The commy, pinky socialist smackdown thread. [Archive] - Page 2

Theodoric

03-03-2008, 04:02 PM

I have no opinion on whether supply or demand should be regulated by the government or not. The only socialized regulations I am interested in are those meant to protect workers, the environment, resources, etc. You are right when you make the assertion that I believe a free market is one with no regulation by the government. I believe the government and private sector should be mutualistic, and should work to benefit from one another. In many cases, I think the government should even stay out of market affairs and vice versa when it comes to businesses in government affairs. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see lobbyists no longer influencing Congress.

Then we are in an agreement somewhat. Governments should stay out of the market and the market should keep out of government. This is exactly the sort of thing that is the result of a non free market. Since the government has decided to steer economic policy, corporations and special interest groups have lobbied congress to ensure their monopolistic control. Teachers Unions have lobbied congress and supported candidates that are against vouchers that would allow students to leave failing schools, thus ensuring their monopoly on education. Pharmaceutical companies have not only lobbied congress to increase patent protection but have also lobbied for more government subsidies to do research, thus pushing out competition by gobbling up all the available government funds and then denying generic drug companies to manufacture the same product. The free market is not where there are no regulations, but merely where the government keeps out of market affairs and does not steer corporate policy and social policy by price fixing and taxation. Your belief that the free market is where no regulation at all exists is false, at least as far as the true definition of what the free market is. Maybe you've been reading too much into ArchonAlarion's anarchist ideas.

I am curious, however, how your particular theories on a freer market would improve the situation in health care so that everyone who wants to be, could be covered and people would not be losing their houses and life savings when they fall on misfortune?

I assume what you are proposing is government mandated 'safety nets' should any adverse instances arise. I would like you to read this article To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. so that you can better understand that well meaning regulation has significantly increased health insurance costs for everyone. Making sure that people that are higher risk pay (the elderly, the obese, people with chronic pre-existing conditions) the same costs for care as those that are at less risk (the young, people in good shape that maintain healthy lifestyles). This makes as much sense as insuring a home in an area that is rampant with crime and is prone to natural disasters (think LA :laugh: ) for the same amount as a home located in a relatively safe area (think the North East). Another example could be insuring a driver that has had several vehicle infractions such as speeding, DUI, etc for the same amount that someone that has had no infractions. These policies have done little to promote better healthcare, and more to promote higher premiums. There is also the issue with tax rates, which have made it artificially higher for someone to purchase individual care and necessary for them to opt into group care. In a free market society, people would be able to switch between providers by who provides them the best service and offers the best rates. This would spur insurance companies to offer lower rates and also spur doctors and hospitals to price services accordingly, and not dependent upon how much a provider is willing to pay. This would be due to consumers dictating price structures by what they are willing to pay, rather than doctors and insurance providers negotiating price.

Another issue I see is your argument has been to leave the market alone, but it only takes one company to utilize the government to completely undermine the entire idea.

But in the free market economics are not politicized, and therefore free from the whims of the government. In the free market a company could not undermine the entire idea by utilizing the government because the government would have no control over how the market works and responds.

So how would you institute an uninstitutable idea such a free market in the real world? Anarchists have come to the conclusion that the only way this is achievable is eliminating the role of government in the market entirely. What argument are you making about how a free market would be practical in a world where it seems it would be impossible for it to form? How are you going to keep third parties from influencing said market?

The only third party here is the government, so if the government discontinues its involvement in market economics then we are free from government price fixing, only implementing regulations if and when an adverse condition arises.

How are you going to protect the rights of the workers in such a market? It still seems to me to just be a fantasy of the way things "should be" with no bearing on how things work in the real world.

In fact, it seem the closest real life model to that which you are advocating is Hong Kong. And where is that located?

While Hong Kong is technically part of China, it is in no way subject to Chinese rule. The Hong Kong Government maintains its own legal system, police force, monetary system, customs policy, immigration policy, and delegates to international organizations and events. The only part China plays in Hong Kong is in its defense and foreign affairs. Which is more in tune with my views on how the federal government should operate. Provide defense and laws, but stop trying to legislate morality and create country wide socialist systems which in turn only creates waste and takes power away from the individual.

"In 2006, Hong Kong's per-capita GDP ranked as the 6th highest in the world at US$38,127, ahead of countries such as Switzerland, Denmark, and Japan. Its GDP ranked as the 40th highest at US$253.1 billion."

So not only is the median wage higher than in the US, but also in many other Westernized nations. The economy mainly hinges on the financial and services sector. Only 4% of the population is below the poverty line. Unemployment rests at a mere 3.5%, and that is mostly the population between jobs. Imports and Exports rest at a stable rate, at about $350 Billion per year for each. Compare this to socialist governments such as Iran, France, and Venezuela where unemployment is near 25% and a significant portion of the population is below the poverty line, many lacking basic necessities.

meanlittlechimp

03-03-2008, 08:36 PM

Lights

03-03-2008, 11:22 PM

The free market is not where there are no regulations, but merely where the government keeps out of market affairs and does not steer corporate policy and social policy by price fixing and taxation.

So exactly how does the government regulate businesses then? How does the government enforce labor laws, environmental protection laws, etc.?

pavman

03-03-2008, 11:32 PM

It's entertaining to see that the car industry was brought up again. As I mentioned before it seems very strange that the better made cars comes from "massmurder countries".

I didn't know Japan was a massmurder country?! Besides, almost all Toyotas and Hondas [let's face it, Mazda and Mitsubishi are the big Japanese losers and not worth mentioning] sold in the US are assembled in the US.

Now GM and Ford have a large percentage made in either Canada or Mexico (or both).

pavman added to this post, 1 minutes and 38 seconds later...

So exactly how does the government regulate businesses then? How does the government enforce labor laws, environmental protection laws, etc.?

Why via the executive branch. :thumbsup:

You don't remember your social studies and having to learn "how the government works"???

Or did you not grow up in the US? :cry:

Colette

03-04-2008, 12:43 AM

So exactly how does the government regulate businesses then? How does the government enforce labor laws, environmental protection laws, etc.?

I think he's talking about tariffs and protections for home industry, and suchlike. Perhaps he could clarify for us whether he's suggesting that a free market should exist without labor, health and safety, and environment protection laws.

Sylvanus

03-04-2008, 02:09 AM

Just to clarify, are you talking about welfare recipients here? Are you referring to people on long term welfare, or does your comment apply equally to those on short term welfare?

Incidentally if you're going to use an inflationary argument against welfare beneficiaries, you might like to consider the relative extent to which high income earners contribute to the net inflationary effect, versus low income earners/beneficiaries (for inflationary purposes, I'd both those last two groups together, in terms of low inflationary effect). High income earners engage in high spending, property investment, and speculation, all of which are factors increasing the level of inflation and interest rate volatility, which in turn disadvantages the ordinary 'consumer'. So if you want to look at 'who costs the taxpayer more', the arguments aren't as clearcut as you may like to imagine.

No, not inflation, deflation. Inflation is what happens when the value of money goes down due to one or more changes in this equation [MV = PT] (M=quantity of money, V=velocity or rate of circulation, P= prices, T= transactions).

What I am saying is that with more people producing the economy will expand (T goes up). Assuming everything else stays the same, prices will go down. Your money is worth more, not less. For the same amount of hours working you can buy more stuff.

I don't think anyone at all should rely on the government for any of their income, ever. I also think it would be a bastard move to just revoke any of these entitlements all of a sudden with no warning. Especially social security, which people have been paying into for decades expecting to get their money back when they get old, and having no other means of living because they were relying on the government. That being said, it would be in everyone's best interest to begin planning the complete removal of all entitlements, with specific deadlines to meet so everyone knows we mean business.

Colette

03-04-2008, 02:42 AM

No, not inflation, deflation. Inflation is what happens when the value of money goes down due to one or more changes in this equation [MV = PT] (M=quantity of money, V=velocity or rate of circulation, P= prices, T= transactions).

I know what inflation is thanks, Sylvanus, and I also know that vigorous spending and consumerism within an economy has an inflationary effect.

What I am saying is that with more people producing the economy will expand (T goes up). Assuming everything else stays the same, prices will go down. Your money is worth more, not less. For the same amount of hours working you can buy more stuff

Not true at all. You obviously are not a student of economics. Yes, the economy expands when production is high, but contracts when full employment is present, because of the inflationary effect. Prices do not necessarily go down when the economy expands - there are many more factors at play than the level of economic growth, in determining price for goods and services.

I don't think anyone at all should rely on the government for any of their income, ever.

Sometimes people have to, for reasons of necessity. My view on welfare is that its proper role is as a "hand up", not a "hand out" (i.e. that the objective should usually be to get the person back to productive employment), however there are some groups of people for whom this will never be an achievable goal - examples being the severely disabled, and long term mentally ill people whose condition is too variable for them to be able to contemplate regular/long term employment, and single parents with insufficient skills to be in employment (and too much re-training required while the child is under school age). Even those groups can be assisted, however the solution is usually temporary or voluntary work, rather than full employment.

xanodel

03-04-2008, 09:38 AM

OK, here it is since some people don't think tax discussions or capitalist v. socialist discussions should be tied to socialist program threads. This the place to tell me why you think you are entitled to take a producers earnings for your own personal socialist pet program.

To respond to OP: Simple. If you want to see the result, go to some African country like Somalia, Ruwanda, Kenya. Or have you never considered the fact that some of the countries that have the least amount of public government social benefits for the population are among the poorest in terms of GDP, per capita and overall quality of life? Not only do we run into normal economic/trade problems such as corporate theft because the laws themselves are not fully enforced by a government, or a lack of rules in some cases. We run further into social problems, health problems such as AIDS pandemic. There's an inherent problem with your idea, which is that people would naturally in the absence of a social net naturally lean towards working harder. That's not true; some may resort to vandalism, theft, warlords, trafficking. While each of the above can be considered illegal, I think they can also be defined as legit methods, since warlords, robbers etc had to expend energy, time and effort to gain their earnings. In that sense, they did work, and as such we shouldn't deprive them of their earnings regardless of how they hurt the rest of the innocents.

Second, your theory of economics and overall social system can be likened to a winner takes all game matrix. There's an assumption of mutual exclusiveness, which in fact is not true.

