NationStates Jolt Archive

What exactly do you all consider socialism?

I just want a better understanding, because from my point of view it is an inherently evil system. It forces people to take care of everyone else, and does not allow them to live their life as they please. I can not see how this is justifiable in any case. Just like trying to justify limitation of freedom of speech - it is taking away someone's basic right for the 'good' of others, and no matter how much 'good' there is potential for, it is still wrong to take that right away.

Please explain this to me, I feel like I must be missing something.

Or am I?

Please explain this to me, I feel like I must be missing something.Very basically, the society you're part of is what enables you to persue your goals in live. Socialism is the idea that you're not entitled to a free ride.

What exactly do you all consider socialism?

I just want a better understanding, because from my point of view it is an inherently evil system. It forces people to take care of everyone else, and does not allow them to live their life as they please. I can not see how this is justifiable in any case. Just like trying to justify limitation of freedom of speech - it is taking away someone's basic right for the 'good' of others, and no matter how much 'good' there is potential for, it is still wrong to take that right away.

Please explain this to me, I feel like I must be missing something.

Or am I?
Socialism is allowing people to live their lives with something of a safety net financially so that they'll always be able to eat, clothe themselves and their families, and in some peoples' opinions, always be able to gain healthcare free of charge.

It's basically a modern version of the tribal instinct to help out those around you for the greater good, which just doesn't occur now that almost everyone is in close proximity to a great many other people.

What exactly do you all consider socialism?


Socialism is the ownership and control of X by a collection of equal and autonomous individuals.


Please explain this to me, I feel like I must be missing something.


You are assuming that socialism must be authoritarian in nature, while completely missing the founding tradition of anti-authoritarian socialism with a history going back many hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Socialism is the idea that you're not entitled to a free ride.

Repeated for veracity.

First off socialism is a econmic system so it can be either a state with civil freedoms or a totalitarian state.
It depends of what kind of socialism you follow such Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Communism(which is a far form of Socialism) etc etc. and its not just everyone helping eachother with everything if you can picture the opposite of capitaliasm which i find to be an evil system, and it can vary look at most european countries they are some form of socialism. It is more of people working as 1 to acheive the best possible outcome of the society as a whole while this can mean fiscal redistribution (taking from rich to give to poor) or pro poor public services, it can also mean such things as no private property so the community can use it as a whole unlike most econmic systems. It is run more by the working class than by the rich. so in short it is a country that is truly for the people not just the rich.
And as for your comment of it being an evil system it depends on what you consider evil like the soviet union:upyours: which i personaly despise even though i am a socialist. if you consider helping out people evil then i guess it is evil. and it doesn't limit peoples ability to live their lives as they please it just makes them contribute to the society in which they live just as the United States does does in its way of taxes.

I am assuming that the idea that socialism is 'inherently evil' stems from the notion that because citizens of a socialist society are obligated to support that society materially, through forfeiture of earnings or labour, which is a restriction of freedom, and that the restriction of freedom is inherently evil.

Ask yourself: is it? Take ridiculous examples: is the restriction on your freedom to go around killing people you don't like inherently evil because it restricts your freedom? Quite.

Socialism involves, at its core, the idea that many working together can create a society with sufficient resources to support everybody, irrespective of how much they're able to contribute. Yes, it involves the sacrifice of the 'freedom' to grab everything you possibly can for yourself (and fep to the weak, if they were worth anything they would be able to grab grab grab for themselves, wouldn't they?). But the exchange is a guarantee that you-- not just everyone, but you-- will not go without what you need.

Now, you can buy that guarantee by fighting your way to the top and making sure that you can always procure for yourself what you need, or you can buy into a system, supported by many, that ensures that you will always have what you need. Leaving completely aside the moral issue as to whether or not it is just decent, an obligation, or a waste of your time to care for your fellow people, I know which I would pick.

Edit: my e-mail seems to be broken, so if anyone responds to this, I won't know. I apologise in advance. I'm not ignoring you on purpose. Sorry!

Very basically, the society you're part of is what enables you to persue your goals in live. Socialism is the idea that you're not entitled to a free ride.

Not a free ride? How is getting all of the things you need unearned not a free ride?

Isn't capitalism the one that lets you pursue your goals? On the other hand, Socialism forces your action.

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Free market - An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

Isn't something that you can do privately with minor restrictions a idea that you have a freedom to due what you want? i.e. pursue your goals?



You are assuming that socialism must be authoritarian in nature, while completely missing the founding tradition of anti-authoritarian socialism with a history going back many hundreds of years.

Not to say you are wrong in the idea, but don't you think the system would fall apart if people were not required to participate? I know I would not give anybody my money for nothing in return.

I am assuming that the idea that socialism is 'inherently evil' stems from the notion that because citizens of a socialist society are obligated to support that society materially, through forfeiture of earnings or labour, which is a restriction of freedom, and that the restriction of freedom is inherently evil.

Ask yourself: is it? Take ridiculous examples: is the restriction on your freedom to go around killing people you don't like inherently evil because it restricts your freedom? Quite.

Socialism involves, at its core, the idea that many working together can create a society with sufficient resources to support everybody, irrespective of how much they're able to contribute. Yes, it involves the sacrifice of the 'freedom' to grab everything you possibly can for yourself (and fep to the weak, if they were worth anything they would be able to grab grab grab for themselves, wouldn't they?). But the exchange is a guarantee that you-- not just everyone, but you-- will not go without what you need.

Now, you can buy that guarantee by fighting your way to the top and making sure that you can always procure for yourself what you need, or you can buy into a system, supported by many, that ensures that you will always have what you need. Leaving completely aside the moral issue as to whether or not it is just decent, an obligation, or a waste of your time to care for your fellow people, I know which I would pick.

Edit: my e-mail seems to be broken, so if anyone responds to this, I won't know. I apologise in advance. I'm not ignoring you on purpose. Sorry!

It's that I have no choice that bothers me.

Comparing asking me to voluntarily sacrifice all of the fruits of my labor to someone that has done nothing for me, to killing someone is ridiculous. Killing someone is a negative action taken upon someone else. Not helping someone out is not a negative action taken, it's a positive one refrained which is very different. I'm not evil for not giving money for the red cross.

You are forcing me to be nice, essentially, when I don't want to. This is why it falls apart, and why it is immoral. Protecting one person from death is very different than insuring their lifestyle by forcing a 'good deed' from those who can support themselves.

How can any deed by a good deed if it is forced?

Not to say you are wrong in the idea, but don't you think the system would fall apart if people were not required to participate?


I'm not sure that you understand what "the system" actually is. Don't feel bad, capitalists and state socialists don't understand it either.

I provided those two Wikipedia links for a reason. You read them, right?


I know I would not give anybody my money for nothing in return.


A socialist would not give anybody his liberty for nothing in return.

Again, read the links I provided.

Misguided idealism at best. Mediocrity inducing uniformity at worst.

I'd rather not have a safety net, therefor I'll stick with my capitalism.

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


God damned collectivists. ;)

"E Pluribus Unum." Collectivism is right on the money.

Not a free ride? How is getting all of the things you need unearned not a free ride?

I assume the homeless deserve to be that way because they didn't try hard enough?

Isn't capitalism the one that lets you pursue your goals? On the other hand, Socialism forces your action.

Forces what action? Compassion?

How cold is your soul if compassion needs to be forced?

You are forcing me to be nice, essentially, when I don't want to. This is why it falls apart, and why it is immoral.

Being nice is immoral. Never knew that.

Guess we should shut down all those soup kitchens, the dirty socialist establishments.

Isn't capitalism the one that lets you pursue your goals? On the other hand, Socialism forces your action.


Remember that sentence the next time a private for-profit developer gets the government to evict and raze a neighborhood to the ground so it can build some condos.

(EDIT: "but those aren't really capitalists" one objects. And yet, every socialist everywhere must have a poster of Stalin on his bedroom wall. Socialism is "force," after all)

I'm not sure that you understand what "the system" actually is. Don't feel bad, capitalists and state socialists don't understand it either.

I provided those two Wikipedia links for a reason. You read them, right?



A socialist would not give anybody his liberty for nothing in return.

Again, read the links I provided.

I think the loss of private property is something I would consider a complete disregard of my freedom. That is what I work for - my property. This is my life. Forcing be to give this up is authoritarian.

In these systems, it is put to a 'vote' weather I get to do what I want. It is not right to put someone's liberty at the hands of a majority.

Forcing me in any way to give up what I want to do is taking away my liberty, for nothing in return. This is authoritarian. The system also rests on this. So, therefore, the system must be authoritarian to work.

Oh, and if you don't understand this, don't feel bad. Socialists or similar people never do.

Remember that sentence the next time a private for-profit developer gets the government to evict and raze a neighborhood to the ground so it can build some condos.

(EDIT: "but those aren't really capitalists" one objects. And yet, every socialist everywhere has a poster of Stalin on his bedroom wall.)

I'll buy one if you let me know.;)

I'll buy one if you let me know.;)

A condo or a poster of Stalin?

Why not both. We'll call it the condo combo.

Remember that sentence the next time a private for-profit developer gets the government to evict and raze a neighborhood to the ground so it can build some condos.

(EDIT: "but those aren't really capitalists" one objects. And yet, every socialist everywhere must have a poster of Stalin on his bedroom wall. Socialism is "force," after all)

I'm not going to say that they aren't capitalists. However, I will say that the government should not be able to evict people like that without reasonable, and mutually agreed upon, compensation.

In socialism, the building of condos wouldn't even be started, in capitalism the developer would find somewhere else. The socialists would not start the project because it takes more money than the average-per-capita income to build them. Thus, no one (in socialism) could afford to live there if the building was ever to be paid for. The rent would have to lowered to average, but then it is not possible to build them in the first place.

I fail to see how private property and a free health-care system are mutually exclusive...

I'm not going to say that they aren't capitalists. However, I will say that the government should not be able to evict people like that without reasonable, and mutually agreed upon, compensation.


But for some as yet undefined and unexplained reason, socialism must necessarily preclude reason and mutual agreement.


In socialism, the building of condos wouldn't even be started, in capitalism the developer would find somewhere else. The socialists would not start the project because it takes more money than the average-per-capita income to build them. Thus, no one (in socialism) could afford to live there if the building was ever to be paid for. The rent would have to lowered to average, but then it is not possible to build them in the first place.


