NationStates Jolt Archive

Because of a discussion on another thread, I was curious to see the standpoint of this board, so choose your answer. And note that when I ask which you think the best economic system is, I mean in terms of as an end result. For instance, if you pick socialism, then your ideal economic system would be one of socialism. Not of socialism transitioning to Communism.

Etc.

Whichever one it is that everyone gives all their money to me and I decide what to do with it.

I would like one that is meant to serve the people and the planet, rather than the other way around. It bothers me that we can overlook things like lung cancer in children, mercury in the water supply and sweatshops simply because to do the reverse would be 'bad for the economy'.

Too bad. The economy can suck it while we fix the problem.

Whichever one it is that everyone gives all their money to me and I decide what to do with it.

Monarchy.

Neo-classical flux convectional distributism, for certain.

Social capitalism, i.e. Europe. Next person to call Europe "socialist" gets punched.

The most perfect economic system, would be a completely altruistic system where everyone co-operates with each other and allocates resources in the most efficient way possible. I do not believe this could ever happen, so I opt for a sensible free market system, with free healthcare and all that.

Monarchy.

That'll do nicely.

System in which government cannot own any property, without taxes and social welfare

The most perfect economic system, would be a completely altruistic system where everyone co-operates with each other and allocates resources in the most efficient way possible.

Congratulations, you've invented communism.

Social capitalism, i.e. Europe. Next person to call Europe "socialist" gets punched.

This. Hopefully under Obama, the USA will catch up to us.

Social Welfare corrupts people.

System in which government cannot own any property, without taxes and social welfare

I believe the term you're looking for is anarchy

Social capitalism, i.e. Europe. Next person to call Europe "socialist" gets punched.
Europe is socialist.

Congratulations, you've invented communism.

Sort of, the principles are there. I didn't specify anything about communes though.

I believe the term you're looking for is anarchy

No, government still protects civil rights of individuals. Money from low export-import tariffs

System in which government cannot own any property, without taxes and social welfare

What will you do about poverty?

No, government still protects civil rights of individuals. Money from low export-import tariffs

But the Government can't own things like a courthouse in which to hold trials

I believe the term you're looking for is anarchy

I'd say minarchism, or extreme libertarianism, would be more accurate.

Europe is socialist.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

*charges*

What will you do about poverty?

It is the only poors' fault in poverty - they don't want to work and asking a charity.
Once again, social welfare corrupts people and makes them lazy, stupid and passive

Social Welfare corrupts people.

Evidence?

And Social Democracy

But the Government can't own things like a courthouse in which to hold trials

Leasing)

Evidence?

And Social Democracy

USSR and former USSR

Feudalism FTW.

USSR and former USSR

Counter-Evidence: Sweden

USSR and former USSR

That was welfare to the extreme, though. The govt. paid for virtually every service, even gas, electricity and water.

It is the only poors' fault in poverty - they don't want to work and asking a charity.
Once again, social welfare corrupts people and makes them lazy, stupid and passive

Uhuh :rolleyes:

Counter-Evidence: Sweden

Lack of information for arguement on this country)

Lack of information for arguement on this country)

How about Italy? Germany? United Kingdom?

I could have countered with most of Western Europe

Lack of information for arguement on this country)

Are you a robot from the future?

How about Italy? Germany? United Kingdom?

I could have countered with most of Western Europe

Even the US, which has a massive social welfare system, actually.

One in which human well being and not mere profit is the principle concern. An economic system in which shelter, food and medicine is provided to all and all help provide. Given this is a utopia of sorts, I suppose social capitalism will have to do.

Uhuh :rolleyes:

Of course, IMHO, but that is what I've seen in 90's in former USSR(of course, with very small number of exceptions)

It is the only poors' fault in poverty - they don't want to work and asking a charity.
Once again, social welfare corrupts people and makes them lazy, stupid and passive

What if I work but then get disabled. No taxes or Social Welfare means that I am unable to work, and won't get a dime from the government to help me out.

Just a hypothetical I'm throwing out.

Are you a robot from the future?

Yeah, and I'm telling you what I've seen there)))

What if I work but then get disabled. No taxes or Social Welfare means that I am unable to work, and won't get a dime from the government to help me out.

Just a hypothetical I'm throwing out.

Claim against your Private Insurance, which is the best system for protecting against any threat as shown by the US's world leading health-care system

Oh wait...

What if I work but then get disabled. No taxes or Social Welfare means that I am unable to work, and won't get a dime from the government to help me out.

Just a hypothetical I'm throwing out.

Yep, shit happens. Although, you've got relatives

What if I work but then get disabled. No taxes or Social Welfare means that I am unable to work, and won't get a dime from the government to help me out.

Just a hypothetical I'm throwing out.

I don't think capitalism and social welfare are mutually exclusive.

America is generally considered to be a capitalist country and we have oodles of social welfare. Food stamps, etc. etc.

The difference between capitalism and socialism/communism is really more one of who owns things: Either people do or the State does. If the market is privately held the government can still intervene in cases of poverty or etc without being renamed Socialist, can't it?

Yep, shit happens.

Why should a system where 'shit' like this happens, be desirable?

Why should a system where 'shit' like this happens, be desirable?

Cause it makes people to be more reliable, productive and initiative

i don't like the OP's definition of communism

I don't think capitalism and social welfare are mutually exclusive.

America is generally considered to be a capitalist country and we have oodles of social welfare. Food stamps, etc. etc.

The difference between capitalism and socialism/communism is really more one of who owns things: Either people do or the State does. If the market is privately held the government can still intervene in cases of poverty or etc without being renamed Socialist, can't it?

I wasn't meaning to bash Capitalism. I was just asking Corporation Sectors what someone would do in that situation in his "Ideal" Economic Structure.

Technocracy for the win.

The only moral basis for a functioning society that respects the natural rights of human beings is complete separation of economy and state.

i don't like the OP's definition of communism

Quite, considering that under communism, there is no state, it would be a little tricky for the state to own everything.

to Misesburg-Hayek

+500

Free market capitalism. The best economic system that exists.

i don't like the OP's definition of communism

What's wrong with it?

The "no rewards" part? I meant monetary rewards, in that all monetary rewards in a communist system would be aligned with those of everyone else, regardless of how difficult the job they're doing is.

Is that not how communism works? I mean, I know that Communism doesn't work at all (ZING!), but isn't that how communism is supposed to work?

Ascelonia, could you explain me, what "technocracy" means in economy?

The only moral basis for a functioning society that respects the natural rights of human beings is complete separation of economy and state.

I disagree. That's not possible. The two are often in conflict. Big business and government both attempt to influence each other in some way, shape, or form.

Ascelonia, could you explain me, what "technocracy" means in economy?

Technocracy is an economy that uses energy accounting and uses post-scarcity economics. It analyzes what to make based on what resources are available and what resources can be attained. Technocracies attempt to make a self-sustainable economy.

Applying that to food. The world does have enough food for 20 billion people.

A system with a very basic welfare system, but where working hard gets rewarded. Basically, if you're poor, the government will give you food and shelter, but if you want any luxery, like healthcare or television, you're going to have to work. TV is for working people, not lazy people.

As for healthcare and such, the only reason healthcare sucks in the US is because the government is a bit too involved in it. Government safety regulation is good in theory, but government is overflowing with politics and politics corrupts everything it spills on. As I said in another thread, life sucks. You'll have to get used to it because Murphy's Law governs all.

Applying that to food. The world does have enough food for 20 billion people.

If you want rationing, then yes

Actually, the only possible way for economy and state to be separate, would be if the state did not exist. The state ALWAYS influences the economy through it's decisions.

In fact, I either support a Technocracy (which probably would become corrupted over time) or an anarchic system (which would have thousands of communities/businesses operating and competing against each other).

If you want rationing, then yes

Sometimes, rationing would be better. Consider how Western society is only comprised of less than a third of the world population, but they consume almost half of the world's food. I find that to be disturbing.

A system with a very basic welfare system, but where working hard gets rewarded. Basically, if you're poor, the government will give you food and shelter, but if you want any luxery, like healthcare or television, you're going to have to work. TV is for working people, not lazy people.

As for healthcare and such, the only reason healthcare sucks in the US is because the government is a bit too involved in it. Government safety regulation is good in theory, but government is overflowing with politics and politics corrupts everything it spills on. As I said in another thread, life sucks. You'll have to get used to it because Murphy's Law governs all.

Healthcare is a luxury? My Canadian brain just can't understand that concept.

The West consume because the West CAN consume. It's all about productivity

Healthcare is a luxury? My Canadian brain just can't understand that concept.

Say it to Zimbabweans

A system with a very basic welfare system, but where working hard gets rewarded. Basically, if you're poor, the government will give you food and shelter, but if you want any luxery, like healthcare or television, you're going to have to work. TV is for working people, not lazy people.

As for healthcare and such, the only reason healthcare sucks in the US is because the government is a bit too involved in it. Government safety regulation is good in theory, but government is overflowing with politics and politics corrupts everything it spills on. As I said in another thread, life sucks. You'll have to get used to it because Murphy's Law governs all.

Wow, healthcare a luxury?? So tell me, how much money must I pay for my life?

Wow, healthcare a luxury?? So tell me, how much money must I pay for my life?

It depends on how long you want to live. You can pay nothing and die in a week

One of the accouncy principles: you have to pay for everything you get

Wow, healthcare a luxury?? So tell me, how much money must I pay for my life?

Guess what? Life sucks. Life has always sucked. Life will always suck. In nature, your ass would have been killed, eaten, and pooped out long ago. You're lucky because there are people who have even shittier lives. Get used to it. Game over, man. Game over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. You have 0 continues left. Get used to it.

Free market capitalism. The best economic system that exists.

Except that it seems to have no answer for our current ecological crisis, nor has any proactive mechanism to deal with it. Oh, and its complete disregard of human rights.

Cause it makes people to be more reliable, productive and initiative

What if people don't want to be reliable, productive and have initiative? I realise those traits are good for people who want to succeed in the economy, but why should we develop an economy that only rewards those who support the economy? Why do we simply ignore everyone else?

What's wrong with it?
the 'state-owned market' part, for one. and probably the 'earnings the same for all' part too, depending on what is meant by 'earnings' and 'the same'.

Oh, and its complete disregard of human rights.


Waaaaa?

The West consume because the West CAN consume. It's all about productivity

I don't see centuries of continued oppression as productivity. Look at the path they're going down right now. They're (or we're) filling up their land with litter and waste. They're (or we're) using fossil fuels and polluting the air with infernal toxins. Western society can call themselves more civilized, but they're (or we're) the major reason why the world is dying. It's funny that the average Westerner's waste is 40 times the amount of the average person in the 3rd world.

I find it funny how the more efficient peoples represent the third world.

Guess what? Life sucks. Life has always sucked. Life will always suck.

prove the last. moreover, explain why we shouldn't try to make it not.

Why do we simply ignore everyone else?

Yep, cause "everyone else" is useless parasites producing nothing more than its own shit

prove the last. moreover, explain why we shouldn't try to make it not.

Totally agree. Well, of course life sucks. And that's why we should change it. But privatize the lives of people isn't the best step, at least in my opinion.

Yep, cause "everyone else" is useless parasites producing nothing more than its own shit

Lol. Since a whole lot of shit is now manufactured in Third and Second World countries because it's cheaper there. Basically, the West creates very little while outsourcing jobs to poorer nations so businesses can profit. The people getting screwed here is the working class.

I'm no Communist, but I think something has got to change.

I don't see centuries of continued oppression as productivity. Look at the path they're going down right now. They're (or we're) filling up their land with litter and waste. They're (or we're) using fossil fuels and polluting the air with infernal toxins. Western society can call themselves more civilized, but they're (or we're) the major reason why the world is dying. It's funny that the average Westerner's waste is 40 times the amount of the average person in the 3rd world.