Third, let's talk about right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. While there is no fundamental liberty that you must have the best quality of life, there is a fundamental idea that a person is given the fundamental right to have a shot at life. After taking into account of each person's natural capabilities, it's equally unfair for me to deprive you of life simply because you don't work the same way I do. And I think that can be extended between you to other people. Simply because you don't use the social system itself, does not mean a) it does not work to benefit you in some way (look to African example above). I believe that even Adam Smith himself conceded that even in a totally capitalist system needs some degree of regulation.

Fourth, any market needs consumers. The type of social services you're paying allows the creation of more consumers for the market, which provides you jobs, income etc.

Fifth, as Lights happened to point out posts ago, you have addressed specific flaws in the current SQ system. However you have not illustrated lucidly, effectively how your entire system itself would work. While one or two components themselves may work wonderfully, the entire system itself is fully capable of collapsing. If you care to recall, USSR had an efficient sports training system; it was how normally poor people who could not afford personal coaches received training and a form of stipend for their lives (and the lives of their families). Yet that in no way meant the entire soviet system itself was effective. Hence, I would ask that you prove your entire system itself may work well, in theory and in practice.

Sixth, I do wonder if your theoretical system (which you've stated multiple times in the forums) itself would run into the same problem communism runs into. That is it cannot work unless the entire world converts over to it.

Seventh, I must also wonder if this is a theory that is worth expending any energy on. Quite frankly, haven't our ancestors been there done that around 10,000 years ago? Now the question is, if it so great, why did they start a more systemic regulation? Wait...warfare, nevermind.

Theodoric

03-04-2008, 11:03 AM

So exactly how does the government regulate businesses then? How does the government enforce labor laws, environmental protection laws, etc.?

The government would still be able to impose regulation on business that have nothing to do with price fixing or taxation. A law that states that factories need to decrease the amount of pollutants in the air does not have anything to do with the government raising taxes on the items that are manufactured by the factory or telling the factory that they need to sell their goods at a set price.

A great example of this is the agricultural industry in the US, namely corn.

Because American farmers in the mid west want more money for their corn, they decided to go lobby congress. Congress then decides to put price indexes on corn. It can only be sold at a certain price. Farmers are able to raise their prices above this index, but are unable to sell it below the index. However, costs for production have steadily gone down while at the same time production levels have gone up. Because of lobbyist pressure on the government the established producers have found a way to create a monopoly on corn production that is not only completely legal, but also subsidized by the government.

In a free market economy, consumers would set the price structure. Should the demand for corn go up, then prices would go up. Should demand go down, prices would go down. If one farmer would find a way to increase production while at the same time lower the cost of production, then he could lower his prices to compete with the others. If another farmer is able to produce a superior product he would be able to sell it for much more.

Price fixing on goods and services by the government creates monopolies, stifles competition, and creates no incentive to offer better goods and services because the producers know they will get the same price no matter what they do. In fact, it encourages them to lower the quality of their goods because they are in fact cheaper to produce.

Environmental and labor laws can, and should be, not based upon taxes and price fixing. If an employer is violating them forcing taxes upon him or changing the price of his goods does nothing to encourage compliance as long as he is still making a profit.

In fact, one could argue that labor laws are not as necessary as they were before, because people now enjoy more freedom and mobility to move between different industries. Back in the early 1900s labor laws were a necessity because in many instances there were only a few employers in each area. An employer could easily deny breaks, lower wages, and keep an unsafe work environment because there were almost no other choices in where to work. Now however, an employer needs to make sure that he is not violating the rights of his worker. Not as much because of the government, but more so because of fear that his employees will walk out and go to a competitor, thereby ruining his business.

Lights

03-04-2008, 12:16 PM

Environmental and labor laws can, and should be, not based upon taxes and price fixing. If an employer is violating them forcing taxes upon him or changing the price of his goods does nothing to encourage compliance as long as he is still making a profit.

Price fixing aside, taxation is how the government gets businesses to obey regulations. They impose taxes, such as clean air ordinances. If the government isn't allowed to do so, then how will they get businesses to comply? If the government decides that businesses in an area need to start cutting down on the pollutants they put out in the environment, how are they suppose to do so? Throw people in jail, shut down the businesses, what? You don't seem to be providing an alternative, just an assumption that the free market will provide the answer. I've pointed out before that it's counter intutive to think such, because businesses are aiming for profit and they will cut corners to maximize it. What motivation are you suggesting be imposed so that they will comply with regulations?

In fact, one could argue that labor laws are not as necessary as they were before, because people now enjoy more freedom and mobility to move between different industries. Back in the early 1900s labor laws were a necessity because in many instances there were only a few employers in each area. An employer could easily deny breaks, lower wages, and keep an unsafe work environment because there were almost no other choices in where to work. Now however, an employer needs to make sure that he is not violating the rights of his worker. Not as much because of the government, but more so because of fear that his employees will walk out and go to a competitor, thereby ruining his business.

Are you from a right to work state? I'm very happy that we still have labor laws. Nowadays, companies send jobs overseas so they can get around labor laws. Nobody cares if their Nikes were made by an 9 year old in a run down factory and long as it was in the Philippines and not the United States. The very fact that US companies do violate our labor laws in other countries where they don't have them demonstrates a need for them here.

Also, the greater mobility assumption in this country is based on country that has labor laws. Show me a country that doesn't have the same labor laws and still has such mobility.

Theodoric

03-04-2008, 01:10 PM

Price fixing aside, taxation is how the government gets businesses to obey regulations. They impose taxes, such as clean air ordinances. If the government isn't allowed to do so, then how will they get businesses to comply? If the government decides that businesses in an area need to start cutting down on the pollutants they put out in the environment, how are they suppose to do so? Throw people in jail, shut down the businesses, what? You don't seem to be providing an alternative, just an assumption that the free market will provide the answer. I've pointed out before that it's counter intutive to think such, because businesses are aiming for profit and they will cut corners to maximize it. What motivation are you suggesting be imposed so that they will comply with regulations?

Exactly, businesses are out to maximize profits. Thats kind of the point. It is the very nature of business to do so since that is the only reason for a business' existence. So adding a tax onto all industries in a certain sector because a few don't want to comply and can still turn a profit does nothing. Also, the industries then go on to factor in these taxes, and merely pass it on to the consumer, like how gasoline taxes aren't paid by those that sell it, but by those that consume it. Taxes do nothing to force compliance. In the case of a factory putting too many pollutants in the air I would propose fining them at a rate that they could not make a profit. It would be very difficult for them to subsequently pass the cost of those fines onto the consumer because their competitors who have complied already with the regulations would still be selling their products at a lower rate. If they raised prices the only thing they would do is encourage their consumers to purchase their competitors products.

Eventually, if the factory owners still would not comply I would advocate jailing them in a federal prison (not one of those nice weekend getaway minimum security ones) and seizing their assets. Compliance will only be met when the consequences of non compliance far outweigh the benefits.

Are you from a right to work state? I'm very happy that we still have labor laws. Nowadays, companies send jobs overseas so they can get around labor laws. Nobody cares if their Nikes were made by an 9 year old in a run down factory and long as it was in the Philippines and not the United States. The very fact that US companies do violate our labor laws in other countries where they don't have them demonstrates a need for them here.

Also, the greater mobility assumption in this country is based on country that has labor laws. Show me a country that doesn't have the same labor laws and still has such mobility.

I was merely suggesting that should a regulation become outdated then there is no need to keep or enforce it, mostly because enforcing these regulations which everyone is already complying with do nothing but raise costs. Child labor laws are practically pointless in this country because the overwhelming majority of children are placed into the school system.

You might be surprised to know that the laws against "child labor" do not date from the 18th century. Indeed, the national law against child labor didn’t pass until the Great Depression, in 1938, with the Fair Labor Standards Act. It was the same law that gave us a minimum wage and defined what constitutes full-time and part-time work. It was a handy way to raise wages and lower the unemployment rate: simply define whole sectors of the potential workforce as unemployable. By the time this legislation passed, however, it was mostly a symbol, a classic case of Washington chasing a trend in order to take credit for it. Youth labor was expected in the 17th and 18th centuries. But as prosperity grew with the advance of commerce, more kids left the workforce. By 1930, only 6.4 percent of kids between the ages of 10 and 15 were actually employed, and 3 out of 4 of those were in agriculture. In wealthier, urban, industrialized areas, child labor was largely gone, as more and more kids were being schooled. Cultural factors were important here, but the most important consideration was economic. More developed economies permit parents to "purchase" their children’s education out of the family’s surplus income by foregoing what would otherwise be their childrens' earnings.

So in reality, child labor laws are not really necessary due to cultural and economic reasons. I mean really, do you know anyone that would actually place their children into the workforce, thus denying them an education and subsequently economic prosperity? I know I don't.

Lights

03-04-2008, 01:45 PM

Exactly, businesses are out to maximize profits. Thats kind of the point. It is the very nature of business to do so since that is the only reason for a business' existence. So adding a tax onto all industries in a certain sector because a few don't want to comply and can still turn a profit does nothing. Also, the industries then go on to factor in these taxes, and merely pass it on to the consumer, like how gasoline taxes aren't paid by those that sell it, but by those that consume it. Taxes do nothing to force compliance. In the case of a factory putting too many pollutants in the air I would propose fining them at a rate that they could not make a profit. It would be very difficult for them to subsequently pass the cost of those fines onto the consumer because their competitors who have complied already with the regulations would still be selling their products at a lower rate. If they raised prices the only thing they would do is encourage their consumers to purchase their competitors products.

I think that is an assumption on your part. I know for a fact in my community that such taxes have done much to cut down on the pollutants because the companies want to stay competitive and not pass on the cost to the consumer. Even if they don't comply, at least then the taxes obtained from those companies can be used to clean up the messes they have made. The consumer will always keep pressure on companies to keep prices low. Once again you have evaded my question.

You don't seem to be providing an alternative, just an assumption that the free market will provide the answer. What motivation are you suggesting be imposed so that they will comply with regulations?

Eventually, if the factory owners still would not comply I would advocate jailing them in a federal prison (not one of those nice weekend getaway minimum security ones) and seizing their assets. Compliance will only be met when the consequences of non compliance far outweigh the benefits.

Edit: I totally misread that. Wow, so government environmental regulations would be enforced with the same stringent force as rape and murder laws? So you do advocate imprisoning those who don't follow government regulations in their businesses? That's kind of...disturbing coming from a right winger.

I was merely suggesting that should a regulation become outdated then there is no need to keep or enforce it, mostly because enforcing these regulations which everyone is already complying with do nothing but raise costs. Child labor laws are practically pointless in this country because the overwhelming majority of children are placed into the school system.