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

The above link goes to a list of cooperative enterprises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) that operate all over the globe. The list of such organizations in the United States is especially interesting, as it contains several major brand and other names which you might recognize (I'm assuming you're a citizen of the United States because of your stated political positions and because such are the majority population here on NationStates, last I heard). These names include:

ACE Hardware
Associated Press
Blue Diamond Growers
Do It Best Hardware
Florida's Natural Growers (responsible for Florida's Natural line of juices available at your local supermarket)
FTD (Florists' Transworld Delivery)
Land O'Lakes
National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc. (responsible for the Welch's brand of juices and other products, also available at your local supermarket)
Ocean Spray
Recreational Equipment Inc.
Sunkist Growers, Inc.
True Value Corporation

The full list is obviously far larger than this particular selection. The examples listed above are, again, most likely to be recognized.

Most likely none of these businesses describe themselves as "socialist" per se, but they are structured as cooperatives. The cooperative movement does have a close association to both anarchist and socialist ideology in general. And cooperatives are structured in such a fashion that their members exercise equal and collective ownership and control of the business enterprise. Thus, that key value at the heart of socialist ideology...


Socialism is the ownership and control of X by a collection of equal and autonomous individuals.


...is perfectly compatable with competitive enterprise. As with any other business venture, lots of cooperatives go under on a regular basis. But, many are major brand names which successfully compete with businesses that follow a more traditional capitalist structuring.

Another good company to look at is W._L._Gore_and_Associates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates), makers of Gore-Tex fabric. Again, the company itself does not self-identify as anarchist or socialist, but "The Gore Method" of business structure, as described on the W. L. Gore and Associates Wikipedia page (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates), is highly compatible with anarchist and socialist methods and structures. And W. L. Gore and Associates is, again, another very successful company (including repeated listings on Forbes' "Best Companies to Work For" list).

There are mutuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization) (which include New York Life and State Farm Insurance companies), employee-owned and operated business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee-owned), workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management), and other concepts of business organization which are not only compatible with competitive enterprise but also with the cooperative foundation of socialist ideology. As an added bonus, social and cooperative organizations don't require any more state or government intervention than the more traditional capitalist organization. In many ways, the social organizations actually require less government intervention.

Thus, I declare the notion that socialism or social organization must necessarily be inefficient or bad for business to be complete bunk. ;)

I think the loss of private property is something I would consider a complete disregard of my freedom. That is what I work for - my property. This is my life. Forcing be to give this up is authoritarian.


If by property you mean that which you produce through your own direct and honest labor, any number of socialists agree with you. Especially those of the anti-authoritarian/anti-state variety.


It is not right to put someone's liberty at the hands of a majority.


Which is why socialists would (should) only put the concerns of the collective up to the vote of the majority. Your personal concerns are your and yours only. Collective control ends where your personal nose begins, if you will. If you don't wish to associate with a particular collective, then don't. If a particualr collective forces you to associate, then you are obviously a victim of aggression and coercion.


Forcing me in any way to give up what I want to do is taking away my liberty,


Yep.


This is authoritarian.


I agree.


So, therefore, the system must be authoritarian to work.


Bullshit. :)


Oh, and if you don't understand this, don't feel bad. Socialists or similar people never do.


I agree, they often haven't. I and many others, however, do.

But for some as yet undefined and unexplained reason, socialism must necessarily preclude reason and mutual agreement.

So I can remain in my mansion if the country becomes socialist? I won't mutually agree to giving it up.


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

The above link goes to a list of cooperative enterprises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) that operate all over the globe. The list of such organizations in the United States is especially interesting, as it contains several major brand and other names which you might recognize (I'm assuming you're a citizen of the United States because of your stated political positions and because such are the majority population here on NationStates, last I heard). These names include:

ACE Hardware
Associated Press
Blue Diamond Growers
Do It Best Hardware
Florida's Natural Growers (responsible for Florida's Natural line of juices available at your local supermarket)
FTD (Florists' Transworld Delivery)
Land O'Lakes
National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc. (responsible for the Welch's brand of juices and other products, also available at your local supermarket)
Ocean Spray
Recreational Equipment Inc.
Sunkist Growers, Inc.
True Value Corporation

The full list is obviously far larger than this particular selection. The examples listed above are, again, most likely to be recognized.

Most likely none of these businesses describe themselves as "socialist" per se, but they are structured as cooperatives. The cooperative movement does have a close association to both anarchist and socialist ideology in general. And cooperatives are structured in such a fashion that their members exercise equal and collective ownership and control of the business enterprise. Thus, that key value at the heart of socialist ideology...



...is perfectly compatable with competitive enterprise. As with any other business venture, lots of cooperatives go under on a regular basis. But, many are major brand names which successfully compete with businesses that follow a more traditional capitalist structuring.

Another good company to look at is W._L._Gore_and_Associates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates), makers of Gore-Tex fabric. Again, the company itself does not self-identify as anarchist or socialist, but "The Gore Method" of business structure, as described on the W. L. Gore and Associates Wikipedia page (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates), is highly compatible with anarchist and socialist methods and structures. And W. L. Gore and Associates is, again, another very successful company (including repeated listings on Forbes' "Best Companies to Work For" list).

There are mutuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization) (which include New York Life and State Farm Insurance companies), employee-owned and operated business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee-owned), workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management), and other concepts of business organization which are not only compatible with competitive enterprise but also with the cooperative foundation of socialist ideology. As an added bonus, social and cooperative organizations don't require any more state or government intervention than the more traditional capitalist organization. In many ways, the social organizations actually require less government intervention.

Thus, I declare the notion that socialism or social organization must necessarily be inefficient or bad for business to be complete bunk. ;)

Um OK.

You wasted a lot of your own time there. I can quit ACE Hardware or Ocean Spray if I want. I can't 'quit' my country. The workers in these cooperatives are not forced to work there. This is why it does not relate to national socialism and why it is not bad for business. Because it is voluntary.

Everything I am arguing about is about choice and my freedom. That is all of my argument. That I should not be forced to do something I don't want to.

Everything I am arguing about is about choice and my freedom. That is all of my argument. That I should not be forced to do something I don't want to.

What are you being forced to do, exactly?

I can't 'quit' my country.Yes you can. Immigration :)

If by property you mean that which you produce through your own direct and honest labor, any number of socialists agree with you. Especially those of the anti-authoritarian/anti-state variety.



Which is why socialists would (should) only put the concerns of the collective up to the vote of the majority. Your personal concerns are your and yours only. Collective control ends where your personal nose begins, if you will. If you don't wish to associate with a particular collective, then don't. If a particualr collective forces you to associate, then you are obviously a victim of aggression and coercion.


By Property I mean both that and any physical property I have acquired through those means. This also includes any commercial endeavor I had decided to set out on. If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart, it would be something that I created by my labor, and thus my property (I'm ignoring stock, I think you can understand that this is different than the argument). I would oppose to any people setting about quote "collective" measures to control my creation. This would be limiting my freedom because it controlled my creation which was created by my effort, which you so ironically said I had every right to.

What are you being forced to do, exactly?

I'm being forced to give in "my share" to the 'greater good' against my will. I don't have a choice to keep what I have earned, for example a corporation.

Yes you can. Immigration :)

And who controls weather their is still a country that supports my liberty? I never new there was some kind of international council that insured there was a society on earth for each and every different political system, and that it would always remain that way.

I'm being forced to give in "my share" to the 'greater good' against my will. I don't have a choice to keep what I have earned, for example a corporation.

Simply heartless. I see.

Yes you can. Immigration :)

Not the same, not by a long shot. Quitting a job is a lot less disruptive and difficult than changing citizenship, so barring a massive disruption in your life there is no way to realistically "quit" your country or citizenship in the same way as your employment.

Simply heartless. I see.

Ah, so you resort to trying to make those who disagree with you look evil to promote your own ideas.


Wait a second.....

How is that not heartless?


It's not a good deed if the deed is forced. It can only have heart if it is by choice. It cannot be good or bad when it is done by obligation.

Simply heartless. I see.

If I work hard for something, why should I have to give it to someone else?

What if the recipient of that coerced donation is lazy, irresponsible and refuses to work, sapping off of my hard work to support themselves? Should I still be forced to support their indolence even though I know it does nothing and rewards their irresponsible behavior? It's not like a charity, where my money goes to where I want it, but is rather handled by an impersonal government bureaucracy that can use it in whatever way it wishes regardless of whether it actually does any good at all.

Ah, so you resort to trying to make those who disagree with you look evil to promote your own ideas.


Wait a second.....

How is that not heartless?

Heartless is not evil. It is fiscally responsible, apparently.

I was remarking on your reliance on the so-called 'charity' system.

I was remarking on your reliance on the so-called 'charity' system.

Yes, that makes sense. If I want to give someone my money, I do it. I'd rather that then have it taken from my by coercion and have it forcibly redistributed according to someone else's idea of what is right.

I'm being forced to give in "my share" to the 'greater good' against my will. I don't have a choice to keep what I have earned, for example a corporation.

Given that corporations have limited liability to noncontractual third parties your example is a sorry one.

And who controls weather their is still a country that supports my liberty? I never new there was some kind of international council that insured there was a society on earth for each and every different political system, and that it would always remain that way.

Generally countries claim certain property rights over the territory of the nation, called sovereignty. With the choice of a couple hundred there should be some competition for residents. You may argue over the legitimacy of sovereignty, but then again one may argue the legitimacy of all property rights.

If I work hard for something, why should I have to give it to someone else?

What if the recipient of that coerced donation is lazy, irresponsible and refuses to work, sapping off of my hard work to support themselves? Should I still be forced to support their indolence even though I know it does nothing and rewards their irresponsible behavior? It's not like a charity, where my money goes to where I want it, but is rather handled by an impersonal government bureaucracy that can use it in whatever way it wishes regardless of whether it actually does any good at all.

No one said these are free handouts.

No one said these are free handouts.

They may not be free, but who determines what is needed to receive them? And again, how do you ensure that these payouts solve the problem rather than just propagate it?

Heartless is not evil. It is fiscally responsible, apparently.

