NationStates Jolt Archive

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.



Freee market??? Africa??? You have got to be kidding.

First off, Africa is not one big country with uniform systems. Many are just emerging from Soviet Domination and less recently, colonialism. The countries that are doing relatively well are far more capitalistic than those who stayed with socialism and anarchy. Another factor is the rule of law. Without stability brought about by consistant enforcement of laws accross all socio-economic lines, there never will be any real improvement.

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.

Exactly. The irony is - I look at people I know who are entrenched in the consumer culture model, and they are always looking for something. They always think THIS new purchase will be the one that finally 'does it', and they'll be happy once they've got 'it'... until the new model comes out.

It's leaving a vacuum in people... an almost spiritual lack of satisfaction.

But - in the meantime - they just keep plugging their credit cards into whatever is next, to buy their 'automatic shower cleaner' or whatever other pointless device, and meanwhile... there are people, even in the 'first world', that are starving and without a roof.

It's an example that, although you could argue we are better dressed than the Mongol horde... we are still a collective of barbarians.

No, it's entirely correct.


Oh. Contradiction? Well, now I'm convinced...


And that's solely what capitalism is? Methinks you're conflating marketing with capitalism. In fact, I know you're conflating marketing with capitalism.


You raised the propaganda issue. It's not my fault if you are inconsistent.


Load. of. shit.


A well reasoned and insightful response. Sorry - I was looking at mine.

If that is your entire response... if you have nothing of substance to bring to the table... you could save both of us time by simply not posting.


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.


You're making this stuff up as you go along.

I don't really see a need to combat your strawman army - but I will point out the obvious logical inconsistency in your assertion that 'we must all hang together' contrasted almost immediately by the inane conclusion " We all must ensure that our neighbor is fed even at the expense of ourselves".

If I'm starving to feed my neighbour, we aren't operating as the 'hang together' crowd you assumed.


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.


Total lack of any kind of actual response, so you resort to profanity. Hard to work out how to respond to that really.


And? You say that as if it somehow means something.


It does mean something. It means the capitalist model is selfish, but STILL expects free help.


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.


Not at all. I'm not sure where you get this idea, or why you regurgitate it so spitefully.

It is about me accepting responsibility AND you accepting responsibility, and BOTH of us doing the work.


From just about every socialist I've ever encountered--and yourself. Remember your complaint above about people bitching about taxation?


If you paid attention - that was a comment about capitalism. I haven't mentioned 'keeping (or not) your money' as a communist device.


1. Most communist structures need money, despite their efforts not to.
2. I earned it.


No - most of the practical applications of one basic model have required money. That is not the same thing at all.. and part of the reason they continually fail.

You say you 'earned' it... I say, maybe you did... or maybe you have a pointless parasite job, and are simply taking money from people who really ARE 'earning' it.


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.


I need my eyes for my job. Need. Not want. Pity you didn't think... about my position at all.



Prove it.


This in a post that has been filled with all bile and no substance?


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".

No one said anything about force to allocate or re-allocate.

Yet another strawman on your behalf.

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.

Emotive rhetoric... and then you call people 'petty dictators'? Physician, heal thyself?

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.

I didn't say Carl Menger was an anthropologist.

A sly attempt at diversion, my friend... and not surprising, considering you are being revealed as full of strut, and yet to provide any substance.

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.

There are people without food, water and shelter in the supposedly civilised 'first world', too.

Where are the warlords and civil wars?

People don't go without these things in countries that have a properly working market and an honest government...

I wish I had your rose-tinted spectacles...

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 untrue.

Where is your 'evidence'?

So anyone who isn't doesn't care about others? You'll need to justify that, if that is what you're saying.

Considering the amount of unsupported vitriol you have launched at any post you don't like, and have yet to provide ANY evidence for, this is rich.

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.

You must not know many people. Maybe the people I have known have been exceptional... but I've known lots of people that have gone into difficult or complex work, with little or no reward guaranteed.

Some people really DO want to be doctors or teachers. I imagine that there are even SOME that want to work in fast food joints. Of course - it isn't just a matter of what you WANT to do... if a candidate WANTS to be a surgeon, but is horrendously incompetent with a scalpel, that candidate probably owes it to themselves and everyone else, to find something else they want to do.

Sure...
...You lied. You lost. That's the end.

Funny... you agreed to 'play hardball', and then utterly failed to actually debate.

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.

Where does your definition of 'theft' come from?

Ah, so we must bring everyone down. Gotcha.


Another strawman.

Giving everyone the same chance has no implication of bringing anyone 'down', at all. On the contrary - it gives everyone the same option to improve.

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.

You haven't managed to address any of the issues so far... and claiming that everyone is 'lying' or that their arguments are 'shit'... WITHOUT even attempting to debate them, is hardly the way I'd describe what you CLAIM has been offered... "an intellectual debate'.

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.


According to the US Census Bureau:

"To determine a person's poverty status, one compares the person's total family income in the last twelve months with the poverty threshold appropriate for that person's family size and composition (see example below). If the total income of that person's family is less than the threshold appropriate for that family, then the person is considered poor or "below the poverty level"."

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm

Poverty isn't arbitrary or 'mean'... it is based on cost of living versus family size and income.


And - according to Charles Nelson, Assistant Division Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics:

"The official poverty rate for the nation rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004. The number in poverty increased also, by 1.1 million people, to 37.0 million in 2004"

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/prs05asc.html

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 other words... you have made your decision, and you intend to expound upon it, with great vigour... but you have already MADE your decision, and are not going to be influenced by anything as trivial as 'facts'.

You must not know many people. Maybe the people I have known have been exceptional... but I've known lots of people that have gone into difficult or complex work, with little or no reward guaranteed.

Some people really DO want to be doctors or teachers. I imagine that there are even SOME that want to work in fast food joints. Of course - it isn't just a matter of what you WANT to do... if a candidate WANTS to be a surgeon, but is horrendously incompetent with a scalpel, that candidate probably owes it to themselves and everyone else, to find something else they want to do.

I know enough people. Just not in the area I classified.

I am talking on a general term. Would the amount of people you know truly be enough to run an entire nation (Sealand does not count as a nation)? For any point in having it effectively run, you need enough people to make sure it maintains itself. Since you mostly cannot really choose on who you get in a nation (well, in a way you can choose) and that there will be people who simply want the easiest path, making it unfair for others.

In fact, here's a lie right in the prologue:

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.

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is being misused here, I fear.

If for example, I described Stalin's revolutionary party as 'exemplars of capitalist, free-market thinking, and good democrats all'... I suspect you would complain they were NOT those things at all.

Would that be an example of the 'No True Scotsman' Fallacy?

So - when we compare Statist 'communists', that never actually applied a full 'communist/socialist' model, with an ideal - is that really the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy... or is it simple observation of the fact that - if it doesn't walk like a communist or quack like a communist... maybe it's a duck?

Where does your definition of 'theft' come from?
The Lockean idea of where wealth originates. With the extension of Nozick's justification to the ideas of Locke.

Then using these ideas, we can define theft as taking that which belongs to another person by right, away from them by coercion.

Another strawman.

Giving everyone the same chance has no implication of bringing anyone 'down', at all. On the contrary - it gives everyone the same option to improve.
Equalization, in the form many socialists argue for has the habit of bringing down fifty percent of the population, and giving a large portion of the fruits of their labor (using a modern definition of labor, not the outdated and silly "muscle labor" concept) to the lower half, even if they don't want that to be done.

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.
Africa is most certainly not free market. It continues to be a continent not driven by the engine of the market, but by a combination of handouts from the developed world's table scraps and the looting of other's stuff through the tribal system that is so very dominant. The current situation in Africa has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with local ethnic animosities.

I know enough people. Just not in the area I classified.

I am talking on a general term. Would the amount of people you know truly be enough to run an entire nation (Sealand does not count as a nation)? For any point in having it effectively run, you need enough people to make sure it maintains itself. Since you mostly cannot really choose on who you get in a nation (well, in a way you can choose) and that there will be people who simply want the easiest path, making it unfair for others.

The idea of the 'easiest path' is almost entirely non-applicable, though.

Let us look at the model I often suggest... which is loose tribal structures, centred on small areas. The idea is to be largely self-sufficient within that group... whilst simultaneously allowing for 'treaties', if you will, with other communities.

So - in our small town, we have... say, 10 families... they need ten homes. We have one or two people that are reasonable carpenters, so they serve in that position, as needed. Of course - with ten families, even with marriage to other local communities, we are not going to need a constant stream of houses... so these carpenters may also be doing other jobs.

If we look at agriculture... we are a technological society, we can farm enough food for our ten families easily. Indeed... it will only take a few of the people in our community to do so.

Now - let us assume that the 'cook' is considered an easy job - if our local community even decides to have someone in that role... who will get that job? The laziest person or people... or the person or people who show the best aptitude.

Obviously - if a job is already 'filled'... whether it need one worker or ten, there is no real need for any more people in that job... so lazyness is not rewarded by overstaffing. Indeed - if I was not the best cook, and I wanted to work in the kitchens... I'd have to do it on my own time, or exchange tasks with someone who DID work in the kitchens, and was willing to share.


This is, obviously, just a theoretical model. Not all communities would - or even would NEED to - follow the same model.

Exactly. The irony is - I look at people I know who are entrenched in the consumer culture model, and they are always looking for something. They always think THIS new purchase will be the one that finally 'does it', and they'll be happy once they've got 'it'... until the new model comes out.

It's leaving a vacuum in people... an almost spiritual lack of satisfaction.

But - in the meantime - they just keep plugging their credit cards into whatever is next, to buy their 'automatic shower cleaner' or whatever other pointless device, and meanwhile... there are people, even in the 'first world', that are starving and without a roof.

It's an example that, although you could argue we are better dressed than the Mongol horde... we are still a collective of barbarians.
And you find something normatively wrong with how the vast bulk of American's spend their lives? Do you really have an insight into what will make other people happy? I really don't. It's up to anyone and everyone to decide their own fate, and do what they see fit to allow themselves to enjoy their lives.

The Lockean idea of where wealth originates. With the extension of Nozick's justification to the ideas of Locke.

Then using these ideas, we can define theft as taking that which belongs to another person by right, away from them by coercion.

And yet, coercion has not been suggested... and, in the models I have cited, "that which belongs to another person" is a nonsense.

One can just as easily use the argument that 'theft' is ONLY 'theft' if it is a crime... and that, if the 'legal' model doesn't allow for 'property', there can be no theft.

Further - one can argue that hereditary wealth, for example, takes away from an equitable model... and is, itself, 'theft'.

The idea of the 'easiest path' is almost entirely non-applicable, though.

Let us look at the model I often suggest... which is loose tribal structures, centred on small areas. The idea is to be largely self-sufficient within that group... whilst simultaneously allowing for 'treaties', if you will, with other communities.

So - in our small town, we have... say, 10 families... they need ten homes. We have one or two people that are reasonable carpenters, so they serve in that position, as needed. Of course - with ten families, even with marriage to other local communities, we are not going to need a constant stream of houses... so these carpenters may also be doing other jobs.

If we look at agriculture... we are a technological society, we can farm enough food for our ten families easily. Indeed... it will only take a few of the people in our community to do so.

Now - let us assume that the 'cook' is considered an easy job - if our local community even decides to have someone in that role... who will get that job? The laziest person or people... or the person or people who show the best aptitude.

Obviously - if a job is already 'filled'... whether it need one worker or ten, there is no real need for any more people in that job... so lazyness is not rewarded by overstaffing. Indeed - if I was not the best cook, and I wanted to work in the kitchens... I'd have to do it on my own time, or exchange tasks with someone who DID work in the kitchens, and was willing to share.


This is, obviously, just a theoretical model. Not all communities would - or even would NEED to - follow the same model.
Economic isolation as you describe it would not lead to growth or development though. It would just lead the world to mark time as a quaint, little agrarian society. Without large-scale interation of smart individuals, advancements that make our lives more comfortable and efficient would be nigh impossible. And at the same time, the danger of drought or winter would be tremendous.

Equalization, in the form many socialists argue for has the habit of bringing down fifty percent of the population, and giving a large portion of the fruits of their labor (using a modern definition of labor, not the outdated and silly "muscle labor" concept) to the lower half, even if they don't want that to be done.

But, this relies entirely on the idea that one person can 'own'.

Also - what do we mean "the outdated and silly "muscle labor" concept"...? Doesn't it make sense that anyone who has been spared a manual job is going to ARGUE that 'muscle labour' is an outdated and silly concept... PURELY to protect their OWN concept?

And you find something normatively wrong with how the vast bulk of American's spend their lives? Do you really have an insight into what will make other people happy? I really don't. It's up to anyone and everyone to decide their own fate, and do what they see fit to allow themselves to enjoy their lives.

First: Maybe I do have an insight. Is that not, at least, WORTH considering? Rather than automatically ridiculing?

Second: The whole assertion that it is "up to anyone to decide their own fate" is somewhere between flawed and irrelevent. There IS no model that can truly guarantee any such thing. The least we can do - maybe - is at least provide a framework where everyone at least has the same CHANCE to decide their own fate.

And our current model just doesn't do that.

And yet, coercion has not been suggested... and, in the models I have cited, "that which belongs to another person" is a nonsense.

One can just as easily use the argument that 'theft' is ONLY 'theft' if it is a crime... and that, if the 'legal' model doesn't allow for 'property', there can be no theft.

Further - one can argue that hereditary wealth, for example, takes away from an equitable model... and is, itself, 'theft'.
And I'm saying that in spite of whatever the legal system may claim, there is a right of property as defined by Locke and Nozick. Theft can occur even if the law does not recognize property. For then the law is only the law of a looter. And instead of having random individuals as looters, society becomes a looter. Much in the way that the laws of Nazi Germany were the laws of a murderer, the laws of a society that does not allow the individual to keep what he produces are the laws of a looter.

Will you agree with me when I say that society is quite capable of a goodly number of unjust things?

First: Maybe I do have an insight. Is that not, at least, WORTH considering? Rather than automatically ridiculing?

What you have is an insight into your own life. You most certainly do not have an insight into another person's life.

Second: The whole assertion that it is "up to anyone to decide their own fate" is somewhere between flawed and irrelevent. There IS no model that can truly guarantee any such thing. The least we can do - maybe - is at least provide a framework where everyone at least has the same CHANCE to decide their own fate.

And our current model just doesn't do that.
It does allow a person to decide their own fate. They see the consequences of their actions, and they act based upon those consequences. A world in which the individual is not restrained from action by the state is the only world in which the individual can decide their own fate.

But, this relies entirely on the idea that one person can 'own'.

Also - what do we mean "the outdated and silly "muscle labor" concept"...? Doesn't it make sense that anyone who has been spared a manual job is going to ARGUE that 'muscle labour' is an outdated and silly concept... PURELY to protect their OWN concept?
There's more to working than just running a rivet gun, hauling a wheelbarrow or swinging a hammer. The person who sits in the office and writes a computer program is certainly working. The engineer designing the part of a machine is most certainly working. The person who searches of inefficiencies in the business model of the company is most certainly working. The person who oversees the company on behalf of the stockholders is most certainly working.

The outdated and silly concept of muscle labor is one in which the fruits of the intellect are totally discounted, and the claim that the only way in which to work is to do manual labor.

It does allow a person to decide their own fate. They see the consequences of their actions, and they act based upon those consequences. A world in which the individual is not restrained from action by the state is the only world in which the individual can decide their own fate.
What about being restrained from action by non-state circumstance not controlled by the individual?

What you have is an insight into your own life. You most certainly do not have an insight into another person's life.


How can you state this with such certainty? What grants you this insight?


It does allow a person to decide their own fate. They see the consequences of their actions, and they act based upon those consequences. A world in which the individual is not restrained from action by the state is the only world in which the individual can decide their own fate.

No - it really doesn't. I see the consequences of my actions... but that makes no difference to whether or not I can do the things I would like to do.

Unless - we are talking about a simple choice like "I can choose to kill people, or not to kill people".

And I'm saying that in spite of whatever the legal system may claim, there is a right of property as defined by Locke and Nozick. Theft can occur even if the law does not recognize property. For then the law is only the law of a looter. And instead of having random individuals as looters, society becomes a looter. Much in the way that the laws of Nazi Germany were the laws of a murderer, the laws of a society that does not allow the individual to keep what he produces are the laws of a looter.

Will you agree with me when I say that society is quite capable of a goodly number of unjust things?

Locke and Nozick are not god. Their words are words of men, nothing more.

If they define 'theft' one way, another can define it another way.

Of course, by Locke and Nozick... that new model might not be true... but, similarly, by that other source, the inverse is the case.

Our 'rights' are entirely dependent on our societies. Our 'right' to own property is granted ONLY by the allowance of our society that it be so. And - of course - if there were no personal property - there could BE no 'theft'... by anyone's reckoning.

There's more to working than just running a rivet gun, hauling a wheelbarrow or swinging a hammer. The person who sits in the office and writes a computer program is certainly working. The engineer designing the part of a machine is most certainly working. The person who searches of inefficiencies in the business model of the company is most certainly working. The person who oversees the company on behalf of the stockholders is most certainly working.

The outdated and silly concept of muscle labor is one in which the fruits of the intellect are totally discounted, and the claim that the only way in which to work is to do manual labor.

I entirely agree that the 'muscle labour' concept is flawed. It is not 'silly' though... direct labour producing direct yield is fundamental... and without it, the computer programmers and quality assessors would be irrelevent.

The model is old... but not outmoded, just in need of an update. The problem is - it has been simply cast aside. Look at your examples... the 'muscle labour' is not considered the only work... it isn't even considered an equal.

So - the labourer in the field that allows food to be upon your table, get paid far out of proportion to the guy crunching numbers to make sure a few rich people get a bit richer. The whole model is now geared towards what yields largest profit for vested interests.

How can you state this with such certainty? What grants you this insight?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that short of knowing what happens in another person's mind, you cannot say for certain. And it is impossible to know what are all the motivators of another person.

[/QUOTE]
No - it really doesn't. I see the consequences of my actions... but that makes no difference to whether or not I can do the things I would like to do.

Unless - we are talking about a simple choice like "I can choose to kill people, or not to kill people".[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of what you'd like to do, it's a matter of what you can do. You can do an awful lot of things, you just cannot do them for nothing.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that short of knowing what happens in another person's mind, you cannot say for certain. And it is impossible to know what are all the motivators of another person.


Just because I might not know for certain, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

And - I wouldn't need to know everything that happens in another person's mind... a lucky guess is as good as an educated opinion if the answer is right.

It's not a matter of what you'd like to do, it's a matter of what you can do. You can do an awful lot of things, you just cannot do them for nothing.

I can do an awful lot of things, but I have very little choice. In real terms... I ctually CAN'T do an awful lot of things, because I need to be doing such-and-such a thing at such-and-such a time... or because I have a lack of an arbitrary material which is handed out in no proportion to the importance of value to the activities I do do.

I entirely agree that the 'muscle labour' concept is flawed. It is not 'silly' though... direct labour producing direct yield is fundamental... and without it, the computer programmers and quality assessors would be irrelevent.

The model is old... but not outmoded, just in need of an update. The problem is - it has been simply cast aside. Look at your examples... the 'muscle labour' is not considered the only work... it isn't even considered an equal.

So - the labourer in the field that allows food to be upon your table, get paid far out of proportion to the guy crunching numbers to make sure a few rich people get a bit richer. The whole model is now geared towards what yields largest profit for vested interests.
Of course muscle labor is not considered an equal. Anyone (except, someone with severe physical limitations due to diesease) can do muscle labor wth minimal personal investment. Meanwhile, the other people do the work they do with tremendous levels of personal investment. The extra investment they put into themselves is why their labor if of greater value.

Furthermore, the apt comparison for a top-down business model is that of the symphony. The composer writes the symphony, and the orchestra plays it. Most likely the composer is also capable of taking part in the symphony, and he might just do so. But the symphony will never be played unless the composer, utilizing his experience and knowledge, writes the symphony.

Just because I might not know for certain, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

And - I wouldn't need to know everything that happens in another person's mind... a lucky guess is as good as an educated opinion if the answer is right.

It's not just that you dont know for certain, it's that you don't know at all.

I'm horrified that you're willing to decide what's good for another person on the basis of a guess. And what if you're wrong? I say leave it up to the individual.



I can do an awful lot of things, but I have very little choice. In real terms... I ctually CAN'T do an awful lot of things, because I need to be doing such-and-such a thing at such-and-such a time... or because I have a lack of an arbitrary material which is handed out in no proportion to the importance of value to the activities I do do.
The importance of value of what you want to do is not the basis of how one acquires wealth, and the ability to do things. How can you determine the value of a future action anyway? You can only determine the value of the actions of the past, and things that are currently present. You have to do the work before you can have the fun.

What about being restrained from action by non-state circumstance not controlled by the individual?
Do you mean things like disease?

Of course muscle labor is not considered an equal. Anyone (except, someone with severe physical limitations due to diesease) can do muscle labor wth minimal personal investment. Meanwhile, the other people do the work they do with tremendous levels of personal investment. The extra investment they put into themselves is why their labor if of greater value.

Furthermore, the apt comparison for a top-down business model is that of the symphony. The composer writes the symphony, and the orchestra plays it. Most likely the composer is also capable of taking part in the symphony, and he might just do so. But the symphony will never be played unless the composer, utilizing his experience and knowledge, writes the symphony.

I disagree. Oh, anyone can drop berries in a bucket, or whatever... but that doesn't make the work any less demanding, or less worthwhile. Also - not ALL muscle labour is cherry-picking... and a lot of people with nice office jobs, would be physically incapable of doing a lot of it.

As to the idea that those people in office jobs made 'tremendous levels of personal investment' is speculative at best... and often, entirely untrue. Nor does it follow that those who MADE 'personal investment' must be in those kinds of jobs.

Often - the most important thing is who you know, or what school you attended, or who your family is.

And, even if the previous assumption WERE true... that would not actually logically lead to your next 'assertion': that "their labor if of greater value."

It's not just that you dont know for certain, it's that you don't know at all.


Or maybe I do.

What makes you the expert?


I'm horrified that you're willing to decide what's good for another person on the basis of a guess. And what if you're wrong? I say leave it up to the individual.


And, under THAT model.. a couple of people get the option to excel, or to 'ake good', off the backs of a majority that don't.


The importance of value of what you want to do is not the basis of how one acquires wealth, and the ability to do things. How can you determine the value of a future action anyway? You can only determine the value of the actions of the past, and things that are currently present. You have to do the work before you can have the fun.

I'm not sure that makes sense, or addresses what I said.

If it boils down to the closing line "You have to do the work before you can have the fun"... it's a good idea, but not borne out in a reality in which people work their whole lives just to break even.

I think I know why some people, like myself, are capitalists. I will explain in this brief anecdote.....

Idle: Good evening, and welcome to The Money Programme. Tonight on The Money
Programme, we're going to look at money. Lots of it. On film, and in
the studio. Some of it in nice piles, others in lovely clanky bits of
loose change. Some of it neatly counted into fat little hundreds,
delicate fivers stuffed into bulging wallets, nice crisp clean checks,
pert pieces of copper coinage thrust deep into trouser pockets, romantic
foreign money rolling against the thigh with rough familiarity, beautiful
wayward curlicued banknotes, filigreed copper plating cheek by jowl with
tumbly ( ? ) rubbing gently against the terse leather of beautifully
balanced bank books!!

(He looks around in surprised realization that he's panting and screaming)

Idle: I'm sorry.

(adjusts tie, darts eyes around room)

Idle: But I love money.
All money. (growing excited again)
I've always wanted money.
To handle! To touch!
The smell of the rain-washed florin!
The lure of the lira!
The glitter and the glory of the guinea! (stands up )
The romance of the ruble! (stands on chair)
The feel of the franc! (stands on desk)
The heel of the deutschmark! (stomps foot)
The cold antiseptic sting of the Swiss franc!
And the sunburnt splendor of the Australian dollar! (slaps knee)

(sings the rest while dancing across desk; Michael and John just look at him
blandly.)

I've got ninety thousand pounds in my bank account.
I've got forty thousand French francs in my fridge.
I've got lots and lots of lira,
Now the deutschmark's getting dearer,
And my dollar bill could buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
There is...

(enter a chorus of 5 men in women's pilgrim costumes)

...nothing quite as wonderful as money!
There is nothing quite as beautiful as cash!
Some people say it's folly, but I'd rather have the lolly (?),
With money you can make a splash!

(chorus kneels ans sings "money, money, money" through Idle's solos )

There is nothing quite as wonderful as money!
There is nothing quite as beautiful as cash!
Everyone must hanker for the butchness of a banker (all give Italian Salute)
It's the currency that makes the world go round!

(a harp is wheeled across the stage but not played)

You can keep your Marxist ways, for it's only just a phase...
Money, money, money makes the world go round!

(play money falls from above as chorus reaches a glorious crescendo)

Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money!

I disagree. Oh, anyone can drop berries in a bucket, or whatever... but that doesn't make the work any less demanding, or less worthwhile. Also - not ALL muscle labour is cherry-picking... and a lot of people with nice office jobs, would be physically incapable of doing a lot of it.
I'm not measuring value in the amount of effort you put in, it's what you get out that matters. I can pick a bucketful of cherries in an hour, or I can design a machine in the space of several months that will make it possible for me to pick a thousand buckets of cherries in an hour. Which one is the more productive, and therefore valuable, use of my time?

As to the idea that those people in office jobs made 'tremendous levels of personal investment' is speculative at best... and often, entirely untrue. Nor does it follow that those who MADE 'personal investment' must be in those kinds of jobs.

Often - the most important thing is who you know, or what school you attended, or who your family is.
This is the classic socialist myth, that capitalism is little more than just a gigantic system of nepotism. Which is entirely untrue.


And, even if the previous assumption WERE true... that would not actually logically lead to your next 'assertion': that "their labor if of greater value."
Their labor is of greater value as per the fact that they are more productive.

Or maybe I do.

What makes you the expert?
Unless you can get into someone's brain in a manner that is equivalent to telekenesis, it is impossible to understand another person's motivations without inserting your own biases into the analysis.

I may be greatly contented to sit around, drink coffee and play solitaire for hours on end, but that's not what's going to make another person happy. What will make them happy, I cannot know because I am not that other person, and people are not uniform. They are not robots that are assembled on a production line.



And, under THAT model.. a couple of people get the option to excel, or to 'ake good', off the backs of a majority that don't.
There's a very good reason they excel. And they do not excel on the backs of other individuals. They do it with their own ability.



I'm not sure that makes sense, or addresses what I said.

If it boils down to the closing line "You have to do the work before you can have the fun"... it's a good idea, but not borne out in a reality in which people work their whole lives just to break even.
Currently I happen to be working, going to school and enjoying myself greatly. If I can juggle all three at once, then I'm prett fucking certain that other people ought to be able to juggle work and fun. You can't just drop what you're doing and be able to do whatever you want at any point in time.

Oh. Contradiction? Well, now I'm convinced...
How wonderful of you to not read further.


You raised the propaganda issue. It's not my fault if you are inconsistent.
How am I inconsistent?


A well reasoned and insightful response. Sorry - I was looking at mine.
Then you weren't looking at a well-reasoned and insightful response, were you?

Look--you provided NOTHING to back your claim. NOTHING. So please stop whining to me about your lack of backup material.


You're making this stuff up as you go along.
Nope. It's precisely what socialism is.


I don't really see a need to combat your strawman army
There isn't one.


- but I will point out the obvious logical inconsistency in your assertion that 'we must all hang together' contrasted almost immediately by the inane conclusion " We all must ensure that our neighbor is fed even at the expense of ourselves".
That's not inconsistent. It logically follows. It means "we all hang together by spreading the misery". Or don't you grasp English very well?


If I'm starving to feed my neighbour, we aren't operating as the 'hang together' crowd you assumed.
Yes you are, because your neighbor won't have much either.



Total lack of any kind of actual response, so you resort to profanity.
Style over substance fallacy. Brilliant!


It does mean something. It means the capitalist model is selfish, but STILL expects free help.
What a wonderful strawman.

And you have the gall to accuse me of using strawmen. Feh! Feh, I say.



Not at all. I'm not sure where you get this idea,
The idea that socialism is about not accepting responsibility? From the fact that it's not about accepting responsibility, but rather wanting others to be responsible for you.


