NationStates Jolt Archive

As I ask this question I must first state that I have an open mind and no strong position one way or another. A few weeks ago I decided to reavaulate my core values and principles. Since then I have formed new core values and seeking to form educated, logical, and hopefully unbiased opinions.

So with that said here is my question:

What is the greatest economic system offering the greatest economic freedom?

I have been wrestling with this question for some time and I cant answer it. I have been able to sum up the following:
Communism: "Everything is free... there just isnt any of it"
Capitalism: "Suck it up and work harder"

I am trying to answer this question and have gone from a merit based economy to a particapatory economy, and from a anarcho-communist economy to a anarcho-capitalist economy.

I look forward to what people have to say. Please dont resort to a flame war, endless argument, or one liners. I am looking for an informative answer... wether such an answer may exist.

The problem with asking questions like this is just how exactly do you define 'best'? In hard economic terms, capitalism is by far the best as it is the most productive. Socialists counter with saying that capitalism is oppressive and exploitative and that it is far better for someone to starve to death knowing that they will not be exploited by some capitalist 'taking advantage' of their need to eat (just kidding people, relax).

I highly recommend reading Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter. He started out by trying to make it accessible to the socialists; he figured if he just wrote about capitalism that only capitalists would read it and he wanted this to be accessible to all.

It is definitely worth the read.

its a tough one. technically a capitalist system with no laws regarding the behaviour of economic agents would give the greatest level of economic freedom to all economic agents. however this would result in market failures going unfixed, and anticompetitive monopolistic entities emerging, most likely replacing economic regulation of the individual by the government with economic subservience to powerful economic agents.
this is why, in capitalism, competition is prised above most other things.

on the other hand the most economic freedom for the individual could fall in marx's court. he believed capitalism creates the wealth, socialism redistrubutes the wealth, and communism is the utopia at the end (in short), whereby any individual could basically choose what economic activity they wished to engage in, with all their needs fulfilled, desiring the further the advancement of the state.


personally i'd go with Marx on this one. its a long shot and higly ideological, but i am an idealist and a socialist. but of course it would require a more altruistic human nature, which may be found in time.

Well, a system where everyone distributes the products of their labours to whomever they deem most worthy of receiving it seems to offer good freedom - but of course, this would require people to be motivated by the desire to contribute to the world, rather than the desire to accumulate (or spend) wealth.

A good economic system should recompense those producers in the economy the value which they provide to the economy, and this is not determined by how much they value their production or some objective value placed on their labor, but how much they benefit their fellow man.

This is the key to a free society, that the participant produces according the wants of the other participants, but does so to satisfy his own wants. This is exchange, and be it an altruistic gift economy or a market of freely trading producers, it is the basic necessity.

The purpose of an economic system is to direct resources where they are needed the most. A currency economy works in most cases, if people need refrigerators then the economy will make sure resources are spent on building refrigerators. But on some areas it fails, it doesn't provide school for all kids even though that is needed. So the government has to collect taxes and use them to compensate for the failures of the economy.

The best economical system is the one that is the most accurate with distributing resources to where they are needed the most. I have no idea which system wins on this point though. This gives the highest freedom in a way since it reduces the need for an authority to collect taxes and decide manually where resources should be spent to compensate for flaws in the economy.

Capitalists view the greatest freedom as being the state of having the least restrictions on your choices. Socialist counter with something along the lines of "you can only be free if you do not have to worry about eating - freedom only comes after everything is provided for you".

The balance comes between freedom and risk - the ability to make your own choices and do what you want comes with the possibility that you will make bad choices. Socialist believe that people should be protected from this possibility by providing a 'social safety net' and by restricting other people from doing something that could allow an idiot making dumb choices to hurt themselves.

I guess it comes down to how you view people: capitalists view people as competent and capable (in general) while socialists believe that people are incapable of making good decisions (except for themselves of course - they know what is best for everyone) and must therefore be 'protected' from the ability to make free choices.

It would probably be better to sum up the two as:
communism: the leader of your collective knows what is best for you - do what we say, it is better for everyone (trust us).
capitalism: you are free to make your own choices, but don't expect other people to pay for them.

Well, a system where everyone distributes the products of their labours to whomever they deem most worthy of receiving it seems to offer good freedom - but of course, this would require people to be motivated by the desire to contribute to the world, rather than the desire to accumulate (or spend) wealth.
There is no inherent prohibition on charity in any Capitalistic society. In fact, it's far more commendable to put your hand in your own pocket to help those in need. In fact, for those worried about the moral basis of an economic system, Capitalism is the much superior to any redistribution scheme.

Let's say I mow your lawn and you pay me $30. I then go to the store for a big steak and some beer -- a demand that my fellow man serve me. The owner of the store asks me if I've served my fellow man, as well. I reply yes and show my $30 --- a certificate of performance.

Compare this with a resource allocation system that is run by a government. In effect, the government is saying -- Myrm, you don't need to serve your fellow man, we'll take care of that. The government proceeds to develop a tax code that does just that. Through coercion, they take what my fellow man produces and give it to me. Of course, if you or I would attempt that, we would be jailed for theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft -- the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.

I think this makes it pretty clear which system is better. While charity is a laudable act, reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

There is no inherent prohibition on charity in any Capitalistic society. In fact, it's far more commendable to put your hand in your own pocket to help those in need. In fact, for those worried about the moral basis of an economic system, Capitalism is the much superior to any redistribution scheme.

-snip-

I think this makes it pretty clear which system is better. While charity is a laudable act, reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

You could say that socialism is lazy altruistic ideas without personal motivation (I think someone should do something - not me though, make everyone else pay for it). Oh yeah, without the moral qualms about taking from others what is not yours to give.

well people are oddly enough more happy in a nomadic life so perhaps extreme anarcho-primitivism would be a good idea what with it being so natural.

course it is very much a case of ignorance being bliss and me trying to extend this post beyond a one liner :p

Well, a traditional system worked well for millenia. Small villages, people did the same things for centuries, and life was centered around subsistence. Sounds hellish, but I bet it had its blissful elements.
Yet in modern times, the best is capitalism. Free markets, free people, each working to outdo each other in a perpetual race to the top, however one defines that. I wonder if human brains have or are evolving as a result of capitalism.

I wonder if human brains have or are evolving as a result of capitalism.

Certainly; capitalism emulates natural selection as the successful thrive whereas the weak are not so lucky. If the poor are not supported whatsoever and left to die in the street, the effect would be more apparent as only "productive" genes would be passed on to the next generation. Of course, in welfare states which coddle the inept, their tainted genetic material will not be eliminated from the gene pool.

Certainly; capitalism emulates natural selection as the successful thrive whereas the weak are not so lucky. If the poor are not supported whatsoever and left to die in the street, the effect would be more apparent as only "productive" genes would be passed on to the next generation. Of course, in welfare states which coddle the inept, their tainted genetic material will not be eliminated from the gene pool.

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

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

Please don't invoke Godwin's Law when it is utterly uncalled-for.

Please don't invoke Godwin's Law when it is utterly uncalled-for.

No, I was just pointing out that your description sounds exactly like Nazism in the idea of revisionist racial ideology, or genetic destiny.

No, I was just pointing out that your description sounds exactly like Nazism in the idea of revisionist racial ideology, or genetic destiny.

No, they are nothing alike. I was simply restating Darwin's (not Hitler's) idea of natural selection in economic terms. Of course, it is possible that Darwin was wrong and that genes don't exist; who knows?

A good economic system should recompense those producers in the economy the value which they provide to the economy, and this is not determined by how much they value their production or some objective value placed on their labor, but how much the benefit their fellow man.

This is the key to a free society, than the participant produces according the wants of the other participants, but does so to satisfy his own wants. This is exchange, and be it an altruistic gift economy or a market of freely trading producers, it is the basic necessity.
I tend to agree with the above.

Well us being sentient being, we have the choice of not having society organized by law of the jungle, as in survival of the 'fittest' (richest). Sure we may have got to where they are through evolution/natural selection, but we are no longer a species struggling for survival, we are dominant on this planet. Because of this we can use excess resources to benefit and disperse wealth throughout society to further equitable distribution. Success is not decided by genes (race) but by socio-economic class brackets that people are born into, these are not decisions the person consciously makes.

A good economic system should recompense those producers in the economy the value which they provide to the economy, and this is not determined by how much they value their production or some objective value placed on their labor, but how much the benefit their fellow man.

This is the key to a free society, than the participant produces according the wants of the other participants, but does so to satisfy his own wants. This is exchange, and be it an altruistic gift economy or a market of freely trading producers, it is the basic necessity.

Heaaah, heaaah!

What is the greatest economic system offering the greatest economic freedom?Depends on what you mean by economic freedom.

There is no inherent prohibition on charity in any Capitalistic society. In fact, it's far more commendable to put your hand in your own pocket to help those in need. In fact, for those worried about the moral basis of an economic system, Capitalism is the much superior to any redistribution scheme.

Let's say I mow your lawn and you pay me $30. I then go to the store for a big steak and some beer -- a demand that my fellow man serve me. The owner of the store asks me if I've served my fellow man, as well. I reply yes and show my $30 --- a certificate of performance.

Compare this with a resource allocation system that is run by a government. In effect, the government is saying -- Myrm, you don't need to serve your fellow man, we'll take care of that. The government proceeds to develop a tax code that does just that. Through coercion, they take what my fellow man produces and give it to me. Of course, if you or I would attempt that, we would be jailed for theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft -- the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.

I think this makes it pretty clear which system is better. While charity is a laudable act, reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.This of course assumes that you ever had the right to the money that you were taxed.

Well us being sentient being, we have the choice of not having society organized by law of the jungle, as in survival of the 'fittest' (richest). Sure we may have got to where they are through evolution/natural selection, but we are no longer a species struggling for survival, we are dominant on this planet. Because of this we can use excess resources to benefit and disperse wealth throughout society to further equitable distribution. Success is not decided by genes (race) but by socio-economic class brackets that people are born into, these are not decisions the person consciously makes.

This is why there is such a thing as charity. You see those who have less than you and choose to devote your resources towards helping others and society at large. Socialism is not a requirement for compassion or altruism - a capitalist society does not equate to everyone becoming an evil bastard laughing maniacally at those not able to care for themselves.

Free society simply states that giving to those less fortunate should be a choice; socialism states that you should have your resources taken (even against your will) to be given to others who are less productive.

That choice is what socialists seek to remove. They basically state that you are subservient to everyone else in that you exists first and foremost to provide for those who can not or will not provide for themselves.

Depends on what you mean by economic freedom. This of course assumes that you ever had the right to the money that you were taxed.
So essentially you state that everyone is a slave and should not benefit from their efforts?

All is a good read. See some flame wars brewing but what you going to do?

Anyway...

I have been flirting with the idea of a merit based economy. Essentially there are tiers of "compensation" that people earn through education, skills, knowledge, and experience.

I suppose it has similiarities with a military hierarchy or movable caste system. For example, when your born you start out at the bottom. As you go through school you move up the tier as you complete grades. Once you graduate and head to college your tier moves up and so on and so on.

A free market/central bank regulate prices of resources and labor dependent on supply and demand. So for instance, if a community needs a doctor the demand of one goes up. This in turn cuases the price of labor for a doctor to go up attracting a doctor or two to the community. After the doctor is hired his merit adjusts the price of labor to be more inligned with his merit. So in essense a more experienced doctor would be worth more than graduate out of college.

I suppose its a combination of Marxism and Capitalism. There really isnt any private property, even the state doesnt own it. However your hard work and determination is rewarded upon your own worth. People start out at the starting line evenly and end up at the finish line evenly... if they choose to have the merit to do so. It seams to me that Capitalism starts everyone out evenly (relatively) and you can choose how to finsih while Marxism makes everyone finish evenly.

Depends on what you mean by economic freedom.

This of course assumes that you ever had the right to the money that you were taxed.
That's a given in my world. We elect our representatives to spend our money on governmental functions. Supposedly, when they spend it badly, we elect someone else. In practice, it doesn't seem to matter who we elect, they seem to dig deeper and deeper into our pockets, only to give it to someone else.

If a communist country goes capitalistic (see mainland China, for example), it's quite possible that every demographic from Bill Gates to I. B. Broke makes more money. The GDP and budget size can go up as well, so capitalism is clearly a better choice, right?

Not so fast. Income inequality and prices will also go up as well, so the poorer people will probably find themselves with LESS cash (relative to prices)!

I'd say the best is mostly capitalist, but with enough socialist tendencies (such as universal healthcare and education) to prevent the poorest people form being TOO poor.

Compare this with a resource allocation system that is run by a government. In effect, the government is saying -- Myrm, you don't need to serve your fellow man, we'll take care of that. The government proceeds to develop a tax code that does just that. Through coercion, they take what my fellow man produces and give it to me. Of course, if you or I would attempt that, we would be jailed for theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft -- the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.

So you conceed that capital pushment is murder? That murder may be legitimate, but that it is stil murder? Or does this only apply to dollar bills (which, unlike lives, the state has valid ownership of, since it makes and distributes them)?

Taxation may or may not be similar to theft, but taxation is a valid product of the social contract. You give money into the contract, and you receive the protection of the contract from crippling poverty. It is no different than submitting to the law in exchange for protection by the law.

- - - - - - - - - -
(To the OP)

Communism is economically unviable, as is socialism. However, pure Capitalism is a road to opression. Freedom is best served by a regulated economy. Meritocracy is best served by targeted wealth distribution to assure that everyone has the same chance at success going in, rather than broad wealth redistribution to guarantee success to anyone.

I have been flirting with the idea of a merit based economy. Essentially there are tiers of "compensation" that people earn through education, skills, knowledge, and experience.

Why not just allow compensation to be tied to production?

General ability does not constitute the whole of merit, and we should expect a drastic tendency to underachieve when government skews wages to act as if it does.

A free market/central bank regulate prices of resources and labor dependent on supply and demand. So for instance, if a community needs a doctor the demand of one goes up. This in turn cuases the price of labor for a doctor to go up attracting a doctor or two to the community. After the doctor is hired his merit adjusts the price of labor to be more inligned with his merit. So in essense a more experienced doctor would be worth more than graduate out of college.

A free market does this naturally (barring failures), a doctor that is more successful at satisfying his patients will gain a higher wage from his labor than will one who his less successful.

Merit isn't really a necessary measure.

I suppose its a combination of Marxism and Capitalism.

No, not really.

There really isnt any private property, even the state doesnt own it.

This is a problem because property rights exist wherever there is scarcity. If you say there is no private property, you are pretty much saying that the state has all property.

So essentially you state that everyone is a slave and should not benefit from their efforts?No, since slavery is forced labor; your labor that is taxed is not forced.

That's a given in my world. We elect our representatives to spend our money on governmental functions. Supposedly, when they spend it badly, we elect someone else. In practice, it doesn't seem to matter who we elect, they seem to dig deeper and deeper into our pockets, only to give it to someone else.Yes, which is usually unfortunate, but not because they don't have the right to tax us.

Taxation may or may not be similar to theft, but taxation is a valid product of the social contract. You give money into the contract, and you receive the protection of the contract from crippling poverty. It is no different than submitting to the law in exchange for protection by the law.Amongst other things, yes.

I have been flirting with the idea of a merit based economy. Essentially there are tiers of "compensation" that people earn through education, skills, knowledge, and experience.

So how do the builders of this society get compensated? Surely you don't think that plumbers, electricians, machinists, and other craftsmen are second-class because they don't have a university education?

I think it is self evident that capitalism at least in some form or another is the best economic model ever. Laissez faire capitalism fails to internalize certain costs such as environmental, work related injuries, and other costs. Public regulation is needed to internalize those costs.

Capitalism also allows for communal economies where people voluntarily form, join, or leave economic "communes." I do not see that level of economic freedom in the communist model.

The feudal model is pretty wretched.

Someone on here suggested that capitalism leads to a race to the top. While this might be the case in a perfect world, it certainly isn't true at the moment.

The problem is the vast disparity of wages between different countries. This is what encourages industries to outsource labour (manufacturing in particular) to developing countries.

For example, if you are a company making shoes for sale in the US market, you can build your factory in the US and employ US citizens. But then you would have to adhere to US working regulations - pay minimum wage, whatever benefits are the legal minimum, and stick to the specified work week (or be prepared to pay overtime).

But why should you do that?
You have an intermediate option (not really legal, but it happens anyway) of employing immigrant labour. You might still have to pay them the minimum wage, but you can cut out the benefits / overtime, and work them far harder and longer, largely because they are less likely to complain, especially if they are illegal immigrants living in fear of the authorities.

The most attractive option though is to move the entire factory overseas (or build it overseas in the first place). The labour required for construction will be cheaper, the raw materials will be cheaper, the wages you pay to your factory workers can be a small fraction of the price. You also don't have many working regulations to contend with, rarely any unions, and no environmental restrictions.
Besides, in some countries (notably China) you can employ the prison population, reducing your labour costs to just about nothing.

This is presently possible because the costs of transporting goods worldwide is still very cheap (despite rising fuel prices), and the legal restrictions on doing so (tariffs, trade barriers, restrictions om movement of capital) have been steadily eroded over the past 50 years or so, in the name of globalisation.

My point here is that the global labour market is very weak and getting weaker as more and more developing countries enter the labour market. The effect on wages is mixed, and depends largely on where you are in the world.

From the perspective of "western" nations, such as the US / UK / Europe, there is a downwards pressure on wages, because the domestic pay scales are becoming less sustainable in the face of increasing competition from developing countries and / or immigrant labour.

From the perspective of developing countries, the job market is actually improving a bit, thanks to investment from "western" corporations seeking to exploit cheap labour. Their pay may still be very low by "western" standards, but it is better than no pay at all.

However, we haven't run out of cheap labour to exploit, and we won't run out for quite some time. For example, India is becoming slightly less competitive as it (slowly) becomes a consumerist society. But there's still South America, and failing that, there's always free labour in China's prisons.

So overall, globalised capitalism is in fact a race to the bottom. This might eventually turn around, but not until the labour market becomes pretty much equal around the world. Who knows how long that will take!