I was remarking on your reliance on the so-called 'charity' system.

Heartless is good?

I don't know what you mean.

My 'reliance' is not to the charity system. It is to my, and everyone else's, freedom. And anyway, you are saying that people 'deserve' charity, no? How is charity worth a damn if the people think they 'deserve' it or if it is 'forced charity.'?

Yes, that makes sense. If I want to give someone my money, I do it. I'd rather that then have it taken from my by coercion and have it forcibly redistributed according to someone else's idea of what is right.

But you aren't going to give that money. "This charity is not to my liking" or "You don't deserve my money," more like.

But you aren't going to give that money. "This charity is not to my liking" or "You don't deserve my money," more like.

And if I don't, what of it? I earned it, and it belongs to me. I've done nothing wrong at all by deciding to keep what I earned through my hard work and effort. It's my reward for the time and energy I've invested in my occupation and the skills necessary to achieve it.

Heartless is good?

I don't know what you mean.

It is the more fiscally responsible choice for you, no?

You'd rather keep your money.

My 'reliance' is not to the charity system. It is to my, and everyone else's, freedom.

From that I would assume you would not give money for working with the poor, if you ran the government?

You would advocate no help to anyone?

And anyway, you are saying that people 'deserve' charity, no? How is charity worth a damn if the people think they 'deserve' it or if it is 'forced charity.'?

This is not free money wealth redistribution. This is safety net, helping the poor recover. You need to demonstrate your ability to work out of the hole you are in before you receive any help.

Yes, that makes sense. If I want to give someone my money, I do it. I'd rather that then have it taken from my by coercion and have it forcibly redistributed according to someone else's idea of what is right.

Umm... all taxation is coercive, and the proceeds are forcible redistributed according to others views of right. Are you against all forms of government?

And if I don't, what of it? I earned it, and it belongs to me. I've done nothing wrong at all by deciding to keep what I earned through my hard work and effort. It's my reward for the time and energy I've invested in my occupation and the skills necessary to achieve it.

Then I will help people myself if you refuse to.

Given that corporations have limited liability to noncontractual third parties your example is a sorry one.


What does that have to do with the fact that I created this company, and it is my property?


Generally countries claim certain property rights over the territory of the nation, called sovereignty. With the choice of a couple hundred there should be some competition for residents. You may argue over the legitimacy of sovereignty, but then again one may argue the legitimacy of all property rights.

Competition? Isn't that a capitalist idea?

And how does this make my choice to move to a different, free country a guaranteed one? Not to mention that it is ridiculous to 'just' move out of a country anyway. It is kind of hard, and maybe I want to live in my home.

This is not free money wealth redistribution. This is safety net, helping the poor recover. You need to demonstrate your ability to work out of the hole you are in before you receive any help.

That's hardly socialist. You're just providing a way for people to regain control over their own finances and reintegrate themselves in to the capitalist economy. All of the mechanisms of the market are still in place.

Umm... all taxation is coercive, and the proceeds are forcible redistributed according to others views of right. Are you against all forms of government?

Yes and no. Realistically, no, because there is no other viable option than government when it comes to solving or controlling many problems in society. In principle, I would support a move towards no government, but principle takes a backseat to reality in any case.

We simply can't function without government and taxes. The extent of these institutions is debatable, but the systems themselves are not. It is the extent of taxation that I have issue with.

That's hardly socialist. You're just providing a way for people to regain control over their own finances and reintegrate themselves in to the capitalist economy. All of the mechanisms of the market are still in place.

Nowhere did I say I was a radical socialist here. The money 'taken' from you (which I would believe would be taxes) goes towards not wealth redistribution directly, but through programs.

Most of the market remains, but a safe, concrete alternative would always be available. Socialized medicine, work programs, etc.

It is the more fiscally responsible choice for you, no?

You'd rather keep your money.


Yes I have a right to the money I earned


From that I would assume you would not give money for working with the poor, if you ran the government?

You would advocate no help to anyone?



This is not free money wealth redistribution. This is safety net, helping the poor recover. You need to demonstrate your ability to work out of the hole you are in before you receive any help.

I would help those who need it. Those who need it are defined as about to starve, and they need food. Nothing comfort - only survival needs.

Yes, socialism is 'free money wealth redistribution.' We already have in the US a welfare program (although it is getting more socialist all the time) that is the safety net you talk about.

You need to get on the dame page as this discussion.

So I can remain in my mansion if the country becomes socialist? I won't mutually agree to giving it up.


So long as your property is the product of your own honest labor, there's no reason to give it up.


You wasted a lot of your own time there.


I get that feeling to, but probably not in the same way you mean. :D


I can't 'quit' my country.


In fact, you can, but I understand your point. The anti-authoritarian, anti-state, and otherwise anarchist socialists understand and agree with your point also.


The workers in these cooperatives are not forced to work there. This is why it does not relate to national socialism and why it is not bad for business. Because it is voluntary.


You're right, what I describe isn't state socialism. That's pretty much my point, isn't it?


That I should not be forced to do something I don't want to.


You're not reading the links I'm providing, are you? You really should. Here they are again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism

I earned it


2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: to receive more than one has earned.
...
4. to gain as due return or profit: Savings accounts earn interest.
5. to bring about or cause deservedly: His fair dealing earned our confidence.

Why? Why is money something anyone "deserves" or "merits" for ability, or even for hard work?

And if you're using "earned" independent of any concept of "desert", why does it matter if you "earned" it?

What does that have to do with the fact that I created this company, and it is my property?

Because you are protected from other's claims through state coercion. If your arguement is that only mutually agreements are legitmate then you've totally fucked up the basic premises when you use corporation as an example.

Competition? Isn't that a capitalist idea?

And how does this make my choice to move to a different, free country a guaranteed one? Not to mention that it is ridiculous to 'just' move out of a country anyway. It is kind of hard, and maybe I want to live in my home.

Who said I was socialist?

It doesn't, just like there's no guarantee that someone give me whatever I want. Moving out of a country is hard, but so the fuck what? Starting a business is hard, but some people do it. As long as you voluntarily stay in place that claims property rights over residents, but allows one to emmigrate then you're an idiot if you dislike thethe government demands.

I would help those who need it. Those who need it are defined as about to starve, and they need food. Nothing comfort - only survival needs.

Yeah, cause that's working great now.

Yes, socialism is 'free money wealth redistribution.'

Doesn't have to be, and isn't in many cases.

We already have in the US a welfare program (although it is getting more socialist all the time) that is the safety net you talk about.

Welfare is the most fucked up thing in the United States (tied with the meth problem). When you can mooch the government freely, there is a problem. Simply handing out checks is not the answer.

You need to get on the dame page as this discussion.

What?

What are you being forced to do, exactly?

What's happening is that s/he is confusing a very specific instance (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Stalin3.jpg) with the entire class. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

Nowhere did I say I was a radical socialist here. The money 'taken' from you (which I would believe would be taxes) goes towards not wealth redistribution directly, but through programs.

Most of the market remains, but a safe, concrete alternative would always be available. Socialized medicine, work programs, etc.

How are socialized medicine and work programs not wealth redistribution? It is using the rich's money to fund the poor's health care costs.

So long as your property is the product of your own honest labor, there's no reason to give it up.
You're right, what I describe isn't state socialism. That's pretty much my point, isn't it?
You're not reading the links I'm providing, are you? You really should. Here they are again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism

What about the corporation like Wal-Mart that I own? What happens to it, when it is still the product of my labor?

Being nice is immoral. Never knew that.

Being nice is not immoral and no one ever said it was. Forcing people to be nice against their will most certainly is immoral. Taking something away from person A and giving it to person B without A's permission is theft no matter who's doing it, what their justifications are, or whether or not the majority agrees.

And your choice of words pretty much sums it all up for me: Socialism is what happens when people are so concerned with being nice they forget to double check to make sure they're being helpful.

If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart, it would be something that I created by my labor, and thus my property


It would be something created by one's piggy-backing on the labor of those on the ground actually executing the work of the enterprise anyway. Assuming the usual top-down capitalist enterprise.


I would oppose to any people setting about quote "collective" measures to control my creation.


99.9% of the time, so would I.

That I should not be forced to do something I don't want to.

Fine.

But don't expect us, if that's your condition, to let you have lots of stuff to do things with... because we value our freedom too, and we're not too keen on letting what you want to do being allowed to restrict it.

How are socialized medicine and work programs not wealth redistribution? It is using the rich's money to fund the poor's health care costs.

You're acting as if I'd take 20 of your 100 dollars and simply give it to a hobo.

It doesn't work that way.

Instead of the money, I buy him a meal, if he gives me a reason.

Honestly, I did not know the postal service was wealth redistribution.

Yes and no. Realistically, no, because there is no other viable option than government when it comes to solving or controlling many problems in society. In principle, I would support a move towards no government, but principle takes a backseat to reality in any case.

We simply can't function without government and taxes. The extent of these institutions is debatable, but the systems themselves are not. It is the extent of taxation that I have issue with.

But even you don't find bare bones level of coercion palatable. I remember you supporting some r&d funding and public infrastructure investment in principle. I find these great sources of wealth creation but hardly the lowest levelof coercion necessary for a society to function.

Yeah, cause that's working great now.


No, they actually get way more than that for free.


Doesn't have to be, and isn't in many cases.


How?


Welfare is the most fucked up thing in the United States (tied with the meth problem). When you can mooch the government freely, there is a problem. Simply handing out checks is not the answer.

That is what socialism does. It is the same thing as welfare, except on a huge scale.

What?
Oops. That was supposed to say 'same'. I mean I am talking about more of a pure socialism - you don't appear to be talking about the same thing.

It would be something created by one's piggy-backing on the labor of those on the ground actually executing the work of the enterprise anyway. Assuming the usual top-down capitalist enterprise.


They chose to work for me. I don't owe them anything, we already made the trade of work for money.

Welfare is the most fucked up thing in the United States (tied with the meth problem). When you can mooch the government freely, there is a problem. Simply handing out checks is not the answer.

The problem with AFDC was that it taxed benefits at 100% marginal rates. Who'd work when you are taxed so high? TANF is somewhat better at this.

No, they actually get way more than that for free.

Does it work?

