NationStates Jolt Archive

Bullshit = bullshit, punditry = pundrity.
Yes, it is subjective. But at no point has my theorem of "most doctors + cheapest price = not necessarily the best" been disproven.

Huh? The thing is a waffle!

Unfair? That there are ANY wefare laws are exploitive in my mind -- I'm paying for people not to work! Fuck that, I want my streets clean and no lines at the DMV.

Not at all. Immigrants deserve the same pay for the same work -- it's a job after all. I don't care if a doctor is a black lesbian Catholic Republican or a white straight Satanist that likes Kelly Clarkson. I just want the best. I focused on immigrants because (and my own parents are examples here) they have to learn English, and that costs time and income earning.

There is also a correlation between how north a country is and the number of hockey teams it has. Does this mean that New Zealanders can't play hockey? Of course not.
You haven't proven your theorem either. My entire point here was to show that your statistics don't show that capitalism is benefiting people, merely that it's benefiting some, according to the statistics.
I disagree on the welfare point, but that's a personal thing. Point taken about the immigrants. The correlation, however, is very strong - not conclusive, but highly indicative. Take the USSR. The Gini coefficient went from about 24 to about 30 between 1980 and 1993 - the period of some market liberalisation under Marxism, bascially. The Russian Federation went from about 35 to about 50 (it's harder to tell here the proper Gini figures, but the general trend is upwards) from 1993 to 2002, while the Russian market moved towards a capitalist economy. (From the World Income Inequality Database (http://www.wider.unu.edu/wiid/wiid-introduction-2005-1.htm).)

The page http://www.unhabitat.org:80/programmes/ifup/conf/soniafayman.doc cannot be found

HTTP 404 - File not found
Information Services Section
UN-HABITAT

...but even so, the point is being missed: that the US has such a low level of homelessness is a great achievement and a testament that capitalism works.
Ah, if only there were records of the ACTUAL homelessness in (say) 1980 Poland or 1951 Soviet Union.
Here's a link (http://66.249.93.104/custom?q=cache:vScXdNc6A8EJ:www.unhabitat.org/programmes/ifup/conf/soniafayman.doc+soniafayman&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8) to the Google cache version (I hope). As for the former Marxist countries, I believe that their homelessness levels were very low, as everyone was automatically allocated a house or flat (at least in the cities). They were crap houses (one flat I worked in when I was with Habitat for Humanity in Romania was smaller than the sitting room in my house, and I think it was a family flat), but they were houses nonetheless.
Also, the homeless numbers in America, when compared to the EU, actually support the social democratic model rather than the more free-market American model. The EU homelessness rate is about two thirds that of the US - because we have half as many people again, but around the same number of homeless.

Exactly. At least in Capitalism, in theory anyone can rise to a "cushy" post. There are thousands and thousands of examples.
Sparta was a special case since the people literally WERE the state.
All male Spartans (aged 30+) were in their Apella, which were held monthly. Any one of them could become an Ephor, and possibly King (if he could prove a drop of blood from either of the two bloodlines, which practically any Spartan could).
That's why I prefer capitalism to Marxism - at least under capitalism there is some freedom, as opposed to the total lack of freedom under Marxism.
If the people were the state, then why did they voluntarily agree to such stultifying conditions? I don't know, but a guess would be that they were conditioned into believing it was the best way. Which makes them a special case indeed - popular dictatorial socialism, perhaps.

Why would you need to please consumers. Would your job be at risk if you do it poorly, would you suffer via material wealth if you perform your job baddly.

I personally have no problem with democratic companies operating in a market economy, so yes, if you don't please your customers, then you'll have falling sales and less revenue for your company. The result is a smaller pie for the employees of the company to divide up. If a person doesn't like the falling revenues of his company, then he is free to join another company, which of course, is also democratically run.

you haven't really explained where the capital comes from in the first place, other than that access to it would be determined democratically. This means having a large government structure deciding where the money goes, no? This is bound to be extremely corrupt by its very nature.

There are two ways a company gets capital. The first is from the revenue it earns in sales. The second is from the community in which it operates, assuming the community decides that it is a company worth supporting. If the scope of the company is small, then the decision making body is small. As far as corruption goes, how is it defined? Are corrupt decisions ones that benefit a few people, while hurting the rest? If that's the definition, I don't see how a democratic decision making process could be more corrupt than a top-down model.

the pay structure will inevitably be determined more or less entirely through self-interest. It will all become very political within the workplace, and that, rather than the actual value of the work, will have the biggest influence on who gets paid what.

How is the pay structure of a top-down company based less on self-interest, where the biggest influence on who gets paid what is how high up you are in the pecking order. You have the power, so you pay yourself a lot. A democratic decision making process is much more likely to result in pay based on what's best for the people of the company, as opposed to what's best for those in power.

larger companies will usually be floated on the stock market, which means that their shareholders will mainly be insurance companies and pensions funds, which invest the money that they get from every person, rich and poor, and eventually return to them.

The average person gets a much smaller share of the profits than big shareholders. If the profits were not divided based on how many shares you own, then the average person is going to get much more. If there are 1000 employees in the company, it is just a con game if I divide up the company into 1000000 shares, give each employee 1 share, and claim they are all part owners and thus get the benefits of being miniature capitalists.

I believe that capitalism and communism to be equally irrevelant.
Lets see why actually there is economy:
People need something, goverment lets them sate their needs by their ability. If they can't succeed because they don't have the means then goverment organises them to do whats necessary. Thats so simple, the entire reason for the existance of goverment is to have an instrument to organize otherwise impossible to accomplish goals. If people meaning to do something have the ability and masses resources ok, if not you gather a piece from each according to his need and ability and get the job done together.

Life needs to flow! You can't put imaginary barriers of good or evil before it, it doesn't work! Turkiye sided with America in cold war and we never caught the goverment controlled industrial plans success ever never again with liberalism until recently. Why? Because Türkiye's businessman didn't had the resources masses enough to quickly accomplish needed goals. That cost us nearly 50 years!!! If we continued to use socialist tactics for that time we would be a lot richer and today leave the job on private sector slowly and surely. Not dropping it like a million ton brick on tiny private sector like Russians did when Soviets collapsed, leaving whole economy to mafia!
Planned economy and chaotic economy works unless you plan to build a catapult to launch squirrels to space or charge 1000 dollars for a limited edition shoe that costs 3cents to produce.

Loath as I am to agree with the evil capitalist enemy Andaluciae, he's right. Marxism and Leninism are both nearly as bad as Stalinism - Kronstadt Rebellion, anyone?

Since when are Marxism and Leninism equivalent?

The point you make about the "dictatorship of the proletariat", or party dictatorship if you have a Leninist party, is totally correct.

The "dictatorship of the party" is not and cannot be the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Since when are Marxism and Leninism equivalent?

I've been asking the same question. Don't know if i'll ever get an answer. I don't know how you can pair up an firm anti-authoritarian like Marx with a closet dictator like Lenin.

The "dictatorship of the party" is not and cannot be the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

I think the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" needs to be better explained to the non-believers. You know what it means, and I know what it means, but they don't. I think most of the confusion comes from the phrase being taken out of context. Marx referred to democratic capitalist society as "the dictatorship of the bourgeois," meaning that the class that held the primary means of power was the minority bourgeois, or capitalist class. Hence, its antithesis is the "dictarship of the proletariat," meaning that the primary power in society is held by the majority working class. As Marx wrote of it, it nescesarily meant democracy.

The dictatorship of the party is what happens when a small, elite vanguard group takes control of the state in the name of the people, and then never gives up power. The vanguard party of Leninism must be avoided at all costs.

No one is "deciding" them for anyone. Every choice the worker has under capitalism (except investment in a company) is open to her under socialism.
That's a pretty big omission. That investment is the incentive to produce.

primary power in society is held by the majority working class.
Power should never be held by the majority. That necessarily disenfranchises the minority.

Power should be held by the individual.

Power should never be held by the majority. That necessarily disenfranchises the minority.

And power should never be held by a minority. That necessarily disenfranchises the majority.

Power should be held by the individual.

I agree. How do you intend to bring that about?

That's a pretty big omission. That investment is the incentive to produce.

How so?

That's a pretty big omission. That investment is the incentive to produce.

Investment is usually non existent in most forms of socialism, particularly Soheran's socialist ideologies. Investment need not be the incentive to produce, it can be replaced by genuinely human solidarity.[/QUOTE]

Power should never be held by the majority. That necessarily disenfranchises the minority.

Power should be held by the individual.

Majority rule is nescesary for any egalitarian civil governnance. Granted, the right the majority has very definite limits, by the minority doesn't have the absolute right to stop action by the majority. I would view that sovereign power being in the hands of the majority is a much better alternative than it being in the hands of a minority, either through collectivist dictatorship or rule by property.

Investment is usually non existent in most forms of socialism, particularly Soheran's socialist ideologies.

Private investment.

Private investment.

I don't really view at as "investment" if it is from a public source. My bad.

Since when are Marxism and Leninism equivalent?
OK, while Lenin did add his own crazerina touch to Marxism, remember that Marx advocates the use of a state, which will "wither away". That's never going to happen. It's just going to lead to another state, another dominance. I was a little harsh on Marx though, I will admit that - I dislike Marxism, I hate Leninism.

The "dictatorship of the party" is not and cannot be the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
But it automatically becomes the dictatorship of the party if there is one. Vanguard parties will always lead to elitism - there will always be people in the party who want to elevate the party above the people. It might even start off as being for "the good of the people", but then it turns into the USSR.

To be honest, i would like to be ruled by a King, An autocratic King, An absolute Autocratic King. And if we dont like whats he is doing, kill him and get his son

Communism is just plain stupid....it was partly responsible for destorying the Royal Russian Family.

Death to Stalin!!

Death to Stalin!!

A little too late for that, pal.

To be honest, i would like to be ruled by a King, An autocratic King, An absolute Autocratic King. And if we dont like whats he is doing, kill him and get his son
I am a monarchist, but I have a strong distaste for absolute monarchy. It helped destroy the institution in part. However, I would prefer it infinitely to any form of Marxism, especially Stalinism.

:confused:

It has?

.

Well when people are the first to find unused land and mix their labour with it they have a tendency to claim it as their own. Regardless if a state exists to make this owndership legal in the form of a contract.


I have consistently granted that collectivist anarchism would not solve this problem. All I have pointed out is that it will alleviate it.
.

At the expence of ownership and all the benefits of property rights. Not only do the pros not outweigh the negatives but the collectivist anarchists would have to use force to claim all this developed property to be put under communal ownership.



The workers can appoint leaders if they so choose.
.

Enter the mind of a worker. Does he want to think of whats in the best interest of the overall company or does he want to have shorter working ours, a nicer working enviroment, longer lunch breaks etc..



If he did harvest it voluntarily while knowing that anyone would be allowed to take it (or that it would be sold), there is nothing wrong with it.
.

But the only reason people continue to build things for themselves or for profit and invest is because they know people cannot take the fruits of their labour (or atleast a very minimal portion of it).



It also requires access to capital, and that is what advocates of capitalism miss.
.

Individuals should have access to education opportunties, banks and how they save up or invest to gain capital of their own is a business left to the individual.



Way to miss the point.

If in fact I am right and property rights of a certain kind deprive people of freedom, as with property rights over slaves, such property rights are illegitimate.
.

The basis of your arguement seems to be slavery is wrong therefore owning a factory is wrong.
Slavery directly denys another individual with their right to own themselves and use their knowledge for their own purposes. Owning a machine that produces goods is no different than owning the computer I'm currently using.


Pointing out that in making that point I did not prove the premise that capitalist property rights deprive people of freedom (because I have discussed it elsewhere) is mere sophistry.
.

I don't want to go in circles but I'll clear up what I think we're arguing.

You're saying Person X's ownership of something deprives Person Y else from owning it (thus this is wrong). I'm saying that if Person X used the materials first, built the product himself or legally traded to gain contractal ownership of whatever property in question he has a right to have it used in whatever manner he chooses by whomever. Person Y has no claim to use Person X's property simply because hes alive or wants to use it. Particuarly if person Y had no contribution to Person X's origonal work to gain ownership.

Thus the only person who loses freedom is person X. And thats the freedom to keep the fruits of his labour.



you glorify are "voluntary exchanges" and "legitimate trades" of stolen goods.

It doesn't mean that the present owners deserve what they have.
.

You seem to assume every good in all existance has one day been stolen. And even if they all had been once these goods enter the market again and someone trades for them it would be wrong to punish who ever buys these goods.


Sure, I have no problem with you doing so now. What you have no right to do is claim ownership over that factory in Thailand if it is challenged by those who have a more just claim - like the people who live there.
.

Right.....And should I simply take over my local newsagents as well because I live near it. Why does living somewhere entitle you to someone elses stuff.


If labor could magically produce goods, sure. It can't; it requires resources, and resources are scarce.
.

Great. So rather than have people try and take what they want or use what they want the enevitable conflict over whos using which resources can be solved by ownership secured by contracts.
And again just because I require a resource to do something this doesn't merrit taking it from someone else.



If you are capable of starting a company without claiming land or other scarce resources, go right ahead.
.

It can be done. You can sell goods on a market. Heck you can set up a business and sell stuff ebay. Personally I wouldn't want to run a company its extremely stressful work and requires a lot of risk.


Maybe the last of three, but not the first two. Neither talent nor contribution, in and of itself, gives anyone the right to inequality.
.

They're already unequal. Its not a right its just how it is. I'm saying its wrong therefore for soicety to hold back those who have more for the sake of those who are worst off.


Again, societies should be able to create forms of property beyond the rights of use if they see fit to benefit the common good
.

Ie. Reward people regardless of their actions.


this is because the "ownership" is justified by the advancement of the common welfare rather than by any sort of natural right. As such, there is no reason such societies could not regulate such "ownership" as they saw fit.
.

Not a natural right. Its for individual welfare and seft control. And from everyone owning everything together no one would truely own anything.



Free to trade what they rightfully own, yes. Free to trade what they do not rightfully own, no.
.

I agree. But hey, I think somone who pays money to buy or start a company rightfully owns the company


The difference is that the only real connection the capitalist has to her factory in Thailand is a legal one; my computer, on the other hand, is in my home, naturally recognizable as "mine."
.

Guess how long your computer will last should we get rid of legal rights to ownership.
Regardless it should make no difference if I lived in the company in Thailand and thus the so called means of production were in my home, therefore recognizably mine.




Why do property owners have a right to use resources - land, for instance - that they had no hand in creating?
.

Because they got their and used it first or traded it with somone who did. Hunters had no hand in creating animals either but if they find a nice chicken in the wild its fair game.
To look at the fundamental aspects no one created any of the atoms that make up everything in the world, but by using it or mixing out labour with it we are fair owners.


No, it doesn't.
.

You realise just to create a pencil it takes labour and resources from all over the world to co-operate and put together all the pieces. If I was one of those thousands of workers who helped contribute one tiny part should I get the whole peice.
What if I help build part of an aircraft which takes contributions from tens of thousands of labour. Do I still have a guarenteed right to use or own an aircraft?



In a society, the rights of use would be constrained.
.

And so you take votes to deicde who can use what? If not who decides flying lessons are more valuable than watching T.V?
Atleast the market has a very good system of determining use, and its responds to peopeles subjective desires and lets people decide for themselves what they want to do on their own personal budget.


No, it isn't. You are always free to disassociate, as in capitalism. The difference is that you can be an active participant in the decisions that affect you (with the others whom the decision affects).


So your choices are. Either submit to society and get one vote among many how things are doen. Or choose to leave and let the rest of society decide how things are run anyway minus your one vote.


So?


More production ='s more needs catered for.



You are being disingenuous. I have already explained the distinction between ownership and use.


I'm not too sure what you mean by use then. Am I using everything in my house right now. Do I have to use things daily for it to count or the moment I stop using something is it fair game for someone else to take it.
Or is everything subject to societys control where in fact I'm a slave dependent on them sparing me enough to get by having no control of my own life.


Their "property" that they have no right to?


They have a legal right to it. What right does someone who simply lives near a factory who had no part in building/running it or maintaning it have to take co-control.


Maybe, but the owners of the company are rarely dependent on the company making the little more profit hiring a new worker would garner them. Their independence tends to give them far more bargaining power than the worker seeking employment.


And again you forget the investment, the risk and the time that has already been put in by the owner of the company. Why shouldn't he be in a privilaged position than the worker who theoretically has done nothing!


Now you change the issue.

You were maintaining that capitalism is a freer system because I am free to earn a higher wage than others. This might make capitalism more effective; it does not make it freer, unless the worker who is deprived of her equal share agrees to give it to me.

The less constraints we have on what we are able to do the freer we are. Social conservatism restricts what I can do and thus is contrary to freedom and economic control via the state or society controlls what I can and can't do with the fruits of my labour. You paint the picture of a society that votes on what I am able to use, restricts my long term ownership on all goods and values the common good ahead of any individual preference I have (which I am not free to pursue on my own without intervention).

I don't know about that; I'm concerned with preserving the environment, and I don't use it exclusively, though I do use it.


Well the enviroment on a global scale perhaps but thats a somewhat unique issue. But would you imagine a person littering on their own property or over farming/over fishing their own land thus destorying its long term use.
Compare that to peoples actions on stuff that isn't their own property. People have a strong tendancy to look after their own things much better and much more carefully.


The market is in and of itself a poor reason for doing things as it is not the best indicator of whether or not something is a good idea.

True. Sometimes people demand useless stuff that is totally stupid (lets say Pop music). But who am I to tell them what they want or whats a good idea, as long as its not doing others major harm the market gives people the freedom to get what they want to get.

Well the enviroment on a global scale perhaps but thats a somewhat unique issue. But would you imagine a person littering on their own property or over farming/over fishing their own land thus destorying its long term use.
Compare that to peoples actions on stuff that isn't their own property. People have a strong tendancy to look after their own things much better and much more carefully.People tend to want to destroy things that they don't want to keep; I see no particular reason why people should want to destroy something they use and want to use.

True. Sometimes people demand useless stuff that is totally stupid (lets say Pop music). But who am I to tell them what they want or whats a good idea, as long as its not doing others major harm the market gives people the freedom to get what they want to get."Harm" is subjective.

People tend to want to destroy things that they don't want to keep; I see no particular reason why people should want to destroy something they use and want to use.


The enviroment is a good example. But on a more communal basis if damaging something will give me extra benefit (and I can get away with it) humans are enclined to try to maximise their own self interest.


"Harm" is subjective.

Okay true, well I generally try to stick with Mill's harm principle. As long as peoples choice and freedom to do as they wish (like not watch pop music) exists than whatever people choose is their own business.

The enviroment is a good example. But on a more communal basis if damaging something will give me extra benefit (and I can get away with it) humans are enclined to try to maximise their own self interest.What makes you think people will be able to get away with it (on a consistent basis)?

Okay true, well I generally try to stick with Mill's harm principle. As long as peoples choice and freedom to do as they wish (like not watch pop music) exists than whatever people choose is their own business.That seems silly, if a corporation polluted the wilderness of Northern Alaska, not going to the wilderness of Northern Alaska is an option...