One answer to this "problem" is to impose tariffs and trade barriers, preventing the exploitation of cheap labour. But that's unlikely to happen, partially because it's very politically unfashionable at the moment, but largely because multinational corporations will resist it at every turn.

The other solution will come when fuel prices rise enough to make overseas production of goods economically unfeasible. If transportation costs rise sufficiently, companies will be forced to use domestic labour once again. Not the best solution I know, but it will happen sooner or later whether we like it or not.

I see capitalism like a systems that leave the power, money and in some way the future of the population in the hand of a few who work for their own profit. We can see is draw back with the increasing margin between economic class and is absence of ethic on some cause (environment, value, moral)

Communism is a system where power, money and future are administered for a global profit. But it leave the decision in the hand of a very few people, and since human nature is not so kind, we get the result we saw in the past.

So I'm for a capitalism system with semi-heavily rules. So everybody get a chance to play the game, but the rules a clear, strict and precise.

Someone on here suggested that capitalism leads to a race to the top. While this might be the case in a perfect world, it certainly isn't true at the moment.
Strangely enough, this could be due to there not being a significant capitalist economy in the world (as far as I am aware, barring potential micronations on the scale of Sealand). The US, just like most nations in the world, is a mixed economy. Markets are heavily regulated, trade is likewise regulated, industries are subsidized, and artificial barriers to entry abound. It is not capitalism.

The problem is the vast disparity of wages between different countries. This is what encourages industries to outsource labour (manufacturing in particular) to developing countries.

For example, if you are a company making shoes for sale in the US market, you can build your factory in the US and employ US citizens. But then you would have to adhere to US working regulations - pay minimum wage, whatever benefits are the legal minimum, and stick to the specified work week (or be prepared to pay overtime).
Not exactly - the wage is not nearly as important as the productivity. The difference in wages must be greater than the difference in productivity for outsourcing to be economical.

There is something known as the American paradox - basically the US having expensive labor and cheap capital should be exporting capital intensive goods (as that is where the comparative advantage lies), but instead exports mostly labor intensive goods. This is due to the productivity of an American worker generally being far greater than the difference in wages (and other labor costs).

But why should you do that?
You have an intermediate option (not really legal, but it happens anyway) of employing immigrant labour. You might still have to pay them the minimum wage, but you can cut out the benefits / overtime, and work them far harder and longer, largely because they are less likely to complain, especially if they are illegal immigrants living in fear of the authorities.But you have to account for the potential costs of employing illegals - this is not only government penalties for breaking the law, but also social penalties from the bad PR.

The most attractive option though is to move the entire factory overseas (or build it overseas in the first place). The labour required for construction will be cheaper, the raw materials will be cheaper, the wages you pay to your factory workers can be a small fraction of the price. You also don't have many working regulations to contend with, rarely any unions, and no environmental restrictions.
Besides, in some countries (notably China) you can employ the prison population, reducing your labour costs to just about nothing.
Only if the productivity difference is less than the labor cost difference. Still do not see how this is supposed to be critical of capitalism. Saying a free market is capable of producing things more efficiently by providing jobs for those in developing countries while lowering the cost of living of consumers is not exactly a scathing criticism.

This is presently possible because the costs of transporting goods worldwide is still very cheap (despite rising fuel prices), and the legal restrictions on doing so (tariffs, trade barriers, restrictions om movement of capital) have been steadily eroded over the past 50 years or so, in the name of globalisation.
To the great benefit of everyone.

My point here is that the global labour market is very weak and getting weaker as more and more developing countries enter the labour market. The effect on wages is mixed, and depends largely on where you are in the world. How do you figure? Prosperity in the world is ever increasing - the number of people living in abject poverty has been rapidly plummeting for decades. The number of people living on a dollar a day (weighted for purchasing power parity to a 1994 US dollar - IIRC it is actually something like $1.40 but that doesn't sound as good) is lower than it has ever been in history. The standard of living of everyone in the world has been steadily increasing over the past 200 years - this is directly attributable to global trade. Trade is a good thing - it makes everyone better off.

Workers around the world can participate in the global economy, opening their markets to greater participation and thus greater opportunity benefits everyone.

From the perspective of "western" nations, such as the US / UK / Europe, there is a downwards pressure on wages, because the domestic pay scales are becoming less sustainable in the face of increasing competition from developing countries and / or immigrant labour.

From the perspective of developing countries, the job market is actually improving a bit, thanks to investment from "western" corporations seeking to exploit cheap labour. Their pay may still be very low by "western" standards, but it is better than no pay at all.

The 'downward pressure' only comes in industries where the country lacks a comparative advantage. It also greatly lowers the cost of living for everyone as goods become cheaper. Industries where a country has a comparative advantage actually increase as global demand for their production and thus puts and 'upward pressure'.

Developing countries are making massive improvements as they liberalize their markets to compete globally - developed nations likewise make improvements (though these are less obvious because they are coming from an already advanced state, so even substantial changes are less noticeable).

However, we haven't run out of cheap labour to exploit, and we won't run out for quite some time. For example, India is becoming slightly less competitive as it (slowly) becomes a consumerist society. But there's still South America, and failing that, there's always free labour in China's prisons. Using 'exploit' in a pejorative sense is inappropriate - everyone benefits in this 'exploitation'. The worker benefits, the consumer benefits, society at large benefits - everyone is better off.

So overall, globalised capitalism is in fact a race to the bottom. This might eventually turn around, but not until the labour market becomes pretty much equal around the world. Who knows how long that will take!
This 'race to the bottom' fallacy is just silly - it does not hold to reality. Moving industries to where it is more productive raises incomes of those who get the work, who in turn spend it on other things, greatly building their economy. This also produces cheaper goods, allowing the consumers to spend their money on other goods and services, further churning the economic pot.

One answer to this "problem" is to impose tariffs and trade barriers, preventing the exploitation of cheap labour. But that's unlikely to happen, partially because it's very politically unfashionable at the moment, but largely because multinational corporations will resist it at every turn.

It is more fashionable than it should be - trade barriers are counter-productive to the economy as a whole. They may protect a small subgroup, but it does so at a greater cost to the whole. Barriers to trade simply raise costs for domestic consumers as imports are unnaturally high, and lowers employment for the exporting country , all to protect an inefficient industry.

Can you logically defend Norway imposing high trade barriers and subsidizing the domestic production of pineapples? It sounds absurd, but that is effectively what you are doing - advocating the protection of an industry that would be far more efficient done somewhere else. Those Norwegian resources could be better spent elsewhere.

The other solution will come when fuel prices rise enough to make overseas production of goods economically unfeasible. If transportation costs rise sufficiently, companies will be forced to use domestic labour once again. Not the best solution I know, but it will happen sooner or later whether we like it or not.

Reducing trade is a very bad thing. Let us go over this again because it is an insanely important thing. Trade is good. Do you live completely self-sufficiently? Do you make your own clothes, grow your own food, mine, refine, and process the raw materials to build your own computer? The answer is obviously no because trading for these things makes much more sense. It does not matter if the trade takes place between different countries or just between your little town and the one a couple miles down the road. Are you arguing for your town to put up trade barriers to stop trading with anyone who isn't a local? How about your neighborhood? Do you actually have some economic interaction with people who live outside your household? Scale does not matter here - trade is a good thing. Period.

Just because someone is a foreigner does not make it an evil thing to interact with them.

What is the greatest economic system offering the greatest economic freedom?

First, let's look at this most elusive of words: "freedom". What exactly is freedom?

To the right-wing libertarians, freedom is formulated negatively, i.e., freedom from [blank]. A legitimate freedom to the right-winger involves no abridgement of another's freedom. As such, there is not "freedom of speech" but rather freedom from censorship.

To a left-wing libertarian, a solely negative formulation of freedom ignores many real human consequences. A mute person is not being censored by anyone, and is still as "free" as everyone else, as there are no externally imposed restrictions on him/her. However, it is obvious that even without any external imposition, this person will never be heard except by other's charity. To the right-wing libertarian, it would be an abridgment of another's freedom to ensure that the mute person had some means of communicating with others.

Obviously, a solely negative conceptualization of freedom ignores the very real fact that individuals are very much different. Some people have greater abilities than others, and so have been rendered "more free" than their fellow humans. Murray Bookchin argued this point very emphatically in The Ecology of Freedom. To him, as well as many other leftists, freedom is not merely "freedom from...". It must be also consider as a "freedom for..."

To me, a very real precondition for freedom is a measure of equality. Inequality inevitably results in certain individuals having more freedom than others. Correspondingly, whatever social arrangement we choose must compensate for the very real differences among persons. Murray Bookchin's vision of a free society combined a vision of the Athenian polis and its direct democracy (absent, of course, the sexism and slavery of the original) with Peter Kropotkin's mutual aid and federalism, along with a recogntion of a universal humanity and the prehistorical organic society's usufruct and irreducible minimum. Everyone has access to be able to use productive instruments for personal or collective benefit, while at the same time no one will be denied a certain minimum for survival. No one will be left to starve, and those who are unable to work will be provided for.

Bookchin describes this all in great detail in The Ecology of Freedom. It's a great read, and I'd recommend that you put it on the top of your reading list. It's currently in print by AK Press for about 20 dollars.

There is no inherent prohibition on charity in any Capitalistic society. In fact, it's far more commendable to put your hand in your own pocket to help those in need. In fact, for those worried about the moral basis of an economic system, Capitalism is the much superior to any redistribution scheme.

Let's say I mow your lawn and you pay me $30. I then go to the store for a big steak and some beer -- a demand that my fellow man serve me. The owner of the store asks me if I've served my fellow man, as well. I reply yes and show my $30 --- a certificate of performance.

Compare this with a resource allocation system that is run by a government. In effect, the government is saying -- Myrm, you don't need to serve your fellow man, we'll take care of that. The government proceeds to develop a tax code that does just that. Through coercion, they take what my fellow man produces and give it to me. Of course, if you or I would attempt that, we would be jailed for theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft -- the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.

I think this makes it pretty clear which system is better. While charity is a laudable act, reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

You do realise I wasn't advocating state socialism right? Or any kind of ideology, in fact. Also, your belief that having money somehow proves that you have made a contribution is laughable.

Greatest Economic Freedom is your operating term. Under that premise what is freedom? I would argue it is the ability to choose your own course of action (including inaction) and hold sole responsibility for the accompanying results. Under capitalism you are free to do what and how much of it you want to do. You have no obligation to pay any more than you negotiate. You can market whatever you wish and for whatever price you are able to get. You can market your time, your ideas, your posessions, or even tak risks with them all for whatever reason you may wish. You may take the gains from these things and do with them as you wish; Spend. Save. Reinvest. Give. Whatever.

Under communism you must work and for whatever they pay you. There will be many jobs which people will find unattractive - so some will be 'compelled' to do this work by the state. Once every so often you may get a chance to vote on those who decide how your labor, time, ideas and property is used and by whom. In return you get access to other peoples labor, time, ideas and property as determined by the state.

IMHO freedom is not about being able to choose your master or get something rationed to you. It is about being able to decided for yourself if/what/for whom you want to produce and consume. That is pretty much congruent with the definition of capitalism.

Some people are incapable of grasping capitalism with regard to corporate operations. These people often have bought the labor story so fully as to show absolute disragard for self-employment, independant contractors, small business and partnerships, etc. in spite of that fact that they account for more than half of the jobs in most free markets.

They also tend to confuse freedom with fair. Is it fair that a person in New York makes more than a person in Ecuador? What about Kentucky? What about the Bronx vs the catskills? Is it fair that it costs $$1.5 mil for a home in San Francisco and only $150,000 for a comparable home in Kansas? Fairness is a completely different issue than freedom. You can experience freedom and unfairness at the same time. You can experience fairness and no freedom also. You can even experience both or neither. They are therefore different issues.

So you may want to rethink your question to include a discussion about fairness. Is it fair to expect a person to pay more than they can afford for a treatment for a serious illness? If not then is it fair to force a physician to provide service (ie-work) for free? Is it fair for them to charge different rates for the same service? Is it fair to make them accept that? etc. etc. A completely different discussion with more opportunity for profound insughts IMHO.



As I ask this question I must first state that I have an open mind and no strong position one way or another. A few weeks ago I decided to reavaulate my core values and principles. Since then I have formed new core values and seeking to form educated, logical, and hopefully unbiased opinions.

So with that said here is my question:

What is the greatest economic system offering the greatest economic freedom?

I have been wrestling with this question for some time and I cant answer it. I have been able to sum up the following:
Communism: "Everything is free... there just isnt any of it"
Capitalism: "Suck it up and work harder"

I am trying to answer this question and have gone from a merit based economy to a particapatory economy, and from a anarcho-communist economy to a anarcho-capitalist economy.

I look forward to what people have to say. Please dont resort to a flame war, endless argument, or one liners. I am looking for an informative answer... wether such an answer may exist.

So with that said here is my question:

What is the greatest economic system offering the greatest economic freedom?An economic system where everything anyone wants is created by robots at a whim at no cost to anyone. People can then concentrate on doing whatever interests them, rather than slave at jobs that don't hold their interest for economic reasons.
All we need is a sheer unlimited source of energy, and robots..

There are massive problems in many economic systems. So, to say that any one is particuarly superior is ludacris. Only through a blend, a moderation of multiple economic systems can an economy thrive to it's highest potentials.

Communism/Socialism greatly harms the key to economic growth, productivity, by decreasing incentive.

Capitalism, generally speaking, implies support of "free trade"...which floods the market with cheap consumer goods, which hurts small businesses. This also, in the case of the United States, creates large trade deficits and national debt.

Both of those little tidbits are horrid flaws. So neither is superior, I would say.

Ok - lets get some things straight here:

Although it might sound like it, I'm not arguing against global trade - I'm merely pointing out some of the consequences of having a free trade in labour (amongst other things).

The point I was trying to make about the "race to the bottom" - which isn't a silly argument so much as a straightforward reality - is that in a global labour market, the most competitive (read: cheap) labour wins, at least for unskilled work.

I'm not arguing that developing countries are losing out from this - that really would be silly (not to mention untrue). As has been correctly pointed out, by opening their markets to global trade, developing countries benefit from increased investment and increased employment. We might consider that their levels of pay are low, but that's an unfair judgement because our cost of living is a lot higher.

This is why the impact of globalisation depends on where you are in the world. If you live in a developing country, you undoubtedly do benefit - poverty is indeed dropping - although it could by all accounts drop a lot faster.

This leads me on to the other argument commonly trotted out in favour of a globalised free market. (I'm not necessarily against such a system - I'm just pointing out some of the fallacious arguments made in favour of it.) This is the theory that since outsourcing labour makes products cheaper, everyone is therefore better off. I can see the logic in this, I really can. But it doesn't always work like that. Allow me to explain:

If you own a company that manufactures a product, whatever that product may be, you can in all likelihood reduce the cost of making your product by moving manufacturing overseas or employing cheaper labour. But herein lies the fallacy: reducing the cost of making a product doesn't automatically mean that the retail price of that product will drop. It might drop a little, but what is far more likely is the company pocketing the savings on wages as profit.

Secondly, even if the prices of products do drop significantly (reflecting the reduced cost of production), that doesn't make up for the loss of jobs to the domestic economy. You can't sell stuff in a consumer society if you don't have consumers - and the unemployed don't make great consumers.

Thirdly, the cost of living is based on a lot more than the prices of consumer items - and even if it was, you can't shift production of everything overseas. Besides, the prices of some things, such as fuel, or buying / renting property, are increasing - perhaps so much as to outweigh the potential savings made by the availability of cheap consumables from China.

I'm not arguing in favour of trade barriers. In the long run, the total absence of trade barriers will probably benefit everyone. It's not a law of nature though - and it certainly won't be if we can't be consistent about it.

For example, the US still has a steel tariff - which benefits domestic steel producers enormously - but does a lot of damage to countries which might want to export steel to the US. The UK for example produces steel of a much higher quality than most mills in the US, and used to rely a lot on exports to the US before GWB imposed the tariffs.

Another example: the WTO TRIPS restrictions prevent Argentina, India and Thailand from exporting cheap generic AIDS medications to Africa - or to anywhere else, for that matter. In fact, the Pharmaceutical industry never has to listen to the sermons often preached by the globalisation apostles on the virtues of competition and the free market - domestic drug prices in the US are fiercely protected. This is one area where the removal of trade barriers would indeed enormously benefit domestic consumers and foreign producers alike.

My point here is that if the US can't be trusted to honour free trade agreements - if the very people who consistently argue in favour of globalised free market capitalism can't always put their money where their mouths are, then who will?

The point I was trying to make about the "race to the bottom" - which isn't a silly argument so much as a straightforward reality - is that in a global labour market, the most competitive (read: cheap) labour wins, at least for unskilled work.



Considering the facts I would say 'race to the bottom' has far more in common with 'silly argument' than reality of any sort.

Looking at history the cheap labor of Japan eventually stopped being so cheap. Then it moved to Taiwan, then Hong Kong, then Korea. Each place experienced unprescedented growth as a result of their export activity as their economies were developed and funded. China is only the lastest iteration of the spread of wealth created in very large part by capitalism. If it is a race to the bottom then why did each country sequentially cede the race?

As the rotation has occurred there has been no sudden drop of living standards in the earlier economies - instead they have grown and flourished. The zero-sum argument always loses. Wealth is not transferred nearly so much as it is created. This is the real straightforward reality.

Harry Truman once asked for a one armed economics advisor. Why? Because economists always go "On the one hand...But on the other hand..." These are the good economists.

The very nature of economics centers around choices. Just like physics, for every reaction, there is an equal yet opposite reaction. For every choice, there is an alternative. For every position on the economic spectrum, there is a corresponding position with the same absolute distance but inverse actual distance. I.E: For every choice more individualistic, there is a choice more communal.

You'll never find a good, one-armed economist. It just can't be done, metaphorically. So in response to the original questionabout the best economic system, well, on the one hand, do you want fairness, or on the other hand, do you want equality?

Capitalism emphasizes fairness but not equality, and Socialism emphasizes equality but not fairness. It is a choice.