And who should be the judge of when a regulation becomes outdated? When companies continue to practice unethically in other countries, isn't that indicator that they would do the same here if would increase their profits?

You might be surprised to know that the laws against "child labor" do not date from the 18th century. Indeed, the national law against child labor didn’t pass until the Great Depression, in 1938, with the Fair Labor Standards Act. It was the same law that gave us a minimum wage and defined what constitutes full-time and part-time work. It was a handy way to raise wages and lower the unemployment rate: simply define whole sectors of the potential workforce as unemployable. By the time this legislation passed, however, it was mostly a symbol, a classic case of Washington chasing a trend in order to take credit for it. Youth labor was expected in the 17th and 18th centuries. But as prosperity grew with the advance of commerce, more kids left the workforce. By 1930, only 6.4 percent of kids between the ages of 10 and 15 were actually employed, and 3 out of 4 of those were in agriculture. In wealthier, urban, industrialized areas, child labor was largely gone, as more and more kids were being schooled. Cultural factors were important here, but the most important consideration was economic. More developed economies permit parents to "purchase" their children’s education out of the family’s surplus income by foregoing what would otherwise be their childrens' earnings.

So in reality, child labor laws are not really necessary due to cultural and economic reasons. I mean really, do you know anyone that would actually place their children into the workforce, thus denying them an education and subsequently economic prosperity? I know I don't.

I made the charge that American companies are taking part in what we in modern America would consider unethical practices overseas, and the claim that that is proof that we need those laws. Would you care to counter that charge instead of making a case against why we need child labor laws in our country?

As far as your case against child labor laws, I still think it doesn't hurt to have such laws on the books. Are you saying you want 9 year olds working in factories here now? What harm does it cause to have the law to keep that from occurring? Why should we even have to make the assumption that it wouldn't? What usually actually causes social change is the push for the law, not the actual gain of the law. It was the decades of people fighting for child labor laws that lead to the change, not the actual law. The law was just proof that the times had changed.

(PS: I probably should look up those statistics seeing as how you present statistics and the fact that you never actually provide your source)

Ytterbium

03-04-2008, 06:54 PM

I didn't know Japan was a massmurder country?! Besides, almost all Toyotas and Hondas [let's face it, Mazda and Mitsubishi are the big Japanese losers and not worth mentioning] sold in the US are assembled in the US.

Now GM and Ford have a large percentage made in either Canada or Mexico (or both).I didn't know most European countries are either. If you take a close look the wealthiest countries are on the left side on the scale. It's from those countries the better cars come from, strange ain't it?
Toyotas are assembled all over the world. But they're not designed in either country.

INTJayW

03-04-2008, 07:53 PM

So exactly how does the government regulate businesses then? How does the government enforce labor laws, environmental protection laws, etc.?

'A' government cannot regulate business. There is a reason why we have 10-20 rich countries in this world and 200 or so poor ones, and there is a reason why 5% of the population of the world live in wealth and 40-60% are middleclass poor!

Exploitation of labor is how a country goes from developing to developed.

Britain and for that matter most of Europe during it's industrial revolution had children working in factories 16 hours a day 6-7 days a week.
US during its industrialization also had children at age 5 working in industrial conditions that would be considered unspeakable today.

China is currently exploiting its low wage labor and the manufacturing capacity of the world has shifted to that country. Why you ask?

Because people will never pay $3.00 for something when they can buy it for $2.00.

Again the US gained its wealth during industrialization the year the US became a net creditor to the world was 1930 or 40 I believe. Which means that it would produce goods and export them for a net profit to the US balance of payments.

Back to my point: If a country regulates its industry's (ie. wage controls, price controls, taxes, environmental fees, fines, taxes.) The industry will simply move to that area of the world that is not regulating industry and export to those countries who can afford to buy the goods. (ie China's no tax zones.)

Which means lost jobs and a negative and widening trade deficit for those countries who try to regulate their industries like the US.

Why do you think that manufacturing has declined to the level it has in the US. To this day not a single TV sold in the US is manufactured or assembled in the US.

All countries and their political systems compete with each other. When one does well people migrate to that country, just like they did to the US in the 19th century. Then the country passes all these anti free enterprise laws and increases its taxes choking out the very businesses that brought prosperity to that country and it begins its slow decline.

Thus, Socialist laws (ie.. environmental protection, welfare, taxes, immigration.) are all great for the citizens of the country but they are bad for industry and industry does not care which country it makes its widget as long as industry maximizes its profit.

Uneven economic and political development is an
absolute law of Capitalism.
-- Nikolai Lenin
:cool:

Colette

03-04-2008, 08:19 PM

'A' government cannot regulate business. There is a reason why we have 10-20 rich countries in this world and 200 or so poor ones, and there is a reason why 5% of the population of the world live in wealth and 40-60% are middleclass poor!
...
Thus, Socialist laws (ie.. environmental protection, welfare, taxes, immigration.) are all great for the citizens of the country but they are bad for industry and industry does not care which country it makes its widget as long as industry maximizes its profit.

Uneven economic and political development is an
absolute law of Capitalism.
-- Nikolai Lenin
:cool:

You're sort of assuming with all of this, aren't you, that the only rationale for Government regulation of business, is an economic one? That is simply not the case, and never will be. Businesses are regulated as 'corporate citizens'; much in the same way as private citizens (although with a different set of principles applying). Of course they will always be driven by profit and a desire to exploit whatever cheap resources (including labour) that they can, in order to maximise it, but that doesn't mean that businesses are acting morally or responsibly as 'corporate citizens' in behaving this way, or that the Government is wasting its time regulating them.

INTJayW

03-04-2008, 09:13 PM

You're sort of assuming with all of this, aren't you,

I'm not assuming, I am stating fact.

ie

1st Economic Fact: Exploitation of labor is how a country goes from developing to developed.

1st Historical Fact: Britain and for that matter most of Europe during it's industrial revolution had children working in factories 16 hours a day 6-7 days a week.

Current Fact: China is currently exploiting its low wage labor and the manufacturing capacity of the world has shifted to that country.

2nd Economic Fact: Because people will never pay $3.00 for something when they can buy it for $2.00.

--- When is the last time you asked a store owner, "from which exploited labor country did this shirt come from?" Most cases you didn’t have to because it already said "Made in China" on the label ---

2nd Historical Fact: The US gained its wealth during industrialization the year the US became a net creditor to the world was after 1945.

--- Tried googling that one ---

Extrapolation of Fact: If a country regulates its industry's (ie. wage controls, price controls, taxes, environmental fees, fines, taxes.) The industry will simply move to that area of the world that is not regulating industry and export to those countries who can afford to buy the goods. (ie China's no tax zones.)

Government should in point of fact do only what is captured in the American constitution. Coin money, raise armies to protect the citizens, and leave regulations up to state an local governments. (I am playing devils advocate here I do believe in some governmental regulations against the formation of Monopolies, and more importantly the enforcement of those laws!:thumbsup:

Very soon the citizens of the US will have to make a decision on environmental taxes, trading carbon credits (New form of money), and other socialist regulations. Lets make informed decisions, not repeat our past mistakes.

I'm not trying to be confrontational but as an I(100%)N(88%)T(100%)J(67%)

It's either right or wrong. Many a bad decision has been made without the clarity and lessons of history. Everything we are doing today has been done before in some form or another. Lets learn from our mistakes.

A page of history is worth a volume of logic.
- Unknown

Sylvanus

03-04-2008, 11:25 PM

I know what inflation is thanks, Sylvanus, and I also know that vigorous spending and consumerism within an economy has an inflationary effect.

I'm sure you know what inflation is. But by the second part of your statement it is clear to me that you still don't know the causes (which are implicit in the equation). Let me pull out some quotes:
With the United States government this occurs through a kind of shell game. The Treasury was wisely prohibited from just printing and spending money. It sells bonds to get extra money, i.e. borrows it from the public. However, the Federal Reserve System can buy Treasury bonds, both directly and indirectly. The effect of that is for the Federal Reserve to print the money and then give it to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve then holds the bonds and collects interest on the debt, which it then turns over, with all its earnings, to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve can also buy any bonds or securities on the public market, which is the same as printing money and loaning it to anyone. When the Federal Reserve loans money directly to member banks of the Federal Reserve System, the interest rate it charges is called the "discount rate." The discount rate is the only link between interest rates and inflation, since a higher rate discourages banks from borrowing (newly created) money from the Fed and a lower rate encourages it. Encouraging such borrowing could stimulate both economic growth and inflation, or just inflation, resulting in the common link made by press and politicans between an "overheated" economy and inflation. But a growing economy itself has absolutely nothing to do with inflation. Economic growth without devices for increasing the money supply actually results in deflation, as it did from the end of the Civil War until 1896.

Money (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.-4)

Not true at all. You obviously are not a student of economics. Yes, the economy expands when production is high, but contracts when full employment is present, because of the inflationary effect. Prices do not necessarily go down when the economy expands - there are many more factors at play than the level of economic growth, in determining price for goods and services.

I agree, there are a lot of factors, specifically four general factors in the MV = PT equation. That is why I said "Assuming everything else stays the same, prices will go down." But of course the Fed always dumps more money into the economy and that is why we have perpetual inflation.

Sometimes people have to, for reasons of necessity. My view on welfare is that its proper role is as a "hand up", not a "hand out" (i.e. that the objective should usually be to get the person back to productive employment), however there are some groups of people for whom this will never be an achievable goal - examples being the severely disabled, and long term mentally ill people whose condition is too variable for them to be able to contemplate regular/long term employment, and single parents with insufficient skills to be in employment (and too much re-training required while the child is under school age). Even those groups can be assisted, however the solution is usually temporary or voluntary work, rather than full employment.

I agree that sometimes people need a hand up, but I don't think that the government is the one that should be responsible. Before the New Deal did people just starve because the government wan't taking care of them? (I think I've used this argument somewhere similar within the last two days, forgive me if I'm rehashing). There are thousands of charity organizations, then and now devoted to helping people. If the government wan't helping these people out, there would be a multitude of organizations that would step in and do the job. They would probably be more efficient and better target those in actual need versus people that are just looking for a handout.