I have decided that marxism has survived too long. I have elected to hand all forms of marxism an ownage as bad as the ownage I handed gun control in a thread a while back by Amadinejad.

That said, I will begin.

Fact: Marxism favors total equality, with merit playing no part in the allocation of money, resources or jobs.

Problem: This is inherently flawed because it means that there is no way of hiring competent people, or even people with the necessary training, lest the entity doing the hiring violate its own principles. Additionally, there is no incentive to do or learn because one can always get any job anyway ("and to each according to his needs"). Read Atlas Shrugged. D'Anconia explains all the Marxist precepts, and acts upon them, and the Marxist he is explaining it to is more furious with d'Anconia then than he was when d'Anconia acted on rational self-interest. I'd like to see a Marxist's reaction to any government that followed Marxism to the letter.

Result: The lack of any way to put competent people in any
position causes a breakdown of business, government and any semblance of social order.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That alone is a complete ownage, but I will continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Marxism is collectivism, and as such endorses a belief in the unimportance of the individual for his own sake. Nobody other than the leadership enjoys living under such a system.

Most, if not all, Marxists I know belong to one of two statist subsets: 1) the purpose of the government is not to protect rights, but to provide them, there being no rights a man has until the government gives them to him, or 2) the government should outlaw everything and permit each and every action anybody takes on a case by case basis. Both of those lead to statism, if they aren't to begin with, and are not conducive to the welfare of either society or the individual.

This same speech has converted a handful of my contemporaries who were Marxist. I should very much like to see a valid argument that proves me wrong.

I have decided that marxism has survived too long. I have elected to hand all forms of marxism an ownage as bad as the ownage I handed gun control in a thread a while back by Amadinejad.

That said, I will begin.

Fact: Marxism favors total equality, with merit playing no part in the allocation of money, resources or jobs.

No, it doesn't, if you are including "merit" as "having the training for a particular job."

Employment might be guaranteed; a specific job would not be.

That, of course, makes the rest of that argument irrelevant.

Marxism is collectivism, and as such endorses a belief in the unimportance of the individual for his own sake. Nobody other than the leadership enjoys living under such a system.

No, it doesn't. It denies that capitalist private property is a decent way of protecting individual rights, but one of Marx's concerns was the loss of individual liberty by the laborer in a capitalist economy.

Most, if not all, Marxists I know belong to one of two statist subsets: 1) the purpose of the government is not to protect rights, but to provide them, there being no rights a man has until the government gives them to him,

If what you mean is "Marxists want the government to be allowed to do anything," you are absolutely wrong.

or 2) the government should outlaw everything and permit each and every action anybody takes on a case by case basis.

Nonsense; no Marxist I know of has ever advocated this.

Blood has been shed: At this point, our argument is futile.

I do not particularly want to spend another hour repeating points I have already made, and as such I will not reply to your last reply to me.

I agree. How do you intend to bring that about?
Make all interaction between people entirely voluntary.
Investment need not be the incentive to produce, it can be replaced by genuinely human solidarity.
Do you have any reason to believe that genuine human solidarity is possible? Has it ever existed anywhere?

I don't particularly like people. I can't imagine being part of genuine human solidarity.

Make all interaction between people entirely voluntary.

"Voluntary" interaction that is coerced is almost as bad as outright denial of choice. The only fair or equitable system must exist with voluntary interaction that is not coerced

Do you have any reason to believe that genuine human solidarity is possible? Has it ever existed anywhere?

I don't particularly like people. I can't imagine being part of genuine human solidarity.

Yes, I do have reason to believe that solidarity is possible. In war time situations, its called the "band of brothers" effect. People act not out of self interest but to help their comrades in arms. Bonds like that can be built.

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean its impossible.

"Voluntary" interaction that is coerced is almost as bad as outright denial of choice. The only fair or equitable system must exist with voluntary interaction that is not coerced
"Almost as bad," you say. Well, since handing the power to the majority does result in the outright denial of choiuce for the minority, I think my way wins.

Even though I didn't presuppose the existence of coersion.
Yes, I do have reason to believe that solidarity is possible. In war time situations, its called the "band of brothers" effect. People act not out of self interest but to help their comrades in arms. Bonds like that can be built.
But that's just a majority effect, isn't it? It's not universal. Plus, since it's a time of crisis, doesn't that suggest that there's some sort of downside to the failure to work together, thus making this enlightened self interest?
Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean its impossible.
And just because you can imagine it doesn't make it possible. I fail to see why anyone would act in a way contrary to his own self interest. I might even go so far as to claim that freewil makes that impossible.

"Almost as bad," you say. Well, since handing the power to the majority does result in the outright denial of choiuce for the minority, I think my way wins.

Even though I didn't presuppose the existence of coersion.

Your arguing from a right wing libertarian point of view. We've argued about this before. Your views are based on unlimited rights of property. I'd take majority rule over property owner oligarchy any day.

But that's just a majority effect, isn't it? It's not universal. Plus, since it's a time of crisis, doesn't that suggest that there's some sort of downside to the failure to work together, thus making this enlightened self interest?

And just because you can imagine it doesn't make it possible. I fail to see why anyone would act in a way contrary to his own self interest. I might even go so far as to claim that freewil makes that impossible.

People act contrary to their self interest all of the time. People make sacrifices for those that they care about it all of the time. Once people realize that everyone is, ultimately, on the same team, people can cooperate in almost any situation. You can call it "enlightened self interest" if you want. But to me, the point that actions are done without regard for ones own welfare or safety, it becomes an act of self-sacrifice. With the band of brothers example, or with any sort of cooperating group, you can call it "taking one for the team."

I never thought i'd be the one taking the optimistic side of an argument...

Make all interaction between people entirely voluntary.

Okay. That means the abolition of ownership for the coercive dependence it causes.

Additionally, there is no incentive to do or learn because one can always get any job anyway ("and to each according to his needs"). Yes, because all jobs are equally fun.

[QUOTE=Trotskylvania;11682746]Your arguing from a right wing libertarian point of view. We've argued about this before. Your views are based on unlimited rights of property. I'd take majority rule over property owner oligarchy any day.
QUOTE]

RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN?!?! RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN?!?!? There's no such thing. The closest correct term to that is right-leaning centrist. Libertarianism is up at the top, and in the middle. I'm a minarchist, which is on the border between centrism and libertarianism, and is essentially a less absolutist version of capitalism.

Besides, limited rights of property are as bad as no rights of property. If someone earns a shitload of money and buys a million acres, the government has no right to put any limit on his ability to by, or what he can do with his own land. And a property owner oligarchy in the sense you're talking about has never existed in America, let alone in MONTANA, where you happen to live. Your philosophies might work well for about 20 minutes, but they inevitably degenerate into a bureaucratic police state a la 1984 after any significant period of time.

If you, as an american, really believe capitalism is degrading to human rights, either kill yourself or go into total denial, because this country, having survived with, relatively speaking, vast civil and political liberties, and being founded, maintained and governed under capitalism, is a living example. America is the richest, most powerful country in the world, with the 8th highest GDP per capita in the world after Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Qatar, and the highest GDP in absolute terms in the world, being almost equal to the entire EU put together. We've also got the most powerful military in the world, the largest private sector in the world, and the most technology startup in the world. All because we have an economy with incentives. Clearly, both America and capitalism have something going for them.

RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN?!?! RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN?!?!? There's no such thing. The closest correct term to that is right-leaning centrist. Libertarianism is up at the top, and in the middle. I'm a minarchist, which is on the border between centrism and libertarianism, and is essentially a less absolutist version of capitalism.

Besides, limited rights of property are as bad as no rights of property. If someone earns a shitload of money and buys a million acres, the government has no right to put any limit on his ability to by, or what he can do with his own land. And a property owner oligarchy in the sense you're talking about has never existed in America, let alone in MONTANA, where you happen to live. Your philosophies might work well for about 20 minutes, but they inevitably degenerate into a bureaucratic police state a la 1984 after any significant period of time.

If you, as an american, really believe capitalism is degrading to human rights, either kill yourself or go into total denial, because this country, having survived with, relatively speaking, vast civil and political liberties, and being founded, maintained and governed under capitalism, is a living example. America is the richest, most powerful country in the world, with the 8th highest GDP per capita in the world after Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Qatar, and the highest GDP in absolute terms in the world, being almost equal to the entire EU put together. We've also got the most powerful military in the world, the largest private sector in the world, and the most technology startup in the world. All because we have an economy with incentives. Clearly, both America and capitalism have something going for them.

You obviously haven't seen the Political Compass. Here's the link. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) Take a look at it, and you'll be an enlightened.

My argument is that the right of the majority to have self-management and self determination supersedes the right of a minority to increase their material wealth. As for my philosophy degenerating into 1984, I would have you know that George Orwell, the writer of 1984 was a democratic socialist, writing a satire on Soviet "Communism."

In the US, your liberties are only protections against the power of the state, what we need are real protections from the powers of other individuals and non-governmental bodies, like corporations. Corporations are the greatest single threat to democracy in this world. They function as a top down oligarchy that has no regard for human matter. Corporations only exist to provide shareholders profits, and are an embodiment of what happens when there is any absolute right to private property.

America isn't as great as the statistics paint it to be. Fifteen percent of the adult population lives below the poverty line, sixty percent of all americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Real wages have steadily declined since the 1970s and show know sign of stopping. The income of the top 1% percent of society has increased by almost five hundred percent in the past 20 years, and the top one tenth of one percent of households in the US own 40% of the property. Need I go on. Something is very wrong with your precious capitalist system, and your laissez faire philosophy will only cut the beast loose.

I'm not the one living in denial. And I'm not going to kill myself anytime soon. I'd love for you to logically show me how my Libertarian Socialist ideology will degenerate into anything worse than the way the world is today. But you won't. You'll whine about Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School Economists, and stamp your feet and call me a dirty commie.

But, the bottom line of my ideology is that people must come first. Property is just inanimate objects. We must care soley about human welfare. At the point some institution gets in the way of this aim, like private property, it should be curtailed or if nescesary, eliminated.

I was a communist before coming to the United States because that's all you're allowed to be in China. :headbang:

Now I'm a liberal democrat. :D

Your arguing from a right wing libertarian point of view. We've argued about this before. Your views are based on unlimited rights of property. I'd take majority rule over property owner oligarchy any day.
I haven't mentioned property in this thread. I'm not presupposing anything.
People act contrary to their self interest all of the time. People make sacrifices for those that they care about it all of the time. Once people realize that everyone is, ultimately, on the same team, people can cooperate in almost any situation. You can call it "enlightened self interest" if you want. But to me, the point that actions are done without regard for ones own welfare or safety, it becomes an act of self-sacrifice. With the band of brothers example, or with any sort of cooperating group, you can call it "taking one for the team."
You can define it as altruistic all you want. If you perform any action, you do so because you want to. You want to because you prefer it to the alternative. That's self-interested behaviour.

Now maybe people will somehow see an alternative they would rather avoid, but I honestly can't imagine what that might be in order to create your "genuine human solidarity". The welfare of people I do not know simply does not concern me. It can't. Otherwise I'd be constantly distraught at wars and poverty happening in other parts of the world. That would suck.
I never thought i'd be the one taking the optimistic side of an argument...
Communism requires that all people be good people all of the time. You should always be the optimistic one.

I'd rather be right.

Okay. That means the abolition of ownership for the coercive dependence it causes.
Well let's start with that. No one owns anything. No one can be coerced to do anything they don't want to do. All disputes are resolved by making sure everyone gets everything allocated equally.

Sounds like utopia.

Why do I bother producing anythng? If I'm able to live off the avails of others, why would I do otherwise?

You can define it as altruistic all you want. If you perform any action, you do so because you want to. You want to because you prefer it to the alternative. That's self-interested behaviour.

No, it isn't. If I want the welfare of others, I am being altruistic. If I want my own welfare, I am being self-interested.

Well let's start with that. No one owns anything. No one can be coerced to do anything they don't want to do. All disputes are resolved by making sure everyone gets everything allocated equally.

Sounds like utopia.

Why do I bother producing anythng? If I'm able to live off the avails of others, why would I do otherwise?

Why are you living off the avails of others? Not everything is allocated equally, just access to basic resources.

And, in practice, most people will concede some of their rights of use by joining a society, allowing more complex property relations.

No, it isn't. If I want the welfare of others, I am being altruistic. If I want my own welfare, I am being self-interested.

Altruism is still a matter of self-interest, as we are still acting to fulfill our own desires, but only makes it the action that much more noble.

America isn't as great as the statistics paint it to be. Fifteen percent of the adult population lives below the poverty line
Where's that poverty line? In western countries, poverty is usually described as less than half the median. But who cares where you are relative to the median? America's poor are among the richest people on the planet.
sixty percent of all americans live from paycheck to paycheck.
That's not necessarily evidence of poverty.
Real wages have steadily declined since the 1970s and show know sign of stopping.
Those wages were previously (and are still) propped up by protectionst trade policies. I'd love to see your data.
The income of the top 1% percent of society has increased by almost five hundred percent in the past 20 years, and the top one tenth of one percent of households in the US own 40% of the property.
Why is that bad?
Need I go on.
Yes, frankly. You haven't offered any evidence of anything bad happening yet.
Something is very wrong with your precious capitalist system, and your laissez faire philosophy will only cut the beast loose.
Let's see. The poor are richer than the vast majority of people in the world. People are free to choose their vocations and rise and fall on their merits. Where's the bad?
But, the bottom line of my ideology is that people must come first. We must care soley about human welfare.
Except human welfare doesn't come first with you. Equality comes first, but equality doesn't do anything for human welfare.

Altruism is still a matter of self-interest, as we are still acting to fulfill our own desires, but only makes it the action that much more noble.

Then "self-interest" is a pointless characterization.

Why are you living off the avails of others? Not everything is allocated equally, just access to basic resources.
But if I produce things I'm not allowed to keep them beyond what I use, right? The same applies to everyone else. So as long as there's extra somewhere I'm entited so my share.
And, in practice, most people will concede some of their rights of use by joining a society, allowing more complex property relations.
Wait a minute, I thought there wasn't any private property. And what do you mean "in practice"? Where has this actually occurred where we could go measure was actually took place?

Then "self-interest" is a pointless characterization.
No it isn't. What this means is that if you're going to expect people to behave in a particular way, you need to create conditions that will make them want to do that.

Then "self-interest" is a pointless characterization.

Yeah, it is.

I don't know if Llewdor wants to say that all behavior is self-interested (which it is by his definition) or if he wants to draw a line between natural behavior or coerced behavior.

But if I produce things I'm not allowed to keep them beyond what I use, right? The same applies to everyone else. So as long as there's extra somewhere I'm entited so my share.

Why would you produce what you don't use - except out of altruism, in which case this is not a problem, or for someone else, in which case the rules of free exchange (labor for labor) apply?

Wait a minute, I thought there wasn't any private property.

Your right of use cannot be infringed. But you do not own what you use, in that, if you cease using it, you have no rights to it, and as long as no one is interfering with your use, they are free to use it as well.

And what do you mean "in practice"? Where has this actually occurred where we could go measure was actually took place?

I meant "in practice" to distinguish the likely practical manifestations of the rights of use from the ideal they seem to be suggesting.

No it isn't. What this means is that if you're going to expect people to behave in a particular way, you need to create conditions that will make them want to do that.

That goes without saying. Why bring "self-interest" into it?

No it isn't. What this means is that if you're going to expect people to behave in a particular way, you need to create conditions that will make them want to do that.

Or, more importantly, remove the conditions that we make them not want to do that.

In the US, your liberties are only protections against the power of the state, what we need are real protections from the powers of other individuals and non-governmental bodies, like corporations. Corporations are the greatest single threat to democracy in this world. They function as a top down oligarchy that has no regard for human matter. Corporations only exist to provide shareholders profits, and are an embodiment of what happens when there is any absolute right to private property.


If corporations have no regard for human matter, what is the purpose of the shareholders?

"Corporations" are the sum of the work of a number of individuals, they are not evil individual entities who act only to put in place some dystopian corporate state, as you seem to believe.

If you're pissed about poor people, get them real jobs.

"Corporations" are the sum of the work of a number of individuals, they are not evil individual entities who act only to put in place some dystopian corporate state, as you seem to believe.

Actually corporations are individual entities and are often rendered evil by their lack of personhood and liability. It is easy to lie when one wears a mask.

Well, first of all, it would be weird not to like Communism per se - it's the ideal economic formation possible. As the world develops, capitalism clearly becomes obsolete because of comparably low efficiency (for instance, several companies might research essentially the same, just to compete), but it is very unclear if even a partially communistic formation will ever take place (except for the information).

However, I think that at current technology and society level it is not viable. Communism requires that the time to produce a copy of a product is always comparable or less than time to consume it. That's why it works fine with software, but isn't yet ready for material objects.

Maybe with more automated systems (and, of course, stable world) it would work. The incentive with communism is community respect, pretty much like it works in the net - and even many things people buy are needed only for that. With economics removed, such contribution-based relationships and social structure would emerge. Maybe they would not be as strong, but, if most jobs are creative and others are easy and highly automated, it would provide enough reason to contribute to the community. As said above, it first of all requires high-tech industry, farming and services, where one human can easily support at least a few more, so now it isn't yet an option. If that is achieved, the rest is pretty much matter of time and change of a few generations.

Well, first of all, it would be weird not to like Communism per se - it's the ideal economic formation possible. As the world develops, capitalism clearly becomes obsolete because of comparably low efficiency (for instance, several companies might research essentially the same, just to compete), but it is very unclear if even a partially communistic formation will ever take place (except for the information).
Of course, because it's a dog-eat-dog world under capitalism, the incentive to develop the new product first is immense, and the pressures driving the research could be seen to be more powerful than just combining of resources.

As long as it is needed. Yes, if you desperately need a new AShM and the rival is in similarly desperate need for better ASW, both will make it to production far faster rather than if both are allies preparing them just in case.

However, it is not always a good thing if what you need is different. In less aggressive environment stable quality, reliability, long service life and low production effort are often more important than just more punch in the same space.

Why would you produce what you don't use - except out of altruism
So people make exactly what they need and nothing more. There is then no need for them to interact at all.
or for someone else, in which case the rules of free exchange (labor for labor) apply?
That sounds a lot like a free market. The only difference is you're not permitting me to produce anything in advance in anticipation of demand. I can only produce things upon request. That's a significant loss of efficiency for no apparent gain.
Your right of use cannot be infringed. But you do not own what you use, in that, if you cease using it, you have no rights to it, and as long as no one is interfering with your use, they are free to use it as well.
So it's in my interests to hide what I produce?
I meant "in practice" to distinguish the likely practical manifestations of the rights of use from the ideal they seem to be suggesting.
If you've never seen it, how do you know what the practical manifestations are?
That goes without saying. Why bring "self-interest" into it?
You haven't suggested what those conditions might be. If you want people to behave in a way they don't currently, how are you going to bring that about? What about your new society will actually make me behave differently?

That sounds a lot like a free market. The only difference is you're not permitting me to produce anything in advance in anticipation of demand. I can only produce things upon request. That's a significant loss of efficiency for no apparent gain.

