NationStates Jolt Archive

we all know that large scale communism cannot work becuase of iuts obvious aversions to human nature and true eqaulity, however, that does not meen that capitalism is realy the bst kind of polotics we can have.
Over the past 2 decades almost every war fought has involved a large western country seeking to gain profit and thus this begs the quesrtion what are we fighting for if not to line the profits of the slave drivers and social minorities who influence our people and enslave the poor to lives of nothing and ridicule; i say more money on social welfare and caring for the poor and less on sending solidiers to iraq to fight someone elses war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, this is the wrong forum,

Second, The First Gulf War was not fought for profit, it was fought for Kuwaiti liberation. If it was for profit, Bush Sr. would've continued to Baghdad or captured the oil fields. Thus, one example to disprove your statement.

Third, your "slave drivers" do not exist, as there are no longer slaves (this is all from the American perspective, mind you, as I don't care about the rest of the world as its not my jurisdiction). Also, the poor are not enslaved to lives or ridicule and nothing. They, just like everyone else, have an opportunity to succeed. However, there are a large portion of the poor who do nothing but sit on their backsides and collect welfare, the same welfare that you preach to increase. While there a some who are poor because they haven't gotten any opportunities, there are a much larger portion who are quite content with being "poor". It is quite absurd to want to support these people who do nothing by throwing more money at them. Will this make them want to get a job? Will this make them want to contribute to the economy? The answer is no. More social welfare is not the answer.

As for the touchy subject of Iraq. I find myself no longer in support for this war, but as for whose war it is, I do have a comment. If not our war, than whose? France isn't willing to fight it. Nor is Germany. Nor are the people in the middle of it. The same mistake by the public as in Vietnam is being repeated here today. We fail to see the goal we were originally trying to acomplish. Not WMDs, that was bullshit. We are trying to help a people that cannot help themselves and that no one else is willing to help. We are trying to rebuild a government and an economy for a very poor people. So in this war, we aren't helping the American poor, we are helping the Iraqi poor (i.e. the whole country) to gain both more money and more freedom.

I think it's time for you to do a little bit of deeper thinking on this, and to analyze the subject a bit more. Before ranting or posting in emotion, examine your subject more. Use a bit more reason.

Further, just out of curiosity, what age-group or range are you in?

These are the ten countries with the highest standard of living. All are mixed economies with strong business incentives-- some capitalism some social programs, with a strong social safety net. None are pure capitalism. The United States is not a pure capitalist country no matter what we would like to think. Compare the different economies and you will find some common themes.

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland

These are the ten countries with the highest standard of living. All are mixed economies with strong business incentives-- some capitalism some social programs, with a strong social safety net. None are pure capitalism. The United States is not a pure capitalist country no matter what we would like to think. Compare the different economies and you will find some common themes.

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland

what's Swilatia doing off that list?

These are the ten countries with the highest standard of living. All are mixed economies with strong business incentives-- some capitalism some social programs, with a strong social safety net. None are pure capitalism. The United States is not a pure capitalist country no matter what we would like to think. Compare the different economies and you will find some common themes.

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
6.5 Swilatia
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland


I have no idea what fact book HE was using. I found it and corrected it for ya though! :D

Capitalism is doomed to fail, just as slavery and feudalism. Society, as a whole, is evolutionary, socialism is the next step. The idea that large scale communism does not work is incorrect. Human beings have not yet achieved large scale, fully practicicing, communism. All communist countries have in fact been socialist. These countries, however, differentiate themselves from the bourgeois-socialism of Scandinavia. The communist countries were building communism; many failed, but some had success.

The most successful communist countries to date are Cuba, Vietnam, and China. Cuba, because even though they do not have a huge economy, they have maintained socialism with the United States breathing down their necks. They have managed to create a modern public health care and education system. Calling Cuba fascist is an incorrect label. Although they have authoritarian aspects, they have democratic aspects as well. Religion has been free for the past decade, and grassroots democracy (democracy on a local level) has been an important aspect of the Cuban Revolution. Vietnam has fought back the imperialist menace, in the forms of France and the United States. They have created a robust economy (I believe the 4th fastest growing), and they have a semi-democratic republic. I use the term semi-democratic, because authoritarianism still has a role in the country. Yes, it is true that the Communist Party of Vietnam is the only major legal party, but members of parliament do not have to be members of the CP. China, which continues to be the most authoritarian, is an interesting case. Many say that China abandoned socialism for capitalism. This is not true. Though the Chinese have resorted to a market economy, many socialist aspects remain. China is a successful communist nation, because since the Chinese Revolution, the poverty rate has gone from 50% to 8% (Data from Wikipedia, which got those numbers from the World Bank). In a large country such as China, this would mean millions of people have been given a better life. Laos falls into the same category as Vietnam, but their nation has historically been very poor. North Korea is not a communist nation. Communism is a ploy used by Kim Jong Il to fool his people to believing they are in control. Juche does not respect the interests of the people.

In conclusion, capitalism is an extremely flawed system, and will be replaced by socialism. This socialism will eventually evolve into communism; a classless society.

we all know that large scale communism cannot work becuase of iuts obvious aversions to human nature and true eqaulity, however, that does not meen that capitalism is realy the bst kind of polotics we can have.
Over the past 2 decades almost every war fought has involved a large western country seeking to gain profit and thus this begs the quesrtion what are we fighting for if not to line the profits of the slave drivers and social minorities who influence our people and enslave the poor to lives of nothing and ridicule; i say more money on social welfare and caring for the poor and less on sending solidiers to iraq to fight someone elses war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Before you insult capitalism again, please learn to spell.

Capitalism is doomed to fail, just as slavery and feudalism. Society, as a whole, is evolutionary, socialism is the next step. The idea that large scale communism does not work is incorrect. Human beings have not yet achieved large scale, fully practicicing, communism. All communist countries have in fact been socialist. These countries, however, differentiate themselves from the bourgeois-socialism of Scandinavia. The communist countries were building communism; many failed, but some had success.

The most successful communist countries to date are Cuba, Vietnam, and China. Cuba, because even though they do not have a huge economy, they have maintained socialism with the United States breathing down their necks. They have managed to create a modern public health care and education system. Calling Cuba fascist is an incorrect label. Although they have authoritarian aspects, they have democratic aspects as well. Religion has been free for the past decade, and grassroots democracy (democracy on a local level) has been an important aspect of the Cuban Revolution. Vietnam has fought back the imperialist menace, in the forms of France and the United States. They have created a robust economy (I believe the 4th fastest growing), and they have a semi-democratic republic. I use the term semi-democratic, because authoritarianism still has a role in the country. Yes, it is true that the Communist Party of Vietnam is the only major legal party, but members of parliament do not have to be members of the CP. China, which continues to be the most authoritarian, is an interesting case. Many say that China abandoned socialism for capitalism. This is not true. Though the Chinese have resorted to a market economy, many socialist aspects remain. China is a successful communist nation, because since the Chinese Revolution, the poverty rate has gone from 50% to 8% (Data from Wikipedia, which got those numbers from the World Bank). In a large country such as China, this would mean millions of people have been given a better life. Laos falls into the same category as Vietnam, but their nation has historically been very poor. North Korea is not a communist nation. Communism is a ploy used by Kim Jong Il to fool his people to believing they are in control. Juche does not respect the interests of the people.

In conclusion, capitalism is an extremely flawed system, and will be replaced by socialism. This socialism will eventually evolve into communism; a classless society.

By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.

These are the ten countries with the highest standard of living. All are mixed economies with strong business incentives-- some capitalism some social programs, with a strong social safety net. None are pure capitalism. The United States is not a pure capitalist country no matter what we would like to think. Compare the different economies and you will find some common themes.

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland


Looking at the top five, it is clear that consitutional monarchy is the way to go.

By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.

He is. 3 successful nations =/= successful system.

Looking at the top five, it is clear that consitutional monarchy is the way to go.

Not if you're the UK...

3 nations out of a handful, maybe 30 tops. Yes, failures are inevitable when you implement a system that is young. Communism ruling a nation is less than 100 years old.

Not if you're the UK...

The UK's obviously not doing it properly then.

3 nations out of a handful, maybe 30 tops. Yes, failures are inevitable when you implement a system that is young. Communism ruling a nation is less than 100 years old.

Communism fails because it doesn't accept human nature.

Personally ... I'm an anarcho-capitalist ... I think we can opperate without government.

The argument that capitalism caused wars is absurd. Governments cause wars ... not Capitalism.

we all know that large scale communism cannot work becuase of iuts obvious aversions to human nature and true eqaulity, however, that does not meen that capitalism is realy the bst kind of polotics we can have.
Over the past 2 decades almost every war fought has involved a large western country seeking to gain profit and thus this begs the quesrtion what are we fighting for if not to line the profits of the slave drivers and social minorities who influence our people and enslave the poor to lives of nothing and ridicule; i say more money on social welfare and caring for the poor and less on sending solidiers to iraq to fight someone elses war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As an answer to your question: No, capitalism is not the only model. Second, communism can work. What occurred in the Soviet Union was not communism. It was totalitarian bureaucratic collectivism cum state capitalism. Organizationally, it bears no similarity to what socialism or communism seek to accomplish. Communism was merely a facade used to provide justification.

Communism fails because it doesn't accept human nature.

Personally ... I'm an anarcho-capitalist ... I think we can opperate without government.

The argument that capitalism caused wars is absurd. Governments cause wars ... not Capitalism.

Explain the countless interventions that the US undertook during the early 1900s. Those were all done to protect the profits of large corporations.

*A huge rant by Michaelic France*

ZOMG! A Leninist!

Capitalism is doomed to fail, just as slavery and feudalism. Society, as a whole, is evolutionary, socialism is the next step. The idea that large scale communism does not work is incorrect. Human beings have not yet achieved large scale, fully practicicing, communism. All communist countries have in fact been socialist. These countries, however, differentiate themselves from the bourgeois-socialism of Scandinavia. The communist countries were building communism; many failed, but some had success.

How do we reach communism? That is the problem with this next step socialists keep referring to, whether it Hegelian or evolutionary or whatever.

The most successful communist countries to date are Cuba, Vietnam, and China. Cuba, because even though they do not have a huge economy, they have maintained socialism with the United States breathing down their necks. They have managed to create a modern public health care and education system. Calling Cuba fascist is an incorrect label. Although they have authoritarian aspects, they have democratic aspects as well. Religion has been free for the past decade, and grassroots democracy (democracy on a local level) has been an important aspect of the Cuban Revolution. Vietnam has fought back the imperialist menace, in the forms of France and the United States. They have created a robust economy (I believe the 4th fastest growing), and they have a semi-democratic republic. I use the term semi-democratic, because authoritarianism still has a role in the country. Yes, it is true that the Communist Party of Vietnam is the only major legal party, but members of parliament do not have to be members of the CP. China, which continues to be the most authoritarian, is an interesting case. Many say that China abandoned socialism for capitalism. This is not true. Though the Chinese have resorted to a market economy, many socialist aspects remain. China is a successful communist nation, because since the Chinese Revolution, the poverty rate has gone from 50% to 8% (Data from Wikipedia, which got those numbers from the World Bank). In a large country such as China, this would mean millions of people have been given a better life. Laos falls into the same category as Vietnam, but their nation has historically been very poor. North Korea is not a communist nation. Communism is a ploy used by Kim Jong Il to fool his people to believing they are in control. Juche does not respect the interests of the people.