If you paid attention - that was a comment about capitalism.
Yes, and you fell into a trap of your own making.


No - most of the practical applications of one basic model have required money.
They all do, regardless. Otherwise, it comes down to primitive barter.


You say you 'earned' it... I say, maybe you did... or maybe you have a pointless parasite job, and are simply taking money from people who really ARE 'earning' it.
Define "parasite job", and why the spite and vitriol?


I need my eyes for my job.
Irrelevant. Someone who has a corneal problem has a greater need. Tough. You lose a cornea.

Pity that you didn't think about your position at all.


This in a post that has been filled with all bile and no substance?
Pot. Kettle. Black.


No one said anything about force to allocate or re-allocate.
That's what socialism is about. It's just like when the "intelligent design" morons say "We're not talking about god, and we're especially not talking about the christian god", we all know they are. So don't lie to me.

Emotive rhetoric...
Yes.

and then you call people 'petty dictators'?
As Pavel Chekov said "There is an old Russian proverb: 'if shoe fits...'"

It's quite clear that the socialists desire nothing more than to re-write reality according to their dreams. The only way they can do that is with force. To dictate to everyone else what must be done.

I didn't say Carl Menger was an anthropologist.
Then what was your reason for saying that I was talking about anthropology?
Were you just trying a sly attempt at diversion? That's no surprise, since you have nothing of substance, yet you strut and fret your hour upon the stage like a fool.

Which is untrue.
No, it's quite true.

Look, I know you're jealous of my intellect. Now stop stalking me, please.

Considering the amount of unsupported vitriol
Pot. Kettle. Black.

No, I will not go out with you. Stop stalking me.

Funny... you agreed to 'play hardball', and then utterly failed to actually debate.
Funny how I did debate. Funny how you're just lying your ass off.

I'm still not going out with you. Stalkers are scary.

Where does your definition of 'theft' come from?
Reality. Where does yours come from, stalker?

Another strawman.
Nope, it's true.


Giving everyone the same chance
...is not what socialism is about. It's about a group playing power politics so they can attempt to mold others as they desire.

You haven't managed to address any of the issues so far
Except that I did.

You must have a very warped definition of the clause "address any of the issues". Clearly, whatever bug is up your ass that has caused you to stalk me has also messed with your ability to comprehend written English.

In other words... you have made your decision, and you intend to expound upon it, with great vigour... but you have already MADE your decision, and are not going to be influenced by anything as trivial as 'facts'.
IOW: the socialists have no facts, but want to pretend that they do. Just like the "intelligent design" folks like to pretend that there is design in life.

Stalker, you might want to do something about your rectal-cranial inversion.

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is being misused here, I fear.
Your fear is unjustified. It's a proper use of the NTS fallacy. The countries so listed were socialist/communist, despite the whining of the socialists/communists who don't want to to be so (mostly because of the horrors inflicted upon the populaces).

Now then, dear stalker, don't you have something else you could be doing--like working?

And yet, coercion has not been suggested... and, in the models I have cited, "that which belongs to another person" is a nonsense.
The models you have cited are nonsense.


One can just as easily use the argument that 'theft' is ONLY 'theft' if it is a crime... and that, if the 'legal' model doesn't allow for 'property', there can be no theft.
Only if one subscribes to legal positivism.


Further - one can argue that hereditary wealth, for example, takes away from an equitable model... and is, itself, 'theft'.
Only if one denies the concept of ownership.

Our 'rights' are entirely dependent on our societies. Our 'right' to own property is granted ONLY by the allowance of our society that it be so. And - of course - if there were no personal property - there could BE no 'theft'... by anyone's reckoning.
If personal property didn't exist, there would be a performative contradiction. Think about that for a moment before you respond in your normal shoot-from-the-hip-and-think-about-it-next-week method, please.

cause we are cool like that

I wish I had your rose-tinted spectacles...


You take a sunny picture and blacken it all in.

You take a sunny picture and blacken it all in.
And not with a vis-a-vis marker either. With a sharpie.

No, you're advocating theft.
You are advocating theft. You are advocating a system where an employer doesn't have to pay employees anything more than he has to, even if that's virtually slavery. This was tried in the 19th century. People work in order to support a decent standard of living for themselves. Employers if left to the market could get away with failing to do even that. In this way the employer does not sufficiently remunerate his employees for the amount of work done.

I said "normally". Africa is an example of post-imperialist socialism.
Well that's the big issue of today, so why not talk about it.

No, it's on mine, actually. The elevation of theft to the norm has infantalized many and frayed social interaction substantially.
Yet quality of life after socialist reforms were introduced in the west is higher than ever.

The purpose of giving away your things so that others can live? Oh, I dunno---SO THAT OTHERS CAN LIVE?
But giving away my stuff to other Irish people won't help them live any better, and I don't see why I need to be impoverished.

Nope. You need to do more. You still have more than you need.
I'm not claiming to be Jesus.

If by "run" you mean "destroy", then you're correct. But socialism is legislated handouts and legalized theft.
And yet Western Europe is the richest part of the world.

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 idea is mostly based on the Marxist definition. Life as an uphill battle, due to man made systems is not freedom, because freedom is good, and the aforementioned kind of life is shit.

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.
Hold on, how? I said that all must have a certain standard of living. Not that all must be poor.

Cop-out. Blatant rationalization.
Yes, it does make sense.

And all people do have property: themselves.
People need food to support themselves.

On the contrary: it is you who has no concept of theft. You believe theft is something called "profit".
The act of accumulating resources through trickery or violence.

Really? So all of the government monopolies were a market economy? Wow. I'll have to let all of my Swedish friends know.
All the private enterprise was.

You haven't spoken to any Swedes, have you?
Some of my best friends are Swedes. I've studied its history and I have been there. For the past century is has been a mixed economy.

How can it be just that parents give their children presents on giftmas and on birthdays? Same. Fucking. Thing.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of quantification. Not all sums of money are equal.

Agh, God, quote chains like the apocalypse all over the place....


*gurgle*


*drowns*

You can't change the world for the better via theft.
Yet what you consider theft already has changed the world for the better.

However, emotions tend to override what is percieved as self interest. My love of music overrides my self interest to focus on material matters.
Everyone focuses on material matters. I assume that food, water and sahelter are provided to you.

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.
Reality proves you wrong at every turn, but you keep ranting about theft.

So you want a system that benefits you and yours, specifically? Doesn't that make you the selfish one?
Ues and I'm not ashamed of that. I want a system that benefits the majority and that includes me. And that's not capitalism.

You are advocating theft. You are advocating a system where an employer doesn't have to pay employees anything more than he has to, even if that's virtually slavery. This was tried in the 19th century. People work in order to support a decent standard of living for themselves. Employers if left to the market could get away with failing to do even that. In this way the employer does not sufficiently remunerate his employees for the amount of work done.

You're ignoring the fact that the market must balance itself. If all employees are paid virtually nothing, then employers will sell virtually nothing, because inevitably the workers have to generate demand in an economy. Supply and demand fall into line.

Marx pointed out that a worker cannot be paid the value of his labour, because no profit can be made. But that's not the great evil it's made out to be.

And yet Western Europe is the richest part of the world.

And they also have far higher unemployment than the USA.

Ues and I'm not ashamed of that. I want a system that benefits the majority and that includes me. And that's not capitalism.

Capitalism benefits the majority. Unfortunately for your kind, it requires them to work for that benefit.

You are advocating theft. You are advocating a system where an employer doesn't have to pay employees anything more than he has to, even if that's virtually slavery. This was tried in the 19th century. People work in order to support a decent standard of living for themselves. Employers if left to the market could get away with failing to do even that. In this way the employer does not sufficiently remunerate his employees for the amount of work done.


THe employer HAS to pay whatever the employees negotiate. They do not have to accept the wage offered. The DO have a choice. If there are not enough people willing to work for the going rate, the employers will have to raise the wage until it is attactive enough to draw in new employees.



Yet quality of life after socialist reforms were introduced in the west is higher than ever.

That depends highly on the criteria used to measure this AND it is highly subjective anyway. By my way of thinking, the quality of life in the socialist countries of Europe has decreased dramatically compared to the alternative of the United States. Unemployment, income mobility and general economic freedom have suffered in Europe.

You're ignoring the fact that the market must balance itself. If all employees are paid virtually nothing, then employers will sell virtually nothing, because inevitably the workers have to generate demand in an economy. Supply and demand fall into line.

Marx pointed out that a worker cannot be paid the value of his labour, because no profit can be made. But that's not the great evil it's made out to be.

Actually the employee is paid the value of his labor. The employee comes to a voluntary agreement with the employer that x value is what his labor is worth, and that is what he is paid. The value of his labor is not the price of the good, but what he and his employer set it to be. It is not a empirical, testable number, instead it's something totally different.

Marx was a simpleton who didn't fully understand the operation of economics.

You are advocating theft. You are advocating a system where an employer doesn't have to pay employees anything more than he has to, even if that's virtually slavery.
You're advocating telling an employer how much s/he must pay. That means you must know more than the employer as to what a job is "really worth". Trouble is: there is no such beastie. There is no such thing as "objective valuation". Valuation is inherently subjective, and for you to believe that you can make some price floor is the height of arrogance.

Also, what's wrong with not paying more than you have to? Let's say that a drug store is selling aspirin for 99 cents/bottle for a 100ct bottle. Then let's say a drug store further down the road is selling the same bottle for a dollar twenty-five. Wouldn't you rather pay the 99 cents, vs the dollar twenty-five?

Of course you would.

Hypocrite.


This was tried in the 19th century.
And it raised the standard of living, too.


Yet quality of life after socialist reforms were introduced in the west is higher than ever.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy as well as non causa/pro causa.


But giving away my stuff to other Irish people won't help them live any better,
That's just a cop-out to evade your own hypocrisy. Give your stuff away, hypocrite.


and I don't see why I need to be impoverished.
Because others are. You have more than you need. Give. It. Away. Now. Hypocrite.


And yet Western Europe is the richest part of the world.
And yet places like France, Germany, and Sweden have (when all things are truly factored in) double-digit unemployment rates and other unpleasantries.


My idea is mostly based on the Marxist definition.
Well there's your problem!


Life as an uphill battle, due to man made systems is not freedom, because freedom is good, and the aforementioned kind of life is shit.
Evidence?

Oh wait--you don't have any. All you have are feel-good slogans which fall flat against reality.

Look, if I say I don't want to play chess with you, am I making you unfree? NO! But your line of reasoning would force you to say yes (if you don't, then you're blatantly inconsistent).


Hold on, how? I said that all must have a certain standard of living. Not that all must be poor.
That's the result: all will be poor.


People need food to support themselves.
Since when does need have title to anything?


[profit] The act of accumulating resources through trickery or violence.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really are brainwashed.

Profit is a sign that you're doing something correctly. It means that people are willing to purchase your product at that price.


All the private enterprise was.
There wasn't much private enterprise in Sweden until recently. The government had its hand in everything.


Some of my best friends are Swedes. I've studied its history and I have been there. For the past century is has been a mixed economy.
Then your Swedish friends and my Swedish friends need to talk, because they tell me how it was virtually government-run-everything.


You don't seem to grasp the concept of quantification. Not all sums of money are equal.
Irrelevant. A gift is a gift is a gift is a gift. You can't try to say "oh, this gift is ok, but this gift is not" because that's BLATANTLY FUCKING ARBITRARY.

Yet what you consider theft already has changed the world for the better.
No, it actually hasn't. It's given us the horrors of the gulag, holocaust, killing fields, and Great Leap Forward, as well as infantalizing populations.


Reality proves you wrong at every turn, but you keep ranting about theft.
But reality proves me correct at every turn. Y'might want to look at the recent riots in France.

Let's go over the theft analogy once more, for those who don't get it:

Action: I walk into a rich man's workplace, take some of his pay from him, and use it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I am indicted on charges of theft, and jailed for a number of months.

Now, let's do a quick substitution

Action: The government walks into a rich man's workplace, takes some of his pay from him, and uses it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I get "free" surgery.

This is why capitalists call socialism theft. You can replace "surgery" with "food", or "water", or "education", or nearly anything in both situations, and the results are the same. The addition of a government as an intermediary doesn't change the facts: taking others' money to pay for your things is theft. You may argue that the ends justify the means (which they don't), but arguing that it isn't theft because someone else does it for you seems rather...naive.




$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?

A) You missed my sarcasm
B) You didn't read my link

Actually the employee is paid the value of his labor. The employee comes to a voluntary agreement with the employer that x value is what his labor is worth, and that is what he is paid. The value of his labor is not the price of the good, but what he and his employer set it to be. It is not a empirical, testable number, instead it's something totally different.

Marx was a simpleton who didn't fully understand the operation of economics.

I would disagree. Marx was wrong about many things, but the value of an employee's labour is the value of the good produced, minus the other costs of production. If the employer pays the employee that amount, marginal revenue is zero.

What you're describing is the amount the employee is willing to accept in return for his labour, not necessarily the value of it. You can make the argument that the accepted value is the value, just as a good's equilibrium price is the value of the good, for all intents and purposes. However, this doesn't necessarily correlate to what it's really worth.

I would disagree. Marx was wrong about many things, but the value of an employee's labour is the value of the good produced, minus the other costs of production.
Valuation doesn't work like that.


What you're describing is the amount the employee is willing to accept in return for his labour, not necessarily the value of it. You can make the argument that the accepted value is the value, just as a good's equilibrium price is the value of the good, for all intents and purposes. However, this doesn't necessarily correlate to what it's really worth.
"What's it really worth?" (the question side to your statement) is ultimately meaningless, as I've previously stated. There is no such thing as objective valuation. Valuation is subjective. Hence, the value of something to one person will not necessarily (and pretty much won't) correspond to what some other person values it at.

Elucidation:
...any argument must be rejected if it involves "real worth (or value)" determined independently of markets. This error, again found in Marx's "labor theory of value," was cleared up in the 1870s with Carl Menger's insight that value is always an individual's subjective judgment shaped by context. Here's the principle: If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever.
http://www.mises.org/story/1150

I would disagree. Marx was wrong about many things, but the value of an employee's labour is the value of the good produced, minus the other costs of production. If the employer pays the employee that amount, marginal revenue is zero.
You are discounting something of tremendous importance in the act of production. The act of the coordinating mind. The person who doesn't wield the hammer, but organizes the riveters, the hammerers, the welders, the painters and everyone else involved. The Surely his effort must be taken into account when a product is produced, for without the conscious act he puts into his job, the coordination required to make that product would have never happened, and there would be no product.

What about the investor who took the fruits of his labor, his money, and invested it in the company. Before a single product was produced, he purchased the building, purchased the machines, funded the research to develop the product, paid for the training of the workers who would wield the tools that would physically make the product, and paid the workers before a single unit of the product had been sold. He put his money, and quite possibly, his livelihood on the line to make it so that the product could be produced. Without his investment, the product would never have been produced. There never would have been a product without the investor.

How about the engineer who designed the product? He spent years in school, taking impossibly tough courses, paid for with his own time and money, to learn about how one designs a product. Then, after being hired by the investor to design the product, he did it with the power of his mind. Without him, the worker would have no idea how to build the product. There would be no product if no one designed it.

What you're describing is the amount the employee is willing to accept in return for his labour, not necessarily the value of it. You can make the argument that the accepted value is the value, just as a good's equilibrium price is the value of the good, for all intents and purposes. However, this doesn't necessarily correlate to what it's really worth.
What it is really worth is the price that the good fetches on the market. This price is what the consumer agrees to pay to the producers of the product. This is the only value of the product that is measurable, and therefore the only value that can be. If it cannot be measured or recognized by a rational mind through observation with the physical world, it does not exist!

You are discounting something of tremendous importance in the act of production. The act of the coordinating mind. The person who doesn't wield the hammer, but organizes the riveters, the hammerers, the welders, the painters and everyone else involved. The Surely his effort must be taken into account when a product is produced, for without the conscious act he puts into his job, the coordination required to make that product would have never happened, and there would be no product.

What about the investor who took the fruits of his labor, his money, and invested it in the company. Before a single product was produced, he purchased the building, purchased the machines, funded the research to develop the product, paid for the training of the workers who would wield the tools that would physically make the product, and paid the workers before a single unit of the product had been sold. He put his money, and quite possibly, his livelihood on the line to make it so that the product could be produced. Without his investment, the product would never have been produced. There never would have been a product without the investor.

How about the engineer who designed the product? He spent years in school, taking impossibly tough courses, paid for with his own time and money, to learn about how one designs a product. Then, after being hired by the investor to design the product, he did it with the power of his mind. Without him, the worker would have no idea how to build the product. There would be no product if no one designed it.

I'm not discounting any of those. They're all inputs. Your point?

What it is really worth is the price that the good fetches on the market. This price is what the consumer agrees to pay to the producers of the product. This is the only value of the product that is measurable, and therefore the only value that can be. If it cannot be measured or recognized by a rational mind through observation with the physical world, it does not exist!

God debunks that theory. But let's consider this from another point of view. The value of a good is what the consumer pays - the buyer's reservation price. I think we agree on that. The producer has paid a certain amount to produce that good, and that amount needs to be less than what the good is sold for, or else it is not worth producing the good. The owner cannot change the cost of material inputs - they must pay a price for those at some point. The owner has also negotiated a price for human inputs. You can look at it two ways; the human input is being paid less than their part of the value of the good, or the owner has increased the price above that value. But this in turn, according to your theory, is the value of the good, so again, the human input is being underpaid.

Of course, you can rebutt that if you consider profit to be a cost of production. And this is quite plausible, since it is a necessity of production. You could also consider profit as being the cost of the producer's time, and ownership responsibilities.

"What's it really worth?" (the question side to your statement) is ultimately meaningless, as I've previously stated. There is no such thing as objective valuation. Valuation is subjective. Hence, the value of something to one person will not necessarily (and pretty much won't) correspond to what some other person values it at.

To some degree that's true. But whatever it took to produce a good (time, effort, materials, etc) is the value of a good (then one would have to factor depreciation of good, and many other things). Of course, the "value" of those inputs in turn traces to people's perception. Nonetheless, if I'm suddenly willing to pay $1m for a banana, does it make that banana worth $1m? No. We won't absolve this argument though, because it comes down to the fact that I just believe there can be absolutes, even if the human psyche can't properly percieve them past its own subjective views.

When I recently created my nation-state (today in fact) I was surprised to see I emerged as Democratic Socialist. I always thought myself a moderate with strong religious inclinations. Well, I suppose it has to do with the fact that I don't care about the happiness and freedom of the majority. What I care for is the contentment and survival of the lowest minority (with the remainder already being slightly better off). I'm not concerned about the net wealth of my nation-state, since I'm uninterested in expansion. I believe in passing sensible legislation, and I think spirituality and efficient health care are the two most essential components of a small society like mine. So there you have it. I never thought I was socialist, but whatever.

When I recently created my nation-state (today in fact) I was surprised to see I emerged as Democratic Socialist. I always thought myself a moderate with strong religious inclinations. Well, I suppose it has to do with the fact that I don't care about the happiness and freedom of the majority. What I care for is the contentment and survival of the lowest minority (with the remainder already being slightly better off). I'm not concerned about the net wealth of my nation-state, since I'm uninterested in expansion. I believe in passing sensible legislation, and I think spirituality and efficient health care are the two most essential components of a small society like mine. So there you have it. I never thought I was socialist, but whatever.

NS isn't exactly perfected political inclination mapping. And at any rate, there's socialistic ideologies like the Third Way, which are a long way from extreme socialism.

Let's go over the theft analogy once more, for those who don't get it:

Action: I walk into a rich man's workplace, take some of his pay from him, and use it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I am indicted on charges of theft, and jailed for a number of months.

Now, let's do a quick substitution

Action: The government walks into a rich man's workplace, takes some of his pay from him, and uses it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I get "free" surgery.

This is why capitalists call socialism theft. You can replace "surgery" with "food", or "water", or "education", or nearly anything in both situations, and the results are the same. The addition of a government as an intermediary doesn't change the facts: taking others' money to pay for your things is theft. You may argue that the ends justify the means (which they don't), but arguing that it isn't theft because someone else does it for you seems rather...naive.



A) You missed my sarcasm
B) You didn't read my link



Guilty! as charged. Sorry.:(

You are discounting something of tremendous importance in the act of production. The act of the coordinating mind. The person who doesn't wield the hammer, but organizes the riveters, the hammerers, the welders, the painters and everyone else involved. The Surely his effort must be taken into account when a product is produced, for without the conscious act he puts into his job, the coordination required to make that product would have never happened, and there would be no product.

What about the investor who took the fruits of his labor, his money, and invested it in the company. Before a single product was produced, he purchased the building, purchased the machines, funded the research to develop the product, paid for the training of the workers who would wield the tools that would physically make the product, and paid the workers before a single unit of the product had been sold. He put his money, and quite possibly, his livelihood on the line to make it so that the product could be produced. Without his investment, the product would never have been produced. There never would have been a product without the investor.

How about the engineer who designed the product? He spent years in school, taking impossibly tough courses, paid for with his own time and money, to learn about how one designs a product. Then, after being hired by the investor to design the product, he did it with the power of his mind. Without him, the worker would have no idea how to build the product. There would be no product if no one designed it.


What it is really worth is the price that the good fetches on the market. This price is what the consumer agrees to pay to the producers of the product. This is the only value of the product that is measurable, and therefore the only value that can be. If it cannot be measured or recognized by a rational mind through observation with the physical world, it does not exist!


Don't forget the value of the capital put at risk.

To some degree that's true. But whatever it took to produce a good (time, effort, materials, etc) is the value of a good (then one would have to factor depreciation of good, and many other things). Of course, the "value" of those inputs in turn traces to people's perception. Nonetheless, if I'm suddenly willing to pay $1m for a banana, does it make that banana worth $1m? No. We won't absolve this argument though, because it comes down to the fact that I just believe there can be absolutes, even if the human psyche can't properly percieve them past its own subjective views.
1. I never said there aren't absolutes.
2. Valuation simply is inherently subjective. To believe in objective valuation is to believe in something that is ontologically queer.
3. The banana would be worth a million bucks to you.

This is the classic socialist myth, that capitalism is little more than just a gigantic system of nepotism. Which is entirely untrue.

On the contrary... it is entirely true. It IS more than a gigantic system of nepotism... but not by much.

Unless you can get into someone's brain in a manner that is equivalent to telekenesis, it is impossible to understand another person's motivations without inserting your own biases into the analysis.

I may be greatly contented to sit around, drink coffee and play solitaire for hours on end, but that's not what's going to make another person happy. What will make them happy, I cannot know because I am not that other person, and people are not uniform. They are not robots that are assembled on a production line.


I suspect you mean telepathy. Telekenesis would be moving things at a distance... not reading minds. Possibly, you might have meant 'telempathy'.


There's a very good reason they excel. And they do not excel on the backs of other individuals. They do it with their own ability.


Not at all. If that were true, the most 'able' people would be the most successful.


Currently I happen to be working, going to school and enjoying myself greatly. If I can juggle all three at once, then I'm prett fucking certain that other people ought to be able to juggle work and fun. You can't just drop what you're doing and be able to do whatever you want at any point in time.

I happen to be working, raising a family, and enjoying myself quite well, too... but there are a lot of things I can't do - purely because of a lack of financial resources.

I apologise for the brevity of this response.

I cut out anything you had failed to respond to, or simply contradicted, or that was simply not worth responding to.

Consequently, my respose is much shorter than the post it replied to.


Nope. It's precisely what socialism is.


SHow me the definition, and cite, please?


That's not inconsistent. It logically follows. It means "we all hang together by spreading the misery". Or don't you grasp English very well?


The 'spreading the misery' is a strawman. There is no implicit suggestion of misery in socialism... only in socialism abused.


Yes you are, because your neighbor won't have much either.


Why? This is not a logical premise for you to argue.


Style over substance fallacy. Brilliant!


Curious. The 'style' versus 'substance' was merely a commentary on the response you gave of like kind.


Yes, and you fell into a trap of your own making.


No - you simply failed to discern which parts of my post were referring to what.

I have previously thought you failed to read my posts in their entirety... I now have good reason to believe this is the case.


Define "parasite job", and why the spite and vitriol?


There was no spite or vitriol.... notice the fact that I was talking about a possibility.


Irrelevant. Someone who has a corneal problem has a greater need. Tough. You lose a cornea.


Actually - no - my job requires that my eyesight be unimpaired. You assume too much, my friend.


That's what socialism is about. It's just like when the "intelligent design" morons say "We're not talking about god, and we're especially not talking about the christian god", we all know they are. So don't lie to me.

You keep saying "that is what socialism is about"... but that appears to be the total EXTENT of your argument... rather than the width of it.

It's quite clear that the socialists desire nothing more than to re-write reality according to their dreams. The only way they can do that is with force. To dictate to everyone else what must be done.

This is not true. The 'socialism' of the UK is not a matter of force. The 'socialism' of Canada is not a matter of force. The 'socialism' of Jesus was not a matter of force.

You have singularly failed to support this argument.

Then what was your reason for saying that I was talking about anthropology?
Were you just trying a sly attempt at diversion? That's no surprise, since you have nothing of substance, yet you strut and fret your hour upon the stage like a fool.

Like a fool? Considering the rest of your posts so far have been of a much less savoury flavour, I'm willing to consdier this positively complimentary.

I'm addened that you disn't understand the reference... you began claiming that it was a matter of economics, and then - when presented with the fact that you were outnumbered by those who DO have knowledge in economics, you pretended the matetr was about 'what people are like'... people, versus economic... thus, anthropology.

It wasn't intended to be too enigmatic.

No, it's quite true.

Look, I know you're jealous of my intellect. Now stop stalking me, please.

Okay. Is this your ego I'm stroking?

Are you about to accuse me of being in love with my brother's wife?

Funny how I did debate. Funny how you're just lying your ass off.

I'm still not going out with you. Stalkers are scary.

You did debate?

Sorry, I must have had a lapse of attention... which post?

Reality. Where does yours come from, stalker?

No, seriously. I mean it - where does your definition of 'theft' come from... which source? Cite?


And - I've been indulging you thus far, out of... goodness of my heart, I suspect... what is this 'stalker' thing?

Except that I did.

You must have a very warped definition of the clause "address any of the issues". Clearly, whatever bug is up your ass that has caused you to stalk me has also messed with your ability to comprehend written English.

I have a bug up my ass?

Come now, my friend... you are wasting posts. If you have an argument to make - please make it. You'll note I've had some relatively intense debate posts in this thread... with other posters.

I'm not sure what the issue is here... you consistently refuse to debate... you consistently throw these phrases around... like 'stalking' (which I have yet to make sense of... I'm under the impression I was debating in this thread before you were... if anyone is 'stalking' anyone, it seems to me it would be the other way around). And now - the argument boils down to a 'bug up my ass"?

*sigh*

IOW: the socialists have no facts, but want to pretend that they do. Just like the "intelligent design" folks like to pretend that there is design in life.

Stalker, you might want to do something about your rectal-cranial inversion.

I'm beginning to wonder if I should check the moderation thread... this many 'flame' and 'flamebait' type posts make me wonder if I'm actually going to get a response... 'rectal-cranial inversion'? That's good.

Why would anyone want communism?

I mean come on, the idea of everyone being truly equal and workers not being alienated from the efforts of their labour through a faux monetary system and religious lies...

What a dumb idea

Agh, God, quote chains like the apocalypse all over the place....


*gurgle*


*drowns*

I'm sorry... I've actually got about halfway through a collection of responses from Baawa-thingy, and decided that - since there's not really anything of substance to respond to - and I'm just running into flamebaiting and gentle flaming - I'm not going to continue indulging the 'quote chain'.

Unfortunately... by the time I decided that... I'd probably responded to half a dozen or so. Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

I apologise for the brevity of this response.

I cut out anything you had failed to respond to, or simply contradicted, or that was simply not worth responding to.
IOW: you're running away. Gotcha.

So I'll allow you to run away. This is all the response you get.

Run away, little one.

Let's go over the theft analogy once more, for those who don't get it:

Action: I walk into a rich man's workplace, take some of his pay from him, and use it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I am indicted on charges of theft, and jailed for a number of months.

