NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of you may have noticed that I have changed my views on socialism and capitalism quite a lot in recent weeks.

And since someone else explained their personal motivation for going socialist, I thought I might as well explain mine.

It really started when I was a lot younger. My goal in life, for as long as I could remember, was to become rich. Not sure why, but that was the case.

Paradoxically (and probably because I wanted to shock my parents and friends) I turned radical left though when I was maybe 12 or 13. I bought myself a little PLA-Hat and ran around reciting Mao.

Meanwhile, my marks were excellent at school, and everyone was quick to assert me in my plans to become rich.

After a while I began to read more in theory and about the practice, and my views turned less and less radical as a result...from Maoist to mild socialist, to Social Democrat to the sort of centrist pragmatism I was going for in the last six months or so.

It should be noted at this point that I always supported free trade. I still do of course, but I did even when I was still socialist and reading Marx. Protectionism and all that crap just always appalled me.
The process of crossing borders was always great fun for me. I still remember when I was little, going to former East Germany, or Austria. I always knew that I was never going to live in any one country. The world was my world, not an arbitrary blot on the map. So the right of people to move wherever they wanted, live there and work there was never going to be questioned by me. And it never will be.

Then the German elections came up. I was going to vote social democrat, when during a phone conversation with my grandma (an ex-bank employee who made lots of money on the stock market) she asked me who I was going to vote for.
When I told her, she almost exploded. Of the long tirade about how Schröder had given up and so on, I just really remember one sentence: "Do you want to be redistributed?"

And that made everything click and fall into place.

I suddenly noticed how the other students in my uni-groups were not putting in enough, yet still getting the same marks as me. I noticed how the State was taking my money away from me to fight wars overseas. I noticed how I always had to fight my own ideas when it came to economics, because how was economics really different from social issues?

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Now, many people have talked about her dodgy fiction, some about her dodgy philosophy, and almost everyone about her dodgy morality. I was expecting to feel the same about the book - but I didn't.
I found it exciting and interesting. It added many an idea to my beliefs, and changed my views on others. Perhaps I shouldn't become a literary critic, but this book appealed to me.
Maybe because I have always been that kind of person.

So, where do I stand today?

I suppose calling me a libertarian or minarchist comes close. I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work, and I don't think it's worth trying.
I intensely dislike the attitude of so many libertarians (Tangled up in the Blue, I'm looking at you here) who think that they have somehow found the Holy Grail, giving them the right to arrogance.

I think libertarianism is the logical conclusion of accepting rationality as a guiding principle of man. But I don't think that makes those who accept it better people.

I think socialism, for all its failings, is still a belief based on rationality. The problem is just that perhaps at some point socialists make a small mistake in their reasoning. Perhaps they don't quite understand it, that probably depends on who you talk to.
But socialism is certainly based on rational methods and arguments, with perhaps a root in the slightly irrational. It's not the evil people make it out to be - it only becomes evil when it starts involving force. And many forms of socialism are based on a consensus and leave those not interested free to leave.

Conservatism on the other hand does not deem rationality necessary. It is interlinked with religion and traditionalism. That many conservatives just so happen to support a semi-free market (Protectionism, anyone?) is a coincidence - in reality it has more to do with the cult for the whole, the organic, the society that is fascism. Conservatism is not capitalism, it is more of an antithesis to it than socialism is. Conservatism is a greater evil than socialism is.

So there, maybe a tad disjointed, but that is what I believe and how I got there. The fundamental reason, ie why it is that my goal was always to be rich, why I was never going to be a patriot even before I heard about the war is unknown to me. I suppose that's just the way I'm wired...perhaps it is the way everybody is wired, I don't know.

Any comments, questions or inflamatory attacks are welcome.

Many of you may have noticed that I have changed my views on socialism and capitalism quite a lot in recent weeks.

***snip***




Simple yet fairly deep thought, well written, very readable. Excellent stuff.


But socialism is certainly based on rational methods and arguments, with perhaps a root in the slightly irrational. It's not the evil people make it out to be - it only becomes evil when it starts involving force.


I think you're quite right, in part, here. You have to admire the depth and breadth of intellectual thought in Marxism. And the concept that workers are exploited owing to the theory of surplus value created by labour is quite a stunning insight that I've yet to see refuted. And I'm pro-capitalist.

But I have to disagree with you that it's not evil. And the reason for my view lies in your statement "it only becomes evil when it starts involving force". That's the problem with socialism. The use of force is inherent to, and systemic in, Socialism. No Marx-inspired society has ever been free ... in 150 years of trying. It's been tried in many cultures in diverse geographies. And it has always been a terrible disaster. The system is inherently evil.

I also agree with you that Libertarianism is the logical political end-product of rational thought.

CDA

Here here! I agree entirely and this is how I'm turning out, though due to my age.. I just can't help being a tad too ideological and am still quite Socialist though my faith in Socialism alone seems to be slowly waning, not that I will EVER be right wing.

...because unless you leave the western world, you are participating in the capitalist system...?

*shrug*

I am not even convinced that Capitalism actually exists.
Other than as a stereotype flogged by those who have loony ideologies.

*shrug*

I am not even convinced that Capitalism actually exists.
Other than as a stereotype flogged by those who have loony ideologies.Couldn't agree more. Seems to me that the capitalist elite will always govern the capitalist society, and thus ensure that protectionist (which is just another word for redistribution of wealth) policies continues.

Not sure that I entirely agree, but it's well written and thought provoking.

To me, the problem with socialism is that it is an artificial construct of a society. In capitalism, the system works because each individual person is willing to drive it. The only thing that needs control is things like labor laws that keep the system from getting out of hand.

For a truly socialist system, you would need an incredible police force in order to stop anyone from gaining power and becoming a class with power. But wait- you've just created a class, by trying to forcibly eliminate it.

P.S.: Leonstein, you aren't perchance also known by the moniker of Scandinavian Duchies? If so, I'm Shrubbers.

And the reason for my view lies in your statement "it only becomes evil when it starts involving force". That's the problem with socialism. The use of force is inherent to, and systemic in, Socialism.
Well, many socialists would probably tell you to look beyond Marx, towards Bakunin or Proudhon. There is actually few traditional socialists left...Anarcho-Syndicalism or simple Anarcho-Communism are probably a lot more common these days. And those ideologies don't necessarily require the use of force, because they are based on consensus and would allow those who don't want to take part to leave.
Whether or not it's workable is quite another thing though...

P.S.: Leonstein, you aren't perchance also known by the moniker of Scandinavian Duchies? If so, I'm Shrubbers.
'fraid not, no. :confused:

"Do you want to be redistributed?"

And that made everything click and fall into place.

No offence, but isn't that just kinda, well, selfish?


I suddenly noticed how the other students in my uni-groups were not putting in enough, yet still getting the same marks as me.
Maybe they're just natually smarter than you :D

I noticed how the State was taking my money away from me to fight wars overseas.
Then blame Mr. Howard, not the economic system surely!

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! COME BACK FROM THE DARK SIDE!!

But socialism is certainly based on rational methods and arguments, with perhaps a root in the slightly irrational.
Not irrational, just idealistic and too theoretical.

No offence, but isn't that just kinda, well, selfish?
It is. But I don't really see why I need to appologise for the way I am.
Other than my ability to get good marks, I haven't been particularly blessed in my life. Maybe I'll inherit money from my grandparents, I don't know.

But at the moment, my family is one of those whom everyone is supposed to help and feel sorry for in a lefty world. So I suppose it is selfish in that I believe in my personal ability to achieve, but at least at the moment, my family and I might actually be better off under socialism than we are right now under capitalism.

Maybe they're just natually smarter than you :D
I suppose it depends on your definition. :p
At any rate, it just served as an example I've had to do with for a decade now, but which I never really understood: People aren't equal! They aren't equal in skill, and they certainly aren't equal in the amount of effort they put into things.
These guys preferred to spend their nights out there, partying. And when I was under the impression we'd just meet and put all our finished parts of a group assignment together and print it out - they had hardly started it! And I was left virtually doing it for them because I didn't want to get a bad mark.
That is socialism. My personal definition of it.

Then blame Mr. Howard, not the economic system surely!
Well, wars are just a good example because no one will disagree. Hell, because I earn so little over the year, I'll probably get all my taxes back anyways because I'll be under the threshold.
Nonetheless, the very fact that there is this number taken off my pay on my paycheque bothers me. And that number is only going to grow as I put more effort into my work and produce more value for the rest of society.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! COME BACK FROM THE DARK SIDE!!
You know, I thought the very same thing of myself for the first few weeks. But I realise now that I've always been on the dark side - I just didn't know.

Nonetheless, I'm not a radical. I'm not an anti-communist. And I don't think I'm quite like most libertarians either, because I know the workings of the other side so well (afterall, I've defended them for some time on these very pages). I realise that the things that convinced me will not work on everyone, but only of those who share my sort of character.
But I'll still try. My arguments won't be aiming at defeating, but at convincing.

Couldn't agree more. Seems to me that the capitalist elite will always govern the capitalist society, and thus ensure that protectionist (which is just another word for redistribution of wealth) policies continues.


*confuddled and befused*
Can you re-arrange that into simple words like:

Long Live the Soviet Union or Feudalism 4EVER?

Long Live the Soviet Union or Feudalism 4EVER?

How exactly was the Soviet Union a system of 'feudalism'?
Who was the lord, who the vassal, and who was the fief exactly?

How exactly was the Soviet Union a system of 'feudalism'?
Who was the lord, who the vassal, and who was the fief exactly?

I meant that as in 2 different fruitcake ideologies.

Couldn't agree more. Seems to me that the capitalist elite will always govern the capitalist society, and thus ensure that protectionist (which is just another word for redistribution of wealth) policies continues.
What exactly do you mean by these "protectionist policies"?

Good post.

I'm guessing this is the classical 'left-right' shift that young people go through. The loss of the notion that everyone is the same as them and works as hard as them.

I'm very much a libertarian in many of my views, but I also acknowledge that, through no fault of their own, people can fail. There are conditions outside of many people's control which can cause huge problems, and hence, I do not think it is unfair for the rest of society give them a little boost when such problem occur.

In addition to that I also like free art galleries and free musuems (probably because it's a redistribution of wealth towards me if you want to take a cynical attiutude).

I haven't read anything of Ayn Rand's, and know very little of her. It'd be nice if you could post an excert of what you found particularly interesting.

I haven't read anything of Ayn Rand's, and know very little of her. It'd be nice if you could post an excert of what you found particularly interesting.
Well, I can give you this one bit which I enjoyed. Other than that, there is little that can be accessed directly over the web:
http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

But I have to disagree with you that it's not evil. And the reason for my view lies in your statement "it only becomes evil when it starts involving force". That's the problem with socialism. The use of force is inherent to, and systemic in, Socialism. No Marx-inspired society has ever been free ... in 150 years of trying. It's been tried in many cultures in diverse geographies. And it has always been a terrible disaster. The system is inherently evil.
What about those anarchist socialist types? I don't agree with them, but they don't seem interested in using force.