China:

China's economy during the last quarter century has changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade to a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy. Reforms started in the late 1970s with the phasing out of collectivized agriculture, and expanded to include the gradual liberalization of prices, fiscal decentralization, increased autonomy for state enterprises, the foundation of a diversified banking system, the development of stock markets, the rapid growth of the non-state sector, and the opening to foreign trade and investment. China has generally implemented reforms in a gradualist or piecemeal fashion. The process continues with key moves in 2005 including the sale of equity in China's largest state banks to foreign investors and refinements in foreign exchange and bond markets. The restructuring of the economy and resulting efficiency gains have contributed to a more than tenfold increase in GDP since 1978. Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2005 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still lower middle-income and 150 million Chinese fall below international poverty lines. Economic development has generally been more rapid in coastal provinces than in the interior, and there are large disparities in per capita income between regions. The government has struggled to: (a) sustain adequate job growth for tens of millions of workers laid off from state-owned enterprises, migrants, and new entrants to the work force; (b) reduce corruption and other economic crimes; and (c) contain environmental damage and social strife related to the economy's rapid transformation. From 100 to 150 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs.

Unemployment Rate:
9% official registered unemployment in urban areas in 2004; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas; an official Chinese journal estimated overall unemployment (including rural areas) for 2003 at 20% (2005 est.)

Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 2.4%
highest 10%: 30.4% (1998)


China was communist but is rapidly abandoning it for a more liberal market.

What does the say for your evolutionary progression?


Vietnam:

Vietnam is a densely-populated, developing country that in the last 30 years has had to recover from the ravages of war, the loss of financial support from the old Soviet Bloc, and the rigidities of a centrally-planned economy. Substantial progress was achieved from 1986 to 1997 in moving forward from an extremely low level of development and significantly reducing poverty. Growth averaged around 9% per year from 1993 to 1997. The 1997 Asian financial crisis highlighted the problems in the Vietnamese economy and temporarily allowed opponents of reform to slow progress toward a market-oriented economy. GDP growth averaged 6.8% per year from 1997 to 2004 even against the background of the Asian financial crisis and a global recession, and growth hit 8% in 2005. Since 2001, however, Vietnamese authorities have reaffirmed their commitment to economic liberalization and international integration. They have moved to implement the structural reforms needed to modernize the economy and to produce more competitive, export-driven industries. Vietnam's membership in the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and entry into force of the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement in December 2001 have led to even more rapid changes in Vietnam's trade and economic regime. Vietnam's exports to the US doubled in 2002 and again in 2003. Vietnam hopes to become a member of the WTO in 2006. Among other benefits, accession would allow Vietnam to take advantage of the phase out of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which eliminated quotas on textiles and clothing for WTO partners on 1 January 2005. Agriculture's share of economic output has continued to shrink, from about 25% in 2000 to 21% in 2005. Deep poverty, defined as a percent of the population living under $1 per day, has declined significantly and is now smaller than that of China, India, and the Philippines. Vietnam is working to promote job creation to keep up with the country's high population growth rate. However, high levels of inflation have prompted Vietnamese authorities to tighten monetary and fiscal policies.

Vietnam's rapid growth and decline of poverty has been triggered by economic liberalization.

Laos as well has experienced some growth due to market oriented policies.


Cuba, while its economy is not strong at all, is hard to condemn because of the enormous shit the US has been taking on them for the last four decades, but it is still far too authoritarian to be considered remotely socialist or communistic. The state owns Cuba, not the people.

In conclusion, capitalism is an extremely flawed system, and will be replaced by socialism. This socialism will eventually evolve into communism; a classless society.

Capitalism, in a true form, is still a flawed system because it works with limited resources, however, it is the best system, and may actually lead to communism.

Explain the countless interventions that the US undertook during the early 1900s. Those were all done to protect the profits of large corporations.

That's protectionism.

We need to take a look at the examples we have of succesful nations. The nations listed earlier in this thread are examples of mixed economic systems. If it is any indication, maybe a mixed economic system is the best choice. Pure capitalism most likely won't work, and neither will pure communism. Pure capitalism will most likely result in a disintegration of the middle class due to extremely powerful business leaders running the show. Pure communism is doomed to fail because it has no regard for human nature and it provides little incentive for the individual worker. While I am a moderate capitalist, I realize that some sort of government intervention is necessary to keep a country functioning.

In reply to your question, We can't really be sure if Capitalism is the best model because we have no example of a pure capitalist society. Keep in mind, we also have no example of a functioning, pure communist nation either. Heed these wise words: "If the shoe fits, wear it." If a mixed economy works, why not use it?

That's protectionism.

So then, "pure capitalism" has never existed, and so we have nothing draw on. I think what he meant by capitalism is modern corporate mercantilism which has caused many wars.

Please, please tell me the OP didn't refer to Capitalism as a political system, because it's definately not. Capitalism is an economic system, two very distinct and different things.

But anyway, one of the many reasons that Communistic systems of economics fail is the rediculous iron-fisted approach, which basically says, "OK, we're going to make 10,000 cars this year. Each one will be assigned to an owner by us. If you're not on the list, well, sucks to be you (as my econ. teacher puts it)." That, plus the overwhelming possibilities for inefficiencies in the government (i.e. bribes, illicit deals with government officials, and the like), which is why no system works like Capitalism.

Face it, China's only strong economically because it's inching closer and closer to Capitalism; Cuba's only slightly strong (I'm using strong here in the loosest way possible) because of the enormous sympathy from the rest of the world (oh, poor them, being forced to be near the United States... here's some aid money. Put it to good use!); how can you say North Korea is a strong nation, like, nearly half of the population can't afford to even feed themselves, let alone afford any sort of luxury.

Oh, and if capitalism is so bad, MF, why does it take the combined economic power of industrialized Europe (the EU) to match that of the US alone? Apparently we're doing something right.

Yes, capitalism is the best. Yay money.

How do we reach communism? That is the problem with this next step socialists keep referring to, whether it Hegelian or evolutionary or whatever.

China was communist but is rapidly abandoning it for a more liberal market.

What does the say for your evolutionary progression?

Vietnam's rapid growth and decline of poverty has been triggered by economic liberalization.

Laos as well has experienced some growth due to market oriented policies.

Cuba, while its economy is not strong at all, is hard to condemn because of the enormous shit the US has been taking on them for the last four decades, but it is still far too authoritarian to be considered remotely socialist or communistic. The state owns Cuba, not the people.

Capitalism, in a true form, is still a flawed system because it works with limited resources, however, it is the best system, and may actually lead to communism.

All of those countries were never communist to begin with. They were state capitalist regimes, and bear no resemblance to either Marxian communism (or socialism for that matter) or pre-Marxian communism. And the people who are benefitng the most from the privatizations are the state elites. In Russia, the old Communist Party hierarchy is now the new bougoeis elite. Isn't propaganda great? ;)

As for pute capitalism evolving into communism, that's an angle I've never heard before. Could you elaborate.

I personally believe that Corporatism is the best economic model. Simply put, it makes sense. For the workers, for society at large, corporatism really makes the most out of the laws of supply and demand without placing any undue burden on corporations.

I personally believe that Corporatism is the best economic model. Simply put, it makes sense. For the workers, for society at large, corporatism really makes the most out of the laws of supply and demand without placing any undue burden on corporations.

Yay authoritarian centrism. :rolleyes:

So then, "pure capitalism" has never existed, and so we have nothing draw on. I think what he meant by capitalism is modern corporate mercantilism which has caused many wars.

Pure capitalism has never existed, just as pure socialism has probably never existed. And modern corporate mercantilism has indeed caused almost every war we've ever fought. That, and imperialist fetishes.

Yay authoritarian centrism. :rolleyes:

Bah. I'll explain. The way that corporatism works is that it severely reduces the labor pool. The feminist movement, the civil rights movement, affirmative action, immigration for work and so forth and so on really miss the point.

All that any of that does is inflates the labour pool. According to the laws of supply and demand, what happens when supply goes up?

Pure capitalism has never existed, just as pure socialism has probably never existed. And modern corporate mercantilism has indeed caused almost every war we've ever fought. That, and imperialist fetishes.

"I think that country would look good in my empire" ;)

I personally believe that Corporatism is the best economic model. Simply put, it makes sense. For the workers, for society at large, corporatism really makes the most out of the laws of supply and demand without placing any undue burden on corporations.

You obviously know nothing about economics.

You obviously know nothing about economics.

Read post 28.

"I think that country would look good in my empire" ;)

That's pretty much it. :(

Bah. I'll explain. The way that corporatism works is that it severely reduces the labor pool. The feminist movement, the civil rights movement, affirmative action, immigration for work and so forth and so on really miss the point.

All that any of that does is inflates the labour pool. According to the laws of supply and demand, what happens when supply goes up?

Reduce the labor pool? How does one accomplish that? The only way I can think of is the way all corporatist regimes have dealt with the problem: mass executions.

You obviously know nothing about economics.

Corporatism must be the most evil force in the world, because it can unite both right and left libertarians against a common foe.

Corporatism must be the most evil force in the world, because it can unite both right and left libertarians against a common foe.

Then again, neoconservatism does the same thing. ;)

All of those countries were never communist to begin with. They were state capitalist regimes, and bear no resemblance to either Marxian communism (or socialism for that matter) or pre-Marxian communism. And the people who are benefitng the most from the privatizations are the state elites. In Russia, the old Communist Party hierarchy is now the new bougoeis elite. Isn't propaganda great? ;)

The Russian privatisation was shite. That country is screwed for a while.

As for pute capitalism evolving into communism, that's an angle I've never heard before. Could you elaborate.

Whereas most people see capitalism as a centralizing economic effect, that is because the growth of capitalism has been tempered by liberal cartelization. Say what you want for the benefits of market regulation, the definite downfall of market regulation is the benefit of some of the private sector over another in the forms of competition. Combine that with the fact that government always greases the squeaky wheel (and the rich can make the most noise), and you have a recipe for monopolization and pooling of resources.

It is also quite plain that the market rewards collective action (insurance, corporations, unions, etc.). When individuals want to succeed in the market, the surest way to do so is to pool resources, specialize labor, and hedge risk, all of which is done through purposeful collective action. It is another indirect result of the regulation of the market that limits this collective action. All regulation in the market skews the decision making processes of the individual, and if regulation provides some of the benefits of collective action for free (it isn't actually free, but we tend to think of taxes as given, union dues as a burden), then rational individual behavior will not tend toward collective action.

In the end, I think that the freeing of the market will not only decentralize resources and production through increased competition, but it will also encourage and often necessitate collective action amongst all economic parties.

For any true progression to be made to and within a free market there must be a social revolution as well, where people must act self-sufficient individuals, rather than government stock. This is the central problem I see with socialism, it encourages individuals to be government stock rather than self-sufficient individuals, and economic dependency is the root of all class inequity.

Bah. I'll explain. The way that corporatism works is that it severely reduces the labor pool. The feminist movement, the civil rights movement, affirmative action, immigration for work and so forth and so on really miss the point.

All that any of that does is inflates the labour pool. According to the laws of supply and demand, what happens when supply goes up?

Starvation and growing illiteracy reduces the labor pool, does corporatism cause those?

Then again, neoconservatism does the same thing. ;)

That one is hopefully on its way out. Damn rabidly pro-military former socialists.

Reduce the labor pool? How does one accomplish that? The only way I can think of is the way all corporatist regimes have dealt with the problem: mass executions.

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

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

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

Reductions in the labor pool.

These workers obviously got paid more in the resulting labor shortage.

That one is hopefully on its way out. Damn rabidly pro-military former socialists.

On second thought, neoconservatism basically is corporatism. It's fascism lite.

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

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

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

Reductions in the labor pool.

These workers obviously got paid more in the resulting labor shortage.

Final Solution, anybody? :rolleyes:

I would say the best economic system in practice is regulated capitalism. I dont mean regulations that impede the market, just ones that keep the markets functioning correctly. Sure pure free-market capitalism with no intervention, taxation, etc sounds like a wonderful idea, but it ends up being as theoretical and would be just as frightening as pure communism.

Reduce the labor pool? How does one accomplish that? The only way I can think of is the way all corporatist regimes have dealt with the problem: mass executions.