Now, let's do a quick substitution

Action: The government walks into a rich man's workplace, takes some of his pay from him, and uses it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I get "free" surgery.

This is why capitalists call socialism theft. You can replace "surgery" with "food", or "water", or "education", or nearly anything in both situations, and the results are the same. The addition of a government as an intermediary doesn't change the facts: taking others' money to pay for your things is theft. You may argue that the ends justify the means (which they don't), but arguing that it isn't theft because someone else does it for you seems rather...naive.



A) You missed my sarcasm
B) You didn't read my link


Well - there are a number of arguments can be made... not least being the religious argument. The US is, ostensibly, a Christian nation.... and yet, the very values of capitalism are almost diametrically opposed to Christian thinking. From the idea of self-sacrifice beign the pinnacle of achievement, to the Levitical laws that propose charity...

On the subject of the example, though... How about:

Action: The government takes some of the pay from everyone, and uses it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I get "free" surgery. And so does everyone else, when they need it.

No?

IOW: you're running away. Gotcha.

So I'll allow you to run away. This is all the response you get.

Run away, little one.

On the contrary - you have failed to actually address anything, and you have lowered the tone with your constant misbehaviour.

If you have anything worthwhile to debate, I'll debate it - but I won't indulge your strutting any further.

I had considered querying your behaviour in Moderation, to see if it is considered appropriate to use the kind of flame/flamebait tactics you consistently have levelled at me (and others) instead of debate... But, in the end, I'm just not that worried about it. So - I'll bid you farewell, and wish you well.

On the contrary - you have failed to actually address anything, and you have lowered the tone with your constant misbehaviour.
Ummm...you're still here? You ran away, remember? You failed to address anything. You just kept saying "you didn't address anything" after I addressed your points.

As for flamebaiting, I could go to the mods with yours as well. But I won't. However, if you want to throw down in the moderation section, I'll be more than happy to expose you as well.

Feeling lucky? Or are you ready to admit that you refused to have a real debate, and that when you were shown to be wrong, you tried to bully me by saying "I'll tell the moderators on you because I can't think of any good responses!"

It's your choice.

Ummm...you're still here? You ran away, remember? You failed to address anything. You just kept saying "you didn't address anything" after I addressed your points.

As for flamebaiting, I could go to the mods with yours as well. But I won't. However, if you want to throw down in the moderation section, I'll be more than happy to expose you as well.

Feeling lucky? Or are you ready to admit that you refused to have a real debate, and that when you were shown to be wrong, you tried to bully me by saying "I'll tell the moderators on you because I can't think of any good responses!"

It's your choice.

Yes - I'm sure you could go to the mods. Then they could examine the thread, and see that you turned up in a thread I was already debating in, and began being insulting, and avoiding the issue... and when called on it, became quite rude.

I already told you I was feeling a degree of sympathetic feeling, perhaps, that is making me feel more kindly disposed this evening, than I might normally be... and that, thus, I wasn't about to make a Mod issue of it. Think of it as my gentle way of letting you know that some find your apporoach to debate more than a little abrasive and combative.

I'm a little amused that you think I would be found 'at fault', when your posts have been expletive laden tirades.

As for the idea that I have refused to have a real debate. It's hardly worth dignifying. Several people in this thread were having a 'real' debate... but you've about monopolised the thread with insults and vitriol... and concentrated on just telling other players how stupid they are, etc.

Indeed - I'm not sure you've provided - despite being asked a number of times - even the simplest of evidences... not even a dictionary reference.

But - you are welcome to see the debate as you see the debate. If you have nothing more than THIS, then we are probably done here.

BAAWAKnights: I have no intention of continuing the niggling at each other. I don't want to ruin this thread for others... and so I'm not going to continue with this 'duelling'.

I'll not be responding to any more of your posts on this thread, unless there is a radical change of tack, and we leave this squabbling behind.

I'd appreciate if you'd pay me the same courtesy.

Thanks.

On the contrary... it is entirely true. It IS more than a gigantic system of nepotism... but not by much.


That is why income mobility in the US far outpaces the EU - right????

Quite an interesting topic. :)

Since Sweden was mentioned a few times and it is a country I know fairly well, I thought I'd use that to clear up a few things, talk a bit about socialism and capitalism and my own ideas around it.

First, Sweden.

Background:
A military power during the 17th century, Sweden has not participated in any war in almost two centuries. An armed neutrality was preserved in both World Wars. Sweden's long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements was challenged in the 1990s by high unemployment and in 2000-02 by the global economic downturn, but fiscal discipline over the past several years has allowed the country to weather economic vagaries. Indecision over the country's role in the political and economic integration of Europe delayed Sweden's entry into the EU until 1995, and waived the introduction of the euro in 1999.

Government type: constitutional monarchy

Executive branch:
chief of state: King CARL XVI GUSTAF (since 19 September 1973); Heir Apparent Princess VICTORIA Ingrid Alice Desiree, daughter of the monarch (born 14 July 1977)
head of government: Prime Minister Goran PERSSON (since 21 March 1996)
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the prime minister
elections: the monarchy is hereditary; following legislative elections, the prime minister is elected by the parliament

Legislative branch:
unicameral Parliament or Riksdag (349 seats; members are elected by popular vote on a proportional representation basis to serve four-year terms)

Judicial branch:
Supreme Court or Hogsta Domstolen (judges are appointed by the prime minister and the cabinet)


Economy - overview:
Definition Field Listing
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Agriculture accounts for only 2% of GDP and of jobs. The government's commitment to fiscal discipline resulted in a substantial budgetary surplus in 2001, which was cut by more than half in 2002, due to the global economic slowdown, declining revenue, and increased spending. The Swedish central bank (the Riksbank) focuses on price stability with its inflation target of 2%. Growth remained sluggish in 2003, but picked up in 2004 and 2005. Presumably because of generous sick-leave benefits, Swedish workers report in sick more often than other Europeans. In September 2003, Swedish voters turned down entry into the euro system, concerned about the impact on democracy and sovereignty.
Source: CIA Factbook

Although Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, the king has no official political power. He is effectively a (popular) figurehead.
However, he has on several occasions used his good standing with the majority of the populace to make political speeches.

The fiscal discipline that turned around the budget into a surplus was made under the left block (Social Democrats, Left Party and the Green Party).

Perhaps it's the name of the largest party; "Social Democrats" or the extensive welfare apparatus that makes people, somewhat inaccurately, view Sweden as practicing socialism.
As the text state though, it's a mixed market economy with a lot of welfare benefits.


The Swedish system works, though like any system, it works imperfectly.
The high taxes are a common complaint, though a majority of the populace support a high tax rate in exchange for government sponsored education, health care and care for the elderly (primarily though not only) as a reasonable tradeoff.
Accepting it isn't the same as liking it however, so naturally, people complain about it. ;)

There has also been an increasingly dissatisfaction with the performance of the welfare benefits. People feel that they aren't getting as much for their tax-money as they used to.
To some extent this is true, but it is not a simple thing.

The increased privatization of the previously predominantly government-controlled areas (postal service, tele-service, healthcare) has together with increased bureaucratization (is that a word? Increased levels of bureaucracy at any rate) and downsizings (due to budget constraints to get the economy on the right side of the zero line) have indeed eroded the welfare.

It is still considerable when viewed in comparison with many other countries, but relative to itself it is less encompassing.
However, an effect of the largely state controlled welfare apparatus has made a lot of people "infantilized" (I think that was the term).
When faced with less bang for their buck from their tax money, and a jungle of private enterprises to chose from (compared to what they have been used to) the swede gets confused and often doesn't deal very well with the new situation.
This is one of the negative parts with a government who make a lot of decisions for it's populace.

However, the reason for that 'father state knows best' mentality is not malign, merely an effect.
Sweden has done a lot extensive research on its populace and their behavior. A lot of that research has revealed that left to their own devices, people tend to choose what they want, not what they need.

Thus, the intention with the extensive welfare and government making the decisions was good, if quite patronizing. "Father knows best" indeed.

Despite the tendency for such methods to block creativity in individuals, the swedes have been remarkably inventive.
It should be noted though, that most of the creative ones were those that didn't conform to the norm and went their own way.

An extenuating circumstance is that the government funded education gave a lot of bright but poor people the nessecary starting basiscs to realise their potential.


I could go on and on about the pros and cons about the system, because both are legion, so I'll stop here.
Suffice to say, that the swedes are currently forced to learn to move in a more insecure environment, forced to grow up in a sense.
A lot of them exhibit growing pains. ;)


Now, my view on the extensive welfare system in Sweden is mostly a supportive one.
This is because everything in society is connected. Harm one part, and all parts, more or less, will be affected.
Making the education and healthcare financed through taxation gives even those without the personal means to get it the possibility to realize their potential. Ergo, you get a broader base of skilled, educated people to pick from.
Likewise, ensuring that they get good healthcare is beneficial for the productivity of the businesses as well as for the individuals themselves.

(However, a mistake the education board tend to make is to lower the bar for grades, to make it more fair, rather than maintain that the goals have to be met to get a good grade. This is an example of well-meaning going wrong, and they'll pay for it in the long run.)

Further, a healthy worker with access to spare time to get R&R tend to be more productive and creative than one worked to the bone.
The increasing privatization has in many cases led to harder conditions for the workers and lesser quality for the customers (the latter in less amount than the former).
Often, long term planning have to make way for short term profits.
The postal service, railroad traffic and electricity are a good example of this.

The heavy taxation and government making a lot of decisions for you have some drawbacks as I said. Notably the infantilization and conformity issue.
Hence, there should be a fairly large private sector to balance the government (both in turn balanced by a strong union), and the education system should put a high priority in teaching creative thinking, taking the initiative and self-reliance/seeking answers on your own.


Weaving from topic to topic a bit here, sorry...

The idea of a high tax in return for fairly extensive benefits is one I support though, because in the end it benefits me as well as society, in most cases (subjective view admittedly).
Predominantly in education and healthcare.
I don't mind giving part of my salary away to finance some else's broken leg getting fixed, or having a bypass operation.
After all, next time it might be me on the slab, and I couldn't afford to pay for it on my own.

On an even more basic level, I fully support my taxes going to help those on the bottom.
I don't want to eradicate the status differences. They are an incentive to study and/or trying to excel in other areas after all. Also a source of creativity.
However, everyone should have the right to have their basic physical needs met (food, water shelter), and also the free education and healthcare already mentioned.
If that means I'm taxed higher than I could be, so be it.
I feel it is my duty as a civilized human to aid those less fortunate than me, and it usually benefits society too, both for morale and in terms of productivity.

An extensive safety net for the poor is quite expensive to run, and difficult to manage (who should be counted as poor? How to deal with those just using the system? How do you find out if they use the system?)
In the end, I feel the benefits outweigh the problems. It's not as economically sound as a harsher policy, but a government's duties are not purely economical.
I know my own view has more than a bit of feudal thinking in it, but a like good lord takes care of his people, a good government takes care of its people as well.

Like most things, it's a question of balance.
They should give everyone their basic needs and the opportunities to get an education, and/or come back from an injury.
They should not go too far and make too many decisions for their populace.
Too little of the former is bad for morale and productivity. Too much of the later is also bad for morale and productivity.

Well - there are a number of arguments can be made... not least being the religious argument. The US is, ostensibly, a Christian nation.... and yet, the very values of capitalism are almost diametrically opposed to Christian thinking. From the idea of self-sacrifice beign the pinnacle of achievement, to the Levitical laws that propose charity...

On the subject of the example, though... How about:

Action: The government takes some of the pay from everyone, and uses it to pay for surgery I desperately need.
Result: I get "free" surgery. And so does everyone else, when they need it.

No?

A) The US population is <80% Christian (see ARIS study: 81% in 2001, falling by approx 0.9%/year), and the government should be non-partisan in matters of religion. Even Marx could figure that out. In any case, commandment #8: "Thou shalt not steal"

B) Is being robbed self-sacrifice? I don't donate my money to the government, they take it from my paycheque, and send men with guns after me if I try to keep any of what they think they deserve.

C)OK, let's see if your substitution works

Action: I take some of the pay from everyone, and use it to buy people health insurance
Result: I get "free" surgery. And so does everyone else, when they need it. Oh, and I get to spend the rest of my life in prison.

If an individual does it, it's theft. If a government does it, it's OK?

Yes - I'm sure you could go to the mods. Then they could examine the thread, and see that you turned up in a thread I was already debating in, and began being insulting, and avoiding the issue... and when called on it, became quite rude.
Rather, they would find that you started stalking me in a thread I was debating in, and that you were quite huffy and rude to the point of attempting to bully me with "I'll tell the mods on you because I don't have any real responses".

So which is it to be, bubba: are you going to attempt to have a real debate or should we just end this here with you running off with your tail 'tween your legs?

If an individual does it, it's theft. If a government does it, it's OK?

As I see it the governments been elected. Anarchy would be worse. And while taxes are unpleasent as long as we use our votes wisely to ensure good management and the basic sevices for everyone and no more (education, health, opportunities) than we get the best of both capitalism and a strong fair economy which everyone can do well in.

As I see it the governments been elected. Anarchy would be worse. And while taxes are unpleasent as long as we use our votes wisely to ensure good management and the basic sevices for everyone and no more (education, health, opportunities) than we get the best of both capitalism and a strong fair economy which everyone can do well in.
1. Why would anarchy be worse (and please don't say "because there would be chaos/no police or fire/etc." Those are just bullshit that people are brainwashed into believing).

2. Middle-of-the-road-ism leads inexorably to socialism.

1. Why would anarchy be worse.I'm as curious as you are.2. Middle-of-the-road-ism leads inexorably to socialism.Depends on the road we're talking about, don't it? - From where I'm sitting US-style middle-of-the-road-ism leads to corporate oligarchy.

Depends on the road we're talking about, don't it? - From where I'm sitting US-style middle-of-the-road-ism leads to corporate oligarchy.
In the US, it's leading toward quasi-theocratic fascism. And fascism is a type of socialism.

And fascism is a type of socialism.
Hahahhaha barely.

Only in the same way that Iosef Stalin's USSR was communist.

In the US, it's leading toward quasi-theocratic fascism. And fascism is a type of socialism.And the moon is made of green cheese..

Socialism is about egalitarianism, not totalitarianism. Anarchism, for example, is a socialist ideology. Are you perhaps a victim of US propaganda?

1. Why would anarchy be worse (and please don't say "because there would be chaos/no police or fire/etc." Those are just bullshit that people are brainwashed into believing).
.

Its an unpractical unsustainable ideology. It will always struggle to work on a large scale and ultematly people will form groups and leaders with whom they will hopefully then elect naturally. With no real practical examples I can't offer much more than the utopian criticism. That and governments as long as they're constrained can provide freedom, forign affairs and order much more successfully.


2. Middle-of-the-road-ism leads inexorably to socialism.

Or perhaps people voting in a socialist government leads to socialism. Why would people do that?, Perhaps they're upset at a lack of opportunity to gain skills and flourish in the market. Essentially education and basic welfare. Even with no government/democracy revolution is always an option for the socialist thinkers. I'd hardly call myself middle road either, just someone who wants to provide the basic neccessitys for a true meritocracy where people can rise and fall on their own merits.

And the moon is made of green cheese..

Socialism is about egalitarianism, not totalitarianism. Anarchism, for example, is a socialist ideology. Are you perhaps a victim of US propaganda?

Fascism simply wants individuals to put the national interest ahead of their own. Socialism wants you to put the collective/community ahead of your own. Both for the common good.

Both ideologies value the collective over the individual. Incentives like the Strength through joy program to think of others and generally fascism is hostile to big business and individual greed.

No ones saying their idential but they share common ground and if not careful socialism can end up as fascism as history has shown.

Hahahhaha barely.
Only if you barely know anything about socialism.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian (http://www.mises.org/story/1937) by George Reisman.


Only in the same way that Iosef Stalin's USSR was communist.
It was.

And the moon is made of green cheese..

Socialism is about egalitarianism, not totalitarianism.
Nope. It's totalitarianism masquerading as egalitarianism (which, of course, was correctly identified by Murray Rothbard as a revolt against nature).


Anarchism, for example, is a socialist ideology.
No, it isn't. The lack of a government is in no way an idea solely regarding socialism (of course, socialism requires a government).

Its an unpractical unsustainable ideology. It will always struggle to work on a large scale and ultematly people will form groups and leaders with whom they will hopefully then elect naturally.
Unsupported assertion.


Or perhaps people voting in a socialist government leads to socialism. Why would people do that?,
Jealosy. The desire to have what they didn't earn.


Perhaps they're upset at a lack of opportunity to gain skills and flourish in the market.
Oh, so they're upset with the government flunkies who've screwed them over.


Essentially education and basic welfare. Even with no government/democracy revolution is always an option for the socialist thinkers. I'd hardly call myself middle road either, just someone who wants to provide the basic neccessitys for a true meritocracy where people can rise and fall on their own merits.
Then you can do it. Don't force others to be with you on your quest.

Unsupported assertion.
.

Well untill a successful anarchistic community/country is shown to function properly (which I certainly doubt is possible currently) than how is it an unsupported assertion to call it utopian.


Jealosy. The desire to have what they didn't earn.
.

But the point is how is someone supposed to gain the skills and qualifications which will enable them to earn what they desire. Without a good standard of public education some people will simply not gain any decent form of education and have no chance to excell in life. Not to mention training a workforce will encourage companys to set up in such a country and pay higher wages for the more skilled labour.



Oh, so they're upset with the government flunkies who've screwed them over.
.

Sure without some help people will be screwed over. We can either offer them the help which will hopefully be paid back in the long run with their additional taxes, or we can spend that money expanding prisons and cleaning up dead bodies from people those people who are starving (if they haven't already banded together to elect a socialist government)



Then you can do it. Don't force others to be with you on your quest.
.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how arguing a point of what I think the governments role should be is forcing anyone to do anything.

Fascism simply wants individuals to put the national interest ahead of their own. Socialism wants you to put the collective/community ahead of your own. Both for the common good.Fascism is about what's good for the state, not the peoples. Socialism is about what's good for the peoples, not the state.

Both ideologies value the collective over the individual. Incentives like the Strength through joy program to think of others and generally fascism is hostile to big business and individual greed.Fascism views the economy as a tool to strengthening the state, with little or no regard for the peoples. Socialism views the economy as a tool to improve the standard of living for all, with little or no regard for the state. Laissez faire capitalism views the peoples & state as a tool for improving the economy, with little or no regard for any consequences.


No ones saying their idential but they share common ground and if not careful socialism can end up as fascism as history has shown.Power corrupts. If you put a socialist in control of a fascist state, he'll likely become a fascist. It's got fuck-all to do with common ground, except in the case of commies.

Only if you barely know anything about socialism.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian by George Reisman.

It was. [Stalin's Russia was communist]And the Democratic Republic of Congo was a democratic republic. Incidently, I can fly. I can, because I've just stated that I can.

There's a bit more to a political ideology than the name, mate.

No, it isn't. The lack of a government is in no way an idea solely regarding socialism (of course, socialism requires a government).Care to use a socialist source to back up that all forms of socialism requires a state/authority? No rightwing strawmen, thanks.

And you are, of course, correct about there being nothing inherently socialist about the lack of a state/authority. Some rightwing libertarians are opposed to the concept of a state as well.

It doesn't change that anarchism is a socialist ideology though. That you want socialism to be about totalitarianism doesn't mean that it is. Your argument (and criticisms you've mentioned) are as inane & ridiculous as fundies claiming the ToE is false because they don't want it to be true.

By the way, have you noticed how anarchists in the US often calls themselves Libertarian Socialists, because anarchism isn't socially acceptable over there?

Well untill a successful anarchistic community/country is shown to function properly (which I certainly doubt is possible currently) than how is it an unsupported assertion to call it utopian.
There have been anarchistic communities in the past. I suggest you do a little bit of research on it.

However, you're still just spouting the line of "Oh, humans need a government because I've been taught they need a government".


But the point is how is someone supposed to gain the skills and qualifications which will enable them to earn what they desire.
Effort. Hard work.


Without a good standard of public education some people will simply not gain any decent form of education and have no chance to excell in life.
I feel for them, but it's not my problem.


Not to mention training a workforce will encourage companys to set up in such a country and pay higher wages for the more skilled labour.
It infantalizes people and teaches them not to save, since Government will do it for them.


Sure without some help people will be screwed over. We can either offer them the help which will hopefully be paid back in the long run with their additional taxes, or we can spend that money expanding prisons and cleaning up dead bodies from people those people who are starving (if they haven't already banded together to elect a socialist government)
False dichotomy. What about having more efficient methods--which of course means not having a government involved.


I don't see how arguing a point of what I think the governments role should be is forcing anyone to do anything.
Socialism is all about that, though.

Fascism is about what's good for the state, not the peoples. Socialism is about what's good for the peoples, not the state.
The state is the people. So it's the same.


Fascism views the economy as a tool to strengthening the state, with little or no regard for the peoples. Socialism views the economy as a tool to improve the standard of living for all, with little or no regard for the state.
You really believe that lie, don't you? Socialism is about bringing everyone down so that no one has any edge at all. There's no regard for anyone but those in power.


Laissez faire capitalism views the peoples & state as a tool for improving the economy, with little or no regard for any consequences.
You believe that lie too, don't you?


And the Democratic Republic of Congo was a democratic republic. Incidently, I can fly. I can, because I've just stated that I can.

There's a bit more to a political ideology than the name, mate.
Incidentally, the USSR was communist/socialist. You might want to actually learn a bit about reality.


Care to use a socialist source to back up that all forms of socialism requires a state/authority? No rightwing strawmen, thanks.
Ah, so you're stacking the deck. Gotcha. You only will believe what you want to from handpicked sources. How cowardly.


And you are, of course, correct about there being nothing inherently socialist about the lack of a state/authority. Some rightwing libertarians are opposed to the concept of a state as well.

It doesn't change that anarchism is a socialist ideology though.
Yes it does. Anarchism and socialism really have nothing at all to do with each other. Some socialists can claim to be anarchists, but there's no possible way it can work. Socialism requires a government, period.

That you WANT anarchism to be a socialist ideology is the same as those nutter cretinists who think that "Darwinism" is communism.


By the way, have you noticed how anarchists in the US often calls themselves Libertarian Socialists, because anarchism isn't socially acceptable over there?
No, I haven't noticed that at all, being an anarchist in the US myself.

A) The US population is <80% Christian (see ARIS study: 81% in 2001, falling by approx 0.9%/year), and the government should be non-partisan in matters of religion. Even Marx could figure that out. In any case, commandment #8: "Thou shalt not steal"


I'd say 80% makes the US, ostensibly, a Christian nation... overall.

In any case "Render unto caesar, that which is caesar's".... according to Jesus, whatever the state wants to take from you, you give.


B) Is being robbed self-sacrifice? I don't donate my money to the government, they take it from my paycheque, and send men with guns after me if I try to keep any of what they think they deserve.


You ONLY have a paycheck because the government allows you to. You should quit complaining, and, instead, consider yourself lucky for how little they take.


C)OK, let's see if your substitution works

Action: I take some of the pay from everyone, and use it to buy people health insurance
Result: I get "free" surgery. And so does everyone else, when they need it. Oh, and I get to spend the rest of my life in prison.

If an individual does it, it's theft. If a government does it, it's OK?

Yes. Of course. The government is constructed of, from and by the people... but it is not the same as 'a person'.

It doesn't change that anarchism is a socialist ideology though. That you want socialism to be about totalitarianism doesn't mean that it is. Your argument (and criticisms you've mentioned) are as inane & ridiculous as fundies claiming the ToE is false because they don't want it to be true.


Anarchism is no more a socialist ideology than it is capitalist. Anararchism is simply an anti state ideology, Anarcho capitalists, Egoists and anarco libertarians happen to offer a capitalist form of anarchism.
But I agree not all forms of socialism are pro state, it just has the reputation from the old top down social democracy and dictatorships under socialist/communist names.

There have been anarchistic communities in the past. I suggest you do a little bit of research on it.

However, you're still just spouting the line of "Oh, humans need a government because I've been taught they need a government".
.

Small communities perhaps. But unless we want to break up the world into small 1000 group collectives its not a viable system. As for Spain the only large scale example I've heard of, not only was it a socialist form of anarchism is fell apart what within 5 years of being set up?


Effort. Hard work.
.
A guy can put in all the effort in the world, work double shifts at whatever crappy job he can find. If he has no opportunities to gain resonable skills and enter the job market (should he work hard with the education he's provided with) only then can hard work and effort be pulled off.
Not to mention if he has no health care or basic welfare if he should be unlcuky and get ill what then is he still supposed to put this hard work mentality when hes coming to work ill?


I feel for them, but it's not my problem.
.

And when they vote for a socialist government? Or when they come to you with a knife since they have no other options?
What then will you eliminate democracy, or raise taxes for prisons and law enforcement?


It infantalizes people and teaches them not to save, since Government will do it for them.
.

Getting an education or healthcare won't make them wealthy or even mean they won't be in poverty if they won't work. It still up to them to do pretty much everything for themselves, atleast if they fail then they deserve the conditions they have.


False dichotomy. What about having more efficient methods--which of course means not having a government involved.
.
If you're not going to co-operate in paying taxes happily then why would you go to a charity or other methods to ensure people have social mobility.


You ONLY have a paycheck because the government allows you to. You should quit complaining, and, instead, consider yourself lucky for how little they take.
.

No we only have a government because we allow there to be one. The government is completely accountable to the people for its actions, thats democracy. They only take what people allow them to take some want it to do less some more, if you think you're opinion is the best you can always presuade everyone to agree with the powers of reason and debate. Easyer said than done of course.

Small communities perhaps. But unless we want to break up the world into small 1000 group collectives its not a viable system. As for Spain the only large scale example I've heard of, not only was it a socialist form of anarchism is fell apart what within 5 years of being set up?
It wasn't really anarchist, truthfully. Now, if you'd look at Saga-period Iceland, you'll find a pretty lengthy anarchist system.


A guy can put in all the effort in the world, work double shifts at whatever crappy job he can find. If he has no opportunities to gain resonable skills and enter the job market (should he work hard with the education he's provided with) only then can hard work and effort be pulled off.
And why precisely does he not have the opportunities? Certainly it's not as a result of the capitalists not caring.


Not to mention if he has no health care or basic welfare if he should be unlcuky and get ill what then is he still supposed to put this hard work mentality when hes coming to work ill?
So....we should steal from others in order to give this guy health care?


And when they vote for a socialist government?
That's like people voting for slavery, or the Nurnberg laws, or Jim Crow laws.


Or when they come to you with a knife since they have no other options?
Why wouldn't they have any other options?


What then will you eliminate democracy, or raise taxes for prisons and law enforcement?
I say Down With Democracy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html)


Getting an education or healthcare won't make them wealthy or even mean they won't be in poverty if they won't work. It still up to them to do pretty much everything for themselves, atleast if they fail then they deserve the conditions they have.
The problem is that people get conditioned to believing the government will always be there to take care of them. Witness the people who were essentially left behind in New Orleans last year. Aside from the medically unable to leave, virtually all were "wards of the state", i.e. 2nd/3rd generation welfare recipients. Infantalized.


If you're not going to co-operate in paying taxes happily
That's like happily handing over your wallet to the mugger.


then why would you go to a charity or other methods to ensure people have social mobility.
Because those methods are morally proper.

I'd say 80% makes the US, ostensibly, a Christian nation... overall.

And so Christian principles and values should be forced on the other fifth of the population?


In any case "Render unto caesar, that which is caesar's".... according to Jesus, whatever the state wants to take from you, you give.


Did Caesar go out there and help me teach my kids? Did he do my marking for me? Did he control my class? No? Then how does he have any claim to the money I recieved in exchange for doing these things?


You ONLY have a paycheck because the government allows you to. You should quit complaining, and, instead, consider yourself lucky for how little they take.


By the same token, if I get beaten up every day on my way to work, I should be full of smiles and giggles that I wasn't murdered, right? No need to file a police complaint, or change route or anything- I'm alive!


Yes. Of course. The government is constructed of, from and by the people... but it is not the same as 'a person'.

