, you have claimed that society chooses the direction of the economy, and because society is the defacto employer and because of the desire to have a 100% employment rate people will have planned careers.



Actually - currently, computers are largely held BACK by self-interest.
So, the high salaries of computer engineers and computer scientists have nothing to do with the employment?


What wages? You can't keep 'in character'.
The fact that wages are a part of the current system and they are a part of the current supply and demand model. There is a high demand and a low supply so wages are high, this causes more people to go into the field of computer engineering.

Nobody. Ownership is irrelevent.
Ownership is quite relevent. If people don't own themselves then they are slaves. The labor of an individual is a possession of that individual if they are in possession of themselves.


Again with the slavery? You show so little imagination.

What is wrong with the idea of getting people to agree?
It is quite simple, I call it like I see it. What is wrong with the idea of getting people to agree is that it is for all practical purposes impossible without brainwashing or the use of force. Both of the latter being signs of a totalitarian system.

Which centralised planning? You are throwing strawmen at the model. Well, centralized planning is something that exists within communism, how else do you have an economy. Capitalist economies aren't centrally planned. Centralized planning is a part of socialism/communism. Unless you have less centralization in which case you have the problem of scale. Like most goods will actually have to be centralized, most cities don't have their own 1 of every industry and most cities wouldn't benefit from it anyway.



I don't recall mentioning Marx.
"From each according to their need from each according to their ability" was pretty much the idea behind one of your posts. I recognize that quote as Marx's and I recognized something you said as a restatement of Marx. Of course, you may be some new breed of communist. However, I recognize Marx's view as being false, as I know that up to this date the number of rich have not been on the decline, the bourgeois are not dying but rather thriving and they of course try to induct new members as well.


Actually - I watched advertising, etc until I studied business at college. From that point onwards, I criticised every advertisement I saw or read. The same for political speeches, and 'things everyone knows'.

You'd be surprised how much you are absorbing, without even knowing.
Of course one must think critically. I recognize that. I am not one of those people that buys everything they see in the ads nor do I vote based on the fanciest rhetoric. Pretty much I try to examine things and I seek whatever will help me the most.

Anyway, I have to sleep now but I will leave you with this cartoon.
Cartoon (http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm)

As for the idea that capitalism rewards amount of labour... you must not visit reality very often. Those who labour hardest are rarely those with the most of anything, in a cpaitalist society.

well said *claps*

die-hard capitalists are so often under the impression that the world is fair and is - amazingly - actually a meritocracy.

howdy guys, i live in the united kingdom, and im pro a federal europe (with several reservations). for all intents and purposes, the United Kingdom is a Socialist country. we have nationalised healthcare, military and police. i pay my taxes and i know that i can get medical care of a very high quality on the global average whenever i need it. if i lose my job i have an extensive social support system backing me up and helping me back into work. when i do have a job, i can be a member of a trade union that backs me and supports my right to earn a fair wage in a decent working environment. im probably subject to less media censorship than most other nations in the world, and my civil liberties are vehemenently defended. i have a state pension that will support me once i am to old to work. the economy is for the most part a free market, but is guided and controlled by careful interest rate and exchange rate management. The government prevents (on the most part) abuses by large corporations via the "monopolies and mergers commission", and by encouraging industries to self regulate (examples include the BBFC and the financial services authority). the legal system is relatively transparent, and i have the right of access to any data held about me anywhere in the country, or by any group operating within the country.

on the flip side, the economy is strong, trading heavily with nations all over the world, unemployment is reasanoble, and the job market pretty good. i have a private pensions, a government regulated, but privately owned mass transit system, and access to private health care and security if i see the need. small enterprise is rewarded and encouraged by government grants and loans, and where the government lacks, charitable institutions help to bridge the gap in all sectors of society. whilst my taxes arent that high (on a global level) i can walk around any city in the country and see major refurbishment and regeneration work. if i initiate my own business, or if i manage to make a lot of money in another way, i am taxed more than those that earn less to help provide for the economy and those that are less fortunate, yet i am not prevented from earning vast sums of money, or prevented from ownership of luxuries or modern conveniences.

i believe my country needs to remain with the growning european union because of the open trade borders, but i am concerned about the overly protective nature of the european parliament.

just food for thought

Darkside

howdy guys, i live in the united kingdom, and im pro a federal europe (with several reservations). for all intents and purposes, the United Kingdom is a Socialist country. we have nationalised healthcare, military and police. i pay my taxes and i know that i can get medical care of a very high quality on the global average whenever i need it. if i lose my job i have an extensive social support system backing me up and helping me back into work. when i do have a job, i can be a member of a trade union that backs me and supports my right to earn a fair wage in a decent working environment. im probably subject to less media censorship than most other nations in the world, and my civil liberties are vehemenently defended. i have a state pension that will support me once i am to old to work. the economy is for the most part a free market, but is guided and controlled by careful interest rate and exchange rate management. The government prevents (on the most part) abuses by large corporations via the "monopolies and mergers commission", and by encouraging industries to self regulate (examples include the BBFC and the financial services authority). the legal system is relatively transparent, and i have the right of access to any data held about me anywhere in the country, or by any group operating within the country.

on the flip side, the economy is strong, trading heavily with nations all over the world, unemployment is reasanoble, and the job market pretty good. i have a private pensions, a government regulated, but privately owned mass transit system, and access to private health care and security if i see the need. small enterprise is rewarded and encouraged by government grants and loans, and where the government lacks, charitable institutions help to bridge the gap in all sectors of society. whilst my taxes arent that high (on a global level) i can walk around any city in the country and see major refurbishment and regeneration work. if i initiate my own business, or if i manage to make a lot of money in another way, i am taxed more than those that earn less to help provide for the economy and those that are less fortunate, yet i am not prevented from earning vast sums of money, or prevented from ownership of luxuries or modern conveniences.

i believe my country needs to remain with the growning european union because of the open trade borders, but i am concerned about the overly protective nature of the european parliament.

just food for thought

Darkside
a very good and worthwile post! thank you :)

see, this is why many in the UK, and EU in general, do not fear socialism as it seems many, many americans do. not only have we generally not been subject to the anti-socialism-pro-capitalism propoganda that it seems americans have been indoctrinated with, but we live in very well functioning (comparitively higly) socialised countries. sure, we have our problems, as does the EU, but these are problems that are to be overcome and - like the EU - should not be abandoned just because of difficulties in the present when the idea is sound :)


go federal europe!

"The last Capitalist will be delighted to sell us the rope with which we shall hang him" -- Lenin
Exactly what I am saying. It isn't in anyone's interest to stop people from doing what they want to do, even if that is making money, regardless of what side you are on.

Unless of course you're one of those undecided ones who're not really commies and not really capitalists. And they seem to rule the world! :eek:

I've been observing this for a while now and I'm beginning to enjoy reading the pragmatic rationale rather than the sheer ideological debates that surround the question. Seriously folks, at the end of the day, we've got to go on with what we have and use for the best possible result - a bit of this, a bit of that. We've got to get on with some form of political or otherwise development - not just hiss and bark at eachother until one apparently "loses".

Some here have got to get down to the basics and disregard such emphasis on ideals. On top of this, I think we need a bit of respect between these two or so armed political camps.

a very good and worthwile post! thank you :)

see, this is why many in the UK, and EU in general, do not fear socialism as it seems many, many americans do. not only have we generally not been subject to the anti-socialism-pro-capitalism propoganda that it seems americans have been indoctrinated with, but we live in very well functioning (comparitively higly) socialised countries. sure, we have our problems, as does the EU, but these are problems that are to be overcome and - like the EU - should not be abandoned just because of difficulties in the present when the idea is sound :)


go federal europe!

Yeah it seems that some countries are incorporating socialism and capitalism very well eg. UK, Switzerland, Scandanavia as a whole, Germany, Holland, France. All have a high standard of living (notably better in those with smaller populations ie Scandinavia and Switzerland although the difference is relatively minimal).

What I am saying is that for this system to work the country must not be too big. I cannot imagine a system like this working in the USA because of their 300,000,000 population, not to mention anti-socialist attitudes. Just an idea for people to ponder...:cool:

Yeah it seems that some countries are incorporating socialism and capitalism very well eg. UK, Switzerland, Scandanavia as a whole, Germany, Holland, France. All have a high standard of living (notably better in those with smaller populations ie Scandinavia and Switzerland although the difference is relatively minimal).
I'm talking about Germany here...but these systems live on borrowed time (and money). The government is broke, and the economy seems like it's going to settle at a new natural unemployment with somewhere between 4 and 5 million people without jobs. Standard of Living or not, that's just crap.

And meanwhile, the way the government affects the economy is not working anymore. Welfare is keeping people out of work, rather than helping find new jobs ("You're on welfare? Get out of my office!"), old folks get their retirement funded out of debt the government makes (yeah, that's sustainability for you), doctors are leaving the country in their thousands to find a place they get decent pay and don't have to work 80 hour weeks, and 65% of all tax literature in the world is about the German system.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,425346,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,425036,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,423280,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399537,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,416429,00.html
...and so on and so forth.

My point is, I suppose, that it is near impossible to run a government of this size properly. All these problems are bound to occur.

"I don't place my trust poorly, at all. I trust me well enough... but I wouldn't trust you as far as I could kick you up a chimney."---Grave_n_idle

then you admit the fault of your own system

"However - if you create a scenario where mutual advantage is gained by mutual assistance, people trust each other and EARN trust, or they all suffer."---Grave_n_idle

exactly....and i don't feel like having to suffer just because some people are criminals, some are greedy, and some lazy. i am opposed to any system in which i suffer due to the failure of others.

"You create an artificial example. Why should your healthcare be lower in standard, just because someone else needs a doctor too? If that person AND you are providing some other service... why do YOU demand healthcare MORE than another?"---Grave_n_idle

just because you can somenow not grasp the simple point does not make it an artificial example. my healthcare would be lower because there is no such thing as unlimited health care. there is no way to keep giving everybody more of something. i DIDN'T demand healthcare more than that person. you obviously weren't paying attention. i demand healthcare more than the other people that aren't willing to provide as much labor to get it.