No, not quite. Generally, Corporatism reduces the labor pool in the following ways:

A) By illegalizing foreign labor and outsourcing, both internally and in other countries.
B) By allowing only men to work
C)By restricting exportation

I would say the best economic system in practice is regulated capitalism. I dont mean regulations that impede the market, just ones that keep the markets functioning correctly. Sure pure free-market capitalism with no intervention, taxation, etc sounds like a wonderful idea, but it ends up being as theoretical and would be just as frightening as pure communism.

Why is pure communism frightening?

No, not quite. Generally, Corporatism reduces the labor pool in the following ways:

A) By illegalizing foreign labor and outsourcing, both internally and in other countries.
B) By allowing only men to work
C)By restricting exportation

That's corporatism?

Bah. I'll explain. The way that corporatism works is that it severely reduces the labor pool. The feminist movement, the civil rights movement, affirmative action, immigration for work and so forth and so on really miss the point.

All that any of that does is inflates the labour pool. According to the laws of supply and demand, what happens when supply goes up?

In general increases in the labor supply cause economic growth. More workers equals more output equals more jobs, in general.

No, not quite. Generally, Corporatism reduces the labor pool in the following ways:

A) By illegalizing foreign labor and outsourcing, both internally and in other countries.
B) By allowing only men to work
C)By restricting exportation

A) Ultranationalist protectionism
B) Chauvanistic misogny. WITCH will come for you too!
C) Just plain dumb

In general increases in the labor supply cause economic growth. More workers equals more output equals more jobs, in general.

Not when there is already a surplus of jobs. Consider the urban areas in the 3rd world.

Why is pure communism frightening?

He probably doesn't know what communism is. Poor uneducated sap.

Not when there is already a surplus of jobs. Consider the urban areas in the 3rd world.

If there is a surplus of jobs then there should be low unemployment and wages should go up because jobs are plentiful and workers are scarce.

I would say the best economic system in practice is regulated capitalism. I dont mean regulations that impede the market, just ones that keep the markets functioning correctly. Sure pure free-market capitalism with no intervention, taxation, etc sounds like a wonderful idea, but it ends up being as theoretical and would be just as frightening as pure communism.

Pure communism would be a stateless, classless society, with no rich, poor, middle-class, etc. Everyone would be fully equal. Granted, I don't think such a society is possible, but it's not an unpleasant idea.

That's corporatism?

Not exactly, that's more along the lines of what corporatism employs to get the job done.

In essence, Corporatism is an ultra nationalist, ultra protectionist economic system which more or less recreates the midieval guilt system.

The government has the corporations meet basic labour standards (minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc) and aim their production to the good of the state, and likewise corporations are given special legislative priveledges.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/corporatism

If there is a surplus of jobs then there should be low unemployment and wages should go up because jobs are plentiful and workers are scarce.

Dammit, I used the wrong word. That doesn't work when there is a deficit of jobs and a surplus of labor.

Not exactly, that's more along the lines of what corporatism employs to get the job done.

In essence, Corporatism is an ultra nationalist, ultra protectionist economic system which more or less recreates the midieval guilt system.

The government has the corporations meet basic labour standards (minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc) and aim their production to the good of the state, and likewise corporations are given special legislative priveledges.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/corporatism

Refer to my post above.

He probably doesn't know what communism is. Poor uneducated sap.

If you checked out my nation you would find out I am the delegate for the Marxist Leninist Party. All my NS friends are Marxists and I have studied the history of socialism, communism and how it was applied in socialist countries. Please do not call me uneducated.

I am talking about the Soviet model of communism - ALL state planning, complete price and wage controls, no choice of employment. The pureist version of this could be hell.

I am not saying socialism would be impossible to achieve, however it would have to radically different then it has been applied thus far. Perhaps a Socialist market economy? What we have learned is that state-economic planning in the long term always leds to trouble.

A) Ultranationalist protectionism

Yes, it is. I believe in ultranationalist protectionism.

B) Chauvanistic misogny.

What's your point? I don't care about the rights of special interest groups.

C) Just plain dumb

You say so. I disagree.

According to the laws of supply and demand, what happens when supply goes up?

What happens when demand goes down?

Honestly... I'm not an economic rightist, but they're right about people who think they can get something for nothing.

Pure communism would be a stateless, classless society, with no rich, poor, middle-class, etc. Everyone would be fully equal. Granted, I don't think such a society is possible, but it's not an unpleasant idea.

but where is the fun in that?! :D

j/k

Dammit, I used the wrong word. That doesn't work when there is a deficit of jobs and a surplus of labor.

Of course not, but why do you think that the demand for labor will stay constant?

Not only are you reducing the labor pool, but also the consumer pool.

State Socialism = Bad, Caused the death of Millions, will inevitably lead to Totalitarianism
State Capitalism = Bad, Corporatism, will inevitably lead to Totalitarianism
Stateless Socialism/Communism = Good in Theory, Doesn't take into account human nature
Middle of the Road Interventionalism = Will inevitably lead to either State Capitalism or State Socialism

I'm fully in support of Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism taken to it's logical conclusion: Agorism (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=agorism).

It is the only system that takes into account human nature, historical evidence, intelligent economics, and plus, it's feasible to achieve even on the current path we're on now. All that it requires is for people to continue to use the black market and do things like evade taxes, sell drugs, and pirate movies. It's in human nature, and will ultimately lead to the destruction of the state.

Not only are you reducing the labor pool, but also the consumer pool.

Reducing the consumer pool isn't a bad thing either. Less buyers equals lower prices.

Reducing the consumer pool isn't a bad thing either. Less buyers equals lower prices.

I think this was already stated, but you obviously know nothing about economics.

Reducing the consumer pool isn't a bad thing either. Less buyers equals lower prices.

And less demand for labor. Less demand for labor equals lower wages. Your brilliant solution is no solution at all.

And less demand for labor. Less demand for labor equals lower wages. Your brilliant solution is no solution at all.

Not necessarily the case. There is no reason to believe that there would be less demand for labor. If anything, one would be inclined to believe that there would be increased production to make up for the loss.

Not necessarily the case. There is no reason to believe that there would be less demand for labor.

So corporations would try to hire the same number of workers to produce the same quantity of goods as before, even though the demand for those goods would have fallen drastically?

Why produce goods no one can afford?

If anything, one would be inclined to believe that there would be increased production to make up for the loss.

"Increased production" to meet less demand?

Dammit, I used the wrong word. That doesn't work when there is a deficit of jobs and a surplus of labor.

Then there should be government intervention to create jobs. It can have the unemployed build public works and infrastructure, efforts to make the country seem like a good area to invest in, job training, ect. Artificially lowering the labor force reduces total output making everyone worse off.

So corporations would try to hire the same number of workers to produce the same quantity of goods as before, even though the demand for those goods would have fallen drastically?


That's just the point. According to economics, there is unlimited demand for certain products.

Then there should be government intervention to create jobs. It can have the unemployed build public works and infrastructure, efforts to make the country seem like a good area to invest in, job training, ect. Artificially lowering the labor force reduces total output making everyone worse off.

Government intervention will not solve anything. If they really want to help the poor, they should abolish minimum wage laws that cause unemployment and allow the people to finally rule themselves, through the hyperdemocratic method of the free market. But will the government do this, even though countless volumes of evidence has been presented to prove it? Hell no, they like that there are poor people. As long as people are being downtrodden and oppressed, the government has a way to legitimize it's existence by blaming someone else and then swooping in like Robin Hood to save the day.

Government intervention will not solve anything. If they really want to help the poor, they should abolish minimum wage laws that cause unemployment and allow the people to finally rule themselves, through the hyperdemocratic method of the free market. But will the government do this, even though countless volumes of evidence has been presented to prove it? Hell no, they like that there are poor people. As long as people are being downtrodden and oppressed, the government has a way to legitimize it's existence by blaming someone else and then swooping in like Robin Hood to save the day.

In theory...yes, but in reality what happens if wages are lowered to much? The people would just leave to a higher wage region. Who would be the first to leave? The best and brightest, and this would severly cripple the economy's ability to recover in the long run.

That's just the point. According to economics, there is unlimited demand for certain products.

Perhaps if the prices of the products are zero; not otherwise.

through the hyperdemocratic method of the free market.

I think you need to rethink your conception of democracy.

In theory...yes, but in reality what happens if wages are lowered to much? The people would just leave to a higher wage region. Who would be the first to leave? The best and brightest, and this would severly cripple the economy's ability to recover in the long run.

Why would the best and brightest leave? How would eliminating the minimum wage affect the best and the brightest? None of the best and the brightest care about the minimum wage laws because they get paid far above the artificial minimum wage set by the government.

The minimum wage forces employers to pay existing workers more for work they would voluntarily choose to do for less pay. This price tampering causes employers to have less money to pay to other workers, forcing them to fire more people, raising unemployment, and further lowering the standard of living for the poor.

Government intervention will not solve anything. If they really want to help the poor, they should abolish minimum wage laws that cause unemployment and allow the people to finally rule themselves, through the hyperdemocratic method of the free market. But will the government do this, even though countless volumes of evidence has been presented to prove it? Hell no, they like that there are poor people. As long as people are being downtrodden and oppressed, the government has a way to legitimize it's existence by blaming someone else and then swooping in like Robin Hood to save the day.

I only called for government intervention in the case of 3rd nations with large unemployment rates. These countries don't have minimum wage laws, and the exact trade-off of rise in umeployment to rise in wages is debateable. There will always be the relative poor in the foreseeable. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other nations all acheived rapid growth under government intervention. Does that mean there should be more government intervention? No. They worked in certain situations, but there's no certainty it'll work again in the future.

I think you need to rethink your conception of democracy.

Democracy is majoritarian rule, it is the tyranny of the majority.

Hyperdemocracy is one way of saying unanimous consent.

Democracy is majoritarian rule, it is the tyranny of the majority.

Hyperdemocracy is one way of saying unanimous consent.

So since the market comes about out of the collective actions of many individual buyers and sellers the market is hypercollectivists?

I only called for government intervention in the case of 3rd nations with large unemployment rates. These countries don't have minimum wage laws, and the exact trade-off of rise in umeployment to rise in wages is debateable. There will always be the relative poor in the foreseeable. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other nations all acheived rapid growth under government intervention. Does that mean there should be more government intervention? No. They worked in certain situations, but there's no certainty it'll work again in the future.

No, if you really want to help the poor in 3rd world countries, then let big 1st world companies come in and build what some people refer to as "sweat shops" that in reality pay more than the sustenance farming that the citizens of the country would normally be doing.

Hyperdemocracy is one way of saying unanimous consent.

Unanimous consent is hyperundemocratic. It is tyranny of the minority.

So since the market comes about out of the collective actions of many individual buyers and sellers the market is hypercollectivists?

In one sense, however, the free market takes into account each and every single individual. For if there is a demand for a good or service, then someone is there to make money off of it by providing the supply. However, collectivism as a philosophy claims that a group can be a moral agent and hence can be held responsible for actions and have rights, which runs contrary to what the market does.

No, if you really want to help the poor in 3rd world countries, then let big 1st world companies come in and build what some people refer to as "sweat shops" that in reality pay more than the sustenance farming that the citizens of the country would normally be doing.

I stated that governments should make their countries seem like good places to invest in.

However, collectivism as a philosophy claims that a group can be a moral agent

What are you talking about?

Unanimous consent is hyperundemocratic. It is tyranny of the minority.

Perhaps you are confused about the term Unanimous Consent. Unanimous Consent does not mean that for a single individual to do an action, he requires the approval of every single other individual. Unanimous Consent refers to the theory that a group can onle do an action with the Unanimous Consent of it's members.