Colette

03-04-2008, 11:50 PM

I agree that sometimes people need a hand up, but I don't think that the government is the one that should be responsible. Before the New Deal did people just starve because the government wan't taking care of them? (I think I've used this argument somewhere similar within the last two days, forgive me if I'm rehashing). There are thousands of charity organizations, then and now devoted to helping people. If the government wan't helping these people out, there would be a multitude of organizations that would step in and do the job. They would probably be more efficient and better target those in actual need versus people that are just looking for a handout.

Let me ask you what may seem like a very basic question here. What do you personally think the Government is for and about, and what is its proper sphere of regulation?

Lights

03-04-2008, 11:58 PM

I'm not assuming, I am stating fact.

First Internet Law of stating fact....

Link or it didn't happen. ;)

1st Economic Fact: Exploitation of labor is how a country goes from developing to developed.

I thought exploitation of resources was how countries went from developing to developed. Exploitation of labor would just be a cheap and convenient way of doing so.

1st Historical Fact: Britain and for that matter most of Europe during it's industrial revolution had children working in factories 16 hours a day 6-7 days a week.

True...but that doesn't mean that exploitation of labor lead to their current developed state. It could be argued that it was their subsequent passing of child labor laws and institution of public education which lead to their development.

Current Fact: China is currently exploiting its low wage labor and the manufacturing capacity of the world has shifted to that country.

It's a bit more complex than that. China artificially keeps its currency low and it's business districts such as Hong Kong are very favorable to businesses due to the free market nature, law and order, and stable taxes. Not to mention it has a large, young work force, while ours is aging.

2nd Economic Fact: Because people will never pay $3.00 for something when they can buy it for $2.00.

Depends on the quality.

2nd Historical Fact: The US gained its wealth during industrialization the year the US became a net creditor to the world was after 1945.

The United State's top asset has always been land. Since the Louisiana purchase we have been filthy rich.

Very soon the citizens of the US will have to make a decision on environmental taxes, trading carbon credits (New form of money), and other socialist regulations. Lets make informed decisions, not repeat our past mistakes.

America should probably be investing in its infrastructure and taking examples from countries like Japan in how to institute a government to business mutualism which keeps the country competitive while allowing for regulation.

I'm not trying to be confrontational but as an I(100%)N(88%)T(100%)J(67%)

What does that have to do with anything?

It's either right or wrong. Many a bad decision has been made without the clarity and lessons of history. Everything we are doing today has been done before in some form or another. Lets learn from our mistakes.

I don't believe in thinking in dichotomies. If I wanted to do that, I would be a religious zealot.

"History doesn't repeat itself, it just rhymes." -Mark Twain

Sylvanus

03-05-2008, 12:33 AM

Let me ask you what may seem like a very basic question here. What do you personally think the Government is for and about, and what is its proper sphere of regulation?

To provide basic public services like roads and sanitation.

To make and enforce laws prohibiting violence and coercion against others.

To protect the nation's sovereignty, i.e. the military.

In keeping with Hayek's view, there should be a very basic amount of business regulation, that does not impair their ability to compete in the free market.

Colette

03-05-2008, 12:47 AM

To make and enforce laws prohibiting violence and coercion against others.

Why this one? If you don't believe in the State providing welfare for the needy, why accept that the State is obliged to protect its citizens from harm and crime? Isn't it logical according to your argument that people should protect themselves, or voluntary organizations protect them?

Further I assume the consequence of your view regarding voluntary organizations is that if they cannot provide any or an adequate level of charity for the poor/needy, then tough, we let the needy starve? Or does someone else step in at this point?

Sylvanus

03-05-2008, 01:29 AM

Why this one? If you don't believe in the State providing welfare for the needy, why accept that the State is obliged to protect its citizens from harm and crime? Isn't it logical according to your argument that people should protect themselves, or voluntary organizations protect them?

Further I assume the consequence of your view regarding voluntary organizations is that if they cannot provide any or an adequate level of charity for the poor/needy, then tough, we let the needy starve? Or does someone else step in at this point?

Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801

John Locke held that the purpose of government was simply to protect natural rights, i.e. protections of person, property, and contract from wrongs by others.
freestat.htm (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I am not going to go as far as prometheus, and say that with the dissolution of all government, there will be alternatives ways to seek redress for wrongs committed against you. I can't see how a system like that could possibly work, without turning into a mob rule scenario. The free market works, it works well, anarchy doesn't.

I want to amend my previous statements. I think there is a possibility that people with absolutely no chance of being self sufficient (ie the disabled), should be eligible for some sort of benefits (on the state level). As for the current level of people in need, I don't think that charities could absorb the costs. But a gradual phase out of government benefits, concurrently with lower tax rates, and the amounts donated to charities will rise. While people are inherently self interested, most are also compassionate. If there is a need it will be filled.

Colette

03-05-2008, 01:42 AM

freestat.htm (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I am not going to go as far as prometheus, and say that with the dissolution of all government, there will be alternatives ways to seek redress for wrongs committed against you. I can't see how a system like that could possibly work, without turning into a mob rule scenario. The free market works, it works well, anarchy doesn't

Interesting that you quote Jefferson, when I actually asked for your views :P

Jefferson (for all his intellectual horsepower) was from wealthy landed gentry stock. As much as it was possible to be in those times, he was born with a 'silver spoon' in his mouth. The issues facing 19th century America were stark, and did not involve the subtleties of managing the needs of a large and culturally diverse population - they concerned matters such as independence, the founding of a republican state, and America's role on the international stage (in terms of intervention in European conflicts of the time).

I think Jefferson's political philosophy needs to be viewed within that context, to be properly understood.

I think there is a possibility that people with absolutely no chance of being self sufficient (ie the disabled), should be eligible for some sort of benefits (on the state level). As for the current level of people in need, I don't think that charities could absorb the costs. But a gradual phase out of government benefits, concurrently with lower tax rates, and the amounts donated to charities will rise. While people are inherently self interested, most are also compassionate. If there is a need it will be filled.

I still think you are placing too much faith and credence in the role of charities, in this welfare equation. Bear in mind that in order to induce people to actually donate to and support charities, the Government usually has to make donations tax deductible. This means, effectively, that the Government is subsidizing charities anyway, and their role in welfare provision.

Sylvanus

03-05-2008, 02:00 AM

Interesting that you quote Jefferson, when I actually asked for your views :P

Well you said that I seemed to be contradicting myself:

Isn't it logical according to your argument that people should protect themselves, or voluntary organizations protect them?

and I couldn't put it into words as well as some other people can. Those are my views, just in different words, I held those views before I read anything of Jefferson's or Locke's.

liger0

03-05-2008, 09:32 AM

Disclaimer: I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of Socialism. I abhor politics for how it divides people and generally complicates things.

When the ability to take life, liberty, and property are an inherent power in government, as it is in all governing bodies, then you do not truly own anything. Any claims to ownership may be revoked at any moment for any reason.

Socialism just makes that fact official.

That's just an over-generalization, though, since it is under Communism that you officially do not own anything. Nonetheless, in Socialism, the government has their hand in your pocket officially. After all, just because you live somewhere, does that entitle you to everything you "own"? (Remember, you don't really own anything due to the government's inherent ability to take everything.)

As with any other system, both Capitalism and Socialism can be exploited to one's own ends. That very fact makes neither any more superior to the other. The only true "superior" system is one in which nobody has any control. Government is corruptable, therefore they shouldn't have control; the people are also corruptable, so they shouldn't have control either. But, in truth, there wouldn't be much of a system if that were the case.

The point is, there is no system that truly works based on its inherent properties. The arguments presented by either side in debates over Socialism vs. Capitalism vs. Whatever-ism only makes that fact painfully obvious.

Ytterbium

03-05-2008, 09:38 AM

Well put liger0! Many people including me have tried to explain that it's almost impossible to have such discussions. It's a matter of grades on a scale.

Lights

03-05-2008, 09:45 AM

Here here liger0! :thumbsup:

I've said much the same thing in the past. Although my reasoning is quite a bit different.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1OFMANY

03-05-2008, 10:31 AM

Very true as far as systems go. As far as humans go however, regulated capitalism is the only true means to obtain the most amount of freedoom and happiness for the most amount of people.

Colette

03-05-2008, 10:48 AM

Lights

03-05-2008, 12:32 PM

Very true as far as systems go. As far as humans go however, regulated capitalism is the only true means to obtain the most amount of freedoom and happiness for the most amount of people.

VALUE JUDGEMENT

Theodoric

03-05-2008, 02:53 PM

Edit: I totally misread that. Wow, so government environmental regulations would be enforced with the same stringent force as rape and murder laws? So you do advocate imprisoning those who don't follow government regulations in their businesses? That's kind of...disturbing coming from a right winger.

Is it really? Environmental destruction is pretty much tantamount to murder, since it costs untold amounts of damage in property and more importantly lives. I think the same should be also applied to drug dealers (not users) since they pretty much destroy lives.

And its funny that you lump me into the category of right winger just because I oppose socialist programs and advocate a free market. My economic views can be considered this, but when viewing my social views I would be considered a leftist. My political affiliation is independent though I've been known to vote across the board for Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, etc. depending on who seems to be able to do the job best.

But I prefer to think of myself as a thinker concerned with solutions, not pointless labeling. :laugh:

Theodoric added to this post, 19 minutes and 17 seconds later...

I think he's talking about tariffs and protections for home industry, and suchlike. Perhaps he could clarify for us whether he's suggesting that a free market should exist without labor, health and safety, and environment protection laws.

I never said that. In fact, in one of my earlier posts I stated that a free market is only one where producers and consumers set the price of goods and services, not any third party such as the government. In fact,

"By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party."

This is not to say that labor, health and safety, and environment protection laws are excluded from the free market. In many instances, these laws may be necessary. Like I posted earlier, these regulations should only be implemented when, and if, the need arises. Pointless protectionist regulations that have benefited the telecommunications industry, pharmaceutical industry, and others have only hurt consumers. Increased prices, lack of choice, and government subsidized monopolies are what we got. Thank you big government.

Lights

03-05-2008, 03:23 PM

Is it really? Environmental destruction is pretty much tantamount to murder, since it costs untold amounts of damage in property and more importantly lives. I think the same should be also applied to drug dealers (not users) since they pretty much destroy lives.

And its funny that you lump me into the category of right winger just because I oppose socialist programs and advocate a free market. My economic views can be considered this, but when viewing my social views I would be considered a leftist. My political affiliation is independent though I've been known to vote across the board for Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, etc. depending on who seems to be able to do the job best.