"Capitalism is very rarely a mechanism where the work of a person benefits THAT person. More often - those who see benefit, do so at a great remove from any danger of actual work."---Grave_n_idle

what you describe is true of capitalism....but is even more true of communism. if you really were against the idea, then you cannot truly favor communism

Yeh I can see that Germany is facing a few problems with the nationalised services... The UK has been having problems with some of there's too, hence the subsidisation of transport and energy industries too name two. If you look at Sweden and Switzerland as two examples. Much lower proportionate population than the UK and Germany however they have found a good equilibrium between subsidisation and nationalisation of industries. Their problems are few are far between although if anyone can enlighten me on this please do so :p So is there a correlation between a low population density and successful socialist/capitalist society. Mind you Sweden and Switzerland have very high suicide rates...

exactly....and i don't feel like having to suffer just because some people are criminals, some are greedy, and some lazy. i am opposed to any system in which i suffer due to the failure of others.

None of us feel like suffering. If we could blame someone else, we would.
To the last sentence, I say: you are happy to use the roads others built. To wear the shoes others made. To, as someone said "to stand on the shoulders of those who came before." But other people's mistakes?

This isn't meant as a serious refutation. Just a reminder. What are you saying? Does it make any sense when you take away your opponent's position? Is it something you'd be happy to have quoted to your name?

I welcome such reminders for myself, BTW. I get angry sometimes ...

Are you talking about the results of Communism, like North Korea? If so I would counter that they are not part of our society. Slavery is not the requirement of capitalism and is a breach upon anyone's rights under our system of government. Anyone who enslaves anyone else is a criminal.


And, of course, criminals do not exist in capitalist societies?

There is a thriving slave trade in our civilised capitalist countries. Why do you think that might be? Because there is MONEY to be made.


Societies have had a long, LONG history of slaveholding. The fact that capitalism would inherit that peculiar institution is really no surprise, neither is it a surprise that our system was one of the few to abolish slavery. The Romans didn't abolish slavery, the feudal lords were fine with having serfs indebted to them, the systems of the past were inept to this problem yet capitalism worked to deal with it.


In what way did 'capitalism' deal with slavery? Capitalism bought and sold people. Itw as the abolitionists - men and women of conscience - who saw a different view of how people could behave - that overturned slavery.

Capitalism was happy exploiting the resource.


Unless every individual is a willing part of your system they are already slaves.


So - prisoners are slaves? People undergoing punishment are slaves? You bandy the term 'slave' around... I wonder if you have any regard for it's meaning.

Also - the simple solution to your assertion is - build a society of the willing!


Instead society owns all men? Men are the rightful owners of themselves and it is only they who are right to choose their masters. Unless your great plan gets 100% of the vote all men who did not choose this are slaves under your system.


We have no 'rights' except those which our society affords us. There ARE no 'god given rights', there is just us.

That said - my model doesn't claim to 'own' anyone... again, you seem incapable of grasping the concept of 'no ownership'.


I would say that efficiency is one of the most necessary things in an economy. Efficient economies address the needs of those with demand most effectively and by such ultimately become better faster. It is the efficiency of capitalism that created consumer goods for the US and it is the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of communism that led their consumer goods to be a major cause of death(television fires were real big in the USSR).


It really depends on the type of economy. But a communist model doesn't have to be inefficient. You keep saying it - but it just doesn't have support.


Major problem, after all, you have just created more centralization within the economy, greater centralization means that there will be more accountability problems because of the smaller scales ability to reduce corruption. This leads to inefficiency and ultimately harms your society more than a capitalist society would do.


Where is this centralisation of which you speak? Another of your strawmen. Perhaps, it is worthy of note... smaller scale operations can actually be much LESS 'corruptible', because they are more local, more personal.


Yes, controlled economies are counter to capitalism. Capitalism stands for competition between sellers for buyers. Controlled economies cannot have that. I make the connection to totalitarianism because whether you really notice that or not you are suggesting a totalitarian regime.


I assume you live in a nation that imposes no taxation or levy on border crossings? No import duties?

You keep saying things 'suggest' a totalitarian regime. This argument is flawed. All totalitarian regimes have people in them. Does that mean that people 'suggest' totalitarian regimes?


Freedom of the press, the argument is not the elimination of propaganda but that greater freedom means that more people can hear news that counters propaganda. State control over the press means that all press tells is state interest.

Who said anything about state controlled media? Who said anything about limiting freedom of the press?

You can't keep on track, can you?


Exaggeration to show a point. I did not say that Bush necessarily would but rather show a society where personal freedom is reduced before the glory of the community.


You say 'exaggeration'... I say an 'appeal to ridicule' fallacy.


Well, without force all you have is farce. You are suggesting that man is more akin to an ant than a free mind with his own desires. If less than 100% of the people disagree without then it is force and I have never seen a populace outside of a totalitarian regime have 100% of the population agree on anything.


Again - why are we saying no to free minds or desires?


Yeah, that is best. If I want something I have the freedom to get it. It is best for society to have the freedom to do what you want with the fruits of your labor whether that is charity or strip clubs. I mean, your argument is that humanity does not deserve the freedom to choose for itself what it wants. Frankly, I think it is best to have a society that allows me to make whatever choice I want economically.


And 'economically' is a red herring, in the subject WE are debating. Please TRY to stay on topic.

When you say 'It is best for society to have the freedom to do what you want with the fruits of your labor whether that is charity or strip clubs'... you are not entirely being honest, now, are you?

Is that what is best for SOCIETY, or what is best for ONE PERSON in that society? Is it even 'best' for that one person?

I have never made the argument that humanity does not deserve the freedom to choose for itself. This is ANOTHER strawman.

I wonder where you get all the straw...


Perhaps exaggerated, however, the USSR was not known for being kind to its infantry and neither was North Vietnam. In fact, the USSR was very unkind to its generals and of course good generals being a threat to those in power were killed. America has taken great strain to make sure that Americans stay alive, perhaps that is because our free press and free society makes sure that we show such a desire.


Again - you say exaggeration, I call it an 'appeal to ridicule' fallacy. You are comparing apples to ostriches, oranges be damned. You seem to think that totalitarian regimes are equivalent to communism, and you cannot get past that block.


Well, you cannot believe that in any democracy 100% of people agree on anything, of course if you force your policies on even .001% of people you would be denying them their rights. You claim that we are morally inferior because we disagree(neanderthal desire), you claim that the wants of the people are a primitive hold over. I mean, to claim that the wants of the people are just primitive things really seems sort of like an "enlightened" dictator would say. After all, in a democratic society the wants of the people are what is important, the same with a capitalist society, capitalism responds to the wants and rights of people.


Why an 'enlightened dictator'? What if I was quoting Jesus? After all - he preached much the same selflessness, and giving/sharing nature that I am discussing.

And then - again - you start making things up.

"...in a democratic society the wants of the people are what is important..." No - the NEEDS of the people are important, and a democratic model will TRY to help with the 'wants'... but 'wants' are excess to democracy.

"...capitalism responds to the wants and rights of people..." Half right... capitalism addresses the 'wants' of the people, but it has nothing to do with the 'ights' of the people... except those 'rights' we create to deal with capitalism!


Don't get me wrong, I believe that you have a right to believe in your socialism. I may attack your arguments but that does not mean I am telling you what to believe. After all, you believe that socialism would be in your interest, either ideologically or personally at the interests of individuals is what my system protects.


Socialism would be in my interest, yes... but not JUST my interest. It would be in the interest of everyone.

You may prefer a model that helps ONLY you... I prefer one that helps everyone.


So, all that talk about the wants of the people being primitive holdovers, and that their values were lacking is just talk? You have no desire to reshape and remold the people into individuals that you believe would work in your society? I mean, to restructure the culture of individuals as you would desire is at the heart of any totalitarian government.


Again with your 'totalitarian' regime? restructuring cultures is the heart of any society. Indeed, a 'society' is the restructuring of individuals into a group.

The problem with modern capitalism, is that it takes that group for granted, and ignores the core of society... it favours those who still act like animals over those who are trying to 'be' a society.


It wasn't so much of a compliment considering the death part of the quote. Also, calling rhetoric fancy really isn't much of a compliment either, it is rather a denial of the merits of your claims.


You provide nothing tangible to question my claims... so I'll take it as a compliment.


They were murderous because they had the power to be murderous. Something can be said about a system that gives power to the people and keeps checks and balances on the government.


No - Stalin had the power to be murderous because he already WAS murderous. It was ruthlessness that put Stalin in power... and that same ruthlessness abused the power he gained.

As to the idea of 'power to the people'... that is nothing peculiar to capitalism. You appear to be confusing your models.


Like all societies have. People have always had self-interest. Appealing to it gets one elected and gets one's product bought. Opposing it... well... is an exercise in futility considering how deeply our interests are a part of us. Even ideological interests are part of our self-interest in some regard, as we are attached to them as if they were a part of us.


You appear to be claiming that an ideology can't be changed. Mine has. So have others. It happens all the time. The key is - to get the zeitgeist to be a positive force for ALL concerned... not just momentary ascendency for a faction.


Re-direct it? Well, it is already directed.
"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."

Not even your own words? How disappointing.

then you admit the fault of your own system


Not at all. It is a flaw of the people IN the system. We are flawed creatures. However, I think we CAN be better... and I think we SHOULD be.


exactly....and i don't feel like having to suffer just because some people are criminals, some are greedy, and some lazy. i am opposed to any system in which i suffer due to the failure of others.


For all I know, you are some whiney slacker, and I'm supporting your lack of efforts. Do you not see how universal this situation is?


just because you can somenow not grasp the simple point does not make it an artificial example. my healthcare would be lower because there is no such thing as unlimited health care. there is no way to keep giving everybody more of something. i DIDN'T demand healthcare more than that person. you obviously weren't paying attention. i demand healthcare more than the other people that aren't willing to provide as much labor to get it.