For example, when one goes out with his friends to order a pizza, and one person disagrees with the toppings, they can always choose to order a personal pizza just for himself, effectively seceding from the pizza ordering group. However, if he values being in that group more than pizza toppings, he might choose to suffer on behalf of the group, or vice versa. The point is, no one was coerced into doing it.

I stated that governments should make their countries seem like good places to invest in.

Excuse me, I thought you said that 3rd world countries should intervene in the market in order to do so.

What are you talking about?

"As a moral philosophy, collectivism recognizes groups as potential moral agents."

"In politics, collectivism is an emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of different classes or groups, and proposes collective strategies for improving the conditions of those classes and groups considered to be disadvantaged."

Perhaps you are confused about the term Unanimous Consent. Unanimous Consent does not mean that for a single individual to do an action, he requires the approval of every single other individual. Unanimous Consent refers to the theory that a group can onle do an action with the Unanimous Consent of it's members.

No, I know what you meant. It's still hyperundemocratic, at least as long as society is not based purely on the principle of free association - as modern society cannot be.

"As a moral philosophy, collectivism recognizes groups as potential moral agents."

"In politics, collectivism is an emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of different classes or groups, and proposes collective strategies for improving the conditions of those classes and groups considered to be disadvantaged."

Where are you quoting from?

Excuse me, I thought you said that 3rd world countries should intervene in the market in order to do so.

I said the government intervene, but didn't neccesarily mean in the market per se. Guaranteeing property rights, contract law, having no corporate income taxes, building a stable currency, ect. All government actions or inactions that make a place look like a place to invest in.

No, I know what you meant. It's still hyperundemocratic, at least as long as society is not based purely on the principle of free association - as modern society cannot be.

You are right that it focuses on the principle of free association. Also, society is not based completely on that principle currently, that is true. However, modern society can be based on that principle, all that it requires is for people to reject their positive obligations to organizations that they did not voluntarily choose to become a part of.

Where are you quoting from?

Ooops, sorry, I meant to post a link in there, here you go, Black Crayon (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=collectivism).

Feel free to define it however you want though, this is just what I take it to mean. Also, if you check other dictionaries, they won't be too different.

However, modern society can be based on that principle, all that it requires is for people to reject their positive obligations to organizations that they did not voluntarily choose to become a part of.

In a society based upon specialization and the division of labor, so-called "voluntary consent" is fairly meaningless with regard to the economy.

What you are proposing, therefore, is a ban upon employment and exchange.

I said the government intervene, but didn't neccesarily mean in the market per se. Guaranteeing property rights, contract law, having no corporate income taxes, building a stable currency, ect. All government actions or inactions that make a place look like a place to invest in.

I agree that the ideal government should work towards those goals, excluding currency building, which should be purely a free market function, however, I don't think that it's in government's best interest to do so. Also, I believe the free market could take care of these things far better than government could.

Also, if you check other dictionaries, they won't be too different.

Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.[1] The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are often related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. [2]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism)

My problem is with the use of "moral agent," which obviously does not belong with reference to a group qua group (though perhaps with reference to the individuals of which it is comprised.)

In a society based upon specialization and the division of labor, so-called "voluntary consent" is fairly meaningless with regard to the economy.

What you are proposing, therefore, is a ban upon employment and exchange.

Hardly!

Again, I don't think you understand what I mean by Unanimous Consent. The market, for the most part, runs on the principles of free association and unanimous consent. If you don't like canned peaches, you don't have to buy them, or make them, or stock them in your store, or work for a company that produces them. An employee voluntarily chooses to work in a canned peaches factory because he believes that it will make him more money, or give him more benefits, or because he loves peaches, or for whatever reason, the point is he voluntarily chooses to associate in such a function. The same goes for the distributer, the retailer, and the consumer. None of them are forced to participate in the canned peaches economy, they all choose to do so voluntarily.

I agree that the ideal government should work towards those goals, excluding currency building, which should be purely a free market function, however, I don't think that it's in government's best interest to do so. Also, I believe the free market could take care of these things far better than government could.

Do you really believe that companies would trust the currencies of non-goverment bodies in 3rd world countries?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism)

My problem is with the use of "moral agent," which obviously does not belong with reference to a group qua group (though perhaps with reference to the individuals of which it is comprised.)

But collectivism states that the group is somehow more than simply the sum of it's parts and can be held responsible collectively for some action done by one of it's members, doesn't it?

Hardly!

Again, I don't think you understand what I mean by Unanimous Consent.

Yes, I do. You just missed my point.

None of them are forced to participate in the canned peaches economy, they all choose to do so voluntarily.

Doesn't a person comply with force because she thinks it will benefit her?

The reason, after all, that a person obeys the guard with the gun is that she derives more benefit from obedience (and not getting shot) than from disobedience.

But collectivism states that the group is somehow more than simply the sum of it's parts

Depends on what you mean by that.

Collectivists might argue that collective action is more productive than individual action, but not necessarily that the group has value independent of its utility to its members.

and can be held responsible collectively for some action done by one of it's members,

No. But most collectivists reject the notion that negative rights are the only legitimate rights, and thus might hold individuals responsible for their individual failure to positively act to prevent wrongdoing.

Do you really believe that companies would trust the currencies of non-goverment bodies in 3rd world countries?

Why wouldn't they? Currencies arise because they are required to facilitate the trade of goods and services as a medium of exchange. Anything can be a currency, whether gold, silver, corn, wheat, or anything considered to be valuable to the customer (person who's getting it). These are things that are far more trustworthy than paper bills supposedly backed by "real" money somewhere. Fiat currencies, subject to government control, are far more likely to be less trustworthy and are more subject to inflation because they can inflate it as much as they want without fear of losing it's status as a medium of exchange.

For example, the US dollar, thanks to the US government's multi-trillion dollar debt, has inflated to less than a dime of what it was worth at it's initial founding.

Whereas gold, the substance the dollar is supposed to be based on, has barely inflated at all in comparison.

Doesn't a person comply with force because she thinks it will benefit her?

The reason, after all, that a person obeys the guard with the gun is that she derives more benefit from obedience (and not getting shot) than from disobedience.

Sure, she derives more benefit from not being shot than disobeying, the difference is that the negative consequences of disobeying are not self-inflicted, but inflicted by an outside moral agent.

the difference is that the negative consequences of disobeying are not self-inflicted, but inflicted by an outside moral agent.

And the negative consequences of being fired are not inflicted by an outside moral agent?

Depends on what you mean by that.

Collectivists might argue that collective action is more productive than individual action, but not necessarily that the group has value independent of its utility to its members.

No. But most collectivists reject the notion that negative rights are the only legitimate rights, and thus might hold individuals responsible for their individual failure to positively act to prevent wrongdoing.

Fair enough, but because I disagree with the entire notion of positive rights, me continuing this argument would delve into that entire complicated issue. So, I'll agree with what you've said so far to that extent.

And the negative consequences of being fired are not inflicted by an outside moral agent?

But they were not born into the job, they voluntarily chose to work there, and the employer voluntarily chose to hire them. So, yes, firing them would be action on the part of the outside moral agent, the employer, but it would not be depriving the individual of any of their rights, whereas coercion would be.

Well, it looks like despite my attempts to avoid it, we've stumbled upon the rights issues.

Why wouldn't they?

Because its a poor country and the banks giving out the currnecy have a good chance of going bankrupt. Where are the poor banks going to get the money to buy enough gold, silver, or whatever to back it up?

Because its a poor country and the banks giving out the currnecy have a good chance of going bankrupt. Where are the poor banks going to get the money to buy enough gold, silver, or whatever to back it up?

Who says the banks have to be based in the country itself?

But they were not born into the job, they voluntarily chose to work there, and the employer voluntarily chose to hire them.

Yes, but they did not voluntarily choose the social and economic conditions under which they are working, which have important effects on how free they truly are.

They did not choose to live in a society where they are economically dependent upon others to a high degree, for instance.

Well, it looks like despite my attempts to avoid it, we've stumbled upon the rights issues.

Indeed. The problem is that right-libertarians have a system of rights based upon an incoherent concept of freedom, as I am trying to illustrate.

Who says the banks have to be based in the country itself?

Until 1st world nations have private currencies the market says so.

Yes, but they did not voluntarily choose the social and economic conditions under which they are working, which have important effects on how free they truly are.

They did not choose to live in a society where they are economically dependent upon others to a high degree, for instance.



Indeed. The problem is that right-libertarians have a system of rights based upon an incoherent concept of freedom, as I am trying to illustrate.

Just for reference purposes, here's a few definitions of rights, obligations, responsibilities, etc: More Black Crayon Stuff... (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=obligations)

Proceed with your illustration, it's been truly enlightening and entertaining so far.

Until 1st world nations have private currencies the market says so.

The next great depression that will inevitably occur thanks to government deficit spending and massive inflation is a little too long for many companies who have already chosen to go private with their currencies. E-Gold (http://www.e-gold.com/) is just one example in what is sure to become an expanding trend. Sure that just relates to internet payments, but as the demand expands, so will the market.
For now, however, I agree with you.;)

Just for reference purposes, here's a few definitions of rights, obligations, responsibilities, etc: More Black Crayon Stuff... (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=obligations)

Proceed with your illustration, it's been truly enlightening and entertaining so far.

The Black Crayon appears very biased in the libertarian direction. Use something more neutral.

Just for reference purposes, here's a few definitions of rights, obligations, responsibilities, etc: More Black Crayon Stuff... (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=obligations)

I can go with those.

Proceed with your illustration, it's been truly enlightening and entertaining so far.

Well, the problem is that human beings are not self-sufficient; at times we all need things we cannot acquire for ourselves. In short, if we permit people to only abide by negative rights, we encounter two problems:

1. People become enslaved by need - I need food, and only one person can provide it, so she gains completely control over me. (You may dispute that this is a likely situation, but you cannot dispute that this is a possible situation.) Such control is antithetical to freedom.
2. People are deprived of freedom simply by non-intervention. If I starve to death, and have no way of attaining food for myself, I am hardly free; I do not even have control over the basic sphere of life continuation.

The Black Crayon appears very biased in the libertarian direction. Use something more neutral.

I suppose all of these dictionaries carry with them some of the bias of their creator, however, if you think you have a better definition of these things, I'd like to hear them. What would you suggest?

The Black Crayon appears very biased in the libertarian direction. Use something more neutral.

Not very. Whoever did it clearly tries to be fair-minded with regard to leftists, but fails to understand a few key ideas.

I can go with those.



Well, the problem is that human beings are not self-sufficient; at times we all need things we cannot acquire for ourselves. In short, if we permit people to only abide by negative rights, we encounter two problems:

1. People become enslaved by need - I need food, and only one person can provide it, so she gains completely control over me. (You may dispute that this is a likely situation, but you cannot dispute that this is a possible situation.) Such control is antithetical to freedom.
2. People are deprived of freedom simply by non-intervention. If I starve to death, and have no way of attaining food for myself, I am hardly free; I do not even have control over the basic sphere of life continuation.

I would dispute that is an unlikely situation due to the nature of the free market and it's peculiar habit of weeding out monopolies on goods with a high demand. At the least, in such a prosperous economy as a completely free market would make, private charities would provide for such a need. However, for the sake of discussion, I'll accept it as a hypothetical.

What I have trouble seeing is an alternative that does not destroy negative rights in the process. If, as I see it, there can never be positive rights without the destruction of negative rights, then I can't agree with a philosophy that destroys an individual's rights for the sake of another.

I suppose all of these dictionaries carry with them some of the bias of their creator, however, if you think you have a better definition of these things, I'd like to hear them. What would you suggest?

I'd recomend Wikipedia, it has a lot of info from different perspectives, but any web dictionary would do. Perhaps some political philosophy dictionary would be informative and relatively neutral.

I'd recomend Wikipedia, it has a lot of info from different perspectives, but any web dictionary would do. Perhaps some political philosophy dictionary would be informative and relatively neutral.