I fail to see how this addresses the point at hand. First, obviously the government isn't "of, for and by" me- there's nothing I'd like better than for it to implode. Second, as you should have been taught in first grade, just because lots of people are doing something doesn't make it right. To argue that governments aren't covered by ordinary morality, you'd have to make the case that either a) they are governed by some sort of alternate morality, or b) governments are above right and wrong.

And why precisely does he not have the opportunities? Certainly it's not as a result of the capitalists not caring.
.

Dinamic centralisation. All the money will eventually go into the hands of a few who will have enough power to ensure others are essentially enslaved with no other options.


So....we should steal from others in order to give this guy health care?
.

Disease affects everyone rich and poor. If we want to prevent the spread of such diseases we need to protect everyone. If we want to make sure people can get back to work quickly after an illness they need to have some help, if not for the sake of everyone for the sake of the economy.


That's like people voting for slavery, or the Nurnberg laws, or Jim Crow laws.
I say Down With Democracy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html)
.

Social rights can none the less be entrenched in a constitution but I agree democracy is flawed and should a viable alternative emerge I could agree with I may switch.



The problem is that people get conditioned to believing the government will always be there to take care of them. Witness the people who were essentially left behind in New Orleans last year. Aside from the medically unable to leave, virtually all were "wards of the state", i.e. 2nd/3rd generation welfare recipients. Infantalized.
.

Should we have left those medically unable to leave there to die. How about the ones uninjured but left with no propery.


Because those methods are morally proper.

How about sewers. The enviroment. Is it morally proper to let steets pile up waste. Or companys to violate the atmoshpere. Or do we mabey need a government to regulate some things and empose some restricitions. If morality is such an issue for you.

Dinamic centralisation. All the money will eventually go into the hands of a few who will have enough power to ensure others are essentially enslaved with no other options.
Wealth is continually created. It's not a 0-sum game.


Disease affects everyone rich and poor. If we want to prevent the spread of such diseases we need to protect everyone.
Fine. But don't steal from others to do it.


Social rights can none the less be entrenched in a constitution but I agree democracy is flawed and should a viable alternative emerge I could agree with I may switch.
There is a viable alternative: anarchism.


Should we have left those medically unable to leave there to die.
I merely mentioned them to distinguish between them and the others I mentioned.


How about the ones uninjured but left with no propery.
Ever think that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have been living in such a place in the first place? Ever hear Sam Kinison's rant about the starving in Africa? "Well maybe you should live WHERE THE FUCKING FOOD IS!"


How about sewers.
What about them? Are you honestly telling me that only a government can create a waste-disposal-and-treatment system?

Wealth is continually created. It's not a 0-sum game.


Left to its own divices though we'll most likely be left with 3% of the population owning 90% of all wealth. Not to mention the emergence of monopolies or is that not a problem for you.



Fine. But don't steal from others to do it.


Its the only way to ensure everyone can be healthy. By making sure others are in good health living in hospitable conditions diseases are less likely to spread. And then again if you get hit by a car and are knocked out would you want someone to go through your pockets and look for proof you're rich first or actually help you. Secoundly in crisis what do you want peoples first reaction to be, Get me to the nearest hospital or get me to the cheapest hospital.



There is a viable alternative: anarchism.


Forgetting the theory for a moment implimentation is just as big of a problem. Running a party is supposidly corrupting and democracy is wrong. Therefore whats the only alternative, violent revolution?


Ever think that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have been living in such a place in the first place? Ever hear Sam Kinison's rant about the starving in Africa? "Well maybe you should live WHERE THE FUCKING FOOD IS!"


If its not a tornado its a earthquake or a flood. The earth is crowded enough, you not want all of us to live in the perfect enviroments as well, and how are we supposed to do this without getting a job to be able to afford to move. Its hard enough to build up enough money to move to a prosperous area even with the education we have today I'd like to see what chance they'd have if that was all taken away.


What about them? Are you honestly telling me that only a government can create a waste-disposal-and-treatment system?

Stuff like sewage has to be done for the benefit of the whole nation. You can't have one neighbour hoods pipes well built since their council will pay for it while anothers has a poorly built system or none at all. Unless we want to move to the victorian times.

Left to its own divices though we'll most likely be left with 3% of the population owning 90% of all wealth. Not to mention the emergence of monopolies or is that not a problem for you.
1. Marxist concentration of wealth ideas have been shown to be bullshit.
2. Monopolies (coercive, which I assume you mean), can ONLY be created and enforced via a government.


Its [government doing it] the only way to ensure everyone can be healthy.
Wrong.


By making sure others are in good health living in hospitable conditions diseases are less likely to spread. And then again if you get hit by a car and are knocked out would you want someone to go through your pockets and look for proof you're rich first or actually help you.
Strawman.


Forgetting the theory for a moment implimentation is just as big of a problem. Running a party is supposidly corrupting and democracy is wrong. Therefore whats the only alternative, violent revolution?
Gradual phase-out.


If its not a tornado its a earthquake or a flood. The earth is crowded enough, you not want all of us to live in the perfect enviroments as well, and how are we supposed to do this without getting a job to be able to afford to move.
No, I would just like people to think before they move somewhere or live somewhere.


Its hard enough to build up enough money to move to a prosperous area even with the education we have today I'd like to see what chance they'd have if that was all taken away.
Why would it be taken away? I fail to see why you keep thinking that without government, we would have some Max Mad post-apocalyptic dystopia thing.


Stuff like sewage has to be done for the benefit of the whole nation.
No it doesn't.

1. Marxist concentration of wealth ideas have been shown to be bullshit.
2. Monopolies (coercive, which I assume you mean), can ONLY be created and enforced via a government.
.

1: You can atleast agree the gap between the rich and poor increases with no government involvement.
2: Major monopolies have emerged before the government ever has ever got involved. That is why the anti-trust laws were passed.
I agree the government is involved in some monopolies, and should be, water supply is a natural example.


Wrong.
.
My statement said that government funding is the only way to ensure everyone has access to some healthcare. Health services are generally underfunded even with taxe funds. If I'm wrong how will people get healthcare without tax funds.


Gradual phase-out.
.

Come on you can give a better answer than that. Or are my suspicions that anarchism has little to no political relivency in todays world right.


Why would it be taken away? I fail to see why you keep thinking that without government, we would have some Max Mad post-apocalyptic dystopia thing.
.

Well free education exists right now so that everyone regardless of class/gender/race can be given some opportunity and skills, funded by the tax payer. Without government/taxes these services would go.


No it doesn't.

It'll have to be cleaned up eventually.

1: You can atleast agree the gap between the rich and poor increases with no government involvement.
No, and even if it does--so what?


2: Major monopolies have emerged before the government ever has ever got involved. That is why the anti-trust laws were passed.
Wrong and wrong. All--every single one--major monopolies have been government-created/granted. And anti-trust laws were created to stifle competition.


I agree the government is involved in some monopolies, and should be, water supply is a natural example.
There's no reason for that.


My statement said that government funding is the only way to ensure everyone has access to some healthcare.
That can only involve giving it to some at the expense of others. That's immoral.


Health services are generally underfunded even with taxe funds. If I'm wrong how will people get healthcare without tax funds.
Private insurance. Costs go WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down when governments aren't involved with millions of pages of regulations and nonsense.



Come on you can give a better answer than that.
No, I can't.


Or are my suspicions that anarchism has little to no political relivency in todays world right.
I fail to see how that matters.


Well free education exists right now so that everyone regardless of class/gender/race can be given some opportunity and skills, funded by the tax payer. Without government/taxes these services would go.
Free education (which isn't) exists so that the state can inculcate the populace. (http://www.mises.org/web/2689)

No we only have a government because we allow there to be one. The government is completely accountable to the people for its actions, thats democracy. They only take what people allow them to take some want it to do less some more, if you think you're opinion is the best you can always presuade everyone to agree with the powers of reason and debate. Easyer said than done of course.

You say this like your point and mine are exclusive. Sure - our government exists in it's current form because we (collectively) let it... but it is ALSO true that our collective society aside from govrnment, is as it is BECAUSE the government let's it be so.

As for 'complete accountability'... that doesn't even PRETEND to be true, let alone a reflection of real life. The simple fact that the government has secret information is clear evidence that there is not TOTAL accountability. Not that I'm arguing there should be no secrets... just that we are being realistic here, and the accountability is not complete.

Secondly - of course, if our government were literally 'directly accountable' in a democratic fashion - we would have no troops in Iraq, today. Instead, the accountability is at a 'remove'... and there is little the ordinary person can do to influence policy between elections.

There have been anarchistic communities in the past. I suggest you do a little bit of research on it.

quite true, watched a documentary on an anarchist/squatter/leftwing utopia stret in london called Villa Road.

(the documentary was called lefties and on the BBC)

And so Christian principles and values should be forced on the other fifth of the population?


As a non-Christian myself, I can understand wariness at such an idea. The thing is, though - that you entirely miss my point. I said nothing about 'forcing' anything, and I merely alluded to the fact that, for a 'Christian' nation, our financial dealings are very much UN-Christian.


Did Caesar go out there and help me teach my kids? Did he do my marking for me? Did he control my class? No? Then how does he have any claim to the money I recieved in exchange for doing these things?


I doubt Caesar did any of those things directly. However, Caesar DID make the teachingplan, at some remove, ensured that all the teaching is equivalent, added some degree of validity to the process, probably sponsored the books and materials you might use and a number of other things.

As to why the government has claim on 'your' money... perhaps you are forgetting that that money is 'made' by the government... you are merely holding THEIR currency. Also - if you have voted in an election, you have approved of government taxation.


By the same token, if I get beaten up every day on my way to work, I should be full of smiles and giggles that I wasn't murdered, right? No need to file a police complaint, or change route or anything- I'm alive!


Maybe you should change your route. Of course, it's a better example to say you had your pocket picked... and an even BETTER example to say you AGREE to ahve your pocket picked, and just like to fuss about it afterwards.


I fail to see how this addresses the point at hand. First, obviously the government isn't "of, for and by" me- there's nothing I'd like better than for it to implode. Second, as you should have been taught in first grade, just because lots of people are doing something doesn't make it right. To argue that governments aren't covered by ordinary morality, you'd have to make the case that either a) they are governed by some sort of alternate morality, or b) governments are above right and wrong.

1) Have you not voted?

2) Governments aren't covered by the 'same' morality as individuals.

Wealth is continually created. It's not a 0-sum game.


Not strictly true.

As long as resources are finite, wealth as an ABSTRACT may be infinite, but it has no realworld application.

...Monopolies (coercive, which I assume you mean), can ONLY be created and enforced via a government....


Can you provide evidence for this?

It seems more likely that monopolies can be created and 'enforced' by any organisation that manages to sufficiently corner a market.

No, and even if it does--so what?

Because then people are simply born into poverty or born into riches. Thats not fair, and thats certainly not "moral"


Wrong and wrong. All--every single one--major monopolies have been government-created/granted. And anti-trust laws were created to stifle competition.
There's no reason for that.


If some company had a monopoly on the water, you'd be paying $1000 a month for the pleasure of having water. Is that reason enough.


Private insurance. Costs go WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down when governments aren't involved with millions of pages of regulations and nonsense.


Can't disagree with that.



No, I can't.
I fail to see how that matters.


Well clearly it matters. You offer a critique of society a principle to remodle it, but no method of implimentation.

Free education (which isn't) exists so that the state can inculcate the populace. (http://www.mises.org/web/2689)[/QUOTE]

Well a "free" education for everyone doesn't have to rule out private education for those who can afford it and want it. I only brushed through the articule but more able students can obviously work in higher sets as mine did. Compulsory education is perhaps neccessary to ensure that even if you have incompetant/awful parents a child will still get given help.

You say this like your point and mine are exclusive. Sure - our government exists in it's current form because we (collectively) let it... but it is ALSO true that our collective society aside from govrnment, is as it is BECAUSE the government let's it be so.

As for 'complete accountability'... that doesn't even PRETEND to be true, let alone a reflection of real life. The simple fact that the government has secret information is clear evidence that there is not TOTAL accountability. Not that I'm arguing there should be no secrets... just that we are being realistic here, and the accountability is not complete.
.

Nixon/Clinton come to mind. I'm not pretending governments haven't kept secrets or lied about important information, however if they do so when they shouldn't and are caught impeachment/resignation is always an option.


Secondly - of course, if our government were literally 'directly accountable' in a democratic fashion - we would have no troops in Iraq, today. Instead, the accountability is at a 'remove'... and there is little the ordinary person can do to influence policy between elections.

Well of course direct democracy/constant refferendums are not possible. If people voted in the democrats or the Lib Dems there would be no troops in Iraq. If a leader wants to be re elected or remembered positivly even between elections he's accountable to the people. The media have a nice habit of picking up the slack of the individual.


quite true, watched a documentary on an anarchist/squatter/leftwing utopia stret in london called Villa Road.

(the documentary was called lefties and on the BBC)

I saw that as well. As I remember it a bunch of hopeless bums broke in and stole un-used houses agains't the wish of its owners (the council) and built fenses and defences agains't the police to sustain their theft. Their agression to the police and disobediance and lack of respect for the law lead the council to cut them a deal to keep liveing in their "drug" houses while they clearly remained unemployed or atleast contributing nothing to society.

1. Why would anarchy be worse (and please don't say "because there would be chaos/no police or fire/etc." Those are just bullshit that people are brainwashed into believing).

2. Middle-of-the-road-ism leads inexorably to socialism.

Response to point 1. Anarchy is the vacuum of power. Nature, of course, abhors a vacuum. Eventually, in a system of complete anarchy, powerful interests (organized crime, business, ex-military etc.) will begin to expand their power due to the abscence of the traditional referee, the state. Eventually, one group or another will become the de facto state. More likely than not, the new de facto state will be less caring of people than the original state that went under.

Response to point 2 If only you were right! However, you are not. Not a single country that has followed the middle of road has ever become a socialist state. Every country in Europe, even Sweden, are still primarily capitalist welfare democracies.

As a non-Christian myself, I can understand wariness at such an idea. The thing is, though - that you entirely miss my point. I said nothing about 'forcing' anything, and I merely alluded to the fact that, for a 'Christian' nation, our financial dealings are very much UN-Christian.

You're right- though not in the way you think!

I doubt Caesar did any of those things directly. However, Caesar DID make the teachingplan, at some remove, ensured that all the teaching is equivalent, added some degree of validity to the process, probably sponsored the books and materials you might use and a number of other things.

Nope. I teach for the Lifesaving Society- a private non-profit. We (well, our students) pay for everything ourselves- books, pool time, teachers, etc. I make my own lesson plans, following the Society's guidelines. Then, the government skims my paycheque.

As to why the government has claim on 'your' money... perhaps you are forgetting that that money is 'made' by the government... you are merely holding THEIR currency. Also - if you have voted in an election, you have approved of government taxation.


That's a bizzarre argument. My CPU was made by AMD- does that mean that this is actually their computer? I traded my services for that money- the government has no claim to it.

As to the voting, I don't see the connection.


Maybe you should change your route. Of course, it's a better example to say you had your pocket picked... and an even BETTER example to say you AGREE to ahve your pocket picked, and just like to fuss about it afterwards.


When did I agree to have my pocket picked? When I was born? I was never presented with this "social contract" I've heard so much about. I can't afford to move to a better country- I havn't even finished my degree yet.

Before you argue "you use government services, therefor you agree implicitly" or some such thing, consider that I was never given a choice in that matter either- I have no alternative, the government's monopolistic practices have driven out all the private providers of healthcare, electricity, etc.


2) Governments aren't covered by the 'same' morality as individuals.

To argue that governments aren't covered by ordinary morality, you'd have to make the case that either a) they are governed by some sort of alternate morality, or b) governments are above right and wrong.

You have not made an argument for either one, so I remain unconvinced.

Because then people are simply born into poverty or born into riches. Thats not fair,
Yes it is.


and thats certainly not "moral"
Yes it is.

If some company had a monopoly on the water, you'd be paying $1000 a month for the pleasure of having water. Is that reason enough.
Yet a government having a monopoly on it won't cause that? What nonsense is this?

And you've yet to learn the difference between a natural and coercive monopoly. Please do learn it.



Well clearly it matters. You offer a critique of society a principle to remodle it, but no method of implimentation.
I cannot give any specifics. It is impossible.


Free education (which isn't) exists so that the state can inculcate the populace. (http://www.mises.org/web/2689)
Well a "free" education for everyone doesn't have to rule out private education for those who can afford it and want it.
But it does make the private education more expensive than it would otherwise be.


I only brushed through the articule but more able students can obviously work in higher sets as mine did. Compulsory education is perhaps neccessary to ensure that even if you have incompetant/awful parents a child will still get given help.
I'll bet you also have made voting compulsory in your nation, haven't you?

Response to point 1. Anarchy is the vacuum of power.
Wrong.


Nature, of course, abhors a vacuum. Eventually, in a system of complete anarchy, powerful interests (organized crime, business, ex-military etc.) will begin to expand their power due to the abscence of the traditional referee, the state.
Proof?


Response to point 2 If only you were right!
I am.

http://www.mises.org/midroad.asp

Yes it is.
Yes it is.


I'm in no way arguing people should start the game of life on the same ammount of money, but simply the ideal society is one where those with talent/ambition or a drive to succeed have the opportunity to do so. I think this is still only possible with some government help. If taxes were voluntary it would effectivly punish those who would want to help (via losing money) and reward those that give nothing.


Yet a government having a monopoly on it won't cause that? What nonsense is this?
And you've yet to learn the difference between a natural and coercive monopoly. Please do learn it.


Just to clarify I was going to mention the problems of coercive monopolys and how they prevent capitalism and competition, but your remark on a water monopoly seemed like a bigger issue.
Of course its not ideal that a government has a monopoly. Certainly in natural monopolys though you must see that the consumer no longer has any voice. If water was 1000$ a week and was the only source of clean water people will either be forced to go along.
As much as you don't like democracy you must agree that government monopolies are still accountable to the people, if they're awfully run or overcharged opposition parties can be elected to run it in a more efficient way (a respoce to how the public want it run).



I cannot give any specifics. It is impossible.

But if you must critique another ideologys method of gaining power (democracy) you have to replace it with a different means. Otherwise there is hole in the ideology.



But it does make the private education more expensive than it would otherwise be.


But with the benefits it would bring. A more educated society with literate people, companys being interested to set up due to an abundance of skilled worker paying higher wages. This will lead to a more prosperous society. In the global market there is no way to compete with china/india/e.europe/mexico over cheap labour, an educated workforce is the only means to sustain superiority.


I'll bet you also have made voting compulsory in your nation, haven't you?

No. Other than paying taxes and obeying the law both essential in my opinion for society to remian stable the individual should be left to his own affairs. I dislike democracy more than the avarage person but representative democracy under a constitution I can certainly tolerate and has worked better than anything else so far.

I am.

http://www.mises.org/midroad.asp

So we can't go from Carter to Reagon
Or Wilson to Thatcher.

Just because some policies like free education and progressive taxation have been generally accepted does not mean it HAS to go further if people don't want it to. And people are more likely to want to push further left if they're denied basic opportunities to succeed.

[QUOTE=Trotskylvania]Response to point 1. Anarchy is the vacuum of power. Nature, of course, abhors a vacuum. Eventually, in a system of complete anarchy, powerful interests (organized crime, business, ex-military etc.) will begin to expand their power due to the abscence of the traditional referee, the state. Eventually, one group or another will become the de facto state. More likely than not, the new de facto state will be less caring of people than the original state that went under.QUOTE]

There is crime only because people aren't equal, and because they arent really free to do what they want, so some just steal.
Although in an anarchistic community you can't have huge technologies like the Internet, etc... Because you need a bit power to make it so that is a big reason why anarchism wouldn't work in our world.
It might work in an agricultural community.

I'm in no way arguing people should start the game of life on the same ammount of money, but simply the ideal society is one where those with talent/ambition or a drive to succeed have the opportunity to do so. I think this is still only possible with some government help.
That's like saying people can only be moral if they believe in a god: it's patently ludicrous.

Government HINDERS the ability to succeed by creating laws designed to do just that.


If taxes were voluntary it would effectivly punish those who would want to help (via losing money) and reward those that give nothing.
Yet taxes punish those who have something. Taxation is theft.


Just to clarify I was going to mention the problems of coercive monopolys and how they prevent capitalism and competition, but your remark on a water monopoly seemed like a bigger issue.
Of course its not ideal that a government has a monopoly. Certainly in natural monopolys though you must see that the consumer no longer has any voice.
But the consumer does, because there are always substitutes. Your example is so extreme that, while it is often brought up, it is only brought up because people like you think that it means something. It doesn't. Unless there is only 1 well and no one has any tools, your example is so far out of line with reality that I laugh at it.


As much as you don't like democracy you must agree that government monopolies are still accountable to the people, if they're awfully run or overcharged opposition parties can be elected to run it in a more efficient way (a respoce to how the public want it run).
But they aren't accountable to the people, even with voting. People vote for someone else, but it's business as usual.


But if you must critique another ideologys method of gaining power (democracy) you have to replace it with a different means.
No I don't.


But with the benefits it would bring.
The supposed ends (which don't exist) do not justify the means.


No. Other than paying taxes and obeying the law both essential in my opinion for society to remian stable the individual should be left to his own affairs.
So a little bit of theft is ok.

Look, you need to be consistent: either the individual knows best how to run his or her life, or not. Period.

So we can't go from Carter to Reagon
Reagan's cuts were balanced out by increases elsewhere.


Just because some policies like free education and progressive taxation have been generally accepted does not mean it HAS to go further if people don't want it to. And people are more likely to want to push further left if they're denied basic opportunities to succeed.
But they are denied those opportunities by the governmental regulations. Unfortunately, the "capitalists" are the ones who get the blame.

Another problem with anarchism is this: people are power-hungry, money-hungry (because it gives power) shitholes, but in an anarchistic community there would be no power they say.
I am sure that there will always be someone who will say "do this", or "do that".
Then he's gotten power and then it's all over with your anarchistic community

That's like saying people can only be moral if they believe in a god: it's patently ludicrous.
Government HINDERS the ability to succeed by creating laws designed to do just that.
.

Those born into wealth are likely to succeed anyway. Heck they don't even need skill they're rich from birth. Yes they may be slightly hindered from slight government involvement however those at the bottom will be hindered more from no government involvement.


Yet taxes punish those who have something. Taxation is theft.
.

If you want freedom you need law and order. If you want propery rights and an economy where money is worth something you need taxes.


But the consumer does, because there are always substitutes. Your example is so extreme that, while it is often brought up, it is only brought up because people like you think that it means something. It doesn't. Unless there is only 1 well and no one has any tools, your example is so far out of line with reality that I laugh at it.
.

Start up costs are high. Opposition can and will lower their prices to unsustainable levels. Over powerful companys with 0 regulation can destroy all competition and effectivly keep charging more for less of a service. Its even worse for natural monopolies where even fair competition is difficult.


But they aren't accountable to the people, even with voting. People vote for someone else, but it's business as usual.
.

I agree 2 party systems don't do this well, but if one issue is really important both sides are usually represented. If not than a 3rd party or pressure group can become influential. That is if the people really want it.


The supposed ends (which don't exist) do not justify the means.


Both America and Britain are reeping the benefits of free education. Yes they might be taxing too much on other unneccessary services but this is a clear one that is essential for the well being of everyone of all classes.


So a little bit of theft is ok. .

Yes. A compulsory contribution from everyone to atleast ensure; satisfactory roads/sanitation/ defence/education for everyone is not only okay but essential for the well being of a nation.



Look, you need to be consistent: either the individual knows best how to run his or her life, or not. Period.

Or I can believe that we should offer the individual as much freedom to run their lives as possible. And this does not extend to total economic freedom as this leads to economic and social problems, not to mention unfairness of opportunity and large poverty. Theres no reson to think of it as a black and white choice between two extremes.

Reagan's cuts were balanced out by increases elsewhere.
.
Thatcher was atleast successful in dropping spending in literally every feild. But my point was mostly that its not impossible for the middle ground to go further right, particuarly with the emergence of globalisation. Your source seemed to suggest that no matter what the middle ground will lead to socialism then to state totalitarianism.


But they are denied those opportunities by the governmental regulations. Unfortunately, the "capitalists" are the ones who get the blame.

So are you agreeing that ensuring opportunities is atleast important. And can we agree that these opportunities should be provided with as little government regulation as possible and as much market discipline as possible.

The market and private money can be invested in serices as well as public money, just look at the public-private partnership (ppp) Labours used on the tube in England.

Those born into wealth are likely to succeed anyway.
Not necessarily.


Heck they don't even need skill they're rich from birth. Yes they may be slightly hindered from slight government involvement however those at the bottom will be hindered more from no government involvement.
Rather, as natural disasters have shown, those at the bottom are hindered by government involvement.


If you want freedom you need law and order.
Ok. That doesn't require a government.


If you want propery rights and an economy where money is worth something you need taxes.
No you don't. Taxation is a violation of property rights.


Start up costs are high. Opposition can and will lower their prices to unsustainable levels.
The so called "war chest myth".


Over powerful companys with 0 regulation can destroy all competition and effectivly keep charging more for less of a service.
How is that possible?


Its even worse for natural monopolies where even fair competition is difficult.
Huh? That makes no sense at all.


I agree 2 party systems don't do this well, but if one issue is really important both sides are usually represented. If not than a 3rd party or pressure group can become influential. That is if the people really want it.
The problem is that A and B can gang up on C by voting. That's wrong.


Both America and Britain are reeping the benefits of free education.
Actually, we're reaping a crop of worthless crap.


Yes they might be taxing too much on other unneccessary services but this is a clear one that is essential for the well being of everyone of all classes.
No such thing as "classes".


Yes. A compulsory contribution from everyone to atleast ensure; satisfactory roads/sanitation/ defence/education for everyone is not only okay but essential for the well being of a nation.
No, it's not. It is NEVER ok to say "I will protect you and you WILL give me something for it or I will harm you". That's mafia tactics. That's the same thing governments do. It's immoral.


Or I can believe that we should offer the individual as much freedom to run their lives as possible. And this does not extend to total economic freedom as this leads to economic and social problems,
Then you don't believe that people should be free, period.



Thatcher was atleast successful in dropping spending in literally every feild. But my point was mostly that its not impossible for the middle ground to go further right, particuarly with the emergence of globalisation. Your source seemed to suggest that no matter what the middle ground will lead to socialism then to state totalitarianism.
Invariably it will.



So are you agreeing that ensuring opportunities is atleast important.
Insofar as no one has any special priveleges, which can only be granted by a government.


And can we agree that these opportunities should be provided with as little government regulation as possible and as much market discipline as possible.
No government regulation, period.


The market and private money can be invested in serices as well as public money, just look at the public-private partnership (ppp) Labours used on the tube in England.
Clearly it wasn't wanted that badly if tax money had to be used.

Not necessarily.

Incompetant children are put in touch with family contacts, given superior education and sometimes inherit family business. This does not fit in line with a meritocracy or even a well run economy.


Rather, as natural disasters have shown, those at the bottom are hindered by government involvement.


Okay so some individuals form dependency on welfare, I'm against that and I think welfare should be strict and come with responcibilities to find work. But even so, how do you think those individuals would be with no help whatso ever.


Ok. That doesn't require a government.


So you want a privatly funded police? Whats to stop corruption or only the better off having use of such police/defence services.


No you don't. Taxation is a violation of property rights.


Who will protect those property rights if not a government. A country based on individuals seeking their own self interest will have no respect for property rights.


The so called "war chest myth".


Monopolists will charge exhobitant prices until a competitor enters the market, then they will slash prices to a point so low the competitor cannot compete, and when the competitor is driven out, the monopolist will charge exhorbitant prices again. Most agree that is not a good thing, that the capitalist free market system depends upon a level of fair competition to work effectively.


How is that possible?


See above.


Huh? That makes no sense at all.


In a natural monopoly opposition (which will be driven out by low prices) cannot even take place in the first place.


The problem is that A and B can gang up on C by voting. That's wrong.


Tyranny of the majority is a problem. We can protect social freedoms via a constitution, but ultametly in my opinion if we are scared of socialism we can always beat it with rational argument, which has worked well so far.


Actually, we're reaping a crop of worthless crap.


A well educated society where everyone has had the chance to rise and fall on their own merits is crap?


No such thing as "classes".


Okay I'll agree.