Your post also makes the incorrect assumption that capitalism doesn't force anyone to do anything.

I agree that every socialist/communist society tried on a national scale has been a totalitarian disaster. But what about the 1871 Paris Commune? What about the Barcelona Commune or the Israeli Kibbutzim?

Your post also requires further explanation. What is your definition of freedom and why is it good, while other ideas of freedom are evil?
I also agree with you that Libertarianism is the logical political end-product of rational thought.

Why is rationalism equated with good?

Of the long tirade about how Schröder had given up and so on, I just really remember one sentence: "Do you want to be redistributed?"

And that made everything click and fall into place.
See, you were still ultimately swayed by an emotional argument, rather than reason.

See, you were still ultimately swayed by an emotional argument, rather than reason.


What has reason got to do with human behaviour or human choices?


When you go for a girlfriend, do you make a spreadsheet to convice her, or do you write a poem?

-snip-

I had the same thing happen to me about two weeks ago. That's when I became a full-on Anarchist (though that's not to say I wouldn't settle for a decent government).

I realised that everyone is different. Some people are naturally better than others, and should be better off in life. And really, who are we to hold them back from their dreams? And then I think, who are we to take half of what they've worked so hard to get? I know there's the whole welfare thing, but the fact is, there are open charities in virtually every town (my town of 10,000 has three), and homeless shelters just about everywhere. There are also private companies who help poor people get all the prescription medicine they need, which is nice.

This makes me remember Art class back in Elementary school. You could spot the future janitors and mailmen in my class --- they were the ones who followed the teacher's directions down to the point. Those of us who weren't so dim barely followed the directions at all, and went with our own imagination of what we should draw, or paint. Of course, this made my art teachers very mad (which is strange, since art is about expressing your thoughts and imagination...).

It's funny, when I think about it. I saw myself agreeing with Melkor's posts more and more often, and not beating myself up about it for doing so. That's not to say that Anarcho-Communism is wrong (Communes and Capitalist cities could easily work together in pure Anarchy), though.

I think that my political views have evolved beyond the need of the Political Compass and Moral Politics tests. That's why, my friends, I'm taking them out of my signature.

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

That's a dangerous book. "Progressive" movements would do very well to ban it.

It's amazing what a little experience of the right kind will do to make someone think twice about being redistributed.

Ayn Rand? Eeep.

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.


Have you read any other writings of Rand? I would also recommend the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind.

See, you were still ultimately swayed by an emotional argument, rather than reason.
I wouldn't call it an emotional argument. I would call it one final push towards something that I had known for some time - that my personal goals in life did not fit my economics.

And I don't really see how the question is an emotional one either. As you might know, the desire to redistribute is not exactly veiled by the German left. It astonished my grandmother (and rightly so) that I, who always proclaimed to become rich one day, would vote for those who'd take that from me, at least in part.

The Kibbutzim, by the way, are an excellent example for real socialism. Even down to the modern era, where the people chose to leave and join capitalist Israel and Kibbutzim have now registered the houses and so on as private property, to rent them out.
And even though the Kibbutzim were very highly regarded in Israel, even during their strongest time only about 5% of Israelis chose to live in them.

Have you read any other writings of Rand? I would also recommend the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind.
Nope, my reading in the past concentrated more on the left side, from Das Kapital to the General Theory.
But I'll have a look.

You laid out your ideas and thoughts in a clear an understandable fashion.

The only flaw I see, which I see in most capitalists, is that you confuse capitalism with a meritocracy.

Capitalism is not a system inwhich the harder you work, or the more you work, the more you make and the better off you are. In most capitalist countries, or atleast the countries that claim to be capitalists, you will find that the majority of the people doing the hardest work get paid the least.

Capitalism is based off of the profit system. Being able to make a bigger profit than others and working harder than others is two seperate things.

Lots of people who make out they are truely communist don't even know the first things about it.

Marx said communism was an ideal that will hundreds of years to developed, based on events of the world at the time.

The closest thing to communism has and always been the Paris Commune can even argue the foundations of America were socialist which has now been twisted.

Calling Russia/China communist is bullshit, they are totalitarian regimes and communist is the opposite, very localised politics.

Also people make up stupid stuff like "I will have no xbox360!! leik can't have a house".

You will have things like xbox360's as people need entertainment and you will have shetler and generally higher standard of living.

Capitalism is inherently corrupt but calling communism corrupt and capitalism not is stupid. Capital is based on greed and exploitation.

Simply enough, people should actually look in the works for what they are instead of watching the crap on tv. As we all know, television prevents you from thinking, it is the whole reason behind it.

Why I gave up on socialism in one sentence: I got tired of seeing a load of people sitting on their bottoms waiting for everything to fall out of the sky without having to work for it, like everybody else (i.e. the ones who make the whole system possible) does.

Why I gave up on socialism in one sentence: I got tired of seeing a load of people sitting on their bottoms waiting for everything to fall out of the sky without having to work for it, like everybody else (i.e. the ones who make the whole system possible) does.

Err, read up on Communism.

If you don't work, you don't get money, you don't get fed, you don't get shelter.

I am sick of these pseudo-communist/socialist ideas.

I suddenly noticed how the other students in my uni-groups were not putting in enough, yet still getting the same marks as me. This analogy isn't quite right. A better one would be "the other students in my uni-groups aren't putting in enough, and I put in more than enough, yet we all get the same marks." I don't know of any communist or socialist who believes that people who don't work should get paid.

because how was economics really different from social issues?They're related, certainly, but they're different.

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.That's on my list to read, after Wealth of Nations. It's good to know the enemy.

I think socialism, for all its failings, is still a belief based on rationality. The problem is just that perhaps at some point socialists make a small mistake in their reasoning. Perhaps they don't quite understand it, that probably depends on who you talk to.What would this small mistake be?

Conservatism on the other hand does not deem rationality necessary. It is interlinked with religion and traditionalism. That many conservatives just so happen to support a semi-free market (Protectionism, anyone?) is a coincidence - in reality it has more to do with the cult for the whole, the organic, the society that is fascism. Conservatism is not capitalism, it is more of an antithesis to it than socialism is. Conservatism is a greater evil than socialism is.Conservatism is not capitalism, but both are right-wing ideologies.

Many of you may have noticed that I have changed my views on socialism and capitalism quite a lot in recent weeks.

And since someone else explained their personal motivation for going socialist, I thought I might as well explain mine.

It really started when I was a lot younger. My goal in life, for as long as I could remember, was to become rich. Not sure why, but that was the case.

Paradoxically (and probably because I wanted to shock my parents and friends) I turned radical left though when I was maybe 12 or 13. I bought myself a little PLA-Hat and ran around reciting Mao.

Meanwhile, my marks were excellent at school, and everyone was quick to assert me in my plans to become rich.

After a while I began to read more in theory and about the practice, and my views turned less and less radical as a result...from Maoist to mild socialist, to Social Democrat to the sort of centrist pragmatism I was going for in the last six months or so.

It should be noted at this point that I always supported free trade. I still do of course, but I did even when I was still socialist and reading Marx. Protectionism and all that crap just always appalled me.
The process of crossing borders was always great fun for me. I still remember when I was little, going to former East Germany, or Austria. I always knew that I was never going to live in any one country. The world was my world, not an arbitrary blot on the map. So the right of people to move wherever they wanted, live there and work there was never going to be questioned by me. And it never will be.

Then the German elections came up. I was going to vote social democrat, when during a phone conversation with my grandma (an ex-bank employee who made lots of money on the stock market) she asked me who I was going to vote for.
When I told her, she almost exploded. Of the long tirade about how Schröder had given up and so on, I just really remember one sentence: "Do you want to be redistributed?"

And that made everything click and fall into place.

I suddenly noticed how the other students in my uni-groups were not putting in enough, yet still getting the same marks as me. I noticed how the State was taking my money away from me to fight wars overseas. I noticed how I always had to fight my own ideas when it came to economics, because how was economics really different from social issues?

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Now, many people have talked about her dodgy fiction, some about her dodgy philosophy, and almost everyone about her dodgy morality. I was expecting to feel the same about the book - but I didn't.
I found it exciting and interesting. It added many an idea to my beliefs, and changed my views on others. Perhaps I shouldn't become a literary critic, but this book appealed to me.
Maybe because I have always been that kind of person.

So, where do I stand today?

I suppose calling me a libertarian or minarchist comes close. I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work, and I don't think it's worth trying.
I intensely dislike the attitude of so many libertarians (Tangled up in the Blue, I'm looking at you here) who think that they have somehow found the Holy Grail, giving them the right to arrogance.

I think libertarianism is the logical conclusion of accepting rationality as a guiding principle of man. But I don't think that makes those who accept it better people.

I think socialism, for all its failings, is still a belief based on rationality. The problem is just that perhaps at some point socialists make a small mistake in their reasoning. Perhaps they don't quite understand it, that probably depends on who you talk to.
But socialism is certainly based on rational methods and arguments, with perhaps a root in the slightly irrational. It's not the evil people make it out to be - it only becomes evil when it starts involving force. And many forms of socialism are based on a consensus and leave those not interested free to leave.

Conservatism on the other hand does not deem rationality necessary. It is interlinked with religion and traditionalism. That many conservatives just so happen to support a semi-free market (Protectionism, anyone?) is a coincidence - in reality it has more to do with the cult for the whole, the organic, the society that is fascism. Conservatism is not capitalism, it is more of an antithesis to it than socialism is. Conservatism is a greater evil than socialism is.

So there, maybe a tad disjointed, but that is what I believe and how I got there. The fundamental reason, ie why it is that my goal was always to be rich, why I was never going to be a patriot even before I heard about the war is unknown to me. I suppose that's just the way I'm wired...perhaps it is the way everybody is wired, I don't know.

Any comments, questions or inflamatory attacks are welcome.

Instead of picking a spot for myself in a system that already exists, I choose the components I like from each in a way that works.

I know there's the whole welfare thing, but the fact is, there are open charities in virtually every town (my town of 10,000 has three), and homeless shelters just about everywhere.


And yet there are still those who are poor and homeless even with welfare and charity.

Welcome to the dark side Leonstein :D

I knew you'd come over, Leonstein. Mwauahahaha!

"Do you want to be redistributed?"
And that made everything click and fall into place.
Mmm... "Would you do acrobatics without a safety net?" Are you prepared to fall really hard, to make a few extra dollars? Are you prepared not to moan that the government has abandoned you and that your family is hungry, if the economy crashes and your job contract isn't renewed because your boss decides you are dispensable (and there's a 21 year old graduate eager to take your place for 1/3 of the wage)? It's ok your grannie asking "Do you want to be redistributed?", but many grannies in Europe survive today from the last crumbles of a national pension system that is still backing them, however little that may be (not saying this is her case). MY generation is really screwed because, as we watch the transition from a Socialist system to a Capitalist system, we're still having to finance our grandparents' and parents retirement, while being told that we should be saving for ourselves because national pension schemes are expected to be dead in a few decades. Saving? I can hardly pay my bills, never mind saving... I cannot afford buying a house where work is and, with contracts being renewed every 5 years, I'm doomed to see my pension plan falling mostly in my landlord's pocket. Today, my private pension scheme doesn't guarantee me a monthly payment until I die but only until my money runs out. If I find myself looking at my last pennies - at the age of 82 - without family to support me, what can I do?