There doesn't NEED to be 'unlimited' healthcare... there just needs to be enough... whether capitalists or communists are at the helm.

And again - what is it about your 'labour' that is so important? Some of the people I know that really DO do hard work... backbreaking labour, long hours, are barely making minimum wage.

Maybe you are an accountant... maybe you make ten TIMES as much as one of those guys... and the biggest 'risk' in your job would be a papercut. How is that fair?


what you describe is true of capitalism....but is even more true of communism. if you really were against the idea, then you cannot truly favor communism

Not at all... all communism is not equal. Centralised, Statist communism might be guilty of the allegation you make, but a localised communo-anarchic model, for example, has no such failing.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
Because they've been brainwashed into thinking that allowing people to live their own lives is wrong. They've bought into the myth that each person is his brother's keeper. They have been taught the heinous lie that need or desire has title to something, and that if you want to keep your money you're just a greedy pig who wants all the poor to die.

That and the fact that no socialist/communist knows thing-one about economics in the first place. It's much like creationism.

Because they've been brainwashed into thinking that allowing people to live their own lives is wrong. They've bought into the myth that each person is his brother's keeper. They have been taught the heinous lie that need or desire has title to something, and that if you want to keep your money you're just a greedy pig who wants all the poor to die.

That and the fact that no socialist/communist knows thing-one about economics in the first place. It's much like creationism.
You sound like a budding objectivist. Are you acquianted with the theory?

You sound like a budding objectivist. Are you acquianted with the theory?
I'm an anarchocapitalist. I know all about socialism/communism (same thing, really. The terms were used interchangeably back in the 1800s, even by Marx and Engels). I know that no socialist has a clue as to real economics, and that they have this desire to mold the world according to their likes and dislikes. "The world would be better if only I had the power to..." is their credo.

But that means violating the rights of others. Always does. No matter--can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right? So they persist in their wrong-headed thinking that they can initiate force against others and have a civil society.

I'm an anarchocapitalist. I know all about socialism/communism (same thing, really. The terms were used interchangeably back in the 1800s, even by Marx and Engels). I know that no socialist has a clue as to real economics, and that they have this desire to mold the world according to their likes and dislikes. "The world would be better if only I had the power to..." is their credo.

But that means violating the rights of others. Always does. No matter--can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right? So they persist in their wrong-headed thinking that they can initiate force against others and have a civil society.
there is a paradox,a product of capitalism believin subculture could make it where revolutionary became bolshevik.
FLAME ME.

I'm an anarchocapitalist. I know all about socialism/communism (same thing, really. The terms were used interchangeably back in the 1800s, even by Marx and Engels)


today communism is a subset of socialist theories. but i'm sure you know all about it just like you say.


I know that no socialist has a clue as to real economics


i'm a socialist and i studied economics at the top business school in the country. but i suppose you knew that.

and that they have this desire to mold the world according to their likes and dislikes. "The world would be better if only I had the power to..." is their credo.
actually its more of a philisophical reasoning as to what the JUST distribution of wealth is.

But that means violating the rights of others.

depends if you're a believer only in negative rights or are compassionate enough to believe in positive rights as well.
its also highly subjective in other ways

today communism is a subset of socialist theories. but i'm sure you know all about it just like you say.
It's all the same, really.


I'm a socialist and i studied economics at the top business school in the country. but i suppose you knew that.
Want a cookie or a medal? You still don't know crap about economics. No socialist does or can. Why? Because you believe certain principles which are completely backward/opposite of the way humans act in reality. A read of Menger would be a good start for you.


actually its more of a philisophical reasoning as to what the JUST distribution of wealth is.
No, it's more of a way for wannabe-dictators to dream up ways to oppress people.


depends if you're a believer only in negative rights or are compassionate enough to believe in positive rights as well.
its also highly subjective in other ways
Yeah, we believers in negative rights are just so greedy, just as I said you'd go for.

You follow the socialist script perfectly. If you want to keep your property, you're greedy. If you think that taking without consent from those who have and give it to those who have not is called theft, you're heartless and cruel.

Find a new script; the one you have is rife with lies.

there is a paradox,a product of capitalism believin subculture could make it where revolutionary became bolshevik.
FLAME ME.
I'm not going to flame you; I'm going to ask you to re-write your sentence in a clear manner.

I'm not going to flame you; I'm going to ask you to re-write your sentence in a clear manner.

let's go from there ,
what is a clean manner,
to tell a capitalist what he/she is?

let's go from there ,
what is a clean manner,
to tell a capitalist what he/she is?
let's go from there what
is a clean manner to tell
a capitalist

ahh damn...too many syllables for a haiku.

So what was it you were trying to do?

So they persist in their wrong-headed thinking that they can initiate force against others and have a civil society.

so by this line of reasoning, 'a civil society' does not currently exist, what with there being a government around that can and does 'initiate force'. i think you are using terms in a non-standard way. like usual.

Because they've been brainwashed into thinking that allowing people to live their own lives is wrong. They've bought into the myth that each person is his brother's keeper. They have been taught the heinous lie that need or desire has title to something, and that if you want to keep your money you're just a greedy pig who wants all the poor to die.

That and the fact that no socialist/communist knows thing-one about economics in the first place. It's much like creationism.

Very good points, except for the being entirely wrong.

The propoganda is pro-capitalist... which means, if there is brainwashing, it is FOR capitalism, rather than counter. From birth we are bombarded with the 'what you need' and 'what you want' mentality from all sides. If you have a position on the Coke versus Pepsi debate, you are part of the hivemind, and you probably don't even know it.

There is something to be said for allowing people to live their own lives... but that doesn't HAVE to be at the expense of other people. And, the problem with the capitalist structure is that one can only buy further into the propaganda BY expending other people.

As for the assertion that each man is his brother's keeper... you have it backwards. Radical capitalism teaches that each man can go hang, that no one has ANY responsibility to anyone else... which is fine, if you don't want to exist in a society where there are roads or powerlines.

Unfortunately, this radical fringe seems to find it acceptable to bitch and whine about how harshly they are taxed, how invasive the control of government... while, at the same time, expecting to be able to drive to work each morning, and rely on the fact that (sooner or later) police will respond to an emergency call.

Communism isn't about 'beng a brother's keeper'... it is about accepting some damn responsibility.

And, another fabrication - where does this "if you want to keep your money" story come from? Most communist structures would find the assertion irrelevent. Add to which, why is it YOUR money.

But - if we assume your platform is true (a big assumption)... if you DO value your own WANTS above the NEEDS of others, you ARE placing yourself in the position of someone for whom selfishness is destructive to society.

And your parting shot... that no communist or socialist knows anything about economics, is barely worth dignifying. My university education was in Business, Finance and Economics - as well as a science - so I automatically make a lie of your argument. And, I'm sure I'm not the ONLY person who has ever proposed a communal model, WITH an education similar.


In other words - you have no argument... so you figured you'd spew venom at people who think differently to you. Well - knock yourself out.

The thing about arguments built on nothing, is that they have no substance.

let's go from there what
is a clean manner to tell
a capitalist

ahh damn...too many syllables for a haiku.

So what was it you were trying to do?
i never pretend anything.

Want a cookie or a medal? You still don't know crap about economics. No socialist does or can. Why? Because you believe certain principles which are completely backward/opposite of the way humans act in reality. A read of Menger would be a good start for you.


In other words, your vitriol was proved to be pure fiction, so you pretend you were really taking about anthropology?

I have to point out a mistake that most people think about socialism and communism:

Many people ( includng those leaders of the communist parties) tend to think that a socialist society is a society that everybody has a same amount of Material wealth. ( Equality of possession). While in books about socialism, what they want to achieve is actually equality of results, where everyone will get what they worked for.

That is the main reason why most communist states degraded in to dictatorship because they are forcing everyone to have the same among of material possessions!

It's all the same, really.



Want a cookie or a medal? You still don't know crap about economics. No socialist does or can. Why? Because you believe certain principles which are completely backward/opposite of the way humans act in reality. A read of Menger would be a good start for you.



No, it's more of a way for wannabe-dictators to dream up ways to oppress people.

you are stupid and a troll.
and i'll stick to Rawls thanks

Yeah, we believers in negative rights are just so greedy, just as I said you'd go for.

i never said that.




You follow the socialist script perfectly. If you want to keep your property, you're greedy.
or that.

If you think that taking without consent from those who have and give it to those who have not is called theft, you're heartless and cruel.
its called a social contract.
its also called compassion to believe in a positive right to a fundamental standard of living for all humans.
its also called exploitation and theft to male someone work and keep the products of their labour.

The propoganda is pro-capitalist... which means, if there is brainwashing, it is FOR capitalism, rather than counter. From birth we are bombarded with the 'what you need' and 'what you want' mentality from all sides. If you have a position on the Coke versus Pepsi debate, you are part of the hivemind, and you probably don't even know it.

quite. its simple psychology and nature-nurture stuff... your environment has a profound impact on the way you develop and behave. if that environment consistantly generates artificial wants (as the economic "law" states, there are unlimited wants but limited resources), then you'll act on that and gear yourself up for the fulfillment of those wants... which is little more than some multinational company cleverly twisting people's greed using subtle and honed psychology to make you give your hard-earned cash straight to them.

so people don't have unlimited wants, naturally. its a product of our system. as is the greed that is "inherent in human nature" (according to some)

HOWEVER, for human needs (not wants), there are not limited resources. well, there are, but there's enough to go around to provide enough food, water, clothing and shelter for all people... around the world.
tell me that keeping a family of people, with just as much right to be happy and have a basic standard of living, living in a 3rd world country and starving, without access to clean water or appropriate medication... when they could quite easily have these things (if our western excesses took a small knock)... tell me that isn't heartless and cruel.

so by this line of reasoning, 'a civil society' does not currently exist, what with there being a government around that can and does 'initiate force'. i think you are using terms in a non-standard way. like usual.
Nah, I use them in the proper way. And there aren't civil societies--there are societies ruled by a small band which initiates force in its favor.