Greatest Economic Freedom is your operating term. Under that premise what is freedom? I would argue it is the ability to choose your own course of action (including inaction) and hold sole responsibility for the accompanying results. I would argue that it is the capacity to see your choices actualized in reality.
Simply making choices means nothing if you don't get to see them through.

well, on the one hand, do you want fairness, or on the other hand, do you want equality?Both.

I would argue that it is the capacity to see your choices actualized in reality.
Simply making choices means nothing if you don't get to see them through.

Both.

That really much isn't an argument so much as a statement. It is not contrary to anything I've shared. Essentially you have said "a goal is just a wish if you don't have a plan" - unless you believe someone else should be responsible for your wishes you have only affirmed the responsibility portion of capitalism - that you are free to make choices and benefit from the concenquences of them - no matter if your choice is prudent, profound, foolish, wise, or therwise - the concenquence wil match your choice --- freedom.

Harry Truman once asked for a one armed economics advisor. Why? Because economists always go "On the one hand...But on the other hand..." These are the good economists.

The very nature of economics centers around choices. Just like physics, for every reaction, there is an equal yet opposite reaction. For every choice, there is an alternative. For every position on the economic spectrum, there is a corresponding position with the same absolute distance but inverse actual distance. I.E: For every choice more individualistic, there is a choice more communal.

You'll never find a good, one-armed economist. It just can't be done, metaphorically. So in response to the original questionabout the best economic system, well, on the one hand, do you want fairness, or on the other hand, do you want equality?

Capitalism emphasizes fairness but not equality, and Socialism emphasizes equality but not fairness. It is a choice.

Perhaps a hybrid between the two. A way for people to compete but yet work together. I tend to think capitalism is the best between the two however it isnt perfect. I imagine that a few hundred years from now we will see a shift away from capitalism like we saw a shift from feudalism.

p.s.

I left the "best" part undefined becuase I didnt want to inject my own bias into the mix. Just trying to read other people's opinions.

For every choice more individualistic, there is a choice more communal.

Not really, people cannot think with a communal mind, a person simply cannot make decisions based on total democratic input from the community. There comes a point where decisions have to made of rational self-interest, as the amount of input a democratic community can have over an individual's decisions is very limited on a minute to minute basis.

Capitalism emphasizes fairness but not equality, and Socialism emphasizes equality but not fairness. It is a choice.

I think saying this, and this is directed at Jello Biafra too, requires that you define what exactly is equality and what exactly is fairness.

I would argue that it is the capacity to see your choices actualized in reality.


But this leads to absurdities as choices are not bound by any sort of logic. For example, I have many times wished I could be in two places at once, but I have never actually been able to do this. Is this a hindrance to my freedom?

That really much isn't an argument so much as a statement. It is not contrary to anything I've shared. Essentially you have said "a goal is just a wish if you don't have a plan" - unless you believe someone else should be responsible for your wishes you have only affirmed the responsibility portion of capitalism - that you are free to make choices and benefit from the concenquences of them - no matter if your choice is prudent, profound, foolish, wise, or therwise - the concenquence wil match your choice --- freedom.Well, the difference is that the vast majority of potential choices in capitalism aren't actualizable.
More choices are actualizable in communism.

I think saying this, and this is directed at Jello Biafra too, requires that you define what exactly is equality and what exactly is fairness.Hm. I can't think of the wording that I would use at the moment, but I would say that equality is a necessary component of fairness. (But that the existence of equality isn't necessary fairness.)

But this leads to absurdities as choices are not bound by any sort of logic. For example, I have many times wished I could be in two places at once, but I have never actually been able to do this. Is this a hindrance to my freedom?Yes.
Fortunately, nobody else has this ability, so nobody else has more freedom than you do.

Yes.
Fortunately, nobody else has this ability, so nobody else has more freedom than you do.

Would you say that, due to our abstract thinking (we can imagine nearly limitless possibilities that are not achievable), we are dramatically less free than lower creatures?

Would you say that, due to our abstract thinking (we can imagine nearly limitless possibilities that are not achievable), we are dramatically less free than lower creatures?No. Lower creatures can't imagine wanting to be in two places at once, but this doesn't mean that they have more freedom as a result.

No. Lower creatures can't imagine wanting to be in two places at once, but this doesn't mean that they have more freedom as a result.

But they have far fewer unrealized choices because of it, and that was your standard for freedom.

But they have far fewer unrealized choices because of it, and that was your standard for freedom.For economic freedom, yes.

For economic freedom, yes.

Why is there a difference?

Harry Truman once asked for a one armed economics advisor. Why? Because economists always go "On the one hand...But on the other hand..." These are the good economists.
This is something that is a major peeve of mine. Unless arguing with another economist, I often get frustrated by people assuming that when I give caveats it means that my position is not true or somehow flawed. Most people seem to think that any true position should be able to be stated in a clear concise manner without any possible trade-offs or conditions.

This is probably why a lot of people are convinced to think absurd things because those promoting those ideas make blanket statements without recognizing any conditions or trade-offs, while those positing rational and logical arguments backed up by data give caveats (which means they must not be true).

Capitalism emphasizes fairness but not equality, and Socialism emphasizes equality but not fairness. It is a choice.

What do you mean by thins? This is a statement which lacks any precision.
If you're going to say something like this you really need to explain what you mean by both fairness and equality. (I can actually agree with this provided you measure 'equality' only in material wealth). As the old axiom goes; capitalism promotes great inequality in wealth, where as communism makes everyone equally impoverished.

Fortunately, nobody else has this ability, so nobody else has more freedom than you do.
In other words, everyone is free if nobody is allowed to have any wealth. We must all be made as impoverished as the poorest person, as weak as the weakest, as ugly as the ugliest, as stupid as the most stupid, and as sickly as the least healthy; only then will we all be 'free'

What is the greatest economic system offering the greatest economic freedom?

Market anarchism.

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra;12747935]Well, the difference is that the vast majority of potential choices in capitalism aren't actualizable.
More choices are actualizable in communism.

Now you have made an unsupported statement which is contrary to reality.

I think your trouble is that you have confused choices with goals. They are different. As I said before - goals without plans are just wishes.

With capitalism or communism ANYONE can wish. So what? The difference is that with capitalism anyone can choose to pursue their wish with any plan they desire. With communism there is no ability to 'choose' (set any goals for) your own economic future - it is decided for you. Hardly a chance to actualize anything there.

With capitalism there is no guarantee that your plan will work (become 'actualized' - what a misuse of the term). With communism there is no 'risk' of a failed plan (because you dont get one!)

Why is there a difference?Hm. I must have been unclear. Let me rephrase.
Freedom is the ability to see your choices actualized. Economic freedom is typically defined as making choices, so economic freedom would be the actualization of choice.
However, if there was some choice that someone hadn't thought of because it wasn't invented yet, then their freedom is not being impinged upon.
In the example of both you and the animal, you both (presumably) choose to get things done. In both cases, it would aid you in your choices by being able to be in two places at once. Thus, by being in two places at once, you would have more freedom.

In other words, everyone is free if nobody is allowed to have any wealth. We must all be made as impoverished as the poorest person, as weak as the weakest, as ugly as the ugliest, as stupid as the most stupid, and as sickly as the least healthy; only then will we all be 'free'No, everyone is free only if everyone is equally wealthy. This means everyone must be made as rich as the richest person.

Now you have made an unsupported statement which is contrary to reality. Nope. In communism, you have access to everything that the community produces.
In capitalism, you only have access if you can purchase it.

I think your trouble is that you have confused choices with goals. They are different. As I said before - goals without plans are just wishes.

With capitalism or communism ANYONE can wish. So what? The difference is that with capitalism anyone can choose to pursue their wish with any plan they desire.People don't choose to pursue a wish, they choose to want something, and act accordingly.

With communism there is no ability to 'choose' (set any goals for) your own economic future - it is decided for you. Hardly a chance to actualize anything there.Here you make an unsupported statement.

With capitalism there is no guarantee that your plan will work (become 'actualized' - what a misuse of the term). And thus your choice is not actualized.

With communism there is no 'risk' of a failed plan (because you dont need one!)Fixed.

The maximum economic freedom (for the individual) is found in the idle aristocracy of a sucessful empire. Sorry for the one-liner, but: Paris Hilton, 'nuff said.

However, if there was some choice that someone hadn't thought of because it wasn't invented yet, then their freedom is not being impinged upon.

Why not?

Surely inability to think of choices is a limitation on choice actualization.

No, everyone is free only if everyone is equally wealthy. This means everyone must be made as rich as the richest person.

Six of one, half-dozen of another.

Why not?

Surely inability to think of choices is a limitation on choice actualization.It could be argued that the person who doesn't think of choices chooses to not think of choices.

Six of one, half-dozen of another.My way sounds better. ;)
(I also think it's more accurate, as the majority of people would benefit if wealth was redistributed equally, thus meaning they'd get richer.)

It could be argued that the person who doesn't think of choices chooses to not think of choices.

My way sounds better. ;)
(I also think it's more accurate, as the majority of people would benefit if wealth was redistributed equally, thus meaning they'd get richer.)

There is no question that if people take something which they did not earn they benefit - why do you think theft is a univeral problem? Are you arguing that thieves are the economically free-est persons alive?

This thread is not about getting free stuff - the question of the thread is which economic system provided the highest degree of freedom - which comminusm fails miserably at.

You are so focused on getting free stuff that you fail to recognize that consumable items and services must be produced by someone and that in communism that producer has no freedom whatsoever regarding the distribution or consumption of their labor. (Nor do individuials have the ability to take a risk to develop something unique and innovative and succeed or fail based upon their execution and the merit of their idea. Innovation dies.)

Freedom and free stuff are not the same thing. Free stuff comes with an obligation - freedom comes with responsibility. If you are truly free then you must accept the potential of failure along with the potential of success. Risk is a natural part of freedom. The avoidance of risk must be a choice - not a mandate - within a free society.

Freedom is also not the same as fairness - another simple concept that people tend to get hung-up on. It is not fair that some people develop horrible illnesses which devastate their bodies. It would not be freedom to force a physician to treat these patients without fair compensation. It is not fair that some people are born into poverty. It is not freedom to force the physician to give them a portion of his property. (such as income) Does it happen - sure. Is it bad? Maybe yes; maybe no - depends. Is it congruent with freedom? No. It is not. It is more about fairness.

By definition Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&defl=en&q=define:slavery&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Sounds alot like communism... I'm certain, just as you said, some people would benefit from free stuff. If you are willing to tolerate slavery - even in part or for a select few - then that is your business - but don't pretend it has anything in common with freedom.

(I also think it's more accurate, as the majority of people would benefit if wealth was redistributed equally, thus meaning they'd get richer.)

That's not his point (at least I don't think so), if freedom is a matter of choice actualization, then to equalize freedom we must equalize all those factors that affect actualization. We have to accept that wealth is not the only factor affecting our ability to pursue or fulfill our choices, as talent, environment, and appearance are all important factors. In my opinion the equalization of those factors results in a decidedly Harrison Bergeronesque society. I know that story gets tossed off as a strawman, but you are going to have to again explain why.

Not sure I get your point, but the premise 'choice actualization' being somehow equal to freedom is invalid. Cutting through the crap - as far as I've seen it used here 'choice actualization' is simply a less offensive way of saying "getting whatever you want". I could be wrong and would hope so but as it has been used there is not much latitude for it to mean otherwise.

Under capitalism anyone can choose to do anything. There is no obstacle to doing that. There is simply nobody else who will make your 'choice actualie' other than you. Because of this - and the fact that people will get varying results for varying reasons - that unfocused people confuse freedom and fairness.

Under capitalism anyone can choose to do anything. There is no obstacle to doing that.Except lack of money. Even when society doesn't lack the means to allow you to follow your dreams, you still might not be among the privileged that get to use those means.

Haven't read the whole thread so I'm starting with the original question.

Like most things in life if you go the extreme neither system is good.

It would be great if people could operate in a communist system as it is the most fair. But human nature is one of greed. So people just won't work for the good of all. At the basic level, people just don't give a d___ about others and sure won't work any harder than they have to.

On the other hand, capitalism without control becomes slavery. The rich and powerful end up owning everything at the cost of the rest. Think feudalism. At the point in which wealth is consolidated in the few, the few quit producing also. Sort of like the "old money" of Europe.

What is needed is a regulated capitalism with a leveling of the wealth through taxation. There needs to be regulation against total consolidation that ends competition. (think oil companies) There also needs to be regulation of rights for employees so they get a fair share of the wealth produced rather that a slave existence. They also need enough to consume production. And there needs to be a leveling of the wealth to make room for those at the bottom to find room at the top. This will also force everyone to do something rather than producing a class of idle rich that become parasite off of the rest of the economy.

Money has nothing to do with freedom. Wild animals do not possess money - are they unfree? The moon does not have any money - is it a slave? The bushmen of the Kalahari do not have any money - are they unfree?

Pitiful argument. You have grasped nothing about what I have said. You cannot purchase freedom. Nor will taking it from someone else provide it for you. Free stuff is not freedom - not even free money.

Your only hope for a point - as I have said multiple times - is about fairness. You need to grow beyond all of the jealousy and materialism that has been programmed into your skull. Freedom is not about stuff. Freedom is not about money. Freedom is not about privilege or lack thereof. Freedom is about doing whatever you desire with whatever resources you possess and being responsible for the resulting outcome of those choices. And that is why communism can never be congruent with freedom.


Except lack of money. Even when society doesn't lack the means to allow you to follow your dreams, you still might not be among the privileged that get to use those means.

Money has nothing to do with freedom. Wild animals do not possess money - are they unfree? The moon does not have any money - is it a slave? The bushmen of the Kalahari do not have any money - are they unfree?

Freedom is about being able to do what you want.

If you have more money, you can do (or buy) more things that you want to do. If you're an animal, you probably only have basic desires and thus are not un-free to pursue them; I doubt a squirrel wants a flat-screen TV, but its lack of such technology does not decrease its degree of freedom. If you're a member of a primitive tribe, you probably don't know of advanced technology and consequently do not hunger for it, making you as free as anybody else.

Money has nothing to do with freedom. Wild animals do not possess money - are they unfree?Do animals require money for anything they want? Do they want to go to university; travel abroad?

The moon does not have any money - is it a slave?How can freedom even apply to the moon? Does it have desires? Does it make choices? Is it free to change orbit and go tour mars instead?

The bushmen of the Kalahari do not have any money - are they unfree?They are unfree to do things that require money; but they also don't particularly want any of those things. If they wanted to follow a college education, they would not be free to do so unless they have the means to pay, or unless someone else pays for them.
However, my world, unlike theirs, does require money. And adjusting your expectations of life downwards isn't freedom.

You cannot purchase freedom.Perhaps not, but you can purchase people; still, in some places.

Freedom is not about stuff. Freedom is not about money. Freedom is not about privilege or lack thereof. Freedom is about doing whatever you desire with whatever resources you possess and being responsible for the resulting outcome of those choices. So consider if I take away everything you have, lock you in a dungeon and leave you to starve. With the resources at your disposal (nothing), and responsibility for the choices you make once in that situation, you are still just as free as me?
Like Sartre much?
Freedom like that means nothing, it is an empty concept in any practical way.

Freedom is having the options to do what you want, and that requires money in the case of us people living in a monetarized world. Freedom isn't about stuff, but it can still require stuff. (Writing on this board isn't about the computer, but it still requires one.)

Declaring everyone free regardless of their circumstances is just an excuse to leave them in those circumstances. If people have to work in appaling conditions the whole day just to survive, then they are not free to pursue a better life. Hence why they they should be given minimal means to lift them up, such that they do have a choice other then squalor or death.
I'm not talking about redistributing everything equally, just about providing everyone with the minimal resources needed such that they can be free, free to pursue happiness in a real way, in a way other than "oh, just imagine you're happy and free already".

Let me say it once again for you; Freedom is about doing whatever you desire with whatever resources you possess and being responsible for the resulting outcome of those choices. It is not that difficult of a concept.

Freedom is about being able to do what you want.

If you have more money, you can do (or buy) more things that you want to do.
Freedom and getting whatever you desire are two very seperate things. One is freedom - one is a spoiled child.

Do animals require money for anything they want? Do they want to go to university; travel abroad?
Freedom and getting whatever you desire are two very seperate things. One is freedom - one is a spoiled child.

They are unfree to do things that require money; but they also don't particularly want any of those things.
Freedom and getting whatever you desire are two very seperate things. One is freedom - one is a spoiled child. Please try to move on from your materialism and jealousy. It is unbecoming.

So consider if I take away everything you have, lock you in a dungeon and leave you to starve.
Where are you going with this? Build your own straw man? Surely you can do better than that. This is a statement which is exactly opposite of my definition of freedom. It has no bearing on anything I've said other than to illustrate the opposite of freedom - when people take from you against your will.


Freedom is having the options to do what you want...
you are only half right. Freedom is about doing whatever you desire with whatever resources you possess and being responsible for the resulting outcome of those choices.

Declaring everyone free regardless of their circumstances is just an excuse to leave them in those circumstances. If people have to work in appaling conditions the whole day just to survive, then they are not free to pursue a better life. Hence why they they should be given minimal means to lift them up, such that they do have a choice other then squalor or death.
No - you have reduced your argument to the narrow extreme then threw in some cum hoc ergo propter hoc with some Argumentum ad misericordiam. I particularly enjoyed the non sequitur to the ridiculous idea that any disagreement with you makes one in favor of "squalor and DEATH!" What next - Godwin's law?

The vast majority of free people in the world do not work in apalling conditions and no free people work against their will. That is not to say that these conditions do not exist - they just do not legitimately exist within a capitalist and free country (which CAN be mutually exclusive). The question of this thread is not, 'Does capitalism make people free?' it is, "which is most compatible with freedom - capitalism or communism?" There can be no debate that capitalism is. Freedom to make choices and resources to pursue them are not the same. There certainly is a question of FAIRNESS - but fairness and freedom are mutually exclusive.

This thread is not about computers - but there is no rule preventing anyone from deciding to use their resources to acquire a computer and a connection and coming here to participate. If they don't have the resources it is not due to a lack of freedom - it is due to something else -
FAIRNESS

There is no question that if people take something which they did not earn they benefit - why do you think theft is a univeral problem? Are you arguing that thieves are the economically free-est persons alive?Are you using earn to mean 'make money' or to mean 'merit'?