I rest my case.
How?

There lies a great difference between giving a hobo $1000 and paying his medical bill.

That is what socialism does. It is the same thing as welfare, except on a huge scale.

Stop blanketing socialism as a whole entity. It does not need entail income or wealth redistribution. You are generalizing.

I've already stated you can require work to receive aid; that is socialist, just a different kind.

Oops. That was supposed to say 'same'. I mean I am talking about more of a pure socialism - you don't appear to be talking about the same thing.

That's evident in your generalizations.

Fine.

But don't expect us, if that's your condition, to let you have lots of stuff to do things with... because we value our freedom too, and we're not too keen on letting what you want to do being allowed to restrict it.

Your so-called "freedom" relies on restrictions of freedom. Quit being hypocritical.

You are saying "Quit restricting us! All we want is you to give up you lifestyle for our good!"

Not the same, not by a long shot. Quitting a job is a lot less disruptive and difficult than changing citizenship, so barring a massive disruption in your life there is no way to realistically "quit" your country or citizenship in the same way as your employment.

Thus the tradition of anti-statism and decentralization, including open borders if borders must exist at all, found in the history of anarchist and socialist thought. The massive disruption you cite is just another example of the coercion inherent in the present political and economic order which the tradition I cite aims to defeat.

In fact, I've noticed a resurgence in "close the borders"-type ideological movement among so called free market capitalist circles, including U.S. Libertarian Party members. Keeping the international sweatshop laboring class in its place is a cause advanced by tightening up immigration regulation.

Don't blame me because the authoritarians won't let you choose your associations freely. I prefer open borders exactly because I prefer free association.

I'm going to bed.

Your so-called "freedom" relies on restrictions of freedom. Quit being hypocritical.

Ummm.... capitalist freedom is the same way. Property rights take away the freedom of others to use said property.

Does it work?

I rest my case. Yes. Think of all the mexicans living in apartments for free. This is not survival this is plain mooching.


There lies a great difference between giving a hobo $1000 and paying his medical bill.

No, there is no difference in giving someone $1000 for nothing, and giving someone $1000 of medical care for nothing. It is the same money to me. And it is used for things of equal value to the 'hobo.'

Stop blanketing socialism as a whole entity. It does not need entail income or wealth redistribution. You are generalizing.


Socialism is a general idea. This is what it is generally about.


I've already stated you can require work to receive aid; that is socialist, just a different kind.



That's evident in your generalizations.

Again, I am generalizing because the topic requires it.

If I work hard for something, why should I have to give it to someone else?


You shouldn't have to.


What if the recipient of that coerced donation is lazy, irresponsible and refuses to work, sapping off of my hard work to support themselves?
Should I still be forced to support their indolence even though I know it does nothing and rewards their irresponsible behavior? It's not like a charity,


If the present economic order wasn't so seriously broken, band-aid measures like charity and welfare (voluntary or otherwise) would be unnecessary. Both charity and welfare produce a relationship of dependence and parasitism. I've myself concluded that the entire point of the socialist exercise should be to eliminate dependence and parasitism.

Ummm.... capitalist freedom is the same way. Property rights take away the freedom of others to use said property.

It was fairly traded for something in capitalism. It is not taking away anything.

This is like you, the little child at christmas, saying that it is your right to have the bigger, better present your older brother got. Apparently your parents never taught you the expression "Life isn't Fair."

Your so-called "freedom" relies on restrictions of freedom.

Really? Demonstrate this.

They may not be free, but who determines what is needed to receive them?


Everyone who contributes to providing them, as the collection is composed of autonomous individuals.


And again, how do you ensure that these payouts solve the problem rather than just propagate it?


I can easily ask the same of capitalist economics.

I can easily ask the same of capitalist economics.

I can easily say just look at the history of the United States. We went from no-one to the biggest super-power extremely quickly because of something no-one else had: freedom.

Socialism is a general idea. This is what it is generally about.

Using public funds for public goods investment, taxes on negative externalitites, social insurance, and regulation of any kind are forms of socialism?

Really? Demonstrate this.

Please read this excellent source of information:

Info Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536839)

You may find what I mean in there.

You may find what I mean in there.

Right, right, restrictions on ownership.

Since "ownership" itself is fundamentally a restriction on freedom, to limit its scope is not a restriction on freedom... it is a restriction on power.

You'll find that this was exactly my point in my original reply to you. That's why I asked you to explain.

Using public funds for public goods investment, taxes on negative externalitites, social insurance, and regulation of any kind are forms of socialism?

No, now you are generalizing what I said.

Social insurance is a socialism idea, yes.

Any regulation? No.

It was fairly traded for something in capitalism. It is not taking away anything.

This is like you, the little child at christmas, saying that it is your right to have the bigger, better present your older brother got. Apparently your parents never taught you the expression "Life isn't Fair."

First the last bit is irrelevent to our debate. Second, property rights, i.e the rights themselves, are not traded for anything

Yes, socialism is 'free money wealth redistribution.' We already have in the US a welfare program (although it is getting more socialist all the time) that is the safety net you talk about.


Socialism is nothing of the sort. Socialism is changing the decision-making process so that all individuals affected by a given action have an equal say in the choice leading to that action. That's it.

State welfare is anti-socialist to the extent that it centralizes control of the process to the select few political elites. This is why I, as a socialist, oppose and will always oppose "free money wealth redistribution" via the mechanism of state welfare.

Your confusing state welfare with socialism indicates that you have fallen into the very ideological trap that the authoritarian political elites set for you.

Right, right, restrictions on ownership.

Since "ownership" itself is fundamentally a restriction on freedom, to limit its scope is not a restriction on freedom... it is a restriction on power.

You'll find that this was exactly my point in my original reply to you. That's why I asked you to explain.

Jesus..... Ownership is a restriction on freedom? How the Hell? Because I have a right to go to the candy store and get a candy bar is a restriction on freedom? I'm pretty sure it is a freedom.

Socialism is nothing of the sort. Socialism is changing the decision-making process so that all individuals affected by a given action have an equal say in the choice leading to that action. That's it.

State welfare is anti-socialist to the extent that it centralizes control of the process to the select few political elites. This is why I, as a socialist, oppose and will always oppose "free money wealth redistribution" via the mechanism of state welfare.

Your confusing state welfare with socialism indicates that you have fallen into the very ideological trap that the authoritarian political elites set for you.

No, they are the same from my point of view.

In one the politicians may be doing it, which is not true but I'm not going to argue that, but it is against my will and involves taking my money.

In the other, if the majority decides the same thing the politicians did, it is the same to me: I lose my money against my will.

Ownership is a restriction on freedom?

Yes.

If you own something, no one else can use it except at your discretion. That is power. It rests on the restriction of other people's freedom.

Socialism is about putting major economic institutions into the hands of everyone so that they can be an expression of the freedom of all, not a means for the few to restrict the freedom of everybody else for the sake of what they want.

First the last bit is irrelevent to our debate. Second, property rights, i.e the rights themselves, are not traded for anything

Yes, what do you consider a property deed?

If I pay for a house, it becomes mine because I traded whoever owned it last the money for the house.

The last part is very relevant: you think that everyone has a 'right' to any property. This is like a kid whining that he did not get the best thing. You are essentially condoning people who whine that their property is not as good as someone else's; that they should get to have that property too.

What about the corporation like Wal-Mart that I own? What happens to it, when it is still the product of my labor?

It is the product of your labor. And the labor of every other person you employ. Thus, I would hope that you would rework the ownership and control of the enterprise to reflect the fact you are not the only person to credit for its success.

If you don't, I will oppose you. I will encourage people to not associate with you, as employees, investors, customers or any other fashion. I will avoid association with you myself.

Other than that, I bid you good luck and Godspeed. If, however, you commit aggression against me directly or though an agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism), you can expect the same in return until justice is achieved.

No, now you are generalizing what I said.

Social insurance is a socialism idea, yes.

Any regulation? No.

Of course I was generalizing. My generalizing was to show you the errors in generalizing.

The Liberal Party in the UK created the first form of unemployment insurance there. Bismark, who was against socialism, created old age insurance in Germany before the Weimar Republic. The Christian Demcrats were largely responsible for West Germany's social insurance programs. Milton Friedman argued for a negative income tax. Hayek though some kind of social minimum wasn't unreasonable. I await to hear why all of these were socialists.

Other than that, I bid you good luck and Godspeed.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Dist_Net_Worth_2001.gif

How long are you going to wait?

What exactly do you all consider socialism?

I just want a better understanding, because from my point of view it is an inherently evil system. It forces people to take care of everyone else, and does not allow them to live their life as they please. I can not see how this is justifiable in any case. Just like trying to justify limitation of freedom of speech - it is taking away someone's basic right for the 'good' of others, and no matter how much 'good' there is potential for, it is still wrong to take that right away.

Please explain this to me, I feel like I must be missing something.

Or am I?

:eek: that sounds like social security and welfare to me.

Very basically, the society you're part of is what enables you to persue your goals in live. Socialism is the idea that you're not entitled to a free ride.

life

Yes, what do you consider a property deed?

If I pay for a house, it becomes mine because I traded whoever owned it last the money for the house.

The last part is very relevant: you think that everyone has a 'right' to any property. This is like a kid whining that he did not get the best thing. You are essentially condoning people who whine that their property is not as good as someone else's; that they should get to have that property too.

I'm not talking about property rights being transferable, just that about the legal concept of property rights sets restrictions on others use of that property.

Really the example you cited is much more applicable to you. You are whining about taxes, redistribution, and other government actions and the hardship of emmigrating to a "free" country.

It is the product of your labor. And the labor of every other person you employ. Thus, I would hope that you would rework the ownership and control of the enterprise to reflect the fact you are not the only person to credit for its success.

If you don't, I will oppose you. I will encourage people to not associate with you, as employees, investors, customers or any other fashion. I will avoid association with you myself.

Other than that, I bid you good luck and Godspeed. If, however, you commit aggression against me directly or though an agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism), you can expect the same in return until justice is achieved.

The labor of my employees was traded to me, through contract, with money given to them. I did not trade them the ownership of the company. Yes, they helped me succeed, but they are already compensated (and thus credited) for it by the choice that they made.