I find it funny how the more efficient peoples represent the third world.

Nothing happens without economic interest. So we'll use fossil fuels until it stop bringing economic interest. Ban the fossil fuels and start use "ecological" energy sources immedietely and you would see crush of the whole world economy

The Best economic system, which I take it means economy and nothing else, is capitalism. Now if you wanted to focus on other aspects, such as people, you would need a bit of welfare(Healthcare), but not to much else.Without welfare, people will have a stronger urge to get jobs, and be more productive members of society.

This. Hopefully under Obama, the USA will catch up to us.
Ahahahaha. No.
Europe is socialist.
What, all of it? Don't be a cretin.

prove the last. moreover, explain why we shouldn't try to make it not.

You can't make life not suck. There will always be problems because even the best mechanisms, whether they be mechanical, economic, social, etc., break down over time. What you can do is make life suck less and make said mechanisms break down slower. If you do it right, your repairs don't build up and make the whole mechanism collapse under its own weight.

to Houteca: you're buddhist, aren't you?

I disagree. That's not possible. The two are often in conflict. Big business and government both attempt to influence each other in some way, shape, or form.

Big business is in large degree enabled by the entry barriers made possible by government interference in private markets. The transcontinental railroads could not have grown so rapidly after the American Civil War without government-backed seizure of land.

Nothing happens without economic interest. So we'll use fossil fuels until it stop bringing economic interest. Ban the fossil fuels and start use "ecological" energy sources immedietely and you'll see crush of the whole world economy

Basically, what you're saying is, we won't change until gas prices go up so high that people cannot afford to buy it. Of course, the you'll see the crush of the whole world economy if you let this happen. Just imagine it. Fortune 500 companies failing. The whole infrastructure system collapsing, because it's not affordable and people can't drive pay for gas to drive to work. Everybody will be in debt to gas and credit car companies as they are forced to buy gas on credit.

Hell. Schools are already making cutbacks because of transportation costs. Though... If one takes a look at the situation. What you're suggesting might be what we need. It'll be a disaster and hundreds of millions of people might die, but it might just be what people need to wisen up.

Basically, what you're saying is, we won't change until gas prices go up so high that people cannot afford to buy it. Of course, the you'll see the crush of the whole world economy if you let this happen. Just imagine it. Fortune 500 companies failing. The whole infrastructure system collapsing, because it's not affordable and people can't drive pay for gas to drive to work. Everybody will be in debt to gas and credit car companies as they are forced to buy gas on credit.

Hell. Schools are already making cutbacks because of transportation costs. Though... If one takes a look at the situation. What you're suggesting might be what we need. It'll be a disaster and hundreds of millions of people might die, but it might just be what people need to wisen up.

You might look into James Howard Kunstler, who addresses topics like this. I'm not a huge fan of Kunstler, not least because of his evident schadenfreude (hand-rubbing glee, more like), but he bears listening to.

Say it to Zimbabweans
So because some countries are fucked up and don't provide their people with an acceptable standard of living, that makes something a luxury? I suppose that means that the current situation in Somalia justifies my claiming that police protection is luxury that people should pay for on an individual basis?

The barter system, bitches! Now who will trade me chicken eggs for these cows?

Except that it seems to have no answer for our current ecological crisis, nor has any proactive mechanism to deal with it. Oh, and its complete disregard of human rights.

Economic systems and political systems are not the same. Given that the only economic system that supports democracy and human rights is capitalism, it seems like it's the system most likely to support them due to its emphasis on the individual and private ownership.

Ecological crises are the task of governments, since they're the ones capable of addressing the externalities the free market can't handle. Not to mention, of course, that even by this metric capitalism is still far less ecologically damaging than its alternatives. As far as I know, no capitalist state has ever produced environmental devastation on par with Norilsk or Linfen, or the destruction of the Aral Sea and highlands of China as seen under the reign of the USSR and PRC. Socialism is the most environmentally destructive system that has ever existed, bar none.

What if people don't want to be reliable, productive and have initiative? I realise those traits are good for people who want to succeed in the economy, but why should we develop an economy that only rewards those who support the economy? Why do we simply ignore everyone else?

Why should we? I work hard for my money and my degree, so why should my hours of hard work and effort go to someone who doesn't want to work because it's too hard, or they're too lazy, or too unwilling to learn? What have they done to earn a share of my hard work? For that matter what incentive does it provide for me to keep working knowing I could just leech off of someone else instead of contribute like a mature and responsible human being?

Human beings survive through work. This may seem odd to those of us living in a world where our needs are met indirectly and our economic system produces sufficient surplus to support dead weight, but if we weren't so lucky as to live in the developed world, a world built through the hard work and effort of individuals, we would not be able to tolerate dead weight. A person who doesn't want to work in a place wracked by famine will die because they don't have the luxury of supporting them.

Economic mechanisms will do it for us: oil price rise gradually and on higher levels development of alternative energy sources becomes more faster. I bet oil companies buy this developments and make their own R&D so in the future Dutch-Shell, Exxon etc. will be leaders of alternative energy

The fundamental question is this: Who owns you? Or, if you prefer, who is entitled to your labor (and on what basis)?

Big business is in large degree enabled by the entry barriers made possible by government interference in private markets. The transcontinental railroads could not have grown so rapidly after the American Civil War without government-backed seizure of land.

You forgot about Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford. They revolutionized industry and economics as well as creating big businesses.

Either way. It doesn't matter. When the government goes to war, they stimulate or seize private industries to create war supplies and munitions. When they don't like a country, they destroy it and that influences businesses.

Going further. The government doesn't inhibit the functionality of businesses. They force businesses to change for the better when they don't want to. That's what the whole Chrysler, GM, and Ford troubles are about. The government has failed to impose good standards on those companies.

There's also something called consumer/workers rights. The government also protects consumers/workers in those matters.

Personally, I would agree with you that a government should not interfere and should not exist. I feel that if a consumer has something against a business, they should act on that feeling in any way they feel necessary.

Given that the only economic system that supports democracy and human rights is capitalism.

I hope you have a really good source for this.

to Houteca: you're buddhist, aren't you?

Nope. A Christian that follows his own version of it. You just can't trust those major religions because they are so corruptable. And because of Murphy's Law, the corruptable ones are already corrupt or will eventually get corrupted. That's why I make my own brand of it. All religions are in error (with the way many atheists act about it, atheism might as well be called a religion), so why not make your own and iron out the wrinkles yourself instead of relying on your neighbors and the government to iron them out for you.

I'm also a Capitalist. It's my money. If my neighbor wants money, he should get off his ass and earn it himself.

to Vetalia: +9999999999999))

So because some countries are fucked up and don't provide their people with an acceptable standard of living, that makes something a luxury? I suppose that means that the current situation in Somalia justifies my claiming that police protection is luxury that people should pay for on an individual basis?

Violence and crime have all gone down in Somalia since the Somalis lost their government. Infant mortality, life expectancy, and other health standards have all drastically improved.

The free market is the most efficient provider of all goods and services, INCLUDING policework and healthcare.

Free market capitalism is the ONLY sustainable form of economy. Only capitalism - the voluntary actions of individual participants in a free market - can rationally allocate resources most optimally and efficiently. Any sort of governmental top-down information-control intervention in the economy never works, because central planners and interveners can never have the information and feedback necessary for distributing resources optimally and efficiently. The information is simply too complex, and changes in real-time.

Any type or form of compulsory government intervention or regulation - no matter how small or seemingly insignificant - distorts the true incentives and risks of the free market and leads to unforeseen, irrational destructive effects.

You might look into James Howard Kunstler, who addresses topics like this. I'm not a huge fan of Kunstler, not least because of his evident schadenfreude (hand-rubbing glee, more like), but he bears listening to.

Thanks. You might like to read Jennifer Government, where the government takes a backseat to huge corporations. The government, Police, and NRA only investigate crimes when someone pays for an investigation (There are no taxes to pay for investigations). It's a pure capitalist economy!

I hope you have a really good source for this.

Is the Real Life really good source?

Economic systems and political systems are not the same. Given that the only economic system that supports democracy and human rights is capitalism, it seems like it's the system most likely to support them due to its emphasis on the individual and private ownership.

Ecological crises are the task of governments, since they're the ones capable of addressing the externalities the free market can't handle. Not to mention, of course, that even by this metric capitalism is still far less ecologically damaging than its alternatives. As far as I know, no capitalist state has ever produced environmental devastation on par with Norilsk or Linfen, or the destruction of the Aral Sea and highlands of China as seen under the reign of the USSR and PRC. Socialism is the most environmentally destructive system that has ever existed, bar none.

Yep, and that's why the USA is the most contaminant country in the world.

I voted other, I want a more Hybrid system, like a Social-Capitalism...

where most businesses are privately owned, but necessities like Fuel, and Healthcare, things that people cant refuse to buy, are more regulated, in order to keep a low price...A largely Laissez-faire policy allows the price to get way too high...

You forgot about Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford. They revolutionized industry and economics as well as creating big businesses.

Either way. It doesn't matter. When the government goes to war, they stimulate or seize private industries to create war supplies and munitions. When they don't like a country, they destroy it and that influences businesses.

Going further. The government doesn't inhibit the functionality of businesses. They force businesses to change for the better when they don't want to. That's what the whole Chrysler, GM, and Ford troubles are about. The government has failed to impose good standards on those companies.

There's also something called consumer/workers rights. The government also protects consumers/workers in those matters.

Personally, I would agree with you that a government should not interfere and should not exist. I feel that if a consumer has something against a business, they should act on that feeling in any way they feel necessary.

1. The government doesn't always make businesses change for the better. The government makes the businesses do what the government wants them to do. If the government wants to support one industry that helps finance the politicians' reelection campaigns and punish another industry full of companies that helped expose government corruption, the government will do it as long as that pesky Constitution either doesn't get in the way or can be conveniently ignored. The bigger the government, the more corrupt and powermad it gets. Murphy's Law.

2. The government protects the consumer because the consumer is where alot of votes and tax money comes from. The politicians don't want to lose votes. Again, Murphy's Law. The politicians help the people because they just don't want to risk it sometimes.

Wow, healthcare a luxury?? So tell me, how much money must I pay for my life?

Healthcare does not have magical properties. Healthcare is a commodity just like any other commodity, and is therefore governed by the exact same laws of economics that govern all other commodities whether grain, shoes, labor, and money.

Healthcare must be paid for by SOMEONE, whether it is state-sponsored compulsion and taxation, or free market processes.

The free market is the ONLY system that can most efficiently and optimally ration healthcare, just like the free market is the ONLY system that can most efficiently and optimally ration other commodities, such as grain. Again, healthcare is not exempt from the laws of economics that govern grain or shoes or toy production.

The Soviets attempted to regulate the grain supply, leading to starvation. The West today attempts to regulate healthcare, leading to increased healthcare costs and lowered health outcomes. By COMPLETELY freeing healthcare from any government intervention and taxation whatsoever, healthcare quality will increase for all classes of society from the richest to the poorest.

Is the Real Life really good source?

Depends on the range you're using in regards to the definition of capitlism. The wider the range the better the backing, withthe best being thell range,from social capitalism (what I called social democracy) to pure capitalism. However, if you only focus on one specific type, then it becomes bad

I have. It's just this side of crap, written by an economic illiterate. Kind of funny, though, in parts.

Social capitalism, i.e. Europe. Next person to call Europe "socialist" gets punched.

Europe is socialist and is in the process of economic collapse.

Healthcare does not have magical properties. Healthcare is a commodity just like any other commodity, and is therefore governed by the exact same laws of economics that govern all other commodities whether grain, shoes, labor, and money.