I suddenly noticed how the other students in my uni-groups were not putting in enough, yet still getting the same marks as me. I noticed how the State was taking my money away from me to fight wars overseas.
Have these things got anything to do with Socialism? You tell me because I have never read Karl Marx but, from what I've read about him, I wouldn't imagine him responding now "that's Socialism for you". Michael Howard and Bush are more Capitalists than they are Socialists, particularly if you compare them to their opposition, and they are the ones spending tax money on wars. Even Blair is a better Capitalist than many Capitalists. I will never forget Margaret Thatcher saying, before the elections that brought the "Socialists" back to power, that Tony Blair would make a better PM than William Hague, the conservative leader at the time. I have a feeling Karl Marx may have turned in his grave if he heard that (without even considering whether Hague was better or not), but that's pure speculative ranting of mine... :D

I noticed how I always had to fight my own ideas when it came to economics, because how was economics really different from social issues?
One deals with material values and the other with human values... That is one clear difference. Socialism has never managed to tackle efficiently the people that abuse the system, whether through corruption or laziness, and who become an economic weight. Socialism was too often allowed to grow organically and without creating efficient mechanisms to:

1. Motivate people (balance individual with social needs).
2. Make life really difficult for people abusing the system (both from the inside and outside).

I suppose calling me a libertarian or minarchist comes close. I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work, and I don't think it's worth trying.
You say you are a Libertarian and a Capitalist, but you don't believe anarcho-capitalism could work... Mmmm... In my mind, Capitalism only makes sense in a Libertarian context. Capitalism requires deregulation and less interference from the State in commercial affairs. Capitalism without Libertarianism risks Protectionism (of corporations = a few individuals). On the other hand, the problem of combining Capitalism and Libertarianism is that we are all aware that there is an invisible and dangerous line between a Libertarian Capitalist state and an Anarcho-Capitalist state. Once you reach the later, the people will be literally eating from the hands of corporations (private ownership of corporations = a few individuals)... Cases like Enron should serve as a reminder of what the consequences may be. Without the security net, what happens to their workers when the company falls? No one is safe.

I think libertarianism is the logical conclusion of accepting rationality as a guiding principle of man. But I don't think that makes those who accept it better people.
What makes people "better"? When you educate a child, you teach some rules of behaviour in society. If you're obsessed with rules and punishments, you are creating a monster. If you give the child total freedom, you are creating a monster. Individual rationality is a dangerous guiding principle for society, because it depends first and foremost on the people educating you. When you combine this with a State that is not interested in providing free education, and a "balanced" set of values, you are creating monsters. Which does not mean the monster may not become successful (take the bastards at Enron, as an example). This is where I believe Libertarian Capitalism fails tremendously: to assume that the management of the heavy polluting industries will be forever willing to cut their profits to keep society working at a sustainable pace, just because the experts say "we're heading extinction", is as utopian as most Capitalists usually paint Socialists. I would argue that Capitalism doesn't make better people, only more productive people. Socialism doesn't make people better either, it makes society more balanced. Whether that is a better breeding ground for "better" people or not, should be measured by it's success in dealing with all the issues, not just the economy.

I think socialism, for all its failings, is still a belief based on rationality. The problem is just that perhaps at some point socialists make a small mistake in their reasoning. Conservatism on the other hand does not deem rationality necessary.
Neither does Capitalism, on its own. The main rationality of Capitalism is "private ownership". Many people can relate to that without being rational. Of course there are few that are very rational about it and, usually, these are the most successful. So, we could say that at the top of both Socialism and Capitalism there are very rational people. The difference is that the true Socialist at the top is trying to distribute his "private ownership" more evenly among his workers, while the true Capitalist sees his workers as the source of his own "private ownership". I actually believe that the failure of Socialism lies in it's rationality and how this affects worker's motivation. Just like you said "at some point socialists make a small mistake"... And when they do we all pay. In a Capitalist environment, small mistakes can come with a very high price for the individual. My fear with Capitalism is that it lacks ideology or rationality and - inevitably - we'll have to face with increasing threats from crime (as a product of social inequality) and the environment (as a product of contempt). When the shit hits the fan and we really need regulations, people won't be very welcoming to the idea of the State interfering...

Any comments, questions or inflamatory attacks are welcome.
My view is: don't chuck away Socialism or Capitalism, because you can learn from both. If our world politicians managed to be as social as the Socialists and as efficient as a the Capitalists, things could be much better than they are now... If they were honest, of course, but that's subject for another thread. I think that's what Blair meant with his "third way" speech that won him his first elections. Unfortunately, the practice is always much harder than talk...

I knew you'd come over, Leonstein. Mwauahahaha!

I know, he sounds quite similar to me now...quite a change.

Rationality is an all-or-nothing thing. It's either rational or it's not.

In most capitalist countries, or atleast the countries that claim to be capitalists, you will find that the majority of the people doing the hardest work get paid the least.

Perhaps because their work, as hard as it might be, is not the most valuable? Manual labor may be hard, but anyone can do it.

And socialism is not even close to a meritocracy, so you have nothing to say there.

Here is Ayn Rands philosophy, if someone is not familiar with it:
Metaphysics: Objective reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

And the mistake in socialist reasoning, Jello, is that they assume people will work without a profit motive (they will do the least they have to to get by, at least). This smothers innovation. Not good.

Perhaps because their work, as hard as it might be, is not the most valuable? Manual labor may be hard, but anyone can do it.

Valuable is a relative term. For example, which is more valuable teachers or the head of Nintendo?

Which one do you think would make more money under a capitalist society?

And socialism is not even close to a meritocracy, so you have nothing to say there.

I wouldn't have anything to say considering I am not a socialist.

Here is Ayn Rands philosophy, if someone is not familiar with it:
Metaphysics: Objective reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

And I care what Ayn Rand thinks why?

And the mistake in socialist reasoning, Jello, is that they assume people will work without a profit motive (they will do the least they have to to get by, at least). This smothers innovation. Not good.

The mistake of capitalism is to assume that money is the only motive.

And Actually, alot of innovation existed without capitalism. There have been quite alot of innovations motivated by doing something that benefits people.

Perhaps because their work, as hard as it might be, is not the most valuable? Manual labor may be hard, but anyone can do it.

And socialism is not even close to a meritocracy, so you have nothing to say there.

Here is Ayn Rands philosophy, if someone is not familiar with it:
Metaphysics: Objective reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

And the mistake in socialist reasoning, Jello, is that they assume people will work without a profit motive (they will do the least they have to to get by, at least). This smothers innovation. Not good.

I'm generally a fan of Rand's Objectivism, though I don't think her epistemology and her metaphysics are consistent. I don't think it's possible for a rational agent to hold metaphysical opinions.

Valuable is a relative term. For example, which is more valuable teachers or the head of Nintendo?

Nintendo. His skills are more rare.

Being a teacher isn't hard. As a group, teachers are more valuable than the head of Nintendo, but an individual teacher is easily replaceable. The head of Nintendo has rare an valuable skills which produce an enormous amount of wealth, and more wealth means more prosperity generally.

And socialism is not even close to a meritocracy, so you have nothing to say there.
Neither is Capitalism, in the medium term. Once the wealth created by one businessman passes on to the next generation, that younger individual is on a jump start. Hardly a position achieved through individual merit.

While in the past the Aristocracy was born out of warriors fighting for land, in the future there will be a new Aristocracy, born out of the most successful businessmen. Funny isn't it? The UK won't allow the Queen to interfere with Government affairs, but the Corporations are having a laugh. Maybe the Queen should complain of unfair treatment...

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism... it is all too complicated. Just do Capitalism with high Welfare funded by the replacement of the Death Penalty and Life Sentencing... LABOR! Make Sadaam build houses for the American poor, not kill him. Feed him, but make him earn it. No TV, booze, etc... Hey, thus sounds good for drug treatment.

Me, too. Although I think were I to write this I would have spent more time on market economics being much more efficient in the distribution of resources and the inevitability of capitalism even in socialist economies (you give me that bottle of Vodka and I'll put you in the front of the toilet paper line).

Me, too. Although I think were I to write this I would have spent more time on market economics being much more efficient in the distribution of resources and the inevitability of capitalism even in socialist economies (you give me that bottle of Vodka and I'll put you in the front of the toilet paper line).

Exactly. The wage & price controls of post-war Germany created an enormous underground economy using currencies of cigarettes and cognac. It wasn't until Konrad Adenauer figured that out that Germany actually began to recover from the war.

Exactly. The wage & price controls of post-war Germany created an enormous underground economy using currencies of cigarettes and cognac. It wasn't until Konrad Adenauer figured that out that Germany actually began to recover from the war.

Or the wage and price controls of the 1970's that contributed directly to gas shortages and stagflation. Those types of controls always lead to the creation of four things: shortages, theft, hidden inflation, and a black market.

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now and, as a communist, I must say it's a good book but it lacks philosophical credibility. The assertion that all of Taggart's workers are more than happy to be somewhat poor and watch her get richer and richer is pure fantasy. It also makes all socialists out to be failures and crooks. That book is little more than fiction, nothing to base an entire philosophy on.

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now and, as a communist, I must say it's a good book but it lacks philosophical credibility. The assertion that all of Taggart's workers are more than happy to be somewhat poor and watch her get richer and richer is pure fantasy. It also makes all socialists out to be failures and crooks. That book is little more than fiction, nothing to base an entire philosophy on.

That's what really irks me about Rand. All of her work seems to be pure slander towards Socialism in all its forms.

One's credibility is tarnished when they come out sounding like a whining five-year-old who didn't get to spend a day at the mall.

Many of you may have noticed that I have changed my views on socialism and capitalism quite a lot in recent weeks..

Congrats.

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

:cool:

re: my moniker

Perhaps I shouldn't become a literary critic, but this book appealed to me.

I can definitely understand criticism of her literary style. I enjoyed the book as well, but she was no Tolstoy. Personally, I thought her first book, We The Living, is also worth a read. Not nearly as long, reads more like a traditional novel, and is good (but depressing) fiction from the perspective of someone who actually lived in the setting. In a few places, the phrasing is a little awkward, but she wrote this book while she was still "thinking in Russian" - to use her own words regarding her language transition.

I intensely dislike the attitude of so many libertarians (Tangled up in the Blue, I'm looking at you here) who think that they have somehow found the Holy Grail, giving them the right to arrogance.

I think libertarianism is the logical conclusion of accepting rationality as a guiding principle of man. But I don't think that makes those who accept it better people.