Uh, OK....
You kinda went all weird there in those last few paragraphs. I don't really get it. Not to offend you, but it was weird.

They chose to work for me.

If we ignore the active efforts of capitalist owners to coercively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) manipulate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy) society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) in order to better secure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) their position while destabilizing the position of others.

Never mind the fact that the employment deal is hardly one where the parties to the agreement enter from equitable positions. The employee must labor in order to gain access to limited resources. The employer already begins from the privileged position of owning the limited resources, including the job itself. Nobody is putting a literal gun directly to the prospective employee's head, but the employer is able to exploit prospective employee's desire to not starve and die. Which is why history describes a plethora of examples of the desperately poor "agreeing" to work for poor wages in shit conditions.

I'm not talking about property rights being transferable, just that about the legal concept of property rights sets restrictions on others use of that property.

Really the example you cited is much more applicable to you. You are whining about taxes, redistribution, and other government actions and the hardship of emmigrating to a "free" country.

Yes, my property rights restrict you from using my property. So what? You think you have a right to use whatever you want whenever you want?

My 'whining' is that I am getting penalized for being the guy with the better toy.

Your 'whining' is that you are not getting as nice of a toy as someone else.

I am assuming that the idea that socialism is 'inherently evil' stems from the notion that because citizens of a socialist society are obligated to support that society materially, through forfeiture of earnings or labour, which is a restriction of freedom, and that the restriction of freedom is inherently evil.

Ask yourself: is it? Take ridiculous examples: is the restriction on your freedom to go around killing people you don't like inherently evil because it restricts your freedom? Quite.

Socialism involves, at its core, the idea that many working together can create a society with sufficient resources to support everybody, irrespective of how much they're able to contribute. Yes, it involves the sacrifice of the 'freedom' to grab everything you possibly can for yourself (and fep to the weak, if they were worth anything they would be able to grab grab grab for themselves, wouldn't they?). But the exchange is a guarantee that you-- not just everyone, but you-- will not go without what you need.

Now, you can buy that guarantee by fighting your way to the top and making sure that you can always procure for yourself what you need, or you can buy into a system, supported by many, that ensures that you will always have what you need. Leaving completely aside the moral issue as to whether or not it is just decent, an obligation, or a waste of your time to care for your fellow people, I know which I would pick.

Edit: my e-mail seems to be broken, so if anyone responds to this, I won't know. I apologise in advance. I'm not ignoring you on purpose. Sorry!

apologize

I can easily say just look at the history of the United States. We went from no-one to the biggest super-power extremely quickly because of something no-one else had: freedom.

The unparalleled military power paid for though taxation as instituted by government probably helps also. Someone needs to protect your property for you.

I guess government intervention is suddenly OK if it suits your purposes, yes?

In one the politicians may be doing it, which is not true but I'm not going to argue that, but it is against my will and involves taking my money.

In the other, if the majority decides the same thing the politicians did, it is the same to me: I lose my money against my will.


Both of your examples fall into the same pit of authoritarian socialism. But such is not the only socialism.

Thus, in the other, the collective has no power or even desire to take from you if you choose to not associate with it.

Yes, my property rights restrict you from using my property. So what? You think you have a right to use whatever you want whenever you want?

Nope. My point is that capitalist freedom restricts others freedom. You have just agreed so I'm satified.

My 'whining' is that I am getting penalized for being the guy with the better toy.

Your 'whining' is that you are not getting as nice of a toy as someone else.

You are whining that you got such a shitty toy, a government that taxes, redistributes, ect instead of anarcho-capitalist society. Governments are a fact of life, and they'll tax, spend, restribute, and whatever. Whining about it is the same as whining that life isn't fair. So stop being a pussie and suck it up.

If we ignore the active efforts of capitalist owners to coercively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) manipulate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy) society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) in order to better secure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) their position while destabilizing the position of others.

Never mind the fact that the employment deal is hardly one where the parties to the agreement enter from equitable positions. The employee must labor in order to gain access to limited resources. The employer already begins from the privileged position of owning the limited resources, including the job itself. Nobody is putting a literal gun directly to the prospective employee's head, but the employer is able to exploit prospective employee's desire to not starve and die. Which is why history describes a plethora of examples of the desperately poor "agreeing" to work for poor wages in shit conditions.

They are agreeing to work there nonetheless. You cannot argue this. They could not work if they wanted to - it is not a requirement to live like breathing or something. Would it be worse to 'have to' work in bad conditions, or if there was simply no place to work because socialistic restrictions on businesses forced the place to close down?

The employee is privileged to work in my company, as they chose to.

The employer built the company with their own labor.


It is my privilege, as employer, to require what I want of my employees, and for what. Think of it as your house. You want to be able to refuse whoever you want entry to your house, based on whatever you want, correct?

Nope. My point is that capitalist freedom restricts others freedom. You have just agreed so I'm satified.



You are whining that you got such a shitty toy, a government that taxes, redistributes, ect instead of anarcho-capitalist society. Governments are a fact of life, and they'll tax, spend, restribute, and whatever. Whining about it is the same as whining that life isn't fair. So stop being a pussie and suck it up.

I am saying that it is wrong to unfairly tax me because I have a nicer toy. I am not against a fair tax. I am against one that taxes based on success. You are the one that is trying to 'make life fair' by giving everyone a 'chance.'

The labor of my employees was traded to me, through contract, with money given to them. I did not trade them the ownership of the company. Yes, they helped me succeed, but they are already compensated (and thus credited) for it by the choice that they made.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13006838&postcount=86


Uh, OK....
You kinda went all weird there in those last few paragraphs. I don't really get it. Not to offend you, but it was weird.


I'm not going to take Hypothetical-Mart away from you because I disagree with how you're operating it. I will simply not associate with you, and I will encourage others to boycott you the same. But, if you instigate aggression against me by forcing me to associate with you, in a lapse of state capitalist practice as is so common nowadays, you can expect to receive the same in return.

Where is the difficulty in understanding?

I'm not going to take Hypothetical-Mart away from you because I disagree with how you're operating it. I will simply not associate with you, and I will encourage others to boycott you the same. But, if you instigate aggression against me by forcing me to associate with you, in a lapse of state capitalist practice as is so common nowadays, you can expect to receive the same in return.

Where is the difficulty in understanding?

OK, but isn't that a capitalistic idea? The ability to refuse to observe a certain method of operation? That is what I believe in: your freedom to boycott me.

If you force me to give up my company to a system someone else wants, this is forced association by aggression, if you ask me.

I believe in your freedom to boycott my company as I believe in my freedom to boycott your system.

I am saying that it is wrong to unfairly tax me because I have a nicer toy. I am not against a fair tax. I am against one that taxes based on success. You are the one that is trying to 'make life fair' by giving everyone a 'chance.'

Given that most voters are for various social programs, equal opportunity, and progressive taxation, with even the Fair tax and some types of the "Flat Tax" willing to contain limited amounts of progressivity, you're fucked.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Dist_Net_Worth_2001.gif

How long are you going to wait?

What is this supposed to mean?

Given that most voters are for various social programs, equal opportunity, and progressive taxation, with even the Fair tax and some types of the "Flat Tax" willing to contain limited amounts of progressivity, you're fucked.

Just because the majority of voters cause it, does not make it right.

They are agreeing to work there nonetheless. You cannot argue this. They could not work if they wanted to - it is not a requirement to live like breathing or something.


I cannot eat if I have no money. To get money, I need a job. Thus, without a job I cannot eat. Eating is a requirement to live, as starvation results otherwise.

This basic physiological requirement is not your fault, but this does not give you license to exploit it.

Plus, the wages you pay must necessarily be less than the value of the labor rendered by the employee, or you stand to lose profit. Thus, you take more from the employee than you give back in wages. You can get away with this because of the employee's more desperate situation and your exploitation thereof, as already described.


...or if there was simply no place to work because socialistic restrictions on businesses forced the place to close down?


I've already given you examples of social enterprises which operate successfully as business enterprises.


The employer built the company with their own labor.


If the actual labor itself is what establishes ownership, as you indicate, why does only your labor count, and not the labor of your employee? How is it that many people can labor but only a few, or one, can claim the product?


It is my privilege, as employer, to require what I want of my employees, and for what.


"It is my privilege, as King, to require what I want of my subjects, and for what."

The wording is changed slightly, but the logic is the same.


Think of it as your house. You want to be able to refuse whoever you want entry to your house, based on whatever you want, correct?


Unlike your house, you are not the only occupant of your business enterprise. Thus the comparison falls somewhat short.

Even so, if more than one person were living in a particular house, I would expect each such person to have an equal say in the matters concerning that house.

I'm being forced to give in "my share" to the 'greater good' against my will. I don't have a choice to keep what I have earned, for example a corporation.



And who controls weather their is still a country that supports my liberty? I never new there was some kind of international council that insured there was a society on earth for each and every different political system, and that it would always remain that way.

whether, there

Just because the majority of voters cause it, does not make it right.

True, but at least I'm not whining about the unfairness of the taxes.:D

I believe in your freedom to boycott my company as I believe in my freedom to boycott your system.


But that's the thing. Where is my freedom to boycott your system?

Your exclusive ownership of the means of production, and the produce, prevents me from exercising my freedom of association. I must associate with the capitalist and agree to his terms, because he's holding the resources.

It's easy to speak of freedom when you already hold all the cards.

I cannot eat if I have no money. To get money, I need a job. Thus, without a job I cannot eat. Eating is a requirement to live, as starvation results otherwise.

This basic physiological requirement is not your fault, but this does not give you license to exploit it.

Plus, the wages you pay must necessarily be less than the value of the labor rendered by the employee, or you stand to lose profit. Thus, you take more from the employee than you give back in wages. You can get away with this because of the employee's more desperate situation and your exploitation thereof, as already described.



I've already given you examples of social enterprises which operate successfully as business enterprises.



If the actual labor itself is what establishes ownership, as you indicate, why does only your labor count, and not the labor of your employee? How is it that many people can labor but only a few, or one, can claim the product?



"It is my privilege, as King, to require what I want of my subjects, and for what."

The wording is changed slightly, but the logic is the same.



Unlike your house, you are not the only occupant of your business enterprise. Thus the comparison falls somewhat short.