This thread is not about getting free stuff - the question of the thread is which economic system provided the highest degree of freedom - which comminusm fails miserably at.

You are so focused on getting free stuff that you fail to recognize that consumable items and services must be produced by someone and that in communism that producer has no freedom whatsoever regarding the distribution or consumption of their labor.This is the same unsubstantiated argument you put forward before.

(Nor do individuials have the ability to take a risk to develop something unique and innovative and succeed or fail based upon their execution and the merit of their idea. Innovation dies.)Says who?

Freedom and free stuff are not the same thing. Free stuff comes with an obligation - freedom comes with responsibility. If you are truly free then you must accept the potential of failure along with the potential of success. Risk is a natural part of freedom. The avoidance of risk must be a choice - not a mandate - within a free society.Naturally.
All choices come with opportunity costs. I don't seek to remove them.

Freedom is also not the same as fairness - another simple concept that people tend to get hung-up on. It is not fair that some people develop horrible illnesses which devastate their bodies. Indeed. This is partially because the devastation of their body is a lessening of their freedom.

It would not be freedom to force a physician to treat these patients without fair compensation.I agree. Fortunately, the physician has access to everything the community produces (as does everyone else) so the physician is receiving fair compensation.

It is not fair that some people are born into poverty. It is not freedom to force the physician to give them a portion of his property. (such as income) It is not fair to create a system of property rights where people have unequal access. In such a situation, making it so the physician has equal access to think as does the carpenter does not remove either's freedom.

By definition Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&defl=en&q=define:slavery&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Sounds alot like communism... Then clearly you need to research communism more.
And perhaps look at the effects of hunger on the jobs people are willing to take, and of property owners' restricting access to food.

I'm certain, just as you said, some people would benefit from free stuff. If you are willing to tolerate slavery - even in part or for a select few - then that is your business - but don't pretend it has anything in common with freedom.I'm not willing to tolerate slavery.

Not sure I get your point, but the premise 'choice actualization' being somehow equal to freedom is invalid. Cutting through the crap - as far as I've seen it used here 'choice actualization' is simply a less offensive way of saying "getting whatever you want". I could be wrong and would hope so but as it has been used there is not much latitude for it to mean otherwise.No, that is correct. One way of saying it is 'getting what you want', though that isn't complete. You also have to have the ability to make choices without being coerced.
The freedom to is just as important as the freedom from.

Under capitalism anyone can choose to do anything. There is no obstacle to doing that. Certainly. Choice alone, however, is meaningless.
Is choosing whether I should flap my arms and fly someplace or teleport there a meaningful choice?

There is simply nobody else who will make your 'choice actualie' other than you. Because of this - and the fact that people will get varying results for varying reasons - that unfocused people confuse freedom and fairness.If there is no possibility of actualizing the choice, then it is irrelevant. Many choices that the rich can actualize are not actualizable by the poor.

That's not his point (at least I don't think so), if freedom is a matter of choice actualization, then to equalize freedom we must equalize all those factors that affect actualization. We have to accept that wealth is not the only factor affecting our ability to pursue or fulfill our choices, as talent, environment, and appearance are all important factors. In my opinion the equalization of those factors results in a decidedly Harrison Bergeronesque society. I know that story gets tossed off as a strawman, but you are going to have to again explain why.Certainly, one could argue that a Harrison Bergeronesque society (if such a thing was possible) is equalizing people. However, the idea here is to give people choices, not to take them away. Resources can be spent on education, so that everyone has free access to education. Places could be built for people to work out, thus everyone could choose to increase their strength. Additionally, doing this would also grant the already smart or strong to advance themselves, if they so chose to do so.
It is true that not everything can be controlled for, but perhaps with technological advancement, things could be. Certainly technological research in this area is better than researching chips to implant in people's heads to make them dumber.

Why do socialists hold the view that rich people are just parasites feeding off everyone else? Sounds just like bare jealousy to me.

The rich are rich for a reason, and it isn't because they 'oppress the common man' or any such garbage (at least not outside of a dictatorship). The rich are rich because they are productive or because their parents were highly productive and chose to pass their wealth on to their children.

I find it amusing when people pick out Paris Hilton as the example of being 'idle rich' when she is actually a productive person. She spends her family's money (which was earned through productivity, innovation, and providing benefit to others) but has also made a lot of money herself through movies, music, and television shows. People value watching her, even if it is not something you choose to value, other people do - so essentially you are saying the things you like are valid and worthwhile but if it isn't what I want, it shouldn't exist.

In other words: anti-capitalists are elitists who want to forcibly impose their views and values on others, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

To make money (unless you are in government) you must provide a good or service that people derive more benefit from than the money they pay for it. Those who find more valuable ways of contributing make more money - simple as that. While many of you will complain that teachers provide a much greater benefit than a baseball player (and I heartily agree) but most people value going to a baseball game more than the services of a teacher.

The 'idle rich' either produce, or they will eventually go broke. People that give them money value what they do - since it is not your money, you have no right to impose your views and values on those transactions.

Why do socialists hold the view that rich people are just parasites feeding off everyone else? Sounds just like bare jealousy to me.

The rich are rich for a reason, and it isn't because they 'oppress the common man' or any such garbage (at least not outside of a dictatorship). The rich are rich because they are productive or because their parents were highly productive and chose to pass their wealth on to their children.

I find it amusing when people pick out Paris Hilton as the example of being 'idle rich' when she is actually a productive person. She spends her family's money (which was earned through productivity, innovation, and providing benefit to others) but has also made a lot of money herself through movies, music, and television shows. People value watching her, even if it is not something you choose to value, other people do - so essentially you are saying the things you like are valid and worthwhile but if it isn't what I want, it shouldn't exist.

In other words: anti-capitalists are elitists who want to forcibly impose their views and values on others, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

To make money (unless you are in government) you must provide a good or service that people derive more benefit from than the money they pay for it. Those who find more valuable ways of contributing make more money - simple as that. While many of you will complain that teachers provide a much greater benefit than a baseball player (and I heartily agree) but most people value going to a baseball game more than the services of a teacher.

The 'idle rich' either produce, or they will eventually go broke. People that give them money value what they do - since it is not your money, you have no right to impose your views and values on those transactions.

But the 'idle rich' only produce idle shit, which has little objective use to society.

Let me say it once again for you; Freedom is about doing whatever you desire with whatever resources you possess and being responsible for the resulting outcome of those choices. It is not that difficult of a concept.The problem is that if we accept that conception, than having no means or no choice entails you are free. You can then either do whatever you want with nothing, or be responsible for nothing.
I in contrast would say freedom depends on actually having choices, more choices giving more freedom.

Freedom and getting whatever you desire are two very seperate things. One is freedom - one is a spoiled child.

Freedom and getting whatever you desire are two very seperate things. One is freedom - one is a spoiled child.

Freedom and getting whatever you desire are two very seperate things. One is freedom - one is a spoiled child. Please try to move on from your materialism and jealousy. It is unbecoming.OMG, you said it three times, so it must be true!
Nevermind it has no bearing on what I actually said.

Where are you going with this? Build your own straw man? Surely you can do better than that.I was just attempting to show what conclusions your conception of "freedom" leads to; it's called "reductio ad absurdum". But instead of actually considering it, I suppose it's much easier to pretend it's a fallacious argument.

This is a statement which is exactly opposite of my definition of freedom.Well, it's an exact opposite of what you think to mean by your definition, but it follows directly from it.

It has no bearing on anything I've said other than to illustrate the opposite of freedom - when people take from you against your will.Ah, but you see, you should consider the situation afterwards; the means and choices you have then. You can still do, regardless of what anyone has done to you, do what you want with the means that you have and be responsible for the choices that leaves you.
In fact, how can you not be responsible for the choices you make, and do things with means you don't have? Everyone is always free regardless under this concept.
But, no, don't consider this, pretend it's a fallacy, and repeat how you are right regardless three times.

but fairness and freedom are mutually exclusiveSo a free world isn't fair, and a fair world isn't free? That seems a bit overstated. How can anyone be free without a measure of fairness, and how can unfree-ness be fair?

I'll readily admit that people's personal freedoms may be at odds with eachother at times, because people don't live in a vaccuum. And that's exactly where means come into it, the interaction between people and their freedom. It's a simple interaction between means, power and freedom. The more money you have the more power you can gather to expand your freedom at the cost of the freedom of others.

This thread is not about computersWay to ignore the point. Aboutness and requirement are not the same. Things can require something without being about those things. Hence why your argument that freedom doesn't require means because it isn't about means, is invalid reasoning.




By all means, feel free to ignore this post. I haven't the means to make you consider things before outright dismissing or misrepresenting it after all. Use your freedom.

Certainly, one could argue that a Harrison Bergeronesque society (if such a thing was possible) is equalizing people. However, the idea here is to give people choices, not to take them away. Resources can be spent on education, so that everyone has free access to education. Places could be built for people to work out, thus everyone could choose to increase their strength. Additionally, doing this would also grant the already smart or strong to advance themselves, if they so chose to do so.
It is true that not everything can be controlled for, but perhaps with technological advancement, things could be. Certainly technological research in this area is better than researching chips to implant in people's heads to make them dumber.

So do you believe that due to the variability of nature that economic rent cannot be truly done away with, that is by how you define fairness and freedom, there will always be one who is more or less free than another?

I would also like to point out that giving people choices in the future is a matter of production and market economies have that cornered, no pun intended.

So do you believe that due to the variability of nature that economic rent cannot be truly done away with, that is by how you define fairness and freedom, there will always be one who is more or less free than another?Most likely that will be the case. There will likely be some disease that comes along in the future that removes freedom in people that needs to be wiped out. This would take time, and by then a new disease would likely emerge.

I would also like to point out that giving people choices in the future is a matter of production and market economies have that cornered, no pun intended.The problem with the production in market economies, though, is that much of it is wasteful. By this I don't mean that people lose money on it, but rather that things are produced and then demands are created for them (usually via advertising). It should be the other way around - the demand first, then the production.
Additionally, in market economies, the choice to not produce is seldom presented as viable. Indeed, it is communists who pushed for the 8-hour-workday, and who are pushing for the 4-hour-workday.

The problem with the production in market economies, though, is that much of it is wasteful. By this I don't mean that people lose money on it, but rather that things are produced and then demands are created for them (usually via advertising). It should be the other way around - the demand first, then the production.

You remember that part about creating new choices? How are those choices shown to the people?

Additionally, in market economies, the choice to not produce is seldom presented as viable. Indeed, it is communists who pushed for the 8-hour-workday, and who are pushing for the 4-hour-workday.

I will agree with this, but I think we can both agree that we have no idea what the average workday would be if determined by the market.

Before I answer or respond to any of the many many inaccurate statements here I will post a question that I don't think any of you can answer;

Where is Libertas Civitates?

This whole thread is to begin a discussion to explore economics and freedom for that poster. Shouldn't they be asking questions? Making comments? Only three posts in this thread and the last is five days old now...

I could waste my time explaining to you what I have already said over and over again - but it is obvious that your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to truly comprehend it. You have had to break down my points into so many particles that responding would be a chore and not a debate. That is not to dispariage you - it is simply a statement of what you have demonstrated. All you can do is say I am wrong and then repeat your postulation that freedom is all about property. Because some people dont have any property they are not free.

Your definition of freedom orbits the concept that posessions determine freedom - the more posessions the more freedom. I reject that idea. It is far too materialistic and simplistic. It also does not cover intellectual property, risk taking, quality of work, ownership of your time and a myriad of other economic realities.

You would presume that under communism nobody is compelled to work (slavery) yet in your physician arguiment you describe slavery quite well; being forced to work and accepting in return what a third party has determined is adequate for you. The owner of the labor nor the consumer has no say in its value.

You make the incorrect assumption that everyone is a wage earner and wages are the only choice avaliable. You are wrong. Not everyone is a wage earner. It is not the only choice. Nobody is compelled to take a wage job. They may choose to, but they are not forced to. I am sure you will use your 'oooo but the poor, whats about the poor! ". You are right - the poor have little choice but a wage job or living off the land. What you overlook is that they can determine what job they want, the can change jobs, they can accumulate, they can invest (including educate), they can spend foolishly, and they can quit. They are free to do whatever. Is it fair that across town some punk can go to college earn straight Cs and her folks pick up the tab? No. Fairness and Freedom, as I have said many times, are different. If that C student is paraplegic then she would have her own unfairness to deal with also - but it would not impact her freedom.

As history has demonstrated - communism makes no latitude for differences in quality or specialty. Nor does it provide incentive for such. If a physician (who has gone to school for years and assumes considerable liability) receives the same reward for his labor that a dishwasher does, then who would want to be a physician? In fact - if money were no object who would want to do any job beyond bartender or Hooters quality inspector? Therefore - the most offensive, dangerous and uncomfortable of jobs would go unfilled. (sewer workers, roofers, trash collectors, etc) Meaning - people would have to be compelled to do them. Now - if you are compelled to do a job and get no say in your compensation - what do we call that? (Hint - it rhymes with 'Shavery') Nobody under those circumstances is going to give it a 100% effort unless compelled to... Though I am sure that whips can be quite compelling.

Regarding innovation - If money were no object I would be an innovator. I would invent shit all day. I bet most people would. Beats picking up garbage all day long! Not to mention that there is no accountability. No Whips. If anyone askes what I did today I could say "I thought about my next invention! Now get out of my way and give me my free groceries. W00T!". Nevermind that there would be no incentive for me to make any GOOD inventions. Nor would there be any market to determine which ones actually ARE any good and which ones deserve to fail. (And lets face it - most 'inventions' deserve to fail - just watch an episode of 'American Inventor' for your evidence) Without a free market (note the term - FREE market) for ideas to succeed or fail there is no quality control for inventions nor is there incentive or reward for introducing any of quality. Innovation dies. Innovation is directly tied to freedom - the freedom to have an idea, act on it, and see it through. The freedom to do this is not the same as the resources to. Once again - that is a matter of fairness - not freedom. You have consistently ignored that part of my argument.

Is being handicapped a detriment to freedom. No. You can be paraplegic but still free to walk. The fact that you cannot walk is not imposed on you by anyone. It is your own limitation. Is it fair? Absolutely not. Whch is why I have pointed out many times before that under freedom there still can be unfairness. It does need to be addressed. I have given you that bone many many times. But this thread is not about fairness - it is about freedom. Having exactly the same thing as my neighbor may be fair - but it is no guarantee of freedom. Capitalism, prudently, does not try to be a 100% solution to everything. You have tried to make communism the cure for everything except baldness... no wait - I guess you got that covered too under 'free healthcare'.

Now I am certain that in your eagerness to rationalize your predetermined idea you are going to break this post into many minute particles and try to deflate each one. Sadly you will miss the whole point of my post in the process.

You will come up with some flowery definition of freedom that somehow justifies your very weak position that freedom is directly proportional to property. You may even try to illustrate how a third party taking property from one person and giving it to another is freedom for each. I'll probably laugh if you try to explain how everyone's labor is identical and that everyone will give 100% just because they love your utopia. You will be wrong on all accounts - but it is not you I am trying to address; it is Libertas Civitates. They have opened their mind and are looking for information - not self-affirming their own preconceptions. Libertas Civitates is learning what reality has already demonstrated - communism cannot coexist with freedom.

Oh - and if you want to know what a workday would look like without labor laws there certainly IS a way to determine that - look at the self-employed. See what hours a self employed plumber, electrician or mechanic put in.

Why do socialists hold the view that rich people are just parasites feeding off everyone else? Sounds just like bare jealousy to me.

The rich are rich for a reason, and it isn't because they 'oppress the common man' or any such garbage (at least not outside of a dictatorship). The rich are rich because they are productive or because their parents were highly productive and chose to pass their wealth on to their children.

I find it amusing when people pick out Paris Hilton as the example of being 'idle rich' when she is actually a productive person. She spends her family's money (which was earned through productivity, innovation, and providing benefit to others) but has also made a lot of money herself through movies, music, and television shows. People value watching her, even if it is not something you choose to value, other people do - so essentially you are saying the things you like are valid and worthwhile but if it isn't what I want, it shouldn't exist.

In other words: anti-capitalists are elitists who want to forcibly impose their views and values on others, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

To make money (unless you are in government) you must provide a good or service that people derive more benefit from than the money they pay for it. Those who find more valuable ways of contributing make more money - simple as that. While many of you will complain that teachers provide a much greater benefit than a baseball player (and I heartily agree) but most people value going to a baseball game more than the services of a teacher.

The 'idle rich' either produce, or they will eventually go broke. People that give them money value what they do - since it is not your money, you have no right to impose your views and values on those transactions.The problem with this example is that 'the market' only takes into account the positive values and the neutral values that people might have for a product.
The people who like Paris Hilton might pay to see her - a positive value. The people who don't might ignore her - a neutral value.
But what of the negative values? What if I think that what Paris Hilton does is so awful that she should pay me restitution? You might think that's absurd, but we do have restitution laws for polluters. What if what I think Paris Hilton does is entertainment pollution?

You remember that part about creating new choices? How are those choices shown to the people?Typically at the community meetings, someone would propose an idea and people would hear about it then. Or perhaps on the community forums, there would be an area for people to talk about the new things that the community has developed.

I will agree with this, but I think we can both agree that we have no idea what the average workday would be if determined by the market.I suppose I can't say that I do know what it would be like, no.

Before I answer or respond to any of the many many inaccurate statements here I will post a question that I don't think any of you can answer;

Where is Libertas Civitates?

This whole thread is to begin a discussion to explore economics and freedom for that poster. Shouldn't they be asking questions? Making comments? Only three posts in this thread and the last is five days old now... Libertas Civilates said that since s/he is a new poster, new posts need mod approval, or somesuch.
It could be that s/he has lost interest in the thread or NationStates, as well.

I could waste my time explaining to you what I have already said over and over again - but it is obvious that your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to truly comprehend it. You have had to break down my points into so many particles that responding would be a chore and not a debate. That is not to dispariage you - it is simply a statement of what you have demonstrated. All you can do is say I am wrong and then repeat your postulation that freedom is all about property. Because some people dont have any property they are not free. Are you talking to me, Damor, or both?