But I prefer to think of myself as a thinker concerned with solutions, not pointless labeling. :laugh:

Forgive me, but there is a reason. There is an attitude, a prejudice, among the people who hold your free market ideology which taints it. It is an assumption of this "rags to riches," "hard workers always get what they reep," "people only have what they have earned," etc. mentality which is inherently flawed. It twists and distorts people's perception of those who are dependent upon welfare and such in overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and logical fallacies. This attitude, in my opinion, is far from intelligent. Here is an example of what I mean as demonstrated by another more vocal member...

Once upon a time there were charities that would help out "tough luck" cases. Back then they were few and far between unlike today, we have become a nation of enablers.

Everyone has seen the woman in the grocery store who uses her food stamps on microwave dinners, junk food, and soda pops, and then pulls out a wad of cash for her beer and smokes, and then carts it out to her $40,000 SUV. With the current handout, dole, welfare system (whatever you want to call it) there are no checks and balances, unlike in the days of private charities.

Which leads me into one of my favorite rants; the current generation (18-25 year olds) whatever they are called, know that they will be taken care of. They are happy to sit on their butts, squeezing out kids, playing video games, and picking up the welfare checks (hell, I have a cousin-in-law doing this). They know there is no longer any incentive to work hard. Why work hard and give it all to Uncle Sam, when you can have a similar lifestyle sitting on your ass and getting taken care of by Uncle Sugar.

It is because of this kind of thinking that I find free market thinkers to be repugnant. They have not demonstrated themselves to be good people. I have even often caught them twisting and misrepresenting facts (which are always only attacks on alternative ideas, not supporting facts for their idea), which means I have no trust for the information which they provide to support their claims. It is also the agenda of the free market thinker to argue for their "enlightened self interest" in the argument that any other form of economic, political, or social way of life is inherently irrational and immoral.

Perhaps you can save me from my hatred of the free market concept, but I sense that attitude in your words and it is for that reason, your every argument reeks of an agenda to prove those who don't support your ideals are inferior or corrupt. It is not a proof of your case, but an attack of every other philosophy and way of thinking in an endless dance of retortion which proves nothing about a free market, and everything about the self absorbed nature of the people who support the idea. I am not impressed with an idea that is built entirely upon assumptions for its own sake and attacks of the less that perfect alternative but established ideas.

INTJayW

03-05-2008, 06:13 PM

There is an attitude, a prejudice, among the people who hold your free market ideology which taints it. It twists and distorts people's perception of those who are dependent upon welfare and such in overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and logical fallacies. This attitude, in my opinion, is far from intelligent.

It is because of this kind of thinking that I find free market thinkers to be repugnant. They have not demonstrated themselves to be good people.

Wow!

I would first like to say that I respect your opinion. At least you have one regarding such a complicated topic as capitalism vs. Socialism = regulated capitalism (which is what we are debating here) unlike a lot of the voting public out there.

There are definitely many good arguments for some form of government assistance to those in need for what ever reason. I agree that the vast majority of those who use welfare need it as someone who can afford to drive an SUV would most likely feel very guilty if not negative pressure from their local peer group to stop dipping their hands in the welfare pot when they clearly are not in need.

However, be aware that in your rant against generalizing "Free market Thinkers" (ie bigots) you are in fact generalizing yourself. We all have our individual prejudices and hopefully we are discussing this topic in order to educate each other, in order to remove those prejudices.

Now getting back to the point at hand.

I don't buy the argument that talking about this topic capitalism vs. regulated capitalism, leads us in an infinite circle with no solution and no end. I think that statement is an excuse for inaction or evasion of responsibility, and all too often in a political system, allowing someone else to make the decision for you and thus take the blame.

However, I do agree that some measure of either of the extremes are in order. (ie... Free markets are important as business and people need incentive to expend work energy 'Profit motive') But profit means different things to different people and to some profit means the ability to take care of fellow citizens and working towards the most happiness for the most people. (referring to environmental protection laws, welfare, etc..)

Thus, I believe that we have come to and agreement that regulated capitalism ie socialism is the best form of government, and we are now only debating the level of regulation needed.

Unfortunately, when politicians must justify their own pay checks by interferring more and more in our lives, and big government tends to by nature get bigger. I fear that this country has long past the half way point between capitalism and communism, and is heading in the wrong direction.

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.
- Unknown

Colette

03-05-2008, 06:53 PM

I don't buy the argument that talking about this topic capitalism vs. regulated capitalism, leads us in an infinite circle with no solution and no end. I think that statement is an excuse for inaction or evasion of responsibility, and all too often in a political system, allowing someone else to make the decision for you and thus take the blame.

I disagree. There is no basic solution to what is in essence a philosophical difference, not a political one. Philosophically speaking, neither side can (or would be willing to) move as much as you would like to imagine, in my view.

The 'middle ground' you speak of is a 'centrist' political position, but how many countries can you cite which actually reflect such a system? I can think of very few (arguably the UK is now 'centrist' under its new PM, but even that proposition is contestible).

INTJayW

03-05-2008, 07:59 PM

The 'middle ground' you speak of is a 'centrist' political position, but how many countries can you cite which actually reflect such a system? I can think of very few (arguably the UK is now 'centrist' under its new PM, but even that proposition is contestible).

Okay Colette, I disagree as well, the UK is definately not centrist, in fact I believe that it was the British Socialist Fabian Society that started the world down the road of Socialism way back in 1884.

See link: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

One will only see what one is ready to see.
- Unknown

Lights

03-05-2008, 10:41 PM

However, be aware that in your rant against generalizing "Free market Thinkers" (ie bigots) you are in fact generalizing yourself. We all have our individual prejudices and hopefully we are discussing this topic in order to educate each other, in order to remove those prejudices.

That was the purpose of my post. To explain why I was "lumping" Theo in a particular group. I wanted to demonstrate my personal prejudice toward his ideology and the reasons for my disdain of those who share it. It is my sincere hope that we can move beyond arguments of free market/captalism vs. regulated market/socialism and their accompanying prejudices and truly become solution oriented. As I have continuously done, I am challenging him to demonstrate how his philosophical ideas would be better based upon their own merit rather than simply on assumption and attacking the alternative.

It brings to mind this little experiment my political science class participated in. In this experiment the teacher proposed that the world was ending and 10 people from the class were competing for 5 spots in a bomb shelter. The rest of the class would vote on who would get in based on the arguments they made. The teacher then handed out slips of paper to the 10 participants indicating how they were suppose to argue. Half of the participants only argued their own merits of why they should be allowed in, whereas the other half argued the faults of the other 5 as a case for why they should be allowed to survive. The class, being very intelligent, voted for the 5 who argued their own merits. The attacking group were not able to put up an argument of why they should be allowed to live, only an argument of why the other 5 should not. Since that experiment, I have noticed many of these arguments, such as the free market and socialism arguments, are based on attacks rather on merits. Many of the merits that could be argued for either ideology are simply assumptions made from reasoning of ideal circumstances. Neither case presents itself in a manner that would prove anything based on merit of which would be the better system. In fact, the reality is that the benefits of either system are inherently value based. So then it becomes a value argument which inevitably is self defeating. It seems to be an inescapable pattern in these discussions which do not lead toward any solutions, only polarization of opinion as each group continues to attack the ideas of the other without actually presenting a strong case for their own ideology. It actually seems rather pointless to me. I'll have to think about a different tact in how to approach these discussions.

In fact, I think Theo is getting frustrated that I won't attack his free market ideals as he is attacking the ideas that there are working poor, etc. I've just gone down that road so many times and noticed no marked change in presenting statistics that support my point of view while the other side presents statistics which support their views. In fact, it may be that there is no system that is not susceptible to being taken advantage of or corrupted in reality and that fact that we arguing these ideas on a theoretical/ideological level has left us oblivious to that reality. If that is the case, then the logical solution is to make the best of whatever system the times choose to establish among the people. In fact, that solution may be the most realistic. Make the best of what you have, but be free to change as the times necessitate.

1OFMANY

03-06-2008, 07:35 AM

VALUE JUDGEMENT

Lights, is that a commandement? A condemnation from you? A piece of judgement bought at Wal-Mart?? I dont get it.

Lights

03-06-2008, 09:44 AM

Lights, is that a commandement? A condemnation from you? A piece of judgement bought at Wal-Mart?? I dont get it.

Value Judgment: a statement or opinion based on one's beliefs or values and not on empirical evidence.

Colette

03-06-2008, 10:26 AM

Okay Colette, I disagree as well, the UK is definately not centrist, in fact I believe that it was the British Socialist Fabian Society that started the world down the road of Socialism way back in 1884.

See link: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

One will only see what one is ready to see.
- Unknown

It has socialist underpinnings yes, but is moving much further to the 'right' under Gordon Brown than it was under Tony Blair (although that said, many people were of the view that Blair was far too pro-Iraq and cosy with Bush, to be a true 'Labor' Prime Minister).

Wonder if any other budding students of Pol Sci can cite a jurisdiction they think embodies centrist political principles?

1OFMANY

03-06-2008, 10:54 AM

VALUE JUDGEMENT

Ok..I get it now

Thats not just my opinion bro, it is becoming apparently clear as time goes on. Prove it wrong and I'll shut up about it :)

Lights

03-06-2008, 12:10 PM

Ok..I get it now

Thats not just my opinion bro, it is becoming apparently clear as time goes on. Prove it wrong and I'll shut up about it :)

The point is, you can't prove it right. Hence why it is a value judgement. ;)

Of course, you have all certainly done a fine job of proving that socialism isn't the only true means to obtain the most amount of freedom and happiness for the most amount of people. But of course, that doesn't prove capitalism is.

1OFMANY

03-06-2008, 01:42 PM

Lights

03-06-2008, 02:04 PM

I believe it comes closer to imperical evidence than socialism does though. How many socailist governments have had success? Zero. The quasi-socialist governments set up today are just over -regulated capitalist forms. The difference is that if an evil person/party gets in power in a socialist state he can stay there..in a capitalist state..he gets ground up in the wheels.

So...I make the case that you can only argue for capitalism by attacking socialism and making value judgments about how capitalism might work better, and your argument is to...demonstrate just that. :thinking:

:laugh:

This is getting very repetitive. :rolleyes:

ArchonAlarion

03-06-2008, 02:13 PM

Once again, most of you will hate me.

Why should anyone have the power... to take by force... what you have earned through your time and labor?