Can't argue with you on the first of the above statements, though I don't think that it is any worse for Libertarians than for other political ideologies. I agree with the second point, though it is sometimes a challenge for all of us to objectively examine an issue from its anteceedents through the ends of proposed "solutions". It is the only political philosophy I've found that at least makes serious attempts to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences.

You have to admire the depth and breadth of intellectual thought in Marxism.

Disagree here. While capitalism certainly has some downside, Socialism as an economic system ingores or completely missunderstands to basic principles of econiomics - the roles of incentives and prices. In this way, Socialism fails to understand human nature - which is why force has to be used consistently under its system, as you so correctly point out. In this way, I do not admire the breadth and depth of intellectual thought in Socialism. I may admire the motivations of some socialists in that they would like to better the lot of many people, but because of its shortcomings, it generally makes everyone worse off.

The incentive is on the level of society. We all can realize working harder benefits everyone around you and yourself. Socialism works as long as laborers meet their quotas in quality and quantity.

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now and, as a communist, I must say it's a good book but it lacks philosophical credibility. The assertion that all of Taggart's workers are more than happy to be somewhat poor and watch her get richer and richer is pure fantasy. It also makes all socialists out to be failures and crooks. That book is little more than fiction, nothing to base an entire philosophy on.

Don't forget, Atlas Shrugged is a novel first and foremost. It is fiction, as you correctly point out. It may be rooted in her philosphy of Objectivism, but it is not a philosophical or political 'manifesto'. You have it backwards though, - it is intended to be fiction, based on a philisophy, not the other way around. There are about 80 pages toward the end that espouse a philosophy, but the book is a work of fiction.

Also, if you are reading between the lines that Taggart's workers are more than happy to be somewhat poor and watch her get richer, you are obviously not seeing the big-picture of the economic circumstances that the novel portrays. The workers would rather be somewhat poor than destitute, as so many were because of the decimation of industry. Dagny is fighting to keep the railroad alive, which is also the source of income for all of the workers. That is why many rallied behind her with the opening of the John Galt line, not because they were happy to make Dagny rich (wich it didn't, by the way). I won't spoil the ending, but keep reading and see how more of this unfolds.

Socialism works as long as laborers meet their quotas in quality and quantity.

Too often at the end of a whip, point of a gun, threat of prison, or alternative of starvation. Even under the worst excesses of capitalism only the latter of those are present, rather than all four.

If you want straight Randian philosophy, she did publish a fair amount of nonfiction. Try The Virtue of Selfishness.

The incentive is on the level of society. We all can realize working harder benefits everyone around you and yourself. Socialism works as long as laborers meet their quotas in quality and quantity.
Yeah... but they don't...

You laid out your ideas and thoughts in a clear an understandable fashion.

The only flaw I see, which I see in most capitalists, is that you confuse capitalism with a meritocracy.

Capitalism is not a system inwhich the harder you work, or the more you work, the more you make and the better off you are. In most capitalist countries, or atleast the countries that claim to be capitalists, you will find that the majority of the people doing the hardest work get paid the least.

Capitalism is based off of the profit system. Being able to make a bigger profit than others and working harder than others is two seperate things.

Hard work may make you comfortable, but only hard work paired with creativity and/or risk-taking will make you truly wealthy. I have no problem with someone who develops a new product to meet one of my needs (and those of many others) and taking the risks of getting to market making it rich. The fact the this process so often ends in failure makes it imperitive that hefty rewards are available, otherwise there would not be enough incentive to overcome the risk and our standard of living would stagnate.

The incentive is on the level of society. We all can realize working harder benefits everyone around you and yourself. Socialism works as long as laborers meet their quotas in quality and quantity.

There's a freerider problem. Someone will realise that he can get basically the same benefits by working less.

Capitalism rules! MSFT FTW!!!

I'm not kidding.

Limiting thyself to the ideals of others instead of creating your own may be a bad step.

I think you may want to base your beliefs on what would be best for a civilized human society.

True socialism...caters to the world.

But when will humans realize that there is more to their own survival. Survive as an intelligent civilization and not as the beasts do.
Capitalism....today...promotes primitive survival more than anything, and limits the lives of humanity.

Here's an interesting paradox. You state that one should base their beliefs on that which, quote; "would be best for a civilized human society." You then ask, "when will humans realize that there is more to their own survival?" You follow up on this with, "Survive as an intelligent civilization and not as the beasts do."

You take this as if it's some kind of ultimatum, that all of us believe that a truly "intelligent civilization" sees more than their own survival. Of course, you paint those who vie for their survival as primitive savages, furthering your own point of view. I ask, what's wrong with working for our own survival, and for the survival of others? Do you propose a system which, due to the irrelevance of survival, we allow ourselves to be killed if the "system" deemed it necessary?

You say that capitalism "promotes" "primitive" survival. Firstly, I beg the question, what makes it primitive? Secondly, I feel that it's necessary to state that capitalism only "promotes" survival as far as it cooperates with it. Capitalism inspires people to work based on the idea that, more or less, the won't survive if they don't work, and that they will survive in greater luxury based on the harder they work. Work is often stereotyped as only being physical, and the truth is that work can be both one's back as easily as it could be one's mind (this is true now more than ever before).

Microsoft created an ease-of-access to computing which was affordable. Like them or not, they changed the world. Michael Dell created a computer company out of his college dorm room in 1984, and in less than a decade, Dell became the youngest CEO on the Fortune 500. Now, more than twenty years later (22 as a matter of fact, check Dell's website), Dell has become the world's largest computer manufacturer. Intel, AMD and IBM consistently strive to best one another with the fastest, low-power microprocessors on the market. Just when people though the microprocessor was slowing down, Intel and AMD reduced the frequencies and power consumption of their chips to deliver almost twice the performance.

You'll forgive me if I choose to note that none of this progress happened in the U.S.S.R. or China. Only now, with China's adoption of capitalist policies (and welcoming stance towards outsourcing US corporations) has China become technologically competitive -- they now have a chip that rivals a 2 GHz Pentium 4. Of course, you will note that these aren't "true" Socialist examples, or "true" Communist examples which begs the question:

Where are the "true" examples? If it's so difficult to make a "true" example of these function time and time again, then is it no wonder that we have chosen capitalism? Trying the same thing twice and expecting difference results was once said to be a marked symbol of insanity.

*snip*



Excellent analysis!

Where are the "true" examples? If it's so difficult to make a "true" example of these function time and time again, then is it no wonder that we have chosen capitalism? Trying the same thing twice and expecting difference results was once said to be a marked symbol of insanity.
Very nice.

"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you've always got."

Socialism works as long as laborers meet their quotas in quality and quantity.
Too often at the end of a whip, point of a gun, threat of prison, or alternative of starvation. Even under the worst excesses of capitalism only the latter of those are present, rather than all four.
At the end of a whip and point of a gun... Ahh the good old days. Marx was a fool who didn't want to listen, whenever I tried to tell them that money was key, after the whip and the gun. I told him "it's one of these 3 or failure, because that is human nature". The stupid old love-dove insisted he believed humanity could be a bit more inventive...

snip
I might also point out that, as a pack animal, humans have evolved with an instinct for cooperation and a need for human companionship. People who do well generally don't "go it alone." They generally tend to promate the welfare of others within their sphere as a means of advancing their own survival and comfort. Uncooperative assholes don't do as well as friendly, empathetic people. Ask Val Kilmer.

Interesting to note peoples' philosopshical journeys.

I started out as a quasi-Thatcherite from my mother's milk; swung towards Libertarianism even as I turned against the idea of religion (aged about 12-14); and have since returned to the centre.

Where I think Rand's philosophy falls down is in the detail that sometimes it's just too damn hard to make it out.
Capitalism without regulation and government intervention is what Britain had in the early Industrial Revolution. The human misery was unbelievable; and only a tiny proportion of the very best and brightest could make it out of grinding poverty.
On the other hand, of course, in a society at the other extreme it's the same situation.

Capitalism without regulation and government intervention is what Britain had in the early Industrial Revolution. The human misery was unbelievable; and only a tiny proportion of the very best and brightest could make it out of grinding poverty.

What did they have before the industrial revolution? Was that better?

What I was calling into question was the extreme to which the Industrial Revolution took British society; not the benefits of industrialisation.
A slightly slower, but more benign Industrial Revolution was entirely possible; as it happened acting with common humanity had to wait for popular opinion to realise the true scale of the suffering and demand changes.

Here's an interesting paradox. You state that one should base their beliefs on that which, quote; "would be best for a civilized human society." You then ask, "when will humans realize that there is more to their own survival?" You follow up on this with, "Survive as an intelligent civilization and not as the beasts do."

You take this as if it's some kind of ultimatum, that all of us believe that a truly "intelligent civilization" sees more than their own survival. Of course, you paint those who vie for their survival as primitive savages, furthering your own point of view. I ask, what's wrong with working for our own survival, and for the survival of others? Do you propose a system which, due to the irrelevance of survival, we allow ourselves to be killed if the "system" deemed it necessary?

You say that capitalism "promotes" "primitive" survival. Firstly, I beg the question, what makes it primitive? Secondly, I feel that it's necessary to state that capitalism only "promotes" survival as far as it cooperates with it. Capitalism inspires people to work based on the idea that, more or less, the won't survive if they don't work, and that they will survive in greater luxury based on the harder they work. Work is often stereotyped as only being physical, and the truth is that work can be both one's back as easily as it could be one's mind (this is true now more than ever before).


Perhaps to put it better then, capitalism, especially in Rand's formulation, makes an error in judgment that is highly detrimental to society. Compounding this error is the fact that it was originally written about roughly 70 years before Rand was even born, in Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America. It's a difficult work to read, and even more difficult to tease out Toqueville's central thesis, but its far more philosophically rewarding than anything Rand ever wrote.

Essentially, Toqueville argued that the lack of readily apparent social structures in a democracy might lend us to mistakenly believe that success or failure had nothing to do with those social structures, when in fact they had everything to do with them. You see, every society has social and economic relations that bind society together and define how all the parts work. This is true in an aristocracy or a democracy. Further, these social relations are necessary for the prosperity of any one part of society. In order for the farmer to successfully harvest the crops, the smith has to successfully fashion steel implements for him to farm with. In order for the smith to successfully fashion steel, the miner must successfully mine coal. In order for the miner to mine coal successfully, he has to eat food provided by the farmer. In order for all of them to succeed, the roadpavers have to successfully build and maintain roads connecting the miner and the farmer to the smith and the market, the policemen need to successfully combat crime and corruption, the doctors need to successfully prevent illnesses and epidemics, and so on. In that sense, in any society, the success of any one person is predicated upon the success of many elements working together.

Of course, in an aristocracy, it's much easier to see these elements working together, because the cleavages in society are much more clearly defined and the relationships between social groups much more static. The smith's son will be a smith just as his father was and his son will be afterwards; likewise, his social relationship to the nobility is much more rigidly set by society. Same with all other professions. In a democracy, by contrast, Toqueville saw that the fact that any person could choose to be a smith or not as the case may be made social cleavages much more fluid, and social relationships much more ambiguous.