Your definition of freedom orbits the concept that posessions determine freedom - the more posessions the more freedom. I reject that idea. It is far too materialistic and simplistic. It also does not cover intellectual property, risk taking, quality of work, ownership of your time and a myriad of other economic realities.Possessions alone do not determine freedom, no. As I mentioned to Vittos the City Sacker, the choice to not accumulate or create possessions is also freedom. I said that people, when they make their choices, will take the risk of missing out on opportunity costs.
I'm not going to speak of ownership of anything, that's a whole other issue.

You would presume that under communism nobody is compelled to work (slavery) yet in your physician arguiment you describe slavery quite well; being forced to work and accepting in return what a third party has determined is adequate for you. The owner of the labor nor the consumer has no say in its value. Of course they have a say, at the community meetings they vote on what those values should be.

You make the incorrect assumption that everyone is a wage earner and wages are the only choice avaliable. You are wrong. Not everyone is a wage earner. It is not the only choice. Nobody is compelled to take a wage job. They may choose to, but they are not forced to. I am sure you will use your 'oooo but the poor, whats about the poor! ". You are right - the poor have little choice but a wage job or living off the land. What you overlook is that they can determine what job they want, the can change jobs, they can accumulate, they can invest (including educate), they can spend foolishly, and they can quit. They are free to do whatever. Is it fair that across town some punk can go to college earn straight Cs and her folks pick up the tab? Freedom is not simply the lack of being compelled.

No. Fairness and Freedom, as I have said many times, are different.I am aware of this.

If that C student is paraplegic then she would have her own unfairness to deal with also - but it would not impact her freedom. Of course it would impact her freedom of movement.

As history has demonstrated - communism makes no latitude for differences in quality or specialty. Nor does it provide incentive for such. If a physician (who has gone to school for years and assumes considerable liability) receives the same reward for his labor that a dishwasher does, then who would want to be a physician? In fact - if money were no object who would want to do any job beyond bartender or Hooters quality inspector? Therefore - the most offensive, dangerous and uncomfortable of jobs would go unfilled. (sewer workers, roofers, trash collectors, etc) Meaning - people would have to be compelled to do them. Now - if you are compelled to do a job and get no say in your compensation - what do we call that? (Hint - it rhymes with 'Shavery') Nobody under those circumstances is going to give it a 100% effort unless compelled to... Though I am sure that whips can be quite compelling.When has history demonstrated this? Before you give examples, I must point out that places like the Soviet Union did not have a communist system. Communism is defined as being a statesless, classless society with worker control of the means of production. You will need to give example that fit that criteria.
With that said, you seem to be under the false impression that people only work for direct financial compensation. Of course, this isn't true, otherwise there would be no Doctors Without Borders or pro bono legal work.
As far as the undesirable jobs go, perhaps nobody will do them. That's fine, perhaps they don't need to be done. If nobody wants to pick up someone else's garbage, that's fine, but if they want their own garbage to be taken away they'll have to do it themselves.

Regarding innovation - If money were no object I would be an innovator. I would invent shit all day. I bet most people would. Beats picking up garbage all day long! Not to mention that there is no accountability. No Whips. If anyone askes what I did today I could say "I thought about my next invention! Now get out of my way and give me my free groceries. W00T!". Nevermind that there would be no incentive for me to make any GOOD inventions. Nor would there be any market to determine which ones actually ARE any good and which ones deserve to fail. (And lets face it - most 'inventions' deserve to fail - just watch an episode of 'American Inventor' for your evidence) You don't think the community would continue to pay for your job as an inventor of you don't invent anything useful, do you?

Without a free market (note the term - FREE market) for ideas to succeed or fail there is no quality control for inventions nor is there incentive or reward for introducing any of quality. Innovation dies. Innovation is directly tied to freedom - the freedom to have an idea, act on it, and see it through. The freedom to do this is not the same as the resources to. Once again - that is a matter of fairness - not freedom. You have consistently ignored that part of my argument.

Is being handicapped a detriment to freedom. No. You can be paraplegic but still free to walk. The fact that you cannot walk is not imposed on you by anyone. It is your own limitation. Is it fair? Absolutely not. I am aware that freedom and resources are not the same thing, but the freedom to do something is directly tied to having the ability to do something.
I think the reason you don't get this is that you seem to be under the impression that freedom is something that can only be taken away by someone else. This isn't true. While freedom can be taken away by other people, it can also be created by other people.

Whch is why I have pointed out many times before that under freedom there still can be unfairness. It does need to be addressed. I have given you that bone many many times. But this thread is not about fairness - it is about freedom. Having exactly the same thing as my neighbor may be fair - but it is no guarantee of freedom. Capitalism, prudently, does not try to be a 100% solution to everything. You have tried to make communism the cure for everything except baldness... no wait - I guess you got that covered too under 'free healthcare'.You would have the same amount of freedom as your neighbor if you both had the same things, but it is true that this amount of freedom might not be very much. Of course, this low amount of freedom wouldn't be very fair, either.

Now I am certain that in your eagerness to rationalize your predetermined idea you are going to break this post into many minute particles and try to deflate each one. Sadly you will miss the whole point of my post in the process.

You will come up with some flowery definition of freedom that somehow justifies your very weak position that freedom is directly proportional to property. You may even try to illustrate how a third party taking property from one person and giving it to another is freedom for each. I'll probably laugh if you try to explain how everyone's labor is identical and that everyone will give 100% just because they love your utopia. I understand the point of your argument. It is simply incorrect, which is what I am trying to demonstate to you.
One place that you are incorrect is that I never said property would be taken from one person and given to another. Everyone would have equal property rights, and since they would, it wouldn't be necessary to take property from someone to make everyone equal.

You will be wrong on all accounts - but it is not you I am trying to address; it is Libertas Civitates. They have opened their mind and are looking for information - not self-affirming their own preconceptions. Libertas Civitates is learning what reality has already demonstrated - communism cannot coexist with freedom.Reality has demonstrated no such thing.
Furthermore, if Libertas Civitates believed this, then s/he would have simply assumed that the "free market" was the best solution.

Oh - and if you want to know what a workday would look like without labor laws there certainly IS a way to determine that - look at the self-employed. See what hours a self employed plumber, electrician or mechanic put in.You are correct in that this would be a way for us to determine the number of hours people in those careers would work if there were no laws determining the maximum number of hours people could work.

Why do socialists hold the view that rich people are just parasites feeding off everyone else? Sounds just like bare jealousy to me.

We don't. Our view is that the rich are oppressive masters, and among the anarchist-socialists of NSG, our view is that all systems of command and obediance must be done away with, whether the rulers are the rich property owners or the conceited intellectual elite of the State.

The rich are rich for a reason, and it isn't because they 'oppress the common man' or any such garbage (at least not outside of a dictatorship). The rich are rich because they are productive or because their parents were highly productive and chose to pass their wealth on to their children.

Of course, even worse than cloaking itself in meritocracy, now capitalism gets to give titles of nobility based on birth. Under a propertarian system, ownership grants control. Why should a small minority of the population own the productive assets of society, and thus be given license to rule their fellow humans?

I find it amusing when people pick out Paris Hilton as the example of being 'idle rich' when she is actually a productive person. She spends her family's money (which was earned through productivity, innovation, and providing benefit to others) but has also made a lot of money herself through movies, music, and television shows. People value watching her, even if it is not something you choose to value, other people do - so essentially you are saying the things you like are valid and worthwhile but if it isn't what I want, it shouldn't exist.

Talking about Paris Hilton is handy way to divert attention away from issues of real importance. Why do you think the media gives us so much of her? A large majority don't care what Paris Hilton does, yet the networks continue to overload us with info. I smell market distortion...

In other words: anti-capitalists are elitists who want to forcibly impose their views and values on others, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

That's a giant non sequitor, not to mention an unsupported ad hominem attack/.

To make money (unless you are in government) you must provide a good or service that people derive more benefit from than the money they pay for it. Those who find more valuable ways of contributing make more money - simple as that. While many of you will complain that teachers provide a much greater benefit than a baseball player (and I heartily agree) but most people value going to a baseball game more than the services of a teacher.

This is missing the basic point. The question is not about how much money people should make, but rather should wealth confer power? My answer is no. Unchecked private power is illegitimate, and must be minimized.

The 'idle rich' either produce, or they will eventually go broke. People that give them money value what they do - since it is not your money, you have no right to impose your views and values on those transactions.

No, they won't. With the amount of money Paris inherited, its not in cash stuffed away in a mattress. It is primarily productive property, which is managed by salary-slave managers for the benefit of Paris Hilton. In all likelihood, the yearly amount of interest growth is probably greater than Paris could ever hope to spend.

The problem with the production in market economies, though, is that much of it is wasteful. By this I don't mean that people lose money on it, but rather that things are produced and then demands are created for them (usually via advertising). It should be the other way around - the demand first, then the production.
Additionally, in market economies, the choice to not produce is seldom presented as viable. Indeed, it is communists who pushed for the 8-hour-workday, and who are pushing for the 4-hour-workday.

Just because you disagree with the value of what is produced does not mean it is wasteful. I happen to value most bits of stupid plastic toys or those little cutesy figurines to be wasteful production because it resources were used that could have done something else, but other people value those little things. I dispose of my resources however I wish, if someone else chooses to dispose of their resources in another manner, they are gaining utility out of it and thus it is not being 'wasted'.

Market economies quite often promote the choice not to produce - it is called time off. This brings up the comment about what a work week would look like in an open market - it would vary depending on the individuals involved. Personally, I tend to work a 10 hour day and a 7 hour day - the rest of the week is 'not producing', by which I mean consuming leisure. This actually varies quite a bit depending on how I feel that week. It usually ranges from 12 to 30 hours a week. Some of my friends work 70 hours a week - that is their choice and is a valid one, just not a choice I would make for myself. I like that individuals can decide for themselves rather than having some impersonal committee decide.

We don't. Our view is that the rich are oppressive masters, and among the anarchist-socialists of NSG, our view is that all systems of command and obediance must be done away with, whether the rulers are the rich property owners or the conceited intellectual elite of the State.
oppressive masters? I happen to live in the US, it is a mixed economy, but has enough economic freedom that people are not slaves owned by their employers. If you feel like you are being oppressed, you can get another job. Of course you have no intrinsic right to take what they have for yourself, so if you want their resources you have to offer something in trade (you labor).

If I do not want to work for someone, I do not have to work for them. If I feel my employer is oppressive, I can quit. Capitalism is just that - a free transaction between people. How can you be a anarchist-socialist? They are directly opposed. Socialism is taking your production against your will to give to others. Anarchism would say that the state has no right to do so. They do not coexist. The closest you could come would be to live in a free market and voluntarily give charity.

Of course, even worse than cloaking itself in meritocracy, now capitalism gets to give titles of nobility based on birth. Under a propertarian system, ownership grants control. Why should a small minority of the population own the productive assets of society, and thus be given license to rule their fellow humans?
Nobody has been given 'titles of nobility'. Her father made a lot of money, it is his to decide how to spend it. If he wants to give it to his daughter, that is his choice. Were he to decide to spend it all on building animal shelters, that is his choice. Spending it on attempting to build the worlds largest balloon would be his choice too. Providing for your children is not being a member of nobility - it is being human. Her father just has more to give than most.

How exactly does Paris Hilton have a license to rule everyone else?
If she were to offer me money, I am free to take it or not. She has no means to compel me against my will. Nobody does.

Talking about Paris Hilton is handy way to divert attention away from issues of real importance. Why do you think the media gives us so much of her? A large majority don't care what Paris Hilton does, yet the networks continue to overload us with info. I smell market distortion...
Paris Hilton is a matter of real importance here because it properly illustrates the point. She is constantly used as the example of a rich woman who is seen to be an unproductive leech on society, where as I contend that she is not. I do not value her contributions, but many people do.

That's a giant non sequitor, not to mention an unsupported ad hominem attack/.
Not at all, capitalism allows for free choice. You can choose how much to value your own labor and property as how much to value that of others. You are free to enter into any contract you wish if you feel it to your benefit. Those who are opposed to free markets do not wish people to have a free choice of how to value things nor what choices to make in transactions. If you propose that you know how to spend someone else's money better than they do, and that you should be allowed to take those assets from them to dispose of in the manner of your choosing, that makes you an elitist forcing your views on others to deny them their own choices. At least a thief is more honest.

This is missing the basic point. The question is not about how much money people should make, but rather should wealth confer power? My answer is no. Unchecked private power is illegitimate, and must be minimized.
The only power wealth gives you (in a free market) is that which you choose to give it. No matter how much someone offers me, they cannot compel me to do something I do not wish to do. Obviously I can value a large sump of money more than a small sum, and thus the more that is offered the more likely I am to do something, but it is still my free choice as to whether or not to take it.

No, they won't. With the amount of money Paris inherited, its not in cash stuffed away in a mattress. It is primarily productive property, which is managed by salary-slave managers for the benefit of Paris Hilton. In all likelihood, the yearly amount of interest growth is probably greater than Paris could ever hope to spend. You seriously underestimate Paris Hilton (either that or drastically over-estimate how much money she has). I am fairly frugal in my spending, but I can guarantee you that even I could spend far more than she makes in a year.

She chooses to let money managers use her property (and by the way, I can say with absolute certainty that they are not slaves but very well compensated), which is hopefully profitable. If what her money managers make is considered slave wages, sign me up for some slavery.

Why do socialists hold the view that rich people are just parasites feeding off everyone else?

Because it is exceedingly rare that they aren't.

We don't. Our view is that the rich are oppressive masters

How is the oppressive master not a parasite?

and among the anarchist-socialists of NSG


You have your own school of thought now?

Anarcho-capitalism seems tempting at first, but it places a very negative freedom on the individual by creating a physically hostile environment. No one can do business in those conditions. I personally think that capitalism, combined with a minimalist government, is the best option.

No one can do business in those conditions.

Why not?

Oh once again to quote George Carlin (a slightly unrelated way)...

"Why is it that in a capitilist society all buisnesses are expected to succede by themselves except farming?"

Just because you disagree with the value of what is produced does not mean it is wasteful. I happen to value most bits of stupid plastic toys or those little cutesy figurines to be wasteful production because it resources were used that could have done something else, but other people value those little things. I dispose of my resources however I wish, if someone else chooses to dispose of their resources in another manner, they are gaining utility out of it and thus it is not being 'wasted'.But in my opinion, I might think it is wasteful. I might think that it is pollution. In your post, you said that people value watching Paris Hilton, so she is entitled to the money she makes from this. But that's only half of the picture - the money that she makes only reflects the positive and neutral values that people have. If the money that someone has reflects the net sum of values of everyone, then it should include the negative values.
The fact that it doesn't means that the market is not a barometer of the values that people have.

Market economies quite often promote the choice not to produce - it is called time off. This brings up the comment about what a work week would look like in an open market - it would vary depending on the individuals involved. Personally, I tend to work a 10 hour day and a 7 hour day - the rest of the week is 'not producing', by which I mean consuming leisure. This actually varies quite a bit depending on how I feel that week. It usually ranges from 12 to 30 hours a week. Some of my friends work 70 hours a week - that is their choice and is a valid one, just not a choice I would make for myself. I like that individuals can decide for themselves rather than having some impersonal committee decide.Do you make a living working so few hours?
Could your friends?
If either case is no, then there isn't an actual choice here.

But in my opinion, I might think it is wasteful. I might think that it is pollution. In your post, you said that people value watching Paris Hilton, so she is entitled to the money she makes from this. But that's only half of the picture - the money that she makes only reflects the positive and neutral values that people have. If the money that someone has reflects the net sum of values of everyone, then it should include the negative values.
The fact that it doesn't means that the market is not a barometer of the values that people have.

It does reflect the negative values. If everyone enjoyed watching Paris Hilton be an ass, then she would have a higher net value.

It does reflect the negative values. If everyone enjoyed watching Paris Hilton be an ass, then she would have a higher net value.Those are just neutral values, though. A negative value would be if Paris paid people - not to watch her, but because she's putting out what she does.

Because it is exceedingly rare that they aren't.
I disagree - I believe that the vast majority of wealthy people are highly productive. I suppose it all depends on your definition of 'wealth' and 'parasite'.

Perhaps you are including third-world dictators in your opinion, but when it comes to the US, the majority of people in the top 1% have gotten there by working in some kind of productive capacity. The Spectrem Group estimates that only 2 to 4% of wealthy people became wealthy through inheritance. The vast majority of wealthy people are entrepreneurs, but why let economic analysis get in the way of an emotional appeal...

Wealth carries on through families not from sitting on your ass and inheriting, but by having certain values instilled in you by your parents. The value of education is certainly one which directly translates into wealth - income and education are highly correlated. It is not the money itself that matters, but being raised in an environment that encourages creating wealth.

Those who are wealthy, and come from wealthy families, must still be productive or the wealth will disappear. I'm not wealthy so most wealthy people must be exploitative parasites who do nothing but sit out by the pool all day eating bonbons.

Those are just neutral values, though. A negative value would be if Paris paid people - not to watch her, but because she's putting out what she does.

So people should now pay for the right to unpopular expression?

Do you make a living working so few hours?
Could your friends?
If either case is no, then there isn't an actual choice here.

Yup. I rarely work more than 100 hours in a month. I make far less than I should, but I make enough to live comfortably for me. I value my free time highly - the trade-off is living very frugally. Some of my friends choose to be workaholics - most of them make tripple what I do, but never have any free time.

Economic freedom is about choice - I make the choice to work as little as I do for my own reasons. My friends work as much as they do for their personal reasons. Neither is set by some third party stepping in. Their respective bosses are not 'exploiting' them. One friend tried to get me a position at the company he works for, but I turned it down because I did not want to work 60 hour weeks and only get 3 weeks off a year. He has a hell of a lot more money than I do, but I work when I want to work and run off to go camping in the woods anytime I feel like it.

If I am unhappy with my compensation, I could seek other clients; if my clients are unhappy with our agreement, they can seek other services. I have no right to compel my clients to pay me more than they want, nor can they compel me to work more than I want. No negotiations with union representatives, no protracted legal negotiations in case of an emergency requiring extra hours; I work when it is mutually convenient. Free choice and free association - its a wonderful thing.