No, the difference is that you are exchanging labor, not resources. This difference is essential; it greatly reduces class differences. I can no longer exploit someone else's labor by hoarding resources; in order to attain it, I have to exchange my own labor for it.

So it's in my interests to hide what I produce?

Why?

If you've never seen it, how do you know what the practical manifestations are?

I don't "know" for certain, but I never can.

You haven't suggested what those conditions might be. If you want people to behave in a way they don't currently, how are you going to bring that about? What about your new society will actually make me behave differently?

Not giving them the capability to behave in certain exploitative ways would help somewhat.

Why?
.
To have something to trade in the black market.
.[/QUOTE]

To have something to trade in the black market.


If anyone's stupid enough to buy something from someone who doesn't own it, they can go ahead and sell it.

But that is equally true regardless of whether or not they produce it.

Where's that poverty line? In western countries, poverty is usually described as less than half the median. But who cares where you are relative to the median? America's poor are among the richest people on the planet.

Many sociologists have argued that poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold. [Adams, J.Q.; Pearlie Strother-Adams (2001). Dealing with Diversity. Chicago, IL: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 0-7872-8145-X.]

The official poverty rate in America is roughly 13%, and evidence shows that the actual number is considerably higher. Translated to the entire US population, even with the conservative official estimate that is 39 million individuals. That is a lot of people. Poverty anywhere is bad. You can't just argue that since they make more money then people in 3rd world countries that we should be cared about their plight.

That's not necessarily evidence of poverty.

Half of all households in American live from paycheck to paycheck [Collins, Sheila: Let Them Eat Ketchup! The Politics of Poverty and Inequality]

I didn't bring it up as evidence of poverty, I brought it up as evidence of the lack of any concern for human welfare. If you ever knew what it was like to live from paycheck to paycheck, you would know why this is such a grave matter. Its not fun being only an accident away from losing your house or having your car re-poed. I've seen my parents have to live through this raising me and my siblings, and I wouldn't wish that struggle on anyone.

Those wages were previously (and are still) propped up by protectionst trade policies. I'd love to see your data.

From 1973 to 1997, average income for the bottom 90 percent of all income earners decreased by .1 percent, adjusted for inflation by. [Johnston, David: Perfectly Legal (Penguin Group Books 2003), pp. 38.] (I know you're going to say that it is a biased book, but the statistics in it are sound)

Four out of every five Americans made more money in 2000 than in 1970 because they worked more hours per year, an average of twenty weeks more paid labor than in 1970. [, David: Perfectly Legal (Penguin Group Books 2003), pp. 24.]

There is the evidence. Protectionism is not the point. The point is that is becoming much harder to live in America for most people.

Why is that bad?

"We can have a democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." - Louis Brandeis

Increasing inequality in America allows more power to be concentrated in fewer hands. The right of private property makes the owner sovereign; without a democratic check on their power, property owners become king. A private property owner can discriminate for almost any reason, and commands the loyalty of his/her employees by controlling their source of income. That is why income inequality is bad.

Yes, frankly. You haven't offered any evidence of anything bad happening yet.

There's you evidence.

Let's see. The poor are richer than the vast majority of people in the world. People are free to choose their vocations and rise and fall on their merits. Where's the bad?

People are not free to choose their vocations, nor do most rise or fall based on their merits. Many heirs/heiresses live lives of complete decadence, and never have to work a day in their life. Millions of others toil hard everyday of their lives only to end up being let go at 65, left with a meager 401k plan and ever decreasing social security benefits, only to be retired to a nursing home to live out the rest of their days in lonliness. Seen that happen too.

Except human welfare doesn't come first with you. Equality comes first, but equality doesn't do anything for human welfare.

It is impossible to have human welfare without equity. Success should only be determined by the amount of effort one is willing to make. You can't have any social justice or welfare if sucess is determined by birth, genetics, luck or willingness to exploit others.

You can define it as altruistic all you want. If you perform any action, you do so because you want to. You want to because you prefer it to the alternative. That's self-interested behaviour.Certainly; it is in the rational self-interest of the majority of people to support communism, as the majority of people would benefit from communism.

Communism requires that all people be good people all of the time. Not at all. Communism recognizes that people will not be good people all of the time; the amount of harm that someone can do in (anarcho)communism by not being good is significantly less than in other systems.

Why is that bad?Inequalities of wealth are inequalities of power. Inequalities of power are bad, and for the inequalities to be increasing is worse.

If you're pissed about poor people, get them real jobs.That's impossible to do in a system that requires unemployment.

If anyone's stupid enough to buy something from someone who doesn't own it, they can go ahead and sell it.


If society or the law prohibits me from owning something that people will seek to get it from the black market instead. The more extreme the repression of economic liberty the bigger the black market. Take Russia as a perfect example.


But that is equally true regardless of whether or not they produce it.

True, once people start breaking the law technicalitys like having produced something are meaninless. Violence and theft will probably be more common with black market trade.

Its clearly established there is far less incentive in producing something if you do not keep the fruits or your work and the effort/tallent you put in has no bearing on your reward. Therefore on the off chance someone produces something there is extreme incentive to keep it for yourself to further your own prosperity or even survival (particuarly when efficiency and growth has collapsed without the invisible hand and quality of life goes way down for everyone).

Essentially the same problem exists for all socialism. When I have the option of waiting in line for hours to get bread from the collective pool or buying better quality food with stolen goods in a black market guess what I choose. Guess what happened in the soviet union.

This is not just a problem for communism. Under social democracy their high taxes cause similar problems. More people become tax resisters and in Britain during the 1970's people began to help eachother cheat the system because its seen as unfair, where as before the 70's people were generally much more respectful of the need to pay taxes. When done on a large scale to the extreme you speak of I can't even imagine the chaos....

Certainly; it is in the rational self-interest of the majority of people to support communism, as the majority of people would benefit from communism.
.

Wealth is based on productivity. The cure for poverty is not to destroy the most productive system that has brought an expidential increase in standards of living to the vast majority of people over the last two hundred years.

Not only this but I don't even accept the utilitarian logic as a means for the right answer.
The majority of people would be better off if we killed 49% of the population or forbided anyone from having more than one child for a few generations. Now the fact the majority of us would be better off doesn't make it justifiable. And thats even if it did make the majority better off which communism doesn't do!


Not at all. Communism recognizes that people will not be good people all of the time; the amount of harm that someone can do in (anarcho)communism by not being good is significantly less than in other systems.
.

Yup take away all self responcibility and possible ownership first. This way others can't take it away from you later.....


That's impossible to do in a system that requires unemployment.

You speak of around 3-5% of the population. Of which most are not unemployed for more than a year and others simply are so incompetant/lazy the only function they serve is to be a paracite to society leech on others and pose a much greater threat under socialism.

If society or the law prohibits me from owning something that people will seek to get it from the black market instead.
You don't get or pretend not to get. Do you own this forum? No. You can only use it. But you don't go to the black market, right?

You don't get or pretend not to get. Do you own this forum? No. You can only use it. But you don't go to the black market, right?

If I wanted my own forum I could pay to get my own webpage set up and run it myself. But I don't want to make the effort and this forum generally has interesting discussion at no cost to myself other than my time.

What if starting my own forum was banned for some reason or another and I desperatly wanted to run my own forum? Well I might find someone with illigal servers to host my forum and discuss topics etc..

Yes. You see, you are using this forum because Barry made it. It wasn't a lot of effort for him, so he made it to allow enough members.

Under communism, you as well can create your forum and use it. For free, by taking a free host and setting free software. You would be its admin, but not owner, that's all.
In fact, you already can, because the network has a lot of communism-like details in it (the only difference it that you would have ads today).

If society or the law prohibits me from owning something that people will seek to get it from the black market instead. The more extreme the repression of economic liberty the bigger the black market. Take Russia as a perfect example.

There is no "repression of economic liberty." There is complete free exchange.

All frameworks of property mean that some things won't be mine, and that thus I will have a motive to steal; this is true in every such system, including capitalism.

Its clearly established there is far less incentive in producing something if you do not keep the fruits or your work and the effort/tallent you put in has no bearing on your reward.

I actually am not all concerned with the "incentive" to produce. But that aside, there is no reason you cannot keep the fruits of your labor, as long as you do not violate the rights of use of other people. If you join a society, the "fruits of your labor" might be constrained as well, but that is your own free choice.

Therefore on the off chance someone produces something there is extreme incentive to keep it for yourself to further your own prosperity or even survival (particuarly when efficiency and growth has collapsed without the invisible hand and quality of life goes way down for everyone).

Who is stopping anyone from producing things in their own spare time with resources that are legitimately "theirs" to increase their own prosperity?

Essentially the same problem exists for all socialism. When I have the option of waiting in line for hours to get bread from the collective pool or buying better quality food with stolen goods in a black market guess what I choose. Guess what happened in the soviet union.

"The Soviet Union" =/ "socialism."

Where would this black market food be produced? Why do you think it would be better quality?

Yes. You see, you are using this forum because Barry made it. It wasn't a lot of effort for him, so he made it to allow enough members.

Under communism, you as well can create your forum and use it. For free, by taking a free host and setting free software. You would be its admin, but not owner, that's all.
In fact, you already can, because the network has a lot of communism-like details in it (the only difference it that you would have ads today).

Adds don't bother me much. Infact I kinda enjoy them, everytime I see an Add it means someone has paid someone else for the pleasure to send me a message, thus its an incentive to make something worth looking at without myself having to spend a penny.
And secoundly you want to use a service for pleasure (the internet) why shouldn't you pay for it. Infact pay based on supply and demand is essential to stop overuse.

There is no "repression of economic liberty." There is complete free exchange.


For starters you restrict certain ownership rights thus a free market of all goods does not exist.
Now if I'm to assume you mean free exchange would exist for all property that society does not call "a means of production" surely such exchange will lead to inequality.


All frameworks of property mean that some things won't be mine, and that thus I will have a motive to steal; this is true in every such system, including capitalism.


There is a difference between not being able to afford a good. And not being allowed to purchase something under any circumstances.


I actually am not all concerned with the "incentive" to produce.


Than you don't care about giving people higher standards of living.


But that aside, there is no reason you cannot keep the fruits of your labor, as long as you do not violate the rights of use of other people.


Urm..keeping something means exclusive rights of use. You cannot keep something if you have to cater to anyone and everyones "right to use" whatever it is you have.


If you join a society, the "fruits of your labor" might be constrained as well, but that is your own free choice.


And by living in a non anarcho communist society you have freely chosen to live in a world with privatized means of production by your free choice as well.


Who is stopping anyone from producing things in their own spare time with resources that are legitimately "theirs" to increase their own prosperity?


How does one legitimately come about resources? From the collective pool of society I suppose.
Now will a society with scarce resources let me do something to increase my own prosperity or will they vote to have it contributed to the common good.


"The Soviet Union" =/ "socialism."


True. But its a good example of a society with greatly restricted property rights.


Where would this black market food be produced? Why do you think it would be better quality?

When a fishman catches some fish he'll put some to one side. A farmer will store some grapes or other food. I mean unless you have a stormtrooper army observing all peoples actions anyone whos producing anything can hide it and sell it later.
Not to mention imports from other societys and capitalist influence.

Why would it be better quality. Well when you have to provide equally for a large number of people quality gets put to one side. To look at the Soviet union again, sure everyone got a house but they were awful houses. To get something that would apply to an individuals specific tastes, quality and preferances he would have to have consumer choice. Usually the free market of all goods will offer such choice but without such freedom of wealth and choice the black market is the only place they can turn.

Infact pay based on supply and demand is essential to stop overuse.

As long as supply is insufficient for demand and usage must be minimized.

The society and the economic formation always have been bound to current technology level and the ability of people to supply themselves.

In times of the first civilizations, one man could supply less than one (not even himself). For that reason, some people were forced to be undersupplied, with some shortage of even basic needs. These were slaves, and societies were built on slavery.

Later one man could supply a littlle more - between 1 and 2. This excess supply was used by military, church, and to some extent craftsmen. The society was feudal, with the bulk of people in farming and a few in craftsmanship and government (or military).

When this ratio grew and one man could supply a few, more and more people became craftsmen, providing additional needs, and cities started to grow and attract population. This was about the end of the Renaissance. People started to gain freedom, because it wasn't essential to keep them at the ground.

Starting from mid XIX century one man could supply many with basic needs and more than one with additional needs. The major concern now became these additional needs. This finally destroyed older monarchical systems and capitalism was victorious. It was the industrial age.

Late in XX century it became apparent that one man can supply many with both basic and additional needs. The excess of population is working in services (marketing, entertainment, etc), or is unemployed. It is because they are not needed in farming or industry, as only a small fraction of people can provide all the others with all products they need.



As technology develops, it may reach a stage when one man can supply very many with both basic and additional needs, including even unnecessary ones. An example is software: one man can write a game that hundreds of thousands can entertain themselves with. When the technology reaches similar level outside software as well, the vast majority of population will become excessive.

At this point there will no longer be need for strict overuse prevention and enforcing everyone to work where necessary. Therefore communism becomes viable: just the interest of the job and respect from others for doing it will be sufficient. If you don't believe, look at open-source software developers, many of which do it without economic incentives. With money removed, these incentives will become stronger, as being the only ones.

At level when the society will be able to easily supply itself just with voluntary work of its members, there is no need to enforce them. The lack of enforcement is a part of just that model, communism, where you don't need private property right because the supply exceeds the demand.


You cannot keep something if you have to cater to anyone and everyones "right to use" whatever it is you have.
Don't mix up the right of usage and the right of private property. If you rent a flat, you can use it, and can use exclusively, but you don't own it. Communism means you can rent any unused flat, anywhere, for free. That you as well can get something you need and use it as long as you need it.
In this situation you simply don't need property rights.

For starters you restrict certain ownership rights thus a free market of all goods does not exist.

And today we do not have a free market in slaves, or in other planets, or in the sun, and so on.

Why? Because no one owns them. (Thankfully).

Now if I'm to assume you mean free exchange would exist for all property that society does not call "a means of production" surely such exchange will lead to inequality.

No, "means of production" come in later, when a society is created that is left-anarchist. I'm talking about rights independent of association. Free exchange would exist for labor, and nothing else.

There is a difference between not being able to afford a good. And not being allowed to purchase something under any circumstances.

No, there really isn't. And how would you have a black market in, say, factories?

Than you don't care about giving people higher standards of living.

I am not particularly concerned about higher levels of material wealth at the expense of freedom and comfort, no. I happen to think that this approach will give us higher standards of living than the alternative.

Urm..keeping something means exclusive rights of use. You cannot keep something if you have to cater to anyone and everyones "right to use" whatever it is you have.

You obviously do not understand the principles I have laid out. If I am using land and not hoarding it, no one can infringe upon my use of that land - I am not infringing on their right of use, so why should they be able to infringe upon mine? If I work hard and make that land productive, nothing changes - as long as I actually use its produce. After all, others have the capability to find their own land, work hard, and make it just as productive.

The problem comes in when land is put under exclusive control - when other people do not have this opportunity unless they submit to the will of the owners.

And by living in a non anarcho communist society you have freely chosen to live in a world with privatized means of production by your free choice as well.

I have freely chosen to live in this world, as opposed to another that might better suit my preference? Really? So, say, if I wanted to go to a socialist world, I would be able to do so? Please explain how.

How does one legitimately come about resources? From the collective pool of society I suppose.

No. Where did you come to that conclusion? I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM. I have stated a dozen times that they DO violate the rights of use - they thus must be based on free association. I have used the rights of use to argue for three principles:

1. Present-day capitalism is unjust, as it violates the rights of use on a basis other than free association. I cannot choose to leave capitalist society.
2. The "natural right," as far as material goods go, is not the same as capitalist property rights, and thus societies can freely violate them if they so choose. The default, before society, should be the rights of use.
3. Socialism in my framework would not be compulsory; because such societies would respect the rights of use of non-members, meaningful free association would prevail.

You can legitimately use the unused resources of the Earth.

True. But its a good example of a society with greatly restricted property rights.

And also of one that restricted free exchange.

When a fishman catches some fish he'll put some to one side. A farmer will store some grapes or other food. I mean unless you have a stormtrooper army observing all peoples actions anyone whos producing anything can hide it and sell it later.

So?

Now, if the fisherman or the farmer starts hoarding, that is, starts using or claiming so much that other people cannot use, then there is a problem - but this is obviously noticeable, because if it were not noticeable it would not be problematic.

Not to mention imports from other societys

"Imports" tend to involve exchange. Exchange of what?

and capitalist influence.

Of what sort, and to what effect?

Why would it be better quality. Well when you have to provide equally for a large number of people quality gets put to one side. To look at the Soviet union again, sure everyone got a house but they were awful houses. To get something that would apply to an individuals specific tastes, quality and preferances he would have to have consumer choice. Usually the free market of all goods will offer such choice but without such freedom of wealth and choice the black market is the only place they can turn.

I have never, ever opposed "consumer choice."

SNIP
At level when the society will be able to easily supply itself just with voluntary work of its members, there is no need to enforce them. The lack of enforcement is a part of just that model, communism, where you don't need private property right because the supply exceeds the demand.
.

Where supply exceeds all demand in all areas for an infinate ammount of time than sure I'd be a communist.

Take natural oxygen. We have more than enough of that for everyone so no issue of ownership or right to use it is neccessary.


Don't mix up the right of usage and the right of private property. If you rent a flat, you can use it, and can use exclusively, but you don't own it. Communism means you can rent any unused flat, anywhere, for free. That you as well can get something you need and use it as long as you need it.
In this situation you simply don't need property rights.

So if all unused flats are stolen from their owners why would anyone ever build a house or invest money to build a house if they have already got one. The process of working for your self interest has a positive effect of benefiting people (like people building lots of houses despite having no need for another house).

Secoundly the population of the world is rising quite dramatically. Even if hypothetically there is currently more houses than people right now with aging populations and increasing immigaration a scarcity will once again emerge and thus property are always important.

So if all unused flats are stolen from their owners why would anyone ever build a house or invest money to build a house if they have already got one.
Repeat, there are no money, you can't invest them. Nothing is stolen, because nothing was owned - in communism an abandoned item is public domain again.

Why would people build what is needed? Well, let's look at this forum. We have some moderators here. They are cleaning the forum. They aren't paid, and they can already use it. Why are they doing it?


Even if hypothetically there is currently more houses than people right now with aging populations and increasing immigaration a scarcity will once again emerge and thus property are always important.
And in case of shortage that new population would just build new houses. Quite simple, isn't it?

And today we do not have a free market in slaves, or in other planets, or in the sun, and so on.

Why? Because no one owns them. (Thankfully).



Slavery requires coercion and rejection that we own ourselves and going against our basic rights so we can't have a free market in them the same way we don't have a free market in assassins.

As for trading planets no ones managed to collonize one for themselves yet. Who knows what the future holds.


No, "means of production" come in later, when a society is created that is left-anarchist. I'm talking about rights independent of association. Free exchange would exist for labor, and nothing else.


I can only exchange my labour for someone elses labour...way to cause stagnation.