You clearly need to learn how to properly identify things.

Very good points, except for the being entirely wrong.
No, it's entirely correct.


The propoganda is pro-capitalist... which means, if there is brainwashing, it is FOR capitalism, rather than counter. From birth we are bombarded with the 'what you need' and 'what you want' mentality from all sides. If you have a position on the Coke versus Pepsi debate, you are part of the hivemind, and you probably don't even know it.
And that's solely what capitalism is? Methinks you're conflating marketing with capitalism. In fact, I know you're conflating marketing with capitalism.


There is something to be said for allowing people to live their own lives... but that doesn't HAVE to be at the expense of other people. And, the problem with the capitalist structure is that one can only buy further into the propaganda BY expending other people.
Load. of. shit.


As for the assertion that each man is his brother's keeper... you have it backwards.
No, I have it quite forward. Socialism/communism preaches that we all must hang together, for none can hang separately. There is no singular--there is only the plural. We all must ensure that our neighbor is fed even at the expense of ourselves. Because all resources must be allocated so that no one can go without, or that they must be allocated by whatever guild or syndicate or what have you is in charge of whatever.


Radical capitalism teaches that each man can go hang, that no one has ANY responsibility to anyone else... which is fine, if you don't want to exist in a society where there are roads or powerlines.
What a wonderful load of shit. As if no one would build a road without a government to do it.

Load. Of. Shit.

And as if no one would assist others without being forced.

Load. Of. Shit.


Unfortunately, this radical fringe seems to find it acceptable to bitch and whine about how harshly they are taxed, how invasive the control of government... while, at the same time, expecting to be able to drive to work each morning, and rely on the fact that (sooner or later) police will respond to an emergency call.
And? You say that as if it somehow means something.


Communism isn't about 'beng a brother's keeper'... it is about accepting some damn responsibility.
Like hell it is! It's about spreading misery. It's about not accepting the responsibility for your own life and expecting others to do the work for you.


And, another fabrication - where does this "if you want to keep your money" story come from?
From just about every socialist I've ever encountered--and yourself. Remember your complaint above about people bitching about taxation?


Most communist structures would find the assertion irrelevent. Add to which, why is it YOUR money.
1. Most communist structures need money, despite their efforts not to.
2. I earned it.


But - if we assume your platform is true (a big assumption)... if you DO value your own WANTS above the NEEDS of others,
Of course. Everyone does. You value your want to keep your eyes over the need of someone who has a corneal problem, right? So you value your WANT over someone else's NEED.

Pity that you don't think your position through.


you ARE placing yourself in the position of someone for whom selfishness is destructive to society.
Prove it.


And your parting shot... that no communist or socialist knows anything about economics, is barely worth dignifying.
Oh please. Socialists are morons, just barely above creationists in terms of knowledge of what the hell is going on in the respective area.

Anyone who buys into the notion that initiating force against others to re-allocate or just allocate resources is proper and necessary hasn't got a leg to stand on, period. And that's what socialism is about.

So--tell me again about your worthless piece of paper that says "I don't know a damned thing about what I studied because I think that humans act differently than they really do".

you are stupid and a troll.
No, I'm intelligent and I'm of the Austrian school.

and i'll stick to Rawls thanks
ICK! What an utter tool. Veil of ignorance--as if we really do live in such a place.



i never said that.
Then what was your reason for putting "compassionate" with "positive rights"?

I'll even quote you:
depends if you're a believer only in negative rights or are compassionate enough to believe in positive rights as well.

Trying to weasel your way out of the trap you got yourself into? You clearly intimated that if you don't believe in positive rights, you're not compassionate--at least compassionate enough. So clearly, not believing in positive rights, according to you, is wrong. And clearly, not wanting to have my money taken and given to others (as would be the case in a positive rights place) would make me greedy.

So tell me how it is you DIDN'T say it?



its called a social contract.
And who would agree to it?

its also called compassion to believe in a positive right to a fundamental standard of living for all humans.
No it's not. It's called lunacy! It's called slavery.

Here's something you should read, from a REAL philosopher of ethics (Jan Narveson): http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html


its also called exploitation and theft to male someone work and keep the products of their labour.
Only if you're some sort of idiot who buys into the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.

HOWEVER, for human needs (not wants), there are not limited resources. well, there are, but there's enough to go around to provide enough food, water, clothing and shelter for all people... around the world.
tell me that keeping a family of people, with just as much right to be happy and have a basic standard of living, living in a 3rd world country and starving, without access to clean water or appropriate medication... when they could quite easily have these things (if our western excesses took a small knock)... tell me that isn't heartless and cruel.
It isn't heartless or cruel. And you must demonstrate that we have "excesses". But then you need a standard by which you will measure that "excess". And you haven't got one.

I just love watching you socialists flail around as if you know what you're talking about. All the while, you're just spewing emotive rhetoric backed only with wishes at first, and then the force of a government if you get your way. IOW: petty dictators are what the lot of you are.

In other words, your vitriol was proved to be pure fiction, so you pretend you were really taking about anthropology?
Anthropology? Carl Menger was an anthropologist? Don't think so, bubby.

Have a look:

http://www.mises.org/content/mengerbio.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger

You say you have an education in business, finance, and economics, yet you don't know who the "founder" of the Austrian School of Economics is. Methinks you're just posing.

Because some people believe that not allowing you to control your own rightfully earned assets and safeguard your own rights is a form of justice.
Assuming that "you" are a member of the rich majority. The left empowers the majority to take the rights and wealth which is rightfully theirs.

Sweden is socialist, and they are democratic.
No, Sweden is capitalist. Its people just have a strong left-wing political ethic.

It isn't heartless or cruel. And you must demonstrate that we have "excesses". But then you need a standard by which you will measure that "excess". And you haven't got one.

Hold on a minute boyo, what exactly is the logical reason for why it's justified that some people have food, water and shelter and others don't. All people should have a right to them, because the right to live is more important than the right to private property.

Only if you're some sort of idiot who buys into the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.
It is the most logical theory of value. In the market the owner just finds how high a price he can put on the goods. It has nothing to do with the actual goods being sold.

Hold on a minute boyo, what exactly is the logical reason for why it's justified that some people have food, water and shelter and others don't. All people should have a right to them, because the right to live is more important than the right to private property.

They don't have food, water, and shelter because their economies are disasterously mismanaged and plagued by a variety of governmental and environmental problems that prevent much from being done about it. You can't feed people, build them houses, or provide clean water when the government steals it or it's used by warlords to fight a civil war.

Hold on a minute boyo, what exactly is the logical reason for why it's justified that some people have food, water and shelter and others don't.
The people who have them put forth the effort.

What exactly is the logical reason for stealing from those who have and giving to those who don't?


All people should have a right to them, because the right to live is more important than the right to private property.
There is no such thing as the "right to live" insofar as you define it as having all the things necessary to live just given to you. There is the right to be free from initiatory compulsion. The right to try to get the things--not the right to have them handed to you. The right to property is the right to live free.

And if you think private property isn't as important, I suggest you keep your doors open and let others take your stuff. Until then--you're a hypocrite.

It is the most logical theory of value. In the market the owner just finds how high a price he can put on the goods. It has nothing to do with the actual goods being sold.

The owner charges the price that the market is willing to bear. Demand sets the equilibrium price and competition pushes it lower. It works, and it works the best.

The LTV is fundamentally flawed because two identical goods could have drastically different amounts of labor put in to their production. Not only that, but it is totally incapable of applying value to natural resources and land, both of which are vital factors of production. If the theory can't place value on 50% of the factors of production, it obviously has little or no use as a system of valuation.

It is the most logical theory of value.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The labor theory of value is a load of dingo's kidneys. It states that the amount of labor put into something determines its value. If I dig a hole for an hour and then fill it up again (another hour), what I did has as much value as spending those 2 hours making a pair of pants (yes, that's really what it boils down to).

I think you can see what's wrong with the LTV.


In the market the owner just finds how high a price he can put on the goods. It has nothing to do with the actual goods being sold.
Do you know anything about how prices are formed?

Here's some help for you:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap4a.asp

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec1.asp

Assuming that "you" are a member of the rich majority. The left empowers the majority to take the rights and wealth which is rightfully theirs.
And what right is that--the right to steal?


No, Sweden is capitalist. Its people just have a strong left-wing political ethic.
No, Sweden is socialist, but stripping off layers of socialism as time has gone on. I know this for a fact, since I talk to several Swedes on other boards.

They don't have food, water, and shelter because their economies are disasterously mismanaged and plagued by a variety of governmental and environmental problems that prevent much from being done about it. You can't feed people, build them houses, or provide clean water when the government steals it or it's used by warlords to fight a civil war.
I agree, saying that people should have food, shelter and water is one thing but actually doing it is another.

The people who have them put forth the effort.
So you're using the old "the poor are lazy" line? That's not realistic. It may be true for some in western countries but I'm not thinking about them. I'm more thinking of those in places like Africa who were born into such conditions and have little to know opportunity to improve.

To say that the relative lives of luxury that we live here in the west is because we're all working so much harder than Africans is laughable.

What exactly is the logical reason for stealing from those who have and giving to those who don't?
It's the most practical way to ensure that basic human rights are met.

There is no such thing as the "right to live" insofar as you define it as having all the things necessary to live just given to you. There is the right to be free from initiatory compulsion. The right to try to get the things--not the right to have them handed to you. The right to property is the right to live free.
Yes, the right to live does include a right to the materials that prevent death being given to you.

Basic necessities must be guaranteed to live in freedom. Without them it's just a permanent uphill struggle - for those who get to live, that is. I don't expect anyone to value the freedom to starve.