I disagree - I believe that the vast majority of wealthy people are highly productive. I suppose it all depends on your definition of 'wealth' and 'parasite'.

I have no doubt that they are, but that doesn't mean that they aren't parasitic.

I have no doubt that they are, but that doesn't mean that they aren't parasitic.

A parasite is someone who receives support without giving anything in return. How do you consider a productive member of society a parasite? Do you have any logical justification or is this just another example of 'four legs good, two legs bad'?

Well, if you're looking for the "greatest economic freedom," wouldn't that be laissez faire capitalism by definition? Either that or some kind of anarchic system.

I suppose the question is for whom is the freedom for?
If it's for coporations or firms of any kind, it's probably just good ol' laissez faire capitalism.

If it's for people in general, then it's probably going to be some kind of anarchic system with a barter economy where people have the ability to bash someone's head in if they don't like the price of a good.

A parasite is someone who receives support without giving anything in return. How do you consider a productive member of society a parasite? Do you have any logical justification or is this just another example of 'four legs good, two legs bad'?

I believe because of state cartelization and monopoly (and even more basically the state defense of property), they do not experience the costs and competition that should cut their profits in equilibrium.

In our terms, they are compensated more than their production merits, and as such they are productive and parasitic.

So people should now pay for the right to unpopular expression?Not at all. People have the right to free expression, but there's no particular reason that they should expect to be paid for exercising this right.
If we are going to tabulate the a person's free expression should earn them, then counting only the people who like the person's free expression only counts as half of the picture.

Yup. I rarely work more than 100 hours in a month. I make far less than I should, but I make enough to live comfortably for me. I value my free time highly - the trade-off is living very frugally. Some of my friends choose to be workaholics - most of them make tripple what I do, but never have any free time.

Economic freedom is about choice - I make the choice to work as little as I do for my own reasons. My friends work as much as they do for their personal reasons. Neither is set by some third party stepping in. Their respective bosses are not 'exploiting' them. One friend tried to get me a position at the company he works for, but I turned it down because I did not want to work 60 hour weeks and only get 3 weeks off a year. He has a hell of a lot more money than I do, but I work when I want to work and run off to go camping in the woods anytime I feel like it.

If I am unhappy with my compensation, I could seek other clients; if my clients are unhappy with our agreement, they can seek other services. I have no right to compel my clients to pay me more than they want, nor can they compel me to work more than I want. No negotiations with union representatives, no protracted legal negotiations in case of an emergency requiring extra hours; I work when it is mutually convenient. Free choice and free association - its a wonderful thing.You do realize not everyone has the luxury of only being able to work so few hours and still are able to make a living, right?

Not at all. People have the right to free expression, but there's no particular reason that they should expect to be paid for exercising this right.

And again she is not getting paid by those who don't appreciate her expression. I was specifically referring to what you called negative value, which "would be if Paris paid people - not to watch her, but because she's putting out what she does."

If we are going to tabulate the a person's free expression should earn them, then counting only the people who like the person's free expression only counts as half of the picture.

How is that different from paying to express unpopular opinions? Certainly unpopular opinions could not be expressed without greater "negative" value than "positive" value.

I believe because of state cartelization and monopoly (and even more basically the state defense of property), they do not experience the costs and competition that should cut their profits in equilibrium.

In our terms, they are compensated more than their production merits, and as such they are productive and parasitic.

Which is simply an argument that state interference in the economy is a bad thing. Free enterprise eliminates monopolies (unless they are beneficial to the consumer) and as such, free market systems are the best way to go.

But you do make one major mistake - you generalized to say that all wealthy people are parasitic, which is most certainly not the case. Only those who hold a monopoly over an industry can be called parasitic, and that is a tiny minority indeed. Were you to say that a few of the wealthy are parasites, I would agree with you, but your statement that anyone, simply by virtue of having wealth, is a parasite is unfounded.

Of course they have a say, at the community meetings they vote on what those values should be.


Thanks for so brilliantly illustrating the virture of my prior post. I had already addressed most of all the many inaccuracies you mentioned. This one I found most interesting. Your description here is of CAPITALISM. People vote many times every day on the value of someones product/labor; every time they spend a dollar it is a vote for the quality of the person or item they are spending it on!

Your only error is that there is no reason for people to defer their votes for four years; forur months or even four days when they have the freedom multiple times every day to decide for themselves what they feel the value of a service or item is. The can hire the best, pay a premium for the best, determine that the cost is not rational and move to a lower cost alternative/competitor, or determine it is of no value at all and not buy at all.

You see? We already vote many times each day about what we feel a person's labor or product is worth. I bet you will have done so at least once by lunchtime yourself!

And again she is not getting paid by those who don't appreciate her expression. I was specifically referring to what you called negative value, which "would be if Paris paid people - not to watch her, but because she's putting out what she does."

How is that different from paying to express unpopular opinions? Certainly unpopular opinions could not be expressed without greater "negative" value than "positive" value.The point of what I'm saying is that what she is being paid is not the value of her opinions, and so it is silly to say that the market value of her opinions is what her opinions are worth.
Or in other words, perhaps she should be paid by some other method? (Perhaps not paid for her TV shows at all?)

Thanks for so brilliantly illustrating the virture of my prior post. I had already addressed most of all the many inaccuracies you mentioned. This one I found most interesting. Your description here is of CAPITALISM. People vote many times every day on the value of someones product/labor; every time they spend a dollar it is a vote for the quality of the person or item they are spending it on! Exactly my point. In capitalism, only people with money get a voice.
In communism, everyone does.

Your only error is that there is no reason for people to defer their votes for four years; forur months or even four days when they have the freedom multiple times every day to decide for themselves what they feel the value of a service or item is. The can hire the best, pay a premium for the best, determine that the cost is not rational and move to a lower cost alternative/competitor, or determine it is of no value at all and not buy at all.

You see? We already vote many times each day about what we feel a person's labor or product is worth. I bet you will have done so at least once by lunchtime yourself!People don't get to decide that the value of something is worth less than nothing and have the producer of that something pay them restitution.
People don't have an equal say - the 'voting' is rigged in favor of those with more money.

You do realize not everyone has the luxury of only being able to work so few hours and still are able to make a living, right?

That entirely depends upon the choices they make in life. The vast majority of people could not maintain their current lifestyle by working as little as I do, but this does not mean that people could not choose to work less than they do if they changed their lifestyle.

There are quite a few people who live in the US and do not work at all (at least not in terms of holding a regular job). Our society if very inefficient and wasteful - a lot of people can comfortably live off of taking advantage of the waste.

If you are willing to change your lifestyle, you can live of of very little. It is not my fault that some people are not willing to give up their televisions (or whatever other luxuries they enjoy).

That entirely depends upon the choices they make in life. The vast majority of people could not maintain their current lifestyle by working as little as I do, but this does not mean that people could not choose to work less than they do if they changed their lifestyle.

There are quite a few people who live in the US and do not work at all (at least not in terms of holding a regular job). Our society if very inefficient and wasteful - a lot of people can comfortably live off of taking advantage of the waste.

If you are willing to change your lifestyle, you can live of of very little. It is not my fault that some people are not willing to give up their televisions (or whatever other luxuries they enjoy).Entirely depends on choices? No. Somewhat depends on choices? Sure.

How much is very little?

Exactly my point. In capitalism, only people with money get a voice.
In communism, everyone does.

Everyone has the capability of creating value. There is no person incapable of creating value. Your concern for people with no money is completely misplaced. That some people have more money is an issue of fairness with pros and cons on each side. Freedom is the point here - and freedom must allow people to excel or fail. Any attempt to artificially influence that will result in a reduction of freedom for some. Reducing freedom to increase fairness is a common compromise - but it is not to be disguized as a play for more freedom for all.

People don't get to decide that the value of something is worth less than nothing and have the producer of that something pay them restitution.
People don't have an equal say - the 'voting' is rigged in favor of those with more money.

Negative value. Give me a break. Theft is a neagtive value and I'm pretty sure that in all civilized societies it is illegal. (Except when done by the government in the form of unfair taxes) Starting a stupid business or executing a poor plan is negative value and it also creates a loss for the entrepreneur.

Economic voting (dollar spending) certainly is 'rigged' in favor of people with more money - just like democratic voting is 'rigged' in favor of cities (or states in the US) with more population. Once again - it is about fairness and not freedom that this point is directed - which makes it meaningless in the context of this thread.

I thought you said that in your utopia you would not be taking property away from anyone. Both of these comments are about taking property away from people. For someone who said that they don't want to redistribute wealth you are certainly intent on taking money from people.

Everyone has the capability of creating value. There is no person incapable of creating value. Your concern for people with no money is completely misplaced. That some people have more money is an issue of fairness with pros and cons on each side. Freedom is the point here - and freedom must allow people to excel or fail. Any attempt to artificially influence that will result in a reduction of freedom for some. Reducing freedom to increase fairness is a common compromise - but it is not to be disguized as a play for more freedom for all.That some people have more money indicates that using money as a barometer of democracy is not useful.
Why must freedom allow people to excel or fail?

Negative value. Give me a break. Theft is a neagtive value and I'm pretty sure that in all civilized societies it is illegal. (Except when done by the government in the form of unfair taxes) Starting a stupid business or executing a poor plan is negative value and it also creates a loss for the entrepreneur.I'm speaking of the negative value typically assigned to things like pollution.
When a company pollutes, they frequently have to pay restitution to the people affected by the pollution. In other words, what the company is producing (pollution) is considered to be so awful that they have to pay the people harmed by it. This is what I'm calling a negative value. Your example I would simply say is a case of people wasting money.
If we were going to say that the system pays people what they were worth, then what someone is worth would have to include the negative values, as well. Otherwise it doesn't actually pay people what they're worth.

Economic voting (dollar spending) certainly is 'rigged' in favor of people with more money - just like democratic voting is 'rigged' in favor of cities (or states in the US) with more population. Once again - it is about fairness and not freedom that this point is directed - which makes it meaningless in the context of this thread.There's a difference between the vote being rigged and the vote being weighted. People in cities don't get extra votes. People with more money do, in a system of economic voting.

I thought you said that in your utopia you would not be taking property away from anyone. Both of these comments are about taking property away from people. For someone who said that they don't want to redistribute wealth you are certainly intent on taking money from people.I didn't say I wouldn't be redistributing wealth. I said that property rights would be changed so that they are in line with what I'm saying (and various things that I haven't said). Since nobody would have the right to more property than they are getting, there isn't any property being taken away from them.

Which is simply an argument that state interference in the economy is a bad thing. Free enterprise eliminates monopolies (unless they are beneficial to the consumer) and as such, free market systems are the best way to go.

Of course.

But you do make one major mistake - you generalized to say that all wealthy people are parasitic, which is most certainly not the case. Only those who hold a monopoly over an industry can be called parasitic, and that is a tiny minority indeed. Were you to say that a few of the wealthy are parasites, I would agree with you, but your statement that anyone, simply by virtue of having wealth, is a parasite is unfounded.

All of this is untrue.

I actually said that it is rare that they aren't parasitic, which gave some wiggle room for one to be wealthy without being parasitic.

And it is not simply required that one have monopoly to be parasitic, any competitive advantage that allows one to cheat equilibrium can make one parasitic. Something as universal as state currency has the effect of shifting wealth and income to the already wealthy. Even government protection of property shifts wealth towards the wealthy (and in that sense state capitalism inherently denies some level of production from the non privileged).

The bottom line is that there are two classes: 1) those who are parasitic and derive economic benefit from the government, and 2) those who do not derive benefit from the government, or more likely are harmed by government for the benefit of the first class. There is obviously no clear delineation between the two classes as most people are a mixture of the two (isn't democracy wonderful!), but we can largely tell to what degree a person is one or the other by examining their bank account.

The point of what I'm saying is that what she is being paid is not the value of her opinions, and so it is silly to say that the market value of her opinions is what her opinions are worth.
Or in other words, perhaps she should be paid by some other method? (Perhaps not paid for her TV shows at all?)

I think you are dodging the issue by concentrating on Paris Hilton. Consider a religious or political leader. Should they be be compensated or charged for their expression according to this negative or positive value?

I really think it is obvious that this boils down to that old socialist notion that all value can be objectively defined (and who better than the socialists to make that definition for us!).

Why must freedom allow people to excel or fail?
That is an essential part of self-determinization - the choice to take or avoid risks. Remove that and you remove freedom. Babe Ruth led the league in strike-outs as well as home runs. If he were not allowed to bat anything but singles it would be an infringement on his talent, his uniqueness and his freedom. (not to mention a very shitty sport)


I'm speaking of the negative value typically assigned to things like pollution.
When a company pollutes, they frequently have to pay restitution to the people affected by the pollution.
Didn't you say in post #77 that trash (and other pollution) would be taken care of by the magical trash fairies? Or is threatening someone who refuses to do the job you assign them not what you'd call 'forced labor'?
(you know - a threat - like cutting off essential services such as trash collection)


That some people have more money indicates that using money as a barometer of democracy is not useful. ...
There's a difference between the vote being rigged and the vote being weighted. People in cities don't get extra votes. People with more money do, in a system of economic voting.

No - that you wrote this demonstrates that you entirely missed my point. I never suggested wealth to be a barometer of democracy. I also never suggested people who live in cities get more votes. Try again.


I didn't say I wouldn't be redistributing wealth. I said that property rights would be changed so that they are in line with what I'm saying (and various things that I haven't said). Since nobody would have the right to more property than they are getting, there isn't any property being taken away from them.

Nobody has the right to more property than they are getting? Certainly you can do better than that. That is true in any economy! You must be getting tired.

I've been thinking about your definition of freedom and certainly it is flawed. Mr. Plumber - who has been assigned the job of being a plumber, is certianly a troubled soul in your make-believe world. He spends vast amounts of time voting on what income his many many neighbors deserve. Mr. Plumber cares little about what they do, he only votes for those who vote for him. he never uses their services so he cares little what other people have to pay for them! He also lobbies endlessly to get the votes he needs for his income. (since the 50 people who he helped this week certainly don't hold anything close to a majority vote). Mr. Plumber is amazed that he had time to fix anyones plumbing since he has been in so many meetings setting the weekly rate for everything from cabbage to car batteries.
When Mr. Plumber finally gets the pay (which someone other than he or his customer has negotiated) he gets to spend it on items (which neither he not the providor negotiated) which he really does not have time to use; since he is constantly in meetings casting his paltry vote on the value of everything for everyone - most of whom or which he (and most others) care little about. He would quit if he could and be an inventor - but the collective has threatened to cut off his power, water, and trash collection should he stop fixing plumbing. Now - where is the part where he gets freedom?

I think you are dodging the issue by concentrating on Paris Hilton. Consider a religious or political leader. Should they be be compensated or charged for their expression according to this negative or positive value?Neither - their expression should not be the reason that they are paid.

I really think it is obvious that this boils down to that old socialist notion that all value can be objectively defined (and who better than the socialists to make that definition for us!).Not at all. In fact, it is the very fact that value is subjective that means the market's idea of value is incomplete. If value was objectively defined as being the net sum of all of the positive and neutral values that people had, then the market would be perfect at this.

Anyway, the point of this argument was merely to point out that the market value of something cannot be what something is 'worth'. In other words, simply because the market says that someone deserves something doesn't mean they actually do.

That is an essential part of self-determinization - the choice to take or avoid risks. Remove that and you remove freedom. Babe Ruth led the league in strike-outs as well as home runs. If he were not allowed to bat anything but singles it would be an infringement on his talent, his uniqueness and his freedom. (not to mention a very shitty sport)There's a difference between taking and avoiding risks and succeeding or failing at the choice you made.
Nonetheless, the premise that choice actualization indicates freedom does not mean that people only have freedom if all of their choices are actualized, merely that the amount of freedom (to) that they have is determined by the amount of actualization of their choices. (Their freedom from could be interfered with if their choices are coerced.)


Didn't you say in post #77 that trash (and other pollution) would be taken care of by the magical trash fairies? Or is threatening someone who refuses to do the job you assign them not what you'd call 'forced labor'?
(you know - a threat - like cutting off essential services such as trash collection) I never said anything about assigning jobs to anyone. That was your incorrect assumption.
I said that the people who want trash collection could decide to take turns doing it for everyone. If they don't want to do this, they will need to remove their own trash. I fail to see how having to clean up after yourself is forced labor - but expecting other people to clean up after you might be.

No - that you wrote this demonstrates that you entirely missed my point. I never suggested wealth to be a barometer of democracy. I also never suggested people who live in cities get more votes. Try again.Then both your analogies of the market as being democratic and the democracy being rigged the way the market is rigged are flawed.

Nobody has the right to more property than they are getting? Certainly you can do better than that. That is true in any economy! You must be getting tired.Not at all. It is true that nobody has the right to more property than they are getting in any economy, different systems of property rights will mean that people have the right to different amounts of property.
Since nobody has the right to be a billionaire, redistributing wealth accordingly does not interfere with anybody's rights.

I've been thinking about your definition of freedom and certainly it is flawed. Mr. Plumber - who has been assigned the job of being a plumber, False.

is certianly a troubled soul in your make-believe world. He spends vast amounts of time voting on what income his many many neighbors deserve. Mr. Plumber cares little about what they do, he only votes for those who vote for him. he never uses their services so he cares little what other people have to pay for them! He also lobbies endlessly to get the votes he needs for his income. (since the 50 people who he helped this week certainly don't hold anything close to a majority vote). Since income is equalized across the board, the choice is to alter the income of everyone or not at all.

Mr. Plumber is amazed that he had time to fix anyones plumbing since he has been in so many meetings setting the weekly rate for everything from cabbage to car batteries. This would only be the case if there was currency as opposed to an economy based mainly on free distribution.

When Mr. Plumber finally gets the pay (which someone other than he or his customer has negotiated) he gets to spend it on items (which neither he not the providor negotiated) which he really does not have time to use; since he is constantly in meetings casting his paltry vote on the value of everything for everyone - most of whom or which he (and most others) care little about. He would quit if he could and be an inventor - but the collective has threatened to cut off his power, water, and trash collection should he stop fixing plumbing. Now - where is the part where he gets freedom?The part where you stop making things up.