In your world view, anyone who happens to be born on this big rock is subject to being stolen from. You hate when a robber steals your T.V. or when a rapist kills your friend, but not when a state taxes you or when a policeman kills your friend for resisting arrest for drug ownership.

If you are going to live by principles and you are going to live in order, than why must you be so subjective? "oh its bad when this happens, but when the same thing happens by the state its okay." No if something is immoral for one person than it is immoral for every person.

You have to think, which system is going to work; the one where an objective principle is applied to a specific situation, or the one where specific situations have no underlying principle? What do you think causes more chaos and destruction; Voluntary interactions or forced interactions?

Ytterbium

03-06-2008, 04:33 PM

Once again, most of you will hate me.

Why should anyone have the power... to take by force... what you have earned through your time and labor?Because it's redistrobuted back to me in means of services that I use. Volontarily, direct or indirect.

In your world view, anyone who happens to be born on this big rock is subject to being stolen from. You hate when a robber steals your T.V. or when a rapist kills your friend, but not when a state taxes you or when a policeman kills your friend for resisting arrest for drug ownership.Life ain't fair and never will be. But there are ways so even out huge gaps. No I don't like when things go wrong. These are things I don't see that it have any connection to capitalism vs. socialism. These are things which the whatever goverment chose to do. If we in Sweden and Denmark pays alot of tax. It doesn't mean we have the same solutions to every small problem. You still have to keep in mind that every block you put people in. These people don't have to live up to an ideal of a MBTI type or political belonging. This is why these "socialist" threads created here at INTJ Forum are so useless. That's why I wrote it seamed like 9 year old boys talk about which sports car is best. Other people arguments about things they don't no anything about.

If you are going to live by principles and you are going to live in order, than why must you be so subjective? "oh its bad when this happens, but when the same thing happens by the state its okay." No if something is immoral for one person than it is immoral for every person.You can't imagine how it is to live here. Nor can I do the same about your place. I live with a state that's open and see through. The state don't say to me that "it's things" isn't in my business. It let's me take a part of it. Because the state is supposed to be us, the residents of the country. It might look like they throwing away money on "useless" things. All it's done is to create a better place to live.
You can use your arguments out how bad your country or state is. But you can't really apply these arguments on all other states on this rock we call earth. Neither can we use our arguments on your place. A political ideology doesn't solve anything, it's a guideline of thinking. Because the private entrepreneurs can't plow your freeways properly it doesn't mean that you should turn your country into commmunism rule. Neither the other way around. Every system is bad if it doesn't run as it should. You have to look into "what's the problem" instead of disregard something completely.

You have to think, which system is going to work; the one where an objective principle is applied to a specific situation, or the one where specific situations have no underlying principle? What do you think causes more chaos and destruction; Voluntary interactions or forced interactions?Nothing is voluntary or forced in this world. What ever road you may choose. You still have some obstacles to push through. Some of them you like, others not. But it still will be things you don't like whatever path you may choose.

pavman

03-06-2008, 04:59 PM

I fear that this country has long past the half way point between capitalism and communism, and is heading in the wrong direction.

Not to be a stickler, but capitalism is to socialism as communism is to democracy.

I know I know, I'm a broken record. :thumbsup:

Colette

03-06-2008, 05:12 PM

Not to be a stickler, but capitalism is to socialism as communism is to democracy.

I know I know, I'm a broken record. :thumbsup:

A broken record playing a very strange tune, too ;)

Centrist examples anyone? I'm still waiting...

Lights

03-06-2008, 05:35 PM

INTJayW

03-06-2008, 06:56 PM

I am challenging him to demonstrate how his philosophical ideas would be better based upon their own merit rather than simply on assumption and attacking the alternative.

Make the best of what you have, but be free to change as the times necessitate.

Your right attacking Socialism does not prove that Capitalism is best!:thumbsup:

Collette: Canada is Centrist!:p

Lights

03-06-2008, 08:16 PM

Your right attacking Socialism does not prove that Capitalism is best!:thumbsup:

Collette: Canada is Centrist!:p

Nah, too progressive. Universal health care and gay marriage, totally to the left.

cda

03-07-2008, 08:09 PM

How about public schools? I think public schools are largely socialist, government hands you your orders and you have to learn/teach them verbatim. Every fourth grader needs to learn 123 not 312 or 1x32

Colette

03-07-2008, 08:33 PM

Collette: Canada is Centrist!:p

Can you outline why you think it's centrist, and what was the history of it becoming so?

Thanks.

ArchonAlarion

03-08-2008, 04:07 PM

The fun thing about ideas is they can sound perfect in theory. And then you try to test them in the real world and they fall apart. That is the case with anarchy and socialism. Just because an idea sounds good on paper, doesn't mean it's good in reality.

True, but if a theory is bad in practice, than it can't be good on paper either. A theory is good if it's workable. If anarchism was truley applied and given time to heal society (with people ready for it, meaning not still in a "state mindset") and failed than I wouldn't still push for it.

However, even now, you do "anarchic things" everyday. When you choose to rent a movie you are making a voluntary decision. When you take a new route to work, you are making a voluntary decision. When you wave at a neighbor you are making a voluntary decision. These may seem inconspicuous to you, but they are a lesson in anarchy.

You decide what to do every second of every day. Our lives consist of mostly voluntary decisions. Choosing not to coerce others in turn is often because we know it is wrong, otherwise it's because we fear self-defense or retribution. Anarchy may seem a big move for us, but only mentally. Really it's a small push, a little snip. Removing the parasitic state is a small action in terms of the amount of voluntary decisions we make every day.

When you get down to it the state is really very strange. It isn't concrete, it's an abstract. What is the "state"? Is it the buildings? Is it old parchment? The state is an idea. Some individuals may not like the idea, but most individuals like the state and force others to obey it, or more accurately obey the individuals who rule the state. It's just individuals who have gotten most other individuals to believe that without them everything would fall apart.

Lights

03-08-2008, 05:43 PM

True, but if a theory is bad in practice, than it can't be good on paper either.

You can't say "true" and then completely disagree with me! :laugh:

Your theory overlooks one aspect of reality. Leaders will emerge and people will gather under them and they will impose a law on the land. That is part of human nature, ingrained in our very biology, because we are social animals. An individual is just one member of a group. Individuals cooperate in groups because then they can better compete.

Anyways, anarchy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)is defined as a "state of lawlessness" not as "voluntary action" especially within a society governed by laws. Please don't redefine words to make them mean what you want them to mean. It's called arbitrary redefinition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and it's logical fallacy of equivocation and not an intelligent debate tactic.

In addition to that, had you looked up the definition of state you would have found it to mean "the group of people comprising the government." Government is the system by which the community is regulated. A system is a set of procedures and processes. And those are the courses of action that are taken. So the "state" isn't so much an "idea" or "thing" as as set of actions taken by a group of people.

yondyr

03-08-2008, 06:00 PM

Jeez, and I memorised the definition of anarchy as...'the smooth operation of society such as to obviate the need for laws'.... Where DID I get that from?

Lights

03-08-2008, 06:05 PM

Jeez, and I memorised the definition of anarchy as...'the smooth operation of society such as to obviate the need for laws'.... Where DID I get that from?

Either from yourself or, Ayn Rand, the master of arbitrary redefinition and retortion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

It's hard to take a philosophy seriously when it is built on logical fallacies. :laugh:

ArchonAlarion

03-09-2008, 03:15 PM

liger0

03-09-2008, 03:46 PM

Can we please change the title of this thread to "The Etymology of Political Terms"? Just kidding.

Seriously, though, Ayn Rand is good reading if you have nothing else handy.

Lights

03-09-2008, 06:34 PM

Haha hahahahahhahahah

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]

oops anarchy means: Without rulers.

A ruler is someone who uses initiation of coercion to force people to obey them. So a society without or rejecting rulers, would be a society built on VOLUNTARY INTERACTION!!!!!!

Its hard to take you seriously when you cannot differentiate between the generally accepted use of a word and its actual meaning.

:laugh:

That was a pretty weak defense of your use of arbitrary redefinition, by using more arbitrary redefinition. This time you did it with the word "ruler". :rolleyes: Anarchy does not equal voluntary interaction within a state ran by laws no matter how you want to spin it.

A ruler (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a person who rules or commands. Nowhere within that definition does it say that he uses "initiation of coercion". That is your personal opinion based on your value judgments. I'm sorry that every authority figure is "coercive" in your mind, but in reality, leaders exist only because there are people willing to follow them. And most leaders don't need to use coercion in order to get people to willingly follow them. Leaders establish laws not to force people to do things against their will, but to maintain order by establishing principles or conditions that governs behavior. Laws only exist as long a people are willing to follow them. If enough people don't follow a law then it is inevitably abolished.

You even completely left my argument unchallenged.

Your theory overlooks one aspect of reality. Leaders will emerge and people will gather under them and they will impose a law on the land. That is part of human nature, ingrained in our very biology, because we are social animals. An individual is just one member of a group. Individuals cooperate in groups because then they can better compete.

But hey, I have no real interest in arguing with an adolescent anyways if his entire argument is going to be based on attacks of other philosophies and equivocation. Good luck with that. :laugh:

schmidt

03-10-2008, 01:54 AM

You can't say "true" and then completely disagree with me! :laugh:

Your theory overlooks one aspect of reality. Leaders will emerge and people will gather under them and they will impose a law on the land. That is part of human nature, ingrained in our very biology, because we are social animals. An individual is just one member of a group. Individuals cooperate in groups because then they can better compete.

Anyways, anarchy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)is defined as a "state of lawlessness" not as "voluntary action" especially within a society governed by laws. Please don't redefine words to make them mean what you want them to mean. It's called arbitrary redefinition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and it's logical fallacy of equivocation and not an intelligent debate tactic.

In addition to that, had you looked up the definition of state you would have found it to mean "the group of people comprising the government." Government is the system by which the community is regulated. A system is a set of procedures and processes. And those are the courses of action that are taken. So the "state" isn't so much an "idea" or "thing" as as set of actions taken by a group of people.

There's more than one definition for the word anarchy, literally "without ruler" and according to wikipedia there's three variations.
"
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Colette

03-10-2008, 02:47 AM

There's more than one definition for the word anarchy, literally "without ruler" and according to wikipedia there's three variations.
"
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Even so, it does appear that 'anarchy' subsists in a state or situation, rather than by virtue of conscious political or societal will. For example it is often used in the context of lawless states which have arisen as a result of a coup, or power hiatus or vacuum, caused by an 'interregnum'.