Because of this ambiguity and the fact that social relationships are much less readily apparent in a democracy, Toquevill reasoned, it is much more easy to draw the mistaken conclusion that they don't exist. In the absence of social relationships tieing societies together, then, success or failure might mistakenly be purely imparted as the success or failure of the individual in question, without questioning the larger role of society in that failure. This mistake in reasoning Toqueville called individualism. Individualists, because they cannot see the social relationships in society, might and often do much to poison and degenerate such relationships in the interest of mean self-interest.

Individualism, then, was a unique condition to democracy, and a threat to the longterm health of said democracy. It is also, in a word, the single best description both for what Rand's philosophy espouses and why it fails: she explicitly posited that a "society" was in fact nothing more than a collection of self-interested individuals, hence her primacy on the rights of the individual and the concurrent vilification of any sense of social cohesion as "altruism". Not only could she not see the necessary connections in society, she emphatically, and wrong-headedly, claimed that they didn't exist. The degeneration of civil institutions that results from individualism, ironically enough, is an apt description for the failures that currently plague democracy in America.

Interesting; I'm going to have to find out more about de Toqueville, I never have known much about his writings...

-snip-

This is the problem I see with rampant Individualism.

The way I see it, "Individualism" should be about doing what you really like to do and being yourself, without forsaking society. A lot of "Individualists" seem to have a "fuck society" mentality, and that's not good, no matter how you see it.

What I was calling into question was the extreme to which the Industrial Revolution took British society; not the benefits of industrialisation.
A slightly slower, but more benign Industrial Revolution was entirely possible; as it happened acting with common humanity had to wait for popular opinion to realise the true scale of the suffering and demand changes.

But the industrial revolution didn't create poverty. It created some very rich people who made everyone else look poor in comparison.

In order for the farmer to successfully harvest the crops, the smith has to successfully fashion steel implements for him to farm with. In order for the smith to successfully fashion steel, the miner must successfully mine coal. In order for the miner to mine coal successfully, he has to eat food provided by the farmer. In order for all of them to succeed, the roadpavers have to successfully build and maintain roads connecting the miner and the farmer to the smith and the market, the policemen need to successfully combat crime and corruption, the doctors need to successfully prevent illnesses and epidemics, and so on. In that sense, in any society, the success of any one person is predicated upon the success of many elements working together.

I've never known a capitalist to dispute these things. A capitalist simply asserts that the market will take care of them.

This is the problem I see with rampant Individualism.

The way I see it, "Individualism" should be about doing what you really like to do and being yourself, without forsaking society. A lot of "Individualists" seem to have a "fuck society" mentality, and that's not good, no matter how you see it.

I'm torn on that matter. Tocqueville argued that individualism would be most prevalent with those who had seperated themselves from the social institutions of society, like churches or social groups. In effect, they defined themselves as individuals largely because they couldn't define themselves as Episcopalians or Methodists, Boy Scouts, Kiwanis or chess club members, etc. The reason why I'm torn is because despite the fact that I recognize that Tocqueville has a point, and I further recognize that "individualism" in today's society is really just a tool to sell overpriced sneakers and trucks, I do also worry about some of the Rousseau-esque undercurrents in Tocqueville's thinking; I do think it is okay, even healthy for yourself and the republic, to define yourself partially in individualist terms. Where the balance comes in, however, I don't know.

But the industrial revolution didn't create poverty. It created some very rich people who made everyone else look poor in comparison.

The poverty in the cities of the Industrial Revolution was worse than that in previous eras, in either city or countryside.
Now, arguably the greater population which helped fuel the Industrial Revolution would have overwhelmed the land and largely starved if they hadn't moved to the cities; but those who were driven to move to the cities lost out.

But the industrial revolution didn't create poverty. It created some very rich people who made everyone else look poor in comparison.

The poverty in the cities of the Industrial Revolution was worse than that in previous eras, in either city or countryside.
Now, arguably the greater population which helped fuel the Industrial Revolution would have overwhelmed the land and largely starved if they hadn't moved to the cities; but those who were driven to move to the cities lost out.

I've never known a capitalist to dispute these things. A capitalist simply asserts that the market will take care of them.

Some do, some don't. The whole notion of such social relationships existing and being a vital part of society's smooth functioning, however, completely undermines the whole rationale behind Rand's claims to egoism being natural and preferable. I could go further with her critique of attributing every crime in human history to altruism by simply noting that Adam Smith himself wrote that "[a]ll for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." (Book 3, Chapter 4), seemingly attributing Stalinist failures to egoism, not altruism. My point, however, was narrowly tailored to undercut the first and central premise behind Rand's thinking rather than broadly critique capitalism, of which I'm a nominal supporter.

I could go further with her critique of attributing every crime in human history to altruism by simply noting that Adam Smith himself wrote that "[a]ll for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." (Book 3, Chapter 4), seemingly attributing Stalinist failures to egoism, not altruism.

Smith was a bit of a socialist. For true free market stuff you need to read Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich Hayek. In fact, I think The Road to Serfdom should be required in all schools.

The whole notion of such social relationships existing and being a vital part of society's smooth functioning, however, completely undermines the whole rationale behind Rand's claims to egoism being natural and preferable.

That's not necessarily true. Social relationships could be a natural consequence of self-interested behaviour. I think you've made a bad assumption, there. Rand herself insisted she would sacrifice her life to save her husband. She simply claimed that would have been a self-interested act, because she would prefer he survive.

Capitalism is the path to corperate Totalitarianism.
Fascism is the path to party Totalitarianism.
Religious groups (catholic/muslim parties etc) is the path to Religious Totalitarianism.

Fair Democracy is the path to greater equality - Socialism
Socialism leads to equality, high standards of living, value in work, very localised politics, end of private ownership of buisnesses into soviets etc etc Communism/Marxism.

Smith was a bit of a socialist. For true free market stuff you need to read Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich Hayek. In fact, I think The Road to Serfdom should be required in all schools.

*sits here for a minute hoping the inherent absurdity of that statement hits Llewdor*

Smith was a long way from socialist, if for no other reason than because socialism was about 70 years off when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. If, however, by socialism you mean "has a modicum of respect for the value of social institutions in themselves", then yes, he is a socialist. So is everybody but von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and America after about 1994. Even anarchists like Bakunin had more respect for civil infrastructure than those guys, which at the risk of an ad populum fallacy really ought to make you question the value of their writings.


That's not necessarily true. Social relationships could be a natural consequence of self-interested behaviour. I think you've made a bad assumption, there. Rand herself insisted she would sacrifice her life to save her husband. She simply claimed that would have been a self-interested act, because she would prefer he survive.

Um, I think if you attend church simply out of a sense of self-interest in the value of the contacts you make, then you've missed the point of church in the first place. The same thing, I think, is true of just about any other social organization around; I don't go to feminist discussion groups just so I can get feminists in the sack, but rather because as a social animal I need social solidarity with others like me. That's not an expression of rational self-interest, but an expression of natural sociability.

So we're calling Adam Smith, generally considered the first exponent of the free market, a socialist...?

Um, I think if you attend church simply out of a sense of self-interest in the value of the contacts you make, then you've missed the point of church in the first place. The same thing, I think, is true of just about any other social organization around; I don't go to feminist discussion groups just so I can get feminists in the sack, but rather because as a social animal I need social solidarity with others like me. That's not an expression of rational self-interest, but an expression of natural sociability.

I think you're defining self interest too narrowly. If you want to meet with and interact with feminists, then attending their discussion groups is self-interested behaviour. You value the interaction, therefore you seek out that interaction. Self-interest doesn't need to be predatory.

So we're calling Adam Smith, generally considered the first exponent of the free market, a socialist...?

Smith deserves a lot of praise for being pretty much the first guy to understand the economics behind the free market, but he didn't really support an unfettered free market.

Just because no one had yet described socialism doesn't mean Smith couldn't have been one. He just wouldn't have known it.

I think you're defining self interest too narrowly. If you want to meet with and interact with feminists, then attending their discussion groups is self-interested behaviour. You value the interaction, therefore you seek out that interaction. Self-interest doesn't need to be predatory.

You apparently misunderstand. I wasn't necessarily critiquing it on the basis of self-interest (although I pursued it out of an interest in an altruist interest in advancing women's rights, or at least better understanding those who do), but on the basis that sociability in general can't be self-interest, because sociability isn't rationally based. Any more than you have to think to know when to eat and breathe, people socially organize because their natures require it. As such, it's part of the appetative part of the soul, whereas choosing what would be in my self-interest and choosing to pursue it would be a result of the rationale part of the soul.


Smith deserves a lot of praise for being pretty much the first guy to understand the economics behind the free market, but he didn't really support an unfettered free market.

Just because no one had yet described socialism doesn't mean Smith couldn't have been one. He just wouldn't have known it.

Smith believed that exploitation of labor by the capitalist class would result in the violent overthrow of society by the proletariat but he didn't know it?

Methinks you have a pretty loose definition of "socialist", one in fact that borders on non-definitional because it fits virtually every thinker but a few radical libertarians. It certainly doesn't jive with the more commonly accepted referent of the term.

*snip*
Excellent post. I switched over to libertarianism for a lot of the same reasons as you. I am unapologetically capitalist; appeals to some collective sense of duty owed to my "fellow" man never have and never will touch me. This does not mean I believe in dissolving society and turning it into some consumerist institution. Au contaire, I have cultural conservative elements, which is perhaps the full extent of my conservatism. I believe a complete removal of morals and traditions would lead to little more than nihilism. That said, I commend your decision to switch over.

Smith deserves a lot of praise for being pretty much the first guy to understand the economics behind the free market, but he didn't really support an unfettered free market.

Just because no one had yet described socialism doesn't mean Smith couldn't have been one. He just wouldn't have known it.

You don't have to support an "unfettered" free market to not be a socialist. I'm no socialist, and I don't think the market should run everything, or be unregulated.

I know, he sounds quite similar to me now...quite a change.
Yes, no longer does he sound like Paul Krugman or Galbraith, but an economist.

You apparently misunderstand. I wasn't necessarily critiquing it on the basis of self-interest (although I pursued it out of an interest in an altruist interest in advancing women's rights, or at least better understanding those who do), but on the basis that sociability in general can't be self-interest, because sociability isn't rationally based. Any more than you have to think to know when to eat and breathe, people socially organize because their natures require it. As such, it's part of the appetative part of the soul, whereas choosing what would be in my self-interest and choosing to pursue it would be a result of the rationale part of the soul.

Sociability isn't rationally based? What?

You choose to interact with people, just as I choose to avoid them (Aspie). That seems pretty rational to me.

And I did say Smith was "a bit of a socialist", meaning that he prefered to regulate the market rather than let it be free.