Thats entirely untrue, the problem is that there is no 'regulation' in this product by the freemarket system...

In order for something to be regulated in a free market system, you have to be able to refuse to buy it...If you get sick, and require medical attention, you cant just say, "Well, Im not going to buy healthcare today"...It doesnt work like that...

You can refuse to buy the latest pair of shoes, or even the latest brand of grain related products, but if your sick, you HAVE to get health care, you dont have a choice...

Thats why there needs to be a hybrid system, let the grain and shoe companies do as they wish, but Insurance and Fuel needs to be regulated so it can be available for the whole of the population...

And if the Rich and wealthy dont want to go through the red tape, they can just pay in cash, as they so famously do in Canada (usually to US doctors), and those who cant afford to do so, can still get the medical attention they need...

1. The government doesn't always make businesses change for the better. The government makes the businesses do what the government wants them to do. If the government wants to support one industry that helps finance the politicians' reelection campaigns and punish another industry full of companies that helped expose government corruption, the government will do it as long as that pesky Constitution either doesn't get in the way or can be conveniently ignored. The bigger the government, the more corrupt and powermad it gets. Murphy's Law.

2. The government protects the consumer because the consumer is where alot of votes and tax money comes from. The politicians don't want to lose votes. Again, Murphy's Law. The politicians help the people because they just don't want to risk it sometimes.

1. Yes. Why government should not exist. I believe in self-government. Apparently, Greenpeace and environmentalist terrorist groups get more stuff done than the government.

2. The government realizes that they can "distract" people from some issues, though they have to address some really serious issues. People act in the people's interest. I think that if a guy has a problem with a company's ethics or products and they are ignored, they should be able to bomb the company headquarters. A business will wake up if it has to pay a hundred million dollars to rebuild/repair of company buildings every time they screw up.

The Soviets attempted to regulate the grain supply, leading to starvation.

you have cause and effect a bit mixed up there

I have. It's just this side of crap, written by an economic illiterate. Kind of funny, though, in parts.

I agree. Consumer advocacy groups should be able to bomb businesses that they don't agree with.

Europe is socialist and is in the process of economic collapse.

Probably due to globalization and the world economy being linked to us and our failure. If you really want to look at a good socialist economy, look at China, which uses a dual economic system.

Probably due to globalization and the world economy being linked to us and our failure. If you really want to look at a good socialist economy, look at China, which uses a dual economic system.

China is doing pretty well, but Its not a model I personally would use...They fall a little bit to left for my tastes...

I think it should still be as Laissez-faire as possible, with only the basic necessities being government run...

Probably due to globalization and the world economy being linked to us and our failure. If you really want to look at a good socialist economy, look at China, which uses a dual economic system.

good socialist economy - oxymoron

Chine slowly turning to capitalist way and it's the source of its economic growth

Thats entirely untrue, the problem is that there is no 'regulation' in this product by the freemarket system...

In order for something to be regulated in a free market system, you have to be able to refuse to buy it...If you get sick, and require medical attention, you cant just say, "Well, Im not going to buy healthcare today"...It doesnt work like that...

That is not how regulation works. Regulation works when participants in the free market discern incentives and risks, and make plans based on these incentives and risks. It is judgment of incentives and risks that regulates human behavior, not compulstion.

You can refuse to buy the latest pair of shoes, or even the latest brand of grain related products, but if your sick, you HAVE to get health care, you dont have a choice...


In a free market, people WILL be able to pay for healthcare, because they would participate in private health insurance, and healthcare costs would be much lower, and healthcare quality much higher, due to free market competition.

you have cause and effect a bit mixed up there
What do you mean? Do you think grain shortages caused the Soviet government to step in and collectivize the grain supply?

That is not how regulation works. Regulation works when participants in the free market discern incentives and risks, and make plans based on these incentives and risks. It is judgment of incentives and risks that regulates human behavior, not compulstion.Would not companies try to hide all the potential flaws of their product to minimize the percieved risk, while not minimizing the actual risk?



In a free market, people WILL be able to pay for healthcare, because they would participate in private health insurance, and healthcare costs would be much lower, and healthcare quality much higher, due to free market competition.

European and Canadian health care costs disagree with you.

In a free market, people WILL be able to pay for healthcare, because they would participate in private health insurance, and healthcare costs would be much lower, and healthcare quality much higher, due to free market competition.

Thats why its SOOO low right now, and EVERYONE can afford it :rolleyes:

The problem is, that say, Two Health Insurance companies are competing with eachother, Both of them know the other isnt going to do anything thats not in its best interest, therefore the price is not going to get lower, and due to the fact that no one can refuse to do business with one or the other, they dont actually have to do anything to make the product more affordable, and can afford to keep prices high enough that they take in huge profits...

The problem is there isnt another product, its just Health Insurance, If all the sudden, say the Wheat Bread industry drove the price to the point that you couldnt buy it, you could just go out and buy another kind of Bread instead...You cant do that with Health Insurance as thats the only thing there is...There IS no other product for them to compete with...

Probably due to globalization and the world economy being linked to us and our failure. If you really want to look at a good socialist economy, look at China, which uses a dual economic system.

China has a terrible economic model. There is no freedom of movement for the vast majority of citizens, and weak private property rights. Their economy is unsustainable, due to these and other government-enforced barriers to the free market.

Our current global economic turmoil is not caused by capitalism. Our global economic turmoil is caused by government intervention, specifically, government regulation of the money supply.

Remember, money does not have magic properties. Money is a commodity just like any other commodity and can only be rationally distributed by the self-regulating free market. Government control of the money supply, just like government control of the grain supply or shoe supply, leads to unforeseen catastrophes, which we are witnessing right now all over the world.

So we need more insuranse companies...

So we need more insurans companies...

Not more insurance companies...In Theory you would need an entirely new way of paying for Healthcare, or an Alternative to Healthcare entirely...As it stands, its either Insurance, or Cash, and hoping that Medicare will help you, and it usually doesnt...

And, since there isnt going to be some brand new method of paying coming out anytime soon, there needs to be a stabilizing force in the Insurance industry that makes sure they cant put the price above a certain level, and at present the only way to do that would be to have a National Healthcare System...

Would not companies try to hide all the potential flaws of their product to minimize the percieved risk, while not minimizing the actual risk?

Only free market processes can discover actual risk. Government regulation only obscures and distorts risk. Take the example of the recent famous Madoff Ponzi scheme. Private due-diligence agencies from the free market tagged him as a crook a long time ago, but the SEC's inaction legitimized him ("Oh, the government's not after him, he must be an angel!"), and Madoff's own reputation benefited from past affiliation with government.

European and Canadian health care costs disagree with you.

European and Canadian health care costs are FAR too high. By eliminating all government regulations - such as doctors' monopoly on prescribing pharmaceuticals or managing health care - health care costs would drop precipitously.

China has a terrible economic model. There is no freedom of movement for the vast majority of citizens, and weak private property rights. Their economy is unsustainable, due to these government-enforced barriers to the free market.

Our current global economic turmoil is not caused by capitalism. Our global economic turmoil is caused by government intervention, specifically, government regulation of the money supply.

Remember, money does not have magic properties. Money is a commodity just like any other commodity and can only be rationally distributed by the self-regulating free market. Government control of the money supply, just like government control of the grain supply or shoe supply, leads to unforeseen catastrophes, which we are witnessing right now all over the world.

First of all, China's economy is growing fast and is sustainable (if it was not for the terrible price in economic conditions).

Secondly, I laugh, because the current economic crisis is a spin-off of the bank crisis, which was caused by lack of regulation. Lending to people who can't pay you back is a no-no.

Thirdly, rationing under certain conditions is necessary. Take a look at World War II, for example. The government took control of all industries to wage war and promoted efficiency. In the end, our economy boomed when we went back to peacetime.

Fourthly, I agree with Anarcho-Capitalism.

European and Canadian health care costs are FAR too high. By eliminating all government regulations - such as doctors' monopoly on prescribing pharmaceuticals or managing health care - health care costs would drop precipitously.

Whaaa????

I like my provider of health-care to know what their doing thanks.

And if European/Candadian costs are too high why does the US spend most of all? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person)

What do you mean? Do you think grain shortages caused the Soviet government to step in and collectivize the grain supply?

stalin attempted to liquidate the kulaks as a class, and was largely successful. it wasn't some accidental but inevitable by-product of 'regulation', it was policy.

an Alternative to Healthcare entirely

Healthy Euthanasia?))

National Healthcare System...

And run it on taxpayers' money, right?

Well, just look to brilliant example of the national healthcare system with compulsory insuranse in Russia: doctor - one of the most lowpayed profession, corruption is widespreaded, and total uselessness.

Healthy Euthanasia?))



And run it on taxpayers' money, right?

Well, just look to brilliant example of the national healthcare system with compulsory insuranse in Russia: doctor - one of the most lowpayed profession, corruption is widespreaded, and total uselessness.

Try the NHS (UK) instead. Complete coverage but there be rationing and long queues for stuff.

You can't counter socialism by using Russia for all your examples.

Remember, money does not have magic properties. Money is a commodity just like any other commodity and can only be rationally distributed by the self-regulating free market. Government control of the money supply, just like government control of the grain supply or shoe supply, leads to unforeseen catastrophes, which we are witnessing right now all over the world.

so what is a free-marketeer to make of the fact that the market clearly demands more government intervention, and freaks right the fuck out when it falls through?

Take a look at World War II, for example. The government took control of all industries to wage war and promoted efficiency. In the end, our economy boomed when we went back to peacetime.

Damn, we don't have WWII now for such measures. And boom's causes was reducing of such "rationing"

Only free market processes can discover actual risk.

Yeah, because the tobacco and Asbestos companies did such a good job of disclosing actual risks from their products. :rolleyes:

Also, think about the Ford Pinto. It had a vulnerable gas tank that often ignited when the car was rear-ended. Ford could have fixed the problem by recalling the cars and makng a repair that cost 11 dollars at the time but thought it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits. Free market processes didn't keep that from ever happening again. Lawsuits (IE government) did.

Edit: my source for the 11 dollar claim: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1977/09/dowie.html

Government regulation only obscures and distorts risk. Take the example of the recent famous Madoff Ponzi scheme. Private due-diligence agencies from the free market tagged him as a crook a long time ago.

Source?

European and Canadian health care costs are FAR too high.

Prove it.

Healthy Euthanasia?)) lmao



And run it on taxpayers' money, right?

Well, just look to brilliant example of the national healthcare system with compulsory insuranse in Russia: doctor - one of the most lowpayed profession, corruption is widespreaded, and total uselessness.

While It would require taxpayers money, I wouldnt advocate raising taxes for it, When you can just randomly dole out $700 billion, I think you can afford to pay medical bills...

And on the second point, It shouldnt be Compulsory, you should still have the choice of paying for it privately, but, for those who cant afford to do so, they can pay for it through the NHS...Hence, I use the word Hybrid...

And, on a more personal note, Id like to think our Government is Head and Shoulders above Russia's, I dont think theyve ever had a good government over there, soon as it gets going good, they have a habit of throwing out a Revolution, ask Gorbachev, or Nicholas II they'll tell you lol....

so what is a free-marketeer to make of the fact that the market clearly demands more government intervention, and freaks right the fuck out when it falls through?

They should make it that they're wrong.

The market shouldn't be free. It should be controlled. Capitalism doesn't operate well when it doesn't have guidelines in which to operate.

But regulation isn't the main difference between Capitalism and Socialism and Communism. Ownership is.

A person can be a die hard capitalist (as I am) and believe that as much as possible should be privately owned (as I do) and still agree with government acting as overseer and making rules, not just for people but for businesses as well (as I do.)

It's not socialism until the ownership of commodities changes hands from private to public.