And if you think private property isn't as important, I suggest you keep your doors open and let others take your stuff. Until then--you're a hypocrite.
I don't see how random distribution to people who probably don't deserve my stuff will help things.

So you think that property is more important than life? Then die to protect your property, to suggest an equally ridiculous challenge.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The labor theory of value is a load of dingo's kidneys. It states that the amount of labor put into something determines its value. If I dig a hole for an hour and then fill it up again (another hour), what I did has as much value as spending those 2 hours making a pair of pants (yes, that's really what it boils down to).

I think you can see what's wrong with the LTV.
A filled up hole is of no use to anyone, while trousers are useful. Why would anyone ever do such a pointless thing and expect to make money from it?

Do you know anything about how prices are formed?

Material and labour costs, plus some arbitrary amount of money that the retailer can cheat the customer into paying.

And what right is that--the right to steal?
The right to standards of living that are not shit, the right to live free and the right not to be exploited. I'm not advocating freeloading. I'm advocating just remuneration for hard work.

No, Sweden is socialist, but stripping off layers of socialism as time has gone on. I know this for a fact, since I talk to several Swedes on other boards.
I know several Swedes in real life and I have been there. It has always had a mixed market economy. You want a socialist country, try Cuba.

I agree, saying that people should have food, shelter and water is one thing but actually doing it is another.

People don't go without these things in countries that have a properly working market and an honest government. Senegal may be a poor country, but its government is helping to expand access to clean water and encourage private investment, and that is helping to solve the issues of unemployment, debt, and poverty that are rampant throughout Africa.

The same is true of India, where the strong capitalist economy is combined with an honest government to provide more access to infrastructure and more jobs/income to its people. Prior to liberalization, India was a lot worse off and it faced many more problems due to a corrupt, state-owned economy that did nothing but produce problems.

So you're using the old "the poor are lazy" line?
Nope. Just making the statement that those who don't have, at least currently, normally didn't put forth the effort to get it.


It's [theft] the most practical way to ensure that basic human rights are met.
So you're saying that a society can truly exist when theft is enshrined as proper?


Yes, the right to live does include a right to the materials that prevent death being given to you.
And have you given away ALL of your things that aren't necessary for you to live?


Basic necessities must be guaranteed to live in freedom.
No.


I don't see how random distribution to people who probably don't deserve my stuff will help things.
It will help them live, right? They MUST be given the things to live. You said so yourself. I'm only using your own words against you, you know.


So you think that property is more important than life?
I think life = property and property = life.

A filled up hole is of no use to anyone, while trousers are useful. Why would anyone ever do such a pointless thing and expect to make money from it?
Now you understand what's wrong with the LTV.


Material and labour costs, plus some arbitrary amount of money that the retailer can cheat the customer into paying.
Oooh, you were doing so well until then. You'd realized the problem of the LTV, then you went back on it. Pity.


The right to standards of living that are not shit, the right to live free and the right not to be exploited. I'm not advocating freeloading. I'm advocating just remuneration for hard work.
No, you're advocating theft. You, like every other socialist (and I do love you socialists for proving me correct every single time), really have no clue as to economics.


I know several Swedes in real life and I have been there. It has always had a mixed market economy. You want a socialist country, try Cuba.
Sweden was socialist in the 60s-80s, but has since gradually drawn down the level. Hell, they even got rid of the government monopoly on the phone system.

Nope. Just making the statement that those who don't have, at least currently, normally didn't put forth the effort to get it.

Which is obviously not true in the case of Africa.

So you're saying that a society can truly exist when theft is enshrined as proper?
If you want to consider it theft, then yes. History is on my side.

And have you given away ALL of your things that aren't necessary for you to live?
What would be the purpose of that? See my above point about leaving my door open.

However, I do give away about 10% of my income to charities at work at home and abroad. I volunteer Saturdays at Oxfam. Happy?

But I don't think of that as socialist. Socialism is not legislated/politicised charity, it is a way to run an economy.

No.
I don't see how spending every waking moment struggling to stay alive is freedom.

It will help them live, right? They MUST be given the things to live. You said so yourself. I'm only using your own words against you, you know.
My words can never be used against me becaue I do not contradict myself. You are merely misunderstanding me. The people here are living pretty well without needing my stuff. They, and I are living well thanks to "socialist" initiatives by the government such as free water and public transport. Randomly giving stuff away isn't going to make a difference.

I think life = property and property = life.
Thus, all people need property to live. Not just the entrenched and privileged rich, not just the hard workers, but all people.

No, you're advocating theft. You, like every other socialist (and I do love you socialists for proving me correct every single time), really have no clue as to economics.
You really don't understand what theft is.

Sweden was socialist in the 60s-80s, but has since gradually drawn down the level. Hell, they even got rid of the government monopoly on the phone system.
And all the while they had a market economy.

But whether Sweden is socialist or not is irrelevant. You clearly don't approve of their system, and yet, it has delivered to their people the highest standards of living in the world.

The same is true of India, where the strong capitalist economy is combined with an honest government to provide more access to infrastructure and more jobs/income to its people. Prior to liberalization, India was a lot worse off and it faced many more problems due to a corrupt, state-owned economy that did nothing but produce problems.
Definitely. I support market liberalisation in third world countries like Nigeria. No economic system can be applied just anywhere and work. Socialism is the natural evolution from capitalism, but one must obviously have developed capitalism before attempting socialism.

(Though calling the government in India honest is a stretch. There's still a hell of a lot of corruption there.)

Definitely. I support market liberalisation in third world countries like Nigeria. No economic system can be applied just anywhere and work. Socialism is the natural evolution from capitalism, but one must obviously have developed capitalism before attempting socialism.

Socialism is possible, but the world still has a long way to go before economically and politically before it can be really implemented in its theoretical form. It'll take time, but I do think some kind of socialism will exist as part of a giant safety net in the future.

(Though calling the government in India honest is a stretch. There's still a hell of a lot of corruption there.)

They're working on it; it takes a long time to root out 50 or more years of post-colonial corruption and God knows how much from before 1947. The main virtue of India is the fact that it preserves civil rights and democratic elections fairly well, something that can't be said of its corrupt neighbors like China or Myanmar.

Which is obviously not true in the case of Africa.
I said "normally". Africa is an example of post-imperialist socialism.


If you want to consider it theft, then yes. History is on my side.
No, it's on mine, actually. The elevation of theft to the norm has infantalized many and frayed social interaction substantially.


What would be the purpose of that?
The purpose of giving away your things so that others can live? Oh, I dunno---SO THAT OTHERS CAN LIVE?


However, I do give away about 10% of my income to charities at work at home and abroad. I volunteer Saturdays at Oxfam. Happy?
Nope. You need to do more. You still have more than you need.


But I don't think of that as socialist. Socialism is not legislated/politicised charity, it is a way to run an economy.
If by "run" you mean "destroy", then you're correct. But socialism is legislated handouts and legalized theft.


I don't see how spending every waking moment struggling to stay alive is freedom.
I don't see how it isn't. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the non-standard definition of "freedom" you are currently utilizing.


My words can never be used against me becaue I do not contradict myself.
Your words and deeds do in fact contradict. You advocate that all must have a certain standard of living. Yet you haven't given away all that isn't necessary for you to live. That makes you a hypocrite.


You are merely misunderstanding me. The people here are living pretty well without needing my stuff. They, and I are living well thanks to "socialist" initiatives by the government such as free water and public transport. Randomly giving stuff away isn't going to make a difference.
Cop-out. Blatant rationalization.


Thus, all people need property to live. Not just the entrenched and privileged rich, not just the hard workers, but all people.
And all people do have property: themselves.


You really don't understand what theft is.
On the contrary: it is you who has no concept of theft. You believe theft is something called "profit".


And all the while they had a market economy.
Really? So all of the government monopolies were a market economy? Wow. I'll have to let all of my Swedish friends know.


But whether Sweden is socialist or not is irrelevant. You clearly don't approve of their system, and yet, it has delivered to their people the highest standards of living in the world.
You haven't spoken to any Swedes, have you?

Communism and it's step cousin socialism are designed to, and DO enslave the masses. Capitalism allows the poorest to become the richest - and vice versa depending on the creativeness, intelligence, diligence and the work ethic of the individual.

I defy you to show me an example that occured in the last fifty years where someone from the upper strata of society ended up in the lowest strata of society. Your logic about the so-called merits of capitalism implies that the people who have power in the system deserve to have that wealth and influence solely because they have have attained it, regardless of how many people they stepped on to attain or maintain it.

Can you unequivocally say that a system that promotes a small number of people to a position where they have more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, while many millions of others live from paycheck to paycheck, only a few hundred dollars away from a foreclosed mortgage and being forced out on the streets is fair? How can it be just that Paris Hilton will inherit billions of dollars from her parents? She will never have to work a day in her life, or ever know what real sacrifice is, while she lives off of money that was attained by the upward redistribution of wealth sanctioned in the so-called free market. While this happens, 46 million Americans live without health insurances, the inner cities are spiralling into crime filled poverty cesspools, poverty is increasing among all racial and ethnic groups in America, and wages have been steadily declining since the mid 1970s.

How can this be just? How can all of your hollow rhetoric about the suppossed mertiocratic nature of capitalism justify this excess while millions live in squalor? Can you prove that even a significant portion of people who fail in America fail because they lack the merit to live a decent life?

I am a socialist because i believe that any society that allows the top 5 percent of its citizenry to own 80 percent of all wealth in it is inherently evil, and must be changed. The totalitarian excess of a few people who have been called "socialists" does not warrant the blind acceptance of a system that if left unchecked will degenerate into the same totalitarian system that existed in the Soviet Union.

A simple and true reason to why some are socialist: Because they care about others.

I defy you to show me an example that occured in the last fifty years where someone from the upper strata of society ended up in the lowest strata of society.
Say---didn't Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC_Hammer) have to declare bankruptcy? And didn't Dustin Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dustin_Diamond) make a lot of money, but had shitty business people helping him so that now he's hawking $15 t-shirts to help him save his house?