No, it's not. It is NEVER ok to say "I will protect you and you WILL give me something for it or I will harm you". That's mafia tactics. That's the same thing governments do. It's immoral.


So we abolish the threat from the state. How do we deal with the threat from other individuals or other nations?


Then you don't believe that people should be free, period.


Minus a few taxes and state run services the free market can still run efficiently, and what do you mean by free anyway. Negative freedoms while desirable can only do so much, and the end result is some are only left with the freedom to chose a life of poverty and starvation.


Invariably it will.


Why. I've just shown you two recent examples of left wing states becoming dramatically more economically liberal. I don't deny that some nations will perhaps go further and further left untill they reach socialism but in Britian atleast the Labour party has specifically moved to the right in acceptance that people do not want socialism.


Insofar as no one has any special priveleges, which can only be granted by a government.


Unlike private education favouring the rich or family status giving better opportunitys and respect?


No government regulation, period.


Not even to protect the enviroment or agains't fraud and deception?


Clearly it wasn't wanted that badly if tax money had to be used.
[/quote]

Well two different tube companys cannot compete agains't each other in the London underground. There simply isn't space. If tax money is invested prices can be lowered to attract tourism and offer a service to the commuters going to work. This has only stimulated the economy, can you not agree that this is an example of successful state intervention?

It wasn't really anarchist, truthfully. Now, if you'd look at Saga-period Iceland, you'll find a pretty lengthy anarchist system.
If you're talking about iceland ca 750-1100AD, then that's inaccurate.

The society was structured, and had fairly extensive laws, particularily for the warriors.
The law-men acted as judges at the 'ting', but even outside the 'ting' gatherings laws were adhered to, or teh lawbreaker was dealt with.

The blood feuds were also rigidly structured, with clear rules of when you were allowed to start one, who were allowed to participate, and what was allowed to be done.

Taxes punish those who have something. Taxation is theft.
In a sense. It's a very specialized theft though, since you don't just get your money stolen, you get something in return.

Cities are too large to easily support a complex structure like a road-network, water and powerline system, education system and similar without a central authority taking care of it and looking after it. Both development/maintenance-wise and in ensuring it gets to the 'customers' as intended.

A company is generally more effective at leading such an admnistration, at the cost of inequal distribution to the customers, while a government is less efficient, but gets the distribution to a larger base of customers.
Since a city (or country) benefits more in the long run from the later, governments and taxation are the norm for who/what adminster a nation/city and not a company.

In once case you get your pay stolen from you, but get something back. In the other, you don't get anything stolen, but have to pay more for what you need.

Incompetant children are put in touch with family contacts, given superior education and sometimes inherit family business. This does not fit in line with a meritocracy or even a well run economy.
Sure it does. Whatever gives you the notion that it doesn't?


Okay so some individuals form dependency on welfare, I'm against that and I think welfare should be strict and come with responcibilities to find work. But even so, how do you think those individuals would be with no help whatso ever.
Why do you assume there would be no help?


So you want a privatly funded police? Whats to stop corruption or only the better off having use of such police/defence services.
1. We have corruption now, and it doesn't get stopped, so your first point obviously is worthless.
2. Why wouldn't there be levels of service payments?


Who will protect those property rights if not a government.
Governments don't protect property rights. Governments are an abridgement of them.


A country based on individuals seeking their own self interest will have no respect for property rights.
Prove it.


Monopolists will charge exhobitant prices until a competitor enters the market, then they will slash prices to a point so low the competitor cannot compete,
War chest. Myth.


In a natural monopoly opposition (which will be driven out by low prices) cannot even take place in the first place.
But it can.


Tyranny of the majority is a problem. We can protect social freedoms via a constitution, but ultametly in my opinion if we are scared of socialism we can always beat it with rational argument, which has worked well so far.
Unfortunately, people keep voting away the rights of others, including themselves.


A well educated society where everyone has had the chance to rise and fall on their own merits is crap?
No, your belief that what you propose will lead to such a thing is crap.


So we abolish the threat from the state. How do we deal with the threat from other individuals or other nations?
Consider that most state vs state violence comes from the fact that state A does something naughty to state B. Now without a state, how does one anger the government of state B?


Minus a few taxes and state run services the free market can still run efficiently, and what do you mean by free anyway.
I mean free. No hamstringing. Taxation is hamstringing.


Negative freedoms while desirable can only do so much, and the end result is some are only left with the freedom to chose a life of poverty and starvation.
Prove it.


Why. I've just shown you two recent examples of left wing states becoming dramatically more economically liberal.
Only in certain areas.


Unlike private education favouring the rich or family status giving better opportunitys and respect?
It does no such thing.


Not even to protect the enviroment or agains't fraud and deception?
Those can't be protected against with private means?


Well two different tube companys cannot compete agains't each other in the London underground.
That's because it was set up by the government.


There simply isn't space. If tax money is invested prices can be lowered to attract tourism and offer a service to the commuters going to work. This has only stimulated the economy, can you not agree that this is an example of successful state intervention?
No. There are other, better means. Think of all the resources that went into building what you said, and think of how said resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

You really should read That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen (http://www.mises.org/web/2735) by Frederic Bastiat, written near the middle of the 19th century. It serves as a basis for Henry Hazlitt's One Lesson. That lesson is: The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

If you're talking about iceland ca 750-1100AD, then that's inaccurate.
No, it's quite accurate, I assure you.

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

In a sense. It's a very specialized theft though, since you don't just get your money stolen, you get something in return.
Something you didn't ask for. Theft is theft, regardless.


Cities are too large to easily support a complex structure like a road-network, water and powerline system, education system and similar without a central authority taking care of it and looking after it.
Rubbish.

No, it's quite accurate, I assure you.

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
Ok, I've read as far as footnote 37 in the 4th part.
The text clearly states that the society on inceland had a clearly defined and structured law system.
Since anarchy is the abscence of law, I don't se how my statement is invalid.

Something you didn't ask for. Theft is theft, regardless.
Let me rephrase it then: What do you get in return if someone hits you over the head and takes you wallet?

Rubbish.
Some validity. Let me amend that to: Most large cities today would not be able to look after it's infrastructure without specific departments/organizations looking after them.
That is even more true for a nationwide infrastructure.

Both a company and a governement can do it, thought the governemnt, while less efficient, gives a higher yield overall.

Or, to look at it from the other direction: A city's infrastructure can not be handled by making (for example) a person in each house responsible for getting water from the city's system functioning in 'his' house, or having one person responsible for a street each.

An administration that looks after the larger picture (and maintenance) is needed to make it work with any reasonable efficency.

Ok, I've read as far as footnote 37 in the 4th part.
The text clearly states that the society on inceland had a clearly defined and structured law system.
Since anarchy is the abscence of law,
No, anarchy is NOT the absence of law. It is the absence of government. And there is NOTHING about law which says it requires a government.

Let me rephrase it then: What do you get in return if someone hits you over the head and takes you wallet?
I fail to see how someone giving me something I don't want or at an overblown price which I have no recourse to is not theft.


Some validity. Let me amend that to: Most large cities today would not be able to look after it's infrastructure without specific departments/organizations looking after them.
And there couldn't be private road companies, etc?


Both a company and a governement can do it, thought the governemnt, while less efficient, gives a higher yield overall.
No, it just taxes people on a grand scale to give the illusion of a higher yield.

Let me rephrase it then: What do you get in return if someone hits you over the head and takes you wallet?



Is it still theft if they give most of the contents of your wallet to charity? What if you end up benefiting from that charity's work?

Theft is theft, no matter where the money goes.

No, anarchy is NOT the absence of law. It is the absence of government. And there is NOTHING about law which says it requires a government.
Absence of government then.
However, the icelandic society did have a government as well as a law system.
This section, from part III of the page you showed me, describes it quite well:
At the base of the system stood the godi (pl. godar) and the godord (pl. godord). A godi was a local chief who built a (pagan) temple and served as its priest; the godord was the congregation. The godi received temple dues and provided in exchange both religious and political services.

Under the system of laws established in A.D. 930 and modified somewhat thereafter, these local leaders were combined into a national system. Iceland was divided into four quarters, and each quarter into nine godord.[23] Within each quarter the godord were clustered in groups of three called things. Only the godar owning these godord had any special status within the legal system, although it seems that others might continue to call themselves godi . (in the sense of priest) and have a godord (in the sense of congregation); to avoid confusion, I will hereafter use the terms "godi" and "godord" only to refer to those having a special status under the legal system.

The one permanent official of this system was the logsogumadr or law- speaker; he was elected every three years by the inhabitants of one quarter (which quarter it was being chosen by lot). His job was to memorize the laws, to recite them through once during his term in office, to provide advice on difficult legal points, and to preside over the lögrétta, the "legislature."

I also looked up anarchy and anarchism and how they are defined, and this is what I got.
an·ar·chy (ăn'ər-kē) pronunciation
n., pl. -chies.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
and
an·ar·chism (ăn'ər-kĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).
The later has some background text that I would like to go through to get a 'feel' for how accurate the three definitions are (since 'bulletpointing' like that often misses a lot), but it still doesn't fit with the icelandic system as far as I can see.

I fail to see how someone giving me something I don't want or at an overblown price which I have no recourse to is not theft.
It's supposed to be an acceptable tradeoff. They steal from everyone, and everyone gets something back.
No-one can benefit from everything, but everyone can benefit from something.
Both laws and governments are oppressive after all. However, you exchange freedom for stability in the society.
Heh, in theory anyway. Reality is, as we all know, more fluid.


And there couldn't be private road companies, etc?
Of course it could. It's still a central administering authority. It's not spread out on individuals in charge of a small piece each.


No, it just taxes people on a grand scale to give the illusion of a higher yield.
Not yield as in profit. Companies are better at actual profit.
The yield a government is (usually) better at is getting more of the service to a larger number of people.
*shrugs* Like I said, it's a tradeoff. Neither system is perfect.

Originally Posted by Erketrum
Let me rephrase it then: What do you get in return if someone hits you over the head and takes you wallet?
Is it still theft if they give most of the contents of your wallet to charity? What if you end up benefiting from that charity's work?

Theft is theft, no matter where the money goes.
If I get something in return, I count is as a reasonable tradeoff (well, depending on what I actually get in return ;)).
The government (or company) gets some of my money and in return I get discount on healthcare and free school for my kids and so on.

If I agree to it, it isn't theft.

Since taxes are compulsory, they are theft for those that doesn't want to pay them.
If it could be arranged so that those that didn't want to pay taxes also didn't get any of the benefits, perhaps taxes could be made on a volontary basis.
That's even more inefficient than just taxing everybody though (except the rich who get subsides or have accountants that can let them off the hook), so most governments makes it mandatory.

Absence of government then.
However, the icelandic society did have a government as well as a law system.
Not really a government, as the essay shows. It wasn't a coercive territorial monopolist.

Sure it does. Whatever gives you the notion that it doesn't?
.
Because thats not rising and falling on your own merits. Its rising on someone elses success to more of an extent that I think is acceptable.


Why do you assume there would be no help?
.

Atleast not enough. Or do you expect individuals to suddenly give up the same ammount of their money by choice, not to mention unpopular services that are essential will certainly be under funded if relied for via donations.



1. We have corruption now, and it doesn't get stopped, so your first point obviously is worthless.
2. Why wouldn't there be levels of service payments?
.

1. You think corruption is a problem now, wait till individuals need to be 100% self sufficient and will therefore be more likely to look at ill gotten means to make money.
2. The thing with police is their job is to protect everyones property rights and rights of the individual. If we want this to extend to everyone it has to be a service thats free and avalible to everyone, not just those willing to pay for it.


Governments don't protect property rights. Governments are an abridgement of them.

.Prove it.

Without legislation defining my rights including property rights, why would someone respect someone elses property rights. Especially if they have little to no property themselves.



War chest. Myth.

But it can.
.

These are tactics used by Wal-mart and Starbucks. And please explain to me how two competing tube stations or rail companys can compete. Build two seperate lines and tracks and take up twice the room? Thats efficient :rolleyes:



Unfortunately, people keep voting away the rights of others, including themselves.
.

Who gives them these rights.



No, your belief that what you propose will lead to such a thing is crap.


Despite the fact that this is vaugly what we have today. Anyone can utilise their education continue onto college/university and succeed in whatever aspect of life they deem best. You say its crap but its proven that even in a poorly run avarage country the ideas work.



Consider that most state vs state violence comes from the fact that state A does something naughty to state B. Now without a state, how does one anger the government of state B?


haha. Have you done any history. Do we really need to anger a state like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, the old USSR or to go back to Nazi Germany. Now if we act nice to them and don't do anything naughty I'm sure they'll leave us alone right.


I mean free. No hamstringing. Taxation is hamstringing.
.

Its also enabling.



Prove it.
.
Ever heard of the famous phrase the freedom to starve. Freedom comes in different forms I value a mix of negative and positive.



Only in certain areas.
.

The point being that state involvement can move either way and even be further minimalised. The absurd claim that every state that has any economic involvement will lead to some totalitarian regim is clearly absurd.


It does no such thing.
.

I would assume that you'd believe private education to be superior to state run education.
Clearly the more expensive/exclusive schools will have better resources staff and statistics show results. Therefore those going to the best private schools (people who are already rich) will be better educated and thus more likely to make more money. This trend continues, it is far worse if many members of society have no affordable education or education of sub standard.


Those can't be protected against with private means?
.

Perhaps. But often governments are better at punishing business that mislead the public.


That's because it was set up by the government.
.

As opposed to corporations that can magically make London bigger and create more room to make rail networks in already densly packed areas.



No. There are other, better means. Think of all the resources that went into building what you said, and think of how said resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

You really should read That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen (http://www.mises.org/web/2735) by Frederic Bastiat, written near the middle of the 19th century. It serves as a basis for Henry Hazlitt's One Lesson. That lesson is: The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

And may I ask who has the long term interests for all groups at heart and who has maximum returns in minimal time in mind.


No, anarchy is NOT the absence of law. It is the absence of government. And there is NOTHING about law which says it requires a government.

People arn't robots they all have different ideas of right and wrong, good and bad. Laws will be created you disagree with. Will you tolerate them and stay in the country/community if you felt you overall benefited from the laws (as a whole)

.
And there couldn't be private road companies, etc?
.

Who then charge stupidly high toll prices that a large number of commuters can't afford. But you'd take economic freedoms over a functioning economy right

Is it still theft if they give most of the contents of your wallet to charity? What if you end up benefiting from that charity's work?

Theft is theft, no matter where the money goes.

THAT IS THEFT. Thats a government saying we know how to spend/donate money better than you. If you think you'll benefit from giving to a charity you can do so yourself.

The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do
not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only
a species of legalized larceny. The wise and correct course to follow
in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success,
but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance
to be successful." - Coolidge

Not really a government, as the essay shows. It wasn't a coercive territorial monopolist.
Yes and no. The icelandic system had a governemnt, but one that was mostly deciding, but not excecuting their decision themselves, nor did it own land.
I take it that is what you mean with 'not coercive territorial monopolist'?
It's still a government however.

A government is not automatically a coercive territorial monopolist, though I agree that most are.
That's because you exchange freedom for stability.

If I recall correctly, the larger and denser the population is in an area, the greater the need for a governement.
With increased population density, you have to give up more freedom than in sparesly populated areas, or the society will become unstable due to conflicts.
Since people value stability more than freedom, they count it a reasonable tradeoff. Or move to some place with less people.


gov·ern·ment Pronunciation (gvrn-mnt)
n.
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8. Political science.
9. Grammar The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence.

govern·mental (-mntl) adj.
govern·mental·ly adv.

Usage Note: In American usage government always takes a singular verb. In British usage government, in the sense of a governing group of officials, takes a plural verb: The government are determined to follow this course. See Usage Note at collective noun.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

THAT IS THEFT. Thats a government saying we know how to spend/donate money better than you. If you think you'll benefit from giving to a charity you can do so yourself.
Actually, he was refering to an idividual robbing you, not the government.

I tried to illustrate the difference betweem taxation and getting robbed by pointing out that you get something in return for taxes.
Something you didn't ask for. Theft is theft, regardless.

So I replied: Let me rephrase it then: What do you get in return if someone hits you over the head and takes you wallet?

To which Haelduksf replied: Is it still theft if they give most of the contents of your wallet to charity? What if you end up benefiting from that charity's work?

Theft is theft, no matter where the money goes.


Just so there's no confusion of who said what. ;)

No, anarchy is NOT the absence of law. It is the absence of government. And there is NOTHING about law which says it requires a government.

Actually anarchy is total chaos, you probably mean anarchism, which is indeed a society without a government, but ALSO without laws. Because anarchism is for complete freedom and this can only be achieved by the absence of laws, so you are quite wrong

And please explain to me how two competing tube stations or rail companys can compete. Build two seperate lines and tracks and take up twice the room? Thats efficient :rolleyes:

You fail to take into account that a rail company as a competitor does not only need to compete with other rail providers - all forms of public transport would be involved in such competition, and if a rail monopolist charged extortionate prices or provided shoddy service, people would take cheaper and better bus and taxi services. The free market can be applied to public transport as a whole and still work its wonderful magic.

You fail to take into account that a rail company as a competitor does not only need to compete with other rail providers - all forms of public transport would be involved in such competition, and if a rail monopolist charged extortionate prices or provided shoddy service, people would take cheaper and better bus and taxi services. The free market can be applied to public transport as a whole and still work its wonderful magic.

If I commute from outside London into central London for work each morning rail is my only option. Water might be a better example, you are dependent on local resources and should a monopoly emerge you're basically forced to pay whatever price they wish.

Because thats not rising and falling on your own merits.
But how is it not fair?


Atleast not enough.
What makes you assume that?


Or do you expect individuals to suddenly give up the same ammount of their money by choice, not to mention unpopular services that are essential will certainly be under funded if relied for via donations.
After seeing the volume and extent of private donations to help those from the tsunami and hurricanes, do you really have to ask your question?

As to the unpopular services--I'd have to say that they are all unpopular because they are non-essential.


1. You think corruption is a problem now, wait till individuals need to be 100% self sufficient
Do you mean that as in they have to grow their own food, etc.? Or do you mean that in some other way?


2. The thing with police is their job is to protect everyones property rights and rights of the individual.
Actually, no. The police (right now) are there to enforce laws, good or bad.


If we want this to extend to everyone it has to be a service thats free and avalible to everyone, not just those willing to pay for it.
No, people need to pay for it. It's not a right.



Without legislation defining my rights including property rights, why would someone respect someone elses property rights.
Reciprocity, for starters. And you don't need legislation to define rights.



These are tactics used by Wal-mart and Starbucks.
No, they are not.


And please explain to me how two competing tube stations or rail companys can compete. Build two seperate lines and tracks and take up twice the room?
Sure. Or one could lease lines from the other and extend from there.


Who gives them these rights.
Rights are part of a hypothetico-actual agreement among individuals.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html


Despite the fact that this is vaugly what we have today.
What we have today is mostly crap.


Anyone can utilise their education continue onto college/university and succeed in whatever aspect of life they deem best. You say its crap but its proven that even in a poorly run avarage country the ideas work.
Depends on what you mean by "work".


haha. Have you done any history.
Yes. You haven't.


Do we really need to anger a state like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, the old USSR or to go back to Nazi Germany.
Only other states do so.


Its also enabling.
No, taxation always destroys.


Ever heard of the famous phrase the freedom to starve. Freedom comes in different forms I value a mix of negative and positive.
Muddled thinking.



The point being that state involvement can move either way and even be further minimalised. The absurd claim that every state that has any economic involvement will lead to some totalitarian regim is clearly absurd.
Not when you look at the history of the last 2 centuries.


I would assume that you'd believe private education to be superior to state run education.
Clearly the more expensive/exclusive schools will have better resources staff and statistics show results. Therefore those going to the best private schools (people who are already rich) will be better educated and thus more likely to make more money. This trend continues, it is far worse if many members of society have no affordable education or education of sub standard.
Why would the education not be affordable or sub-standard?


Perhaps. But often governments are better at punishing business that mislead the public.
No, and in fact, governments tend to punish businesses which do quite well without fraud.


As opposed to corporations that can magically make London bigger and create more room to make rail networks in already densly packed areas.
Did you actually think before you responded?


And may I ask who has the long term interests for all groups at heart and who has maximum returns in minimal time in mind.
No one.


People arn't robots they all have different ideas of right and wrong, good and bad. Laws will be created you disagree with. Will you tolerate them and stay in the country/community if you felt you overall benefited from the laws (as a whole)
You're making some unwarranted presumptions.


Who then charge stupidly high toll prices
Again with an unwarranted assumption.

Actually anarchy is total chaos,
No, it's not. Stop conflating the two.

Also: I'm quite correct. Anarchy is simply the absence of government. Nothing more. Anything that YOU decide you want to add to it is therefore YOUR problem.

THAT IS THEFT. Thats a government saying we know how to spend/donate money better than you. If you think you'll benefit from giving to a charity you can do so yourself.

The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do
not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only
a species of legalized larceny. The wise and correct course to follow
in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success,
but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance
to be successful." - Coolidge

Precisely.

I suppose you don't believe that most government activities are essentially charitable?

If I get something in return, I count is as a reasonable tradeoff (well, depending on what I actually get in return ;)).
The government (or company) gets some of my money and in return I get discount on healthcare and free school for my kids and so on.

If I agree to it, it isn't theft.

Since taxes are compulsory, they are theft for those that doesn't want to pay them.
If it could be arranged so that those that didn't want to pay taxes also didn't get any of the benefits, perhaps taxes could be made on a volontary basis.
That's even more inefficient than just taxing everybody though (except the rich who get subsides or have accountants that can let them off the hook), so most governments makes it mandatory.

This is the problem (well, fine, one of many) I have with governments. The many have voted to legalize theft from the few.

The system you propose would be unworkable; a goodly number of the rich would opt out, and the poor (at least those who don't also opt out) would have only themselves to leech from.

I don't see how this would be less efficient- private enterprise is more efficient than public, after all, and that is what those who opt out would turn to-, nor do I see the relevance of relative efficiency levels on the morals of taxation. Less profitable for the government? Certainly. Less efficient? Nearly everything is more effective than a coercive monopoly.

I think you'll find it's very socialist. The poorest there are much better off lifestyle-wise than most countries which are similarly wealthy.


That is your criteria???


I would thing the criteria is more like not allowing private ownership and profit. BOTH of which the Swedes are allowed.

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?

Don't blame me, I'm just a product of my material conditions

But how is it not fair?


How else can you justify capitalism. If a system doesn't reward success and punish failure than it is biased towards those born rich and anti those born poor. That is unfair.


What makes you assume that?


Are you suggesting with no government or taxes there will be a greater pool of voluntary funded resources to invest in public services. If not than public services will suffer.


After seeing the volume and extent of private donations to help those from the tsunami and hurricanes, do you really have to ask your question?


Those donations were pretty much a one off thing to instantly save lives and helpe sort out an awful natural crisis. Now can you really expect 100% of people to consistently year after year give in the region of 20% of their income to stuff like public transport, educating others over their own kids


As to the unpopular services--I'd have to say that they are all unpopular because they are non-essential.


Put it this way. I could donate $1000 dollars to a charity that helps educate other kids or I could invest that $1000 on the education of my own son. Similarly I could donate funds so that the rail system could improve and work better or I could spend the same ammount of money on a better car.

Going by many peoples views on the military atleast on NS. Lots of people would donate nothing. That would mean a strong army would need double or tripple the investment from the people who want it when of course they still have their own needs to cater for as well.



Do you mean that as in they have to grow their own food, etc.? Or do you mean that in some other way?


With no state welfare, pensions or health care you'll have to look out for your own interests even more so. That has to lead to increased corruption. Especially if a service like the police is reliant on donations.



Actually, no. The police (right now) are there to enforce laws, good or bad.


One of them being to protect the property rights of others. And in an anarchistic society (that has laws) would the police not then do exacly the same job?



No, people need to pay for it. It's not a right.


Its not a right to be protected from people who break the law?



Reciprocity, for starters.


So what theft and burgulry would just disapear?



No, they are not.


I've seen Starbucks do it themselves where I live. Its official policy. And this is when monopoly and competition is somewhat controlled!


Sure. Or one could lease lines from the other and extend from there.


Why would one want to co-operate with the other. Thats just creating competition and will force prices to go down and lose the company potential profits.


Rights are part of a hypothetico-actual agreement among individuals.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html


Looks interesting. I'll give it a good read when I have the time.


What we have today is mostly crap.


You wanna get rich is possible to get rich. You want to get a job you can pretty much get one doing whatever you want to do. If you think things are beyond awful we have the freedom to leave and take our stuff with us. Its not perfect but I'd say its as good now as its ever been.


Depends on what you mean by "work".


By work I mean the best rise to the top.


Yes. You haven't.


Come on. Nazi's wanted to take over the world, Communists wanted to take over the whole world. I'm sure fundamentalist muslims left to their own devices would take over the whole world.

There is no way you can say a nation will only be attacked because the state provokes the agressor.



Only other states do so.


By the sheer fact you don't conform to their way of thinking you'll anger them.



No, taxation always destroys.


No taxation always destroys the economy



Not when you look at the history of the last 2 centuries.


I'd attribute that to universal suffridge. But even so was it much better than. People inherrited land had peasents work on them and did nothing themselves while reaping the benefits.


Why would the education not be affordable or sub-standard?


The hole point of free education is that children from the poorer parts of socierty can get good quality education they woulnd't have otherwise been able to afford. If it was entirely private there would be 2 options. Go to a school they can afford, which will obviously be of lesser quality. Or don't get any education.
I find neither desirable.


No, and in fact, governments tend to punish businesses which do quite well without fraud.


A business can do quite well without fraud but could be destroying the enviroment. Obviously you want to cater to the needs of business they're essential for the well being of the economy, but this doesn't mean the powerful businesses should be left to gain the power to control it either.


Did you actually think before you responded?


I see no reason why one company who have built rail networks would voluntarily share use with another rival company. With no opption for genuine competiton a natural monopoly can exist, and with something as important as travel its power would be huge.


No one.


Well government will atleast try to cater for everyone in the nation. A company simply caters for the needs of the people with the most money. In a service like rail that is essential for the well being of trade, tourism and a stable economy private greed should be avoided at all cost.


You're making some unwarranted presumptions.


Brush off the question if you want, but I'd have preffered an answer.


Again with an unwarranted assumption.

If raising prices would make the company more profit. But would prevent thousands from travaling to work and would make tourists less likely to visit do you think the private company would think of the people they affect.

Precisely.

I suppose you don't believe that most government activities are essentially charitable?

Well to say charitable implys only the poor benefit. I beleive that government activities are for everyones benefit. And everyone does benefit from the essential services being avalible outside of the market as well as inside

.Don't blame me, I'm just a product of my material conditions

Capitalism doesn't stop you changing your material conditions.

How else can you justify capitalism.
That you are unable to think of anything else makes no difference to me.


If a system doesn't reward success and punish failure than it is biased towards those born rich and anti those born poor.
Non sequitur.


Are you suggesting with no government or taxes there will be a greater pool of voluntary funded resources to invest in public services.
1. Yes.
2. There are no such things as "public services".


Those donations were pretty much a one off thing to instantly save lives and helpe sort out an awful natural crisis. Now can you really expect 100% of people to consistently year after year give in the region of 20% of their income to stuff like public transport, educating others over their own kids
We expect people to do it with taxes.....


Put it this way. I could donate $1000 dollars to a charity that helps educate other kids or I could invest that $1000 on the education of my own son. Similarly I could donate funds so that the rail system could improve and work better or I could spend the same ammount of money on a better car.

Going by many peoples views on the military atleast on NS. Lots of people would donate nothing. That would mean a strong army would need double or tripple the investment from the people who want it when of course they still have their own needs to cater for as well.
Why? Without a government, there's no need for a large army.


With no state welfare, pensions or health care you'll have to look out for your own interests even more so.
That's bad? Taking responsibility for your own life is...bad?


That has to lead to increased corruption.
No it hasn't.


Especially if a service like the police is reliant on donations.
Private police are no different than carpet cleaners or window washers. A contract is a contract.


One of them being to protect the property rights of others.
No, since the laws routinely violate them.