I guess Communism, as described in this thread, would imply no ownership at all. Which is the economic system you arrive at after going down lollipop lane into fantasy land.

Yeah, because the tobacco and Asbestos companies did such a good job of disclosing actual risks from their products. :rolleyes:

Also, think about the Ford Pinto. It had a vulnerable gas tank that often ignited when the car was rear-ended. Ford could have fixed the problem by recalling the cars and makng a repair that cost 11 dollars at the time but thought it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits. Free market processes didn't keep that from ever happening again. Lawsuits (IE government) did.


I think he means economic risk

First of all, China's economy is growing fast and is sustainable (if it was not for the terrible price in economic conditions).
China's economy is neither growing fast nor is it sustainable. Geesh, you're more optimistic about China's economy than China's own state-controlled media.

Secondly, I laugh, because the current economic crisis is a spin-off of the bank crisis, which was caused by lack of regulation. Lending to people who can't pay you back is a no-no.

The bank crisis was DIRECTLY caused by government regulation, i.e. government-mandated inflation of the money supply. All other factors - credit overextension and poor loaning practices - are only superficial symptoms of that deeper disease.

Thirdly, rationing under certain conditions is necessary. Take a look at World War II, for example. The government took control of all industries to wage war and promoted efficiency. In the end, our economy boomed when we went back to peacetime.

The economy boomed because of slashing government spending, not because of government intervention.


so what is a free-marketeer to make of the fact that the market clearly demands more government intervention, and freaks right the fuck out when it falls through?

I'm assuming you refer to the recent famous bailouts. The free market did not freak out when bailouts fell through. That's because no free market exists. All our American corporations are no more capitalist institutions than Krupps was in Nazi Germany. Their profits all rely on government contracts, government manipulation of the money system, government deficit spending, and other government interventions.

Of course these government interventions need to be eliminated, and of course the stock market should crash! Our economy is currently based on a vast rotten understructure of fascist government intervention, and there MUST be a correction and readjustment in the market to wash out the government's monetary and fiscal excesses, in order to allow the free market to capitalize and assert itself.

Whaaa????

I like my provider of health-care to know what their doing thanks.

The free market is a MUCH better provider of due diligence and credential verification than the government is. By contrast, the government PROTECTS incompetent doctors and healthcare providers. In countless instances the government allows incompetent doctors to continue work, allowing doctors to hide behind their "MD" degree and banning all competition who do not possess official, government-sanctioned MD degrees even if the person behind the MD is an abuser of patients. Furthermore, and guarantees doctors artificially high salaries because the government keeps the supply of doctors artificially low by a variety of methods, including banning highly qualified foreign medical doctors from practicing in the US and arbitrarily restricting the number of medical students.

stalin attempted to liquidate the kulaks as a class, and was largely successful. it wasn't some accidental but inevitable by-product of 'regulation', it was policy.


Wrong. Collectivization led to perpetual of grain shortages throughout the history of the USSR. Who said anything about Stalin? It was the economic inefficiency of the later Soviet regimes that ultimately caused the USSR's enduring poverty and final collapse.


And if European/Candadian costs are too high why does the US spend most of all? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person)

US spends most of all because of US government interference. US is more fascist than Europe is socialist. Among other cost-raising regulations, the US government ENFORCES high pharmaceutical costs through regulations such as the Medicare Part B law.

I personally think that the best economic system is participatory economics. It takes down the power dynamics traditionally seen in capitalism and replaces them with a more egalitarian, decentralized system. One thing I am wondering is if parecon can be reconciled with technocracy, so that an even better hybrid system can be established. Feel free, Ascelonia, to tell me what you think.

Also Godwin... post #125

It was the economic inefficiency of the later Soviet regimes that ultimately caused the USSR's enduring poverty and final collapse.

not really, no. their growth rate was actually pretty good. the problem was that they had a terrible feedback system (to put it mildly), so what got made was what the central planners wanted, and information generally was not shared between levels if it could be avoided.

Yeah, because the tobacco and Asbestos companies did such a good job of disclosing actual risks from their products. :rolleyes:

Also, think about the Ford Pinto. It had a vulnerable gas tank that often ignited when the car was rear-ended. Ford could have fixed the problem by recalling the cars and makng a repair that cost 11 dollars at the time but thought it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits. Free market processes didn't keep that from ever happening again. Lawsuits (IE government) did.

Edit: my source for the 11 dollar claim: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1977/09/dowie.html

Lawsuits exist in a free market, and are much more effective than government lawsuits. Government monopoly of the courts lead to abuses, injustices, and inefficiencies, because there is no one to police the government. The OPTIMAL system is a system of competing private court systems competing against each other to render the justice most satisfactory to consumers. Justice is a commodity like leather shoes and wheat flour; the costs of justice go down and the quality of justice goes up if there is free market competition in justice.

Government regulation only obscures and distorts risk. Take the example of the recent famous Madoff Ponzi scheme. Private due-diligence agencies from the free market tagged him as a crook a long time ago.

Source?
You don't follow the news much do you...

http://finances.unanimocracy.com/money/2008/12/17/harry-markopolos-markopoulos-smells-a-stink-from-madoff/

I think he means economic risk

Economic risk refers to all risks in human action, including deciding whether to smoke a cigarette or jump off a high board into a swimming pool. Economics is the study of human action.

not really, no. their growth rate was actually pretty good.

It was pretty good, compared to what it was before Stalin, during the twenties, and before the revolution, but it still sucked compared to much of the west.


the problem was that they had a terrible feedback system (to put it mildly), so what got made was what the central planners wanted, and information generally was not shared between levels if it could be avoided.

There were much more problems than just that.

not really, no. their growth rate was actually pretty good.
Their growth rate was downright awful. Besides the nomenklatura and other government elites, no Soviet citizen appreciated the USSR's economy.

the problem was that they had a terrible feedback system (to put it mildly), so what got made was what the central planners wanted, and information generally was not shared between levels if it could be avoided.

The optimum feedback system is the free market. ALL other feedback systems fall short. No government central planner, no supercomputer has the ability to adjust to the vast amount of ever-changing information. Only the decentralized actions of individuals voluntarily acting in economic self interest - i.e., the free market - can respond and provide an effective feedback system.

The barter system, bitches! Now who will trade me chicken eggs for these cows?

I've got 2 bottles of water?

I've got 2 bottles of water?
How big are the bottles? If you throw in one of your sons to do labor on my farm, I think we might have a deal.

Try the NHS (UK) instead. Complete coverage but there be rationing and long queues for stuff.
Rationing? Erm? No.

How big are the bottles? If you throw in one of your sons to do labor on my farm, I think we might have a deal.

I don't have a son to spare, how about a goat and a plow.

If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it.

I hope you have a really good source for this.

All democracies on Earth and all of the nations that are rated as the highest on Earth for human rights, quality of life, human development and income equality are capitalist, free market economies. There is no non-capitalist country on Earth that has ever approached the capitalist, developed world in any of these metrics, and even when they may have surpassed individual nations never came close to unseating the nations at the top of that list.

not really, no. their growth rate was actually pretty good. the problem was that they had a terrible feedback system (to put it mildly), so what got made was what the central planners wanted, and information generally was not shared between levels if it could be avoided.

Growth is meaningless if it's not efficient. Building gigantic industrial gulags in Siberia might produce nominal increases in output, but if that output is poor quality or ill-suited to the needs of the economy, it's hardly more useful than producing nothing at all. And given the environmental devastation produced by the Soviet economic system, it's hard to argue that the marginal benefits of those programs outweighed the massive human and environmental costs.

The Soviet Union was most successful during the 1950's and 1960's, when its policies were heavily influenced by the economic theories of Evsei Liberman, whose ideas were in turn drawn from an adaptation of free-market economics to the planned economy. Those reforms didn't last, though, as the Soviet economy reverted to the neo-Stalinist economic policies of the Brezhnev era and by the time of economic reform in the 1980's the economy was simply too outdated and fundamentally broken to survive.

First of all, China's economy is growing fast and is sustainable (if it was not for the terrible price in economic conditions).

What people forget about China is that it needs to grow at a rate of more than 7% per year in order to absorb the massive number of workers entering the workforce as part of the urbanization (in fact, the greatest mass migration of people in history) that is happening concurrent with its economic reforms.

In China, growth under 7% is basically recessionary in terms of its effects on wages and employment.

Growth is meaningless if it's not efficient. Building gigantic industrial gulags in Siberia might produce nominal increases in output, but if that output is poor quality or ill-suited to the needs of the economy, it's hardly more useful than producing nothing at all. And given the environmental devastation produced by the Soviet economic system, it's hard to argue that the marginal benefits of those programs outweighed the massive human and environmental costs.

Vetalia, excellent point!

Systemic malinvestments are the defining characteristic of a planned economy. Furthermore, systemic malinvestments are found only in planned economies and are not found in free markets.

A decentralized free market lacking in government compulsion and regulation is the only system capable of efficiently, sustainably, and optimally allocating (investing) resources, resulting in prosperity and sustainability, and minimizing waste. Systemic malinvestment does not occur in a free market.

The American real estate bubble of recent years can be compared to the inefficient, malinvested Soviet heavy industry. The American real estate bubble represented a gigantic, systemic malinvestment of resources. The American real estate bubble, like all systemic malinvestments everywhere, was the result of government central planning, specifically in this case: central bank manipulation of money supply and interest rates. The short-term mirage benefits of central planning can only last so long before collapsing on itself. Just as Soviet heavy industry collapsed due to inefficiency, waste, and redundancy, so did the American real estate bubble collapse, for precisely the same reasons.

Eliminating all forms government planning, government manipulation, and government intervention will prevent any such catastrophes from ever occurring again, whether it's some factory in the Urals building merely 50 bicycles when 1,000 bicycles are needed because central planners told them to build forklifts instead, or whether it's some home developers in California building thousands of unsaleable McMansions leveraged on artificially cheap credit obtained via the Federal Reserve central planners' monetary interventions.

Therefore, the recent famous real estate bubble is not "evidence" for the supposed "failure" of capitalism, rather it is the complete vindication and triumph of free market capitalism, and damning evidence against any sort of government intervention in the economy whatsoever.

I dunno. Maybe capitalism.

the best "economic system" is to avoid the prejudice and chauvinism of ALL economic ideologies, even to not give precedence to "economics", in the sense of symbolic value, at all. and certainly not demonize things that would work, often being best or only real sustainable solutions, because they too closely resemble some 'other' economic ideology, that has been gratuitously demonized for political gain.

hybreds, in nature, are almost invariably healthier, then ANY sort of fanatical "purity". the same holds for politics and economics. also i believe this self isolation so many economic theories insist upon, from nature's economics, its cycles of renewal that recycle 100%, is a major achillies heal of all of them. by that i don't mean they can't in theory, in accidemic isolation, by the numbers appear capable of working, obviously they do. the problem with all that is that real people, places and things, are not isolated from the real universe and their interdependence on and with nature, for little things like where the air we breathe comes from, among others.

If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it.

This is cute. I wish the world was as black and white as you make it seem.

I like this: The only moral basis for a functioning society that respects the natural rights of human beings is complete separation of economy and state.

But I also like this:Free market capitalism. The best economic system that exists.

This is good too: If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it. The only trouble with this is whose definition of 'earn it' are you going to use.

If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it.

is deserving more important then the kind of world you want to live in? i think that's the real question. then there's the slight matter of governments serving no useful purpose NOT going away, simply because they refuse to. along with several others.

"Other". Specifically some form of anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism.

The only moral basis for a functioning society that respects the natural rights of human beings is complete separation of economy and state."Natural" rights don't exist. Rights are solely legal constructs.

If you want rationing, then yesRationing occurs anyway, be it by a price mechanism or some other way.