Neither - their expression should not be the reason that they are paid.

What should be the reason and differentiate that from valuable expression.

Not at all. In fact, it is the very fact that value is subjective that means the market's idea of value is incomplete. If value was objectively defined as being the net sum of all of the positive and neutral values that people had, then the market would be perfect at this.

What? I get externalities, but this doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, the point of this argument was merely to point out that the market value of something cannot be what something is 'worth'. In other words, simply because the market says that someone deserves something doesn't mean they actually do.

What does?

What should be the reason and differentiate that from valuable expression.Well, it could be determined by the opinions of everyone saying that this job should be created and also saying that anyone who does a particular job should earn a certain amount of money.

What? I get externalities, but this doesn't make sense to me.Then I'll try to rephrase. The market has a certain view of negative externalities (pollution). It doesn't take into account that anything can be in and of itself the equivalent of a negative externality. (But not an externality.)

What does?The best you could do is determine what a certain group of people thinks someone deserves. This does not mean that the group of people are necessarily right, or that their opinion shouldn't be questioned.

Then I'll try to rephrase. The market has a certain view of negative externalities (pollution). It doesn't take into account that anything can be in and of itself the equivalent of a negative externality. (But not an externality.)

How can something be the equivalent of an externality but not an externality.

The best you could do is determine what a certain group of people thinks someone deserves. This does not mean that the group of people are necessarily right, or that their opinion shouldn't be questioned.

It seems you are perfectly willing to provide them with unchecked power though.

How can something be the equivalent of an externality but not an externality.We think of pollution as a negative externality because it is not the product that a company intends to produce - it is the byproduct.
In this case, the product that the company is producing is what would be seen negatively - the product itself is the pollution. Since it is what the company is producing, it is not an externality, but in a particular person's opinion it is negative.

It seems you are perfectly willing to provide them with unchecked power though.Unchecked? No, but perhaps the checks aren't sufficient to your liking. What would you consider a sufficient check on power?

JB - If we're going to continue this discussion you're going to have to decide which side of you mouth you wish to speak from;

You also have to have the ability to make choices without being coerced.
The freedom to is just as important as the freedom from.
I said that the people who want trash collection could decide to take turns doing it for everyone. If they don't want to do this, they will need to remove their own trash.
If nobody wants to pick up someone else's garbage, that's fine, but if they want their own garbage to be taken away they'll have to do it themselves.
I never said anything about assigning jobs to anyone. That was your incorrect assumption.

In other words - do it or else you will get no trash collection! It is not slavery if the entire community votes to impose their will on you? In a free society nobody is compelled to trash collector or any other job - not as a full time occupation nor as a rotational mandate. With a society like your imaginary one I certainly would not want to need a heart transplant. I could see it now;
" Hi, I'm Mel and this week I have been assigned the duty of heart surgeon. Last week I was a trash collector and the week before that I was a plumber. Heart surgery seems to have alot in common with plumbing - but trash - not so much... Now, just sit still while I finish reading these directions..."


Since nobody has the right to be a billionaire, redistributing wealth accordingly does not interfere with anybody's rights.
One place that you are incorrect is that I never said property would be taken from one person and given to another.
So which is it?


You don't think the community would continue to pay for your job as an inventor of you don't invent anything useful, do you?
Since income is equalized across the board, the choice is to alter the income of everyone or not at all.

So which is it?



Of course they have a say at the community meetings they vote on what those values should be.

Since income is equalized across the board, the choice is to alter the income of everyone or not at all.

Well, it could be determined by the opinions of everyone saying that this job should be created and also saying that anyone who does a particular job should earn a certain amount of money.

Which is it? And - depending on your answer - how will you incent people to do the most difficult or undesireable jobs? If the pay for being a sandwich maker is the same as for being a physician why would anyone want to invest their time and energy (and accept the resulting risks) of being a physician? Why would anyone want to excel at all without reward? Without being compensated, compelled or coerced why would anyone want to accept an unappealing job (such as garbage collectior)? Your fantasy is crumbling under the weight of reality...


I'll repeat myself since you have rambled on so much about how free stuff somehow creates freedom. Freedom and free stuff are not the same thing. Free stuff comes with an obligation (as your trash example clearly exemplifies) Freedom comes with responsibility.
You cannot purchase freedom. Income is not freedom. Nor will taking it from someone else provide it for you. Free stuff is not freedom - not even free money.

Freedom is not about stuff. Freedom is not about money. Freedom is not about privilege or lack thereof. Freedom is about doing whatever you desire with whatever resources you possess and being responsible for the resulting outcome of those choices.

Very obviously freedom is not about getting whatever you want or 'choice actualization'. (same thing). It is not about having the exact same stuff as your neighbor. It is about the freedom of deciding what to do with what you have for whatever reason you please without interference from anyone else - community or otherwise - and living with whatever results.

Freedom has nothing too do with possessions. It has nothing to do with actualization. It has to do with being free from other people's interference in your life decisions. As you have clearly show - communism is ALL ABOUT other people interfering in your life decisions; what you do with your time, your property and your ideas - no matter which side of your mouth you were speaking from this was always central to your point.



There's a difference between taking and avoiding risks and succeeding or failing at the choice you made.

Not really - they are inseparable. Without the potential of failure then there really is no risk. Inversely - without the potential for reward equal to or greater than the risk then the choice would be foolish.
A choice without risk or reward is not a very meaningful choice.

We think of pollution as a negative externality because it is not the product that a company intends to produce - it is the byproduct.
In this case, the product that the company is producing is what would be seen negatively - the product itself is the pollution. Since it is what the company is producing, it is not an externality, but in a particular person's opinion it is negative.

An externality occurs when someone outside of a transaction incurs some of the costs of the transaction. It puts the market outside of equilibrium because producers and consumers do not pay the full costs of the product. It doesn't matter if it is the byproduct or the product itself.

And I don't really know how this applies anyway, as there is no cost being passed on to non-participants.

Unchecked? No, but perhaps the checks aren't sufficient to your liking. What would you consider a sufficient check on power?

What checks do you propose?

In other words - do it or else you will get no trash collection!Is it that big a deal to clean up after yourself?

It is not slavery if the entire community votes to impose their will on you? In a free society nobody is compelled to trash collector or any other job - not as a full time occupation nor as a rotational mandate. Not compelled by any single person, no. Compelled by their circumstances, yes.

With a society like your imaginary one I certainly would not want to need a heart transplant. I could see it now;
" Hi, I'm Mel and this week I have been assigned the duty of heart surgeon. Last week I was a trash collector and the week before that I was a plumber. Heart surgery seems to have alot in common with plumbing - but trash - not so much... Now, just sit still while I finish reading these directions..."Again, there is no duty assigning.

So which is it?Both. Property is defined as rightful possession. Nothing that anybody has the right to possess will be taken away from them.

So which is it?Both. If the community decides to pay you to be an inventor, you will receive the amount everyone else does.
The community isn't obligated to make such a decision, but it is in the community members' best interests to work with you, as it increases the likelihood that the members of the community will work with them.

Which is it? And - depending on your answer - how will you incent people to do the most difficult or undesireable jobs? Why should they need an incentive? If those jobs aren't worth doing for their own sakes, then they probably don't need to be done.

If the pay for being a sandwich maker is the same as for being a physician why would anyone want to invest their time and energy (and accept the resulting risks) of being a physician?You don't honestly believe all doctors are only doctors because they get paid a lot, do you?
Plenty of doctors even in our society donate their time to helping people.

Why would anyone want to excel at all without reward?Doing something you enjoy doing well is its own reward.

Without being compensated, compelled or coerced why would anyone want to accept an unappealing job (such as garbage collectior)?They likely wouldn't, hence the likelihood of people needing to take out their own garbage. This would create an incentive to automate garbage collection.

I'll repeat myself since you have rambled on so much about how free stuff somehow creates freedom. Freedom and free stuff are not the same thing. Free stuff comes with an obligation (as your trash example clearly exemplifies) Freedom comes with responsibility.
You cannot purchase freedom. Income is not freedom. Nor will taking it from someone else provide it for you. Free stuff is not freedom - not even free money.

Freedom is not about stuff. Freedom is not about money. Freedom is not about privilege or lack thereof. Freedom is about doing whatever you desire with whatever resources you possess and being responsible for the resulting outcome of those choices.

Very obviously freedom is not about getting whatever you want or 'choice actualization'. (same thing). It is not about having the exact same stuff as your neighbor. It is about the freedom of deciding what to do with what you have for whatever reason you please without interference from anyone else - community or otherwise - and living with whatever results.

Freedom has nothing too do with possessions. It has nothing to do with actualization. It has to do with being free from other people's interference in your life decisions. I will repeat myself since you don't seem to be paying attention. The freedom that you are talking about is merely the 'freedom from'. You've completely ignored the 'freedom to'.

As you have clearly show - communism is ALL ABOUT other people interfering in your life decisions; what you do with your time, your property and your ideas - no matter which side of your mouth you were speaking from this was always central to your point.Communism is all about helping you to maximize your ability to make life decisions.

Not really - they are inseparable. Without the potential of failure then there really is no risk. Inversely - without the potential for reward equal to or greater than the risk then the choice would be foolish.
A choice without risk or reward is not a very meaningful choice.As I said earlier, all choices come with opportunity costs. Any decision you make results in the possibility that your time could have been better spent elsewhere.

An externality occurs when someone outside of a transaction incurs some of the costs of the transaction. It puts the market outside of equilibrium because producers and consumers do not pay the full costs of the product. It doesn't matter if it is the byproduct or the product itself.

And I don't really know how this applies anyway, as there is no cost being passed on to non-participants.Wouldn't this make 'negative externality' redundant?

What checks do you propose?You know, the usual - a constitution, secession rights, access to education to make secession easier should you make such a decision, etc.

Wouldn't this make 'negative externality' redundant?

Well there are situations where a non-participant in a contract can enjoy added utility because of the contract, like the free-rider problem. But socialists do not raise bloody hell over those.

You know, the usual - a constitution, secession rights, access to education to make secession easier should you make such a decision, etc.

So the all-powerful democratic council will be sure to police itself, right?

Well there are situations where a non-participant in a contract can enjoy added utility because of the contract, like the free-rider problem. But socialists do not raise bloody hell over those.I suppose they would be called positive externalities because they benefit the person outside of the contract, then. Interesting.

So the all-powerful democratic council will be sure to police itself, right?I suppose we have differing ideas of what it means to be all-powerful. I happen to think that the risk having nearly half of your population walk out for making a bad decision is quite an incentive to not act hastily.

I suppose they would be called positive externalities because they benefit the person outside of the contract, then. Interesting.

I have read an article by someone who argued against externalities by saying that their definition was faulty. He said that there could be externalities that both benefit and harm nonparticipants to the contract, and since these are of entirely different natures, the definition was incoherent. At least I think.

Nevertheless, it wasn't all that compelling.

Anyways, these are what are referred to as "market failures".

I suppose we have differing ideas of what it means to be all-powerful. I happen to think that the risk having nearly half of your population walk out for making a bad decision is quite an incentive to not act hastily.

Secession is only a possibility if one can violently seize one's independence or the majority is benign enough to grant it to you. If we can assume that the minority has reached a point of secession, then we can also assume that the majority is less than benign towards them.

So I think violent rebellion would be the only possibility.

I have read an article by someone who argued against externalities by saying that their definition was faulty. He said that there could be externalities that both benefit and harm nonparticipants to the contract, and since these are of entirely different natures, the definition was incoherent. At least I think.

Nevertheless, it wasn't all that compelling.It seems interesting.

Anyways, these are what are referred to as "market failures".According to an ancap, there is no such thing.

Secession is only a possibility if one can violently seize one's independence or the majority is benign enough to grant it to you. If we can assume that the minority has reached a point of secession, then we can also assume that the majority is less than benign towards them.

So I think violent rebellion would be the only possibility.I don't see why the majority would need to be less than benign; who's to say what could cause a person to want to leave the community? Especially if there are plenty of similar communities who only differ on one or two different things.

Is it that big a deal to clean up after yourself?

Why should they need an incentive? If those jobs aren't worth doing for their own sakes, then they probably don't need to be done.

They likely wouldn't, hence the likelihood of people needing to take out their own garbage. This would create an incentive to automate garbage collection.

These posts demonstrate your ideas complete disconnect from reality. Do you believe each week that when you leave your trash by the curb the trash fairies come and get it? Do you really believe that an entire city of people will drive their trash to the landfill because "they should"? Do you really believe that someone will wake up and say "hey! Today I would much rather collect everyones skanky rotting trash than be a sandwich maker!"? Do you really feel that sanitation is not an essential service? You think someone will make an army of automated trash-collecting robots? Give me a break.


Sorry - you lose that point. There are essential jobs which people would have to be compelled to do if there were no valueable incentive to do them.


You don't honestly believe all doctors are only doctors because they get paid a lot, do you?
Plenty of doctors even in our society donate their time to helping people.

Doing something you enjoy doing well is its own reward.

Yes - I believe people are physicians because they get paid alot. Go ahead and TRY to hire a physician for minimum wage and see how many applicants you get. I dare you. I double-dog-dare you. Put an ad in the classifieds and wait for your phone to ring.

Physicians DO donate their time. Many of my friends do so regularly. However they do not just donate it to anyone for anything. They donate it to aiding the less fortunate - and they do so by choice. None are compelled to do so.

I (not a physician) also donate quite often. Time money and even blood. I am not paid. Much of it is not even tax-deductible. That does not suggest that I would want to do that full time for everyone. It is specific to the less fortunate and it is in my free time and it is my choice - I have never been compelled.

Doing a good job certainly can be it's own reward, but it is nowhere near as thrilling as being recognized for doing a good job. It pales even more when compared to being rewarded for doing a good job; I call that payday. "Doing something well is its own reward." is simply what Dad's say when they forget to bring home your allowance. You also had to slip in 'enjoy doing' while you dodge the issue of the unplesant essential jobs which must be done in any civilized society. I won't let you ignore that point which you already lost.

My work is substantially better than my competitors and my reward is taking home nearly double what most of them do. I plan on increasing that even more by investing much time and resources and even risk in my business. There is no guarantee it will work. I can promise you that it WILL result in an even better quality for my customers. If there were no potential for reward I would not go thorugh with the considerable expense, efforts and risks; I would be content to offer the same as all the other schleps trying to keep up with me. You want me to give more? Then give me more. Period. That is freedom. That is capitalism.


I will repeat myself since you don't seem to be paying attention. The freedom that you are talking about is merely the 'freedom from'. You've completely ignored the 'freedom to'.
THis is the point I have addressed. Your 'freedom to' is all about getting free stuff. Getting free stuff has more to do with thievery than freedom.



Communism is all about helping you to maximize your ability to make life decisions.

Your description looks more like the 'community' (governement) making all of your decisions for you.

These posts demonstrate your ideas complete disconnect from reality. Do you believe each week that when you leave your trash by the curb the trash fairies come and get it? Nope, people who have been failed by the capitalist system called sanitation workers do. They don't have all that many other options.

Do you really believe that an entire city of people will drive their trash to the landfill because "they should"? If they want trash collection and won't agree to take turns doing it, then absolutely.

Do you really believe that someone will wake up and say "hey! Today I would much rather collect everyones skanky rotting trash than be a sandwich maker!"? No, if people are going to agree to taking turns collecting trash then it would be much more organized.

Do you really feel that sanitation is not an essential service? Obviously not. If people aren't willing to do it, then they clearly don't feel that it's essential.

You think someone will make an army of automated trash-collecting robots?Eventually? Absolutely.

Sorry - you lose that point. There are essential jobs which people would have to be compelled to do if there were no valueable incentive to do them.Nope. If nobody is willing to do them then by definition they aren't essential.

Yes - I believe people are physicians because they get paid alot. Go ahead and TRY to hire a physician for minimum wage and see how many applicants you get. I dare you. I double-dog-dare you. Put an ad in the classifieds and wait for your phone to ring.Well, since we're talking about the average income, this wouldn't be a minimum wage.

Physicians DO donate their time. Many of my friends do so regularly. However they do not just donate it to anyone for anything. They donate it to aiding the less fortunate - and they do so by choice. None are compelled to do so. And physicians in the community would be physicians by choice, as will anyone filling any job.

I (not a physician) also donate quite often. Time money and even blood. I am not paid. Much of it is not even tax-deductible. That does not suggest that I would want to do that full time for everyone. It is specific to the less fortunate and it is in my free time and it is my choice - I have never been compelled.So then :eek: you do things without being paid for them. Thank you for recognizing my point.

Doing a good job certainly can be it's own reward, but it is nowhere near as thrilling as being recognized for doing a good job. People in the community would absolutely be recognized for working hard.

It pales even more when compared to being rewarded for doing a good job; I call that payday. "Doing something well is its own reward." is simply what Dad's say when they forget to bring home your allowance. Payday is one form of a reward, but not the only one.

You also had to slip in 'enjoy doing' while you dodge the issue of the unplesant essential jobs which must be done in any civilized society. I won't let you ignore that point which you already lost.No, I said 'enjoy doing' because the only jobs that people will be doing full time are the ones that they enjoy doing.

My work is substantially better than my competitors and my reward is taking home nearly double what most of them do. I plan on increasing that even more by investing much time and resources and even risk in my business. There is no guarantee it will work. I can promise you that it WILL result in an even better quality for my customers. If there were no potential for reward I would not go thorugh with the considerable expense, efforts and risks; I would be content to offer the same as all the other schleps trying to keep up with me. You want me to give more? Then give me more. Period. I have no idea what you do. Perhaps what your competitors are giving is sufficient, perhaps not.

That is freedom. That is capitalism.Freedom for those who can buy it.

THis is the point I have addressed. Your 'freedom to' is all about getting free stuff. Getting free stuff has more to do with thievery than freedom.Not quite, no. But fine, you don't recognize the 'freedom to'. Let's give a hypothetical example, shall we?

Let's say someone attacks you from behind and damages your spinal cord. This results in your losing the use of both of your legs.
Have they taken some of your freedom away from you? Why or why not?