And in an anarchistic society (that has laws) would the police not then do exacly the same job?
They would protect and serve rather than harrass and annoy.


Its not a right to be protected from people who break the law?
No.


So what theft and burgulry would just disapear?
I'll let you back that strawman up.


I've seen Starbucks do it themselves where I live. Its official policy.
I'll believe it when I see it on official Starbucks letterhead. Until then, you're just talking out of your ass.


And this is when monopoly and competition is somewhat controlled!
Please tell me that you actually know something valid about monopoly theory, rather than the bullshit Marxist dogma that most people spew.


Why would one want to co-operate with the other.
Cost-sharing.


Thats just creating competition and will force prices to go down and lose the company potential profits.
Service can go up.


Come on. Nazi's wanted to take over the world, Communists wanted to take over the whole world. I'm sure fundamentalist muslims left to their own devices would take over the whole world.
And those are governments.


There is no way you can say a nation will only be attacked because the state provokes the agressor.
Pretty much, yes.


By the sheer fact you don't conform to their way of thinking you'll anger them.
No.


No taxation always destroys the economy
It destroys anything.


I'd attribute that to universal suffridge. But even so was it much better than. People inherrited land had peasents work on them and did nothing themselves while reaping the benefits.
Actually, you're skipping quite a bit. Not to mention the serious problems of democracy or democratic republics themselves. Consider how much more total wars have become since liberal democracies/democratic republics formed.


The hole point of free education is that children from the poorer parts of socierty can get good quality education they woulnd't have otherwise been able to afford.
They can't afford it because the government ensures that the private education costs are higher than would otherwise be.


A business can do quite well without fraud but could be destroying the enviroment. Obviously you want to cater to the needs of business they're essential for the well being of the economy, but this doesn't mean the powerful businesses should be left to gain the power to control it either.
And why would it be able to?



I see no reason why one company who have built rail networks would voluntarily share use with another rival company.
It happens.


With no opption for genuine competiton a natural monopoly can exist, and with something as important as travel its power would be huge.
But the only travel monopolies are state-run or state-granted.


Well government will atleast try to cater for everyone in the nation.
No it won't. It will promise the sky but deliver nothing but dust.


A company simply caters for the needs of the people with the most money. In a service like rail that is essential for the well being of trade, tourism and a stable economy private greed should be avoided at all cost.
Why do you use such loaded words?



Brush off the question if you want, but I'd have preffered an answer.
What you prefer and what you deserve are two different things.


If raising prices would make the company more profit. But would prevent thousands from travaling to work and would make tourists less likely to visit do you think the private company would think of the people they affect.
Yes.

This is the problem (well, fine, one of many) I have with governments. The many have voted to legalize theft from the few.

The system you propose would be unworkable; a goodly number of the rich would opt out, and the poor (at least those who don't also opt out) would have only themselves to leech from.

I don't see how this would be less efficient- private enterprise is more efficient than public, after all, and that is what those who opt out would turn to-, nor do I see the relevance of relative efficiency levels on the morals of taxation. Less profitable for the government? Certainly. Less efficient? Nearly everything is more effective than a coercive monopoly.
Since taxation mostly involves everyone, hasn't the many voted to take from everyone?

I do not advocate a volontary taxation. It's unworkable. I merely used it as an example of how it would have to be if people shouldn't feel stolen from.

If you're going to have taxes, tax everyone.

Personally I prefer that the state provide healthcare and education.
Private businesses need to show a profit, and that means they'll cut corners (in the real world) on the costs, at the expense of the service. Or, they charge for it, which makes it an income issue.
Not everyone, and that's usually a majority, will be able to afford the private schools that offer education or healthcare where corners haven't been cut.
That creates inequality of opportunities, not to mention that those unable to benefit from good education/healthcare also cannot give as much back to society ior themselves because their full potential is untapped.

However, you are correct that a state monopoly also is bad. While you get a better ratio of people getting the opportunity to realise their potential because it doesn't discrimminate against the poor, you have the problem of efficency and control. If there's no competitor, efficency only becomes a budget issue.
Same with quality control, and the government can always let the education/healthcare board off the hook because they're the sole employer.
(Well, maybe not healthcare. If it's bad, people usually complain enough that teh governemnt change things, or they get voted out. Or removed by force if it's bad enough.)

Thus, I advocate a mix of state-run and private-run schools and hospitals.
That's a flawed system too of course, but it's the "least evil" in my worldview.

No, anarchy is NOT the absence of law. It is the absence of government. And there is NOTHING about law which says it requires a government.
Actually anarchy is total chaos, you probably mean anarchism, which is indeed a society without a government, but ALSO without laws. Because anarchism is for complete freedom and this can only be achieved by the absence of laws, so you are quite wrong
Isn't this a case of different degrees in anarchy and anarchism?
Just like there are different levels of socialism and conservatism, there are different levels on anarchism.

Considering how often people with the same basic idea differ in the details, it seems logical. ;)

If we want this to extend to everyone it has to be a service thats free and avalible to everyone, not just those willing to pay for it.
No, people need to pay for it. It's not a right.
It is correct that it's not a moral/natural right. After all, naturally, no-one has any rights.

What rights we have is those we take for ourselves or that is granted to us.
I think what Blood implies is that he advocates a system where the governmant have decided to make it a right of its populace to get the service in question, through taxation.

BAAWAKnights on the other hand advocates a system where the service is paid for by the customer.


If I got any of that wrong, feel free to correct me. ;)

No, it's not. Stop conflating the two.

Also: I'm quite correct. Anarchy is simply the absence of government. Nothing more. Anything that YOU decide you want to add to it is therefore YOUR problem.


How do you want to be completely free (what the anarchists try to become) when there are laws in the way, laws always diminishes your freedom.

How do you want to be completely free (what the anarchists try to become) when there are laws in the way, laws always diminishes your freedom.
Anarchists don't try to become completely free. Therein lies your problem: a strawman.

How do you want to be completely free (what the anarchists try to become) when there are laws in the way, laws always diminishes your freedom.If there are no laws, some peoples freedom will be at the cost of other peoples freedom. People do not need the freedom to rape and pillage their neighbours household. Unlimited freedom is unfeasible.

That you are unable to think of anything else makes no difference to me.
.

I can better justify a system with social mobility where the circumstances you're born into have less weight in what circumstances you live in for the rest of your life.


Non sequitur.
.

A football game with no referee is better for the team that fouls more often. A society with no welfare is better for those who don't need it.


1. Yes.
.

Simply wishful thinking. Such logic is similar with a communist claiming people will work harder for the common good over material incentive.


2. There are no such things as "public services".
.

Okay so lets get this striaght. Tax taken and invested into the country for everyones benefit is punishment for being rich. But the rich with no forced taxation will actually donate more into charity that they don't benefit from?


We expect people to do it with taxes.....
.

Thats the only way to get it done. I know it sounds awful and I don't like it myself. But it needs to be done and there simply isn't incentive to do it on a voluntary basis since those who are generous will be punished while those who give nothing are rewarded.


Why? Without a government, there's no need for a large army.
.

Further wishful thinking. Do you think Stalin or Hitler invaded countries because that nations state annoyed them. But this furthers my point you would not donate towards an army to defend everyone in the nation from attack since you don't regard it as important. What you think is an important service others might not.



That's bad? Taking responsibility for your own life is...bad?
.

In most cases no. But if you work in the police are a judge or work in the army putting your own self interest ahead of others isn't neccessarily a good thing.


No it hasn't.
.

A judge is taking a case. He might not have job security or a pension. He is offered a bribe far higher than his salery. He's not more likely to take it in this situation?



Private police are no different than carpet cleaners or window washers. A contract is a contract.
.
If I can't afford a window washer my windows will get dirty. If I can't afford a police officer I get robbed or attacked.



They would protect and serve rather than harrass and annoy.
.

They would only protect and serve if you paid them. Or would people donate to make them catch criminals and also donate even more to keep them in well secured prisons.


No.
I'll let you back that strawman up.
.

You say its not a right to be protected from someone who breaks the law. I asked if theft would disapear (the answer obviously being no). Why couldn't people steal, rape or abuse others who they know can't afford police to track them down and imprison them.




I'll believe it when I see it on official Starbucks letterhead. Until then, you're just talking out of your ass.
.

Just because they don't publish it in some handbook it doesn't mean its not a tactic they use. Small coffee shops have disapeard from my highstreet and Starbucks prices have risen since their origonal start up.


Cost-sharing.
.


They will still make less profit from prices since they will need to compete with a rival.



And those are governments.
.

So your system won't emerge through democracy or violent revolution and is reliant on all other nations lacking a government. Please explain again why this isn't utopian.
Nonetheless you can abolish all the governments in the world conflict will still come from religion/race or whatever is the issue of the day.


Pretty much, yes.
.

Another nation can't just simply want to expand land or take resources.



They can't afford it because the government ensures that the private education costs are higher than would otherwise be.
.

Think of it this way. Even when the state is trying to give equal schools across the country richer neighbourhoods have better schools and more selective criteria. If this was done on a private level the divisions would only be larger.



And why would it be able to?
.

They would be able to since there would be a lack of regulation or anti trust laws.



No it won't. It will promise the sky but deliver nothing but dust.


Mabey if we had a better educated public who could elect better politicians :rolleyes:


Yes.

Why. Surely its none of their concern.


If I got any of that wrong, feel free to correct me. ;)

Yup. I want as many social and economic freedoms as possible without harming the economy or sacrificing social mobility/decent opportunities for all.

anarchy
A noun
1 anarchy, lawlessness

a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/anarchy

anarchism
A noun
1 anarchism

a political theory favoring the abolition of governments
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/anarchism

Anarchy and anarchism are not the same thing. Anarchism is a philosophy, anarchy is the result of a failed state.

That said, there is no empirical way to prove that an "anarchist" capitalist society would be able to function efficiently or fairly without degenerating into competing corporate police states.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the society of Saga period Iceland was a communalist society, much the way that Native American societies were communalist. In wikipedia it states

However, some disagree with this assessment, arguing that Medieval Iceland was a communal rather than individualist society - [p]eople of a communitarian nature... have reason to be attracted [to Medieval Iceland]... The economy barely knew the existence of markets. Social relations preceded economic relations. [31] and that when a free market finally did arise, that it was the cause of the end of the republic - "During the 12th century, wealth and power began to accumulate in the hands of a few chiefs, and by 1220, six prominent families ruled the entire country. It was the internecine power struggle among these families, shrewdly exploited by King Haakon IV of Norway, that finally brought the old republic to an end."[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism

Finally, anarchist capitalism is contradictory with human rights, because it places the value of the rights of property holders supreme. Property by its nature is theft, because much of the surplus value collected by a property owner is the result of the work of someone else.

One last quote.

Private Ownership
For some, "freedom of enterprise" is a fundamental right as well as the cornerstone of political liberty. In this view, if people are not free to hire any who are willing to work for them under conditions the employer specifies, people's fundamental economic freedoms are violated, and other freedoms are threatened as well. While we agree that economic freedom is a crucial valuative criterion and inextricably linked with political and cultural freedom, we do not accept the equation of economic freedom with freedom of enterprise, or the conclusion that private enterprise is compatible with economic freedom.
In our view, economic freedom is best defined as decision making input in proportion to the degree one is affected by the outcome of an economic choice, or as self-management. The problem with freedom of enterprise is that the "freedom" of employers inevitably conflicts with the "freedom" of employees. When stockholders exercise their freedom of enterprise to decide how their company will operate, they violate their employees' right to decide how their laboring capacities will be utilized. In other words, if production is organized under private ownership, the "property" rights of employers (freedom of enterprise) inevitably conflict with the "human" rights of employees (selfmanagement). One way of explaining our position is that we accord human rights priority over property rights. A more philosophically consistent way of putting it is that we grant all the right of selfmanagement, which is the only formulation of "economic freedom" that does not implicitly grant some people freedom at the expense of others.
The rebuttal of those who define economic freedom as freedom of enterprise is, of course, that employees are always free not to work for any particular employer, and free to become employers themselves if they wish. There are three problems with this response.
1. Unequal ownership of property is inconsistent with "equality of opportunity" to become an employer under the best of circumstances, and effectively limits the majority to choosing which employer will infringe upon their right of self-management in realistic settings.
2. Even if we started with equal ownership of property, maintaining equality of ownership entails redistributing people's property which supporters of freedom of enterprise oppose
as unjustifiable expropriation and a violation of people's right to dispose of their wherewithal without interference.

3. Even if equal opportunity to become an employer could be maintained, this merely grants all an equal chance to infringe on someone else's human right of self-management rather than have their own right of self-management violated. It is the logical equivalent of a fair lottery assigning people to be slave owners or slaves.
In any case, private ownership subverts self-management as we define it. It also subverts equity, defined as payment according to effort, since this maxim implies that income derived from ownership of property is unjustifiable, which we discuss at length in chapter 3. Finally, there is a more subtle argument against private enterprise. Unless there is 100 percent labor turnover each time period, profit maximization under competitive conditions implies that any kind of laboring activity that generates employee empowering traits will have an actual market wage less than its socially optimal wage and be undersupplied by private employers, while any kind of labor activity that weakens employee empowering traits will be paid more than its socially optimal wage and be oversupplied by private employers. 6 Various writers from a school of economic analysis known as "the conflict theory of the firm" have argued plausibly, in our opinion, that work conditions under participatory, cooperative, and fair conditions constitute laboring activities of the first kind-which will be undersupplied according to our theorem-whereas work under discriminatory conditions or in situations with artificial hierarchies constitute laboring activities of the second kind, and will, therefore, be oversupplied. So the common thread running through the conflict school is that socially counterproductive and inefficient practices such as wage and employment discrimination, exaggerating hierarchies, and de-skilling the work force are part and parcel of profit maximization. Or, put differently, profit maximization under private enterprise undermines rather than promotes selfmanagement and solidarity, and misallocates human productive potentials as well.
http://www.zmag.org/books/polpar.htm

Finally, anarchist capitalism is contradictory with human rights, because it places the value of the rights of property holders supreme. Property by its nature is theft, because much of the surplus value collected by a property owner is the result of the work of someone else.

In this article, I shall confine myself to the analysis of a single principle—a single fallacy—which is rampant in the writings of the neo-mystics and without which their doctrines could not be propagated.

We call it “the fallacy of the stolen concept.”

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon’s famous declaration that “All property is theft.”

“Theft” is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of “rightfully owned property”—and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner’s consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as “theft.” Thus, the statement “All property is theft” has an internal contradiction: to use the concept “theft” while denying the validity of the concept of “property,” is to use “theft” as a concept to which one has no logical right—that is, as a stolen concept.

All of man’s knowledge and all of his concepts have a hierarchical structure. The foundation or ultimate base of this structure is man’s sensory perceptions; these are the starting points of his thinking. From these, man forms his first concepts and (ostensive) definitions—then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale. It is a process of building one identification upon another—of deriving wider abstractions from previously known abstractions, or of breaking down wider abstractions into narrower classifications. Man’s concepts are derived from and depend on earlier, more basic concepts, which serve as their genetic roots. For example, the concept “parent” is presupposed by the concept “orphan”; if one had not grasped the former, one could not arrive at the latter, nor could the latter be meaningful.

The hierarchical nature of man’s knowledge implies an important principle that must guide man’s reasoning: When one uses concepts, one must recognize their genetic roots, one must recognize that which they logically depend on and presuppose.

Failure to observe this principle—as in “All property is theft”—constitutes the fallacy of the stolen concept.
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles.php?tPath=2&page=2#

Also, without the supremacy of property holders, you couldn't do anything. To even speak requires that you have the property right to your body. To argue requires the axiom of action. Any suggestion otherwise entails a performative contradiction.

As to surplus value--that only holds if the labor theory of value is valid. It's not. The LTV has been refuted to death for more than a century and a half. Only Marxists (who are known to have as much knowledge of economics as your average creationist has about evolution) hold to it.

Or, put differently, profit maximization under private enterprise undermines rather than promotes selfmanagement and solidarity, and misallocates human productive potentials as well.
This is true, because it is exactly what has happened on my job.

The comapny have had problems of making a profit, so it has continually re-structured the work for the employees over the years.

One thing they do is that they don't increase personnel at the same pace as the workload grows.

Secondly; to save money, they don't call in extra personnel when people are sick. It's distributed to the ones that are there.

Third; When I first joined, the employees had a fairly wide range of tasks during the day. This was later re-structured to get more efficient so that a few handled some of the tasks so the rest could concentrate on the other.
This 'dumbed down' the employees not having one of the centralized tasks, with the effect that they got more efficient and also became easier to replace. It also got harder, since it was the more physical tasks that remained and the more administartive that got centralized.
However, those handling the centralized tasks did not get any wage increase for performing the now specialized tasks.

This made for employees that were fairly unattractive on the job market, and since the job market was tough due to a 'low' in the economy (there were on average 15 applicants to the cashier jobs at the supermarkets) most of the the employees had no choice but to remain at a company that steadily degraded their work situation.

I can better justify a system with social mobility where the circumstances you're born into have less weight in what circumstances you live in for the rest of your life.
But that's not the system you desire. You desire a system where there is no social mobility, as it has been rendered moot by spreading the misery.


A football game with no referee is better for the team that fouls more often. A society with no welfare is better for those who don't need it.
And a society which enshrines theft, couching it in terms of "love" and "help for the needy" isn't a society at all, but an uncouth mob.


Simply wishful thinking.
No, it's how humans act.


Okay so lets get this striaght. Tax taken and invested into the country for everyones benefit is punishment for being rich.
Punishment for having money.


But the rich with no forced taxation will actually donate more into charity that they don't benefit from?
Yes. Just because you don't believe it means nothing. IOW: I realize that you're trying an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.


Thats the only way to get it done.
No, it's not. If you leave people alone, they will have more resources and thus be able to do more. However, if you tax people, they have less. Quite simple, really.


Further wishful thinking.
Nope, it's quite true. Nations themselves are the greatest threat to peace.


In most cases no [taking responsibility for your own life is not bad]. But if you work in the police are a judge or work in the army putting your own self interest ahead of others isn't neccessarily a good thing.
Why would that happen? Why are you strawmanning?


A judge is taking a case. He might not have job security or a pension.
He won't have job security if he takes the bribe.


If I can't afford a window washer my windows will get dirty. If I can't afford a police officer I get robbed or attacked.
Even if you can, you still might. Hell, I nearly got robbed last night by some guy holding a knife to my throat.


They would only protect and serve if you paid them. Or would people donate to make them catch criminals and also donate even more to keep them in well secured prisons.
Prisons are bad. Better to have restitution than revenge.

And window washers only wash your windows if you pay them. Is that wrong?


You say its not a right to be protected from someone who breaks the law.
It's a service which must be paid for. It's not a right. If it were a right, it would be done without payment on your part.


Just because they don't publish it in some handbook it doesn't mean its not a tactic they use.
Just because you believe it's a tactic they use doesn't mean that it is. I've seen from your posts that you don't know anything about economics.


Small coffee shops have disapeard from my highstreet and Starbucks prices have risen since their origonal start up.
Prices have risen all over. It's called "inflation" in your country!


They will still make less profit from prices since they will need to compete with a rival.
Maybe, maybe not. But sometimes "co-opetition" has its advantages.


So your system won't emerge through democracy or violent revolution and is reliant on all other nations lacking a government. Please explain again why this isn't utopian.
Please explain how your statement isn't a strawman.
Nonetheless you can abolish all the governments in the world conflict will still come from religion/race or whatever is the issue of the day.


Think of it this way. Even when the state is trying to give equal schools across the country richer neighbourhoods have better schools and more selective criteria. If this was done on a private level the divisions would only be larger.
Prove it.


They would be able to since there would be a lack of regulation or anti trust laws.
Anti-trust laws are actually anti-competition laws. They have nothing to do with "making people safe from bad monopolies".

I urge you to actually learn something about economics.


Mabey if we had a better educated public who could elect better politicians :rolleyes:
Wouldn't help. Democracy follows The Dilbert Principle.

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

That doesn't answer his question. Why would anyone want to replace a system that works (albeit with problems) with one that doesn't?

wow.....this is really heavy.....

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.

So you would rather have EVERYBODY live in poverty? Because as ideal as communism/socialism is, in the real world, its not about spreading the wealth. Its about making everybody equally poor. And Communism does preclude democracy, as they are both systems of government that are inherently incompatible.

I think when it comes to this subject I am kind of stuck in a kindergarten frame of mind: I was taught, way back in kindergarten, that you can't take what isn't yours. I was taught that you can give one of your own toys to another person, but you aren't allowed to give somebody else's toy to another person.

I am horrified at the levels of poverty in the world, particularly the poverty in my own nation (seeing as how we're supposedly the "richest nation in the world"). I choose to deal with this by donating my time and my own money to help those in need. I could not do otherwise...I feel strongly, so I must act accordingly.

I sometimes am depressed by how few other people share my concerns. I am often depressed by how little I have to give (25K a year doesn't go as far as you'd think). And yes, sometimes I will imagine what it might be like if all my fellow citizens decided to pitch in and all help out. It might be cool.

However, I am revolted by the idea of taking somebody else's money to fund the causes that I feel are important. That is stealing. I am disgusted by the suggestion that any person's labor, or the product of that labor, can be appropriated against their wishes. That is slavery.

My money and my time are mine to give. I choose to give because I want to do so. Other people's time and money DOES NOT BELONG TO ME. It is not mine to give, and it would be supremely arrogant of me to claim that I get to make decisions about how other people get to spend their time and money.

And a society which enshrines theft, couching it in terms of "love" and "help for the needy" isn't a society at all, but an uncouth mob.
Tell that to the swedes, finns, norwegians and danes. :p

I think when it comes to this subject I am kind of stuck in a kindergarten frame of mind: I was taught, way back in kindergarten, that you can't take what isn't yours. I was taught that you can give one of your own toys to another person, but you aren't allowed to give somebody else's toy to another person.

I am horrified at the levels of poverty in the world, particularly the poverty in my own nation (seeing as how we're supposedly the "richest nation in the world"). I choose to deal with this by donating my time and my own money to help those in need. I could not do otherwise...I feel strongly, so I must act accordingly.

I sometimes am depressed by how few other people share my concerns. I am often depressed by how little I have to give (25K a year doesn't go as far as you'd think). And yes, sometimes I will imagine what it might be like if all my fellow citizens decided to pitch in and all help out. It might be cool.

However, I am revolted by the idea of taking somebody else's money to fund the causes that I feel are important. That is stealing. I am disgusted by the suggestion that any person's labor, or the product of that labor, can be appropriated against their wishes. That is slavery.

My money and my time are mine to give. I choose to give because I want to do so. Other people's time and money DOES NOT BELONG TO ME. It is not mine to give, and it would be supremely arrogant of me to claim that I get to make decisions about how other people get to spend their time and money.
Well, what you were taught in kindergarten was the same I was taught.

However, as you say in the text I embolded, what you can give doesn't go as far as one might think, or wish.

That's where taxes would help. You'd get enough money to really do some good. Sure, some would go to the aministration of it, but it does that in a charity organization too.

That's more or less how it works in the scandinavian countries. The elected governemnt taxes people so they can use the taxes to give something back to the people.
It's not a perfect system, as I've said before, but it does work.
Is it arrogant of them to claim they get to make decisions about people's money like that?
The scandinavians elected them to do just that (but what can you excpect from an uncouth mob, eh? :p).

Furthermore, the governemnt doesn't decide over how you spend your time, nor the money that isn't covered by the taxes. That's entirely up to you.

Well, what you were taught in kindergarten was the same I was taught.

However, as you say in the text I embolded, what you can give doesn't go as far as one might think, or wish.

That's where taxes would help. You'd get enough money to really do some good. Sure, some would go to the aministration of it, but it does that in a charity organization too.

But that's just the thing; I don't feel that it is my decision to make. Sure, it would help. Sure, I wish people would make different choices sometimes. But none of that gives me the right to FORCE them to make different choices.


That's more or less how it works in the scandinavian countries. The elected governemnt taxes people so they can use the taxes to give something back to the people.

It's not a perfect system, as I've said before, but it does work.

I understand the system, and I never claimed it wouldn't work, I simply don't believe it is a just system.


Is it arrogant of them to claim they get to make decisions about people's money like that?

Yes.


The scandinavians elected them to do just that (but what can you excpect from an uncouth mob, eh? :p).

I never said there weren't people who liked this kind of system. As I have said, a lot of people make choices I don't like. Many of them are extremely happy with the choices they've made. Doesn't change the fact that I don't like those choices.


Furthermore, the governemnt doesn't decide over how you spend your time, nor the money that isn't covered by the taxes. That's entirely up to you.
How very generous...the money and time that isn't stolen from you gets to belong to you!

Tell that to the swedes, finns, norwegians and danes. :p
They are an uncouth mob.

Well, what you were taught in kindergarten was the same I was taught.

However, as you say in the text I embolded, what you can give doesn't go as far as one might think, or wish.

That's where taxes would help.
How can taking MORE of someone's money allow him to have MORE to give? That's self-contradictory.

And how can taking people's money by force (theft/taxation) allow people to choose the resources they want to spend their money on? With Daddy Government doing it for them, they become infantalized and reliant on Daddy Government.

How can taking MORE of someone's money allow him to have MORE to give? That's self-contradictory.

And how can taking people's money by force (theft/taxation) allow people to choose the resources they want to spend their money on? With Daddy Government doing it for them, they become infantalized and reliant on Daddy Government.

I prefer the term "Big Brother." But that's just me.

But that's just the thing; I don't feel that it is my decision to make. Sure, it would help. Sure, I wish people would make different choices sometimes. But none of that gives me the right to FORCE them to make different choices.
But, doesn't the US have taxes too, albeit lower?

I understand the system, and I never claimed it wouldn't work, I simply don't believe it is a just system.
Well of course it isn't just. I don't know any system of governing that is just, since all systems of governing limits and controls people.


I never said there weren't people who liked this kind of system. As I have said, a lot of people make choices I don't like. Many of them are extremely happy with the choices they've made. Doesn't change the fact that I don't like those choices.
Fair enough. To each his own. :)


How very generous...the money and time that isn't stolen from you gets to belong to you!
Time doesn't get stolen from you, just the money.
Or do you mean that the part of the time you spend earning money that goes to taxes is stolen time?

Still, that's no different than any other system, including the US.

Originally Posted by Erketrum
Tell that to the swedes, finns, norwegians and danes.
They are an uncouth mob.
*laughs*
How low the vikings decendants have fallen, eh?

Interestingly enough, I have several friends who are socialists, including two Communists that are among my best friends.

But anyway, back to the topic. I recommend each person who is left-wing economically read the following:

http://www.mises.org/libprop.asp
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=3
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=10
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap18sec9.asp
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=4
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/money.pdf
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=12
http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=16
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty9a.asp
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=13
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_2_5.pdf
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=6
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=115
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=7
http://www.mises.org/fipandol.asp
http://www.mises.org/mmmp/mmmp10.asp
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1014
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1189
http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

But, doesn't the US have taxes too, albeit lower?
Yes. But, even though they are lower, they are still too high. The government does things that it shouldn't be doing. A limited amount of taxation to cover vital national interests (basic infrastructure, law & order, national defense, K-12 education or equivalent) is acceptable


[QUITE=]Well of course it isn't just. I don't know any system of governing that is just, since all systems of governing limits and controls people. [/QUOTE]
Injustice is not limiting or controlling people. There naturally are realms in which the government should limit the actions of individuals. Specifically in the realms where the actions of one person are undertaken specifically to harm another person by force or fraud.


Time doesn't get stolen from you, just the money.
Or do you mean that the part of the time you spend earning money that goes to taxes is stolen time?
Pretty much yeah. Tax freedom day is April 26. That's when your average American has put in enough work, and made enough money to just simply cover the cost of his income taxes. That's nearly a third of the work year dedicated to the government. How is that just?

Still, that's no different than any other system, including the US.
Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right. Once upon a time everyone was burning "witches" as a scapegoat for the ills of society. Was that right? Most certainly not.

That's nearly a third of the work year dedicated to the government. How is that just?Consider what you get in return, and also that you can vote who represents you.
Considering how much goes to the military, and how many people are against the various wars the US gets mixed up in, it's a valid complained that taxes are high. However, if you use public roads, public schools, public libraries etc, then you can't complain about the tax money going to those things.
It's not like the government is just taking money and providing nothing in return, and it's not like you don't have a say about where your money goes to. Tax is just the fee you pay for goverment and the services it provides.
Unfortunately it's also a (local) monopoly.