Here, then, for your benefit, is the wikipedia definition of positive and negative rights: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)

Here, then, for your benefit, is the wikipedia definition of positive and negative rights: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights).

I've seen them. Its part of why I recomended wiki.

I've seen them. Its part of why I recomended wiki.

Then it's for the benefit of those who haven't. However, because the Black Crayon definitions on obligations and rights contain the same information, just in easier to understand form, and because Soheran and I both agreed to use them for the discussion, I'll continue to use them instead of the wikipedia definitions.

What I have trouble seeing is an alternative that does not destroy negative rights in the process. If, as I see it, there can never be positive rights without the destruction of negative rights, then I can't agree with a philosophy that destroys an individual's rights for the sake of another.

There is no need to destroy negative rights. All that is necessary is to stop seeing them as absolute.

Generally, I have the rights of self-ownership over myself - but when there is a compelling reason, say, protecting the freedom of others, that mandates that this right be restricted, that can be done.

Indeed, this is the whole basis of negative rights - I may have sovereignty over my body and my actions, but it is legitimate to force me to avoid using such sovereignty to violate other people's negative rights.

There is no need to destroy negative rights. All that is necessary is to stop seeing them as absolute.

Generally, I have the rights of self-ownership over myself - but when there is a compelling reason, say, protecting the freedom of others, that mandates that this right be restricted, that can be done.

Indeed, this is the whole basis of negative rights - I may have sovereignty over my body and my actions, but it is legitimate to force me to avoid using such sovereignty to violate other people's negative rights.

The idea that your self-ownership and therefore sovereignty over yourself must be restricted to exclude the initiation of force is the idea that your sphere of rightful influence ends where another person's begins. However, claiming that a person has a positive right, or right to initiate force against another person in order to make them do something that another feels is right, is essentially at least the partial destruction of one's negative rights.

However, claiming that a person has a positive right, or right to initiate force against another person in order to make them do something that another feels is right,

To do particular things. Not to do just anything.

is essentially at least the partial destruction of one's negative rights.

It's a regulation on interactions with other individuals. So are all rights.

To do particular things. Not to do just anything.

It's a regulation on interactions with other individuals. So are all rights.

I agree, but the problem I see with it is that it's a slippery slope when you start handing out positive rights... Are you allowed to initiate force in order to secure life? Or equal opportunity? Or outright and complete social and economic equality? If these things, then why not to secure personal power? Is not an individual who has both absolute negative and absolute positive freedom completely and truly free? When does it end if not at the initiation of force itself? And who decides?

And with that, I must go, it's been fun discussing such things with you. I hope you come away from this discussion with at least as much enlightenment as I did.

Oh, and if capitalism is so bad, MF, why does it take the combined economic power of industrialized Europe (the EU) to match that of the US alone? Apparently we're doing something right.

Because the US is larger and has most of the markets, but, how that bubble is going to burst. It will be very loud.

In a society based upon specialization and the division of labor, so-called "voluntary consent" is fairly meaningless with regard to the economy.

All of social contract theory is meaningless. The idea that society is a contractually agreed upon venture for the individual is a ludicrous idea.

However, we can find perceptible degrees in the rapidly diminishing levels of "consent" involved with society.

enslaved by need

There's a novel concept.

Only the dead are not enslaved by need.

Why wouldn't they? Currencies arise because they are required to facilitate the trade of goods and services as a medium of exchange. Anything can be a currency, whether gold, silver, corn, wheat, or anything considered to be valuable to the customer (person who's getting it). These are things that are far more trustworthy than paper bills supposedly backed by "real" money somewhere. Fiat currencies, subject to government control, are far more likely to be less trustworthy and are more subject to inflation because they can inflate it as much as they want without fear of losing it's status as a medium of exchange. The status as a medium of exchange is why corporations would be more likely to accept government-backed money as opposed to corporate money. Why exchange your goods for Nikebucks if no one will take them?

Fair enough, but because I disagree with the entire notion of positive rights, Except, of course, for the positive right of property.

Aristotle said men will only truly be free from slavery and drudge labor when machines can do much of the work. My favorite fictional future economic system is "Rising Income Through Cybernetic Homeostasis"-- it sounds like nonsense when you look at it now, but give it another thirty years and it won't be. Communism, socialism, and capitalism are not particularly pragmatic.

When we have citizens who are truly educated and able they will be able to throw off the chains of the elite and create a better system of economics for the betterment of all. This is because with proper education and training, the majority will be able to match the skills and ability of the elite. This will not come from a single man, but from the practical goals of the majority rather than the crazed meanderings of a single person. The world is starting to wake up.

Yes, it is. I believe in ultranationalist protectionism.

Protectionism only helps corporate leaders.

What's your point? I don't care about the rights of special interest groups.

Do you care about human rights? No wait, you're a Nazi. You don;t.

You say so. I disagree.

What does limiting exports accomplish other then recession?

First of all, this is the wrong forum,

Second, The First Gulf War was not fought for profit, it was fought for Kuwaiti liberation. If it was for profit, Bush Sr. would've continued to Baghdad or captured the oil fields. Thus, one example to disprove your statement.

Third, your "slave drivers" do not exist, as there are no longer slaves (this is all from the American perspective, mind you, as I don't care about the rest of the world as its not my jurisdiction). Also, the poor are not enslaved to lives or ridicule and nothing. They, just like everyone else, have an opportunity to succeed. However, there are a large portion of the poor who do nothing but sit on their backsides and collect welfare, the same welfare that you preach to increase. While there a some who are poor because they haven't gotten any opportunities, there are a much larger portion who are quite content with being "poor". It is quite absurd to want to support these people who do nothing by throwing more money at them. Will this make them want to get a job? Will this make them want to contribute to the economy? The answer is no. More social welfare is not the answer.

As for the touchy subject of Iraq. I find myself no longer in support for this war, but as for whose war it is, I do have a comment. If not our war, than whose? France isn't willing to fight it. Nor is Germany. Nor are the people in the middle of it. The same mistake by the public as in Vietnam is being repeated here today. We fail to see the goal we were originally trying to acomplish. Not WMDs, that was bullshit. We are trying to help a people that cannot help themselves and that no one else is willing to help. We are trying to rebuild a government and an economy for a very poor people. So in this war, we aren't helping the American poor, we are helping the Iraqi poor (i.e. the whole country) to gain both more money and more freedom.

I think it's time for you to do a little bit of deeper thinking on this, and to analyze the subject a bit more. Before ranting or posting in emotion, examine your subject more. Use a bit more reason.

Further, just out of curiosity, what age-group or range are you in?

Why should we sacrifice American lives to help people who hate Americans?

The best is finding a good balance between socialism and capitalism.

I prefer the fascist economic model. Industry is regulated by guilds made up of people in the industry instead of politicians trying to win votes.

Protectionism only helps corporate leaders.
That's right.

Free trade benefits consumers, and everyone's a consumer.

Communism fails because it doesn't accept human nature.

Personally ... I'm an anarcho-capitalist ... I think we can opperate without government.

The argument that capitalism caused wars is absurd. Governments cause wars ... not Capitalism.

Sorry I like a few laws to prevent someone with more money from walking in my house, tossing a bag of money in my hand then tell me to get the **** out.

Sorry I like a few laws to prevent someone with more money from walking in my house, tossing a bag of money in my hand then tell me to get the **** out.
It's still a free market; you're allowed to refuse a transaction.

They were state capitalist regimes,



Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Only in the lunacy of the left can the state carry out capitalism.

Why should we sacrifice American lives to help people who hate Americans?

Because we're nice.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Only in the lunacy of the left can the state carry out capitalism.
Umm, why not? It wouldn't be a free market, but that doesn't preclude it being capitalism.

Except, of course, for the positive right of property.

Owning private property is not a positive right, it is a negative right. Private property ownership is the right to not have your justly aquired property taken from you without your consent.

Owning private property is not a positive right, it is a negative right. Private property ownership is the right to not have your justly aquired property taken from you without your consent.In order for me to have a right to healthcare, you have to give up the ability to use a portion of your money (in tax dollars) to pay for it. In order for me to have a right to the land next door to you, you have to give up the ability to use the land next door to you. I see no difference between the two.

I see no difference between the two.

There is one - while protection of property rights does not require positive action on the part of others, a right to health care does, at least according to the point of view that property represents labor.

There is one - while protection of property rights does not require positive action on the part of others, a right to health care does, at least according to the point of view that property represents labor.But the creation of property rights does.

But the creation of property rights does.

You mean, their active protection?

Yes, but the same is true of all negative rights.

You mean, their active protection?

Yes, but the same is true of all negative rights.No, not their active protection; in that you are correct. The way positive rights and negative rights have been explained to me is that negative rights require me to not do something, positive rights require me to give up something, or have something taken from me.
Once everyone has relinquished their ability to use the things around them, and the system only allows an owner to do so (or someone with the owner's consent), then property rights only require protection.

No, not their active protection; in that you are correct. The way positive rights and negative rights have been explained to me is that negative rights require me to not do something, positive rights require me to give up something, or have something taken from me.

No - positive rights compel positive action, that is, doing something.

Negative rights compel negative action, that is, avoiding something.

The giving up criterion that whoever explained this to you suggested results in all negative rights being made positive; the negative right to life involves giving up my capability to murder someone, and so on.

By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.
By all that is good in this world I hope you are mistaken.

------------------------

That said, I would never, ever want to live under a communist/socialist system. And that's even if it worked how some wish/dream/think it would. I'm not even going to get into real communism! (I.E. what you really get when you try it in the real world. USSR, China etc..)

JSG Boggs the artist gives an excellent demonstration of what money is. He draws bills of different denominations which are fake and sells them for lots of money. It is a rather interesting story.

Owning private property is not a positive right, it is a negative right. Private property ownership is the right to not have your justly aquired property taken from you without your consent.

This begs the question "How did private property originate?" Archaeologists know fully well that private ownership of property (as in land and other resources) did not exist when human civilization first rose. They know it came some time later, and it came through the use of force and coercion. A community will not give up its public ownership of a resource unless there is a clear and present danger for them to not do so. What likely happened is that private property arose when those skilled at fighting demanded tribute from the farmer and the artisan to protect the community from nomads.

------------------------

That said, I would never, ever want to live under a communist/socialist system. And that's even if it worked how some wish/dream/think it would. I'm not even going to get into real communism! (I.E. what you really get when you try it in the real world. USSR, China etc..)

That's pretty moronic.
"It goes against my loyalties, no matter how good it is!!!"

"i.e." means "in other words", not "for example", and it definitely doesn't mean "totalitarian states that are communist in name only".

Umm, why not? It wouldn't be a free market, but that doesn't preclude it being capitalism.

Yes, it does.

One of the defining characteristics of capitalism is that it embraces a free market, and any system that does not operate primarily by the method of the market is INHERENTLY not capitalist of any stripe.

This begs the question "How did private property originate?" Archaeologists know fully well that private ownership of property (as in land and other resources) did not exist when human civilization first rose. They know it came some time later, and it came through the use of force and coercion. A community will not give up its public ownership of a resource unless there is a clear and present danger for them to not do so. What likely happened is that private property arose when those skilled at fighting demanded tribute from the farmer and the artisan to protect the community from nomads.

What actually happened is that property rights develped when nomadic barbarians demanded that farmers and agrarians pay tribute to them, and the farmers banded together to defend against them. In banding together, they recognized that each individual was entitled to the fruits of his labor, and that none had the right to seize his labor from him.

Yes, it does.

One of the defining characteristics of capitalism is that it embraces a free market, and any system that does not operate primarily by the method of the market is INHERENTLY not capitalist of any stripe.

Who's the one using very narrow defintions now?