Your description looks more like the 'community' (governement) making all of your decisions for you.Nope, it's the community maximizing your ability to make decisions and see them actualized.

Thank you for verifying to me and anyone else left reading this that your ideas are complete out of touch with reality and your arguments devoid of reason. I can see that there really is no bringing you back so it is here that I will end my part of this discussion. Debating with you is like playing a game with a 5-yr old who is making it up to suit them as they go. I will not debate reality against your fantasy.
Farewell.

Thank you for verifying to me and anyone else left reading this that your ideas are complete out of touch with reality and your arguments devoid of reason. I can see that there really is bringing you back so it is here that I will end my part of this discussion. Debating with you is like playing a game with a 5-yr old who is making it up to suit them as they go. I will not debate reality against your fantasy.
Farewell.Or in other words, you have nothing more to say and I'm not buying what you're selling. Oh, well, have fun doing whatever.

Or in other words, you have nothing more to say and I'm not buying what you're selling. Oh, well, have fun doing whatever.

No. I Wasn't selling you anything. I simply have found your arguments inconsistent, evasive and tiresome.

The problem with asking questions like this is just how exactly do you define 'best'? In hard economic terms, capitalism is by far the best as it is the most productive. Socialists counter with saying that capitalism is oppressive and exploitative and that it is far better for someone to starve to death knowing that they will not be exploited by some capitalist 'taking advantage' of their need to eat (just kidding people, relax).

I highly recommend reading Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter. He started out by trying to make it accessible to the socialists; he figured if he just wrote about capitalism that only capitalists would read it and he wanted this to be accessible to all.

It is definitely worth the read.

Very good choice. I would have recommended the same.

Thank you for verifying to me and anyone else left reading this that your ideas are complete out of touch with reality and your arguments devoid of reason. I can see that there really is no bringing you back so it is here that I will end my part of this discussion. Debating with you is like playing a game with a 5-yr old who is making it up to suit them as they go. I will not debate reality against your fantasy.
Farewell.

I think the rest of us gave up a while back, and I am amazed at how long you managed to continue to bang your head against the wall arguing with someone so logically inconsistent and devoid of a solid rational base.

No. I Wasn't selling you anything. I simply have found your arguments inconsistent, evasive and tiresome.Inconsistent with your arguments, yes.
Inconsistent with each other, no.

I think the rest of us gave up a while back, and I am amazed at how long you managed to continue to bang your head against the wall arguing with someone so logically inconsistent and devoid of a solid rational base.Who would that be? Certainly not me, my arguments are both consistent and rational.

Ahh, JB. There were so many. let me pick the most recent;

You don't honestly believe all doctors are only doctors because they get paid a lot, do you?
Plenty of doctors even in our society donate their time to helping people.
and earlier you said;
With that said, you seem to be under the false impression that people only work for direct financial compensation. Of course, this isn't true, otherwise there would be no Doctors Without Borders

So I called you on it. I put the spotlight on you and gave you a glorious opportunity to demonstrate the fallacy of my argument.

Yes - I believe people are physicians because they get paid alot. Go ahead and TRY to hire a physician for minimum wage and see how many applicants you get. I dare you. I double-dog-dare you. Put an ad in the classifieds and wait for your phone to ring.

I was so generous I didn't even insist you get them to work for free - I allowed you to stay within labor laws. So where is your proof? How did you going to substantiate your earlier claims? I was eager to see your clever response - because you and I both know I called you on your bullshit. Did you really smack it to me?

Nope. You copped out. Fizzled. When danger reared it's ugly head you bravely turned your tail and fled. You evanded and responded to my real world challenge to your real world claim with a make-believe world answer.

Well, since we're talking about the average income, this wouldn't be a minimum wage.

A very poor response. You took the bait. You swallowed the hook. You got your ass handed to you. And you are barely aware it even happened.

Sorry. Now that I have served you up I am through playing your little game. I will no longer compare reality to your vivid imagination.

So Mystical Skeptic, the fact that there are countless examples of charitable medical work, pro bono legal work, and out-of-pocket funded research and engineering fails to show non-monetary rewards for labor?

That one cannot call up a physician and request that he perform surgery for $6.25/hour is not the damning proof you desperately want it to be.

I was mildly shocked when I opened this thread and didn't see massive post chains on the last page...of couse, all I needed to do was to go one page back and...WHAMMO! Post chains!

So Mystical Skeptic, the fact that there are countless examples of charitable medical work, pro bono legal work, and out-of-pocket funded research and engineering fails to show non-monetary rewards for labor?

That one cannot call up a physician and request that he perform surgery for $6.25/hour is not the damning proof you desperately want it to be.

"You don't honestly believe all doctors are only doctors because they get paid a lot, do you?"

That quote was not about charitable diversions. Your point is about charitable diversions. Apples/oranges. My point (that people choose to become physicians largely because they get paid alot) stands quite firmly in your mighty wind. There are always rare exceptions to any rule. The exceptions are nothing to build a case on about physicians not being motivated by financial renumeration.... except maybe as the set up to a punch line. The only group worse would be lawyers.

I was mildly shocked when I opened this thread and didn't see massive post chains on the last page...of couse, all I needed to do was to go one page back and...WHAMMO! Post chains!

JB has been trrying very hard to bait me into such an exchange. You know - distract with the minutia. I have, with a few exceptions, avoided that. (much to his frustration)

"You don't honestly believe all doctors are only doctors because they get paid a lot, do you?"

That quote was not about charitable diversions. Your point is about charitable diversions. Apples/oranges. My point (that people choose to become physicians largely because they get paid alot) stands quite firmly in your mighty wind. There are always rare exceptions to any rule. The exceptions are nothing to build a case on about physicians not being motivated by financial renumeration.... except maybe as the set up to a punch line. The only group worse would be lawyers.

The willingness of doctors and lawyers to engage in pro bono work shows that many individuals choose their career out of a serious social devotion or moral obligation.

There needs to be a little more subtlety to this discussion, each of you are arguing against each other's side and not really their arguments. You are not recognizing that there is a strong sense of social obligation that exists naturally within people. JB isn't recognizing that financial renumeration is an important factor in maintaining the labor supply.

That is not a very good attempt at feigned objectivity and I'm calling you on it. I absolutely did acknowledge the personal value, or merit, of charity work.

Physicians DO donate their time. Many of my friends do so regularly. However they do not just donate it to anyone for anything. They donate it to aiding the less fortunate - and they do so by choice. None are compelled to do so.

I (not a physician) also donate quite often. Time money and even blood. I am not paid. Much of it is not even tax-deductible. That does not suggest that I would want to do that full time for everyone. It is specific to the less fortunate and it is in my free time and it is my choice - I have never been compelled.

Charity is the most noble of virtues, but it is a lousy foundation for the basis of an economic system or government.

That is not a very good attempt at feigned objectivity and I'm calling you on it. I absolutely did acknowledge the personal value, or merit, of charity work.

But you have yet to admit that people would be doctors even if they did not receive market determined compensation.

Charity is the most noble of virtues, but it is a lousy foundation for the basis of an economic system or government.

There is no good foundation for a government or economic system.

/snipYou are correct that a system like the one that I am advocating hasn't been enacted yet. With that said, there are plenty of real-life reasons why such a system could be enacted, and other parallels with similar systems.
There is the pro bono and charitable work that I mentioned, as well as how people have behaved in anarchist societies, as well as how people behave in communitarian societies.
However, you are right that some doctors have become doctors for the financial reward. What percentage of doctors would this be? What percentage would it be if they didn't have to pay back medical school loans? (After all, we are talking about the last one here.)

But you have yet to admit that people would be doctors even if they did not receive market determined compensation.


What percentage of doctors would this be? What percentage would it be if they didn't have to pay back medical school loans? (After all, we are talking about the last one here.)

I gave you a simple challenge; Try filling a permanent position for a physician to treat financially ordinary patients for substantially less than "market determined compensation". Go ahead - offer her free room and board in lieu of your "non-market determined" pay. Hell, you can even offer to assume payments on her student loans for the duration as well. I still guarantee that your phone does not ring... unless maybe your mom calls. (it doesn't count if she's a physician!)

If people were so motivated to become physicians that compensation didn't matter than you would have no trouble at all winning my challenge. None. Instead - 'none' is just the amout of merit to your argument. Doubt me? Try it. I double-triple-dirty-dog-dare ya! (oooooooooh!) :)

If your hypothesis is tested and does not work then your hypothesis is false. I have described a perfectly valid test for your hypothesis. I will spare you the cost of a classified ad and tell you now - your hypothesis is very very false.

I gave you a simple challenge; Try filling a permanent position for a physician to treat financially ordinary patients for substantially less than "market determined compensation". Go ahead - offer her free room and board in lieu of "non-market determined" (meaning substandard) pay. Hell, you can even offer to assume payments on her student loans for the duration as well. I still guarantee that your phone does not ring... unless maybe your mom calls. (it doesn't count if she's a physician!)

If people were so motivated to become physicians that compensation didn't matter than you would have no trouble at all winning my challenge. None. Instead - 'none' is just the amout of merit to your argument. Doubt me? Try it. I double-triple-dirty-dog-dare ya! (oooooooooh!) :)

If your hypothesis is tested and does not work then your hypothesis is false. I have described a perfectly valid test for your hypothesis. I will spare you the cost of a classified ad and tell you now - your hypothesis is very very false.

Since this is such an expensive challenge, how about you go ahead with it.

It would be win-win for you. Either you prove us wrong or you find a super cheap doctor to employ.

I gave you a simple challenge; Try filling a permanent position for a physician to treat financially ordinary patients for substantially less than "market determined compensation". Go ahead - offer her free room and board in lieu of your "non-market determined" pay. Hell, you can even offer to assume payments on her student loans for the duration as well. I still guarantee that your phone does not ring... unless maybe your mom calls. (it doesn't count if she's a physician!)

If people were so motivated to become physicians that compensation didn't matter than you would have no trouble at all winning my challenge. None. Instead - 'none' is just the amout of merit to your argument. Doubt me? Try it. I double-triple-dirty-dog-dare ya! (oooooooooh!) :)

If your hypothesis is tested and does not work then your hypothesis is false. I have described a perfectly valid test for your hypothesis. I will spare you the cost of a classified ad and tell you now - your hypothesis is very very false.

This thread of reasoning is getting absurd. I am certain I could find one doctor to take a job for a while in exchange for room, board, and paying their student loans. It actually happens now and then - though those doctors are usually sent off to third world nations for a year.

Charity is quite common, doctors volunteering time at free clinics or to go on trips for doctors without borders, or other groups, happens frequently. This is also fairly irrelevant.

When I get into an accident and need to be rushed to the emergency room for major surgery, I do not want to be told "doctors frequently drop by to help out for a bit, when they don't have anything else they would rather be doing".

Now extrapolate that for an entire nation where tens of millions of jobs need to be done every day. How do you ensure that all of these necessary jobs get done by people with the proper training and ability when you base society off whatever people feel like doing without compensation?

Sure, a lot of jobs will be done, but I do not doubt that many jobs will not. There are a few people who would love to spend their days waist deep in sewage (if not actually swimming in it) to clear out the sewer system, but not enough of often.

I gave you a simple challenge; Try filling a permanent position for a physician to treat financially ordinary patients for substantially less than "market determined compensation". Go ahead - offer her free room and board in lieu of your "non-market determined" pay. Hell, you can even offer to assume payments on her student loans for the duration as well. I still guarantee that your phone does not ring... unless maybe your mom calls. (it doesn't count if she's a physician!)

If people were so motivated to become physicians that compensation didn't matter than you would have no trouble at all winning my challenge. None. Instead - 'none' is just the amout of merit to your argument. Doubt me? Try it. I double-triple-dirty-dog-dare ya! (oooooooooh!) :)

If your hypothesis is tested and does not work then your hypothesis is false. I have described a perfectly valid test for your hypothesis. I will spare you the cost of a classified ad and tell you now - your hypothesis is very very false.Even if I did do this, and successfully got a doctor, and told you about it, you don't have any reason to believe me. Would you have any way of falsifying my claim?

Even if I did do this, and successfully got a doctor, and told you about it, you don't have any reason to believe me. Would you have any way of falsifying my claim?

You could provide a contract of employment. Just make sure it is properly dated. You can even pre-fill the date; 'the day hell freezes over'.

You could provide a contract of employment. Just make sure it is properly dated. You can even pre-fill the date; 'the day hell freezes over'.Yes, but you would have no way of knowing whether or not I faked it and made up some doctor's name to sign it with.

Yes, but you would have no way of knowing whether or not I faked it and made up some doctor's name to sign it with.

It would be quite obvious as to be a forgery. Were you to actually get a physician to agree to it you would be on the evening news - right after the interview with Satan at his new ice-sculpture college.

It would be quite obvious as to be a forgery. Were you to actually get a physician to agree to it you would be on the evening news - right after the interview with Satan at his new ice-sculpture college.You assume that either of us would alert the media.
Even still, unless you live here, it would have to be on the national news for you to see it.
Is it so newsworthy that the national news would report it?

This is what I was talking about. Entropic Creation was exactly correct in his post, but there is still bickering going on over this asinine challenge.

Social obligations are a very strong motivation for our actions and labor, maybe even a greater natural motivation depending on the level of abstraction you perceive in society. But there is no denying that the market is the best way to match demand of utility and value with supply.

But there is no denying that the market is the best way to match demand of utility and value with supply.Of course there is. "Best" is subjective.

Of course there is. "Best" is subjective.

Only if there is a best way to make four equal four that is open to subjective opinion.

Only if there is a best way to make four equal four that is open to subjective opinion.This would use some kind of objective measurement. Which objective measurement are you using to determine that the market does best in?

See what I mean? JB is so invested in his argument that he can no longer function within logic. He has degraded to defining what 'is' is'. His solution to getting out of the hole he dug for himself? Keep digging! It is past the point of sad and is now just plain old funny!

See what I mean? JB is so invested in his argument that he can no longer function within logic. He has degraded to defining what 'is' is'. His solution to getting out of the hole he dug for himself? Keep digging! It is past the point of sad and is now just plain old funny!In what specific way am I being illogical?
Either way, you are guilty of ad hominem.

Since this thread is huge and I don't have time to go back through the entire thread and read it, I'm not 100% sure what the current debate is about. It looks like it's about socialized health care. Question: why must doctors working in a socialized health care environment neccesarily be paid beneath market value?

Since this thread is huge and I don't have time to go back through the entire thread and read it, I'm not 100% sure what the current debate is about. It looks like it's about socialized health care. Question: why must doctors working in a socialized health care environment neccesarily be paid beneath market value?
Ah, it isn't on socialized healthcare, it is actually about markets and incentives and now has switched to supply and demand.

I find it interesting that the only kinds of self-interested motivations being considered in this argument are monetary ones.

I find it interesting that the only kinds of self-interested motivations being considered in this argument are monetary ones.
Well, no, it really isn't. The argument is that the only motivations that motivate enough are monetary ones.

Well, no, it really isn't. The argument is that the only motivations that motivate enough are monetary ones.

That's more the conclusion. The contrast is pretty consistently being drawn between motives of altruism and charity and motives of increased monetary compensation.

I have no doubt that charity is not in and of itself a strong basis for an economic system, and I wouldn't particularly want to live in a society like that even if it were... but charity is not the only existing non-monetary motivation. It is one of many, and a culture that developed in conditions of approximate economic equality would probably tend to encourage them at least as much as our own encourages the valuation and maximization of wealth.

That is entirely leaving aside, of course, a central aim of communism: the conversion of labor from a compelled alienating activity into a freely-chosen pleasurable one, and the possibility that a more or less communist society would manage to make some progress in that direction. Being unable to starve or bribe people into doing unpleasant work is a pretty strong incentive to make it more pleasant, after all.

Since this thread is huge and I don't have time to go back through the entire thread and read it, I'm not 100% sure what the current debate is about. It looks like it's about socialized health care. Question: why must doctors working in a socialized health care environment neccesarily be paid beneath market value?

No, that's not quite the topic, but you're close. The topic is that JB made the claim that superior renumeration is not the reason why most physicians practice medicine. I called him out on it by challenging him to hire one who would work on ordinary patients for minimal renumeration.

He has dodged the issue since.

He has been advocating for communist practice of everything - including medicine - which is not the same as socialized medicine.

I called him out on it by challenging him to hire one who would work on ordinary patients for minimal renumeration.

The better test would be: see how many people became doctors if all doctors and everybody else were offered approximately equal renumeration.

People would rather be paid more than less.

I have no doubt that charity is not in and of itself a strong basis for an economic system, and I wouldn't particularly want to live in a society like that even if it were... but charity is not the only existing non-monetary motivation. It is one of many, and a culture that developed in conditions of approximate economic equality would probably tend to encourage them at least as much as our own encourages the valuation and maximization of wealth. True that other motivations would be promoted but a free society must also account for variations in objectives and desires. Money is a means to do this. part of the issue is that even though possible actions not motivated by money abound, not all people accept it due to their own biases or nature.

That is entirely leaving aside, of course, a central aim of communism: the conversion of labor from a compelled alienating activity into a freely-chosen pleasurable one, and the possibility that a more or less communist society would manage to make some progress in that direction. Being unable to starve or bribe people into doing unpleasant work is a pretty strong incentive to make it more pleasant, after all.
The only issue is that work rarely can compare to play, especially as it has developed through our innovative society. Even when comparing something I like to do that is productive and something that provides pleasure I cannot deny that the latter will win in many situations. Really, I would rather have people pick their own ends on these matters, employers would prefer to make work as pleasant and pleasurable as possible, however, the best way to determine the best manner is the costs. Trying to avoid the issue of the costs just leads to a problem with misallocation of resources to whatever aim would have actually been most efficient for society to have taken.

The better test would be: see how many people became doctors if all doctors and everybody else were offered approximately equal renumeration.

People would rather be paid more than less.

It is hard to determine if your first statement is more silly or desperate. Either way you are trying to evade the obvious by moving the goalpost. JB made a stupid statement and I called him on it. Get over it.

Your second statement is absolutely correct - which is one of the many reasons why capitalism is the superior system.