No, there really isn't. And how would you have a black market in, say, factories?


I'm sure it'd be possible to get an abandoned area where I can get workers looking for extra goods/money to work for me.
Also I might not be able to afford tea at the ritz but I want the option of going should I save enough money or my fortues increase in the distant future.


I am not particularly concerned about higher levels of material wealth at the expense of freedom and comfort, no. I happen to thing that this approach will give us higher standards of living than the alternative.


Well your ideological blueprints seem to assume the pie of communism and capitalism is the same and thus communism can distribute more to more people by sacrificing the rich 5% of so.
Even on paper one can doubt the socioloy of working for society and never rising too far above others does for over all production and growth.

But even if the arguments on paper may sound strong drastic changes never turn out as expected and its not surprising so many of these "socialist/communist" experiments have turned out amazingly horridly.


You obviously do not understand the principles I have laid out. If I am using land and not hoarding it, no one can infringe upon my use of that land - I am not infringing on their right of use, so why should they be able to infringe upon mine? If I work hard and make that land productive, nothing changes - as long as I actually use its produce. After all, others have the capability to find their own land, work hard, and make it just as productive.


Okay clearly I miss understood. So as long as I am continously using something I effectively have exclusive ownership of it?

Also do I not have to produce more than I need for other people?
Very early on we established its basically impossible to produce everything you need (all the varietys of food, shelter etc..) thus its neccessary to have better skilled people do things for you.
If I can just live on some land only making exacly what I consume but I have others build my house and send me carrots or beef (stuff I'm not making myself) am I not a drain on society?




I have freely/ chosen to live in this world, as opposed to another that might better suit my preference? Really? So, say, if I wanted to go to a socialist world, I would be able to do so? Please explain how.


My point exacly. And what planet is this society which I can go to where I actually get to keep the fruits of my labour.



So?

Now, if the fisherman or the farmer starts hoarding, that is, starts using or claiming so much that other people cannot use, then there is a problem - but this is obviously noticeable, because if it were not noticeable it would not be problematic.


(just to say I'm actually learning quite a lot about some aspects of left anarchism I guess I was poorly taught so thats for putting up with me if I'm being a bit frustrating)

You make a fair point I see how it can work a little better now. But to ask the same question again, not everyone can fish so people will rely on fishermen getting lots of fish for everyone.
You seem to discourage someone collecting more than their direct use, when in fact its quite important to make sure as much food is grown and collected as possible so as many people can be fed as possible.


I have never, ever opposed "consumer choice."

If free exchange only exists for labour than choice in the market will be much less than under capitalism.

Repeat, there are no money, you can't invest them. Nothing is stolen, because nothing was owned - in communism an abandoned item is public domain again.


Feel free to go to a city dump and take what you want :D
But with no investment or ownership a lot less people would build or contribute in a way that does not benefit them.


Why would people build what is needed? Well, let's look at this forum. We have some moderators here. They are cleaning the forum. They aren't paid, and they can already use it. Why are they doing it?


I don't know much about the moderation but I doubt helping other people comes into their minds when accepting the moderation job.
They prob enjoy the power/authority it brings. I'm sure the people picked are on all the time anyway so its no much hassle, not to mention they're helping to directly improve a place they use a lot.
As for helping to build a house for someone else to live in and not use it myself I can't see why people would. Kinda along the lines of moderating a forum you'd never go to normally with threads you care nothing about (still for no pay).



And in case of shortage that new population would just build new houses. Quite simple, isn't it?

They each build their own house? Or how would they get others to do it for them. Not to mention some places are better than others to build houses in. A beautiful spot near a river with good local facilities is going to be on demand much more than say a house in africa

But with no investment or ownership a lot less people would build or contribute in a way that does not benefit them.
See the Open Source community.

I don't know much about the moderation but I doubt helping other people comes into their minds when accepting the moderation job.
Maybe. But at least they get respect. In communism it is what you get for doing some work.


As for helping to build a house for someone else to live in and not use it myself I can't see why people would.
For instance, your equipment is capable of constructing 500-flat houses or more. And for most people the very process of working is enjoyable, as long as they like their job at least a little.
In a world where one can provide the needs of many, there will be enough people interested in each needed job to supply the society. For the jobs with excessive shortage, some people are usually willing to help. After all, if that's your community - why not?


Not to mention some places are better than others to build houses in.
And here the respect comes in. Whom would you give a contested moderator position, or any reward - a random newbie or a vested contributor?

Slavery requires coercion and rejection that we own ourselves and going against our basic rights so we can't have a free market in them the same way we don't have a free market in assassins.

That is a philosophical justification. It does not change the fact that today we "restrict certain ownership rights thus a free market of all goods does not exist." Does that make the market less "free"? I don't think so.

As for trading planets no ones managed to collonize one for themselves yet. Who knows what the future holds.

Planets could be owned and sold without them being colonized - all that is necessary is an enforceable claim, which does not yet exist.

What I am proposing is that there be no enforceable claims over other kinds of goods, as well.

I can only exchange my labour for someone elses labour...way to cause stagnation.

It is incompatible with very complex economic relations, yes. But that is irrelevant; if you want to form a capitalist society where the economy would not be stagnant, no one would stop you, as long as you didn't violate any non-members' rights of uses.

I'm sure it'd be possible to get an abandoned area where I can get workers looking for extra goods/money to work for me.

What does that have to do with a black market in factories?

Also I might not be able to afford tea at the ritz but I want the option of going should I save enough money or my fortues increase in the distant future.

But there is still an incentive to steal, because right now you can't.

Well your ideological blueprints seem to assume the pie of communism and capitalism is the same and thus communism can distribute more to more people by sacrificing the rich 5% of so.

I do? I don't actually think communism and capitalism will be equally productive, relative to technological level. I don't particularly care; I am not so in love with productivity that freedom and equality can be sacrificed in its pursuit.

Even on paper one can doubt the socioloy of working for society and never rising too far above others does for over all production and growth.

You work for your own pleasure, in jobs you like doing.

But even if the arguments on paper may sound strong drastic changes never turn out as expected and its not surprising so many of these "socialist/communist" experiments have turned out amazingly horridly.

Hence, the flexibility permitted by democratic institutions.

Okay clearly I miss understood. So as long as I am continously using something I effectively have exclusive ownership of it?

No. You have a right to use it; as long as you are not infringing upon other people's right of use (even if you "continually use" all of it somehow, you cannot claim everything) no one can infringe upon your right to use it. They can, however, use it themselves.

Thinking of it in terms of "property" only overcomplicates matters. Think instead of air. Everyone has the right to use it, but would it not be a a violation if someone chose to somehow move all of the air to another planet, or to pollute it to the point that it was not safe to breathe?

These judgments do not require distinctions of "my air" from "your air." It is just air, owned by everyone and no one. I do not need to be more careful when I am breathing near somebody else, as long as I am not depriving them of air to breathe in the process.

What I am saying is that we should apply the same principles to all material goods, except for actual people (and conceivably animals). Everyone can use them, but no one can take so much that others cannot use them without submitting to their will.

Note that I count "land" and "land + labor" as equivalent. I have the right to have access to land capable of producing substinence, but not to actual substinence. If I find it on the ground, unused, I can use it - but I cannot demand that people who are using the land for their own substinence give me food (except perhaps if, for whatever reason, I am incapable of acquiring it myself.)

Also do I not have to produce more than I need for other people?
Very early on we established its basically impossible to produce everything you need (all the varietys of food, shelter etc..) thus its neccessary to have better skilled people do things for you.
If I can just live on some land only making exacly what I consume but I have others build my house and send me carrots or beef (stuff I'm not making myself) am I not a drain on society?

You trade labor for labor. I use resources to build you a house, and in trade you use land to grow me crops. Either of us could have used resources to do the same for ourselves, but we decided that it would benefit us more if we made the exchange.

That's a perfectly free and fair exchange, but it's different from what occurs under capitalism, or in any society with exclusive property rights - in such a system, I am not self-sufficient, I am not autonomous, and I must associate with others to a far greater extent than I would in this situation. In such a society, there is economic power.

In capitalism, that economic power is concentrated into a few hands - those of the owner class. In socialism, the economic power is put in the hands of the democratic institutions. I aim to ensure that some economic power is always in the hands of the individual.

My point exacly. And what planet is this society which I can go to where I actually get to keep the fruits of my labour.

I do not advocate a planet that is completely socialist.

(just to say I'm actually learning quite a lot about some aspects of left anarchism I guess I was poorly taught so thats for putting up with me if I'm being a bit frustrating)

This is Soheran, not left-anarchism. I think many left-anarchists would agree with most of what I'm saying here, though.

You make a fair point I see how it can work a little better now. But to ask the same question again, not everyone can fish so people will rely on fishermen getting lots of fish for everyone.

Everyone has access to the river if they wish to fish, but if they don't want to, they can trade with the fishermen. Labor for labor - the labor of the fisherman to get the fish in trade for whatever favor the others wish to provide the fisherman.

Now, if the fisherman began restricting the capability of others to fish, it would no longer be "labor for labor" - it would be "fish + labor for labor." That would be an injustice; the fisherman has no right to the fish.

You seem to discourage someone collecting more than their direct use, when in fact its quite important to make sure as much food is grown and collected as possible so as many people can be fed as possible.

You can collect "more than your direct use" as long as you aren't interfering with anyone else's capability to do so.

If free exchange only exists for labour than choice in the market will be much less than under capitalism.

Why would it be?

Wealth is based on productivity. No, wealth is based upon value. Value is based upon whatever people choose to value. The wealthiest members of a capitalist society are not necessarily the most productive members.

The cure for poverty is not to destroy the most productive system that has brought an expidential increase in standards of living to the vast majority of people over the last two hundred years.It is if it's to build a society that will provide even greater standards of living in its place.

Not only this but I don't even accept the utilitarian logic as a means for the right answer.
The majority of people would be better off if we killed 49% of the population or forbided anyone from having more than one child for a few generations. Now the fact the majority of us would be better off doesn't make it justifiable. And thats even if it did make the majority better off which communism doesn't do!I'm not certain that killing 49% of the population or restricting reproduction would necessarily make the majority better off. The point was that communism was in the rational self-interest of the majority of people, so the majority should support it. That it is also a good idea is a separate argument.
Nonetheless, a properly run communist society would make the majority better off.

Yup take away all self responcibility and possible ownership first. This way others can't take it away from you later.....I'm not certain where the idea of taking self-responsibility away comes from, but yes, naturally pseudofreedoms like ownership would be recognized for the shams that they are.
Nonetheless, I was speaking of the capacity of people in capitalism to purchase large quantities of weapons and go on killing sprees, or to monopolize television ad time with whatever message they want to put out.

You speak of around 3-5% of the population. Of which most are not unemployed for more than a year and others simply are so incompetant/lazy the only function they serve is to be a paracite to society leech on others and pose a much greater threat under socialism.Not at all. In communism, the society would actually invest resources so that these people wouldn't be so incompetent that they couldn't work for a living.
For someone who speaks that people should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, you sure don't seem to mind the idea of capitalists leeching off of the labor of their employees to provide themselves with a living.

No, the difference is that you are exchanging labor, not resources. This difference is essential; it greatly reduces class differences. I can no longer exploit someone else's labor by hoarding resources; in order to attain it, I have to exchange my own labor for it.
Labour is a resource. If I have expertise and someone wants me to employ that expertise in exchange for something from them, I can drive a hard bargain and demand excessive labour from them in exchange.

How is that different?
Why?
To prevent other people from using the fruits of my labour, so I can enjoy them myself.
No, wealth is based upon value. Value is based upon whatever people choose to value. The wealthiest members of a capitalist society are not necessarily the most productive members.
But they must have produced something of value in order to become that wealthy. As long as they gained that wealth through voluntary exchange, it's guaranteed to be true.
The point was that communism was in the rational self-interest of the majority of people, so the majority should support it.
And I assert that it would not benefit the majority. Most production is caused by incentives to produce. Without that production, everyone's standard of living falls.

No, wealth is based upon value. Value is based upon whatever people choose to value. The wealthiest members of a capitalist society are not necessarily the most productive members.


Quite, although, determining productivity is difficult once we start dealing with an economy in which production is not done by hand, but with machines, and the code of a computer programmer, which may have taken a few months to write, can continue to be productive for years afterward.

Labour is a resource. If I have expertise and someone wants me to employ that expertise in exchange for something from them, I can drive a hard bargain and demand excessive labour from them in exchange.

How is that different?

The fact that no one is dependent on your labor. Because natural resources cannot be monopolized, for most necessities my labor, though it may be more difficult, will suffice. In addition, anyone who wishes to compete against you can do so on a more level playing field.

To prevent other people from using the fruits of my labour, so I can enjoy them myself.

That is part of the right of use; why would you be denied it?

But they must have produced something of value in order to become that wealthy. As long as they gained that wealth through voluntary exchange, it's guaranteed to be true.True, but they don't necessarily need to have produced more than someone else to be richer than that person.

And I assert that it would not benefit the majority. Most production is caused by incentives to produce. Without that production, everyone's standard of living falls.I assert that increasing one's material goods is not nearly as much of an incentive to produce as capitalists like to believe that it is.

Quite, although, determining productivity is difficult once we start dealing with an economy in which production is not done by hand, but with machines, and the code of a computer programmer, which may have taken a few months to write, can continue to be productive for years afterward.Certainly, and there are plenty of computer programmers who program because they enjoy it, and not because they wish to get rich from it. (To reference my above point.)

Many sociologists have argued that poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold. [Adams, J.Q.; Pearlie Strother-Adams (2001). Dealing with Diversity. Chicago, IL: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 0-7872-8145-X.]
I have a very little respect for sociology as a discipline. Poverty is easy to measure. Define the level and see who's below it.

Somehow I expect my defined level is lower than yours.
The official poverty rate in America is roughly 13%, and evidence shows that the actual number is considerably higher. Translated to the entire US population, even with the conservative official estimate that is 39 million individuals. That is a lot of people. Poverty anywhere is bad. You can't just argue that since they make more money then people in 3rd world countries that we should be cared about their plight.
Yes I can. If the poorest people in this society are richer than most everyone in the world, then this society is clearly treating its poor much better than almost everywhere else.
If you ever knew what it was like to live from paycheck to paycheck, you would know why this is such a grave matter. Its not fun being only an accident away from losing your house or having your car re-poed. I've seen my parents have to live through this raising me and my siblings, and I wouldn't wish that struggle on anyone.
First of all, I think many people who live from paycheque to paycheque do so as a result of poor management. I live paycheque to paycheque (and I work for a charity, so my pay isn't great), but I don't have to. If I lived a more austere lifestyle, I could manage some savings. I've had colleagues who earned as much as $140,000/year and lived paycheque to paycheque because they were idiots.

And studies that measure whether people live paycheque to paycheque count those folks. They have no savings, and they spend all they earn. That's living to paycheque to paycheque, but it is not a good measure of poverty. For reasons which should now be obvious.

You might claim that most people don't do that, but without real data we can't know so we shouldn't point to the figures.
From 1973 to 1997, average income for the bottom 90 percent of all income earners decreased by .1 percent, adjusted for inflation by. [Johnston, David: Perfectly Legal (Penguin Group Books 2003), pp. 38.] (I know you're going to say that it is a biased book, but the statistics in it are sound)
So earnings were flat (for that group, because 0.1% percent is almost certainly inside his error bars). That's not a decline.
Four out of every five Americans made more money in 2000 than in 1970 because they worked more hours per year, an average of twenty weeks more paid labor than in 1970. [, David: Perfectly Legal (Penguin Group Books 2003), pp. 24.]
And we can probably attribute that to more women working full-time jobs.
There is the evidence. Protectionism is not the point. The point is that is becoming much harder to live in America for most people.
Because they're trying to live like they're middle class when they're not. Or they're trying to live like they're in Montana when they're not.

Not every family can afford its own home. But they all try, so some of them fail.
"We can have a democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." - Louis Brandeis
As you probably know from my earlier posts, I'm not a big fan of democracy. Democracy necessarily concentrates power in the hands of the majority. It cannot fail to do so.

I tried to start an intelligent discussion about a free society where everyone has equal power (no democracy) but owned no property, but you communists just fell back into your ideology.
A private property owner can discriminate for almost any reason
I support that. Individual freedom requires it.
and commands the loyalty of his/her employees by controlling their source of income.
Only if he has monopsony power. A free market pretty much excludes that.
People are not free to choose their vocations
Sure they are. Are you honestly saying that meat packers had no choice but to become meat packers?
nor do most rise or fall based on their merits. Many heirs/heiresses live lives of complete decadence, and never have to work a day in their life.
You're assigning a value-judgement to merit. That's unnecessary. If there's voluntary exchange, all wealth must have been gained meritoriously. Even if it involved convincing daddy to give you $100 million. Clearly he thought you were worth $100 million, and we allow people to set thir own values for transactions.
Millions of others toil hard everyday of their lives only to end up being let go at 65, left with a meager 401k plan and ever decreasing social security benefits, only to be retired to a nursing home to live out the rest of their days in lonliness. Seen that happen too.
And that person is still one of the wealthiest people in the world.
It is impossible to have human welfare without equity. Success should only be determined by the amount of effort one is willing to make.
No, not effort. Never effort. Contribution, sure. but not effort.
You can't have any social justice or welfare if sucess is determined by birth, genetics, luck or willingness to exploit others.
So you're unwilling to let some people do better just because they ARE better? Smarter people aren't allowed to get ahead? Stronger people aren't allowed to get ahead?

I can't discuss justice because I honestly have no idea what the word means. Welfare I can measure, and capitalism so far has improved the welfare of poor people.

If the poorest people in this society are richer than most everyone in the world, then this society is clearly treating its poor much better than almost everywhere else.

Why does that follow?

As you probably know from my earlier posts, I'm not a big fan of democracy. Democracy necessarily concentrates power in the hands of the majority. It cannot fail to do so.

I tried to start an intelligent discussion about a free society where everyone has equal power (no democracy) but owned no property, but you communists just fell back into your ideology.I don't recall this thread, could you link to it, please?

I am politically and philosophically left-wing, but definitely not communist.

That is part of the right of use; why would you be denied it?
Because I'm not actively using them right now. I produced the goods for use later.

Why does that follow?
What?

How are you defining welfare then that economic measures don't count?

I was judging the treatment of each nation's poor based on how poor they actually were. The capitalist nations tend to produce poor people who are much better off than the poor people in more centralised economies. As mentioned before - America's poor are often fat, so they're clearly getting plenty of food.

Because I'm not actively using them right now. I produced the goods for use later.

So?

Pages and pages ago, Blood has been shed voiced this objection, and I would respond to it this time exactly as I did last time:

Acorns saved so that they can be used later is a kind of direct use; it is simply delayed.

I admit the truth, I'm a coffeeist!

I admit the truth, I'm a coffeeist!That's fine, as long as everyone who wants coffee can have some. :)

What?

How are you defining welfare then that economic measures don't count?

"Economic measures" are not limited to quantity of wealth;

How many hours do they work? How much freedom do they have? Where do they live? What is their cost of living? Is their society adapted to their level of wealth, or are its institutions barely compatible (if at all) with it? Need they fear crime? Do they have health care? Do they have economic security? Do they experience social acceptance?