What actually happened is that property rights develped when nomadic barbarians demanded that farmers and agrarians pay tribute to them, and the farmers banded together to defend against them. In banding together, they recognized that each individual was entitled to the fruits of his labor, and that none had the right to seize his labor from him.

What actually happened? Banding together would increase the tendency towards communalism, not decrease it. Communalism was the rule of ancient human civilization. Only with the rise of a dedicated warrior class did private property come into being.

Who's the one using very narrow defintions now?
Definitions need to have reasonable limitations, and in this instance it's a useful definition, because if a definition becomes too broad, much the same if it becomes too narrow, then a definition becomes academically worthless.

Furthermore, a definition needs to make sense, and when viewing the broadly accepted definition of capitalism, we can see tha the term "state capitalism" runs contradictory to such a definition.

This, along with a handful of other factors, is useful in defining what capitalism is. Much as socialism involves government control, capitalism involves lack of government control. Without setting effective, widely accepted barriers for definitions they become useless.

The definition you were using for socialism was isolating a term used to define broad category of political/economic ideologies into one specific ideology, and rejecting any other ideology as such.

What actually happened? Banding together would increase the tendency towards communalism, not decrease it. Communalism was the rule of ancient human civilization. Only with the rise of a dedicated warrior class did private property come into being.

Banding together for collective defense does not necessarily entail communalisation. If anything, we can see that they developed a social contract when they banded together, so as to protect themselves from barbarians, who were, individually, stronger than them.

As Rousseau said, property began with agriculture, not with warfare.

But, no matter. We do not, and cannot know what happened at the earliest days of pre-history, because written records of the time period don't exist, and putting forth our own theories will inherently show our own biases. I put forth this theory to show that there is more than just one logical method by which we can define the beginning of property rights.

What actually happened? Banding together would increase the tendency towards communalism, not decrease it. Communalism was the rule of ancient human civilization. Only with the rise of a dedicated warrior class did private property come into being.

This entire argument is irrelevant.

1. You can't really know how private property arose, you can only make assumptions.

2. Don't assume things. It makes an ass out of u and me.

3. What matters is that the respect for private property rights and a market, even severely crippled by taxation and regulation, has brought us more wealth, prosperity, and technological advancement than any time in the history of the world when collectivism ruled.

Furthermore, a definition needs to make sense, and when viewing the broadly accepted definition of capitalism, we can see tha the term "state capitalism" runs contradictory to such a definition.

It makes perfect sense. Expand a capitalist corporation to the scale of a whole nation-state. It will look identical in organization to a bureaucratic collectivist regime like Soviet Russia. Hence the term "state capitalism."

It makes perfect sense. Expand a capitalist corporation to the scale of a whole nation-state. It will look identical in organization to a bureaucratic collectivist regime like Soviet Russia. Hence the term "state capitalism."

When a firm becomes a state, it ceases to be capitalist, because it abandons the defining characteristics of capitalism.

For example, wikipedia is a decent enough source of broadly acceptable definitions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

This entire argument is irrelevant.

1. You can't really know how private property arose, you can only make assumptions.

2. Don't assume things. It makes an ass out of u and me.

3. What matters is that the respect for private property rights and a market, even severely crippled by taxation and regulation, has brought us more wealth, prosperity, and technological advancement than any time in the history of the world when collectivism ruled.

1. I'm not assuming. I'm applying what I know to be fact about human social organization. Humans are social animals. Private property is inherently anti-social. It requries anti-social behavior by those with power to create an enduring anti-social instiution.

2. Same as above.

3. You're making a useless appeal to the past. Furthermore, all of the benefits of private property have always been concentrated in a few hands. It has only been recently and because of the rise of the labor movement that the property-less many have been able to get more than just subsistence level life.

1. I'm not assuming. I'm applying what I know to be fact about human social organization. Humans are social animals. Private property is inherently anti-social. It requries anti-social behavior by those with power to create an enduring anti-social instiution.
Prove that social animals have no concept of property or territory.

When a firm becomes a state, it ceases to be capitalist, because it abandons the defining characteristics of capitalism.

For example, wikipedia is a decent enough source of broadly acceptable definitions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

It has lost none of its defining characteristics. Either a corporation is inherently anti-capitalistic, or a state capitalism is not an inherent contradiction.

When a firm becomes a state, it ceases to be capitalist, because it abandons the defining characteristics of capitalism.

For example, wikipedia is a decent enough source of broadly acceptable definitions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Did you even read the article? In the first paragraph it said that there could be "statist capitalism" because by definition, capitalism refers only to "an economic system in which savings are converted into capital."

The conflation of the terms, "ideological capitalism", "economic capitalism", and "political capitalism" were conflated by Marx all as one thing. The first two were conflated by Rand into one thing and she called the third socialism, conflating it with several other terms. If there is to be any understanding of capitalism, one must throw aside all conflations and examine each term individually.

1. I'm not assuming. I'm applying what I know to be fact about human social organization. Humans are social animals. Private property is inherently anti-social. It requries anti-social behavior by those with power to create an enduring anti-social instiution.

2. Same as above.
You are making one hell of a leap with this, as it would seem, respect for others, their life and their liberty is a very, very social thing to do.

3. You're making a useless appeal to the past. Furthermore, all of the benefits of private property have always been concentrated in a few hands. It has only been recently and because of the rise of the labor movement that the property-less many have been able to get more than just subsistence level life.

Either that or it's been because of the rise of the consumer, and the demand for goods, which has driven up wages, which in turn has driven up the demand for goods in a continuing cycle..

Prove that social animals have no concept of property or territory.

The concept of private property runs opposed to humans as social animals. You, like many other capitalists, conflate property and possessions. Possessions have always and will always exist. But the institution of private property: the principle that one person has the right to take exclusive use of a formerly communal resource is inherently anti-social. Many early civilizations didn't even have a concept of ownership because of communalism. To native american tribes, it was impossible to own the land or the source of food. One could use it or be its caretaker, but he could never have exclusive right to it.

Did you even read the article? In the first paragraph it said that there could be "statist capitalism" because by definition, capitalism refers only to "an economic system in which savings are converted into capital."

The conflation of the terms, "ideological capitalism", "economic capitalism", and "political capitalism" were conflated by Marx all as one thing. The first two were conflated by Rand into one thing and she called the third socialism, conflating it with several other terms. If there is to be any understanding of capitalism, one must throw aside all conflations and examine each term individually.

The conflations cannot be thrown aside, as they are integral parts of the definition of the word.

The concept of private property runs opposed to humans as social animals. You, like many other capitalists, conflate property and possessions. Possessions have always and will always exist. But the institution of private property: the principle that one person has the right to take exclusive use of a formerly communal resource is inherently anti-social. Many early civilizations didn't even have a concept of ownership because of communalism. To native american tribes, it was impossible to own the land or the source of food. One could use it or be its caretaker, but he could never have exclusive right to it.

There never were communal resources.

1. I'm not assuming. I'm applying what I know to be fact about human social organization. Humans are social animals. Private property is inherently anti-social. It requries anti-social behavior by those with power to create an enduring anti-social instiution.

Private property is not anti-social. It is a means of preventing conflict and making peaceful social interaction possible. If everyone owns everything, then when two people attempt to use the same thing at the same time, conflict will arise.

Private property rights make it possible to have strictly defined spheres of influence. This is mine, and that is yours. Do what you want with yours, and allow me to do what I want with mine. When I want something of yours, and if you want something of mine, then we can trade.

Free trade is the purest form of social cooperation. Two people make value judgements based on their own individual value systems. When they trade, both parties are receiving what they feel is something to be more valuable than what they are giving away, otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

You are making one hell of a leap with this, as it would seem, respect for others, their life and their liberty is a very, very social thing to do.

Taking absolute right to use and control a resource is a very anti-social thing to do. If I own the land, I can deny use to anyone for any reason. I can deny the starving man the fruit from "my" orchard. Or I can force him to work for me in return for subsistence. That is exactly what happened when private property became institutionalized. That is not social at all. That does not respect others life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

There never were communal resources.

Yes there were. I provided a concrete example. You only have assertions. Just becaus the facts don't meet your prescious dogma doesn't mean that it is not a fact.

Private property is not anti-social. It is a means of preventing conflict and making peaceful social interaction possible. If everyone owns everything, then when two people attempt to use the same thing at the same time, conflict will arise.

Private property rights make it possible to have strictly defined spheres of influence. This is mine, and that is yours. Do what you want with yours, and allow me to do what I want with mine. When I want something of yours, and if you want something of mine, then we can trade.

Free trade is the purest form of social cooperation. Two people make value judgements based on their own individual value systems. When they trade, both parties are receiving what they feel is something to be more valuable than what they are giving away, otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

Private property is not a relationship of "this is mine and this is yours." It is a relationship of "This is mine. You don't have anything, therefore you must work for me or starve."

Yes there were. I provided a concrete example. You only have assertions. Just becaus the facts don't meet your prescious dogma doesn't mean that it is not a fact.

You provided no concrete examples, only assertions. Just because the facts don't meet your precious dogma doesn't mean that it is not a fact.

Private property is not a relationship of "this is mine and this is yours." It is a relationship of "This is mine. You don't have anything, therefore you must work for me or starve."

You are creating a strawman, an artificial, non-existent situation.

Now I must flee before my temper gets the better of me, and I stain my perfect forum record.

Taking absolute right to use and control a resource is a very anti-social thing to do.
Ownership of self is an absolute, private right. So should I then be social, and surrender this evil, evil property right? Or should I just slit your throat were you to try "democratise" it? Oops, now I'm being *gasp* antisocial...

You provided no concrete examples, only assertions. Just because the facts don't meet your precious dogma doesn't mean that it is not a fact.

Yes I did. Native Americans had no concept of private property, nor did they have any concept of ownership. Neither did early human civilization. It was created through coercion.

You are creating a strawman, an artificial, non-existent situation.

Now I must flee before my temper gets the better of me, and I stain my perfect forum record.

Tell that to the serf, or the industrial wage worker. He/she is beholden to someone else because they own nothing but their labor. They have no means of survival except by selling their labor and their free will for the going rate. It's not a strawman, it's reality.

If humans can survive killing eachother and arrive at the next couple steps of evolution, then communism will prevail. Once humanity learns to be respectful, and responsible, then the type of government that will rule the world will most definetly be most like communism. In its true form, not a NK style.

Private property is not anti-social. It is a means of preventing conflict and making peaceful social interaction possible. If everyone owns everything, then when two people attempt to use the same thing at the same time, conflict will arise.
I'd love to see just how social his so-called "social" animals would be if it came to a matter of scarcity, and it became a matter of survival... with no defined notion of property, they'd be oh so very friendly to each other. :)

If humans can survive killing eachother and arrive at the next couple steps of evolution, then communism will prevail. Once humanity learns to be respectful, and responsible, then the type of government that will rule the world will most definetly be most like communism. In its true form, not a NK style.

I can't even begin to fathom the complete disregard for human history and economics that one has to have before they can believe such a thing.

Yes I did. Native Americans had no concept of private property, nor did they have any concept of ownership. Neither did early human civilization. It was created through coercion.
What are you talking about? There was a strong tradition of private property ownership amongst Native Americans, only after the destruction wrought upon their cultures by smallpox did the institution of private property weaken. Why were they buried with their hunting implements, why were they buried with their valuables? Because those things were viewed as being invioably theirs!



Tell that to the serf, or the industrial wage worker. He/she is beholden to someone else because they own nothing but their labor. They have no means of survival except by selling their labor and their free will for the going rate. It's not a strawman, it's reality.

You should know full well that I loathe slavery, as is the situation with serfs, and trying to use slavery, an institution which I fully oppose, as an argument against me, is totally wrong.

Byond that, the going rate, which you so readily deride, is the only just way to allocate value and property.