ArchonAlarion

03-10-2008, 09:08 AM

Lights, you still have not refuted my argument.

How do you "rule" or "command"?
Ruler: Hey give me money!
Person: No!
Ruler: Well okay...

No, because a ruler FORCES people to do things. They don't ask you to do it through your voluntary will; they COMMAND it. A ruler isn't a ruler until he rules and to rule (not persuade or ask nicely) you must use COERCION.

So I am correct about what anarchy means (without rulers), what a ruler is (someone who uses initiation of coercion to force people to obey them), and what you are called when you reject all rulers (anarchist)

And if you have a society in which many political factions violently fight eachother, than it isn't anarchy because there are still rulers. Just because people use the word anarchy perjoratively to describe a state of chaos and political disorder doesn't make it right!

"leaders exist only because there are people willing to follow them. And most leaders don't need to use coercion in order to get people to willingly follow them"

Yeah which is why we don't need rulers.

"Your theory overlooks one aspect of reality. Leaders will emerge and people will gather under them and they will impose a law on the land. That is part of human nature, ingrained in our very biology, because we are social animals. An individual is just one member of a group. Individuals cooperate in groups because then they can better compete."

That is your opinion. This is an assumption and has no grounding in fact. We are social animals, but a group is just a collection of individuals. Groups aren't concrete, real things. Groups don't actually exist, they are just concepts. Individuals exist in reality, collectives exist in your mind.

But hey, I can't argue because I'm a youngin and therefore can't understand the complexities of having to insult someone, because you don't know the difference between actual meaning and generally accepted meaning. Also I can't argue because I want to live in a free world where people are allowed to pursue their own values. This would be adverse to people like Lights who want to impose their own values on others.

thod

03-10-2008, 11:14 AM

ArchonAlarion

03-10-2008, 02:31 PM

Rulers do not rule because they say they do. People follow rulers or ignore them. They choose to follow rulers because that ruler has earned their respect. The ruler has shown ,over time, that he makes the best decisions. He makes better decisions than the individual does thus the individual chooses to defer his own judgment on a situation to that of the ruler.

Ummm... no. If someone ignores a ruler than they will be punished. What do you think all those buildings full of metal cages are for? Rulers rules are followed because either the person likes the rules or they are afraid of the punishment they will receive if they break them. Individuals are the best judge of what they want. Even if their wants are silly to you, they are still what the individual values.

Now an individual may in many circumstances be better off ignoring a ruling. For example I would be much better of by not paying my taxes whilst everyone else does so. If nobody payed any tax then each individuals situation would be worse than if they all did so. The advantage comes because there are only a few defaulters. To avoid the tragedy of the commons all individuals are compelled to comply against their wishes.

Individuals are always better off ignoring or fighting the initiation of coercion (ruling). How would not paying taxes make everyone's situation worse? They would control where their money goes. If they wanted healthcare then they could buy it. If they didn't than they wouldn't be forced to. To avoid the tradgedy of the commons... don't have commons:p If you do, than at least make sure they are voluntary. People respect and take care of their private property better than they take care of common property. Private property is worth 100% to the owner, but common property is worth only a small % to each person.

Why compell people against their wishes on just that? Why not kill and rape people too? I mean, it's all covered by the same idea, right? Making people do things against their wishes. If it's okay for one thing, than why not another?

The individual may not understand why they must comply since not everyone is brilliant. You must trust in the rulers, that they are making the correct decision. This frees you from having to study the details of every decision yourself. You have delegated the process and trust the judgment of the other. You do not have vast medical experience, thus you trust the doctors advice when you have a problem. Likewise you do not have experience of running a country. The best you can do is to elect somebody that is alike to you. This ensures that their interests are aligned with your own.

Wow. That was simply amazing. Also contradictary. If people aren't brilliant enough to know what they want, and to do it without slaughtering eachother, than how can they go about electing rulers? And if peasants, I mean people, don't know whats good for them, than won't they elect bad rulers? Hmm, advocating blind faith in a ruling class. Sounds like good old fashioned feudalism to me! It's amazing how good socialists could fit in with our medieval ancestors. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

By the way, you can pay doctors for their expertise on a FREE MARKET. With VOLUNTARY MUTUAL CONSENT. Where businesses compete for lower prices, higher wages, and better quality. If they don't than they will fail, because customers will go to lower prices and better quality and workers will want higher wages.

Anarchy means the strong preying on the weak. No matter how good you are, you are not as strong as a group. Groups operate best with a leader. Each inferior mind making its own decisions leads to non grouping and poor decisions. You are free to make your own decisions only so long as they do not have adverse impacts on others. At that point it is not longer your decision alone. If the group keeps cattle and you decide to simply take the cattle instead of working on the farm you will be stopped. You do not exist in isolation acting in only your interest. When you pursue your self interest by taking the cattle, the farmers will act in their self interest by shooting you. The government is there to define the rules and to set the penalties for non compliance.

"You are free to make your own decisions only so long as they do not have adverse impacts on others."

Thank you.

All the rest is jabber. Disputes between individuals can be solved by private companies (they do it often today), where the businesses would compete for lower prices, higher wages, and better quality. If you are truly interested in this than I suggest listening to freedomain radio podcasts. If you are not then don't listen to it and just type up some BS here instead. (Not aimed directly at Thod)

Ytterbium

03-11-2008, 01:42 PM

ArchonAlarion you talk about how better it will get. Without stating why. There're questions asked before how the society should be run. You know it's not just walking to someone to get your tooth fixed. Things won't happen by itself. If you say people aren't ready, then explain to them how it will work then.
You wrote it will be fixed somehow. Yeah how?
There will always be leaders. We people influence eachother no matter what. The stone age seems like the perfect "free" world for you. No laws, no authority. It has evolved since then, people learned to co-operate build a society. Have laws so the peoples freedoms don't interfere with other peoples freedoms. If I kill your beloved one, take your money and set your house on fire. Would you just say "hey dude we all make misstakes let's have a beer". Or would you create your own laws to justify doing something to me in return? Like I did to justify what I did?

ArchonAlarion

03-11-2008, 04:40 PM

Well no, the stone age is more similar to the state. Going around wacking people you don't like, tribal society, mysticism, etc.

Dude, you are totally not getting what I'm saying. If you kill my loved one, steal from me, and set my house on fire, than you are Aggressing against me. You are initiating coercion. I never said I was for that, in fact I said the EXACT opposite. In that situation I'd hunt you down and kill you and face the arbitration agency later. Or if your crime was less serious, I'd get my dispute resolution agency to contact your dispute resolution agency and we'd settle on a punishment/compensation (this is a totally different discussion). I'm fine with self-defense.

If you don't like the Initiation of coercion, than why do you support the state, and further, socialism? Taxes are an example of coercion. People have learned to cooperate and trade and solve problems without violence as you say. So why do you then still support violence when its done by the government? Also I never said I was against leaders or authority. I'm ONLY against them when I am FORCED to obey them. Voluntary leaders are fine and even good. We do need leaders much of the time. That doesn't mean they must be coercive. I'm fine with self-defense.

Actually, by what you said, I think you're well on your way to market anarchism. You have just argued to me its basic principle. Welcome to the darkside. :)

By the way, in my previous post, when I was advocating killing and rape, I was being very sarcastic.

thod

03-11-2008, 05:53 PM

Why are you breathing my air without a license. I own all the air, I will let you breath it if you put in 40 hours a week labor to me. Thats my land you are walking on, leave my land at once, only I may grow crops on it. Thats my house you are living in without paying me rent.

You cant have any property unless there is agreement. You cant own anything. Whenever you assert ownership you are placing restrictions on me without my consent. You cant trade because you dont own anything its all mine. If you want to use force to change that you are violating my rights.

Lights

03-11-2008, 07:31 PM

Dude, you are totally not getting what I'm saying. If you kill my loved one, steal from me, and set my house on fire, than you are Aggressing against me. You are initiating coercion. I never said I was for that, in fact I said the EXACT opposite. In that situation I'd hunt you down and kill you and face the arbitration agency later. Or if your crime was less serious, I'd get my dispute resolution agency to contact your dispute resolution agency and we'd settle on a punishment/compensation (this is a totally different discussion). I'm fine with self-defense.

So far your entire argument rests on the attack of the "state" and the assumption that things would be better without one. So you have no proof that your idea would be any better than the "state", only your own personal reasoning based on your own personal values. Basically your argument is, "The state sucks because I conceive it is coercive, so anarchy rules!" That is pretty weak no matter how you slice it.

There are a lot of questions you are obviously avoiding.

How are you going to eliminate aggression from the world? Do you believe if you take up the principles of "non aggression" that the entire world will just follow suit and everything will fall perfectly into place? How are you going to get people to stop cooperating, choosing leaders, and declaring rules that they must live by, since that is pretty much all that is necessary to form a state? Are you advocating Hammurabi's Code or an "Eye for an Eye" law in your market anarchist society?

Lights added to this post, 12 minutes and 59 seconds later...

That is your opinion. This is an assumption and has no grounding in fact. We are social animals, but a group is just a collection of individuals. Groups aren't concrete, real things. Groups don't actually exist, they are just concepts. Individuals exist in reality, collectives exist in your mind.

Dude, your beliefs lack an education in biology and ecology. I can look at primates in the wild and see group formation with leaders. Heck, the Bonobos, our closest genetic relatives, have very complex societies. What about fish schools, wolf packs, geese flying in formation? Do you think these animals make the individualistic choice to be in a group? Or maybe it is far more likely that evolution has found it to be so advantageous that it is written in their genes. A fact that has actually been tested and proven. I can look at even more primitive animals, including eusocial animals such as ants and bees and see that reality.

Primitive humans gathered in groups because it was added protection from predators. This is a behavior we can see in countless other species of animals. Primitive humans hunted in groups so they could bring down larger game. Another behavior we can observe in modern predatory animals such as wolves. It is how we evolved, and it exist in our very biology. It is observable and measurable across countless species including ourselves.It is written in our genes to form and belong to groups. It isn't an opinion, it is scientific fact. Pick up an Ecology book for God sake.

It is you that has the opinion, and you are ignoring science in order to justify it.