Your logic about the so-called merits of capitalism implies that the people who have power in the system deserve to have that wealth and influence solely because they have have attained it, regardless of how many people they stepped on to attain or maintain it.
You're confusing mercantilism/interventionism with capitalism. It's a common mistake among socialists/communists.


Can you unequivocally say that a system that promotes a small number of people to a position where they have more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, while many millions of others live from paycheck to paycheck, only a few hundred dollars away from a foreclosed mortgage and being forced out on the streets?
It's totally fair. Why? Because the alternative requires the initiation of force against individuals. That is immoral.


How can it be just that Paris Hilton will inherit billions of dollars from her parents?
How can it be just that parents give their children presents on giftmas and on birthdays? Same. Fucking. Thing.

But I've yet to see a communist/socialist ever grasp that. Ever.

A simple and true reason to why some are socialist: Because they care about others.
So anyone who isn't doesn't care about others? You'll need to justify that, if that is what you're saying.

So anyone who isn't doesn't care about others? You'll need to justify that, if that is what you're saying.

People care about others, thought remember that they place their general well being and themselves above everything else. It's a natural human tendency to do that.

Oh, no. All i'm saying is a "true socialist", meaning someone who beleives in the socialist practices of letting everyone have oppertunities in life and such, and is not a socialist purely for their own gain, is a socialist because he cares about others. Others can call themselves socialists, but they are not truely.

Oh, no. All i'm saying is a "true socialist", meaning someone who beleives in the socialist practices of letting everyone have oppertunities in life and such, and is not a socialist purely for their own gain, is a socialist because he cares about others. Others can call themselves socialists, but they are not truely.

Not sure if you were replying to mine, but I wasn't speaking of socialists are greedy or selfish in any way, in fact the opposite. I am simply speaking of why many people can care but still do not have to adhere to the left wing.

I like that in communism everyone would make the same wage so people would take jobs because they enjoyed them not just cuz they paid well. DISCLAIMER- that might not actually happen. But just imagine that your doctor REALLY wanted to heal you, your teacher LOVES kids etc.

I like that in communism everyone would make the same wage so people would take jobs because they enjoyed them not just cuz they paid well. DISCLAIMER- that might not actually happen. But just imagine that your doctor REALLY wanted to heal you, your teacher LOVES kids etc.

It will never happen - no one would want to be a doctor, nobody would want any job that requires any long learning or gruesome effects. Why be a doctor and have to go to school for ages when you could simply just work at a fast food joint? You'll get paid the same, and it's not hard at all.

It will never happen - no one would want to be a doctor, nobody would want any job that requires any long learning or gruesome effects. Why be a doctor and have to go to school for ages when you could simply just work at a fast food joint? You'll get paid the same, and it's not hard at all.

Right. This is why fun jobs that are easy don't pay very well. The people who choose them do so because there's a very low barrier to entry and the fun is a significant form on non-monetary compensation.

As such, lots of people want those jobs.

It will never happen - no one would want to be a doctor, nobody would want any job that requires any long learning or gruesome effects. Why be a doctor and have to go to school for ages when you could simply just work at a fast food joint? You'll get paid the same, and it's not hard at all.
Because you will feel sooo unfulfilled. If the biggest thing on my mind is 'have these burgers been sitting on the grill for more than 30 minutes?' I would want to die because its such a boring meaningless existance. I'm sure there are others like me too, and we would leave all the fast food jobs for people like you.

People care about others, thought remember that they place their general well being and themselves above everything else. It's a natural human tendency to do that.
Of course: if you don't take care of yourself, it's quite difficult to take care of others with any real efficacy or efficiency.

Oh, no. All i'm saying is a "true socialist", meaning someone who beleives in the socialist practices of letting everyone have oppertunities in life and such, and is not a socialist purely for their own gain, is a socialist because he cares about others. Others can call themselves socialists, but they are not truely.
Smacks of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Okay, BAAWAKnights, if you wanna play hardball, you're on.

Say---didn't Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC_Hammer) have to declare bankruptcy? And didn't Dustin Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dustin_Diamond) make a lot of money, but had shitty business people helping him so that now he's hawking $15 t-shirts to help him save his house?

First of all, in the words of Chris Rock, "I'm not talking about rich, i'm talking about wealthy." MC Hammer or Dustin Diamond may have been rich, but the man who signed their checks from the TV network or the record label had more money than MC could ever think of having. Those are the people i'm pointing fingers at. Secondly, MC Hammer isn't living on the streets or doing a regular 9-5 job for close to minimum wage.

You're confusing mercantilism/interventionism with capitalism. It's a common mistake among socialists/communists.

You're making the same mistake, then. The system that exists in the world that is commonly known as capitalism encourages an upward redistribution of income. All profits that corporations make are the result of consumers buying their goods/services. The average consumer does not obtain the benefit of the profit, it goes to line the pockets of wealthy shareholders, who invest more money in order to obtain more dividends.

It's totally fair. Why? Because the alternative requires the initiation of force against individuals. That is immoral.

Here we go. How come defenders of the status quo always go straight for the violent revolutions of the past and fear monger it as an example? The preservation of the status quo requires the initiation of force by the state. The state provides subsidies to corporations that are taken from the taxes of ordinary citizens. If someone can't afford to pay their mortgage, they get thrown out on the street. The real question we should be asking is not whether or not force is nescesary or right, but rather how and when should force be used.

How can it be just that parents give their children presents on giftmas and on birthdays? Same. Fucking. Thing.

But I've yet to see a communist/socialist ever grasp that. Ever.

Ad Hominem attacks are illogical and are a sign of desperation. The fairness question of capitalism still remains of unanswered, so i will pose it again. Can you unequivocally say that a system that promotes a small number of people to a position where they have more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, while many millions of others live from paycheck to paycheck, only a few hundred dollars away from a foreclosed mortgage and being forced out on the streets is fair?

It will never happen - no one would want to be a doctor, nobody would want any job that requires any long learning or gruesome effects. Why be a doctor and have to go to school for ages when you could simply just work at a fast food joint? You'll get paid the same, and it's not hard at all.

Few socialists argue about that kind of forced egalitarianism that you misrepresent to be the views of all socialists. I have met several doctors who care deeply about their profession and do not do it for the money. However, i have also met doctors who care nothing for their profession and only do it because the money is good. I would not hesitate to prefer the former over the latter.

Mainstream economics assume that all people are fundamentally rational and will always act in self interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. This point of view of the world denies the human capacities for emotion. I am not a socialist because of any material incentive, i am a socialist because of my passion for equality and my belief that i might be able to change the world for the better. Some people want nothing more than to get married and have children, a facet of our society that has no material incentive provided for it to happen.

If the world were really as rational as economists believe, everyone would be studying to be professionals or businessmen, no one would make art or music for its own sake, and no one would have children. I don't see that world anywhere, so the economists must be at least somewhat wrong.

Few socialists argue about that kind of forced egalitarianism that you misrepresent to be the views of all socialists. I have met several doctors who care deeply about their profession and do not do it for the money. However, i have also met doctors who care nothing for their profession and only do it because the money is good. I would not hesitate to prefer the former over the latter.

Mainstream economics assume that all people are fundamentally rational and will always act in self interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. This point of view of the world denies the human capacities for emotion. I am not a socialist because of any material incentive, i am a socialist because of my passion for equality and my belief that i might be able to change the world for the better. Some people want nothing more than to get married and have children, a facet of our society that has no material incentive provided for it to happen.

If the world were really as rational as economists believe, everyone would be studying to be professionals or businessmen, no one would make art or music for its own sake, and no one would have children. I don't see that world anywhere, so the economists must be at least somewhat wrong.
Thats cool Trotskylvania. What is your job? Where do your ideas come from? I like the sound of them.

Okay, BAAWAKnights, if you wanna play hardball, you're on.
Sure.


First of all, in the words of Chris Rock, "I'm not talking about rich, i'm talking about wealthy." MC Hammer or Dustin Diamond may have been rich, but the man who signed their checks from the TV network or the record label had more money than MC could ever think of having.
Irrelevant. Next bullshit objection?


Those are the people i'm pointing fingers at. Secondly, MC Hammer isn't living on the streets or doing a regular 9-5 job for close to minimum wage.
Irrelevant. Next bullshit objection?



You're making the same mistake, then. The system that exists in the world that is commonly known as capitalism
...isn't. It's mercantilism/interventionism. Please stop conflating them.


encourages an upward redistribution of income. All profits that corporations make are the result of consumers buying their goods/services. The average consumer does not obtain the benefit of the profit,
Really? So prices on many things don't go down as a result of investing some of the profit into the company?

Che'yeah right. Tell me another lie.


Here we go.
With?


How come defenders of the status quo
I don't defend the status quo.


always go straight for the violent revolutions of the past and fear monger it as an example.
Ummmm....you're not reading what I'm writing.


The preservation of the status quo requires the initiation of force by the state.
I'M AN ANARCHOCAPITALIST.


Ad Hominem attacks
I never ad hom'd you. Lying about your opponent is a sign of desperation.


The fairness question of capitalism still remains of unanswered,
Liar. I answered it.

You lied. You lost. That's the end.

Mainstream economics assume that all people are fundamentally rational and will always act in self interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. This point of view of the world denies the human capacities for emotion.
Wrong. It incorporates it. You have this false dichotomy of rational/emotional. Emotions stem from causes, and aren't necessarily irrational by themselves.


I am not a socialist because of any material incentive, i am a socialist because of my passion for equality and my belief that i might be able to change the world for the better.
You can't change the world for the better via theft.

Okay, BAAWAKnight, if you could so kindly point out where you answered it, we can stop the name calling and have an intellectual discussion about it.

I would really appreciate it if you didn't quote half sentences or half arguments. It pulls them out of context.

I would love to have a debate with you over anarcho-capitalism, but i'm here defending my beliefs from the critiques of others.