The only flaw I see, which I see in most capitalists, is that you confuse capitalism with a meritocracy.
I am in no position to tell you whether or not capitalism comes close to a true meritocracy. Because the issue with that is that there is only one real way of measuring 'merit', and that is by the others around you.
That is what capitalism does - what you do and don't do is valued by the people you deal with, not by yourself. You can work as hard as you want, but if your work is crap, capitalism will not see you rewarded for it. Incidentally, the same is true of my uni tutors who mark our assignments. ;)

It may well be that I get somewhat disillusioned as I enter the real labour market. But I think I'd be more likely to blame individuals than the system itself.

What would this small mistake be?
At some point socialism loses a little bit of focus, switches from something based on individual freedom to something that is utilitarian in nature. It therefore assumes that there is some way of measuring what is good and what is bad, independently of individual subjectivity.
Who really says that a beggar who's starving values that dollar more than Bill Gates? As true as it might sound - I'm not in that beggar's head, nor am I in Gates'. I can only value it as an individual, by investing my dollar either in the beggar's efforts, or in Bill Gates' efforts...but that's subjective.

Conservatism is not capitalism, but both are right-wing ideologies.
You know as well as everyone else that this isn't true. Left v Right is an arbitrary distinction of no real value.
And if I recall correctly, it was monarchists and conservatives who sat on the right side of that French parliament, not champions of individual freedom and rationality.

Mmm... "Would you do acrobatics without a safety net?" Are you prepared to fall really hard, to make a few extra dollars?
Yes, I am. That's what I was saying before, about believing in my ability.

MY generation is really screwed because, as we watch the transition from a Socialist system to a Capitalist system, we're still having to finance our grandparents' and parents retirement, while being told that we should be saving for ourselves because national pension schemes are expected to be dead in a few decades.
Welcome to my world. If things go on as they do today, I can never go back to my home, because I'll be paying for all those miserable twits once called "baby boomers".
Another reason to support the FDP in Germany, which is aiming to get rid of the public pension system as far and quickly as possible.

One deals with material values and the other with human values... That is one clear difference.
Only if you suppose that humans are not material beings. It's an artificial divide, all the more puzzling because Marx really defined humans as simply being products of the material world.

You say you are a Libertarian and a Capitalist, but you don't believe anarcho-capitalism could work... Mmmm... In my mind, Capitalism only makes sense in a Libertarian context.
Exactly. Hong Kong for example is one case of a working close-to-capitalist system.

On the other hand, the problem of combining Capitalism and Libertarianism is that we are all aware that there is an invisible and dangerous line between a Libertarian Capitalist state and an Anarcho-Capitalist state.
I don't think the line is that invisible at all. Afterall, anarchism is a matter of intention - either you're clearly against the state and are working to get rid of it, or you think the state is worthwhile and that it should just limit itself to the few things it's good at.

Once you reach the later, the people will be literally eating from the hands of corporations (private ownership of corporations = a few individuals)...
Corporations are by definition not "a few individuals". I myself am the proud owner of three corporations, at least in part.

Without the security net, what happens to their workers when the company falls? No one is safe.
Except those who can provide real value to their fellow man.

Individual rationality is a dangerous guiding principle for society, because it depends first and foremost on the people educating you.
Rationality =/= education.
Even the most uneducated bushman can be rational. All it takes is to think of what makes one's happiness greatest and do it, without getting distracted by irrational things, such as hatred or religion.

This is where I believe Libertarian Capitalism fails tremendously: to assume that the management of the heavy polluting industries will be forever willing to cut their profits to keep society working at a sustainable pace...
Actually the assumption is that the market as a whole will do so, not any single individual. The market will ultimately create the conditions that reward management to do the right thing.
And by the way, I like the idea of tradable pollution permits. There is one of those things that will divide the libertarians from the anarcho-capitalists.

Neither does Capitalism, on its own. The main rationality of Capitalism is "private ownership". Many people can relate to that without being rational.
Obviously they can. We're witnessing it in the US everyday - most people there aren't real capitalists. They could barely define the word. But they adhere to it and defend it simply because that is tradition.
Whatever the outcome, the basis of their arguments is wrong, and therefore they should be disregarded (not even mentioning the inconsistencies that invariably arrise, eg immigration, tariffs).

My fear with Capitalism is that it lacks ideology or rationality...
The trick is to find a balance. The CSE and their kind lack not ideology, but morality perhaps. The Austrians have that in spades, but they lack at times in rationality.
I consider myself somewhere in the middle.

I think that's what Blair meant with his "third way" speech that won him his first elections.
The third way was once a great prospect. But really...what is so special about it? Either it works through income redistribution, or it doesn't. It could only ever be either capitalism or socialism in their light versions.
There is a difference in principle that is absolutely irreconcilable (and that's one of the things I got from Ayn Rand as well).

Sociability isn't rationally based? What?

You choose to interact with people, just as I choose to avoid them (Aspie). That seems pretty rational to me.

And I did say Smith was "a bit of a socialist", meaning that he prefered to regulate the market rather than let it be free.

Regulating the market is moderation, not socialism.

Limiting thyself to the ideals of others instead of creating your own may be a bad step.

I think you may want to base your beliefs on what would be best for a civilized human society.

True socialism...caters to the world.

But when will humans realize that there is more to their own survival. Survive as an intelligent civilization and not as the beasts do.
Capitalism....today...promotes primitive survival more than anything, and limits the lives of humanity.

For my response, see my post at the end of this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484038&page=8

Essentially, Toqueville argued that the lack of readily apparent social structures in a democracy might lend us to mistakenly believe that success or failure had nothing to do with those social structures, when in fact they had everything to do with them.
This first and foremost seems to tell me that he at least in part believed that success and failure is not a product of the individual, but of everyone else - and that it is therefore more or less pre-programmed.
I find that fatalistic and just generally not very nice. As I indicated, my family is not exactly blessed with money, nor with very good friendships and connections with the community. Is this then supposed to mean that there is no point in me trying?

You see, every society has social and economic relations that bind society together and define how all the parts work.
Exactly. The good bit about capitalism is that all these relations don't necessarily need to be chained to social moralistic judgements. No one will necessarily refuse to deal with you because you were once a lowly poor serf.
Because everyone is after their own good first and foremost, because money is changing hands (not personal affection or anything like that) the relations can change easily at any minute. And precisely that allows people who previously had little chance of becoming a success within that framework to make their way up.

Other than that (which is not necessarily a refutation, more my interpretation), it's a good argument. I certainly noticed that some people denied the existence of society.
Of course it exists, and of course anyone would have a much harder time if he was completely alone, no matter how capable he is. But the mistake then lies in jumping from there to completely discounting individual skill and work ethic and denying the concept of individual responsibility of one's life.

This first and foremost seems to tell me that he at least in part believed that success and failure is not a product of the individual, but of everyone else - and that it is therefore more or less pre-programmed.
I find that fatalistic and just generally not very nice. As I indicated, my family is not exactly blessed with money, nor with very good friendships and connections with the community. Is this then supposed to mean that there is no point in me trying?

No. It just accepts that there are factors beyond your control influencing your success or failure. You still have the biggest influence, but you can have talent, give it your all, and still fail.

Maybe because I have always been that kind of person.

Ugh. Ayn Rand and many of her followers are some of the most arrogant people on the Earth. Their love of self-serving intelligence usually comes with the belief that they are supremely intelligent.

I believe that Rand's philosophy is not based on intelligence or rationality, but on her irrational idolization.

EDIT: I am starting to take a big swing to the left, maybe it is because I have always been that kind of person.

Many of you may have noticed that I have changed my views on socialism and capitalism quite a lot in recent weeks.

And since someone else explained their personal motivation for going socialist, I thought I might as well explain mine.

It really started when I was a lot younger. My goal in life, for as long as I could remember, was to become rich. Not sure why, but that was the case.

Paradoxically (and probably because I wanted to shock my parents and friends) I turned radical left though when I was maybe 12 or 13. I bought myself a little PLA-Hat and ran around reciting Mao.

Meanwhile, my marks were excellent at school, and everyone was quick to assert me in my plans to become rich.

After a while I began to read more in theory and about the practice, and my views turned less and less radical as a result...from Maoist to mild socialist, to Social Democrat to the sort of centrist pragmatism I was going for in the last six months or so.

It should be noted at this point that I always supported free trade. I still do of course, but I did even when I was still socialist and reading Marx. Protectionism and all that crap just always appalled me.
The process of crossing borders was always great fun for me. I still remember when I was little, going to former East Germany, or Austria. I always knew that I was never going to live in any one country. The world was my world, not an arbitrary blot on the map. So the right of people to move wherever they wanted, live there and work there was never going to be questioned by me. And it never will be.

Then the German elections came up. I was going to vote social democrat, when during a phone conversation with my grandma (an ex-bank employee who made lots of money on the stock market) she asked me who I was going to vote for.
When I told her, she almost exploded. Of the long tirade about how Schröder had given up and so on, I just really remember one sentence: "Do you want to be redistributed?"

And that made everything click and fall into place.

I suddenly noticed how the other students in my uni-groups were not putting in enough, yet still getting the same marks as me. I noticed how the State was taking my money away from me to fight wars overseas. I noticed how I always had to fight my own ideas when it came to economics, because how was economics really different from social issues?

I had nothing to read in that time for a while, so I went to a bookstore...and what do I see? Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Now, many people have talked about her dodgy fiction, some about her dodgy philosophy, and almost everyone about her dodgy morality. I was expecting to feel the same about the book - but I didn't.
I found it exciting and interesting. It added many an idea to my beliefs, and changed my views on others. Perhaps I shouldn't become a literary critic, but this book appealed to me.
Maybe because I have always been that kind of person.

So, where do I stand today?

I suppose calling me a libertarian or minarchist comes close. I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work, and I don't think it's worth trying.
I intensely dislike the attitude of so many libertarians (Tangled up in the Blue, I'm looking at you here) who think that they have somehow found the Holy Grail, giving them the right to arrogance.

I think libertarianism is the logical conclusion of accepting rationality as a guiding principle of man. But I don't think that makes those who accept it better people.

I think socialism, for all its failings, is still a belief based on rationality. The problem is just that perhaps at some point socialists make a small mistake in their reasoning. Perhaps they don't quite understand it, that probably depends on who you talk to.
But socialism is certainly based on rational methods and arguments, with perhaps a root in the slightly irrational. It's not the evil people make it out to be - it only becomes evil when it starts involving force. And many forms of socialism are based on a consensus and leave those not interested free to leave.

Conservatism on the other hand does not deem rationality necessary. It is interlinked with religion and traditionalism. That many conservatives just so happen to support a semi-free market (Protectionism, anyone?) is a coincidence - in reality it has more to do with the cult for the whole, the organic, the society that is fascism. Conservatism is not capitalism, it is more of an antithesis to it than socialism is. Conservatism is a greater evil than socialism is.

So there, maybe a tad disjointed, but that is what I believe and how I got there. The fundamental reason, ie why it is that my goal was always to be rich, why I was never going to be a patriot even before I heard about the war is unknown to me. I suppose that's just the way I'm wired...perhaps it is the way everybody is wired, I don't know.