But, doesn't the US have taxes too, albeit lower?

Yes. The US has a lot of things I don't like.


Well of course it isn't just. I don't know any system of governing that is just, since all systems of governing limits and controls people.

I don't believe that "just" and "governing" are mutually exclusive. I simply believe there are forms of governing that are unjust.


Time doesn't get stolen from you, just the money.

Time absolutely can be stolen from you.

Indeed, what is money, if not time? My money represents time I don't have to spend on various things...I go to the store and purchase food items, giving them money in exchange for the privaledge of getting to take home food that I did not grow or harvest myself. I purchase pre-made clothing, giving money to others in exchange for not having to spend the time making cloth and sewing it into garments.

I use MY time to earn money, which I then can give to other people in exchange for THEIR time. It's actually kind of a cool system, because it allows me to use my time to do something I happen to be really good at, while others can use their time to do what they are good at, and yet we all can enjoy very similar comforts.


Still, that's no different than any other system, including the US.
Yes, there are many systems in the world I don't agree with. For instance, there is not a single nation in the world in which women enjoy real equality with men. The fact that this injustice exists does not make it any less of an injustice.

Consider what you get in return, and also that you can vote who represents you.
Considering how much goes to the military, and how many people are against the various wars the US gets mixed up in, it's a valid complained that taxes are high. However, if you use public roads, public schools, public libraries etc, then you can't complain about the tax money going to those things.
It's not like the government is just taking money and providing nothing in return, and it's not like you don't have a say about where your money goes to. Tax is just the fee you pay for goverment and the services it provides.
Unfortunately it's also a (local) monopoly.
I believe I made mention of the fact that I do believe certain taxes are acceptable, but only in a limited number of fields.

Consider what you get in return, and also that you can vote who represents you.
Considering how much goes to the military, and how many people are against the various wars the US gets mixed up in, it's a valid complained that taxes are high. However, if you use public roads, public schools, public libraries etc, then you can't complain about the tax money going to those things.
It's not like the government is just taking money and providing nothing in return, and it's not like you don't have a say about where your money goes to. Tax is just the fee you pay for goverment and the services it provides.
Unfortunately it's also a (local) monopoly.
I'm still not clear on why we shouldn't simply have people pay for what they use.

Pretend we get rid of taxes (just for the sake of argument), aside from the bare minimum needed to fund the government infrastructure itself.

Ok. Now, if you've got kids, you pay for them to go to school. If you drive on roads, you pay a fee to do so (tolls? tabs? lots of possible systems for this). If you want to use a library, it's the same as going into a for-pay museum. And so on.

I think the very best part would be watching what happens to the military. See, people like me could vote with our dollars, by refusing to give a single penny to the military. Meanwhile, it would be lovely to watch all the vehement warhawks who claim to "support our troops" so very strongly...I'm willing to bet that most of them would be willing to "support the troops" to the tune of about $5/month, at best.

But that's not the system you desire. You desire a system where there is no social mobility, as it has been rendered moot by spreading the misery.


spreading the misery? Okay so you argue being poor is misery, do you not want to give them a chance for them to help themselves get out of such a mess (if they are willing to work their way out of their situation). I only seek to redistribute opportunities to enable social mobility.


And a society which enshrines theft, couching it in terms of "love" and "help for the needy" isn't a society at all, but an uncouth mob.


It has nothing to do with love or need.




Yes. Just because you don't believe it means nothing. IOW: I realize that you're trying an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.


No. You just seem to have some odd faith in the goodness of human nature. Few people will give give unless forced or donate unless they think they will directly benefit more so from it. This will only be intensified if people need to cater for all their needs themself.


No, it's not. If you leave people alone, they will have more resources and thus be able to do more. However, if you tax people, they have less. Quite simple, really.


If you leave people alone the rich will have more resources. The poor will suffer and have no means in which to educated themselves or descover and flourish in thier own tallents. If the gap keeps increasing at an unregulated level it is your system that will destroy social mobility.



Nope, it's quite true. Nations themselves are the greatest threat to peace.


And the greatest defense agains't war.


Why would that happen? Why are you strawmanning?


What else will happen when the police are simply accountable to those who give them money, and no one else.



Even if you can, you still might. Hell, I nearly got robbed last night by some guy holding a knife to my throat.


If the police are alerted he might be caught. If people were cautious to use the police since it costs money than that guy will be more likely to keep attacking people.



Prisons are bad. Better to have restitution than revenge.


Prisosns certainly serve a purpose with violent criminals. They remove dangerous people from society.


And window washers only wash your windows if you pay them. Is that wrong?


I tried to draw a distinction between the two jobs. I'll try again.
If your windows are washed only you suffer. If a dangrous criminal is left to roam the streets society suffers.



Just because you believe it's a tactic they use doesn't mean that it is. I've seen from your posts that you don't know anything about economics.


And do you know anything of the unstability of markets and boom and bust.


Please explain how your statement isn't a strawman.
Nonetheless you can abolish all the governments in the world conflict will still come from religion/race or whatever is the issue of the day.


You blame conflict and war on states. I offered examples of other issues over which conflict and war have occured. Where is the strawman.


Prove it.


Look at exam results.


Anti-trust laws are actually anti-competition laws. They have nothing to do with "making people safe from bad monopolies".

I urge you to actually learn something about economics.


4 entries found for anti-trust.
an·ti·trust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-trst, nt-)
adj.
Opposing or intended to regulate business monopolies, such as trusts or cartels, especially in the interest of promoting competition: antitrust legislation.

Consider what you get in return, and also that you can vote who represents you.
But you don't get what you want, and you just get to vote as to who rapes you. That's not just.

spreading the misery? Okay so you argue being poor is misery,
I argue that socialism is misery

It has nothing to do with love or need.
You're correct: socialism has everything to do with power, much like rape.


No. You just seem to have some odd faith in the goodness of human nature. Few people will give give unless forced or donate unless they think they will directly benefit more so from it.
No. People tend to do those things if they have the money. And forcing people to donate is no different from theft.


If you leave people alone the rich will have more resources. The poor will suffer and have no means in which to educated themselves or descover and flourish in thier own tallents.
Nonsense.


And the greatest defense agains't war.
With all of the conflicts/wars happening right now, your statement is quite in error.


What else will happen when the police are simply accountable to those who give them money, and no one else.
What else will happen with the window washers are simply accountable to those who give them money and no one else?

There. Is. No. Difference. At. All. None.


If the police are alerted he might be caught. If people were cautious to use the police since it costs money than that guy will be more likely to keep attacking people.
Nonsense. If you have a contract with the police, and their income depends on how good of a job they do, they will bend over backward to ensure that every case possible gets solved. With tax-funded police, they get paid no matter what.

See the difference?


Prisosns certainly serve a purpose with violent criminals. They remove dangerous people from society.
Those people would be on the fringe of society.


I tried to draw a distinction between the two jobs. I'll try again.
If your windows are washed only you suffer. If a dangrous criminal is left to roam the streets society suffers.
There is no such thing as "society", really. Only individuals will suffer. But why would such a criminal be able to roam the streets?


And do you know anything of the unstability of markets and boom and bust.
Yes. Booms/busts are nearly always caused by government interference into the market system.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory: A Brief Explanation (http://www.mises.org/story/672)


4 entries found for anti-trust.
an·ti·trust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-trst, nt-)
adj.
Opposing or intended to regulate business monopolies, such as trusts or cartels, especially in the interest of promoting competition: antitrust legislation.
And that's purely as Orwellian as the Ministry of Love.

The Protectionist Roots of Antitrust (http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae6_2_3.pdf) (PDF)

Originally Posted by Erketrum
Well, what you were taught in kindergarten was the same I was taught.

However, as you say in the text I embolded, what you can give doesn't go as far as one might think, or wish.

That's where taxes would help.
How can taking MORE of someone's money allow him to have MORE to give? That's self-contradictory.

And how can taking people's money by force (theft/taxation) allow people to choose the resources they want to spend their money on? With Daddy Government doing it for them, they become infantalized and reliant on Daddy Government.
Sorry missed replying to this post last time.

No no, I didn't mean taking more money leaves them more to give. That is, as you point out, self-contradictory.

However, Bottle mentioned that the 25K he donated/year didn't go as far as he though/wished, and that he wished more of his fellow countrymen would donate to help those in need.

Taxes would be a way to get just that. A larger sum, that has the chance of doing some real good in helping tho poor, injured, old and so on.
Since taxes aren't voluntary it means it would be forced charity with only limited control of what the money goes to (through voting on the parties).
That is the tradeoff you have to make.
Some would accept it, some wouldn't.

A dowside is that the populace gets used to the state handling it and as you point out, that infantilizes them to a greater or lesser degree.
That too, is a tradeoff/cause-effect of it.

Yes. But, even though they are lower, they are still too high. The government does things that it shouldn't be doing.
Heh, what government/comapny doesn't do things that it/they shouldn't be doing?
It's not right, but it's something we have to deal with in an imperfect world.
At least in democracies, you can vote the worst ones out, or demand their resignation for dereliction of duty.
If that fails too, there's always revolution.




A limited amount of taxation to cover vital national interests (basic infrastructure, law & order, national defense, K-12 education or equivalent) is acceptable[/quote]



Well of course it isn't just. I don't know any system of governing that is just, since all systems of governing limits and controls people.
Injustice is not limiting or controlling people. There naturally are realms in which the government should limit the actions of individuals. Specifically in the realms where the actions of one person are undertaken specifically to harm another person by force or fraud.
Some would argue that any system that takes away an individuals freedom of choice is unjust.
I do not, I consider it a nessecity for a functioning society, but it was on that premise I argued.


A limited amount of taxation to cover vital national interests (basic infrastructure, law & order, national defense, K-12 education or equivalent) is acceptable
Well, people have different opinions of what the 'vital national interests' are.
Or how the tax should be distributed for that matter.

Pretty much yeah. Tax freedom day is April 26. That's when your average American has put in enough work, and made enough money to just simply cover the cost of his income taxes. That's nearly a third of the work year dedicated to the government. How is that just?
Would it make you feel better if you just worked directly for the governemnt on roads, as a nurse, or busdriver, or served in the army for three months instead of getting taxed?


Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right. Once upon a time everyone was burning "witches" as a scapegoat for the ills of society. Was that right? Most certainly not.
Indeed not.
However, most people from US thinks that the US system is better than the scadinavian though, yet both pay taxes only a different percentage.
It was more this I wanted to point out, not wether it was right or not. ;)

Yes. The US has a lot of things I don't like.
Would you prefer to abandon taxation entirely, or just lower the current level of taxation?


I don't believe that "just" and "governing" are mutually exclusive. I simply believe there are forms of governing that are unjust.
How would a just form of government be admistrated in your view, and why would you consider it just?


Time absolutely can be stolen from you.

Indeed, what is money, if not time? My money represents time I don't have to spend on various things...I go to the store and purchase food items, giving them money in exchange for the privaledge of getting to take home food that I did not grow or harvest myself. I purchase pre-made clothing, giving money to others in exchange for not having to spend the time making cloth and sewing it into garments.

I use MY time to earn money, which I then can give to other people in exchange for THEIR time. It's actually kind of a cool system, because it allows me to use my time to do something I happen to be really good at, while others can use their time to do what they are good at, and yet we all can enjoy very similar comforts.
And taxation prevents you from doing this how?
You pay some YOUR money (ok, and time in a sense), which you give to the government in exhannge for THEM taking care of supporting and upholding the infrastructure, like paying and outfitting the military, teachers and schools, hospitals, road networks and so on.


Yes, there are many systems in the world I don't agree with. For instance, there is not a single nation in the world in which women enjoy real equality with men. The fact that this injustice exists does not make it any less of an injustice.
Indeed, and injustices should be dealt with as best we can. The question is how.
Heh, and on that point there's as many opinions as humans, if not more. :)

I'm still not clear on why we shouldn't simply have people pay for what they use.

Pretend we get rid of taxes (just for the sake of argument), aside from the bare minimum needed to fund the government infrastructure itself.

Ok. Now, if you've got kids, you pay for them to go to school. If you drive on roads, you pay a fee to do so (tolls? tabs? lots of possible systems for this). If you want to use a library, it's the same as going into a for-pay museum. And so on.

I think the very best part would be watching what happens to the military. See, people like me could vote with our dollars, by refusing to give a single penny to the military. Meanwhile, it would be lovely to watch all the vehement warhawks who claim to "support our troops" so very strongly...I'm willing to bet that most of them would be willing to "support the troops" to the tune of about $5/month, at best.
Would the prices for the services be fixed for everyone, or would rich people get lower fees in exchange for sponsoring a road or school or something like that?

How to deal with poor people who can't afford to pay for their own or their kids education, or medicine, or walking on the road or the food?

Nonsense. If you have a contract with the police, and their income depends on how good of a job they do, they will bend over backward to ensure that every case possible gets solved. With tax-funded police, they get paid no matter what.

See the difference?
If the police gets paid by how good a job they do, wouldn't that make them encourage crime, so they could get paid more?

Or firemen. What stops them from starting fires to get higher wages for more fires put out?

As a more realistic example I would like to point out how mercenaries often acted when hired to protect a village or city during the 13th to 15th century.
Or today for that matter.
They instated a reign of terror, demanding more wages and abusing the population, including forcing innkeepers or private citzens to serve them food and drink for free, assault, rape, torture and murder.

If the police gets paid by how good a job they do, wouldn't that make them encourage crime, so they could get paid more?
No, because how good of a job they do is by how LITTLE crime there is.


Or firemen. What stops them from starting fires to get higher wages for more fires put out?
There wouldn't be arson investigations?


As a more realistic example I would like to point out how mercenaries often acted when hired to protect a village or city during the 13th to 15th century.
Or today for that matter.
They instated a reign of terror, demanding more wages and abusing the population, including forcing innkeepers or private citzens to serve them food and drink for free, assault, rape, torture and murder.
And that means....?

There is no real reason that Socialism and the Free Market cannot exist together. The Free Market is about trade while Socialism is about society. Technically, if the Free Market (which I'm sure everyone knows doesn't and never will exist) creates the wealth then socialism can use it to ensure no one is grindingly poor, everyone is well educated, has good health and therefore eqipped to participate in the Free Market. What's the problem.

I think people don't really see socialism in all it's possible forms. They tend to concentrate on Cuba (which, lets face it, has been blockaded for 40 years and therefore not a fair example) and the Soviet Union and forget about Sweden and Western Europe in general, who have blended capitalism, socialism and democracy pretty successfully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathaniel Branden
In this article, I shall confine myself to the analysis of a single principle—a single fallacy—which is rampant in the writings of the neo-mystics and without which their doctrines could not be propagated.

We call it “the fallacy of the stolen concept.”

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon’s famous declaration that “All property is theft.”

“Theft” is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of “rightfully owned property”—and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner’s consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as “theft.” Thus, the statement “All property is theft” has an internal contradiction: to use the concept “theft” while denying the validity of the concept of “property,” is to use “theft” as a concept to which one has no logical right—that is, as a stolen concept.

All of man’s knowledge and all of his concepts have a hierarchical structure. The foundation or ultimate base of this structure is man’s sensory perceptions; these are the starting points of his thinking. From these, man forms his first concepts and (ostensive) definitions—then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale. It is a process of building one identification upon another—of deriving wider abstractions from previously known abstractions, or of breaking down wider abstractions into narrower classifications. Man’s concepts are derived from and depend on earlier, more basic concepts, which serve as their genetic roots. For example, the concept “parent” is presupposed by the concept “orphan”; if one had not grasped the former, one could not arrive at the latter, nor could the latter be meaningful.

The hierarchical nature of man’s knowledge implies an important principle that must guide man’s reasoning: When one uses concepts, one must recognize their genetic roots, one must recognize that which they logically depend on and presuppose.

Failure to observe this principle—as in “All property is theft”—constitutes the fallacy of the stolen concept.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/cata...Path=2&page=2#

Also, without the supremacy of property holders, you couldn't do anything. To even speak requires that you have the property right to your body. To argue requires the axiom of action. Any suggestion otherwise entails a performative contradiction.

As to surplus value--that only holds if the labor theory of value is valid. It's not. The LTV has been refuted to death for more than a century and a half. Only Marxists (who are known to have as much knowledge of economics as your average creationist has about evolution) hold to it.

Both you and your source mistake the issue of "property is theft." Property represents institutionalized theft because property is owned in capitalism to create production. Now, the reason why the Labor Theory of Value still has truth in it is that in the case of productive capital, the increased value is not created by the property owner. He/she has merely taken the initiative to increase its value. The factory worker who turns raw materials into widgets is the one who is responsible for the increase in value of the commodity. Regardless of whether or not the worker used a machine owned by the capital owner in the production of the widget, his/her labor is still responsible for the increase in value. This doesn't just apply to muscle labor, either. Labor can represent any process taken by a worker in the process of production. Whether the worker in question makes widgets on a factory line or designs jet engines at a computer terminal, it's the labor of workers that is responsible for all socially created value. However, workers are not compensated for the full amount of the increase in value that they are responsible for. Most of the socially created value is obtained by the property owner because of property rights. Thus, property is theft.

Contrary to your assertion that the LTV has been refuted, LTV represents the cold reality of the capitalist system that capitalist economists would not dare to recognize.

Interestingly enough, I have several friends who are socialists, including two Communists that are among my best friends.

But anyway, back to the topic. I recommend each person who is left-wing economically read the following:

Ah, the old Economic Calculation debate. Though Mise may have been right about the difficulties of socialist central planning as it related to 1920s technology, his theories are outdated due to the development of computers in the 1940s-50s, and their continual refinement since then.

This paragraph comes from "The Socialist Calculation Debate Once Again," by Allin Cottrel and W. Paul Cockshott, in July 1993.

This paper offers a reassessment of the socialist calculation debate, and examines the extent to which the conclusions of that debate must be modified in the light of the subsequent development of the theory and technology of computation. Following an introduction to the two main perspectives on the debate which have been offered to date, we examine the classic case mounted by von Mises against the possibility of rational economic calculation under socialism. We discuss the response given by Oskar Lange, along with the counter-arguments to Lange from the Austrian point of view. Finally we present what we call the ‘absent response’, namely a re-assertion of the classic Marxian argument for economic calculation in
terms of labour time. We argue that labour-time calculation is defensible as a rational procedure, when supplemented by algorithms which allow consumer choice to guide the allocation of resources, and that such calculation is now technically feasible with the type of computing
machinery currently available in the West and with a careful choice of efficient algorithms. Our argument cuts against recent discussions of economic planning which continue to assert that the task is of hopeless complexity.
http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/calculation_debate.pdf

Moreover, the Economic Calculation Debate is a strawman, because of the developments of theories before and after Mise's original essay on the subject that are not based on central planning, the most notable of which is the Participatory Economics of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel.

If the police gets paid by how good a job they do, wouldn't that make them encourage crime, so they could get paid more?
No, because how good of a job they do is by how LITTLE crime there is.
That is a better start for sure. Still easy to subvert though, through manipulation of statistics for one.

Or firemen. What stops them from starting fires to get higher wages for more fires put out?
There wouldn't be arson investigations?
Sure, but who are qualified to make arson investigations? Besides firemen that is.
Scientists probably, but they could be bribed to get the results the firemen wished.



As a more realistic example I would like to point out how mercenaries often acted when hired to protect a village or city during the 13th to 15th century.
Or today for that matter.
They instated a reign of terror, demanding more wages and abusing the population, including forcing innkeepers or private citzens to serve them food and drink for free, assault, rape, torture and murder.
And that means....?
That a police needs a higher authority that keeps them from instating their own reign of terror.
This is a risk with a government as well, but why should a company care if their police terrorize their customers as long as they show a profit?

True, they would find it harder to get hired, but they could use the 14th century mercenary trick. Move in and announce themslves "protectors".
Even if the citzens in the town have the means to defend themselves, it's going to cost them, and the police only have to take a few hostages to get the upper hand.


Hmm, actually, I better ask for clarification on this, so we don't argue from different platforms.

I assumed what you suggested was an incorporated police funded by the contracts of their employers and based on how much crime they can surpress (you elaborated on that to say it was how little crime there was that would be the basis of their payment). Effectively, they are mercenaries.

Is this platform correct, or was the platform you based your argument on made up of different elements?

As a more realistic example I would like to point out how mercenaries often acted when hired to protect a village or city during the 13th to 15th century.
Or today for that matter.
They instated a reign of terror, demanding more wages and abusing the population, including forcing innkeepers or private citzens to serve them food and drink for free, assault, rape, torture and murder.If that was/is the modus operandi for mercenaries, and people know that, why would anyone ever hire them? It doesn't make sense that mercenaries on general would behave in such a way, they'd never get a job. The only reason they might have, to do such things, is if they didn't get paid for their job. But then, regular soldiers of the time would do the same thing if they weren't paid.

Since taxation mostly involves everyone, hasn't the many voted to take from everyone?

"Well, that was an excellent dinner we just ate. I would never be able to afford to come here on my salary! In any case, let's pay: Why don't you cover the meal, and I'll cover the tip. That way, neither of us is taking advantage of the other- after all, we're both pitching in some money."

Technically, they have voted to take form everyone (though most countries have a minimum income below which one does not pay taxes). The difference between the taxes of a poor person and a rich one are so great, though, that this point is often lost on the rich.


I do not advocate a volontary taxation. It's unworkable. I merely used it as an example of how it would have to be if people shouldn't feel stolen from.

If you're going to have taxes, tax everyone.

Personally I prefer that the state provide healthcare and education.
Private businesses need to show a profit, and that means they'll cut corners (in the real world) on the costs, at the expense of the service. Or, they charge for it, which makes it an income issue.
And people will pay more to go from a poor provider of healthcare/education to a good one, or take the risk in order to save some money. Unlike government health/education, private companies don't have a monopoly: if they charge too much, or provide poor/deadly service, they will go out of business.

Not everyone, and that's usually a majority, will be able to afford the private schools that offer education or healthcare where corners haven't been cut.
That creates inequality of opportunities, not to mention that those unable to benefit from good education/healthcare also cannot give as much back to society ior themselves because their full potential is untapped.

First, there are plenty of bursaries, scholarships, and jobs out there for those who want them. I know a number of people putting themselves through university with zero parental support, and zero support from the state (well, explicit support, since her parents' taxes are going towards the tuition subsidies that her university gets).
Second, if someone's potential is untapped, it is not society's fault, nor it's responsability. Your parents are responsable for you till you are able to make decisions on your own, then you're responsable for yourself. If you want to subsidize someone's education, go ahead; don't make me do it.

However, you are correct that a state monopoly also is bad. While you get a better ratio of people getting the opportunity to realise their potential because it doesn't discrimminate against the poor

This comes back to the issue of social mobility that BAAWA and Blood have been sniping back and forth about for a while. Still no proof one way or another, as far as I can tell.

...[Y]ou have the problem of efficency and control. If there's no competitor, efficency only becomes a budget issue.
Same with quality control, and the government can always let the education/healthcare board off the hook because they're the sole employer.
(Well, maybe not healthcare. If it's bad, people usually complain enough that teh governemnt change things, or they get voted out. Or removed by force if it's bad enough.)


So, people can chose indirectly, by voting on one of the myriad issues that a particular candidate/party stands for (and then they can be ignored if that party loses, and often when it wins too), or they can chose with their money. The second seems more fair to me.


Thus, I advocate a mix of state-run and private-run schools and hospitals.
That's a flawed system too of course, but it's the "least evil" in my worldview.

When I want to patronize one store/school/hospital, and another shopkeeper/administrator/beaurocrat robs me, that's evil. When someone takes the fruits of my labour because they claim that I am responsible for the way that they and/or their parents lived their lives, that's evil. A poor person's kids can't have everything that a rich person's kids have? That's tragic, in some extreme cases, but hardly evil.

If that was/is the modus operandi for mercenaries, and people know that, why would anyone ever hire them? It doesn't make sense that mercenaries on general would behave in such a way, they'd never get a job. The only reason they might have, to do such things, is if they didn't get paid for their job. But then, regular soldiers of the time would do the same thing if they weren't paid.

Being pillaged by mercanaries was usually favorable to being pillaged by a conquering invader. Cities would still have their independence, thougha at an incredible price. Also, news traveled slow back then, and without large numbers of literate people, it was impossible to tell which groups of mercanaries had done that in the past. It didn't happen all the time, but a considerable portion of the time, it did.

If that was/is the modus operandi for mercenaries, and people know that, why would anyone ever hire them? It doesn't make sense that mercenaries on general would behave in such a way, they'd never get a job. The only reason they might have, to do such things, is if they didn't get paid for their job. But then, regular soldiers of the time would do the same thing if they weren't paid.
Well, regular soldiers who didn't get paid did do that.

Anyway, the mercs have the means to enforce their protection. After all, who would stop them?

Things today are a little more complex. Mercs are usually hired by compaines or governments for specific tasks. The village/town where they get stationed usually isn't the employer. The size of mercenary forces is also much smaller than during the medieval and reinesance era, so it is rare that they occupy an entire town these days.
They do however still committ atrocities. Frequently.

The risk with a police that is employed by a company hiring out their services is much the same though (provided my platform of argument was made on the correct assumtions). The company is majorly concerned with profits, not their forces conduct.
Of course, many, probably even most, police corporations would behave reasonably well, but those that didn't, how would the "employers" stop them if they came in and set up shop, announcing that they're the town's protectors from now on?

"Well, that was an excellent dinner we just ate. I would never be able to afford to come here on my salary! In any case, let's pay: Why don't you cover the meal, and I'll cover the tip. That way, neither of us is taking advantage of the other- after all, we're both pitching in some money."
While the analogy is correct in an abstract sense (or moral), it doesn't work in a practical sense because the actual circumstances are so different between a system that takes X% of someone's income and put it in a government's 'pool of money' and two individuals paying X% each of a meal.

Technically, they have voted to take form everyone (though most countries have a minimum income below which one does not pay taxes). The difference between the taxes of a poor person and a rich one are so great, though, that this point is often lost on the rich.
Hmm, right forgot about the minimum income thing. That should be included.

I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of the last sentence though.
Does the rich only see how much he loses that he doesn't see that the poor loses as much as he does, or do you mean that the rich gets so much taken that it isn't equal to what the poor is taxed?

And people will pay more to go from a poor provider of healthcare/education to a good one, or take the risk in order to save some money. Unlike government health/education, private companies don't have a monopoly: if they charge too much, or provide poor/deadly service, they will go out of business.
What if they give poor but not deadly service but show a good profit?
And a government shouldn't have a monopoly. That's generally a bad idea.

First, there are plenty of bursaries, scholarships, and jobs out there for those who want them. I know a number of people putting themselves through university with zero parental support, and zero support from the state (well, explicit support, since her parents' taxes are going towards the tuition subsidies that her university gets).
Would it be possible if the universtity didn't get tutition subsides?

Hmm, isn't university 'higher learning' though?
The system I had in mind finance education as far as high school. After that you have to pay for your education (though there are some tutition subsides as in your current system).

What are bursaries btw? I'm not familiar with the term. Some kind of sponsoring I assume?

Second, if someone's potential is untapped, it is not society's fault, nor it's responsability. Your parents are responsable for you till you are able to make decisions on your own, then you're responsable for yourself. If you want to subsidize someone's education, go ahead; don't make me do it.
No, it's not society's fault, but socety would benefit from providing the opportunity for people to realise their potential.
However, this will not work if you put the entire burden on society alone. The individual must also act responsibly and put work and effort into his/her education or no 'helping hand' the government provides, be it ever so great, will help.

In a way, it's like "if you scratch my back, I scratch yours". The government gives you the opportunity to get an education. Now you have take that opportunity and work to realise your potential (which would benefit both the individual and the society).
There needs to be a safety catch in the system though. If the individual doesn't work and just loafs around and/or want the government to fix the education for him, he/she should loose the privilege of getting the opportunity to realise his/her potential. A warning or two first of course, but if the warning doesn't help, they loose the privilege.