Guess what? Life sucks. Life has always sucked. Life will always suck. In nature, your ass would have been killed, eaten, and pooped out long ago. You're lucky because there are people who have even shittier lives. Get used to it. Game over, man. Game over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. You have 0 continues left. Get used to it.Is/ought fallacy.

The fundamental question is this: Who owns you?Nobody. Ownership is an invalid concept.

The free market is the ONLY system that can most efficiently and optimally ration healthcare, Unless healthcare is available to everybody in a free market, the free market does not ration healthcare optimally, given that everyone having access is the optimal method of rationing.

Rationing? Erm? No.

Erm? Yes.

The National Insitute of Clinical Excellence regularly gets bashed by the likes of the Daily Mail for its refusal to allow certain treatments to be paid for by the NHS simply because the NHS does not have an infinite pot of money.

Treatments which give more quality years of life for the £ get given out, ones that give less don't get provided at all.

"Natural" rights don't exist. Rights are solely legal constructs.

Natural rights exist, and by definition refer to the rights deriving from the voluntary laws that arise spontaneously in the peaceful free market.

Those compulsory laws and rights concepts constructed by government through force and fiat are unnatural.

Nobody. Ownership is an invalid concept.

The concept of private property ownership inevitably and invariably arises in any society that widely respects the non-aggression principle. The notion that ownership is invalid is only a feature of a compulsory society where there exists a government to carry out fiat violence against a voluntary society's spontaneous respect for private property rights.

Unless healthcare is available to everybody in a free market, the free market does not ration healthcare optimally, given that everyone having access is the optimal method of rationing.

Completely incorrect- optimal method of rationing is highest healthcare results for lowest cost. In modern fascist-socialist states where free market healthcare does not exist, government interventions force healthcare results low and costs high. By contrast in a free market high quality healthcare is available to everybody.

Because of a discussion on another thread, ...

Your definitions of capitalism, socialism, communism are so rough, that they manage to make your poll totally meaningless.

Growth is meaningless if it's not efficient. Building gigantic industrial gulags in Siberia might produce nominal increases in output, but if that output is poor quality or ill-suited to the needs of the economy, it's hardly more useful than producing nothing at all. And given the environmental devastation produced by the Soviet economic system, it's hard to argue that the marginal benefits of those programs outweighed the massive human and environmental costs.

i'm not defending the bolshevik's system, just not letting a anarcho-cappie wackjob make shit up about what went wrong with it.

i'm not defending the bolshevik's system, just not letting a anarcho-cappie wackjob make shit up about what went wrong with it.

You blamed the Bolsheviks' troubles on a "terrible feedback system" (your words). I don't think you disagree with any anarcho-capitalist, statist capitalist, fascist, or socialist as to what went wrong with it and they don't disagree with you either.

It was pretty good, compared to what it was before Stalin, during the twenties, and before the revolution, but it still sucked compared to much of the west.

only at the end, after decades of building up the crazy bullshit that the rulers thought made them strong, with rampant disregard for the prosperity of the people. but overall, growth was similar to that of most developing nations that aren't totally zimbaweing it.

Claim against your Private Insurance, which is the best system for protecting against any threat as shown by the US's world leading health-care system

Oh wait...

We do have world leading health care. Problem is few can afford it. What happened to the invisible hand?

The invisible hand is grabbing as much cash as it can and stuffing it into it invisible pocket.

Anarchy just flat out doesn't work. You end up with Motorcycle gangs, street thugs, warlords, pirates.

While all this is exciting it is not how I want to get to work everyday. Things like road and streets, bridges and tunnels all fall into disrepair, they do under capitalism, but it would be even worse under anarchy. Garbage removal, schools, fire departments we take for granted many of the services that would not exist or be really difficult under anarchy.

Anarchy just flat out doesn't work. You end up with Motorcycle gangs, street thugs, warlords, pirates.

While all this is exciting it is not how I want to get to work everyday. Things like road and streets, bridges and tunnels all fall into disrepair, they do under capitalism, but it would be even worse under anarchy. Garbage removal, schools, fire departments we take for granted many of the services that would not exist or be really difficult under anarchy.

Psh, if we had Anarchy, me and my War-Gang of Street Pirate Thugs would just force the peasants to remove our garbage and put out our fires for us...Duh...

only at the end, after decades of building up the crazy bullshit that the rulers thought made them strong, with rampant disregard for the prosperity of the people. but overall, growth was similar to that of most developing nations that aren't totally zimbaweing it.

That's not even true. The USSR's anemic growth rate was similar ONLY to those other developing countries that, like the USSR, had nationalized sectors of the economy, habitually violated private property rights, possessed bloated government bureaucracies (and therefore high levels of government deficit spending), and other government interventions. All of these countries' economies were mired in inefficiency, abuse, and waste.

The USSR and other state-centric developing economies were far outstripped by those developing economies that had some semblance of a free market, like South Korea or even Yugoslavia.

Anarchy just flat out doesn't work. You end up with Motorcycle gangs, street thugs, warlords, pirates.

While all this is exciting it is not how I want to get to work everyday. Things like road and streets, bridges and tunnels all fall into disrepair, they do under capitalism, but it would be even worse under anarchy. Garbage removal, schools, fire departments we take for granted many of the services that would not exist or be really difficult under anarchy.

Untrue. The government-controlled services we take for granted would be of far higher quality if placed under private control and exposed to free market competition.

Governments, not the free market, cause motorcycle gangs, street thugs, warlords, and pirates. Somalia is an illustrative example. Warlordism in Somalia disappeared quickly in the 1990s after the central government collapsed. The Somali government had caused warlordism in the first place because whichever faction controlled the government could employ the apparatus of government to take advantage of other factions and interest groups, so the Somali factions and interest groups that were shut out of government resisted. When central coercive government collapsed, the need for warlordism to defend minority rights ceased to exist, and the people reverted to a peaceful voluntary free market. Warlordism in Somalia reappeared in recent years after neocons in the American CIA started funneling money to certain tribes in Somalia, provoking the tribes that did not receive money to start rebuilding their weapons stockpiles and preemptively attacking the CIA-backed tribes. Furthermore, piracy would quickly cease to exist on the Somali coast if governments did not legislate nonsensical laws that ban civilian ships from arming themselves or hiring gunboats for deterrence.

Governments destabilize and distort society, while free markets stabilize and order society.

Garbage removal, police work, and fire safety are handled by private firms in Somalia, and are far more efficient than their public counterparts in neighboring East African countries like Kenya. Somalia has the most efficient and reliable telecommunications network in Africa (and possibly the world), due to unbridled free market competition to deliver the highest quality and lowest cost service to paying consumers. Corruption is rife in the rest of East Africa, but nonexistent in Somalia, due to privately owned courts of law who must uphold high incorruptible standards in order to maintain competitiveness in the free market.

Education standards in Somalia have increased since the government collapsed, and private investors have built many new schools and universities in Somalia in the last decade. These are not the OMGMUSLIMZ madrassas you hear from the neocon government agents and slanderers in the Western media. These are engineering schools, veterinary schools, etc. all useful trade schools that are of use to a productive free market.

Health standards in Somalia have increased since the government collapsed. A proliferation of new hospitals have been built by private investors, infant mortality is down, life expectancy is up. Doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals are privately employed and must compete in the free market to provide the highest quality care, unlike in the US or Europe where the government-sponsored healthcare guild uses government force to ban competition and artificially raise healthcare costs.

Transportation in Somalia also improved. Private developers are responsible for building roads, and charge tolls that are put to more efficient use than the transportation taxes citizens of other countries pay. Somalia's new airports and seaports were built from scratch by private investors, are all privately owned, and easily outcompete state-run ports in other parts of East Africa, which is why much of the agricultural products in the region are shipped out of privately-owned Somali seaports, and why the privately owned Somali airlines are among the safest, most reliable, and most efficient carriers.

Untrue. The government-controlled services we take for granted would be far more effective under private control.

Governments, not the free market, cause motorcycle gangs, street thugs, warlords, and pirates. Somalia is an illustrative example. Warlordism in Somalia disappeared quickly in the 1990s after the central government collapsed. The government caused warlordism in the first place because whichever faction controlled the government could employ the apparatus of government to take advantage of other factions and interest groups, so the Somali factions and interest groups that were shut out of government resisted. When central coercive government collapsed, the need for warlordism to defend minority rights ceased to exist, and the people reverted to a peaceful voluntary free market. Warlordism in Somalia reappeared in recent years after neocons in the CIA started funneling money to certain tribes in Somalia, provoking the tribes that did not receive money to start rebuilding their weapons stockpiles and preemptively attacking the CIA-backed tribes. Furthermore, piracy would quickly cease to exist on the Somali coast if other countries' governments did not legislate nonsensical laws that ban civilian ships from arming themselves or hiring gunboats for deterrence.

Governments destabilize and distort society, while free markets stabilize and order society.

Garbage removal, police work, and fire safety are handled by private firms in Somalia, and are far more efficient than their public counterparts in neighboring East African countries like Kenya. Somalia has the most efficient and reliable telecommunications network in Africa (and possibly the world), due to unbridled free market competition to deliver the highest quality and lowest cost service to paying consumers. Corruption is rife in the rest of East Africa, but nonexistent in Somalia, due to privately owned courts of law who must uphold high incorruptible standards in order to maintain competitiveness in the free market.

Education standards in Somalia have increased since the government collapsed, and private investors have built many new schools and universities in Somalia in the last decade. These are not the OMGMUSLIMZ madrassas you hear from the neocon government agents and slanderers in the Western media. These are engineering schools, veterinary schools, etc. all useful trade schools that are of use to a productive free market.

Health standards in Somalia have increased since the government collapsed. A proliferation of new hospitals have been built by private investors, infant mortality is down, life expectancy is up. Doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals are privately employed and must compete in the free market to provide the highest quality care, unlike in the US or Europe where the government-sponsored healthcare guild uses government force to ban competition and artificially raise healthcare costs.

Transportation in Somalia also improved. Private developers are responsible for building roads, and charge tolls that are put to far better use than the transportation taxes that citizens of other countries pay. Somalia's new airports and seaports were built from scratch by private investors, are all privately owned, and easily outcompete state-run ports in other parts of East Africa, which is why much of the agricultural products in the region are shipped out of privately-owned Somali seaports, and why the privately owned Somali airlines are among the safest, most reliable, and most efficient carriers.

Either you're a troll, or you're seriously disconnected from reality (Or you can provide some really strong neutral sources for all of these claims, though I doubt that). I wrote a paper on Somalia for my Comparative politics course, and in my research concluded that the lack of gov't and the strong tribalism were the main causes of all their problems. The thing is,you need some eternal or internal force to bring stability, and the free market can't do that, as is shown in Somalia. I'll dredge it up tomorrow if asked.

Psh, if we had Anarchy, me and my War-Gang of Street Pirate Thugs would just force the peasants to remove our garbage and put out our fires for us...Duh...

Then you'd have a dictatorship, which would evolve into a monarchy and then into a Democracy. Congratulations you've just reinvented the wheel.

Either you're a troll, or you're seriously disconnected from reality (Or you can provide some really strong neutral sources for all of these claims, though I doubt that). I wrote a paper on Somalia for my Comparative politics course, and in my research concluded that the lack of gov't and the strong tribalism were the main causes of all their problems. The thing is,you need some eternal or internal force to bring stability, and the free market can't do that, as is shown in Somalia. I'll dredge it up tomorrow if asked.

Sure, I'll take a look at your paper.

I would refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

If you are one of those people who look down on wikipedia, then don't read the article itself, just read the sources and links at the bottom of the page, which include New York Times, BBC, The Economist, and others.