I was judging the treatment of each nation's poor based on how poor they actually were.

If "poor" means "lack of material wealth," that is a bad way of judging it.

A slave could theoretically have a lot of material wealth. Is she any less a slave?

The capitalist nations tend to produce poor people who are much better off than the poor people in more centralised economies.

Developed nations do better than developing nations; left-wing developed nations do best.

As mentioned before - America's poor are often fat, so they're clearly getting plenty of food.

But clearly not healthy food.

Do not disparage sociology so; perhaps you could learn from it.

True, but they don't necessarily need to have produced more than someone else to be richer than that person.

I assert that increasing one's material goods is not nearly as much of an incentive to produce as capitalists like to believe that it is.

Certainly, and there are plenty of computer programmers who program because they enjoy it, and not because they wish to get rich from it. (To reference my above point.)

They expect to make money from it though, and every job is a balance of what you love doing and what will make you money.

I'd love a job where all I'd have to do is read, I love to read, but, that's not going to make me a dime. Instead I'm going into a field that integrates some elements of what I love to do, and some things I'm not entirely so keen on, but will make me money.

That's fine, as long as everyone who wants coffee can have some. :)

Hey, you stop by, I'll brew you a supremely good cup. :D

They expect to make money from it though, and every job is a balance of what you love doing and what will make you money.

I'd love a job where all I'd have to do is read, I love to read, but, that's not going to make me a dime. Instead I'm going into a field that integrates some elements of what I love to do, and some things I'm not entirely so keen on, but will make me money.Well, certainly communists don't expect that people will work for free; we know people will want to be comfortable. It's the wanting to be more than comfortable that is exaggerated by capitalists.
With that said, I'm not certain that the creator of Linux expected to make money off of his programming.

Well, certainly communists don't expect that people will work for free; we know people will want to be comfortable. It's the wanting to be more than comfortable that is exaggerated by capitalists.
With that said, I'm not certain that the creator of Linux expected to make money off of his programming.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Oftentimes handing out the basics for free or minimal cost can be a very good business model, for various reasons. Apple, for example, hands out the iTunes media player for free, but still makes crazy-good money off of iTunes.

Or, one can release open source software, and use it as a personal promotion. A successful application could draw attention to an individual, and increase the market value of their skills. Or they could charge for services relating to the initial free software, such as technical support or otherwise. In a market dominated by Windows, market entry with a free product would be far easier than charging for just another OS.

There's many reasons, I don't know why Linus Torvalds originally developed Linux, and I don't know exactly why other people have added so much to it, but there are plenty plausable(sp?) of reasons.

It seems that you are surprised he did it.

OK.
Could you tell why people develop and contribute to wikipedia.org? This time they for sure don't have a single chance to get money out of it.

I don't recall this thread, could you link to it, please?
It was in this thread. It began with the following post:
Power should never be held by the majority. That necessarily disenfranchises the minority.

Power should be held by the individual.

"Economic measures" are not limited to quantity of wealth;
Yes they are. You're simply defining wealth too narrowly. Anything with value contributes to wealth, and free time definitely has value. It's even a calculable value for many people, as they'll happily take a pay cut to work fewer hours (I volunteered to do that a few years ago - my request was denied).
How many hours do they work? How much freedom do they have? Where do they live? What is their cost of living? Is their society adapted to their level of wealth, or are its institutions barely compatible (if at all) with it? Do they have health care? Do they have economic security?
All of these things have direct economic value. They need to be included in any calculations.
Need they fear crime?
In a free society, all people should fear crime equally. That poor neighbourhoods get less effective law-enforcment is appalling. As long as it's run by the government, it should apply to all people equally.
Do they experience social acceptance?
I really don't care about that one. Social acceptance is not something I value.
If "poor" means "lack of material wealth," that is a bad way of judging it.
Poor does mean lack of wealth. Not just material wealth, but wealth generally. That's what the word means.
A slave could theoretically have a lot of material wealth. Is she any less a slave?
No, but she's also not poor.

I simply don't accept that poor people in developed capitalist nations don't have choices. They may not be aware that they have choices, and they may not take advantage of their available alternatives, but that's their own fault. As I mentioned, the guy who works as a meat-packer does have the option to go do something else. At the very least (in the US, since that seems to be our standard capitalist nation) he could join the military. He could relocate to somewhere with a stronger economy. That the labour-force doesn't move around the follow the work always surprises me. I did. I moved somewhere with a higher cost of living and a higher tax burden because someone offered me a job there. Staying where I was and complaining about my low wages would have been silly, because I was handed the opportunity to walk away.
Developed nations do better than developing nations; left-wing developed nations do best.
I need data.
But clearly not healthy food.
Somone gets fat because he consumes more calories than he expends. How healthful the food is doesn't really matter - it's a simple question of thermodynamics.

That said, in my experience healthful fresh food is cheaper than processed food. It just takes longer to prepare.
Do not disparage sociology so; perhaps you could learn from it.
I distrust sociology because it treats people as groups rather than individuals. Since I know that I'm idiosyncratic, I'm wary of being treated as anything other than a single entity.

It seems that you are surprised he did it.

OK.
Could you tell why people develop and contribute to wikipedia.org? This time they for sure don't have a single chance to get money out of it.
I contribute to wikipedia because I enjoy teaching people about specific topics.

Clearly not all benefits are monetary. The problem with relying on random unknown benefits is you don't know to what extent they motivate everyone. They are unknown.

I distrust sociology because it treats people as groups rather than individuals. Since I know that I'm idiosyncratic, I'm wary of being treated as anything other than a single entity.

But you are not just a single entity. Yes, you are indeed an individual, but you are also a member of a number of different social groups. You have defining characteristics that make you indentify more with certain ideas and philosophies than someone with different defining characteristics. Sociology is important for understanding group trends. But at the same time, you differ because you are an individual. Hence sociology is a good yard stick for measuring a group, but it tends to fail on single individuals.

It was in this thread. It began with the following post:Oh, I see. How do you propose that power would lie in the hands of individuals with neither democracy nor property?

I contribute to wikipedia because I enjoy teaching people about specific topics.

Clearly not all benefits are monetary. The problem with relying on random unknown benefits is you don't know to what extent they motivate everyone. They are unknown.The amount of motivation from monetary benefits can't be measured, either.

But you are not just a single entity. Yes, you are indeed an individual, but you are also a member of a number of different social groups. You have defining characteristics that make you indentify more with certain ideas and philosophies than someone with different defining characteristics. Sociology is important for understanding group trends. But at the same time, you differ because you are an individual. Hence sociology is a good yard stick for measuring a group, but it tends to fail on single individuals.
Sociology is an excuse for individuals to make bad decisions just because everyone around them already did.

An individual's behaviour should not be directly influenced by his social groups. His social groups might influence his preferences, but his preferences should inform his decisions. People who deviate from their peers are disenfranchised by sociology.

Pages and pages ago, Blood has been shed voiced this objection, and I would respond to it this time exactly as I did last time:
Nice one.

So I'm allowed to exchange my labour for the labour of another. I'm allowed to use whatever it is I need, and if I produce something (using my labour) for my own use later, I'm allowed to keep it for that later use.

Isn't that a free market with property rights? I'm allowed to exchange labour freely, and I'm allowed to maintain an inventory.

If I make an axe, that's my axe. I use it both now and in the future. If I use that axe to produce other goods (like lumber), that axe is now the means of production, and I have it.

Sociology is an excuse for individuals to make bad decisions just because everyone around them already did.

An individual's behaviour should not be directly influenced by his social groups. His social groups might influence his preferences, but his preferences should inform his decisions. People who deviate from their peers are disenfranchised by sociology.

Your confusing the raison d'etre of sociology. Its not an excuse for mob mentality or sheep like behavior, though like any field of science it has been perverted for such an end. The existence of sociology is based around finding why people who share certain charecteristics, who most likely don't identify themselves as being part of a certain group, act in a certain way.

Nice one.

So I'm allowed to exchange my labour for the labour of another. I'm allowed to use whatever it is I need, and if I produce something (using my labour) for my own use later, I'm allowed to keep it for that later use.

Isn't that a free market with property rights? I'm allowed to exchange labour freely, and I'm allowed to maintain an inventory.

If I make an axe, that's my axe. I use it both now and in the future. If I use that axe to produce other goods (like lumber), that axe is now the means of production, and I have it.

A valid point. But its not really the issue. The point of socialism/communism is to allow everyone collective ownership and control of the means of production. If you have an axe and chop wood for your benefit, good for you. But the axe is not property per se, in a socialist environment. It is a personal possession. You have the right to possess the axe only so long as you are using it. If you abandon it, or stop using it, it becomes public domain. The same thing goes for the lumber you produced.

Under a socialist system, you have the right to possess the lumber you produced so long as you can demonstrate that you can personally use it. If you can't use it, it is once again public domain.

Nice one.

So I'm allowed to exchange my labour for the labour of another. I'm allowed to use whatever it is I need, and if I produce something (using my labour) for my own use later, I'm allowed to keep it for that later use.

Isn't that a free market with property rights? I'm allowed to exchange labour freely, and I'm allowed to maintain an inventory.

If I make an axe, that's my axe. I use it both now and in the future. If I use that axe to produce other goods (like lumber), that axe is now the means of production, and I have it.
There's a distinction between possessions and property. Possessions are things that you make yourself, or that you exchange freely with another. I support the right to own these entirely. Property is the land, buildings, and resources which allow one to create possessions - factories, forests, and so on. I believe that these should be owned by those who use them, rather than by those who can pay for them. Land and resources belong to us all equally - they are here on this earth, same as us. Anyone who lays claim to more than their fair share (and there's quite a lot to go around) is wrong.
EDIT: Trotskylvania beat me to it, and described pretty much the same thing as I did (I was worried that I'd gotten the wrong end of the stick entirely...)

so long as you can demonstrate that you can personally use it.
I assume the me in that sentence includes people who are dependent upon me.

So what, exactly, is the difference in kind between an axe and a factory? They're both tools which aid in production, and both require construction in order to exist. So why are you willing to count the axe as a possession and not the factory?

You need a universal maxim. You need to be able to draw the line somewhere in particular, and you need the maxim to tell people where it is in every possible case.

So far, the modifications you've made to your communism make it look a lot like capitalism.

I assume the me in that sentence includes people who are dependent upon me.

So what, exactly, is the difference in kind between an axe and a factory? They're both tools which aid in production, and both require construction in order to exist. So why are you willing to count the axe as a possession and not the factory?

You need a universal maxim. You need to be able to draw the line somewhere in particular, and you need the maxim to tell people where it is in every possible case.

So far, the modifications you've made to your communism make it look a lot like capitalism.

One person can use a axe. One person cannot run a factory. A factory requires the cooperation of a number of people in order to run, while an ax does not. An axe is made as a commodity, while a factory is not built as a commodity to be exchanged. There is where the distinction lies.

A valid point. But its not really the issue. The point of socialism/communism is to allow everyone collective ownership and control of the means of production.
And I still don't understand how decisions regarding those means of production are made collectively without disenfranchising the minority. As long as you're disenfrachising the minority, I cannot support your position. Individuals need to be permitted to make decisions for themselves.

But that might inevitably lead to capitalism, because some individuals will end up making really good decisions and come to possess the means of production (like an axe, or a factory).

Inspired by this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497474), I was just wondering which members of this forum have ever been/ considered becoming a Communist (in one form or another).

Were you a student radical? A union militant? A distressed teenager wearing a Che Guevara teeshirt? Did you join the SWP and then get spat out as an anarchist? Join the stalinists and then end up becoming a green to avoid the purges? Or did you join Class War Federation before ending up as a die-hard Tory?

I am now, have always been, and most likely always will be on the right wing. I voted almost 100% Republican in the Presidential elections in '04, and, most likely, I will do so again in the '08 elections.

~ Romandeos.

One person can use a axe. One person cannot run a factory. A factory requires the cooperation of a number of people in order to run, while an ax does not. An axe is made as a commodity, while a factory is not built as a commodity to be exchanged. There is where the distinction lies.
What if the factory is automated? Rubbermaid containers are manufactured at a fully automated factory in California.

And you can't base your distinction on the intent of the builder, because the intent of the builder isn't knowable.

And by your reasoning, a two-person saw can't be a possession.

I contribute to wikipedia because I enjoy teaching people about specific topics.

Clearly not all benefits are monetary. The problem with relying on random unknown benefits is you don't know to what extent they motivate everyone. They are unknown.

So you see. People actually enjoy teaching others in Wikipedia. People enjoy creating helpful software in Open Source community. And so on.
In fact, most humans enjoy doing any creative work, especially if they can choose it. Actually, uncreative too, if they have no choice, but in high-tech society uncreative ones are rare.

If the money are cancelled and respect for being rich is replaced with respect for doing work - and, as you are in WP, you know editcount is valued - the incentive will be quite strong. Sure, you won't have to work to survive, but neither you have today in the United States.


And I must say I enjoy my real-life job. It isn't the most paid one, but it's the job I like, one I am can be proud of, and, while it's not exactly what I would like, it is interesting and enjoyable by itself.

In a high-tech society where one can provide needs of many, people like many of us who are willing to create and improve, can provide the society - and even the ones who are not willing will have incentives to help as much as their abilities allow.

Yes they are. You're simply defining wealth too narrowly. Anything with value contributes to wealth, and free time definitely has value. It's even a calculable value for many people, as they'll happily take a pay cut to work fewer hours (I volunteered to do that a few years ago - my request was denied).

Really. So how would you justify your statement that the poor in this country are better treated than anywhere else in the world?

All of these things have direct economic value. They need to be included in any calculations.

Everything of utility has direct economic value. But a lot of things of utility don't go into GDP calculations, or calculations of material wealth (the latter of which are typically relied upon to support the thesis that the US poor are in reality rich.)

The other error often made is to assume that because the poor can afford cheap luxuries, they can also afford more expensive necessities.

In a free society, all people should fear crime equally. That poor neighbourhoods get less effective law-enforcment is appalling. As long as it's run by the government, it should apply to all people equally.

Then this - though it is not "material wealth" precisely - should go into any analysis of how well off the US poor are, right?

I really don't care about that one. Social acceptance is not something I value.

The vast majority of human beings do, however, value it.

Poor does mean lack of wealth. Not just material wealth, but wealth generally. That's what the word means.

No, but she's also not poor.

Isn't freedom a sort of wealth?

I simply don't accept that poor people in developed capitalist nations don't have choices.

No one said they "don't have choices."

Everyone has choices. Even the slave has the choice to stay and remain enslaved or run away and risk death. The question is how good their choices are. And for the poor, even in developed nations, those choices tend to be fairly awful.

I need data.

Human and Income Poverty (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/pdf/hdr03_table_4.pdf)

Somone gets fat because he consumes more calories than he expends. How healthful the food is doesn't really matter - it's a simple question of thermodynamics.

That said, in my experience healthful fresh food is cheaper than processed food. It just takes longer to prepare.

Time, as you point out, is a form of wealth.

I distrust sociology because it treats people as groups rather than individuals. Since I know that I'm idiosyncratic, I'm wary of being treated as anything other than a single entity.

Generalizations are inevitable in any analysis of society.

Nice one.

So I'm allowed to exchange my labour for the labour of another. I'm allowed to use whatever it is I need, and if I produce something (using my labour) for my own use later, I'm allowed to keep it for that later use.

Isn't that a free market with property rights? I'm allowed to exchange labour freely, and I'm allowed to maintain an inventory.

If I make an axe, that's my axe. I use it both now and in the future. If I use that axe to produce other goods (like lumber), that axe is now the means of production, and I have it.

It's a free market, yes. It still has no ownership but self-ownership, though; access to resources is determined by use.

It's not your axe. It's an axe that you use. If someone else wants to use that axe and won't prevent you from using it, she can use it. If your axemaking interferes with someone else's rights of use - if you have begun to deprive others of resources for their uses - then you have violated their rights of use.

In capitalism, the fact that I am a human being guarantees me only one thing - self-ownership. In a system based on the rights of use, the fact that I am a human being guarantees me something else as well - the capability to use resources to meet my needs, as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's use.

It seems that you are surprised he did it.

OK.
Could you tell why people develop and contribute to wikipedia.org? This time they for sure don't have a single chance to get money out of it.

No, I'm not surprised, I'm just not informed on the matter. If you knew his reasoning behind the matter, and have links, or perhaps a paper source that you could cite in an academic fashion, I'd be interested.

It is incompatible with very complex economic relations, yes. But that is irrelevant; if you want to form a capitalist society where the economy would not be stagnant, no one would stop you, as long as you didn't violate any non-members' rights of uses.


You do realise the definition of capitalism. Thats like me saying I fully support peoples rights to live in a socialist/communist society as long as they respected our current property rights and did not use coercion in any collectivist activities.


But there is still an incentive to steal, because right now you can't.


To some extent. But when I have property of my own I'm more likely to respect the property rights of others. And even if right now I can't afford something I know I can have a certain luxury if I save, take out a loan or rent whatever it is I want to use.



I do? I don't actually think communism and capitalism will be equally productive, relative to technological level. I don't particularly care; I am not so in love with productivity that freedom and equality can be sacrificed in its pursuit.


I'd rather choose productivity a meritocracy and giving people the freedom to choose what they want to do.


You work for your own pleasure, in jobs you like doing.


Even if it doesn't benefit "society"?
And in capitalism you can get any job you want as long as someone values the contribution you make while doing it.


No. You have a right to use it; as long as you are not infringing upon other people's right of use (even if you "continually use" all of it somehow, you cannot claim everything) no one can infringe upon your right to use it. They can, however, use it themselves.



Things are material and limited. If I am currently using something (other than non material stuff like air) no one else at that point and time can use it. If I'm sharing a room with a friend and we have one computer I can only access it when he isn't.

If I'm growing crops or living in a house by doing so I am directly preventing someone else growing crops of living where I am living. Unless of course people are free to walk into my personal room as they wish and are free to take things I'm growing.

Not every house will be built to the same quality not will its location be as pleasent. If I have no property rights and cannot deprive someone else from using something he wants to use can he not just come and live in my house without my permission.


What I am saying is that we should apply the same principles to all material goods, except for actual people (and conceivably animals). Everyone can use them, but no one can take so much that others cannot use them without submitting to their will.


Its not that they take "too" much. But they are given what you regard as too much via trading with others.


Note that I count "land" and "land + labor" as equivalent. I have the right to have access to land capable of producing substinence, but not to actual substinence. If I find it on the ground, unused, I can use it - but I cannot demand that people who are using the land for their own substinence give me food (except perhaps if, for whatever reason, I am incapable of acquiring it myself.)


Again this sounds nice and dandy in theory. But not everyone can grow their own food nor will they good quality land to grow food. Its also a waste of time for highly skilled people to grow food for themselves.
If we can only trade labour for labour and cannot expand what we produce (if it cuts into other peoples potential production) how do we ensure we have high quality food? In the market those with the most skill expand and make profit those with the least tallent fail and should try something else.