Even so, if more than one person were living in a particular house, I would expect each such person to have an equal say in the matters concerning that house.

I am basing my arguments off the fact that it was a mutual agreement between me and the employee that whatever wage he got was in exchange for the work. There are laws that I agree with in place to insure employers can't do anything cruel, or pay people like 2 cents a day.

Only a few can claim the product because of the agreement - it's one of the terms.

I'm not a King - the employees have a choice to leave. And they can go somewhere else, I am not the only company.

It is my house, and the employees are not residing there, they are visiting. (in the analogy) I can refuse entry to whom I want, unless they offer me something I want. That was the general idea.

Socialism:
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

But that's the thing. Where is my freedom to boycott your system?

Your exclusive ownership of the means of production, and the produce, prevents me from exercising my freedom of association. I must associate with the capitalist and agree to his terms, because he's holding the resources.

It's easy to speak of freedom when you already hold all the cards.

You have that freedom - don't come to my company for business. Simple as that.

You can't boycott my existence, just as I cannot boycott yours.

Just because the majority of voters cause it, does not make it right.

Unless the majority votes in a capitalist system based on private property. In which case the will of the majority is holy and sacred. Freedom of association or to boycott be damned.

Unless the majority votes in a capitalist system based on private property. In which case the will of the majority is holy and sacred. Freedom of association or to boycott be damned.

I don't believe in that kind of absolute democracy. I don't think many people do.

Sorry, but I am getting tired and must get up early in the morning tomorrow.:(

It may also have to do with debating both of you at once.;)

I would say I could pick up the argument tomorrow, but I figure by then the thread will be way too far gone. :rolleyes:

I don't believe in that kind of absolute democracy. I don't think many people do.

You do, however, believe in absolute and exclusive ownership and control. Which amounts to essentially the same thing.

Umm... all taxation is coercive, and the proceeds are forcible redistributed according to others views of right. Are you against all forms of government?

forcibly

You have that freedom - don't come to my company for business. Simple as that.


You only acknowledge my right to boycott a single business, but you don't acknowledge my right to boycott your economic system entirely; I must associate with those who exclusively own and control the means of production, and the product, if I am to gain access to any resources I need for my own survival.

Meanwhile, you reserve for yourself the right to boycott any and all socialists, as part of or the whole of society.

Again, what gives you the right to freedom of association over an entire society, while I am denied the same?

Equal ownership and control of the means of production, and the product, serves to equalize the freedom of association. When each individual has access to a share of resources from the start, each can proceed to associate or not associate with each other as they please without the exploitation that occurs when a few claim the whole of society only for themselves.


You can't boycott my existence, just as I cannot boycott yours.


You boycott my liberty, and thus any value my existence has, when you claim the entire society for yourself, requiring me to bend to your demands.

I am basing my arguments off the fact that it was a mutual agreement between me and the employee that whatever wage he got was in exchange for the work.


I've already explained that this "mutual" agreement is based in exploitation.


I'm not a King - the employees have a choice to leave. And they can go somewhere else, I am not the only company.


Again, you grant the freedom of association only so long as I associate within what remains a capitalist system. I can choose my King, so long as the Kings retain their absolute and exclusive ownership and control.

That's some choice.


It is my house, and the employees are not residing there, they are visiting. (in the analogy) I can refuse entry to whom I want, unless they offer me something I want. That was the general idea.


The analogy fails because I don't gain access to the resources I need by just standing inside your house. I have no reason or requirement to occupy your house. I must, however, get a job from you if I want to gain access to the resources I need (in order to build my own house and leave you alone, in fact).

By denying my access to resources though exclusive ownership and control unless I meet your conditions, you force me to associate with you in order to survive. This forced association destroys my liberty. Being able to "choose" from a multiplicity of forced associations doesn't change this.

I can easily say just look at the history of the United States. We went from no-one to the biggest super-power extremely quickly because of something no-one else had: freedom.

You mean no one like blacks,asians, women. and everyone else that wasn't a white male in america. :rolleyes:

What is socialism? Socialism is Harrison Bergeron. Not the character, the story. Socialism is not merely a financial or social safety net as some would have you believe. It is the tool used by the weak to drag down the mighty, egalitarianism in the extreme, enforced upon all. It makes slaves of men; a man chooses, a slave obeys. It makes parasites of the weak by providing them with incentive to beg rather than push them to be greater than they are; a man builds, a parasite asks "where's my share?"

Socialism is favored by those that fear progress, fear that it will outpace their ability to adapt and leave them as nothing but a faded memory; by those that lack vision seek to hold back the rest; by those that are greedy but are incapable of progress. It is not the key to salvation but to stagnation.

Socialism is democracy in it's most true and meaningful way, it is not the charade of democracy that are put up today for oligarchs to preserve their power, it is the abolition of liberal democracy which limits popular power and preserves class, it is the literal interpretation of the egalitarian notion of one person=one value, as applied both politically and economically. Political democracy is meaningless without economic democracy, a true inclusive democracy. Our mutual friend Hugo understands this.

It's that I have no choice that bothers me.

Comparing asking me to voluntarily sacrifice all of the fruits of my labor to someone that has done nothing for me, to killing someone is ridiculous. Killing someone is a negative action taken upon someone else. Not helping someone out is not a negative action taken, it's a positive one refrained which is very different. I'm not evil for not giving money for the red cross.

You are forcing me to be nice, essentially, when I don't want to. This is why it falls apart, and why it is immoral. Protecting one person from death is very different than insuring their lifestyle by forcing a 'good deed' from those who can support themselves.

How can any deed by a good deed if it is forced?

The example was intended to be extreme, to show that the restriction of freedom is not, in itself, evil. Neither, by the way, is the restriction of choice.

A lot of people seem to see socialism as a kind of enforced charity, but that's not the right way to look at it. You're not giving away the fruits of your labour for free. You are working to support the system that provides support for all. This is not in itself a good deed. You yourself benefit from the fruits of the labour of others, and the kicker is that you will continue to benefit, even should you become unable to support yourself or anybody, because others support the system that supports all. You're not choosing to help out some poor schmucks over there. You're paying into a guarantee of decent standards of living, and if some poor schmucks benefit, hey. Bonus.

If your fundamental objection is that you would prefer to have control over everything you earn, well, no system is going to give you that... unless you decide to live in a cave a thousand miles from human civilisation.

What is socialism? Socialism is Harrison Bergeron. Not the character, the story. Socialism is not merely a financial or social safety net as some would have you believe. It is the tool used by the weak to drag down the mighty, egalitarianism in the extreme, enforced upon all. It makes slaves of men; a man chooses, a slave obeys. It makes parasites of the weak by providing them with incentive to beg rather than push them to be greater than they are; a man builds, a parasite asks "where's my share?"

Socialism is favored by those that fear progress, fear that it will outpace their ability to adapt and leave them as nothing but a faded memory; by those that lack vision seek to hold back the rest; by those that are greedy but are incapable of progress. It is not the key to salvation but to stagnation.

And I would argue it is the exact opposite: It is a tool used by the mighty to drag up the weak.

Indri, if what you say is true, why is it easier for 3 men to murder and steal someone, as opposed to if just one person did it? Strength in numbers.

Modern society is based upon expropriation by a common authority (at different degrees in different states). It's either men in suits or an angry mob with sticks coming to take your wealth, take your pick.

I can easily say just look at the history of the United States. We went from no-one to the biggest super-power extremely quickly because of something no-one else had: freedom.
That's the biggest pile of shite I have possibly ever heard.

You went from no-one to the biggest super-power over a period of around 250 years for a massive number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with freedom.

Reason one - you killed almost all of the indigenous people so that you could take their most productive land. Not to do with freedom.

Reason two - the US hasn't come under any real attacks on its mainland well... ever..., which led to it being able to develop an economy in peace, which, in a country with the sheer reserves of resources that the US has, was amazingly valuable. Not to do with freedom.

Reason three - slavery, which the US was one of the last countries in the westernised world to stop, was the absolute backbone of the economy of the southern areas of the US, which then brought about mechanisation somewhat quickly in the north, too, in all of the time that this was going on, the world didn't have any particular qualms with the US, and hence it then got to sort itself out in peace. The opposite of freedom.

Reasons four and five - the two World Wars, which the US profited highly from, especially the first. Were it not for the fact that the US was essentially untouchable at this point, the two world wars might not have helped it out so much. As it stood, the US lost very little in the first world war, and gained a great deal of capital.

The second world war again caused very little loss in terms of industry on the mainland, seeing as the only attack there was a single incendiary bomb dropped in a wet forest, which failed to go off properly and was put out by the local fire department. Whilst the rest of the world's industry was being blown to smithereens.

Neither to do with freedom.

As to reason six, that's post-WW2 America, which due to the fact that it stole most of the atomic weapons and jet-powered aircraft research from the British scientists working on the project giving us no gain from them at all, had more power than Europe at the time, and then exported its culture and values around the world, creating capitalist states that it could happily trade with until they got too powerful, at which point the tariffs start coming in.

Again, not to do with freedom.

I use socialism to be synonymous with communism, which is a stateless, classless system where workers control the means of production. However, there are many definitions of socialism, so I don't ever actually use the word.

Not the same, not by a long shot. Quitting a job is a lot less disruptive and difficult than changing citizenship, so barring a massive disruption in your life there is no way to realistically "quit" your country or citizenship in the same way as your employment.At what point between quitting one's job and emigrating does it become too difficult to reasonably expect a person to do?

Yes, my property rights restrict you from using my property. So what? You think you have a right to use whatever you want whenever you want?So long as my use doesn't interfere with the use(s) of the previous person(s)? Absolutely.

Reason one - you killed almost all of the indigenous people so that you could take their most productive land. Not to do with freedom.


By the time the USA slaughtered the buffalo, which almost killed the natives, the USA was already very wealthy despite being in a depression at the time.


Reason three - slavery, which the US was one of the last countries in the westernised world to stop, was the absolute backbone of the economy of the southern areas of the US, which then brought about mechanisation somewhat quickly in the north, too, in all of the time that this was going on, the world didn't have any particular qualms with the US, and hence it then got to sort itself out in peace. The opposite of freedom.


I heavily doubt this.