Any comments, questions or inflamatory attacks are welcome.
I started the "why I became a socialist" thread *feels proud*. While I recognize that socialism has its flaws, I also think it's absolutely necessary for everyone to have basic things such as healthcare and education. Basically, I don'tthink that everyone should be equal. I think that everyone should have an equal opportunity, or at least as close to that as possible. In a capitalist society, the rich kids have way more advantages, even though they did nothing to deserve them other than to be born into wealth. It's also their attitude that really pisses me off-that they are somehow better than everyday people because they were born into a "good" family. Well, a little bit (ok, a lot) of taxation would set them straight, hehehehe...

Capitalism is the path to corperate Totalitarianism.
Fascism is the path to party Totalitarianism.
Religious groups (catholic/muslim parties etc) is the path to Religious Totalitarianism.

Fair Democracy is the path to greater equality - Socialism
Socialism leads to equality, high standards of living, value in work, very localised politics, end of private ownership of buisnesses into soviets etc etc Communism/Marxism.
I would call using democracy as a nice sounding cover for theft to be tyranny by majority, which is not something to aspire to.

And how exactly will this lead to high standards of living? Or are you simply repeating some socialist cliche with nothing behind it?

At some point socialism loses a little bit of focus, switches from something based on individual freedom to something that is utilitarian in nature. It therefore assumes that there is some way of measuring what is good and what is bad, independently of individual subjectivity.I'm not certain that socialism eliminates the idea of individual subjectivity, it simply makes individuals choose. I don't view this as being different than any other system; who's to say that the elimination of freedom in a dictatorship is good or bad except for an individual with a subjective opinion?

Who really says that a beggar who's starving values that dollar more than Bill Gates? As true as it might sound - I'm not in that beggar's head, nor am I in Gates'. I can only value it as an individual, by investing my dollar either in the beggar's efforts, or in Bill Gates' efforts...but that's subjective.Well, I suppose that would depend on whether the individual in question believes that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is true or not.

You know as well as everyone else that this isn't true. Left v Right is an arbitrary distinction of no real value.
And if I recall correctly, it was monarchists and conservatives who sat on the right side of that French parliament, not champions of individual freedom and rationality.I was using the political compass definition of left and right. Conservatism is an authoritarian right wing ideology, laissez faire is a libertarian right wing ideology.

As I indicated, my family is not exactly blessed with money, nor with very good friendships and connections with the community. Is this then supposed to mean that there is no point in me trying?Do you want an honest answer to this question?

I'm not certain that socialism eliminates the idea of individual subjectivity, it simply makes individuals choose.
I find that interesting, because that would have been my definition of capitalism. One definition of socialism is that it is the act of taking from some for the benefit of others. That obviously presumes that we know what is to the benefit of the 'others', and whether or not this is greater than the cost of it to the 'some'.
The individuals from whom is being taken obviously don't make that choice (if they did, it'd be charity), so a third party does.

Well, I suppose that would depend on whether the individual in question believes that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is true or not.
That is just a model like thousands of others. It may be a reasonable approximation, but it is by no means 100% accurate - thus making any policy based on it run the risk of going horribly wrong.

Do you want an honest answer to this question?
Yes.

I find that interesting, because that would have been my definition of capitalism. One definition of socialism is that it is the act of taking from some for the benefit of others. That obviously presumes that we know what is to the benefit of the 'others', and whether or not this is greater than the cost of it to the 'some'.
The individuals from whom is being taken obviously don't make that choice (if they did, it'd be charity), so a third party does.Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that a rich person might choose to live in a socialist society for reasons other than it's more convenient for them to have the state give their money to charity than to do it themselves. Therefore, I don't see it as impossible for the rich person to choose a socialist society.

(I would also agree that *a* definition of socialism is "the act of taking from some for the benefit of others", but I would not say that that is the correct definition of socialism.)

That is just a model like thousands of others. It may be a reasonable approximation, but it is by no means 100% accurate - thus making any policy based on it run the risk of going horribly wrong.This may be true, but it is true for all policies; capitalist policies included.

Yes.Well, then, I would suggest that you have an okay chance of becoming upper middle-class through hard work; whether or not achieving that status is worth all of the work you would put into it is up to you. I would say that you have about the same chance of becoming rich through hard work as you do of becoming rich via winning the lottery. This might have to be adjusted a little bit if Australians don't have as many lotteries, or have more lotteries than we do here. So the question I pose is: is it worth it to you to try to become rich even if you fail? If yes, then by all means try.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that a rich person might choose to live in a socialist society for reasons other than it's more convenient for them to have the state give their money to charity than to do it themselves.
Like what? :confused:

This may be true, but it is true for all policies; capitalist policies included.
Well, we're obviously talking hypothetical right now, and in such a case it would have to be said that capitalism is more the lack of policies (other than an absolute bare minimum) than a distinct set of them.

I would say that you have about the same chance of becoming rich through hard work as you do of becoming rich via winning the lottery.
I went to an info session for my business school's honours program the other day (it was invite only :p). There the head of the school explained to us the sort of stuff we'd be expected to do, and he laid out the rewards.
People who get first class honours have an average starting salary of somewhere around A$100,000, which rises steadily from there onwards.
With that sort of base, and a basic understanding of stock markets and finance, a million is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.
And the first million is always the hardest...

My goal is to be somewhere around the level of this guy (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_26/b3889411.htm) once, maybe one below him as head of a division (supply chains and logistics preferably). It may take a lifetime, but it is possible.

I'd agree with you that there are many arseholes out there, who'll try to keep you down. But the way to deal with them is by making it impossible for them to refuse. Make it so expensive for them not to choose you that they have no real choice but to arrange themselves with you. One simply has to be the best at everything one does.

So the question I pose is: is it worth it to you to try to become rich even if you fail? If yes, then by all means try.
The answer is 'yes', and always has been. I have no other goals in life. No other targets.
I know people will think that is sad. Maybe it is for them, who am I to tell.
But the fact is that this sort of thing is the only thing I have ever been good at. It's the only area in which I can hope for success.
I am not an emotional guy, nor very romantic. While I liked various girlfriends over the years, not once did I envision myself spending my life with them. The idea that starting a family and living a quiet, pointless life somewhere should be my goal is appalling to me.
And helping others, I believe, is only possible after one has helped oneself. So even if my goal was to make everybody in the world happy, the best way of achieving that would still be through becoming rich myself.

Like what? :confused: Well, for instance, money is power, and simply because a person is rich in a monetary sense doesn't mean that there won't be people richer and more powerful than they are in a capitalist society. Therefore, in order to avoid people having that type of power over them, they may choose to live in a socialist society.

Well, we're obviously talking hypothetical right now, and in such a case it would have to be said that capitalism is more the lack of policies (other than an absolute bare minimum) than a distinct set of them.All right, then, it could be argued that a lack of policies is worse than a set of policies.

I went to an info session for my business school's honours program the other day (it was invite only :p). There the head of the school explained to us the sort of stuff we'd be expected to do, and he laid out the rewards.
People who get first class honours have an average starting salary of somewhere around A$100,000, which rises steadily from there onwards.
With that sort of base, and a basic understanding of stock markets and finance, a million is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.
And the first million is always the hardest...Until the stock market crashes, anyway.

My goal is to be somewhere around the level of this guy (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_26/b3889411.htm) once, maybe one below him as head of a division (supply chains and logistics preferably). It may take a lifetime, but it is possible.Do you think that type of work would be interesting?

I'd agree with you that there are many arseholes out there, who'll try to keep you down. But the way to deal with them is by making it impossible for them to refuse. Make it so expensive for them not to choose you that they have no real choice but to arrange themselves with you. One simply has to be the best at everything one does.I would rather not associate myself with that type of person, that way that type of person doesn't get anything from whatever it is that I do.

The answer is 'yes', and always has been. I have no other goals in life. No other targets.
I know people will think that is sad. Maybe it is for them, who am I to tell.
But the fact is that this sort of thing is the only thing I have ever been good at. It's the only area in which I can hope for success.Do you mean the stock market itself, or simply getting rich? After all, if you're good at getting rich, then some methods would have to be better than others, and if this is true then there's no reason why you couldn't simply stop at comfortable.

I am not an emotional guy, nor very romantic. While I liked various girlfriends over the years, not once did I envision myself spending my life with them. The idea that starting a family and living a quiet, pointless life somewhere should be my goal is appalling to me.That's fine. I suppose what I would put at my goal is something I know I would succeed at; succeeding at a mundane goal is inherently better than failing at a noble one. That you're different is your choice, and I don't see anything wrong with that, I'd just wondered if you'd considered the possibility of failure and how you would feel if you did fail.

And helping others, I believe, is only possible after one has helped oneself. So even if my goal was to make everybody in the world happy, the best way of achieving that would still be through becoming rich myself.Not planning on leading a revolutionary army, eh? Lol. I suppose you could enter politics without being rich, in theory, but if Australian politics are as corrupt as American politics, maybe you can't.

I don't go for either extreme. I see no reason why I should have to choose to be a full capitalist or a full socialist.

Until the stock market crashes, anyway.
I did a course on Financial Management this semester, and I must say that it really opened my eyes to how that sort of thing works. Because playing the stock market does not have to be very risky. Real investors treat all this risk/return stuff with cold, hard maths, to the point where most things become somewhat predictable.
Of course there is the remote possibility of the whole thing crashing down all at once, but I don't think a repeat of 1929 is really possible. The 2001 thing was bad though, and many people lost a lot of money. The trick is then, I suppose, to have reserves - and that is easier if you're already on a 100k salary.

Do you think that type of work would be interesting?
Yep - that's my forté, as they say. :)

I would rather not associate myself with that type of person, that way that type of person doesn't get anything from whatever it is that I do.
Sometimes that's possible, but to be realistic, sometimes it isn't. And the only time you will struggle in capitalism despite putting in the effort is if you meet that sort of person and can't get around them. And in that case, it's best to just bethink of the things one is best that and concentrate on them.

Do you mean the stock market itself, or simply getting rich?
Using my head to make decisions and lead others around me. I'm not physically strong, nor am I particularly popular or attractive. I'm not an artist, nor religious.
I think of myself as a businessman-character. Whether or not I become rich is one thing, but that the business world is the arena in which I will spend my life was never to be questioned.

After all, if you're good at getting rich, then some methods would have to be better than others, and if this is true then there's no reason why you couldn't simply stop at comfortable.
The problem is that the sort of things I aim for (like my Lamborghini) are not really to be gotten at "comfortable".
I can imagine that if I really make it, 5 million is all I would need, and everything I earn above that can go to charity.

That you're different is your choice, and I don't see anything wrong with that, I'd just wondered if you'd considered the possibility of failure and how you would feel if you did fail.
I suppose failure is a possibility. I don't think it's a big one, but that's where the confidence kicks in.
But to be brutally honest, I couldn't imagine living my life not either being rich, or being on the way to be rich. To me it would feel like living my life a quadrapalegic, and I couldn't see myself ever becoming happy like that.