In your system an amazing farmer would not be able to produce more food (if a demand for his food existed) because a nearby resident would either want to use the land himself or would feel he can legitimately take the food without exchange (since the tallented farmer should not be allowed to produce more than he directly uses).

In capitalism if you make a poor quality product or waste time making something no one wants you lose out. But communism makes the productive, skilled and the consumers (everyone) lose out in the hopes of making life easyer and "just" for the common workers.


You trade labor for labor. I use resources to build you a house, and in trade you use land to grow me crops. Either of us could have used resources to do the same for ourselves, but we decided that it would benefit us more if we made the exchange.


If I build a house I am not using and a passer by needs a house can he not just take it without trade? If I have a house already and build a secound in the hopes of making a "labour for labour" trade am I not using up resources and land someone else might want to use?



Everyone has access to the river if they wish to fish, but if they don't want to, they can trade with the fishermen. Labor for labor - the labor of the fisherman to get the fish in trade for whatever favor the others wish to provide the fisherman.


But surely the most efficient fisherman would be told to stop as they are most likely to deprive others of getting as many fish as they want to get.
Also would least skilled fisherman not have less labour to exchange therefore lower standards of living - or is this acceptable in a small ammount



Now, if the fisherman began restricting the capability of others to fish, it would no longer be "labor for labor" - it would be "fish + labor for labor." That would be an injustice; the fisherman has no right to the fish.


If there is a pond of 1000 fish and 2000 potential fishers isn't every single fisher restricing the capability for others to fish in it.


You can collect "more than your direct use" as long as you aren't interfering with anyone else's capability to do so.


Again the best "collecters" are the ones most likely to be hurt by this. And in a world where we want resources to be as efficiently collected and used in production as possible surely we want to have the oppoiste policy you have.


Why would it be?

In capitalism I only need one person to value my labour to get access to a market where I can buy literally anything. If I can only exchange labour for labour I need to find someones labour I value and hope they value my labour.

No, wealth is based upon value. Value is based upon whatever people choose to value. The wealthiest members of a capitalist society are not necessarily the most productive members.
.

Sorry I meant total wealth of a society/nation is bassed on how much they produce. When production goes up relative wages go up and standards of living do as well.


It is if it's to build a society that will provide even greater standards of living in its place.
.

If you want higher standards of living than you would want to encourage increased efficiency and total production.
Things like the assembly line, mass production and the industrial revolution are the stuff that increase standards of living, not wealth redistribution.


I'm not certain that killing 49% of the population or restricting reproduction would necessarily make the majority better off. The point was that communism was in the rational self-interest of the majority of people, so the majority should support it. That it is also a good idea is a separate argument.
Nonetheless, a properly run communist society would make the majority better off.
.

Having 49% of the population is in the rational self interest of the 51% that survive. Think about it those who are left will have twice the resources per person than before. Heck if the 49% were the richest 49% the 51% would (financially) be a few hundred mabey thousand times better off.
Just as wealth redistribution of the top 49% to the bottom 51% is in the interest of the bottom 51%.
That said in practice I don't think communism is better for the poor even if some of them think it is.



Nonetheless, I was speaking of the capacity of people in capitalism to purchase large quantities of weapons and go on killing sprees, or to monopolize television ad time with whatever message they want to put out.
.

Killing sprees are no more acceptable in capitalism as they would be in communism.
Also you choose to watch a TV station rather than pay extra money to ensure the station gets profits lovely advitersers will pay the station money to let them inform you of product X. Of course you can change the channel or ignore the message entirely.


Not at all. In communism, the society would actually invest resources so that these people wouldn't be so incompetent that they couldn't work for a living.
For someone who speaks that people should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, you sure don't seem to mind the idea of capitalists leeching off of the labor of their employees to provide themselves with a living.

The "capitalists" do a much more important job for the economy. entrepreneur's are the onces that create products that people like take the risk and inicitive to give consumers better choice and quality. Its the labour that benefit from the capitalists investment and upfront paycheack.


I assert that increasing one's material goods is not nearly as much of an incentive to produce as capitalists like to believe that it is.


Just look at the effect supply and demand has on peoples actions. If demand for say plumbers goes up and so does pay please look at how many people suddenly get into the plumbing profession.

I mean seriously do you think being a lawyer or a banker is good easy fun?

It seems that you are surprised he did it.

OK.
Could you tell why people develop and contribute to wikipedia.org? This time they for sure don't have a single chance to get money out of it.

Obviously they enjoyed doing it. I like putting rubber bands together to make a big ball, somewhat productive stuff can be done out of enjoyment as well. I'm sure most people contributing to wiki enjoy writing about whatever they contributed in and take pleasure in teaching people. I'm contributing in this discussion with no intention of being paid, infact I'm pleased I don't have to pay to access a site with intelligent discussion.

Also elements of charity, obligation for using the service and who knows what other factors lead to people contributing to wikki. That said how many people would work overtime at a company to analise incoming stock and output profits etc.. without being paid a good sum.... Quite a lot less I think.

Sorry I meant total wealth of a society/nation is bassed on how much they produce. When production goes up relative wages go up and standards of living do as well.If you're talking about GDP, then, yes, to an extent this is true, but there are a lot of important things that the GDP doesn't count.
Additionally, the GDP of a nation is irrelevent if it's a small portion of the population having most of the GDP. Something like the mean GDP per person of a nation would be better.

If you want higher standards of living than you would want to encourage increased efficiency and total production.
Things like the assembly line, mass production and the industrial revolution are the stuff that increase standards of living, not wealth redistribution.Increased equality and freedom would lead to higher standards of living. Increased production wouldn't because much of what is produced is useless.

Having 49% of the population is in the rational self interest of the 51% that survive. Think about it those who are left will have twice the resources per person than before. Heck if the 49% were the richest 49% the 51% would (financially) be a few hundred mabey thousand times better off.
Just as wealth redistribution of the top 49% to the bottom 51% is in the interest of the bottom 51%.Not really; that means fewer doctors and farmers, and fewer people to take care of the older ones in their old age.
If they were to enslave the 49%, then I could agree with it; fortunately simply making more people better off isn't the only reason to support communism, it's just a fringe benefit.

That said in practice I don't think communism is better for the poor even if some of them think it is. My hope is to show you the error of your ways. :)

Killing sprees are no more acceptable in capitalism as they would be in communism.Certainly, and we were talking about people behaving in dangerous ways; someone who wishes to hurt other people would have a much easier time doing it in capitalism.

Also you choose to watch a TV station rather than pay extra money to ensure the station gets profits lovely advitersers will pay the station money to let them inform you of product X. Of course you can change the channel or ignore the message entirely.The more often something is repeated, the harder it is to ignore, not to mention that the people who had ads on TV have greater freedom of speech than those who don't.

The "capitalists" do a much more important job for the economy. entrepreneur's are the onces that create products that people like take the risk and inicitive to give consumers better choice and quality. Its the labour that benefit from the capitalists investment and upfront paycheack. It's the reverse. Capital is nothing without labor; it is labor who creates the products. Additionally, it isn't necessarily the capitalists who invent products, most companies, such as pharmaceutical companies, have a segment of the company who does the inventing; the inventors aren't the ones who own the company. (If you couldn't tell, I'm using and 'create' differently than I think you did.)

Just look at the effect supply and demand has on peoples actions. If demand for say plumbers goes up and so does pay please look at how many people suddenly get into the plumbing profession.

I mean seriously do you think being a lawyer or a banker is good easy fun?I'd much rather be a lawyer or banker than a plumber. Even still, there are lawyers who do pro bono work. Why is that?

You do realise the definition of capitalism. Thats like me saying I fully support peoples rights to live in a socialist/communist society as long as they respected our current property rights and did not use coercion in any collectivist activities.

So capitalism depends on the usurpation of public resources? I'm not convinced of that, but if you want to go with it, sure; it is simply another demonstration that it is unjust and exploitative.

To some extent. But when I have property of my own I'm more likely to respect the property rights of others.

And this doesn't apply equally well (if not better, because everyone has a share) to rights of use because...?

And even if right now I can't afford something I know I can have a certain luxury if I save, take out a loan or rent whatever it is I want to use.

Really? Any luxury? And for how many people in the world do you think this is true?

Note also that this process requires sacrifice. Why sacrifice, when I can steal?

I'd rather choose productivity a meritocracy and giving people the freedom to choose what they want to do.

"Productivity a meritocracy" and "giving people the freedom to choose what they want to do" are mutually incompatible.

"Meritocracy" implies hierarchy, the enemy of freedom. "Productivity" implies the division of labor (and thus the lack of freedom implied by dependence) and the submission of the human will to the maximization of wealth.

Indeed, you have admitted this yourself, though you did not put it in those terms. You have repeatedly denied that productivity is compatible with truly voluntary labor - labor uncompelled by economic circumstances.

Even if it doesn't benefit "society"?

Given a choice between a pleasurable and socially beneficial job and a pleasurable and non-socially beneficial job, I think most people would choose the latter.

And in capitalism you can get any job you want as long as someone values the contribution you make while doing it.

Not just anyone. Someone with money, and who "values" your contribution enough to pay you.

That is, you must make yourself a servant of another's ends; you must submit to her will.

Things are material and limited. If I am currently using something (other than non material stuff like air) no one else at that point and time can use it. If I'm sharing a room with a friend and we have one computer I can only access it when he isn't.

If I'm growing crops or living in a house by doing so I am directly preventing someone else growing crops of living where I am living. Unless of course people are free to walk into my personal room as they wish and are free to take things I'm growing.

Not every house will be built to the same quality not will its location be as pleasent. If I have no property rights and cannot deprive someone else from using something he wants to use can he not just come and live in my house without my permission.

If he were to do so, would he not be violating your right to use the house?

Its not that they take "too" much. But they are given what you regard as too much via trading with others.

You cannot trade what you do not own (unless you are a thief.)

Again this sounds nice and dandy in theory. But not everyone can grow their own food nor will they good quality land to grow food. Its also a waste of time for highly skilled people to grow food for themselves.
If we can only trade labour for labour and cannot expand what we produce (if it cuts into other peoples potential production) how do we ensure we have high quality food? In the market those with the most skill expand and make profit those with the least tallent fail and should try something else.

Ah, so you think that someone who wants to be a farmer should have her autonomy denied to her because someone else wants to make a profit.

Remind me again who it is who opposes freedom?

I never said that high-skilled workers would have to produce food for themselves. Labor for labor; they perform a task for the farmer, the farmer performs a task for them (grows food.)

I, personally, think that too much of such exchange will result in hierarchical tyranny, but at least the choice in such circumstances would be more meaningful.

In your system an amazing farmer would not be able to produce more food (if a demand for his food existed) because a nearby resident would either want to use the land himself

Why should the "nearby resident" be forced to submit to the will of others for food simply because a farmer nearby is "amazing"?

or would feel he can legitimately take the food without exchange (since the tallented farmer should not be allowed to produce more than he directly uses).

If I produce something for someone else, that is "direct use." How is it not?

Now, if that production deprives someone else of the capability to use, then that is a problem.

In capitalism if you make a poor quality product or waste time making something no one wants you lose out.

Unless you dominate the market enough, one way or another, that people buy your product anyway.

But communism makes the productive, skilled and the consumers (everyone) lose out in the hopes of making life easyer and "just" for the common workers.

Some of us do not think that the maximization of material wealth is worth freedom.

If I build a house I am not using and a passer by needs a house can he not just take it without trade?

Yes.

If I have a house already and build a secound in the hopes of making a "labour for labour" trade am I not using up resources and land someone else might want to use?

Yes. This is true of all use, however. If you are denying someone else the capability to build herself a house, then that is usurpation.

But surely the most efficient fisherman would be told to stop as they are most likely to deprive others of getting as many fish as they want to get.

If they are depriving others of the opportunity, yes they would be. Why should it be any other way?

If no one else wants to fish, then it is different; they are not depriving anyone of anything.

Also would least skilled fisherman not have less labour to exchange therefore lower standards of living - or is this acceptable in a small ammount

It's a problem. But I'm not sure if the "least skilled fisherman" would choose to be a fisherman in the first place, when he can easily be self-sufficient in other ways.

If there is a pond of 1000 fish and 2000 potential fishers isn't every single fisher restricing the capability for others to fish in it.

Yes. That is true of every scarce resource. The key in such circumstances is equal use.

Again the best "collecters" are the ones most likely to be hurt by this. And in a world where we want resources to be as efficiently collected and used in production as possible surely we want to have the oppoiste policy you have.

Efficiency is not worth freedom.

In capitalism I only need one person to value my labour to get access to a market where I can buy literally anything. If I can only exchange labour for labour I need to find someones labour I value and hope they value my labour.

But you do not need anyone's labor, at least not to the extent as you do under capitalism. This is the advantage; you are independent. And you always have to depend on the person with whom you wish to exchange valuing the object you are exchanging; that is built into the nature of consensual exchange.

I'm sure most people contributing to wiki enjoy writing about whatever they contributed in and take pleasure in teaching people. I'm contributing in this discussion with no intention of being paid, infact I'm pleased I don't have to pay to access a site with intelligent discussion.

Also elements of charity, obligation for using the service and who knows what other factors lead to people contributing to wikki. That said how many people would work overtime at a company to analise incoming stock and output profits etc.. without being paid a good sum.... Quite a lot less I think.

Yes. People enjoy the process of creating an encyclopedia, feel proud for doing it, and just improve what they use. There are also many people there who perform cleanup and maintenance tasks, even if not interesting, for the last two reasons.
So, even though not all tasks are equally interesting, even less interesting are done, because some people feel that these tasks must be done and can spare some time for it. That works because it takes only a small number of people to do work that benefits a large base of users. Even if most are just readers, the smaller number of contributors can provide the information, and a small percent of them can do uncreative maintenance jobs.

Actually, Wikipedia, as well as general Creative Commons and Open Source communities, is a small model of information era technocommunistic society. The inherent properties of information, specifically ease of replication, make communism a viable way of managing it.


That's what I'm speaking about. As our society moves forward, the information takes larger and larger sector, and replication of products (mass production) becomes easier. In the meantime we have increasing number of people who are unnecessary and go into the expanding service sector. Today the cost of products consists mostly of the development costs, and their percentage steadily increases. Even today the difference between software and hardware in some areas is vague. When one buys an expensive high-tech specialized device, it well may consist mostly of off-the-shelf cheap computer hardware; you pay for the firmware, not for hardware. And even that fraction paid for hardware is mostly development costs.

It is plausible that at some point in the future the rest of the industry will reach similar level, so cost of production itself becomes like the cost of DVD disk in the price of an expensive software. That is what is called ease of replication. At this point hardware can be managed in the same way as software.
For instance, you want a p1440 TV, so you buy a $1000 smart-card and a $50 TV body; your friend is fine with p720, so he buys the same body with $200 card; and some guy in Africa can buy local-only discount cards five times cheaper, though most will only afford basic body with i576. It's likely to happen, because it will be cheaper to make 100 millions of p1440 bodies than 10 millions for each resolution. Pretty much like your provider gives you the same top-speed modem and you pay for the speed you need. This would be technocapitalism.
Don't forget, at this tech level almost all jobs become creative - the small production sector will consist of science, engineering and a bit of management, with uncreative parts automated; the entertainment sector is already creative. Creative jobs can only be done by persons interested in them and enjoying them, as you can't invent something if you are not interested. The people uninterested in doing creative work (and therefore incapable of doing it) would actually do nothing of importance in the bloated services sector, like walking around empty shops waiting for rare clients, or just live on the welfare.


However, when the hardware may be managed like software, other models of management become viable. One of them is open-source model, where all required jobs are covered by people interested in them, and everyone can replicate and use the results of their work. In a high-tech information-based society same system works fine with hardware, because the real work is developing it and production is the easy part, just giving the program to a machine.


Of course, everything is more complicated in the real world. We may make some analysis of how technocommunism works on the existing open model, Wikipedia. With creative things it's all clear - they already work this way.
Let's get to probably the least creative job, building a house. The job can be done with automated equipment and some semi-automated intervention for small details. So the house can be built by someone needing it doing the semi-automated job (screwdriving), with management of people familiar with house-building. That is not a problem.

Who gets the best place? Now we have to look at WP. The number of admins, arbiters, project leaders, etc is limited. So, when people are considered for positions, the community makes the decision based on their previous contributions. Say, user Tom helped me to make a good article (to build a house), and I see he helps others as well; user Bob is just playing hooky. I will vote for Tom and against Bob. Same goes with helping. This system can be implemented in distribution of limited resources as well - and note that use of less limited resources like server load (building a house in uncontested place) usually doesn't need that, one can use them as needed.
From this we can figure out the first detail - transparency and meritocracy. People can easily look at what work you have done, and your position in the society depends on it. People will help these people who help others.

What about property? First of all, in WP you have a userpage and userspace (your house and surroundings), and it is generally considered to be only editable by you or with your permission. One may even ask for it to be locked. It is not your property, but it is generally yours.
Now, say, I have written an article (built a workshop, planted a crop field). It is still editable (usable) by everyone, but it is generally considered that the major editor has the right to make major decisions, unless they are clearly harmful. If I abandon it, though, someone may take it over, not though denying my right to use it as well as others do. It is mostly so for high-profile pages, and more obscure one may be almost like property.
So you generally may manage what you create, as long as you can manage it. If you have grown crops, you can have as much as needed, but as long as you at least can find a use for them and not just waste them. If you (here "you" may refer to a group) build a factory, it's up to you to decide what to make there, except for bombs; but others may use it as well if you don't use it, and, if you abandon it, someone may use it fully - but you still always may return.
So the second detail is that the right of property is restricted by making use of it - you build the factory with the common equipment, and you are supposed to use it. Making something for others will encourage them to make something for you when you need it. It's pretty much like the current system, but more direct and less enforced; however, in high-tech society you don't depend on it and don't need enforcement. So you have no possible need to stockpile, say, the extra 97 cars of the 100 you made, as giving them to others is better for you. However, you can use what you need.
You can live in a house in a beautiful place, and hold it; it would be considered polite, though, to let others stay there if you are leaving for another country. This will be known, so you'll probably get a good place to stay in your trip.

So that's pretty much what technocommunism would look like. It is not anarchy, and the community makes controversial decisions. It is not total equality, because ones doing good job will be respected, get more help from others and have priority for resources. But it still has all the freedom for an individual to work as he prefers and use what he needs.

Really. So how would you justify your statement that the poor in this country are better treated than anywhere else in the world?
I'd much rather be a poor American than an average African.
Everything of utility has direct economic value. But a lot of things of utility don't go into GDP calculations, or calculations of material wealth (the latter of which are typically relied upon to support the thesis that the US poor are in reality rich.)

The other error often made is to assume that because the poor can afford cheap luxuries, they can also afford more expensive necessities.
What's a necessity to you? My list tends to stop at food & clothing, plus access to shelter and education.
Then this - though it is not "material wealth" precisely - should go into any analysis of how well off the US poor are, right?
Yes.
The vast majority of human beings do, however, value it.
And because I deem them irrational, I don't care.
Isn't freedom a sort of wealth?
Of course. But you asserted she was wealthy, which presupposes she is not poor. Her wealth must therefore outweight her servitude.
No one said they "don't have choices."