Socialism is democracy in it's most true and meaningful way, it is not the charade of democracy that are put up today for oligarchs to preserve their power, it is the abolition of liberal democracy which limits popular power and preserves class, it is the literal interpretation of the egalitarian notion of one person=one value, as applied both politically and economically. Political democracy is meaningless without economic democracy, a true inclusive democracy. Our mutual friend Hugo understands this.
Value.

How do you define value? What theory best describes your beliefs? I have a feeling that you would go with labor theory of value. The problem with this theory is twofold. First, a man is paid for the work he does, not for what he produces so he could simply dig a useless hole and demand a wage. Second, should he decide he wants to at least attempt to be of use to society, let's say as a chef, it would not matter if he took perfectly good ingrediants, already edible, and turned them into an inedible mess, he'd still have to be paid for the time he spent on making the mess and ruining the materials he was given. If you'd deny this man a wage equal to a good engineer or doctor in either case then you would be working under something more akin to subjective theory of value.

Also, I would not be so quick to praise mob rule made into government. Under direct democracy, should even 51% of the population vote a man who is innocent before the law but unpopular should be put to death he will swing or be shot. Even the founders of the United States of America saw the inherent problems with democracy. One likened it to two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch while liberty was considered a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Another said that the government which governs best governs the least. Though it is not impossible for a democracy to govern very little it is often the case that as time progesses in a democracy, liberties will be eroded by a reactionary public. Should an ax be used to slaughter a schoolhouse full of children the public, fearful of axes may attempt to vote to make them illegal. The law would be wrong and the people shortsighted in their approach to the problem of schoolhouse ax massacres. Think this is taking things too far? How many times have a minority of Americans tried to ban firearms after their use in a crime in spite of any such law being in direct contrast to the United States consitution?

Even assuming that socialism is the truest form of democracy, it would mean either the enslavement of the few by the many or the enslavement of the many by the vocal minority.

Indri, if what you say is true, why is it easier for 3 men to murder and steal someone, as opposed to if just one person did it? Strength in numbers.

Modern society is based upon expropriation by a common authority (at different degrees in different states). It's either men in suits or an angry mob with sticks coming to take your wealth, take your pick.
Actually it would be easier for one man to do it alone. When partners are brought into the mix there is room for betrayl and the codependant nature of partnership will allow one man's failure to doom all involved in the venture. If a distraction occurs and the mugee acquires a hostage of the three attempting to rob him the two free men must flee and risk betrayl or stay and risk harm to their accomplice. And then there is the increased probability for conflict over the spoils of a successful raid which may result in the injury of one or more of the parasites or the retreat of one to police for self-preservation and to turn in his fellow crooks. The list of problems that arise in partnerships go on and on, problems that are not present in lone venture's; if you fail alone then you have no one to blame but yourself. Before entering into a partnership you must have an insurance policy in the inevitable event that one of your partners will fail or betray you.

In a socialist society tere is nothing to stop me from becoming a parasite, leeching off the system while performing no legitimate function to society and quite possibly supplying black markets with substandard goods and services to supply the shortages created when price controls are enacted. When you try to control or outlaw a market you create a shortage but cannot eliminate demand, that is why no matter how many drug rings police break up another seems to fill the void overnight. When people want something there will always be someone willing to supply it even if they must cut corners to do it.

When you criminalize things that aren't real crimes you still create real criminals. Prohibition in the United States and elsewhere did not eliminate the demand for alcohol any more than the War on Drugs has done so for the demand for all sorts of substances today. Gangs filled the void then and today, killing a lot of people through substandard product and a lot more in bloody territory wars. The only way to eliminate demand would be to constantly monitor citizens or lobotomize them. I would approve of neither and I don't think you would either.

No matter what you do or try to in society, no matter what programs you put in place, no matter how much you raise taxes on the wealthy to punish them for their success, people will always find a way to get what they want. Where there is a buyer there will always be someone willing to sell. People will always lie, cheat, steal, and find a way unless you watch them every minute of every day or alter their minds in such a way as to either make them not want or not smart enough to acquire.

I want you to think about something. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man in Vatican, it belongs to God. No, says the socialist, it belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I believe that a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, to the fuits of his labors. I know how selfish that sounds but greed is human nature. It made us what we are today and to reject it now would mean our doom.

No matter what you do or try to in society, no matter what programs you put in place, no matter how much you raise taxes on the wealthy to punish them for their success, people will always find a way to get what they want. Where there is a buyer there will always be someone willing to sell. People will always lie, cheat, steal, and find a way unless you watch them every minute of every day or alter their minds in such a way as to either make them not want or not smart enough to acquire.

The arguments presented are applicable to many "real crimes". If there is enough of a market for stolen goods then they will be supplied. If a market for kiddie porn exists children will be raped. Since I'm guessing you agree that neither of these should happen then why use these arguments?

*Note I'm pretty socially libertarian.

I know how selfish that sounds but greed is human nature. It made us what we are today and to reject it now would mean our doom.

Not rejecting self-interest is not the same as embracing greed. Capitalism is sucessful because it channels self interest in a socially productive way, generally.

You went from no-one to the biggest super-power over a period of around 250 years for a massive number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with freedom.
You forgot immigration though, and that did have to do with freedom.

Nevermind though that modern America has given up on that particular angle on success.

That's the biggest pile of shite I have possibly ever heard.

You went from no-one to the biggest super-power over a period of around 250 years for a massive number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with freedom.

Reason one - you killed almost all of the indigenous people so that you could take their most productive land. Not to do with freedom.

Reason two - the US hasn't come under any real attacks on its mainland well... ever..., which led to it being able to develop an economy in peace, which, in a country with the sheer reserves of resources that the US has, was amazingly valuable. Not to do with freedom.

Reason three - slavery, which the US was one of the last countries in the westernised world to stop, was the absolute backbone of the economy of the southern areas of the US, which then brought about mechanisation somewhat quickly in the north, too, in all of the time that this was going on, the world didn't have any particular qualms with the US, and hence it then got to sort itself out in peace. The opposite of freedom.

Reasons four and five - the two World Wars, which the US profited highly from, especially the first. Were it not for the fact that the US was essentially untouchable at this point, the two world wars might not have helped it out so much. As it stood, the US lost very little in the first world war, and gained a great deal of capital.

The second world war again caused very little loss in terms of industry on the mainland, seeing as the only attack there was a single incendiary bomb dropped in a wet forest, which failed to go off properly and was put out by the local fire department. Whilst the rest of the world's industry was being blown to smithereens.

Neither to do with freedom.

As to reason six, that's post-WW2 America, which due to the fact that it stole most of the atomic weapons and jet-powered aircraft research from the British scientists working on the project giving us no gain from them at all, had more power than Europe at the time, and then exported its culture and values around the world, creating capitalist states that it could happily trade with until they got too powerful, at which point the tariffs start coming in.

Again, not to do with freedom.
Yes, the incentives Americans had to produce and succeed had nothing to do with it...

Remember that sentence the next time a private for-profit developer gets the government to evict and raze a neighborhood to the ground so it can build some condos.

(EDIT: "but those aren't really capitalists" one objects. And yet, every socialist everywhere must have a poster of Stalin on his bedroom wall. Socialism is "force," after all)
They may be capitalists, but they're hardly working within a free market. If government coersion is available as a resource, the market isn't free.

If by property you mean that which you produce through your own direct and honest labor, any number of socialists agree with you. Especially those of the anti-authoritarian/anti-state variety.
But is that the only property permitted? How about property voluntarily given or exchanged?

As soon as you allow voluntary exchange, you've created a market, and in that market some people accrue property faster than others.

I think the loss of private property is something I would consider a complete disregard of my freedom. That is what I work for - my property. This is my life. Forcing be to give this up is authoritarian.

In these systems, it is put to a 'vote' weather I get to do what I want. It is not right to put someone's liberty at the hands of a majority.

Forcing me in any way to give up what I want to do is taking away my liberty, for nothing in return. This is authoritarian. The system also rests on this. So, therefore, the system must be authoritarian to work.

Oh, and if you don't understand this, don't feel bad. Socialists or similar people never do.

Socialism is supported by higher taxes, no one is taking your property in a way they don't already in capitalist countries. The main idea behind socialism is that you can work for your property and still not be too much of an ass to work to help others, as well. Some people aren't educated enough to get a job with a living wage, so more tax dollars go toward public education and healthcare.
And don't say that "forcing me in any way to give up what I want to do is taking away my liberty". There are people who want to kill others. Be glad they don't have that freedom. And, more relevant to socialism, Enron wanted to swindle money from their customers, and because the U.S. government is too far to the right to regulate corporations more (let alone nationalize utilities to prevent such corruptions as some socialists want) they got away with it for a long time. They were given full rights to [highly unethically] "work" for their property, and look what happened! Or look at the great monopolies of history, like Rockefeller. He exercised his so called right to monopolize, change prices to squeeze inordinate profits out of his customers, and many people suffered for it, a hell of a lot more than he would have if he lost a fraction of his profit for the sake of compassion.

It's never been about the system. It's about society and the people in that society.

They may be capitalists, but they're hardly working within a free market. If government coersion is available as a resource, the market isn't free.

When is government coercion not available as a resource?

When is government coercion not available as a resource?
In a free market.

Corruption is really just the buying and selling of government intervention. If government intervention isn't available, corruption is dramatically reduced.

As long as the rules of society (including the eocnomic rules) are available to be adjusted by the government, the government can adjust them to favour one group over another. The way to eliminate that force is to have the societal and economic rules be immutable. Sure, sometimes people will be hurt by the rules when they are occasionally absurd in a given context, but the rules will be known and constant so we can all plan for them. No one gets to buy the senator dinner and get zoning rules changed for his facotry.

In a free market.

Corruption is really just the buying and selling of government intervention. If government intervention isn't available, corruption uis dramatically reduced.

Then you're basically saying that free markets with government can't exist. Any ruler(s) in government will have interests other than the bare minimum of protectective duties of a minarchists state.

Then you're basically saying that free markets with government can't exist. Any ruler(s) in government will have interests other than the bare minimum of protectective duties of a minarchists state.
Not if the rulers don't have interests. What if society were administered by a machine?

Or, you could simply have adminstrators with no power to interpret the rules or change the rules.