This time I'm gone, because I know that I'm going to explode, and I've never run the mod gauntlet before, and I'd rather not do it now.

Yes I did. Native Americans had no concept of private property, nor did they have any concept of ownership. Neither did early human civilization. It was created through coercion.

In Native American times, scarcity of goods was rarely a problem because there were so few people, mainly because they kept killing each other over tribal hunting grounds and the infant death rate was extremely high.

Why were they buried with their hunting implements, why were they buried with their valuables? Because those things were viewed as being invioably theirs!

You, like many other capitalists, conflate property and possessions. Possessions have always and will always exist. But the institution of private property: the principle that one person has the right to take exclusive use of a formerly communal resource is inherently anti-social.

I think you would find it useful to read your opponents' posts.

You are right about "valuables." You are wrong about, say, land.

I think you would find it useful to read your opponents' posts.

You are right about "valuables." You are wrong about, say, land.

There is nothing inherently different about land that makes it impossible for it to exist as private property. Making the distinction between owning private "valuables" and owning land is drawing a completely arbitrary line.

I can't even begin to fathom the complete disregard for human history and economics that one has to have before they can believe such a thing.

umm..yeah, except for, by that point, (if you read my post correctly) WE WON'T BE HUMAN. WE WILL HAVE EVOLVED TO BE A DIFFERENT SPECIES! :headbang:

No - positive rights compel positive action, that is, doing something.

Negative rights compel negative action, that is, avoiding something.

The giving up criterion that whoever explained this to you suggested results in all negative rights being made positive; the negative right to life involves giving up my capability to murder someone, and so on.So then does this mean that if a community were to establish a "no noise" ordinance, or a ban on hate speech, that it would be a negative right? After all, all it does is ask people to refrain from the previously established negative right of free speech.

umm..yeah, except for, by that point, (if you read my post correctly) WE WON'T BE HUMAN. WE WILL HAVE EVOLVED TO BE A DIFFERENT SPECIES! :headbang:

Why do you think that collectivism is the next step in human evolution? When I said human history and economics, I meant that so far, every step forward that has brought more technical progress, more liberty, and more peace than aything else has been a step towards individualism, not collectivism.

Your "slave drivers" do not exist, as there are no longer slaves (this is all from the American perspective, mind you, as I don't care about the rest of the world as its not my jurisdiction). Also, the poor are not enslaved to lives or ridicule and nothing. They, just like everyone else, have an opportunity to succeed. However, there are a large portion of the poor who do nothing but sit on their backsides and collect welfare, the same welfare that you preach to increase. While there a some who are poor because they haven't gotten any opportunities, there are a much larger portion who are quite content with being "poor". It is quite absurd to want to support these people who do nothing by throwing more money at them. Will this make them want to get a job? Will this make them want to contribute to the economy? The answer is no. More social welfare is not the answer.



Excuse me but I am American and this is my perspective ... Lincoln did't free the slaves he just changed the spelling to employees. In the past slave owners had to house and feed their slaves. Now the slav ... I mean employees are paid a meager salary which they are expected to do numerous jobs descriptions for. The salary they " earn " is quickly taken away from them for over priced housing, financing of said house, scientifically improved food that causes obesity, and medical breakthoughs that cure nothing. The poor may not be physically enslaved as were the slaves of the past. Now they are enslaved financially ... thats the real truth here.

There is nothing inherently different about land that makes it impossible for it to exist as private property. Making the distinction between owning private "valuables" and owning land is drawing a completely arbitrary line.

It isn't arbitrary at all. There are a dozen ways to define the basis for the distinction, but since I'm tired and sick right now, I don't think I'd do a very good job explaining it in depth.

Don't listen to me, then - see The Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html#secb31).

So then does this mean that if a community were to establish a "no noise" ordinance, or a ban on hate speech, that it would be a negative right?

Yes. But it would violate the right-libertarian emphasis on the non-initiation of force.

Excuse me but I am American and this is my perspective ... Lincoln did't free the slaves he just changed the spelling to employees. In the past slave owners had to house and feed their slaves. Now the slav ... I mean employees are paid a meager salary which they are expected to do numerous jobs descriptions for. The salary they " earn " is quickly taken away from them for over priced housing, financing of said house, scientifically improved food that causes obesity, and medical breakthoughs that cure nothing. The poor may not be physically enslaved as were the slaves of the past. Now they are enslaved financially ... thats the real truth here.

The poor are not enslaved by their employers, they make a voluntary choice to work where they do and they can leave at any time. Hence, they are not slaves.

It isn't arbitrary at all. There are a dozen ways to define the basis for the distinction, but since I'm tired and sick right now, I don't think I'd do a very good job explaining it in depth.

Don't listen to me, then - see The Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html#secb31).

"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used." - Infoshop.org Anarchist FAQ

Anything can be used to "exploit" others. I could lock the doors of a car on someone who is inside of it and prevent them from leaving, thus oppresssing them. I could pin someone under a refrigerator. I could, well perhaps I couldn't, but one could even use a toothbrush to "exploit" someone if they were strong enough. My own body could theoretically be used to "exploit" others, does that mean I cannot legitimately own my own body?

Yes. But it would violate the right-libertarian emphasis on the non-initiation of force.The law itself would, or merely the enforcement of it?

Anything can be used to "exploit" others. I could lock the doors of a car on someone who is inside of it and prevent them from leaving, thus oppresssing them. I could pin someone under a refrigerator. I could, well perhaps I couldn't, but one could even use a toothbrush to "exploit" someone if they were strong enough. My own body could theoretically be used to "exploit" others, does that mean I cannot legitimately own my own body?

I think you've missed the point.

A car, a refrigerator, etc. all directly benefit their owner - that's why we want to own them.

Ownership over land one does not use, however, is only powerful because other people are deprived of the capability to use it without your consent. You do not benefit directly; you only benefit through exploiting the deprivation of others through rent.

Yes. But it would violate the right-libertarian emphasis on the non-initiation of force.
To clarify something, are you speaking of a community comprising solely of private property or a law that extends to public areas too?

The law itself would, or merely the enforcement of it?

If it weren't enforced, it would be more of a custom than a law.

To clarify something, are you speaking of a community comprising solely of private property or a law that extends to public areas too?

Well, of course the owner can make whatever rules she wants. I'm assuming Jello Biafra is talking about some kind of public entity making the rule, not a private entity.

The law itself would, or merely the enforcement of it?

A law is a threat. It is coercion. It is the promise that if you don't do what the law says, men with guns will come to your house and initiate force against you.

If it weren't enforced, it would be more of a custom than a law.

A law is a threat. It is coercion. It is the promise that if you don't do what the law says, men with guns will come to your house and initiate force against you.<shrug>. Fine, then. Property is not a positive right, but it does violate the right-libertarian emphasis on the non-initiation of force.

Well, of course the owner can make whatever rules she wants. I'm assuming Jello Biafra is talking about some kind of public entity making the rule, not a private entity.
Yes. That's why I just wanted to make sure before jumping in. In which case you are correct, any such law would violate the non-initiation principle.

Property is not a positive right, but it does violate the right-libertarian emphasis on the non-initiation of force.

The right-libertarians are going to get around that by saying that theft is in and of itself an initiation of force; it's an assault on the product of the person's labor, and thus on the person herself.

I think you've missed the point.

A car, a refrigerator, etc. all directly benefit their owner - that's why we want to own them.

Ownership over land one does not use, however, is only powerful because other people are deprived of the capability to use it without your consent. You do not benefit directly; you only benefit through exploiting the deprivation of others through rent.

Anything you own, whether a car, a refrigerator, or land, by definition of "owning" it means you have the right to deprive others of the use of it. When you own something, it is yours. No one else has the right to use it without your consent. If that is "exploitation", then am I not "exploiting" others when I deny them the use of my body?

Anything you own, whether a car, a refrigerator, or land, by definition of "owning" it means you have the right to deprive others of the use of it. When you own something, it is yours. No one else has the right to use it without your consent.

But as long as you are the one using it, it's a possession. When you use your power over it to extract money or a service from someone else in exchange for them using it, it's "private property" in the relevant sense.

(If you generally do use it, and instead of using it one day, lend it to somebody else for money, that's different - but if you own it for the sake of extracting a profit, then it qualifies.)

The poor are not enslaved by their employers, they make a voluntary choice to work where they do and they can leave at any time. Hence, they are not slaves.

Have you read John Stienbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath?" or perhaps a decent history book? When the economic shit hits the metaphorical fan, buisness managment only broke the strained backs of the working man. An example from "Grapes?" The Jodes work for an orchard company picking fruit, they get a quarter a fruit, and their housing (that they have to pay a monthly charge for)
is far from any local mercantile forceing them to buy from the company store for their sustinance. The prices are (suprise!) always a bit higher than they can afford, driving them into debt? Fiction? Hardly, Stienbeck's account is based on the economic sufferings off thousands of Americans. Another example of slavery of need is the horrid practice (one that survives to this day) of share-cropping in which the earnings of the "enslaved" are never quite enough to meet the expenses required to survive. Thus, they are bound to the land and its owner until they pay the money that the victem will never be able to earn. Don't even try to deny that share-cropping still continues to this day. Just check Texas and California court cases and you will find them.

I think you've missed the point.

A car, a refrigerator, etc. all directly benefit their owner - that's why we want to own them.

Ownership over land one does not use, however, is only powerful because other people are deprived of the capability to use it without your consent. You do not benefit directly; you only benefit through exploiting the deprivation of others through rent.

Were refridgeration scarce, it would of course be a source of exploitation. Actually, since it is a scarce resource it is a source of exploitation, whether it directly benefits the owner (all of which is true for land.

The owner of the refridgerator is scarcely willing to share with the homeless man on the street. Yet the homeless man is unlikely to live comfortably without it.

(If you generally do use it, and instead of using it one day, lend it to somebody else for money, that's different - but if you own it for the sake of extracting a profit, then it qualifies.)

And the car that you drive to work?

EDIT: More precisely, the car a delivery man drives to work?

The poor are not enslaved by their employers, they make a voluntary choice to work where they do and they can leave at any time. Hence, they are not slaves.

Have you read John Stienbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath?" or perhaps a decent history book? When the economic shit hits the metaphorical fan, buisness managment only broke the strained backs of the working man. An example from "Grapes?" The Jodes work for an orchard company picking fruit, they get a quarter a fruit, and their housing (that they have to pay a monthly charge for)
is far from any local mercantile forceing them to buy from the company store for their sustinance. The prices are (suprise!) always a bit higher than they can afford, driving them into debt? Fiction? Hardly, Stienbeck's account is based on the economic sufferings off thousands of Americans. Another example of slavery of need is the horrid practice (one that survives to this day) of share-cropping in which the earnings of the "enslaved" are never quite enough to meet the expenses required to survive. Thus, they are bound to the land and its owner until they pay the money that the victem will never be able to earn. Don't even try to deny that share-cropping still continues to this day. Just check Texas and California court cases and you will find them.

The right-libertarians are going to get around that by saying that theft is in and of itself an initiation of force; it's an assault on the product of the person's labor, and thus on the person herself.

That is not a way to "get around that", that is the heart of the issue. A person's labor is a part of his body, a part of him, to deprive him of his labor should be considered a moral wrong.

Tell me you do not sympathize:

http://www.artcult.com/ausch.htm

And the car that you drive to work?

EDIT: More precisely, the car a delivery man drives to work?

Depends on who owns it.

Depends on who owns it.

The delivery boy who owns the car that he makes delivery in. The car provides a profit because the driving and the car are scarce.

Assume he delivers to people who do not own cars.

That is not a way to "get around that", that is the heart of the issue. A person's labor is a part of his body, a part of him, to deprive him of his labor should be considered a moral wrong.