Everyone has choices. Even the slave has the choice to stay and remain enslaved or run away and risk death. The question is how good their choices are. And for the poor, even in developed nations, those choices tend to be fairly awful.
Sometimes life is hard. But poor Americans don't face such awful alternatives as slaves do. There is a demand for unskilled labour. And since all American children have access to education, there's lesser cause for them to remain unskilled.
Human and Income Poverty (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/pdf/hdr03_table_4.pdf)
That's not data. That's an index. You're going to make me hunt for data and methodology, aren't you?
Time, as you point out, is a form of wealth.
Yes.

And since it takes so long to prepare raw broccoli, surely it is an item of considerable luxury.

Why sacrifice, when I can steal?
Why share when I can hoard?

Because I fear the consequences. Or are you suggesting that a communist society would not have a mechanism for discouraging unwanted behaviour?

I'd much rather be a poor American than an average African.
I'd much rather be a poor Irish, English, French, German, Swedish, Norwegian... person than a poor American. Every single one of those countries treats their poor better than America does.

I'd much rather be a poor Irish, English, French, German, Swedish, Norwegian... person than a poor American. Every single one of those countries treats their poor better than America does.
Which is why they have higher unemployment. They've created a free-rider problem.

Which is why they have higher unemployment. They've created a free-rider problem.

Unemployment rate in Ireland: 4.2%
Unemployment rate in Norway: 4.3%
Unemployment rate in the US: 4.7%
Unemployment rate in Britain: 5.0%
Unemployment rate in Sweden: 5.6%

Not much of a difference there. Which kinda invalidates the free-rider thing (especially for Ireland and Norway). And all those countries, except of course the US, have a lot of welfare. So welfare doesn't mean unemployment.

(France and Germany have unemployment rates running about 10%, I'm well aware, so they may have some sort of problem there.)

Why won't this thread die already?

If you're talking about GDP, then, yes, to an extent this is true, but there are a lot of important things that the GDP doesn't count.
Additionally, the GDP of a nation is irrelevent if it's a small portion of the population having most of the GDP. Something like the mean GDP per person of a nation would be better.


Even then surely it would be better to have a nation with as high of a GDP as possible with a large welfare system.


Increased equality and freedom would lead to higher standards of living. Increased production wouldn't because much of what is produced is useless.


Even in theory equality only leads to higher standards of living for the poor at the expence of the top.
Socialism is the one that produces useless things in hope that its what people want. In capitalism the only things that are produced are things that are in demand, and even if you have little use for such products clearly others do.


Not really; that means fewer doctors and farmers, and fewer people to take care of the older ones in their old age.

I suppose you'd just have to be slightly careful of the 49% that are killed but the point remains valid.


If they were to enslave the 49%, then I could agree with it; fortunately simply making more people better off isn't the only reason to support communism, it's just a fringe benefit.


Good to know then.


Certainly, and we were talking about people behaving in dangerous ways; someone who wishes to hurt other people would have a much easier time doing it in capitalism.


Well I'm agains't gun ownership to be honest and other non essential "offencive" wepons. As for it being easier would this be because your society would spend more of a % of GDP on police?


The more often something is repeated, the harder it is to ignore, not to mention that the people who had ads on TV have greater freedom of speech than those who don't.


No one is forcing you to buy anything you still have total freedom to do as you want to. And also do famous people or intelligent/popular people have greater freedom of speech because more people listen to them?
Freedom of speech doesn't work in degrees either we have a right to say something or we don't. The fact we may write books or have a bigger audience in no way changes this.


It's the reverse. Capital is nothing without labor; it is labor who creates the products. Additionally, it isn't necessarily the capitalists who invent products, most companies, such as pharmaceutical companies, have a segment of the company who does the inventing; the inventors aren't the ones who own the company. (If you couldn't tell, I'm using and 'create' differently than I think you did.)


You gravely underestimate the jobs that managers do. Without them investing in money, studying markets, trading for materials and deciding what to make the company should make the workers would be lost.
The worker has almost no responcibility and the most productive worker will make almost no impact on total production. The managers on the other hand are the ones that have all the responcibility and their actions can make or lose millions.


I'd much rather be a lawyer or banker than a plumber. Even still, there are lawyers who do pro bono work. Why is that?

The point remains that people travel to where the money is. Financial incentive is a huge motivater as supply and demand of labour shows. Sure I bet some lawyers love their job and can't get enough of it others want to give back to the poor and help with charity but thats true of most jobs.

And this doesn't apply equally well (if not better, because everyone has a share) to rights of use because...?
.

People over use for their own benefit (I've already mentioned the tragedy of the commons). Most will take as much as they can get away with and contribute as little as they can in order to fufill their own self interest.


Really? Any luxury? And for how many people in the world do you think this is true?

Note also that this process requires sacrifice. Why sacrifice, when I can steal?
.

Everyone. As long as you can negotiate with a seller to reach a deal of mutual benefit you can have any good in the market.
Again when you have exclusive property rights you tend to respect others right to have ownership of property. It comes under the same logic of why people don't kill eachother, sure it might be in your best interest to kill someone but as a result more people are likely to kill you thus it works in everyones best interest not to steal or kill.


"Productivity a meritocracy" and "giving people the freedom to choose what they want to do" are mutually incompatible.

"Meritocracy" implies hierarchy, the enemy of freedom. "Productivity" implies the division of labor (and thus the lack of freedom implied by dependence) and the submission of the human will to the maximization of wealth.

Indeed, you have admitted this yourself, though you did not put it in those terms. You have repeatedly denied that productivity is compatible with truly voluntary labor - labor uncompelled by economic circumstances.
.

The enemy of freedom is holding others back to walk at the same pace as the slowst walker. Leaving people alone to achive their dreams and follow their own rainbow is the freedom I want for me and everyone else.
As for being compelled to work this is somewhat true and ideally I'd love to not live in a world were people have to work, but its kinda needed to make the world keep moving. For a common worker to get what they "need/want" they can either provide for it themselves or get someone else to do it for them, in which case they need to provide something for them. Money works ideally and while they are therefore forced to work they can atleast work where ever they want to for the wage they want (provided the employer wants them).

I agree with your criticisms to an extent. But the only way to solve such a problem is to take away the freedoms and incentives of those who keep providing us with massess of goods us consumers want. Not only such but not being forced to work takes away the individuals freedom as they then become dependent on being provided for by others and lose self responcibility.


Given a choice between a pleasurable and socially beneficial job and a pleasurable and non-socially beneficial job, I think most people would choose the latter.
.

Of course I wouldn't doubt that. But that would only apply when Person X can choose between two jobs of equal pleasure and one benfits society the other doesn't.
If my most pleasureable job doesn't benefit society why would I not choose to do only that. And if I'm forced to take a job that I find both pleasurable and socially beneficial what if I'm incompetant at it.


Not just anyone. Someone with money, and who "values" your contribution enough to pay you.
.

Sure not everyone values every service nor wants it. But heck basically everyone (including every consumer) in the world fit into the catorgory of having some money potentially valuing a service you may provide.


That is, you must make yourself a servant of another's ends; you must submit to her will.
.

You don't HAVE to submit to their will. You can always look elsewhere. And if you want your needs/wants catered to would you not want someone to act like a servant and provide you with whatever service you wish.


If he were to do so, would he not be violating your right to use the house?
.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing the house (you got someone else to build specifically for you). Thus you can both use it, and if you kick him out you'd be violating his right of use....right.


Ah, so you think that someone who wants to be a farmer should have her autonomy denied to her because someone else wants to make a profit.
.

If a person wants to be a farmer but is rubbish at farming why should they use land a more skilled farmer is already using (yes to generate profit). In the end thats just making the ammount of total food that everyone can eat lower (thus more poverty and starvation).


I never said that high-skilled workers would have to produce food for themselves. Labor for labor; they perform a task for the farmer, the farmer performs a task for them (grows food.)
.

Now I'm dependent on giving a fisherman my labour or I go hungry. Thats the same dependence a worker has in capitalism.



Why should the "nearby resident" be forced to submit to the will of others for food simply because a farmer nearby is "amazing"?
.

For the benefit of consumers who want as good quality and as much food or good as possible


If I produce something for someone else, that is "direct use." How is it not?

Now, if that production deprives someone else of the capability to use, then that is a problem.


If someone has difficulty producing something or finds it hard getting resources won't they just interupt the most productive worker and claim some of his "Labour/Land" as his own to use since he has a right to do so.


Unless you dominate the market enough, one way or another, that people buy your product anyway.


If someone else can make a better product or the same product at less cost than no people will not buy your product anyway.


If they are depriving others of the opportunity, yes they would be. Why should it be any other way?
If no one else wants to fish, then it is different; they are not depriving anyone of anything.


Well others always have the opportunity to fish, they'll just catch far less fish to catch with the extra competition/production a better fisherman creates.



It's a problem. But I'm not sure if the "least skilled fisherman" would choose to be a fisherman in the first place, when he can easily be self-sufficient in other ways.


He might love fishing, its quite relaxing especially nice with good company. And why would they care about being self sufficient if they'll have all their needs met regardless of what they do.

Even then surely it would be better to have a nation with as high of a GDP as possible with a large welfare system.No; even if this did create the best possible system it would still be based upon the illegitimate concept of property.

Even in theory equality only leads to higher standards of living for the poor at the expence of the top.Those at the top only have higher standards of living at the expense of the poor.

Socialism is the one that produces useless things in hope that its what people want. In capitalism the only things that are produced are things that are in demand, and even if you have little use for such products clearly others do.Really? Then why do companies go out of business?

Well I'm agains't gun ownership to be honest and other non essential "offencive" wepons. As for it being easier would this be because your society would spend more of a % of GDP on police?No, there's no particular reason why the society would spend very much at all on police, as crime would be nearly nonexistent. It would be easier because, as I said, the ability of those who would do harm would be limited.
(Don't think I've noticed that you're against certain freedoms of property, either.)

No one is forcing you to buy anything you still have total freedom to do as you want to. And also do famous people or intelligent/popular people have greater freedom of speech because more people listen to them?No, but famous people have greater freedoms of speech because they are given more outlets to speak on (talk shows, awards shows, etc.)than the average person.

Freedom of speech doesn't work in degrees either we have a right to say something or we don't. The fact we may write books or have a bigger audience in no way changes this.Of course freedom of speech works in degrees; someone who has freedom of speech except can't criticize the government has greater freedom of speech than someone who can criticize neither the government nor the national religion.

You gravely underestimate the jobs that managers do. Without them investing in money, studying markets, trading for materials and deciding what to make the company should make the workers would be lost.
The worker has almost no responcibility and the most productive worker will make almost no impact on total production. The managers on the other hand are the ones that have all the responcibility and their actions can make or lose millions.Even still, the managers are not the capitalists.
Nonetheless, even if managers are good at their jobs, it doesn't make up for the workplace being a dictatorship.

The point remains that people travel to where the money is. Financial incentive is a huge motivater as supply and demand of labour shows. Sure I bet some lawyers love their job and can't get enough of it others want to give back to the poor and help with charity but thats true of most jobs.Some people travel to where the money is; even you've just admitted that money isn't the sole motivator for people doing things.
Additionally, it's difficult to measure how much money is a motivator for people's actions; someone who wants to make a living is motivated differently by money than someone who wants to be rich.

Unemployment rate in Ireland: 4.2%
Unemployment rate in Norway: 4.3%
Unemployment rate in the US: 4.7%
Unemployment rate in Britain: 5.0%
Unemployment rate in Sweden: 5.6%

Not much of a difference there. Which kinda invalidates the free-rider thing (especially for Ireland and Norway). And all those countries, except of course the US, have a lot of welfare. So welfare doesn't mean unemployment.

(France and Germany have unemployment rates running about 10%, I'm well aware, so they may have some sort of problem there.)
Sweden may well be above 5.6% - some suggest it is in the extreme of 20% unemployment if all factors are considered. I doubt this - 10% sounds plausible though. Here are links that clarify why 5.6% is in doubt: http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/000589.html.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880173

But Sweden is a world champion at massaging its jobless figures, which exclude those in government make-work programmes, those forced into early retirement and students who would prefer to be working. Sweden's suspiciously large number of workers on long-term sick leave are counted as working, and included in the employment rate (sickness benefits account for 16% of public spending). Absenteeism is common.

Earlier this year the McKinsey Global Institute, a think-tank, studied Sweden's labour market. It found that the rate of employment among working-age people had declined in the past decade. Indeed, Magnus Henrekson of the Research Institute of Industrial Economics says that Sweden has created almost no net private-sector jobs since 1950* (see chart 2). Youth unemployment is among the highest in Europe. The McKinsey boffins conclude that the “true” unemployment rate is around 15-17%, which puts Sweden among the worst job-fillers in the EU. It translates into more than 1m people without work.

I am not sure about Norway, but keep in mind the country's unusual circumstances: it is immensely oil rich. It's market is also freer than Sweden's, giving corporations much more leeway, and taxation is lower. It could also be that unemployment benefits are only offered on the condition of stringent requirements - in this case, only the worst cases would receive welfare. Norway may in fact encourage people to go into employment this way. As such, its particular circumstances must be known. Keep in mind, both the US and Norway, like most Western states, are social democracies - their systems only differ in degree. The former is not purely capitalist and the latter is not purely socialist; they are a mixture.

Those at the top only have higher standards of living at the expense of the poor.
.

Or generally from performing a service that someone else hasn't.


Really? Then why do companies go out of business?
.

Point taken. But than the company is normally liquidated and its product slashed in price for closing down sales.


No, there's no particular reason why the society would spend very much at all on police, as crime would be nearly nonexistent. It would be easier because, as I said, the ability of those who would do harm would be limited.
(Don't think I've noticed that you're against certain freedoms of property, either.)
.

So there still wouldn't be crazy people or rapists. Someone taking a possetion from someone else isn't the biggest deal in the world, in my opinion its just stuff, there is much worse crime in the world.

As for being agains't guns, I'm agains't them for the same reason as I'm agains't say ownership of nuclear wepons in the hands of individuals. Stuff thats made for the purpose of attacking others without any useful benefit in ordinary life again is just a freedom that doesn't help anyone.


No, but famous people have greater freedoms of speech because they are given more outlets to speak on (talk shows, awards shows, etc.)than the average person.
.

So ban T.V and award shows so people can live in a world of equality of freedom of speech?


Of course freedom of speech works in degrees; someone who has freedom of speech except can't criticize the government has greater freedom of speech than someone who can criticize neither the government nor the national religion.
.

my bad. I meant if everyone has equal rights to criticise, write or say whatever they want to say it doesn't matter if some voices are heard more than others.
If I live in a city I have more people I can give my opinion to than someone in the country side but my freedom of speech is exacly the same as everyone elses.


Even still, the managers are not the capitalists.
Nonetheless, even if managers are good at their jobs, it doesn't make up for the workplace being a dictatorship.
.

He gives you something you want (money) for something he wants (Labour) if you no longer like the deal you can refuse or walk out at any time. Its really no different that if I asked a friend to fix my car in a particular manner I wanted and I promise to give him a few beers if I like the job.

And yeah the fact is not everyone can be a manager you usually have to have lots of tallent many years getting a degree and even then most arn't cut out to handle the pressue and responcibility.

The fact Labour can simply walk in do some work, not have to think about what products the market wants, not have to worry about design or any major details and then get paid before the product sells is quite a nifty set up they have.
They can always all quit and generate investment to form their own "democratic" company but its pretty risky and they have no one to take the blame if they don't handle it well.



Some people travel to where the money is; even you've just admitted that money isn't the sole motivator for people doing things.
Additionally, it's difficult to measure how much money is a motivator for people's actions; someone who wants to make a living is motivated differently by money than someone who wants to be rich.

Of course it itsn't the soul motive. I've only said its a huge motivator and provides a huge incentive that is basically the sole reason capitalism works as well as it does.
I'd think most people at some point have to make a choice between a job they like doing or moving to a better paying job they may not enjoy as much. What people value will be different for everyone and so to will be the difference between work pleasure and pleasure people get from the money they earn.

Or generally from performing a service that someone else hasn't.Generally because someone else doesn't have the opportunity to do so, not because they can't.

Point taken. But than the company is normally liquidated and its product slashed in price for closing down sales.Yes, in which case a demand that wasn't there is created.

So there still wouldn't be crazy people or rapists. Someone taking a possetion from someone else isn't the biggest deal in the world, in my opinion its just stuff, there is much worse crime in the world.The number of crazy people and rapists would be fewer as there would be psychological resources available to everyone.

As for being agains't guns, I'm agains't them for the same reason as I'm agains't say ownership of nuclear wepons in the hands of individuals. Stuff thats made for the purpose of attacking others without any useful benefit in ordinary life again is just a freedom that doesn't help anyone. Hunters don't use guns for the purpose of attacking other people; neither to gun collectors.

So ban T.V and award shows so people can live in a world of equality of freedom of speech?Nah, just give everyone an equal amount of time on TV.

my bad. I meant if everyone has equal rights to criticise, write or say whatever they want to say it doesn't matter if some voices are heard more than others.
If I live in a city I have more people I can give my opinion to than someone in the country side but my freedom of speech is exacly the same as everyone elses. The freedom of speech isn't measured by the number of people listening, it's measured by the number of things a person can say and the number of outlets they have on which to say it.

He gives you something you want (money) for something he wants (Labour) if you no longer like the deal you can refuse or walk out at any time. Its really no different that if I asked a friend to fix my car in a particular manner I wanted and I promise to give him a few beers if I like the job.Of course it is, he isn't dependent upon the beers in order to survive; the laborer is dependent upon the money they receive from their labor in order to survive.

And yeah the fact is not everyone can be a manager you usually have to have lots of tallent many years getting a degree and even then most arn't cut out to handle the pressue and responcibility.

The fact Labour can simply walk in do some work, not have to think about what products the market wants, not have to worry about design or any major details and then get paid before the product sells is quite a nifty set up they have.
They can always all quit and generate investment to form their own "democratic" company but its pretty risky and they have no one to take the blame if they don't handle it well.All the more reason to have collective management of companies.

Of course it itsn't the soul motive. I've only said its a huge motivator and provides a huge incentive that is basically the sole reason capitalism works as well as it does.
I'd think most people at some point have to make a choice between a job they like doing or moving to a better paying job they may not enjoy as much. What people value will be different for everyone and so to will be the difference between work pleasure and pleasure people get from the money they earn.Capitalism isn't geared towards helping people to find a job that they like; I would say that this is a bigger motivator than people wanting to become rich from their jobs.