I did a course on Financial Management this semester, and I must say that it really opened my eyes to how that sort of thing works. Because playing the stock market does not have to be very risky. Real investors treat all this risk/return stuff with cold, hard maths, to the point where most things become somewhat predictable.
Of course there is the remote possibility of the whole thing crashing down all at once, but I don't think a repeat of 1929 is really possible. The 2001 thing was bad though, and many people lost a lot of money. The trick is then, I suppose, to have reserves - and that is easier if you're already on a 100k salary.Yes, but what happens if it crashes before you're able to earn reserves?

Yep - that's my forté, as they say. :)Well, I believe that people should do what it is that they find interesting, and I can't begrudge you for also being able to make a living off of it.

Sometimes that's possible, but to be realistic, sometimes it isn't. And the only time you will struggle in capitalism despite putting in the effort is if you meet that sort of person and can't get around them. And in that case, it's best to just bethink of the things one is best that and concentrate on them.I suppose the difference between us is that you seem to think that this type of person is rare, whereas I don't.

Using my head to make decisions and lead others around me. I'm not physically strong, nor am I particularly popular or attractive. I'm not an artist, nor religious.
I think of myself as a businessman-character. Whether or not I become rich is one thing, but that the business world is the arena in which I will spend my life was never to be questioned.Well, it seems obvious that capitalism is what you want, but you could have this type of thing in regulated capitalism, too...why a more libertarian form?

The problem is that the sort of things I aim for (like my Lamborghini) are not really to be gotten at "comfortable".
I can imagine that if I really make it, 5 million is all I would need, and everything I earn above that can go to charity.Do you believe this is impossible with a more regulated form of capitalism?

I suppose failure is a possibility. I don't think it's a big one, but that's where the confidence kicks in.
But to be brutally honest, I couldn't imagine living my life not either being rich, or being on the way to be rich. To me it would feel like living my life a quadrapalegic, and I couldn't see myself ever becoming happy like that.Well, I suppose that everyone is different, and if that's what makes you happy, then so be it, but as the saying goes..."money can't buy you happiness".

Do you believe this is impossible with a more regulated form of capitalism?
That depends on what exactly you mean by that. 'Regulated' could either mean environmental regulations and things like that, which make sense to some extent, or it could mean a more socialdemocratic sort of construct, that ends up taking my money and gives it to other people who don't deserve it IMHO.

What I really want is just three things.
a) Low (ie below 30% would be fine by me) Flat Taxes.
b) The ability to hire, fire and work with whomever I want, whenever I want.
c) That the government keep out out of everything else a person chooses to do in their personal and social life.

And only the libertarians of all walks of life seem to support those three points.

That depends on what exactly you mean by that. 'Regulated' could either mean environmental regulations and things like that, which make sense to some extent, or it could mean a more socialdemocratic sort of construct, that ends up taking my money and gives it to other people who don't deserve it IMHO.

What I really want is just three things.
a) Low (ie below 30% would be fine by me) Flat Taxes.
b) The ability to hire, fire and work with whomever I want, whenever I want.
c) That the government keep out out of everything else a person chooses to do in their personal and social life.

And only the libertarians of all walks of life seem to support those three points.
I for one certainly do. I think the government should provide where the free market cannot, so long as the free market has been milked for maximum benefit. It could also exist to ensure that there isn't substantial inequality or, as you said, environmental issues.

I think you're defining self interest too narrowly. If you want to meet with and interact with feminists, then attending their discussion groups is self-interested behaviour. You value the interaction, therefore you seek out that interaction. Self-interest doesn't need to be predatory.

Everyone does what they value. Most sincere altruists, for instance, are altruists because they value the welfare of others. That's one of the problems with the glorification of selfishness; usually, the people who advocate it end up defining it so broadly that it becomes meaningless.

I did a course on Financial Management this semester, and I must say that it really opened my eyes to how that sort of thing works. Because playing the stock market does not have to be very risky. Real investors treat all this risk/return stuff with cold, hard maths, to the point where most things become somewhat predictable.
Of course there is the remote possibility of the whole thing crashing down all at once, but I don't think a repeat of 1929 is really possible. The 2001 thing was bad though, and many people lost a lot of money. The trick is then, I suppose, to have reserves - and that is easier if you're already on a 100k salary.

Financial classes brought me towards the free market model as well. The biggest thing was the actual realisation as to what goes on in businesses and how money is really made. You begin to feel that everyone else just doesn't get it.

1929 was a disaster in economic policy more than a disaster in the business cycle, so I don't think it will happen again.

But in the case of systematic risk, recession and depression, I don't think "reserves" will help you much.

The problem is that the sort of things I aim for (like my Lamborghini) are not really to be gotten at "comfortable".
I can imagine that if I really make it, 5 million is all I would need, and everything I earn above that can go to charity.

Why would someone smart and grounded like you be so materialistic?

Happiness is in functionality.

Most sincere altruists, for instance, are altruists because they value the welfare of others.
Which would mean that it makes them happy to make others happy. So they still work for their own happiness, even though they take a way that includes others.
"Rational Self-Interest" is nothing but the concept of pursuing one's own happiness as best one can, without giving up some happiness (not money) for others. It is a broad term, because people have a broad set of behaviour, and how selfishness expresses itself depends on the individual in question.

Why would someone smart and grounded like you be so materialistic?
I believe that happiness is achieved through setting goals and achieving them. That is the most basic definition of how to become happy.

My goal is to be able to buy whatever I want and not have to worry about the price tag, while doing something I enjoy. Surely that's not a bad goal to have, is it?

Which would mean that it makes them happy to make others happy. So they still work for their own happiness, even though they take a way that includes others.
"Rational Self-Interest" is nothing but the concept of pursuing one's own happiness as best one can, without giving up some happiness (not money) for others. It is a broad term, because people have a broad set of behaviour, and how selfishness expresses itself depends on the individual in question.

Then it is meaningless, at least as far as ethical systems go, because all actions fall under it. The only reason a person would give up happiness for others is because he values something more than his own happiness, and thus, because he values it, it still falls under "rational self-interest" by the broad definition.

[Socialism is] not the evil people make it out to be - it only becomes evil when it starts involving force. And many forms of socialism are based on a consensus and leave those not interested free to leave.


I realized this fact while enjoying a campfire at an orphanage near Ensenada, Mexico. I discovered that those anarchist types might actually be on to something; I still don't accept the general concept of "anarchism," however, I had seen with my own eyes the value of the free and voluntary association of individuals that is at the heart of genuine cooperative/collective effort. I had tried more statist "welfare state" type socialism, but never got into it because I could not justify it with my individualism (also enhanced by my witnessing police corruption and armed military troops conducting "drug searches" and other such statist nonsense in Mexico). Now having actually seen how socialism and individualism are not necessarily contradictory, I have been steadly moving left again, although in very small increments. (edit: Discovering that the father of capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) consistantly criticized the motovations and actions of wealthy/business interests also helps the trend).

For the first time ever, both of my Political Compass scores are negative :eek: Notice, however, that my "Moral Order/Moral Rules (http://www.moral-politics.com/)" scores continue to indicate an devotion to individualism. And then the PoliticsForum Quiz (http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php) labeled me a small government, liberal market, free trade socialist. :cool:

Then it is meaningless, at least as far as ethical systems go, because all actions fall under it.
Exactly. It serves merely as an illustration that pursuing one's own happiness is natural, not evil nor good. Everyone's got the right to pursue one's own happiness as they see fit, and no one can make a value judgement.

There is ultimately no difference between someone who works only to make millions for himself in order to be happy, and someone who works tirelessly to feed starving children in order to be happy.

The problem is that in our society the latter is always seen as the somehow more worthwhile and morally superior.

I believe that happiness is achieved through setting goals and achieving them. That is the most basic definition of how to become happy.

My goal is to be able to buy whatever I want and not have to worry about the price tag, while doing something I enjoy. Surely that's not a bad goal to have, is it?

Well, I believe happiness is a much more fundamental thing, the fulfillment of carnal desires. You eat well enough, you stay rested, you have enough sex, you will pretty well lead a stress free and happy life. It is when people add psychologically manipulated desires to the mix that they begin to stress far more than what they should (a desire to buy a lamborghini is a good example).

Certainly wanting to buy whatever you want without worry of price is a fine goal, as not worrying about money allows you to fulfill your fundamental desires. However, when your goal becomes gain and not fulfillment, you run into problems, because gain is a process not an acheivement, and there will always be more out there for you to buy.

That is why I believe functionality is the key, and one should never concentrate on items simply for the want of possessing them.

That depends on what exactly you mean by that. 'Regulated' could either mean environmental regulations and things like that, which make sense to some extent, or it could mean a more socialdemocratic sort of construct, that ends up taking my money and gives it to other people who don't deserve it IMHO.Yes, it could mean either. Do you believe that owning a lamborghini is impossible if the government takes some of "your" money and gives it to other people who don't "deserve" it?

What I really want is just three things.
a) Low (ie below 30% would be fine by me) Flat Taxes.
b) The ability to hire, fire and work with whomever I want, whenever I want.
c) That the government keep out out of everything else a person chooses to do in their personal and social life.

And only the libertarians of all walks of life seem to support those three points.Does your support of 'b' mean that you don't believe anti-discrimination laws are necessary?

There is ultimately no difference between someone who works only to make millions for himself in order to be happy, and someone who works tirelessly to feed starving children in order to be happy.

The problem is that in our society the latter is always seen as the somehow more worthwhile and morally superior.Why do you suppose this is?

Exactly. It serves merely as an illustration that pursuing one's own happiness is natural, not evil nor good. Everyone's got the right to pursue one's own happiness as they see fit, and no one can make a value judgement.

There is ultimately no difference between someone who works only to make millions for himself in order to be happy, and someone who works tirelessly to feed starving children in order to be happy.

The problem is that in our society the latter is always seen as the somehow more worthwhile and morally superior.
My sentiments exactly.
Why do you suppose this is?
Because it makes many people happy to support the work of those that make others happy.
Second-hand altruism if you will.

Because it makes many people happy to support the work of those that make others happy.
Second-hand altruism if you will.Does this mean that the best system is the one that makes the most people happy?

Does this mean that the best system is the one that makes the most people happy?
Nope. It's the one that allows people to seek their own hapiness freely.
Currently that happens to be regulated capitalism suported by a welfare state.

Nope. It's the one that allows people to seek their own hapiness freely.
Currently that happens to be regulated capitalism suported by a welfare state.What's the point of a system if it doesn't get you anything that you can't get on your own?

What's the point of a system if it doesn't get you anything that you can't get on your own?
The system facilitates getting the things you want by creating a secure envirement in which to obtain them.

The system facilitates getting the things you want by creating a secure envirement in which to obtain them.But why should I care if I have a secure environment if I am unable to obtain what I want? Why should I care about a secure environment if I am able to obtain what I want in an insecure environment?