Of his labor, perhaps. Of the product of his labor? Perhaps, but far less compellingly so - especially when property by labor is used to justify wealth garnered from taking the products of other people's labor. And certainly not to the degree that people should be permitted to starve because of it.

Tell me you do not sympathize:

http://www.artcult.com/ausch.htm

I do - but there are a number of factors in this case that are exceptional.

Firstly, the paintings seem to be of sentimental value to her. The same could be said very rarely for goods produced for exchange. And usually specific goods are not taken by the state, anyway - means of exchange (money) are.

Secondly, there is no compelling basis to deprive her of the watercolors. No one else needs them; no one else would even be significantly helped by them. Even a strictly utilitarian calculation would likely support transfering them to her.

The owner of the refridgerator is scarcely willing to share with the homeless man on the street. Yet the homeless man is unlikely to live comfortably without it.

That is not "exploitation," however. That is simply economic inequality.

The delivery boy who owns the car that he makes delivery in. The car provides a profit because the driving and the car are scarce.

Like I said the last time you brought this up, it's both.

It's not exactly that the distinction is muddled - it's that the object is used in two ways in different contexts, both (presumably) for the convenience of the delivery boy and also (according to the anti-profit perspective) for the exploitation of the consumer.

Of his labor, perhaps. Of the product of his labor? Perhaps, but far less compellingly so - especially when property by labor is used to justify wealth garnered from taking the products of other people's labor. And certainly not to the degree that people should be permitted to starve because of it.

How in the world does one separate labor from the product of labor?

How exactly is it possible to strip someone of his actual labor? Cut off his legs perhaps?

I do - but there are a number of factors in this case that are exceptional.

Firstly, the paintings seem to be of sentimental value to her. The same could be said very rarely for goods produced for exchange. And usually specific goods are not taken by the state, anyway - means of exchange (money) are.

Secondly, there is no compelling basis to deprive her of the watercolors. No one else needs them; no one else would even be significantly helped by them. Even a strictly utilitarian calculation would likely support transfering them to her.

So her ownership would be based on her sentimental value to her? It is entirely like for a theif to become as emotionally attached to an item as the producer.

And don't tell me that utilitarians would not likely be inclined to agree with the museum's point of view.

That is not "exploitation," however. That is simply economic inequality.

I am simply showing that refridgerators, cars, toothbrushes, all goods, are bound by the same scarcity that makes land an avenue for exploitation. You cannot separate private property from possession in practicality.

Like I said the last time you brought this up, it's both.

It's not exactly that the distinction is muddled - it's that the object is used in two ways in different contexts, both (presumably) for the convenience of the delivery boy and also (according to the anti-profit perspective) for the exploitation of the consumer.

So what is the resolution?

That's pretty moronic.
"It goes against my loyalties, no matter how good it is!!!"
What loyalties? Yeah, good for you but it's not "good" for me. I'd never want to live in that type of repugnantly regressive system.


"i.e." means "in other words", not "for example",
Yes I know, that's what I said.


and it definitely doesn't mean "totalitarian states that are communist in name only".
Which is why I was talking about dream communism only, to make my point. And not communism in its real world form.

How in the world does one separate labor from the product of labor?

If I own my labor, I allocate it where and when I see fit.

If I own the product of my labor, I own the results of that allocation.

How exactly is it possible to strip someone of his actual labor? Cut off his legs perhaps?

Slavery.

So her ownership would be based on her sentimental value to her? It is entirely like for a theif to become as emotionally attached to an item as the producer.

Perhaps, but usually the maker of the good, by virtue of the creation, has a certain kind of sentimental connection to it that someone who merely buys or steals it cannot have - unless, again, it was produced for exchange, in which case she has already alienated herself from her product.

And don't tell me that utilitarians would not likely be inclined to agree with the museum's point of view.

What greater good does this serve?

I am simply showing that refridgerators, cars, toothbrushes, all goods, are bound by the same scarcity that makes land an avenue for exploitation. You cannot separate private property from possession in practicality.

The problem is that you are assuming the distinction applies to the object of ownership. It does not, really - it is better applied to the use of the ownership. Do I use it to extract a profit, or do I use it to directly benefit myself?

The one case where the object of ownership is relevant is in a slightly different basis for this kind of distinction - certain goods (clothes, toothbrushes, etc.) are personal possessions because they inhabit our personal sphere, because they are an element of our privacy and individuality, and it would be an assault on human dignity to let others use them as freely as the owner can. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that the same considerations apply to a factory hundreds of miles away.

So what is the resolution?

Hmm... good question.

With the delivery company expropriated (though if it's a small enough business it might just be left alone), I assume that, if the prices were actually exploitative (and they may not have been), they would simply be lowered. The delivery boy can keep his car.

The right-libertarians are going to get around that by saying that theft is in and of itself an initiation of force; it's an assault on the product of the person's labor, and thus on the person herself.Yes, but the establishment of property is itself an initiation of force, as it interferes with the negative right of use, in the same way that the establishment of a 'no noise' ordinance interferes with free speech.

The poor are not enslaved by their employers, they make a voluntary choice to work where they do and they can leave at any time. Hence, they are not slaves.

They if you mean they are not literally owned by their employer, you are correct. But their labor is no longer their own, and they have been enslaved by the cruelest of masters: need. They are a wage laborer not because they choose to be, but because they must. That is not voluntary.

If I own my labor, I allocate it where and when I see fit.

If I own the product of my labor, I own the results of that allocation.

This does not differentiate between the labor and the product of labor.

I have three questions:

1) Would you say that labor is a component of the good created by the worker, or does labor cease to be a component when work is completed?

Note that the answer to this question has extreme implications on any notion of exploitation.

2) If the product of labor is indeed separable from the labor itself, which is more important?

3) If the product of labor is appropriated by an outside authority, would it make the allocation of labor a free and natural choice?

Slavery.

So slavery is the forced allocation of labor hours, and not the forced appropriation of the product of labor?

(I would say that it is both, by the way)

Perhaps, but usually the maker of the good, by virtue of the creation, has a certain kind of sentimental connection to it that someone who merely buys or steals it cannot have - unless, again, it was produced for exchange, in which case she has already alienated herself from her product.

This is tenuous and you probably know it. "Usually ... the maker has a certain kind of sentimental connection" does not cut it, especially when tied to the effort that goes into the creation, as a thief is just as likely to expend a great amount of energy to obtain the good. In fact, I would say that economic forces would lead a thief to expend as much labor to steal as a creator would to create.

In the end you are justifying the theft of just about anything, as long as the person stealing it places more emotional attachment on it.

What greater good does this serve?

I doubt that you would deny the public value of a museum's exhibits, but from the museum itself:


It should be also stressed that our institution is not just a "regular" museum. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum is unique of its kind. Every square yard of it is covered with blood of the victims of the Nazis: Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Russians and other people murdered here. The main objective of this site is to make it available to hundreds of thousands of pilgrims as well as researchers, and to document as widely as possible the crimes committed here.

The latter activity obliges us morally to preserve all evidence dating back to the wartime and related with the Auschwitz concentration and death camp and to prevent this evidence from being dispersed in any way. Once again we want to stress: every single loss of even the smallest part of the documentation will be an irreparable loss and a shadow on the memory of Auschwitz Concentration Camp victims. The water-colors are scarce surviving documents on the Holocaust committed on the Roma people. Both those Roma people who survived the mass murder and the representatives of European Roma organizations share our viewpoint that the portraits should remain in Oświęcim.

Link (http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/new/index.php?tryb=news_big&language=EN&id=1125)

Do I use it to extract a profit, or do I use it to directly benefit myself?

I have trouble making a distinction between those two.

The one case where the object of ownership is relevant is in a slightly different basis for this kind of distinction - certain goods (clothes, toothbrushes, etc.) are personal possessions because they inhabit our personal sphere, because they are an element of our privacy and individuality, and it would be an assault on human dignity to let others use them as freely as the owner can. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that the same considerations apply to a factory hundreds of miles away.

I don't even know why I involved myself in this argument. I consider creation and not use to be the the signifier of ownership, so for me to discuss variations of use is pointless at the moment.

In conclusion, capitalism is an extremely flawed system, and will be replaced by socialism. This socialism will eventually evolve into communism; a classless society.

So when does the woodsman come along to cut you out of the Wolf's belly and send you home to mother?

So when does the woodsman come along to cut you out of the Wolf's belly and send you home to mother?

He's arguing from a traditional marxist perspective, not the Leninist bureaucratic collectivist perspective.

The poor are not enslaved by their employers, they make a voluntary choice to work where they do and they can leave at any time. Hence, they are not slaves.

Voluntary choice!? HA! Give me a break, when your only other " CHOICE " is becoming homeless & eventually starvation then I think the choice is forced on them. Yes it is designed to look like it's their choice, thats the beauty of it isn't it.

Capitalism has been prooven that it's the most effective style of government. Just look at the USA.

Capitalism has been prooven that it's the most effective style of government. Just look at the USA.

yeh, what a hell-hole.

yeh, what a hell-hole.

mmm - yes rated 13th in the world for quality of life, with a booming economy, what a hell hole indeed.

we all know that large scale communism cannot work becuase of iuts obvious aversions to human nature and true eqaulity, however, that does not meen that capitalism is realy the bst kind of polotics we can have.
Over the past 2 decades almost every war fought has involved a large western country seeking to gain profit and thus this begs the quesrtion what are we fighting for if not to line the profits of the slave drivers and social minorities who influence our people and enslave the poor to lives of nothing and ridicule; i say more money on social welfare and caring for the poor and less on sending solidiers to iraq to fight someone elses war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing is perfect.

Poor people don't have a choice. Eliminating poverty would not be an easy thing to do. There is the concept of the GAI-- Guaranteed Annual Income, which is based on having a high enough tax base, to guarantee a base income. Another way is the Negative Income Tax which is kind of complicated-- it is a version of the GAI created by conservatives. This would mean taxation would be 40-50%, with 10% going to GAI. Having a GAI would eliminate many of the social service industries-- the idea being the welfare department becomes redundant and so do many of the other life killing agencies. It would force industry to adapt measures to make the lowest paying jobs somewhat tolerable, or eliminate them with automation.

Being poor in the United States sucks really badly compared to some other industrialized nations. Welfare in the United States is poorly designed, low paying jobs are focused into demeaning service industries. McDonald's and the Salvation Army in some ways are worse than slavery. At least a slave is considered a valuable asset by their owner and is fairly well cared for so the person can be resold. The way the United States treats its homeless is worse than slavery in many cases. We have an idealized view about the way slavery was. I am glad that it is over, but we could do a lot more than what we are doing. Turning everyone into a service worker drone will turn the United States into a third world country.

yeh, what a hell-hole.


Hell hole? Have you seen the middle east any time in the last 2000 years?

Poor people don't have a choice. Eliminating poverty would not be an easy thing to do. There is the concept of the GAI-- Guaranteed Annual Income, which is based on having a high enough tax base, to guarantee a base income. Another way is the Negative Income Tax which is kind of complicated-- it is a version of the GAI created by conservatives. This would mean taxation would be 40-50%, with 10% going to GAI. Having a GAI would eliminate many of the social service industries-- the idea being the welfare department becomes redundant and so do many of the other life killing agencies. It would force industry to adapt measures to make the lowest paying jobs somewhat tolerable, or eliminate them with automation.

Being poor in the United States sucks really badly compared to some other industrialized nations. Welfare in the United States is poorly designed, low paying jobs are focused into demeaning service industries. McDonald's and the Salvation Army in some ways are worse than slavery. At least a slave is considered a valuable asset by their owner and is fairly well cared for so the person can be resold. The way the United States treats its homeless is worse than slavery in many cases. We have an idealized view about the way slavery was. I am glad that it is over, but we could do a lot more than what we are doing. Turning everyone into a service worker drone will turn the United States into a third world country.

Third World Country? What kind of drugs are you on?