Sweden may well be above 5.6% - some suggest it is in the extreme of 20% unemployment if all factors are considered. I doubt this - 10% sounds plausible though. Here are links that clarify why 5.6% is in doubt: http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/000589.html.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880173

I am not sure about Norway, but keep in mind the country's unusual circumstances: it is immensely oil rich. It's market is also freer than Sweden's, giving corporations much more leeway, and taxation is lower. It could also be that unemployment benefits are only offered on the condition of stringent requirements - in this case, only the worst cases would receive welfare. Norway may in fact encourage people to go into employment this way. As such, its particular circumstances must be known. Keep in mind, both the US and Norway, like most Western states, are social democracies - their systems only differ in degree. The former is not purely capitalist and the latter is not purely socialist; they are a mixture.
I wonder, though, what would happen if one applied the same criteria that are applied to other countries - Sweden is not alone in massaging its unemployment figures, I'm sure. Plus, I believe that underemployment is quite a problem in the US, whereas I'd guess that it's less of a problem in Sweden (that is merely an opinion though).
I don't know about Norway, but I can speak for Ireland (as I live there). It has an inclusive welfare net - there are no time restrictions on unemployment benefit, there's a lot of training and the like provided to get people back to work, there's a lot of support for single mothers, and so on. Everyone earning under a certain figure (which I think is something like €30k, which is the average industrial wage) gets free medical care (like the British NHS). No-one earning the minimum wage (which is about €15k a year, €7.65 an hour) pays a cent of tax (although they may pay a small sum in other statutory deductions - no more than a coupla hundred euro though). And still Ireland is one of those economic success stories, despite not being very free-market at all.

I wonder, though, what would happen if one applied the same criteria that are applied to other countries - Sweden is not alone in massaging its unemployment figures, I'm sure. Plus, I believe that underemployment is quite a problem in the US, whereas I'd guess that it's less of a problem in Sweden (that is merely an opinion though).
The same criteria is usually applied to other countries. I doubt that Sweden is alone in what it does, but it is definitely not joined by other major Western countries.

I don't know about Norway, but I can speak for Ireland (as I live there). It has an inclusive welfare net - there are no time restrictions on unemployment benefit, there's a lot of training and the like provided to get people back to work, there's a lot of support for single mothers, and so on. Everyone earning under a certain figure (which I think is something like €30k, which is the average industrial wage) gets free medical care (like the British NHS). No-one earning the minimum wage (which is about €15k a year, €7.65 an hour) pays a cent of tax (although they may pay a small sum in other statutory deductions - no more than a coupla hundred euro though). And still Ireland is one of those economic success stories, despite not being very free-market at all.
Ireland is considered one of the freest economies of the world.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Ireland

The reason Ireland can sustain all of this is because it is so open to business (its highest corporate tax is 3 times lower than the US') and investment. And even so, according to this article, the cost of providing such services is soaring. Also, to keep you focused, a free-market would have no objections to not taxing very poor individuals. It would in fact encourage this. Ireland sounds almost like a minarchist nation to me - it hasn't reached the necessary level of social and (to an extent) economic freedom yet. As a reminder, minarchist nations can provide certain public services, such as healthcare, although they would encourage the free-market to provide as much as possible.

However, there are some clouds on the horizon. Ireland is saddled with an underperforming health service, whose costs have tripled in seven years with only limited gains in output, and government expenditures amounted to 34.3 percent of GDP in 2004.

Something that you might find amusing is that Ireland actually spends a smaller proportionate amount of its GDP on government expenditure than the US, which the last time I checked it was somewhere around 36-40% I believe.

On the whole, Ireland is ranked as a freer economy than the US:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates

The same criteria is usually applied to other countries. I doubt that Sweden is alone in what it does, but it is definitely not joined by other major Western countries.
I doubt it's the only Western country to do so, to be honest...

Ireland is considered one of the freest economies of the world.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Ireland

The reason Ireland can sustain all of this is because it is so open to business (its highest corporate tax is 3 times lower than the US') and investment. And even so, according to this article, the cost of providing such services is soaring. Also, to keep you focused, a free-market would have no objections to not taxing very poor individuals. It would in fact encourage this. Ireland sounds almost like a minarchist nation to me - it hasn't reached the necessary level of social and (to an extent) economic freedom yet. As a reminder, minarchist nations can provide certain public services, such as healthcare, although they would encourage the free-market to provide as much as possible.
Ireland is hardly minarchist - the health service is primarily state-run, after all. Public transportation (apart from taxis) is too - there are few private bus companies which run regular routes, and there are no private trains. Power generation is a government monopoly, and Aer Lingus is a state-run company (although it is being sold off).
I didn't know that Ireland was more free-market than the US, to be honest. But I wasn't arguing against the free market here (after all, individualists are in favour of a free market), just saying that having a welfare net does not mean that an economy is in the can.

Something that you might find amusing is that Ireland actually spends a smaller proportionate amount of its GDP on government expenditure than the US, which the last time I checked it was somewhere around 36-40% I believe.
That might have something to do with Ireland not spending crazy amounts of money on the military...

I doubt it's the only Western country to do so, to be honest...
Economic data would be handy then.

Ireland is hardly minarchist - the health service is primarily state-run, after all. Public transportation (apart from taxis) is too - there are few private bus companies which run regular routes, and there are no private trains. Power generation is a government monopoly, and Aer Lingus is a state-run company (although it is being sold off).
I didn't know that Ireland was more free-market than the US, to be honest. But I wasn't arguing against the free market here (after all, individualists are in favour of a free market), just saying that having a welfare net does not mean that an economy is in the can.
Notice how I said "almost." ;) Besides, a minarchist state does not ex necessitate preclude the possibility of the state providing certain basic services and limited welfare, such as healthcare, transportation and such, so long as it tries to maximise the free-market's role in these areas if possible. I recommend you read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" to get an idea of less radical minarchism. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" is good if you want to get an idea of the leanest forms of minarchism, namely the "nightwatchman State." At any rate, you are correct in saying that welfare -within limits- doesn't endanger the economy. I am just trying to demonstrate how a higher incidence of welfare is not causally linked to lower unemployment. Other circumstantial factors apply, some of which are causally linked.

That might have something to do with Ireland not spending crazy amounts of money on the military...
The US' high amount of public spending isn't just due to military expenditures, even though they play a part. Still, it's funny that the world's most "capitalist" large nation is less free economically (and perhaps even socially) than a European nation, Ireland, given how they think we are all "commies."

Economic data would be handy then.
I said I doubt it, but I don't have any proof - and I'm a) too busy to compile the statistics and b) likely to mess things up, not being a statistician or whatever.

Notice how I said "almost." ;) Besides, a minarchist state does not ex necessitate preclude the possibility of the state providing certain basic services and limited welfare, such as healthcare, transportation and such, so long as it tries to maximise the free-market's role in these areas if possible. I recommend you read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" to get an idea of less radical minarchism. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" is good if you want to get an idea of the leanest forms of minarchism, namely the "nightwatchman State." At any rate, you are correct in saying that welfare -within limits- doesn't endanger the economy. I am just trying to demonstrate how a higher incidence of welfare is not causally linked to lower unemployment. Other circumstantial factors apply, some of which are causally linked.
If Ireland's a minarchy, the so is every other social democracy in the world. Plus, Ireland isnt exactly encouraging the free-market - we're not privatising any healthcare, we're not encouraging people to set up other transport routes, and so on...

The US' high amount of public spending isn't just due to military expenditures, even though they play a part. Still, it's funny that the world's most "capitalist" large nation is less free economically (and perhaps even socially) than a European nation, Ireland, given how they think we are all "commies."
Emmm, the US Budget claims that it spends about 20% of GDP as government outlay. The Irish Budget is about $70bn on GDP of $165bn (PPP) - that's 42% (strangely enough, the higher rate of tax in Ireland).

Oh, did I mention I've resigned from this thread? Yeah, I'm gonsers.

Oh, did I mention I've resigned from this thread? Yeah, I'm gonsers.Wuss. :)

If Ireland's a minarchy, the so is every other social democracy in the world. Plus, Ireland isnt exactly encouraging the free-market - we're not privatising any healthcare, we're not encouraging people to set up other transport routes, and so on...
Ireland is significantly freer than every other social democracy in the world. At any rate, I said it could become a minarchy, not that it will any time soon.

Emmm, the US Budget claims that it spends about 20% of GDP as government outlay. The Irish Budget is about $70bn on GDP of $165bn (PPP) - that's 42% (strangely enough, the higher rate of tax in Ireland).
The US' true government expenditure is believed to rest at 40-50%, regardless of what it claims it to be. Undeniably a significant amount goes to the military. For a "capitalist" nation, it surely wastes a huge amount of cash.

Ireland is hardly minarchist - the health service is primarily state-run, after all.
Ireland's healthcare system is administered publically, but not provided publically. The fully public systems are very rare these days. Only Canada, Cuba, and North Korea still have fully public heathcare.

People over use for their own benefit (I've already mentioned the tragedy of the commons). Most will take as much as they can get away with and contribute as little as they can in order to fufill their own self interest.

And it's capitalist property frameworks that have such a problem with the tragedy of the so-called "commons."

In a system based on use rights, that would be called, and should be called, "theft."

Everyone. As long as you can negotiate with a seller to reach a deal of mutual benefit you can have any good in the market.

And as long as you're omnipotent you can do anything.

Again when you have exclusive property rights you tend to respect others right to have ownership of property. It comes under the same logic of why people don't kill eachother, sure it might be in your best interest to kill someone but as a result more people are likely to kill you thus it works in everyones best interest not to steal or kill.

And this applies in exactly the same way to the rights of use.

In order to protect my own rights of use, I don't violate anyone else's.

The enemy of freedom is holding others back to walk at the same pace as the slowst walker.

The enemy of freedom is depriving the slowest walker of autonomy and a dignified existence because she is a slow walker.

Leaving people alone to achive their dreams and follow their own rainbow is the freedom I want for me and everyone else.

Except for the "slow walkers," who we'll leave in the ditch beside the road.

As for being compelled to work this is somewhat true and ideally I'd love to not live in a world were people have to work, but its kinda needed to make the world keep moving. For a common worker to get what they "need/want" they can either provide for it themselves or get someone else to do it for them, in which case they need to provide something for them. Money works ideally and while they are therefore forced to work they can atleast work where ever they want to for the wage they want (provided the employer wants them).

So they can choose the manner of their servitude. What benevolence!

At the very least, they should be given a meaningful opportunity to indeed "provide for it themselves."

I agree with your criticisms to an extent. But the only way to solve such a problem is to take away the freedoms and incentives of those who keep providing us with massess of goods us consumers want. Not only such but not being forced to work takes away the individuals freedom as they then become dependent on being provided for by others and lose self responcibility.

Who said they should be provided for by others? They should have the opportunity to provide for themselves, in their own way. They should not be dependent on their employers.

You point out that encouraging dependence deprives people of freedom. I agree. That is what our society does from day one. We are addicted to consumer goods, and those who produce them hold us in thrall.

They are not worth freedom.

Of course I wouldn't doubt that. But that would only apply when Person X can choose between two jobs of equal pleasure and one benfits society the other doesn't.
If my most pleasureable job doesn't benefit society why would I not choose to do only that.

Most people don't like doing things they see as useless.

And if I'm forced to take a job that I find both pleasurable and socially beneficial what if I'm incompetant at it.

No one has to accept your labor.

Sure not everyone values every service nor wants it. But heck basically everyone (including every consumer) in the world fit into the catorgory of having some money potentially valuing a service you may provide.

Yes, and slaves got food from their masters.

You don't HAVE to submit to their will. You can always look elsewhere. And if you want your needs/wants catered to would you not want someone to act like a servant and provide you with whatever service you wish.

Absolutely not. The very thought is sickening.

If someone's freely willing to help me, great. But to use my power over them to get them to submit to my will would be grossly immoral. Other human beings are not my tools, to use and exploit as I see fit.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing the house (you got someone else to build specifically for you). Thus you can both use it, and if you kick him out you'd be violating his right of use....right.

I have an objection to him staying with me, right? Thus I am using the house for some purpose - say, privacy - that his presence violates.

If a person wants to be a farmer but is rubbish at farming why should they use land a more skilled farmer is already using (yes to generate profit).

Because you are depriving him of autonomy otherwise. You are making him a servant of the land-owners.

In the end thats just making the ammount of total food that everyone can eat lower (thus more poverty and starvation).

No, the system only works if they, too, are capable of providing food for themselves as well.

Now I'm dependent on giving a fisherman my labour or I go hungry. Thats the same dependence a worker has in capitalism.

No, I can fish myself, or I can eat something besides fish.

But, yes, that kind of exchange can breed hierarchical dependence (more precisely, a switch to that kind of exchange from the present kind of exchange would retain hierarchical dependence.) I've realized this, and am rethinking some aspects of the framework as a result.

For the benefit of consumers who want as good quality and as much food or good as possible

But the farmer has done nothing to the consumers. All he wants to do is grow food for his own substinence. He isn't stopping them from growing food for their own substinence. Why should he lose his autonomy for the sake of consumers who don't need the benefit it would provide them?

If someone has difficulty producing something or finds it hard getting resources won't they just interupt the most productive worker and claim some of his "Labour/Land" as his own to use since he has a right to do so.

Why shouldn't he?

If someone else can make a better product or the same product at less cost than no people will not buy your product anyway.

Who says you're selling it? Maybe you're producing it yourself.

Well others always have the opportunity to fish, they'll just catch far less fish to catch with the extra competition/production a better fisherman creates.

That is, no, they don't have the same opportunity.

He might love fishing, its quite relaxing especially nice with good company.

Great! Let him do it, then. That's his choice.

And why would they care about being self sufficient if they'll have all their needs met regardless of what they do.

They will?

And as long as you're omnipotent you can do anything.


Urm yes....
If you can do something you should be left to do it without someone stopping you. If you can't do something you can't force someone to do it for you.



Except for the "slow walkers," who we'll leave in the ditch beside the road.


Thing is with capitalism, if you suck at walking you can drive a car or do something else entirely.
To be blunt if you suck at absolutely everything so much (after having resources such as free libarys and free education at your disposal) why should someone be forced to carry them on their back.


So they can choose the manner of their servitude. What benevolence!

At the very least, they should be given a meaningful opportunity to indeed "provide for it themselves."


Yes you get to choose who you trade your labour with. It could be a boss who provides you with resources and upfront payment (before and regardless of the sale of a product) or you could start up some form of business for yourself, the choice is yours.



Who said they should be provided for by others? They should have the opportunity to provide for themselves, in their own way. They should not be dependent on their employers.


Great I agree. And if you want to offer a service direct to the consumer be my guest.



We are addicted to consumer goods, and those who produce them hold us in thrall.


Sorry whos addicted to consumer goods? I buy very little myself and those who produce them are entirely dependent on the consumers money to continue their service.



Most people don't like doing things they see as useless.


Use is quite subjective. None the less, given a choice how many people would play video games, just listen to music or go out partying every day over "useful productive work".



No one has to accept your labor.


In socialism society must accept your labour, regardless of your merit overall contribution (and if your need outweights what you contribute - ie a leech)


Yes, and slaves got food from their masters.


The masters also used violence and force to make them work. libertarianism or free market economics don't allow for slavery so the constant references to slavery are just a poor strawman.


Absolutely not. The very thought is sickening.

If someone's freely willing to help me, great. But to use my power over them to get them to submit to my will would be grossly immoral. Other human beings are not my tools, to use and exploit as I see fit.


Well what would you mean freely willing to help you. If you mean willing to provide you with a service with no hope of getting anything in return than basically very few things are freely done (nor would they be freely done in anarcho communism).

As for exploitation, who is exploiting who. Is the cleaner exploiting my lack of skill at cleaning and thus my desperat need for a cleaner. Or is the homeowner exploiting the cleaners need for money for whatever services the cleaner wants performed by other individuals.
The answer, both are performing a mutually beneficial deal.

I benefited from listening to what my parents told me to do, from what my teachers told me to do and similarly we benefit from what an employer tells us to do.
Of course we can always ignore them, but than we must face the consequences (which sometimes may be better, its up to us to make a subjective decision on whats in our interest)


I have an objection to him staying with me, right? Thus I am using the house for some purpose - say, privacy - that his presence violates.


Hey how much room do you really use. The house might have 2 floors, the other guy can just use the rooms your not currently using. Could you really have people theoretically keep 200 feet away from you to respect the privacy of the land your currently using (and what if you're located in a busy area or near valuable resources).


Because you are depriving him of autonomy otherwise. You are making him a servant of the land-owners.


At the expence of consumers, production and quality of life for all.


No, the system only works if they, too, are capable of providing food for themselves as well.


While its true without incentive people would simply just provide for themselves, in capitalism vasts ammounts of food is created for everyone. In the west obesity is a greater problem than starvation.


No, I can fish myself, or I can eat something besides fish.


But by denying a more skilled fisherman access to expand his fishing business the consumers and workers of the country will have less fish (thus spend more money to get fish and be worse off).

And secoundly speaking for myself (given unlimited land and resources) I still would be doubtful if I could grow or farm food to good enough quality to maintain a diet to keep me alive and in good condition. Thus while I can choose between eating fish or not eating fish I must eat something and I must therefore trade with some farmer. This is just the same problem as needing to work for money (even if you have the choice to go to any employer or consumer for money)



But the farmer has done nothing to the consumers. All he wants to do is grow food for his own substinence. He isn't stopping them from growing food for their own substinence. Why should he lose his autonomy for the sake of consumers who don't need the benefit it would provide them?


Efficient work and increased production benefits consumers (supply and demand/ increased choice).
Essentially its like people picking cotton and other resources by hand when a better farmer knows how to make and run highly skilled machines to do better work.
As I said earlyer not every person knows or wants to grow their own food and consumers certainly NEED the benefit of more and better quality food and other various products.
Why shouldn't he?



They will?

Surely you won't let individuals go homeless or starve?

Communism is more good than God driven capitalism.

However, I do like the social-democracy I'm currently living in even if it's less of a democracy than an oligarchy thanks to jaded party politics and EU.

To a degree I have. I am a socialist in some respects, as I've seen both ends of the spectrum (I am quite wealthy, where as my mother is at the poverty line....)

Main problem with Communism is that however a good idea, it is an unreachable dream. I think that the Katrina disastor proves that organized Anarchy is impossible, and Lenin's version of Communism was too easily corrupted.

Main problem with Communism is that however a good idea, it is an unreachable dream. I think that the Katrina disastor proves that organized Anarchy is impossible, and Lenin's version of Communism was too easily corrupted.

Katrina only proved how fragile existing hierarchal organizational arragements are. If you have time, look into the Spanish Anarchist revolts during the Spanish Civil War. That is a good example of organized anarchy working for extended periods of time.

Urm yes....
To be blunt if you suck at absolutely everything so much (after having resources such as free libarys and free education at your disposal) why should someone be forced to carry them on their back.
To put it another way, if you are so useless that you can do nothing at all of value, what benefit is there to society to protect you from failure?

Katrina only proved how fragile existing hierarchal organizational arragements are. If you have time, look into the Spanish Anarchist revolts during the Spanish Civil War. That is a good example of organized anarchy working for extended periods of time.

You have a valid point there mate :)

I forgot about them.

To put it another way, if you are so useless that you can do nothing at all of value, what benefit is there to society to protect you from failure?There isn't necessarily going to be any benefit to this, however I should think that most people can be trained to do something of value, and therefore it is in society's interest to train these people, and while this is happening, protect them from failure.