Then you'd have a dictatorship, which would evolve into a monarchy and then into a Democracy. Congratulations you've just reinvented the wheel.

As long as the copyrights are Retroactive, lol...

I prefer bartering. Now give me your wife for my 15 sea shells. ;(

From the article you posted:
[edit] Social conditions
The international aid group Médecins Sans Frontières stated that the level of daily violence during this period was "catastrophic".[13] A statistic from 2000 indicated that only 21% of the population had access to safe drinking water at that time, and Somalia had one of the highest child mortality rates in the world with 10% of children dying at birth and 25% of those surviving birth dying before age five.[3] Additionally, "adult literacy is estimated to have declined from the already low level of 24% in 1989 to 17.1% in 2001."[14] A more recent 2003 study reported that the literacy rate was 19%.[15] The impact on human development in Somalia of governmental collapse and ensuing civil war was profound, leading to the breakdown of political institutions, the destruction of social and economic infrastructure and massive internal and external migrations.[14]
The Independent Institute is too biased for me to care what they say. Also you claimed that there was no violence during the 90s. The anarchistic peiod lasted from 1991 to 2004, so that claim falls flat on it's face.

The expansion of the aviation industry has been accompanied by the disruption of road transport; many roads are frequently blocked by militia checkpoints which demand payment (between $3 and $300, depending on goods carried) in order to allow the cars to continue their journey. A BBC report claimed there were seven such checkpoints in the 50km between an airstrip and the capital, Mogadishu. Most of the money is used to buy khat, a drug used by the militiamen.[21]

more militias and troubles with your claims, though I concede some of them. Thisis one of the problems with anarchy, exploitaton (IE tking money from someone with nobenefit for them other than survival and passage. Taxes do not meet this criteria)

Although it states that no reliable statistics are available for the period in question, the United Nations claims that Somalia, already one of the poorest countries in the world, has become even poorer as a result of civil war. However, the CIA Factbook maintains that gains were made during the early 2000s; "despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

The CIA World Factbook counsels that "Statistics on Somalia's GDP, growth, per capita income, and inflation should be viewed skeptically",[3] while estimating Somalia's GDP per capita at $600.
If the free market is supposed to help the economy why did the economy take so long to feel the effects, and why are statistics considered unreliable?

That's not even true. The USSR's anemic growth rate was similar ONLY to those other developing countries that, like the USSR, had nationalized sectors of the economy, habitually violated private property rights, possessed bloated government bureaucracies (and therefore high levels of government deficit spending), and other government interventions.

so effectively every country on the planet according to what you have been saying...

The USSR and other state-centric developing economies were far outstripped by those developing economies that had some semblance of a free market, like South Korea or even Yugoslavia.

i don't recall numbers for yugoslavia, but comparisons between anything and the asian tigers makes everyone else's growth look pathetic. and, really, i wouldn't call any of them 'free'

I prefer Social Market Economy.

From the article you posted:
The Independent Institute is too biased for me to care what they say.
Congratulations, you just conveniently ignored about 95% of the article NOT reported by that source.

Also you claimed that there was no violence during the 90s. The anarchistic peiod lasted from 1991 to 2004, so that claim falls flat on it's face.

I never claimed there was no violence. Any violence resulted from foreign government interventions.

more militias and troubles with your claims, though I concede some of them.

The doped out militias would disappear, and chaos would disappear, if there were no more government intervention. Throughout the 90s and 2000s, the US government gave guns and money to neighboring countries and factions to destabilize Somalia, and recently even bribed the Ethiopian army to invade Somalia. If I'm a Somali and I'm getting attacked all the time by proxies of the most powerful government in the world, of course I'll be stressed out and join a pot-smoking militia! Also, your quote is completely taken out of context. The poor conditions of that one road in the countryside due to chronic foreign government intervention and invasions by foreign governments stands in stark contrast to the prosperity and efficiency of the airports and seaports which you conveniently neglected to quote.

Thisis one of the problems with anarchy, exploitaton (IE tking money from someone with nobenefit for them other than survival and passage. Taxes do not meet this criteria)

Governments coerce and exploit, free markets eliminate exploitation. If you think your tax money (assuming you live in the US) is not being used right now for some inefficient, resource-wasting, even human-killing purpose then you need to hit the books. Your tax dollars directly funded the killings of innocent human beings all over the world by the American military.

If the free market is supposed to help the economy why did the economy take so long to feel the effects, and why are statistics considered unreliable?
The economy did not take long to feel the effects. The Somali economy rapidly boomed after the collapse of the government, for example hundreds of new (private) schools were founded in just the past 10 or 15 years! The economy did however, quickly feel the effects of state-sponsored terrorism and state-sponsored warfare.

Regarding the economic statistics, the answer is right in front of you! The CIA compiles GDP data for its CIA Fact Book by talking with the foreign government's census collectors. In Somalia's case there is no central government and no central collector of statistics. So the CIA just makes an "estimate" from afar and correctly attaches the caveat that its estimate might be unreliable.

so effectively every country on the planet according to what you have been saying...

Think with your head- the world is a lot more diverse than that. I never claimed ALL countries are EITHER 100% anarchic free markets OR 100% collectivist hive states. Every country on the planet today has a mix of fascism, socialism, and free market in different ratios. Some countries have more government intervention, some countries have less.

i don't recall numbers for yugoslavia, but comparisons between anything and the asian tigers makes everyone else's growth look pathetic. and, really, i wouldn't call any of them 'free'


My exact words were "some semblance of a free market". I'm fully aware that South Korea and Yugoslavia had dictatorships for many years, and both governments engaged in counterproductive economic interventions, though not to the extent of an Albania for example. Also, I don't see why comparisons to the Asian tiger countries are invalid. The Asian tigers are not populated by superhumans.

Also, I don't see why comparisons to the Asian tiger countries are invalid.

because it amounts to cherry-picking unless put into a realistic context

Natural rights exist, and by definition refer to the rights deriving from the voluntary laws that arise spontaneously in the peaceful free market.The free market itself is not peaceful at all, given that violence is required to maintain it.

Those compulsory laws and rights concepts constructed by government through force and fiat are unnatural.They don't need to be natural. Natural isn't necessarily better.

The concept of private property ownership inevitably and invariably arises in any society that widely respects the non-aggression principle.Yes, but the non-aggression principle arises from the concept of private property ownership. It is a circular argument.

The notion that ownership is invalid is only a feature of a compulsory society where there exists a government to carry out fiat violence against a voluntary society's spontaneous respect for private property rights.Even if there is a voluntary respect for private property rights, this respect would not take the form that is conducive to the specific kind of free market that most ancaps espouse. (If it is conducive to a free market at all.)

Completely incorrect- optimal method of rationing is highest healthcare results for lowest cost. In modern fascist-socialist states where free market healthcare does not exist, government interventions force healthcare results low and costs high. By contrast in a free market high quality healthcare is available to everybody.Unless healthcare available at no cost (to the people receiving it), it wouldn't be available to everybody.

Capitalism all the way!

The free market itself is not peaceful at all, given that violence is required to maintain it..

As opposed to socialism, which requires the govt. to ban democracy and civil liberties, and shut in it's own people, to keep it going?

i'm not defending the bolshevik's system, just not letting a anarcho-cappie wackjob make shit up about what went wrong with it.

Well, that's understandable.

Erm? Yes.

The National Insitute of Clinical Excellence regularly gets bashed by the likes of the Daily Mail for its refusal to allow certain treatments to be paid for by the NHS simply because the NHS does not have an infinite pot of money.

Treatments which give more quality years of life for the £ get given out, ones that give less don't get provided at all.
Yeah, that's not exactly rationing, though, is it? It's more "not being quite frankly retarded with money or , more to the point, allowing drugs through without sufficient testing".

As opposed to socialism, which requires the govt. to ban democracy and civil liberties, and shut in it's own people, to keep it going?
Woah there, Winston. Plenty of socialist countries which don't do this. Also, what about capitalist dictators, of which there have been many?

Woah there, Winston. Plenty of socialist countries which don't do this. Also, what about capitalist dictators, of which there have been many?

If you can name a single socialist country, and by socialist I mean socialist in the accurate sense of the means of production being publicly owned, I'd be surprised. Public ownership of the means of production necessitates authoritarianism because you would have to forcibly suppress private property; there are examples of people voluntarily collectivizing to share difficult-to-obtain materials, but they didn't abolish private property in the process.

If you can name a single socialist country, and by socialist I mean socialist in the accurate sense of the means of production being publicly owned, I'd be surprised. Public ownership of the means of production necessitates authoritarianism because you would have to forcibly suppress private property; there are examples of people voluntarily collectivizing to share difficult-to-obtain materials, but they didn't abolish private property in the process.
Oh right like Marxist socialism. Aye, we're talking about the real world here, though, not the unfiltered stream-of-thought ramblings of a man with not enough time before a deadline to call in an editor.

Oh right like Marxist socialism. Aye, we're talking about the real world here, though, not the unfiltered stream-of-thought ramblings of a man with not enough time before a deadline to call in an editor.

Yeah, real-world socialism is a failure that always leads to totalitarianism...it has always been the case in every country in which it has been implemented. You can have socialization without authoritarianism, referring in this case to making certain sectors partially or wholly publicly owned, but you can't have public ownership of the means of production without authoritarianism.

There is a gigantic difference between socialism and socialized services which people seem to forget; I don't want to shock anyone, but the Scandinavian countries in fact have some of the lowest corporate tax rates on Earth. What they get in return for their money negates the cost of their taxes, giving them a major competitive advantage. Compare this to the US, which has some of the highest tax rates on Earth.

Yeah, real-world socialism is a failure that always leads to totalitarianism...it has always been the case in every country in which it has been implemented. You can have socialization without authoritarianism, referring in this case to making certain sectors partially or wholly publicly owned, but you can't have public ownership of the means of production without authoritarianism.
Uhu... am talking "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" here, rather than "workers owning the means of production".
There is a gigantic difference between socialism and socialized services which people seem to forget
Seeing as socialism is what you make of it, in the same way as communism and capitalism, this is a somewhat nonsense point. What you call socialism I would call state communism.

Uhu... am talking "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" here, rather than "workers owning the means of production".

Seeing as socialism is what you make of it, in the same way as communism and capitalism, this is a somewhat nonsense point. What you call socialism I would call state communism.

Oh, that's not socialist at all. Private property and the private ownership of the fundamental means of production (what Lenin called the "commanding heights") are still in place, which means the system is fundamentally capitalist even if certain elements are publicly held.

Oh, that's not socialist at all. Private property and the private ownership of the fundamental means of production (what Lenin called the "commanding heights") are still in place, which means the system is fundamentally capitalist even if certain elements are publicly held.
Buh.

"Lenin disagrees" - aye top. Joseph Brereton here disagrees with Lenin. Does this make either of us wrong? Not really.

As opposed to socialism, which requires the govt. to ban democracy and civil liberties, and shut in it's own people, to keep it going?There's nothing about socialism that says anything about what the role of government may or may not be.

Public ownership of the means of production necessitates authoritarianism because you would have to forcibly suppress private property;Or, alternatively, people could just cease to recognize private property 'rights' over the means of production.

Capitalism, with elements of Socialism, like the UK.

because it amounts to cherry-picking unless put into a realistic context

The Asian tigers are typical examples of how rising free market conditions leads rising wealth. The only extenuating circumstance is that East Asian populations may have higher average IQs and productivity compared to many other racial groups.

The free market itself is not peaceful at all, given that violence is required to maintain it.
The free market is peaceful because it leads to material prosperity for all, and material prosperity is conducive to peace.

They don't need to be natural. Natural isn't necessarily better.
It is in this case.