Not if the rulers don't have interests. What if society were administered by a machine?

Or, you could simply have adminstrators with no power to interpret the rules or change the rules.

The programmers, funders, and general populous who will be ruled all have interests in how the machine will intervene in society. They'll want to influence it directives, and who says the machine acts as it was intended to act?

If rulers have no powerto interpret rules then the rules will have to be so chock full of legaleze to cover any and all situations that it probably defeats the purpose of having a minimal state. If the rules can't be changed that rule will be ignored and changes will occurThe Articles of Confederation were not overturned in ways proscribed within it. It was ignored and the Constitution was created. Without any flexibitly in the system the system will crash.

I consider myself a socialist, of a sort. It should be noted, though, that very few socialists are of the die-hard type discussed earlier in this thread. I personally subscribe to the idea that just because you have it doesn't mean you deserve it; chances should be equal; and everyone should have as high a quality of living as possible. If this means giving up some freedoms, then who cares? Contrary to popular belief, not every poor person is lazy and stupid. I would rather have two people with middle-class income and residence than one impoverished, single-room apartment cleaning woman and one affluent, villa-dwelling businessman.

The programmers, funders, and general populous who will be ruled all have interests in how the machine will intervene in society. They'll want to influence it directives, and who says the machine acts as it was intended to act?
It will act as it was programmed to act. Whether it's acting as intended hardly matters.

The important part is that how it acts never changes.
If rulers have no powerto interpret rules then the rules will have to be so chock full of legaleze to cover any and all situations that it probably defeats the purpose of having a minimal state.
On the contrary, since the rules cover all circumstances, there's almost no need for a state. All you need is a judiciary with no power to interpret laws (just to apply them) and you're done.
If the rules can't be changed that rule will be ignored and changes will occur
Ignored by whom. If the administrators have the power to enforce the rules selectively, then you haven't satisfied the conditions of my example. Rules can't be ignored because the enforcement mechanism is immutable.
The Articles of Confederation were not overturned in ways proscribed within it. It was ignored and the Constitution was created.
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid. Since the articles were simply abandoned, clearly the enforcement mechanisms attached to them were not immutable.
Without any flexibitly in the system the system will crash.
It will persist. All flexibility does is invite corruption.

everyone should have as high a quality of living as possible.
What do you mean by that, because this is the centre of most economic disagreements.

Do you mean that the poorest people should be as wealthy as possible, or that the people generally should be as wealthy as possible?

It will act as it was programmed to act. Whether it's acting as intended hardly matters.

Umm... given the bugginess of software and the complexity of law enforcement doing what is programmed may not lead to outcomes that were intended

The important part is that how it acts never changes.

If programming is flawed or any parties influenced the the programming I don't see how its a good thing.


On the contrary, since the rules cover all circumstances, there's almost no need for a state. All you need is a judiciary with no power to interpret laws (just to apply them) and you're done.

You'd get regulations that'd still leave some situations untouched, after all who's omniscient? A judiciary that only applys laws, but doesn't interpret anything might as well not exist.

Ignored by whom. If the administrators have the power to enforce the rules selectively, then you haven't satisfied the conditions of my example. Rules can't be ignored because the enforcement mechanism is immutablble

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid. Since the articles were simply abandoned, clearly the enforcement mechanisms attached to them were not immutable.

Can you describe a way to make enforcement mechanisms immutable? I know of none.

It will persist. All flexibility does is invite corruption.

Flexiblity allows adaption to new situations.

I have to ask you a few questions, Tech-gnosis.

You don't mind if I go to your house and eat all of your food?
If I sleep in your bed?
Or take your dog?
What about your tv? Can I have that too?
I'd also like your computer.

What I'm gathering from what you're saying, you say that no man has a right to property. So, does that mean the bully who steals candy from the little kids is in the right? The little kid had no right to the candy?

I may be wrong, but that's what it ends up sounding like.

I have to ask you a few questions, Tech-gnosis.

You don't mind if I go to your house and eat all of your food?
If I sleep in your bed?
Or take your dog?
What about your tv? Can I have that too?
I'd also like your computer.

What I'm gathering from what you're saying, you say that no man has a right to property. So, does that mean the bully who steals candy from the little kids is in the right? The little kid had no right to the candy?

I may be wrong, but that's what it ends up sounding like.

I don't believe in an absolute right to property that calls for anarcho-capitalism or minarchism as the only legitimate political regimes.

Not if the rulers don't have interests. What if society were administered by a machine?Then the interests of the machine-ruler will be identical to the interests of the person(s) who programmed it.

Then the interests of the machine-ruler will be identical to the interests of the person(s) who programmed it.
Great society model that.

By the time the USA slaughtered the buffalo, which almost killed the natives, the USA was already very wealthy despite being in a depression at the time.
The US really built its wealth in the early 1900s, at which point most of the indigenous population really was quite dead.
I heavily doubt this.
Cotton, tobacco, the sugar plantations - all of this ran off slavery. And those products were the backbone of the south until right until the end of the 19th century.
You forgot immigration though, and that did have to do with freedom.

Nevermind though that modern America has given up on that particular angle on success.
See also interwar America, which was a period of fairly rapid growth (although contrasts in wealth), a period with a very restrictive and openly racist immigration policy.
Yes, the incentives Americans had to produce and succeed had nothing to do with it...
That's not really to do with freedom.

If I ran a dictatorship, with a preplanned economy, I could still give incintives for people to produce and succeed.

It is the product of your labor. And the labor of every other person you employ. Thus, I would hope that you would rework the ownership and control of the enterprise to reflect the fact you are not the only person to credit for its success.


Yes, the company is a product of your labor. You make the investments, put your money on the line, and put all the effort into making a company work. And if it works out, then you get a profit for all that labor. But the people you employ should benefit too, right? That's what their paycheck is.

I guess I'm just confused about what you're suggesting here.

Reason one - you killed almost all of the indigenous people so that you could take their most productive land. Not to do with freedom.


Why dont you check out what really killed the native peoples of america. Disease introduced by the spanish during the conquest/exploration killied 100 000's followed by enslavement by said spanish, who caused so much death to the native peoples that slaves from west africa had to be imported thus starting slavery in america.


Reason two - the US hasn't come under any real attacks on its mainland well... ever..., which led to it being able to develop an economy in peace, which, in a country with the sheer reserves of resources that the US has, was amazingly valuable. Not to do with freedom.


Mainly due to its remoteness from various european powers, and the fact the europeans were fighting over africa/india/far east at the time


Reason three - slavery, which the US was one of the last countries in the westernised world to stop, was the absolute backbone of the economy of the southern areas of the US, which then brought about mechanisation somewhat quickly in the north, too, in all of the time that this was going on, the world didn't have any particular qualms with the US, and hence it then got to sort itself out in peace. The opposite of freedom.


One of the reasons for the civil war in the US was the mechanisation in the factories that was going on in the north thus the only way the south could compete was by using slaves.
Plus the competing 'states rights' vs the federal government which led to a major war in US thus invalidating your claim of " which led to it being able to develop an economy in peace"



Reasons four and five - the two World Wars, which the US profited highly from, especially the first. Were it not for the fact that the US was essentially untouchable at this point, the two world wars might not have helped it out so much. As it stood, the US lost very little in the first world war, and gained a great deal of capital.

The second world war again caused very little loss in terms of industry on the mainland, seeing as the only attack there was a single incendiary bomb dropped in a wet forest, which failed to go off properly and was put out by the local fire department. Whilst the rest of the world's industry was being blown to smithereens.

Theres a saying here that it took us British 200 yrs to build our empire... and 20 yrs to sell it off to pay to 2 world wars.
The US did make a lot of cash from 2 world wars, they also lost of lot of men fighting in those 2 world wars. so they did lose something
One thing that worked in the allies advantage was that they could locate war material production beyond the reach of the axis powers ( the US and east of the Ural mountains for the USSR) while our bombers could pound German and Japanese cities


Neither to do with freedom.


I suspect it had everything to do with that especially post 1941



As to reason six, that's post-WW2 America, which due to the fact that it stole most of the atomic weapons and jet-powered aircraft research from the British scientists working on the project giving us no gain from them at all, had more power than Europe at the time, and then exported its culture and values around the world, creating capitalist states that it could happily trade with until they got too powerful, at which point the tariffs start coming in.

Again, not to do with freedom.

If the british scientists had stayed over here, theres no way the UK could have afforded a nuclear bomb program here, plus the german scientists who moved out of Germany pre-1939 worked on it for our benefit... or would you prefered they'd stayed in Germany?

As for the jet engine technology, are you aware Rolls Royce GAVE the russians a working jet engine in 1946, while allowing the same russians to inspect the factory where the engines were built (while said russians collected metal samples from the floor by use of specially made shoes with a soft rubber sole)

They also made sure the european countries stayed capitalist by supporting them through use of the Marshall plan as a poor war devastated europe would make an ideal area for the fascist stalin to impose his version of 'communism' on us

As for exporting its culture and values , are you aware of how much effect british culture and values have had on the US? or French... or German?

If you think I'm painting too rosey a picture of the US , Of course I'm aware of its faults (new orleans for example:mad:), but given the alternatives caused by not having the US on the planet........ give me a big mac anyday of the week.

El-presidente Boris

<<who would'nt even be allowed to write this under a 'communist' government

When is government coercion not available as a resource?

Succinctly, so long as there is a hierarchical institution that has been granted the monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a territory, it's function will always be to define the property contract and thus defend the interests of property owners against the interests of people. As long as a state exists, its coercion is a commodity.

What I'm gathering from what you're saying, you say that no man has a right to property. So, does that mean the bully who steals candy from the little kids is in the right? The little kid had no right to the candy?

I may be wrong, but that's what it ends up sounding like.

I'll come right out and say it: I do not believe that people have the right to property, since it inherently contradicts the right to life and liberty. At the same time, I argue that the only legitimate title to resources is one based on use--usufruct, in short.

That's not really to do with freedom.

If I ran a dictatorship, with a preplanned economy, I could still give incintives for people to produce and succeed.
Owning property is the basis of all freedom, and incentives can't work if people can't own property (because then they can't benefit from their work).

Hernando de Soto has done some good work on proprety rights as the basis of all freedom.