Thats cool Trotskylvania. What is your job? Where do your ideas come from? I like the sound of them.

Currently, i am a high school student who has an addiction to non-elitist intellectualism. I read a lot, and i try to absorb a lot of different ideas. My main persuasion is that of a ParEcon socialist, so many of my arguments stem from that. Head to the wikipedia page about Participatory Economics to learn more.

Of course it is!!!! :rolleyes:

Communism advocates government ownership of the means of production,socialism merely advocates government control of the means of production.



So that would be like a Democracy perhaps, where the state and the judiciary ultimately claim the right to control what they see fit but generally choose to leave things alone unless popular pressure is brought to bear?

Democracies regulate, tax or subsidise and otherwise exercise control over the means of production all the time.

Wrong. It incorporates it. You have this false dichotomy of rational/emotional. Emotions stem from causes, and aren't necessarily irrational by themselves.

However, emotions tend to override what is percieved as self interest. My love of music overrides my self interest to focus on material matters.

You can't change the world for the better via theft.

When did socialism become theft? How does creating a society that is not bound by class distinctions and is marked by participatory democracy in both political and economic institutions become theft?
The answer is that it doesn't. Before you fling labels at people, define them first. How do you define theft?

The average consumer does not obtain the benefit of the profit
But he does derive benefit from his transaction with the corporation. Otherwise he wouldn't have consumed their product.

Can you unequivocally say that a system that promotes a small number of people to a position where they have more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, while many millions of others live from paycheck to paycheck, only a few hundred dollars away from a foreclosed mortgage and being forced out on the streets is fair?
I'm tempted to ask you to define fairness.

But what if my answer is yes?

Mainstream economics assume that all people are fundamentally rational and will always act in self interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. This point of view of the world denies the human capacities for emotion. I am not a socialist because of any material incentive, i am a socialist because of my passion for equality and my belief that i might be able to change the world for the better. Some people want nothing more than to get married and have children, a facet of our society that has no material incentive provided for it to happen.

If the world were really as rational as economists believe, everyone would be studying to be professionals or businessmen, no one would make art or music for its own sake, and no one would have children. I don't see that world anywhere, so the economists must be at least somewhat wrong.
That's a gross misrepresentation of rational behaviour.

If I value the creation of music, I derive benefit from creating it. That's non-monetary, but it's still compensation. No one's claiming the only benefit is material benefit.

Furthermore, I am fundementally rational, and I want an economic system that treats me as such. Which is why I examine data before drawing conclusions. I favour capitalism because capitalism is better than socialism at helping the poor. Under capitalism, there are fewer poor people (and by poor, I mean people who struggle to survive day to day).

However, emotions tend to override what is percieved as self interest. My love of music overrides my self interest to focus on material matters.

What's wrong with that? You derive benefit from music, so you choose it over material concerns from which you apparently derive less benefit. That's perfectly rational behaviour.

By your reasoning, no capitalist should ever give to charity.

What's wrong with that? You derive benefit from music, so you choose it over material concerns from which you apparently derive less benefit. That's perfectly rational behaviour.

By your reasoning, no capitalist should ever give to charity.
hmm, that's not what I think he meant. I think he meant that according to economics people work to make money, not work to improve the lives of others.

Okay, BAAWAKnight, if you could so kindly point out where you answered it,
You responded to it.


we can stop the name calling and have an intellectual discussion about it.
There hasn't been any name calling.


I would really appreciate it if you didn't quote half sentences or half arguments. It pulls them out of context.
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't whine.


I would love to have a debate with you over anarcho-capitalism, but i'm here defending my beliefs from the critiques of others.
That's nice, but you defending your beliefs is no different from xer apologists defending their silly death-cult: it is futile.

But he does derive benefit from his transaction with the corporation. Otherwise he wouldn't have consumed their product.

What if that product was cigarettes? How does someone benefit from consuming cigarettes. Assuming that he is a regular smoker, the only benefit he gains is that he can hold of nicotine cravings a little longer. The shareholders benefit proportionally much more.

I'm tempted to ask you to define fairness.

But what if my answer is yes?

If your answer is yes, than that is your opinion. I define fairness in society as a society that allows all people the opportunities to benefit or not benefit equally from everything that society has to offer. Capitalism is not fair because the power the extraordinary wealth commands allows a small number of people to benefit disproportionately from society.


That's a gross misrepresentation of rational behaviour.

If I value the creation of music, I derive benefit from creating it. That's non-monetary, but it's still compensation. No one's claiming the only benefit is material benefit.

The rational behavior model still doesn't stand under close scrutiny. Stay at home moms are not materially compensated for the work they do with their children that is vital to the functioning of society, but they do it anyway. My argument is that rational behavior models are skewed in favor of economic benefits rather than other benefits. You will have to pardon my hyperbole.

Furthermore, I am fundementally rational, and I want an economic system that treats me as such. Which is why I examine data before drawing conclusions. I favour capitalism because capitalism is better than socialism at helping the poor. Under capitalism, there are fewer poor people (and by poor, I mean people who struggle to survive day to day).

Then we have to completely different rational models. Capitalism has not been kind to me or my family, so my rational model for the world is different than yours. Statistics have shown that the number of people living in poverty in the US is steadily increasing.

Furthermore, the capitalist economic system is built on a myth of classlessness, and continues to survive only because of a perpetual under class of people. {Sheila Collins, Ph.D., Political Science, Let Them Eat Ketchup! The Politics of Poverty and Inequality 1996 Monthly Review Foundation.}

However, emotions tend to override what is percieved as self interest.
Perceived by whom? It's your choice, isn't it?


When did socialism become theft?
When it was thought up.


How does creating a society that is not bound by class distinctions
Such things are utterly arbitrary.


and is marked by participatory democracy in both political and economic institutions become theft?
It's marked by redistribution of resources via vote, committe, or the like. That's theft.

If you don't like it, I suggest you do a lot more research, especially into the definition of theft.

hmm, that's not what I think he meant. I think he meant that according to economics people work to make money, not work to improve the lives of others.
He has a very warped idea of what economics is about. But then--all socialists do.

I am open to many points of view and beliefs, but you seem to shut out anything that doesn't fit your narrow view frame. I was willing to engage in an intellectual debate, but i see now that it is futile to do so. Good Day.

What if that product was cigarettes? How does someone benefit from consuming cigarettes.
The taste?


If your answer is yes, than that is your opinion. I define fairness in society as a society that allows all people the opportunities to benefit or not benefit equally from everything that society has to offer. Capitalism is not fair because the power the extraordinary wealth commands allows a small number of people to benefit disproportionately from society.
Ah, so we must bring everyone down. Gotcha.



The rational behavior model still doesn't stand under close scrutiny. Stay at home moms are not materially compensated for the work they do with their children that is vital to the functioning of society, but they do it anyway.
And?


My argument is that rational behavior models are skewed in favor of economic benefits rather than other benefits. You will have to pardon my hyperbole.
No, your argument is that your misrepresentation of rational behavior models are such.



Then we have to completely different rational models. Capitalism has not been kind to me or my family, so my rational model for the world is different than yours. Statistics have shown that the number of people living in poverty in the US is steadily increasing.
87% of all statistics on the internet are made up.

And you clearly mean mercantilism hasn't been kind to your family.

I suggest you stop reading whatever Marxist shit you have been. Just muddies your brain with nonsense.

He has a very warped idea of what economics is about. But then--all socialists do.

Is my view of economics empircally any more warped than yours? You stated that you are an anarcho capitalist. Can you name any empirical example of a truly anarcho capitalist systems that has ever occured in the world? I can't name one, but on the other hand i cannot name any functioning democratic socialist system that was ever able to be established. Your belief in anarcho-capitalism is no more warped than my belief in democratic socialism.

hmm, that's not what I think he meant. I think he meant that according to economics people work to make money, not work to improve the lives of others.

People behave in ways that they like. If you want to earn more money, you'll try to earn more money. If you want to make music, you'll try to make music. This is all rational behaviour.

He has a very warped idea of what economics is about. But then--all socialists do.
Well, what did you learn in econ class? My friend taught me a little bit and had me read a chapter of a book on economics, I will admit it isn't much but this is your chance to win a person over. Tell me what I was taught wrong and you might win this little debate.

I am open to many points of view and beliefs, but you seem to shut out anything that doesn't fit your narrow view frame. I was willing to engage in an intellectual debate,
Aha. So you're running. Gotcha.

You shut out anything which annihilates your Marxist dogma. You run from reality. I see that you're not willing to engage in an intellectual debate, and that you are ill-equipped to even discuss your own position.

Have a nice life in ignorance.

Well, what did you learn in econ class?
Mostly useless crap, like trying to mathematically model human behavior.


My friend taught me a little bit and had me read a chapter of a book on economics, I will admit it isn't much but this is your chance to win a person over. Tell me what I was taught wrong and you might win this little debate.
Are you looking for a good intro to economics? Economics for Real People (http://www.mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf) by Gene Callahan (PDF).

87% of all statistics on the internet are made up.

And you clearly mean mercantilism hasn't been kind to your family.

I suggest you stop reading whatever Marxist shit you have been. Just muddies your brain with nonsense.

I hope you didn't get that statistic off of the internet too. Saying that 87% of internet statistics are wrong doesn't mean that mine is wrong too. I got mine from a AP syndicated newpaper article.

Though i have read some of Marx's works, i am not a Marxist, but it is clear to me that he had many relevant ideas. I would suggest taking your Ludwig von Mise or whoever you've been reading with a grain of salt too.

Is my view of economics empircally any more warped than yours?
Yes.

You stated that you are an anarcho capitalist. Can you name any empirical example of a truly anarcho capitalist systems that has ever occured in the world?
Saga-period Iceland and the "wild west" of the US.

However, I fail to see what that has to do with anything, other than being an attempt at an ad hominem fallacy on your part.

I hope you didn't get that statistic off of the internet too.
It's called "humor".