Yes, but the non-aggression principle arises from the concept of private property ownership. It is a circular argument.
I concede this point.
Even if there is a voluntary respect for private property rights, this respect would not take the form that is conducive to the specific kind of free market that most ancaps espouse. (If it is conducive to a free market at all.)
What is the specific kind of free market that most ancaps espouse?
Unless healthcare available at no cost (to the people receiving it), it wouldn't be available to everybody.
Nothing is free of cost. That would violate the laws of physics. Healthcare in the free market is of higher quality and lower cost for everybody than healthcare in a socialist setting.

Or, alternatively, people could just cease to recognize private property 'rights' over the means of production.

That would just lead to poverty and uniformly decreased living standards for most classes of society. History shows that countries lacking respect of private property rights are poorer with decreased living standards compared to societies where free market values are respected.

Right now, chaos would probably be the best economic system. Just take whatever you want, only the strong survive.

I think the world needs that right about now. It would do wonders for population control.

As opposed to socialism, which requires the govt. to ban democracy and civil liberties, and shut in it's own people, to keep it going?

The ignorance, it BURNS!

Feudalism.

Hey! You lot! Get off NSG and back to working my fields. Honestly, you serfs can be so lazy sometimes, it makes me sick.

Matriarchal clans.

The US is now socialist, not capitalist, as it has nationalized private debt and assets. Therefore, I voted socialist.

The US is now socialist, not capitalist, as it has nationalized private debt and assets. Therefore, I voted socialist.

US is fascist, not socialist. For all its endless ills at least socialism originally has the benevolent stated intention of defending the weak and powerless. The US is not that.

The US is fascist, i.e. uses government force to confiscate money from the poor, and gives it to the rich.

This. Hopefully under Obama, the USA will catch up to us.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ahem, sorry, I just could'nt help but break out into a ROFL when I saw this.

Europe is socialist and is in the process of economic collapse.

Not to mention going bankrupt, look at France's health care system.


Secondly, I laugh, because the current economic crisis is a spin-off of the bank crisis, which was caused by lack of regulation. Lending to people who can't pay you back is a no-no.


No, it was caused by the Democratic leadership under Carter to push the CRA and associated bills through Congress that had mortgage lenders give sub-prime mortgages to banks that handed out loans to people so they could 'live in a home and not be homeless'. It was a lack of oversight in this over regulation. And then when a chance to stop it arrived, no one took it because they were 'fine'. And since these mortgage lenders had branches around the world, it was only a matter of time.


This is cute. I wish the world was as black and white as you make it seem.

In some cases, it is, sometimes the only crayons in the box are black and white.

The ignorance, it BURNS!

What ignorance, yours? :)

The US is fascist, i.e. uses government force to confiscate money from the poor, and gives it to the rich.

And yet the poor don't pay taxes (40% of Americans), yet the rich (top 10%) pay over half of the nations taxes.

Sorry, not fascist.

US is fascist, not socialist. For all its endless ills at least socialism originally has the benevolent stated intention of defending the weak and powerless. The US is not that.

The US is fascist, i.e. uses government force to confiscate money from the poor, and gives it to the rich.

No. TV makes poor people give rich people money. TV makes poor people want products. Poor people then buy the products. This gives money to rich people since rich people are the only ones rich enough to afford enough employees and machinery to make enough products to satisfy the poor peoples' demands. Plus, TV makes people turn their brains off and people tend to forget how to turn their brains back on. That's why I don't watch TV. Nintendo found a better way to turn my brain off years ago.

And yet the poor don't pay taxes (40% of Americans), yet the rich (top 10%) pay over half of the nations taxes.

Sorry, not fascist.

You're breaking the internet's rules. You're not supposed to let facts get in the way of making an idiot out of yourself. You're letting facts get in the way like some internet-hater.

Or, alternatively, people could just cease to recognize private property 'rights' over the means of production.

Over their own property, sure. But if they try to extend that idea to others' property, they're once again going to have to resort to authoritarianism to enforce it; you can't abolish private property without force. People can only collectivize voluntarily; otherwise, it's nothing more than the road to serfdom and mass oppression, as was the case in every socialist country on Earth. They forced socialization on their people and had to build walls to keep them in as a result of the predictable economic effects of such a move.

the best economic 'system' is to NOT impose ANY economic ideology at all, and certainly not to refuse to use real solutions to real challenges because they might too much resemble one or another.

top spec is to avoid causing suffering and harm, and to keep infrastructure harmonious with nature's cycles of renewal, without depriving anyone of the real gratifications of creating and exploring, nor confidence in the dependable availability of their necessities of survival.

as long as it conforms to THAT top spec, everything else ought to be optimally engineered as needed.

(Machiavellianism (which capitalism tends toward) and procustianism (which marxism tends toward) are EQUALLY not worth a dam!)

I'll go for an enlightened despote.

I think this questions ultimately comes down to the kind of political environment you would like to create, and we shouldn't ignore the link between the ideology of governance, and economic policy. If you desire a libertarian or classical liberal democracy with minimal role for a government, save for in invited arbitration, there is likely to be no economic theory as the government would play no role at all.

the best economic 'system' is to NOT impose ANY economic ideology at all, and certainly not to refuse to use real solutions to real challenges because they might too much resemble one or another.

Exactly. It is up to people to choose what they want; I have absolutely no qualms about people forming a commune in which all goods are collectively owned or shared, but I also don't believe they have a right to force that choice on others or expect us to support them.

To each according to their ability is my motto, and I feel that it applies regardless of how you get towards that end. Socialism, capitalism...if people freely associate in that manner, I don't care what it is so long as it's a free choice.

I think this questions ultimately comes down to the kind of political environment you would like to create, and we shouldn't ignore the link between the ideology of governance, and economic policy. If you desire a libertarian or classical liberal democracy with minimal role for a government, save for in invited arbitration, there is likely to be no economic theory as the government would play no role at all.

my one caveat there is that letting the business of business get away with murder is just as much of an imposed economic system, and one just as tyrannical as any other. it is also observable that giving a government less responsibilities does NOT make it dry up and blow away, as many libertarians seem to ignorantly imagine.

of course if a government pursued the responsibilities of government, justifying its existence by the top spec i mentioned, and otherwise stayed out of regulating individual private lives, no rural building codes or closed borders, nor hidden subsidies to corporatocracy, then it would perhapse be capable of being optimally minimal.

they don't justify their existence by making war nor militarily backing the imperialism of organized corporate crime.

The free market is peaceful because it leads to material prosperity for all, and material prosperity is conducive to peace.Material prosperity is conducive to peace, but it's an overstatement to say that the free market leads to material prosperity for all.

What is the specific kind of free market that most ancaps espouse?I just meant free-market capitalism as opposed to some other type of free-market, like a socialist free market. Though capitalism itself is different from anarcho-capitalism, but I think I don't need to go into the ways that it's different.

Nothing is free of cost. That would violate the laws of physics. Which is why I specified free of cost to the recipient. Of course society would be providing it.

Healthcare in the free market is of higher quality and lower cost for everybody than healthcare in a socialist setting.Healthcare in previously existing socialist settings, yes. Of course, there are more than two choices.

That would just lead to poverty and uniformly decreased living standards for most classes of society. History shows that countries lacking respect of private property rights are poorer with decreased living standards compared to societies where free market values are respected.It is true that no private property rights has historically led to this. I didn't say that there would be no private property rights at all, though.

Over their own property, sure. But if they try to extend that idea to others' property, they're once again going to have to resort to authoritarianism to enforce it; you can't abolish private property without force. People can only collectivize voluntarily; otherwise, it's nothing more than the road to serfdom and mass oppression, as was the case in every socialist country on Earth. They forced socialization on their people and had to build walls to keep them in as a result of the predictable economic effects of such a move.If the workers in a factory were to stop turning over the products the factory produces to the employer but continue to use the factory's machinery, the factory would be controlled by the workers, and therefore the workers would have the means of production. For the state to stop the workers would require the use of authoritarianism and force.
You are correct that past socialist countries did force socialism on people and that this was the wrong way of going about this, but it's not as though Bakunin or Emma Goldman didn't predict that would happen.

"Natural" rights don't exist. Rights are solely legal constructs.

Define for us, please, the state of nature.

If the workers in a factory were to stop turning over the products the factory produces to the employer but continue to use the factory's machinery, the factory would be controlled by the workers, and therefore the workers would have the means of production. For the state to stop the workers would require the use of authoritarianism and force.
You are correct that past socialist countries did force socialism on people and that this was the wrong way of going about this, but it's not as though Bakunin or Emma Goldman didn't predict that would happen.

Were we supposed to miss the fact that the workers, by taking control of the property, have initiated force against the employer?

Whaaa????

I like my provider of health-care to know what their doing thanks.

I like mine to know what they're doing, too. And in a free market, one would be able to find a competent provider readily enough, just as one can in a variety of other product and service lines. The guild system we have now is a classic cartel, intended to artificially limit the supply of the desired good in order to earn economic rents.

Define for us, please, the state of nature.Why? This would be an issue what what nature is. Rights are a matter of ought. To argue that what is is what ought to be is an example of the is/ought fallacy.

Were we supposed to miss the fact that the workers, by taking control of the property, have initiated force against the employer?The workers haven't initiated force against the employer. The factory and the person of the employer are two separate entities.

Waaaaa?

Capitalism is about the bottom line. Human rights only matter if they affect the bottom line.

Yep, cause "everyone else" is useless parasites producing nothing more than its own shit

Would you describe the Sistine Chapel in that way?

Economic systems and political systems are not the same. Given that the only economic system that supports democracy and human rights is capitalism, it seems like it's the system most likely to support them due to its emphasis on the individual and private ownership.


Democracy and capitalism do not inevitably go hand in hand. Pinochet is an example of a capitalist dictatorship.

There are many nations that have a mixed economy wherein the public owns (in whole or in part) the means of production for certain essential services and are also democratic nations.

You could truthfully say that every democracy has had certain elements of capitalism, but I don't think you could point to a democtacy that was purely capitalist.

Ecological crises are the task of governments, since they're the ones capable of addressing the externalities the free market can't handle.

So, you're admitting that capitalism is not a good solution for the ecological crises of the near future.

Not to mention, of course, that even by this metric capitalism is still far less ecologically damaging than its alternatives. As far as I know, no capitalist state has ever produced environmental devastation on par with Norilsk or Linfen, or the destruction of the Aral Sea and highlands of China as seen under the reign of the USSR and PRC. Socialism is the most environmentally destructive system that has ever existed, bar none.

Frankly, I don't believe this without a source.

Why should we? I work hard for my money and my degree, so why should my hours of hard work and effort go to someone who doesn't want to work because it's too hard, or they're too lazy, or too unwilling to learn? What have they done to earn a share of my hard work? For that matter what incentive does it provide for me to keep working knowing I could just leech off of someone else instead of contribute like a mature and responsible human being?

I worded my previous comment poorly. Why should we only support those who show initiative and motivation that has direct economic benefits? There are many fields of human activity that are poorly renumerated yet are necessary for human existence. The first and most obvious example is parenthood. The arts are also a good example of this sort of behaviour.

The fundamental question is this: Who owns you? Or, if you prefer, who is entitled to your labor (and on what basis)?

No one owns me. Those who depend on me like my children and mother and to a certain extent, my community, are entitled to my labour.

Healthcare does not have magical properties. Healthcare is a commodity just like any other commodity, and is therefore governed by the exact same laws of economics that govern all other commodities whether grain, shoes, labor, and money.

http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg1.html

The above is a link to a series of economic articles written by economists who specialise in health-care explaining in economic terms why free-market economics will simply not work for providing healthcare.

Why?

I'm sorry. Did you not understand the question? Define the state of nature.

The workers haven't initiated force against the employer. The factory and the person of the employer are two separate entities.