This comes back to the issue of social mobility that BAAWA and Blood have been sniping back and forth about for a while. Still no proof one way or another, as far as I can tell.
Well, you cut up the text so it was a bit out of context. I did say the system had flaws.
And so does the other. Both systems works, neither works perfectly.
Which one is better or more just, is a matter of opinion.


So, people can chose indirectly, by voting on one of the myriad issues that a particular candidate/party stands for (and then they can be ignored if that party loses, and often when it wins too), or they can chose with their money. The second seems more fair to me.
Yes. That is the flaw of the system. It's not as easy to affect it as a purely privatized system.
Which is why I argue for a mixed government/private system. There should be an alternative to the governemnt so they don't have a monopoly, and there should be the governemnt who takes care of those that can't pay the fees of the private system.

*shrugs* I can see several flaws with it, but the mixed system is the least evil in my view, in the same sense that democracy is the least evil of the political systems.

When I want to patronize one store/school/hospital, and another shopkeeper/administrator/beaurocrat robs me, that's evil. When someone takes the fruits of my labour because they claim that I am responsible for the way that they and/or their parents lived their lives, that's evil. A poor person's kids can't have everything that a rich person's kids have? That's tragic, in some extreme cases, but hardly evil.
The first should be avoidable with a mixed system.
The second I don't quite understand the meaning of. How does it relate to taxes? (I assume that's what it relates to?)

The last, well, I think we can agree that helping those on the bottom of society is a commendable goal. It's the 'how' where we differ, and I don't think either of us will convince the other to shift view. ;)

There is no real reason that Socialism and the Free Market cannot exist together.
Socialism denies the free market. It substitutes some sort of social plan for individual decisions.

Both you and your source mistake the issue of "property is theft." Property represents institutionalized theft
No it doesn't, Mr. I-Still-Use-The-Refuted-To-Death-Labor-Theory-Of-Value. The LTV has exactly NO truth in it. It's bogus. Bullshit. Does not even remotely accurately describe things. It's wrong, plain and simple, contrary to your Marxist doctrine.

Menger takes the labor theory of value to task, accusing its adherents of putting the cart before the horse. Since a good's value is derived by the value of the satisfaction a man intends to use that good to satisfy, it doesn't really matter what labor, raw materials, or time was put into that good's production. There is no fair wage/price/outcome, only the voluntarily agreed upon wage/price/outcome. Menger, judging by his expressed opinions in Principles, would no more argue over the "morality" of an economic law than a chemist would over a chemical reaction.
http://www.mises.org/story/2032

IOW: "profit" is not "exploitation". Profit comes from the time-preference of the worker to want to be paid NOW for a good that will be sold in the FUTURE.

LTV. DOA.


Ah, the old Economic Calculation debate.
Which has actually been proven quite correct, according to some socialists. For further study, may I suggest that you read From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation by David Ramsay Steele.

The econ calculation argument cannot be a strawman, m'laddio. It's an excoriation of the lack of ability for any socialist attempt to be able to not only accurately guage demand, but to determine what methods to use to produce what products.

Which has actually been proven quite correct, according to some socialists. For further study, may I suggest that you read From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation by David Ramsay Steele.

The econ calculation argument cannot be a strawman, m'laddio. It's an excoriation of the lack of ability for any socialist attempt to be able to not only accurately guage demand, but to determine what methods to use to produce what products.

It is indeed a straw man, because it assumes that a socialist economy cannot make economic calculations as a free market capitalist economy does. There's nothing stopping socialist economic institutions from using market mechanisms to maximize efficiency.

Now, the reason why the Labor Theory of Value still has truth in it is that in the case of productive capital, the increased value is not created by the property owner. He/she has merely taken the initiative to increase its value. The factory worker who turns raw materials into widgets is the one who is responsible for the increase in value of the commodity. Regardless of whether or not the worker used a machine owned by the capital owner in the production of the widget, his/her labor is still responsible for the increase in value. This doesn't just apply to muscle labor, either. Labor can represent any process taken by a worker in the process of production. Whether the worker in question makes widgets on a factory line or designs jet engines at a computer terminal, it's the labor of workers that is responsible for all socially created value. However, workers are not compensated for the full amount of the increase in value that they are responsible for. Most of the socially created value is obtained by the property owner because of property rights. Thus, property is theft.

Well, to be specific, you're not talking about the Labor Theory of Value, you're talking about the Theory of Surplus Value. Many have accepted the former without the latter, and for a long time I accepted the latter (in a slightly modified form) without the former. Ultimately, however, neither are tenable.

Think of a group of workers who, together, have enough capital to buy a factory and produce goods there. There is also a capitalist who they can seek for employment. If they buy the factory themselves, they will not be giving any "surplus value" to the capitalist, yes, but they will also lose in several ways.

Firstly, if the factory fails, they haven't only lost their jobs (as they would if the capitalist's factory went bankrupt), but they've lost the money they invested. The aversion of risk is thus a value the capitalist gives to the workers in exchange for the fruits of their labor.

Secondly, maybe the workers wish to use their capital immediately, instead of investing it. Maybe they want to buy new cars instead of a factory. Thus, the capability to use their money immediately, instead of waiting for years to withdraw it, is another value the capitalist provides them. This is hardly an exhaustive list, but it's two of the ones often used.

Which choice they make depends on two things - firstly, the amount of compensation the capitalist will provide them, and secondly, their assessment of the worth of those values. If they make the choice for the capitalist to employ them, clearly they assess that worth to be greater than the worth of the "surplus value" they will lose. Because the assignation of a monetary value to values they are provided by the capitalist is subjective, it cannot be legitimately argued from the results of the transaction itself that they are being exploited.

What can be argued is that this is an idealized depiction of the situation, and that there is a general tendency for the economic (and thus power) inequalities between the capitalist and the worker to result in the capitalist's exploitation of the worker. Which, incidentally, is what I do argue. But the notion of surplus-value does not demonstrate this conclusion.

That is a better start for sure. Still easy to subvert though, through manipulation of statistics for one.
Not really.


Sure, but who are qualified to make arson investigations? Besides firemen that is.
Outside investigators.

As for bribes--that happens now. I fail to see how bringing up bribery in any way, shape, or form makes any difference. I've often wondered why statists think that bringing up bribery hampers anarchy; bribery is how statism somehow functions! It's the pot calling the kettle black to the nth.


That a police needs a higher authority that keeps them from instating their own reign of terror.
Who watches the watchers? IOW: there doesn't need to be a state, nor a "higher authority" other than the people with whom have contracted the police.


This is a risk with a government as well, but why should a company care if their police terrorize their customers as long as they show a profit?
Because they won't show a profit for very long.


True, they would find it harder to get hired, but they could use the 14th century mercenary trick. Move in and announce themslves "protectors".
And somehow that would work with an armed populace?


Even if the citzens in the town have the means to defend themselves, it's going to cost them, and the police only have to take a few hostages to get the upper hand.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong answer.


Hmm, actually, I better ask for clarification on this, so we don't argue from different platforms.

I assumed what you suggested was an incorporated police funded by the contracts of their employers and based on how much crime they can surpress (you elaborated on that to say it was how little crime there was that would be the basis of their payment).
No--that how little crime there is would be a measure of their effectiveness.

They aren't mercenaries, unless you want to call window washers mercenaries too.

It is indeed a straw man, because it assumes that a socialist economy cannot make economic calculations as a free market capitalist economy does.
Indeed it isn't a strawman because it's been shown that a socialist economy CAN'T make such calculations.


There's nothing stopping socialist economic institutions from using market mechanisms to maximize efficiency.
Then it's just making guesses without any recourse to reality.

Indeed it isn't a strawman because it's been shown that a socialist economy CAN'T make such calculations.

A centrally-planned economy, no.

Then it's just making guesses without any recourse to reality.

Meaning that a socialist economy can't measure which of its goods are being purchased and which aren't, and at what rates, and adjust production and prices accordingly?

A centrally-planned economy, no.
Any type of planned.


Meaning that a socialist economy can't measure which of its goods are being purchased and which aren't, and at what rates, and adjust production and prices accordingly?
Not with any relevance to reality. And you just admitted that it would be centrally planned.

Not with any relevance to reality.

Nonsense. It's perfectly possible for socialist institutions to measure the quantity of purchases, and it's also perfectly possible for them to do exactly what corporations in a capitalist economy do all the time - adjust their prices and production accordingly.

And you just admitted that it would be centrally planned.

When?

Nonsense. It's perfectly possible for socialist institutions to measure the quantity of purchases, and it's also perfectly possible for them to do exactly what corporations in a capitalist economy do all the time - adjust their prices and production accordingly.
Nonsense. If the central planning board tries, it will be done without a market, which means without any relation to reality.


When?
Meaning that a socialist economy can't measure which of its goods are being purchased and which aren't, and at what rates, and adjust production and prices accordingly?
Right there. With that statement, you admitted central planning.

Would you prefer to abandon taxation entirely, or just lower the current level of taxation?

I'm a bit undecided on that. At the very least, a dramatic reduction in taxation. I tend to think that some minimal level of taxation would be necesssary, for the running of minimal government infrastructure, but I probably could be convinced to abandon even that.


How would a just form of government be admistrated in your view, and why would you consider it just?

I believe the purpose of government is to keep people from directly violating one another's rights...and that's IT. Essentially, the principle of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." I don't believe government should be in the business of (for instance) regulating marriage, restricting which drugs are legal or not, controlling the medical care that an individual can access, etc.


And taxation prevents you from doing this how?

It doesn't stop me from doing this with the REMAINDER of my money. But it directly and clearly stops me from doing this with the money that was taken from me.

It's like how if I stole your wallet you would still have some money left over (I assume), but that doesn't qualify as a defense for my actions. I don't get to say, "Hey, but you still had money left! I didn't stop you from spending THAT money!"


You pay some YOUR money (ok, and time in a sense), which you give to the government in exhannge for THEM taking care of supporting and upholding the infrastructure, like paying and outfitting the military, teachers and schools, hospitals, road networks and so on.

They remove a large chunk of my pay and use it to fund various activities that I feel are totally inappropriate. I am disgusted that this country still relies on cars and roads. I am revolted at our military spending. I am sick and tired of my tax dollars being poured into the useless, superstition-filled schools of the rural South. I am tired of seeing my money used to lie to women, via "crisis pregnancy centers." It is blatantly unConstitutional for my tax money to be used to fund "faith-based initiatives." It is unacceptable that my money is used to support the children of people who were too irresponsible to plan their families to live within their own means.

I could go on.

I am more than willing to contribute money for those services that I use. I am more than willing to support many causes and help many other people with my money. What I object to is having my money taken away and used for purposes I flat-out oppose. If these initiatives are so important, then let their supporters pay for them.

I am more than willing to contribute money for those services that I use. I am more than willing to support many causes and help many other people with my money. What I object to is having my money taken away and used for purposes I flat-out oppose. If these initiatives are so important, then let their supporters pay for them.So if on the taxform you could (bindingly) indicate what your tax money may be spend on by the goverment, you wouldn't mind if it stayed at the level it is now?
(I think that's one of the nationstates issues, isn't it?)

So if on the taxform you could (bindingly) indicate what your tax money may be spend on by the goverment, you wouldn't mind if it stayed at the level it is now?
(I think that's one of the nationstates issues, isn't it?)
Personally, no, I wouldn't mind that. Mainly because if I suddenly stopped having to pay taxes, I would immediately divert the excess money into causes I support anyhow. Of course, this assumes that the government would be willing to spend my money on the things I want...which it isn't.

I argue that socialism is misery


Good thing I'm not a socialist.


You're correct: socialism has everything to do with power, much like rape.


You seem so scared of the state. Why not put some of that fear to over powerful corporations that single handily control the economy. They have similar power and should something go wrong they produce thousands unemployed and can begin depressions. Like Ford did in the 20's. Or like oil companys might do in the next 20 years. I'm not arguing to the extent of Keynsianism but in times of extreme market failures we don't want too little too late.


No. People tend to do those things if they have the money. And forcing people to donate is no different from theft.


Okay it comes down to this. The government has established a voice of concent to rule the nation. They may decide to tax they may not. As long as they are accountable to the public via the vote and any individual who is unhappy can leave than its not theft.



With all of the conflicts/wars happening right now, your statement is quite in error.


Lets look. The war on terror - not tied down to any particular nation.
The israel/palistine conflict - More of a religious affair than anything else. Its not israels state that causes conflict, its is existance.



What else will happen with the window washers are simply accountable to those who give them money and no one else?

There. Is. No. Difference. At. All. None.

A window washers actions don't affect everyone. A policemans job is to enforce law and order. This means they need to catch all criminals and protect everyones rights defined by law.


Nonsense. If you have a contract with the police, and their income depends on how good of a job they do, they will bend over backward to ensure that every case possible gets solved. With tax-funded police, they get paid no matter what.

See the difference?


No there income depends on how much they are needed. If there is more demand for police they can ask for more money. No government wants crime so they will ensure police bend over backwards to keep crime low, otherwise they won't be re elected.


Those people would be on the fringe of society.


I'm sorry I don't get that. Whats to stop them getting a knife and attacking someone again if they're not in prison?


There is no such thing as "society", really. Only individuals will suffer. But why would such a criminal be able to roam the streets?


Okay so some individuals within society may suffer same thing. And to take your example of a guy with a knife attacking you. If you hadn't the money to hire good police to catch him, he would roam the streets free to attack someone else (who may be able to afford to hire police, but that makes no difference after hes been attacked)


Yes. Booms/busts are nearly always caused by government interference into the market system.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory: A Brief Explanation (http://www.mises.org/story/672)


And periods of stable growth can also be attributed to government involvement. I don't see why trying to control inflation and look out for the interests of the economy is a bad thing.


And that's purely as Orwellian as the Ministry of Love.

The Protectionist Roots of Antitrust (http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae6_2_3.pdf) (PDF)
[/QUOTE]

I grab a dictionary definition. You continually pluck from mises, while they have been interesting reads you can't call my source biased or Orwellian.


Meaning that a socialist economy can't measure which of its goods are being purchased and which aren't, and at what rates, and adjust production and prices accordingly?

Vastly inefficient to the market price mechanism which does this naturally.


I am more than willing to contribute money for those services that I use. I am more than willing to support many causes and help many other people with my money. What I object to is having my money taken away and used for purposes I flat-out oppose. If these initiatives are so important, then let their supporters pay for them.

Surely that justified the military and roads. Not only would you used various roads directly yourself, but when buying any product countless roads have been used by the distributers in order to deliver you this product. You directly benefit from roads in the form of cheaper goods.
Nazi germany didn't take over the world. Neither did soviet russia and right now the military is attempting to stabalise parts of the middle east. You live in a free nation oops I think thats using the military.
Besides I wouldn't justify taxes on what I use. Education provides a smarter nation attracting companys needed higher skilled labour, health keeps people healthy and stops the spreading of diseases, regardless of if I actually use either directly.

Surely that justified the military and roads. Not only would you used various roads directly yourself, but when buying any product countless roads have been used by the distributers in order to deliver you this product. You directly benefit from roads in the form of cheaper goods.

I believe our country should long-since have converted to mass transit and other methods of shipping. I am revolted by our continued use of cars/trucks, including their use in shipping. I would gladly pay more for various products, if it meant that cars and trucks would be eliminated.


Nazi germany didn't take over the world. Neither did soviet russia and right now the military is attempting to stabalise parts of the middle east. You live in a free nation oops I think thats using the military.

If you support the military, then you can use your dollars to do so. I believe our military is the direct cause of some of the most serious problems facing our nation, and I do not want a single penny of my money going to support it.


Besides I wouldn't justify taxes on what I use. Education provides a smarter nation attracting companys needed higher skilled labour, health keeps people healthy and stops the spreading of diseases, regardless of if I actually use either directly.
If you feel that way, super! You should be free to support whatever you want. I happen to give money to a lot of causes that will never benefit me directly. As you say, there are often a lot of pragmatic reasons to do this, in addition to the emotional reasons. I simply don't think either of us should be FORCED to do so.

You seem so scared of the state.
No, I just know that the state, like god, is something only scared children think does or should exist.


Why not put some of that fear to over powerful corporations that single handily control the economy.
No such corporations exist or have existed.


They have similar power and should something go wrong they produce thousands unemployed and can begin depressions. Like Ford did in the 20's.
Ford did nothing of the sort. You might want to learn about the history of the Federal Reserve system and how it nearly single-handedly started the depression.

Here's a nice book for you to read: America's Great Depression (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp) by Murray Rothbard.


Or like oil companys might do in the next 20 years. I'm not arguing to the extent of Keynsianism but in times of extreme market failures we don't want too little too late.
Markets never fail; it is only government interventions which do.


Okay it comes down to this. The government has established a voice of concent to rule the nation.
Consent by whom? Certainly not me, and certainly not others. Without unanimous consent, the rights of those who do not consent are being violated.


They may decide to tax they may not. As long as they are accountable to the public via the vote and any individual who is unhappy can leave than its not theft.
Nonsense. Theft is theft, no matter how you couch it.


Lets look. The war on terror - not tied down to any particular nation.
It's not a war per se. It's just bullshit. But it is tied to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, at least in the minds of the civilian leaders.


The israel/palistine conflict - More of a religious affair than anything else. Its not israels state that causes conflict, its is existance.
So it's the state of Israel which causes the problem.


A window washers actions don't affect everyone. A policemans job is to enforce law and order. This means they need to catch all criminals and protect everyones rights defined by law.
So what?



No there income depends on how much they are needed. If there is more demand for police they can ask for more money.
That happens with any company.


No government wants crime so they will ensure police bend over backwards to keep crime low, otherwise they won't be re elected.
No, government officials keep expanding what is criminal, so they clearly DO want crime. It gives them something to bitch about.


I'm sorry I don't get that. Whats to stop them getting a knife and attacking someone again if they're not in prison?
The fact that they are a known offender and presumably would be watched a little more closely if they are seen.


Okay so some individuals within society may suffer same thing. And to take your example of a guy with a knife attacking you. If you hadn't the money to hire good police to catch him, he would roam the streets free to attack someone else (who may be able to afford to hire police, but that makes no difference after hes been attacked)
But why would I have to hire them after-the-fact?



And periods of stable growth can also be attributed to government involvement.
Government NON-involvement, you mean.


I don't see why trying to control inflation and look out for the interests of the economy is a bad thing.
Because governments, by their nature, tend to inflate the currency.


I grab a dictionary definition. You continually pluck from mises, while they have been interesting reads you can't call my source biased or Orwellian.
Actually, I can, because the reality and the definition are two very different things.

No such corporations exist or have existed.There have been corporations that practically ruled nations, let alone the economy. Take the Dutch VOC in the 16th and 17th century for example.
And I think there are still some countries that have just one major export product they depend on, which is controlled by just one major corporation. Not as much as in previous centuries though.

Markets never fail; it is only government interventions which do.They can and do regularly both fail people. Neither is the answer for all social ills, as neither will solve them.

Consent by whom? Certainly not me, and certainly not others. Without unanimous consent, the rights of those who do not consent are being violated.What rights? There are no intrinsic rights. At best you can establish rights as a society and try to uphold them. But it's still just an (implicit) agreement. In a democracy there is nothing saying that every decision must have unanimous consent; just majority consent will do fine. And there are no rights violated if you don't happen to agree, because there is no consensus establishing those rights in the first place.

Besides, what is all the fuss about. There's over 190 countries in the world. It's one large competing market of goverments (and even some places lacking them), and you can pretty much choose where you want to be.
If you stay where you're born, then it's only reasonable that after a while you pay the local fee (tax) for being there. You stay, you pay. (You are after all occupying part of a country, which constitutes part of the capital owned by the governement). If you don't want to pay that fee, then there's nothing stopping you from going to a competitor making a better offer and taking up residence there.
Simply put governments are capitalist entities just as much as (other) businesses (and yes, even communist ones). They provide a service, and they charge you for it. If you don't like it, search the market for a better deal (go to a popular tax haven for example).

Nonsense. Theft is theft, no matter how you couch it.Yeah, and tax is tax, no matter how you couch it. Calling theft tax doesn't make it tax, called tax theft doesn't make it theft.

Ford did nothing of the sort. You might want to learn about the history of the Federal Reserve system and how it nearly single-handedly started the depression.

Here's a nice book for you to read: America's Great Depression (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp) by Murray Rothbard.
.

Ford was one of the first companys to suffer in the mid 20's. They had closures of plants and dips in profit which had large affects in the stock market. A bigger crisis or a stronger company could have had worse affects.


Consent by whom? Certainly not me, and certainly not others. Without unanimous consent, the rights of those who do not consent are being violated.
.
If we relied on unanimous concent nothing would ever get done on a large scale.



It's not a war per se. It's just bullshit. But it is tied to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, at least in the minds of the civilian leaders.
.

So if there were no fundamentalist muslim states the problem would just go away?



So it's the state of Israel which causes the problem.
.
Kurds have also had conflics and war with no state or even a nation. I can't give you any more real examples do to an abundant lack of anarchist states.


So what?
.

The law won't protect everyone. Thats what.



That happens with any company.
.

Which is why its unacceptable to have a company run law and order.


No, government officials keep expanding what is criminal, so they clearly DO want crime. It gives them something to bitch about.
.

Only if you're a neo con.


The fact that they are a known offender and presumably would be watched a little more closely if they are seen.
.

Watched more closely by who? The police? Whos paying them, surely they'd preffer that criminal to attack a rich guy so their services can be hired.



But why would I have to hire them after-the-fact?
.

Exacly. The police therefore must catch all criminals for the protection of everyone. This can be done by everyone contributing a small ammount for the benefit of everyone.



Government NON-involvement, you mean.
.

government involvement can stimulate and modernise an economy. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism[/url]



If you support the military, then you can use your dollars to do so. I believe our military is the direct cause of some of the most serious problems facing our nation, and I do not want a single penny of my money going to support it.
.

And if people don't like mass transits the idea would never get off the ground. I'm sure you'll agree there are some services that are completely essential. (law and oder, basic defense) I suppose I may regard roads and education in that catorgory as well.
I want economic freedom more than most people but I can't let people donate to religious institutions and other frivilous stuff before the essentials are taken care of.


If you feel that way, super! You should be free to support whatever you want. I happen to give money to a lot of causes that will never benefit me directly. As you say, there are often a lot of pragmatic reasons to do this, in addition to the emotional reasons. I simply don't think either of us should be FORCED to do so.

So you agree that ethically is superior. Pragmatically and in regards to economic stability its superior.
With the concent of democracy the issue of force isn't as extreme and the outcome is a better more prosperous society.

It is indeed a straw man, because it assumes that a socialist economy cannot make economic calculations as a free market capitalist economy does. There's nothing stopping socialist economic institutions from using market mechanisms to maximize efficiency.

quite right. go quasi-markets!



*throws pokeball*
*does nothing*
*leaves thread before he becomes angry again*

quite right. go quasi-markets!


Just to attack both sides. It is impractical to take an ideological stance on economics. One must take a stance on what works for the economic growth and stability of a nation. If the restriction of economical freedoms solves the problem, then so be it.

There have been corporations that practically ruled nations, let alone the economy. Take the Dutch VOC in the 16th and 17th century for example.
The king ruled.


And I think there are still some countries that have just one major export product they depend on, which is controlled by just one major corporation. Not as much as in previous centuries though.
And normally those "companies" are government-run.


They can and do regularly both fail people.
No, markets can never fail. And yes, allowing for a free-market will solve a lot of problems. Letting people trade freely--make decisions freely--can only help.


What rights? There are no intrinsic rights.
Never said there were.


At best you can establish rights as a society and try to uphold them. But it's still just an (implicit) agreement. In a democracy there is nothing saying that every decision must have unanimous consent;
There is if you don't want to trample on the rights of the minority.


just majority consent will do fine.
Only if you believe there's nothing wrong with initiating force against someone.


And there are no rights violated if you don't happen to agree, because there is no consensus establishing those rights in the first place.
Non sequitur.


Besides, what is all the fuss about. There's over 190 countries in the world. It's one large competing market of goverments (and even some places lacking them), and you can pretty much choose where you want to be.
The problem is that it's NOT a competing market of governments. There is no market. There is only force.


If you stay where you're born, then it's only reasonable that after a while you pay the local fee (tax) for being there. You stay, you pay. (You are after all occupying part of a country, which constitutes part of the capital owned by the governement).
David D. Friedman refutes that load of nonsense here (http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html) in section 10. There is no such thing as "implicit consent", nor does the government actually own the land.


Yeah, and tax is tax, no matter how you couch it. Calling theft tax doesn't make it tax, called tax theft doesn't make it theft.
What do you call it when someone demands that you pay them for a service you didn't ask for or contract for, like--a mafia goon squad telling you to pay protection money OR ELSE? Isn't that called "extortion", which is a type of theft? What's the difference between that and taxation? Absolutely NOTHING.

Ford was one of the first companys to suffer in the mid 20's. They had closures of plants and dips in profit which had large affects in the stock market. A bigger crisis or a stronger company could have had worse affects.
And...?

If we relied on unanimous concent nothing would ever get done on a large scale.
Nonsense.


So if there were no fundamentalist muslim states the problem would just go away?
If we left them alone, and stopped supporting Israel, they'd pretty much leave us alone too.


Kurds have also had conflics and war with no state or even a nation.
They have a quasi-nation.


The law won't protect everyone. Thats what.
It doesn't now.



Which is why its unacceptable to have a company run law and order.
No, it's perfectly acceptable. You just seem to want a coercive territorial monopolist to run it. I can't imagine why.



Only if you're a neo con.
No, a lot of laws were created by so-called "liberals", too. In fact, higher penalties for coke/crack use were enthusiastically embraced by the likes of Jesse Jackson and his ilk.


Watched more closely by who? The police? Whos paying them, surely they'd preffer that criminal to attack a rich guy so their services can be hired.
No, their services are already contracted-for. Think of it like homeowners or auto insurance. Do you go to the insurance company after an accident to get a policy on your car you just wrecked, or do you get a policy beforehand so that if you wreck, you're covered?


Exacly. The police therefore must catch all criminals for the protection of everyone.
They catch whom they can.


This can be done by everyone contributing a small ammount for the benefit of everyone.
It can be better done by contracting with the police beforehand.


government involvement can stimulate and modernise an economy. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism[/url]
ICK! Friedmanite (and Keynesian) nonsense! The Chicago school is utterly wrong about how money operates.

Nonsense. If the central planning board tries, it will be done without a market, which means without any relation to reality.

Why would it be done "without a market"?

Right there. With that statement, you admitted central planning.

So the only way for socialist institutions to measure rates of purchase, and adjust prices accordingly, is through "central planning"? Are you serious?

Just to attack both sides. It is impractical to take an ideological stance on economics. One must take a stance on what works for the economic growth and stability of a nation. If the restriction of economical freedoms solves the problem, then so be it.
Restricting economic freedom restricts freedom, period. It restricts the individual from doing what s/he feels is best. That's immoral.

Why would it be done "without a market"?
There are no real markets in socialism.


So the only way for socialist institutions to measure rates of purchase, and adjust prices accordingly, is through "central planning"? Are you serious?
How do you have real prices in a socialist economy? And you're the one who stated that it would be centrally planned.

There are no real markets in socialism.

As long as the consumer is making decisions on what to purchase, there are markets. Public ownership of the means of production does not preclude choice in what one purchases.

How do you have real prices in a socialist economy?

A certain amount of currency is required to purchase a given commodity. Just as it is in a capitalist economy.

And you're the one who stated that it would be centrally planned.

All I said was that socialist institutions could measure purchases and make decisions on prices and production accordingly. I did not state that it would be centrally planned anywhere.

Restricting economic freedom restricts freedom, period. It restricts the individual from doing what s/he feels is best. That's immoral.

Restricting freedom is not necessarily a bad thing. Property rights restrict other's freedom to use an said property.

As long as the consumer is making decisions on what to purchase, there are markets. Public ownership of the means of production does not preclude choice in what one purchases.

But nor does it guarantee it. A public producer has no incentive to respond to consumer demands.

The government has established a voice of concent to rule the nation. They may decide to tax they may not. As long as they are accountable to the public via the vote and any individual who is unhappy can leave than its not theft.
You're using democracy as a proxy for freedom.

That's a problem. Democracy and freedom are antithetical.