Saying that 87% of internet statistics are wrong doesn't mean that mine is wrong too. I got mine from a AP syndicated newpaper article.
Doesn't really mean anything.


Though i have read some of Marx's works, i am not a Marxist,
You sound like one.


but it is clear to me that he had many relevant ideas. I would suggest taking your Ludwig von Mise or whoever you've been reading with a grain of salt too.
I would suggest that you actually read the works of Mises and Rothbard. Would clear the nonsense from your mind, especially thinking that Marx had any relevant ideas. Marx is merely Hegel stripped of the supernatural crap.

because they are idiots with no vision or ambition:upyours:

Yes.


Saga-period Iceland and the "wild west" of the US.

However, I fail to see what that has to do with anything, other than being an attempt at an ad hominem fallacy on your part.

You need to qualify why i am somehow more warped than you are. To not do so would be elitist.

By Saga period Iceland, do you refer to the oral tales passed down by Norse traders? Just clarification. As for the the "Wild West" period, many things that you would find repulsive were also legal because of the lack of law and order (sex slavery, prostitution, racketeering, mini-corporate police states microcosms)

I'm going to deal with these out of order. You'll see why.

I define fairness in society as a society that allows all people the opportunities to benefit or not benefit equally from everything that society has to offer. Capitalism is not fair because the power the extraordinary wealth commands allows a small number of people to benefit disproportionately from society.
That's an interesting defintion. You've defined inequality as bad. Regardless of how well off the people on the lowest rung of the ladder might be, that there is a lowest rung is something you see as a huge negative.

I can't disagree more.

What if that product was cigarettes? How does someone benefit from consuming cigarettes. Assuming that he is a regular smoker, the only benefit he gains is that he can hold of nicotine cravings a little longer. The shareholders benefit proportionally much more.
But if the consumer benefits at all, he's make a good, rational decision.

The rational behavior model still doesn't stand under close scrutiny. Stay at home moms are not materially compensated for the work they do with their children that is vital to the functioning of society, but they do it anyway. My argument is that rational behavior models are skewed in favor of economic benefits rather than other benefits. You will have to pardon my hyperbole.
But that's silly. That only happens if you presuppose that the models aren't designed to consider non-monetary benefits.

If a mother decides to raise her kids at the cost of advancing her career (or having one at all), that happens because she values raising her kids herself more than she does advancing her career. Again, perfectly rational behaviour.

Statistics have shown that the number of people living in poverty in the US is steadily increasing.
What statistics? Traditional measures of poverty are relative - anyone earning less than half the mean (or median) counts as poor. But that tells me nothing at all about their lives, and whether they can afford the necessities of life. If they can, then I don't count them as poor. And capitalism has significantly reduced the cost of those necessities of life, in addition to spreading a lot of wealth around.

Then we have to completely different rational models. Capitalism has not been kind to me or my family, so my rational model for the world is different than yours.
So you want a system that benefits you and yours, specifically? Doesn't that make you the selfish one?

I'm not doing especially well under capitalism - hell, I work for a charity - but capitalism has the best outcomes.

Furthermore, the capitalist economic system is built on a myth of classlessness, and continues to survive only because of a perpetual under class of people. {Sheila Collins, Ph.D., Political Science, Let Them Eat Ketchup! The Politics of Poverty and Inequality 1996 Monthly Review Foundation.}
So there are classes. Big deal. There's also some mobility between them.

And I don't define inequality as a bad thing.

I'm not trying to say that capitalism is the cause of all the world's evil. Just because it might be rational to ignore your career to take care of your children doesn't mean that it is fair or just.

I don't disagree that capitalism has had its beneifts. However, those benefits are becoming increasingly skewed in the favor of the few. We can't just use the past benefits of capitalism to derail efforts in the search for a better way. I am a socialist because i believe that it is a better way, just as others feel that anarchism, or social democracy are the better way.

You need to qualify why i am somehow more warped than you are.
No. You asked me a yes/no question. I answered it properly.


By Saga period Iceland, do you refer to the oral tales passed down by Norse traders?
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

http://phwibbles.com/sagas/

That should help you with your research.


As for the the "Wild West" period, many things that you would find repulsive were also legal because of the lack of law and order (sex slavery, prostitution, racketeering, mini-corporate police states microcosms)
I don't find prostitution repulsive, and quite frankly, most of the other stuff didn't really arrive until the government law enforcement agents came.

Here's some more research for you: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

I'm not trying to say that capitalism is the cause of all the world's evil. Just because it might be rational to ignore your career to take care of your children doesn't mean that it is fair or just.
On what planet?

Would it not be your decision?

Thus, how could it NOT be fair or just, since you made the decision (assuming you are free from initiatory compulsion)?

The only way it's not fair or just is if someone made the choice for you, say--in a socialist system.


I don't disagree that capitalism has had its beneifts. However, those benefits are becoming increasingly skewed in the favor of the few.
Again with the conflation of capitalism and mercantilism/interventionism.

Ok, BAAWAKnights, i'll read yours if you agree to read mine.

http://www.parecon.org/lookingforward/toc.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/capitalism_economy.htm

Try reading the works of Michael Harrington if you can find them.

Ok, BAAWAKnights, i'll read yours if you agree to read mine.
I've read a bit about your nonsense before, but I'll have a look. Just for you.

However, this is not a "I'll do this if you do that" sorta thing. Socialism is garbage, no matter how much you try to polish the turd or gussy it up with verbosity.

In fact, here's a lie right in the prologue:

The Heilbronian argument goes that since Soviet, Chinese, and Eastern European leaders all called their countries "Socialist," and since Henry Kissinger called them "socialist," and since the New York Times called them "socialist," and since Heilbroner and nearly all Western Marxists called them "socialist," these countries must have had economies embodying socialist principles. The crises of these economies therefore indicate that socialist values the only alternative to capitalist values - are repudiated.

This would ring true if the label "socialist" applied, but Soviet, Chinese, and Eastern European leaders lied when they called their economies socialist.

No, they didn't lie, Mr. No True Scotsman Fallacy user. They were socialist/communist, through and through. No amount of denying it will help.

That's one of the most disasterous oversimplifications of the Free Market proponents. Ownership of wealth does not lead to its investment, it's only a prerequisite. It's like saying that firefighters all tend to be physically fit and decent cooks, so if we push phys ed. and home ec. for boys we'll get more fire-fighters.

Demand creates investment. When people see a demand for a service they will beg, borrow, or steal to raise the capital needed to meet it. If they don't, then it doesn't matter how much money they have. The only thing they'll invest it in is a savings account and a mutual fund. Technically an investment, but it serves to take more money out of the system than it puts in.


Right, the wealthy just stuff it in mattresses! I forgot that part. :rolleyes:

I suspect you know that this is rubbish, really. Which makes me wonder why you say it. Currency that is not in circulation creates an imbalance... it is still legal, but it is contained, thus, unusable.

Just what do you think the wealthy do with their money???

As to your second link:

American understanding of capitalism today is in many ways very different from the teachings of the man [Adam Smith] who we consider to be the father of the very economic ideology which this country espouses to champion.

Who is this "we"? Certainly not me or anyone else who knows that Smith took a good idea and then wrapped nearly every economic fallacy he could around it.

The Adam Smith Myth (http://www.mises.org/story/2012)

Just because you are a Democrat, the union's that protect workers right has polticial incantations which are very much like communist. Yet, what they are doing is to better the nations by protecting workers rights, aquireing fair wages and assuring that once a worker reaches retirement age he is able to afford to retire.
FDR the President of the U.S. during WW11 enacted Social Security for this reason, and Unions in the U.S. have worked to enact Social programs for the American Worker, Health Insurance, Workmans Comp, Disablity Insurance, and Job Protection. Meaning you can't be fired from a job, for no reason or because your old.

$0.02++

People embrace socialism/communism because governments have a lock on compassion. Companies cannot be compassionate, the line goes, as they offer human sacrifices to the bottom line, and rich individuals who are compassionate are only trying to buy their way out of hell. The only entities capable of compassion are not-rich people, and government, which wrings compassion (in the form of taxes) from the hands of the rich/corporations like blood from so many stones.

Hayek has an interesting take (http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf) on socialism and compassion.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people.Has it?

I wonder what the numbers actually look like if we include the "prosperity" of present-day free-market Africa... and compare that global picture to the prosperity of the human world, say, one thousand years ago? two thousand years? ten thousand years?

I'm pretty sure you're not taking the whole picture into account.

Has it?

I wonder what the numbers actually look like if we include the "prosperity" of present-day free-market Africa... and compare that global picture to the prosperity of the human world, say, one thousand years ago? two thousand years? ten thousand years?

I'm pretty sure you're not taking the whole picture into account.

How free are the markets in Africa, and how long have they been that way? Botswana is fairly free, and is doing fairly well. The Congo is not free, and is not doing well. In both cases, their freedom was achieved fairly recently (the 60s in both cases)- so, except for the last 40 years or so, their markets were colonial and unfree for the last 200-odd years.

The whole picture is remarkably difficult to take into account considering that Africa is a vey large, non-uniform landmass.

please supply links.

In terms of social mobility (as in moving up), the economist recently wrote an article showing how the socialist systems of western europe offer far more opportunities for someone to improve his or her lot in life. Have'nt got the article at hand (will have a look later) but it was from 4 to 6 weeks ago.

That simply is not true. Here is a bit of information on the subject.

Income mobility is almost exclusively an American phenomenon.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/1997/101097.htm

$0.02++

People embrace socialism/communism because governments have a lock on compassion. Companies cannot be compassionate, the line goes, as they offer human sacrifices to the bottom line, and rich individuals who are compassionate are only trying to buy their way out of hell. The only entities capable of compassion are not-rich people, and government, which wrings compassion (in the form of taxes) from the hands of the rich/corporations like blood from so many stones.

Hayek has an interesting take (http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf) on socialism and compassion.


You got the propoganda down. How about the facts?