Since you seem unable to define the state of nature or understand property, allow me to propose a thought experiment:

Come to my house, help yourself to my tools and energy, and refuse to leave when asked.

PS: This is a thought experiment. Don't do it. You won't dig it.

Just in case any of the preceding is unclear: The employees, in the scenario proposed by Jello Biafra, have stolen (appropriated, if the Orwellian term makes anyone feeeeeel better) the owner's property. They have therefore initiated force against the employer.

The simple objective fact of the matter is that total free-market capitalism is the ONLY moral system, and nothing else matters.

The simple objective fact of the matter is that total free-market capitalism is the ONLY moral system, and nothing else matters.

Prove it.

The simple objective fact of the matter is that total free-market capitalism is the ONLY moral system, and nothing else matters.

did the ghost of Ayn Rand tell you that?

Prove it.

why it's provable from the first principles of the universe, of course!

Capitalism is about the bottom line. Human rights only matter if they affect the bottom line.


Again, explain. Also, what exactly is your definition of capitalism (which is most probably very different to what Vetalia means by it)?

Individual self-ownership is the first principle of the universe. One may believe in G_d (and I do), and submit to G_d's will. However, no other human has any moral basis upon which to levy a claim to my life or labor, without my express consent.

The only claim that can be made against my life and labor is one made on the basis of the ability to muster force superior to any force I can muster in defense of my natural rights to life, liberty, and several property not obtained by force or fraud. "I'm from the government, and I'll shoot your dog and burn your house down with your kids in it if you don't."

That is the exact opposite of moral...isn't it?

Individual self-ownership is the first principle of the universe. One may believe in G_d (and I do), and submit to G_d's will. However, no other human has any moral basis upon which to levy a claim to my life or labor, without my express consent.

The only claim any that can be made is one made on the basis of the ability to muster force superior to any force I can muster. That is the exact opposite of moral...isn't it?

oh great, they're multiplying...

The only claim that can be made against my life and labor is one made on the basis of the ability to muster force superior to any force I can muster in defense of my natural rights to life, liberty, and several property not obtained by force or fraud. "I'm from the government, and I'll shoot your dog and burn your house down with your kids in it if you don't."

That is the exact opposite of moral...isn't it?
Really depends what your morals are.

oh great, they're multiplying...

If that's the best you can do, thanks for conceding out of the gate.

Really depends what your morals are.

There is only one objectively correct moral code.

What an assertion-fest this thread is....

Really depends what your morals are.

Unless you're seriously going to posit "might makes right" as a legitimate organizing principle, it is in fact a universal truth.

There is only one objectively correct moral code.
... riiiiiiight...

Unless you're seriously going to posit "might makes right" as a legitimate organizing principle, it is in fact a universal truth.
"taking out this massive proviso, I am right"?

Aye whatever pal.

Bluth is dropping a rather broad hint. As a Christian (RC Mob persuasion) I reckon I'm disqualified from Objectivism at the outset, but I also recognize that conscience and coercion are inherently orthogonal, and I therefore renounce coercion.

Again, explain. Also, what exactly is your definition of capitalism (which is most probably very different to what Vetalia means by it)?

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.[1] In capitalism, the land, labor, capital and all other resources, are owned, operated and traded by private individuals or corporations for the purpose of profit,[2][3] and where investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are primarily determined by private decision in a market economy largely free of government intervention.[4][5] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.[2][6] In capitalism, private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.

Now, most developed countries have a mixed economy, right? One can imagine a spectrum with pure private ownership of everything at one end, at pure public ownership at the other end and all the countries in the world somewhere in between the two extremes.

Now, if you were to line all the countries up in the world on the democracy scale, with perfect democracy at one end and horrible authoritarianism on the other, you would have a spectrum upon which you could then place all the countries of the world.

I don't think these two spectrums would be the same.

If capitalism and respect for human rights were inevitably related to one another, the two spectrums would look the same.

Look, I don't think capitalism is inherently destructive of human rights. I just think that they're completely unrelated.

"taking out this massive proviso, I am right"?

Aye whatever pal.

Nice dodge. Is "might makes right" a legitimate organizing principle?

Nice dodge. Is "might makes right" a legitimate organizing principle?
According to some, yes. I don't personally believe that, and I also personally have no interest in God or Allah or all of that pish. I also think that humans have a duty to help other humans out. Which gives us a three-way argument going on here.

According to some, yes. I don't personally believe that, and I also personally have no interest in God or Allah or all of that pish. I also think that humans have a duty to help other humans out. Which gives us a three-way argument going on here.

I think so too. Can performance of that duty be coerced?

Individual self-ownership is the first principle of the universe. One may believe in G_d (and I do), and submit to G_d's will. However, no other human has any moral basis upon which to levy a claim to my life or labor, without my express consent.

The only claim that can be made against my life and labor is one made on the basis of the ability to muster force superior to any force I can muster in defense of my natural rights to life, liberty, and several property not obtained by force or fraud. "I'm from the government, and I'll shoot your dog and burn your house down with your kids in it if you don't."

That is the exact opposite of moral...isn't it?

My children have laid a claim to my labors. I wouldn't exaclty say I consented to it since they were both accidents. Yet their claim is moral.

A claim can be made through coercive means, but that is not the only way. There is also the obligation that comes through love. It is not coercive. It does not rob you of your will, but it does come with an obligation. If you wish to continue feeling love, you must act as a lover would, giving of yourself.

Now, is that the exact opposite of moral?

I think so too. Can performance of that duty be coerced?
Yes, it can.

If that's the best you can do, thanks for conceding out of the gate.

I've seen that nonsense of an argument bruised and battered so thoroughly over the years that I have little energy than to sit back in amazement that people still try it.

The entire premise fails the moment one realizes that society is more than a collection of individuals. A higher moral standard exists than "what's mine is mine"

I think so too. Can performance of that duty be coerced?

ayup. Gain the benefits, pay the price.

Look, I don't think capitalism is inherently destructive of human rights. I just think that they're completely unrelated.

Yes, because capitalism is an economic model, only concerning the right to property (the left believing there is no right to property, the right believing there is). This has little, if any affect at all on whether the government protects other rights, you can have a government which is extremely authoritarian on non economic rights, but very liberal on property rights, or vice versa. The two do not affect each other, so it's fallacious to claim it completely disregards human rights, it just has nothing to do with them (unless you view property as a right, in which case it maximises that right).

Who gets to do the coercing?

Who gets to do the coercing?

in an ideal society, the duly elected representatives of democratic process through which the people who make up the society define what they find acceptable levels of parted freedoms.

Who gets to do the coercing?
Your conscience, usually. After that, the relevant authorities, in a rare case in which might most definitely makes right.

in an ideal society, the duly elected representatives of democratic process through which the people who make up the society define what they find acceptable levels of parted freedoms.

"Tell you what, Paul, empower me to rob Peter and I'll cut you in on the proceeds."

Your conscience, usually. After that, the relevant authorities, in a rare case in which might most definitely makes right.

Do you understand the term coercion? An act of conscience is always and everywhere voluntary.

Who gets to decide what the relevant authorities are? What makes them better than everyone else? (If we are to permit them to have powers and abilities beyond those of ordinary mortals, they have to be better than thee and me, don't they?)

Who gets to decide what the relevant authorities are?
The majority.
What makes them better than everyone else? (If we are to permit them to have powers and abilities beyond those of ordinary mortals, they have to be better than thee and me, don't they?)
Generally their charisma and intelligence, which will far surpass those of most ordinary people.

Yes, because capitalism is an economic model, only concerning the right to property (the left believing there is no right to property, the right believing there is). This has little, if any affect at all on whether the government protects other rights, you can have a government which is extremely authoritarian on non economic rights, but very liberal on property rights, or vice versa. The two do not affect each other, so it's fallacious to claim it completely disregards human rights, it just has nothing to do with them (unless you view property as a right, in which case it maximises that right).

Without property rights, you won't have the other human rights very long, if you ever had them at all. If you have no rights in property, you live at sufferance, which can be removed at any time for any reason, and there won't be a thing you can do about it.

"Tell you what, Paul, empower me to rob Peter and I'll cut you in on the proceeds."

What was that about conceding early?

As I said, when you live in a society, you accept certain limitations on your personal freedoms. That IS the choice you make. As long as you continue to reap the benefits of the society, you can be held to make sure you continue to put forward your fair share of maintaining those benefits. You can not so easily extract yourself from your place in the society. Every breath of air you take, every morning you wake up in the same bed as the one you went to sleep in, every minute spent on this computer of yours, is a benefit you realize by having the entire social structure behind you backing you.

And for that, you pay your share. You say that's immoral? I say the opposite, it's the ONLY moral position. Anything else is theft.

The majority.

Generally their charisma and intelligence, which will far surpass those of most ordinary people.

Ha ha. :p

At least, I hope you are joking.

As for "the majority," see my response to Neo Art.

What was that about conceding early?

As I said, when you live in a society, you accept certain limitations on your personal freedoms.

Sure. I agree not to take people's property nor punch them in the nose, without they took a swing at me first.

As for "the majority," see my response to Neo Art.

It's amusing that you think that "response" is one worth any serious consideration.

As for "the majority," see my response to Neo Art.
The majority of people seem to be incredibly passive creatures, and the people up top are usually smart enough to know that forced relocations are never, ever popular.

Sure. I agree not to take people's property nor punch them in the nose, without they took a swing at me first.

Except those are not the only limits the society as a whole has seen fit to place on you for continuing to gain the benefits the society affords you. You don't get to make up both sides of the bargain.

Yes, because capitalism is an economic model, only concerning the right to property (the left believing there is no right to property, the right believing there is). This has little, if any affect at all on whether the government protects other rights, you can have a government which is extremely authoritarian on non economic rights, but very liberal on property rights, or vice versa. The two do not affect each other, so it's fallacious to claim it completely disregards human rights, it just has nothing to do with them (unless you view property as a right, in which case it maximises that right).

Sorry. I thought 'disregard' meant 'has nothing to do with them'. Must be my English.

Without property rights, you won't have the other human rights very long, if you ever had them at all. If you have no rights in property, you live at sufferance, which can be removed at any time for any reason, and there won't be a thing you can do about it.

Without an accountable government to protect those property rights, you would lose your property. So, the rights that create an accountable government are necessary for you to enjoy property rights.

What was that about conceding early?

As I said, when you live in a society, you accept certain limitations on your personal freedoms.

Sure. I agree not to take people's property nor punch them in the nose, without they took a swing at me first.

So. You consider me obliged to provide society -- meaning, among others, you -- with health care and Dead Kennedys CDs or something. Are there circumstances under which you would exercise any claim you thought you had yourself, or will you simply send armed thugs to truss me up and deliver me to the cannibal pot?

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Sorry. I thought 'disregard' meant 'has nothing to do with them'. Must be my English.



Without an accountable government to protect those property rights, you would lose your property. So, the rights that create an accountable government are necessary for you to enjoy property rights.

Are you so sure I would lose my property? I'm no subject.

Are you so sure I would lose my property? I'm no subject.

Wait. Do you think you get to keep your stuff when they haul you away in the middle of the night?

Sorry. I thought 'disregard' meant 'has nothing to do with them'. Must be my English.


Given the context, I thought you were giving connotations of it being inherently anti human rights. By your criteria however, every economic model disregards human rights. If it concerns more than one right, it ceases to be just an economic model, and becomes a political theory - classical liberalism for example (liberal non economic rights and property rights), or Marxism (egalitarianism both socially and economically).

Wait. Do you think you get to keep your stuff when they haul you away in the middle of the night?

Are you telling me I need to pay protection to Gang A in order to avoid expropriation by Gang B, which may or may not exist, just because Gang A waves a badge?