ArchonAlarion

03-12-2008, 03:28 PM

Lights

03-12-2008, 05:22 PM

Once again, human are social animals, leaders are many times beneficial, we should cooperate, and sometimes things are done better in groups. I'm not saying this is bad. I'm saying that obeying the commands of groups and leaders should be voluntary. Groups are fine, but not when people are forced into them, and forced to obey them. The difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying is that you think groups and leaders should aggress against individuals and I don't.

You are free to leave this country. As has been said many times before, nobody is aggressing against you by requiring you to pay taxes. That is the law of the land and as long as you choose to live on the land, you choose to follow that law. That isn't coercion, that is of your own freewill. You are free to leave the group if you want. You were born into this group and nobody has ever taken away your right to leave it.

I never said groups are inherently bad, all I said was that individuals are concrete and groups are concepts.

Concrete: capable of being perceived by the senses; not abstract or imaginary

Well I can see and percieve groups, and they exist outside of my mind since they are part of external reality, so they aren't abstract or imaginary. So I don't see where you are getting this idea that they just "concepts". They were formed by evolution as means of increasing the capacity to survive within many species of animals. It's a scientific fact that grouping behavior is just as much as part of human biology as having two eyes and ten fingers. It seems to me that in order to justify your views, you are ignoring science and the reality that groups exist as a necessity.

If my personal values are not aggressing against others and you disagree with me, than you think aggressing against others is okay. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me. Lights do you think theft is okay? Do you think murder is okay? Do you think enslavement is okay? If you don't than you must not like aggression! If you are truly against aggression than you are an anarchist.

Are we trying some more arbitrary redefinition? Being against aggression makes you a pacifist, not an anarchist. I don't disagree that people shouldn't use aggression toward each other. I disagree with your views about what constitutes aggression against others. You believe that any leader or authority figure is a "force of aggression" and I completely reject that conclusion because it ignores reality and science. Leaders exist only because there are people willing to follow them. If people did not voluntarily follow leaders then there would be no leaders. The reality is that the power rests with groups, not with individuals, and so those who are willing to follow a leader have an advantage over individuals.

If you think that for some reason groups, leaders, and majorities can aggress, but individuals can't than your beliefs are flawed because individuals make up groups, majorities, and leaders.

I never said individuals can't use aggression. They are just at a disadvantage to groups, which is one of the reasons why groups exist.

Lights, just to get things straight, I am not against Voluntary groups, or communes, or collectives, or societies, or leaders, or organizations. I'm am only against them when they aggress. I know humans are social creatures okay. Don't insult me please. Humans can cooperate, and trade, and love, and think, and reason, and join together. I never have denied this. I say all this can be done voluntarily, but you seem to disagree.

You are against them, because you define them as naturally aggressive. You ignore the reality that you have the choice to leave the group. Instead, you continue to enjoy your place in the group but argue that you should not be obligated to contribute to it. The group provides cooperation and protection which increase your chances of survival and all it asks is you voluntarily give up some of your personal freedoms by following its laws. Your obligations in the group are voluntary, but you choose to see them as involuntary by ignoring reality. You have the choice to leave. Your entire ideology is nothing but a selfish agenda for you own personal interests hidden behind values of individualism and it is portrayed by making what in reality is a voluntary situation, sound like a coerced situation, by use of fallacies, retortion, and equivocation.

In other words, you have no practical argument. You have a vision of how the world "should be" but no plan of how it could be implemented aside from removing leaders form the world. You cannot explain how you envision that anarchy would be workable or feasible in the real world. Your constant dodging of those questions is proof of that. You have nothing but an ideology based on your own personal values, which has nothing to do with reality.

ArchonAlarion

03-12-2008, 06:08 PM

You are free to leave this country. As has been said many times before, nobody is aggressing against you by requiring you to pay taxes. That is the law of the land and as long as you choose to live on the land, you choose to follow that law. That isn't coercion, that is of your own freewill. You are free to leave the group if you want. You were born into this group and nobody has ever taken away your right to leave it.

I've already told you how the constitution is not legitimate and you refuse to admit that is not a real contract. If you ignore me than I will obviously not affect your opinion.

Concrete: capable of being perceived by the senses; not abstract or imaginary

Well I can see and percieve groups, and they exist outside of my mind since they are part of external reality, so they aren't abstract or imaginary. So I don't see where you are getting this idea that they just "concepts". They were formed by evolution as means of increasing the capacity to survive within many species of animals. It's a scientific fact that grouping behavior is just as much as part of human biology as having two eyes and ten fingers. It seems to me that in order to justify your views, you are ignoring science and the reality that groups exist as a necessity.

Try to punch a group in the face once in awhile. No don't punch the individuals that make up the group, just punch the group. Punch the USA right in the kisser. No don't punch the politicians, or monuments, or documents, I want you to punch the group, the concept called America right in the face. When you can physically interact with an abstract concept get back to me.

Are we trying some more arbitrary redefinition? Being against aggression makes you a pacifist, not an anarchist. I don't disagree that people shouldn't use aggression toward each other. I disagree with your views about what constitutes aggression against others. You believe that any leader or authority figure is a "force of aggression" and I completely reject that conclusion because it ignores reality and science. Leaders exist only because there are people willing to follow them. If people did not voluntarily follow leaders then there would be no leaders. The reality is that the power rests with groups, not with individuals, and so those who are willing to follow a leader have an advantage over individuals.

Anarchy stems from greek meaning "without rulers"

You cannot be a "ruler" until you force others to do things. Kings never politely asked someone to obey them, and said, "okay fine, your decision" when someone said didn't. The majority in a democracy doesn't say, "okay fine, your decision" when the minority refuses to obey them. A kidnapper doesn't say, "okay fine, your decision" when the hostage says they are leaving.

Rulers must COERCE. A ruler is someone who forces someone to do their bidding. A leader need not be a ruler. A leader can give incentives for you to obey them. They can pay you for obeying them. They just have to lead.

Anarchists are opposed to people who initiate force against others to do what they want. Therefore anarchists are opposed to aggression and are for voluntary mutual consent.

I never said individuals can't use aggression. They are just at a disadvantage to groups, which is one of the reasons why groups exist.

Okay, maybe. Leonardo Davinci was not a collective. Bill Gates was not a group. Voluntary groups are effective at giving more manpower, input, and support to an individual, which is why groups are useful to freemarket. I never said they weren't. I've only said that it isn't right to force individuals to sacrifice for a group when they don't want to.

You are against them, because you define them as naturally aggressive. You ignore the reality that you have the choice to leave the group. Instead, you continue to enjoy your place in the group but argue that you should not be obligated to contribute to it. The group provides cooperation and protection which increase your chances of survival and all it asks is you voluntarily give up some of your personal freedoms by following its laws. Your obligations in the group are voluntary, but you choose to see them as involuntary by ignoring reality. You have the choice to leave. Your entire ideology is nothing but a selfish agenda for you own personal interests hidden behind values of individualism and it is portrayed by making what in reality is a voluntary situation, sound like a coerced situation, by use of fallacies, retortion, and equivocation.

Dude! You are putting words in my mouth! I never said groups were naturally aggressive. I am advocating the right to leave groups! I've already demolished your argument on the legitimacy of this state. A contract is only legitimate when it's explicitly agreed to and voluntary. This state and all states did not go to everybody in the country and asked them to sign the constitution. If you choose to ignore me... well that's your choice, but it's dissappointing. I really wish you'd admit that a social contract is not a real contract. You can keep saying that I'm redefining words, but I've yet to see where this is true. Plus much of the land was stolen from the native americans.

It's really disturbing how you say I'm being selfish, when I advocate the freedom of all men not to be aggressed on by their fellow men. I want men to be free to not obey me and choose to not obey anyone as long as they repect the life, liberty, and property of others. You advocate a world where I'm a cog in a machine, being pillaged for the benefit of a few. You advocate the product of my time and labor being taken away from me to be given to people I don't even know.

In other words, you have no practical argument. You have a vision of how the world "should be" but no plan of how it could be implemented aside from removing leaders form the world. You cannot explain how you envision that anarchy would be workable or feasible in the real world. Your constant dodging of those questions is proof of that. You have nothing but an ideology based on your own personal values, which has nothing to do with reality.

Leaders don't have to be rulers. I don't know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in. Rulers aggress. Leaders do not have to aggress, only lead. A leader can lead you, but when you no longer feel like being lead you can walk away, this is not the case with rulers. You must obey a ruler or be punished.

I haven't dodged any questions. I'm starting to feel as if you write your comments in advance before even reading mine. Besides this thread is about Commy, pinky, socialists, not about anarchism. I made a thread for anarcho-capitalism.

Lights

03-12-2008, 06:24 PM

I've already told you how the constitution is not legitimate and you refuse to admit that is not a real contract. If you ignore me than I will obviously not affect your opinion.

Dude, what does the Constitution have to do with what I said? :rolleyes: I made the argument that as long as you have the freedom and right to leave the group, you can't claim it is coercing you into anything. Did what I say go that far over your head?

Try to punch a group in the face once in awhile. No don't punch the individuals that make up the group, just punch the group. Punch the USA right in the kisser. No don't punch the politicians, or monuments, or documents, I want you to punch the group, the concept called America right in the face. When you can physically interact with an abstract concept get back to me.

It's called war. Pearl harbor and 9-11 ring a bell?

Anarchy stems from greek meaning "without rulers"

You cannot be a "ruler" until you force others to do things. Kings never politely asked someone to obey them, and said, "okay fine, your decision" when someone said didn't. The majority in a democracy doesn't say, "okay fine, your decision" when the minority refuses to obey them. A kidnapper doesn't say, "okay fine, your decision" when the hostage says they are leaving.

Rulers must COERCE. A ruler is someone who forces someone to do their bidding. A leader need not be a ruler. A leader can give incentives for you to obey them. They can pay you for obeying them. They just have to lead.

Leaders do not have to coerce. That is your personal opinion based on you delusions.

Anarchists are opposed to people who initiate force against others to do what they want. Therefore anarchists are opposed to aggression and are for voluntary mutual consent.

Not all anarchists are opposed to aggression.

Okay, maybe. Leonardo Davinci was not a collective. Bill Gates was not a group. Voluntary groups are effective at giving more manpower, input, and support to an individual, which is why groups are useful to freemarket. I never said they weren't. I've only said that it isn't right to force individuals to sacrifice for a group when they don't want to.

And as long as individuals have the right to leave the group, then they are never being forced to do anything.

Dude! You are putting words in my mouth! I never said groups were naturally aggressive. I am advocating the right to leave groups! I've already demolished your argument on the legitimacy of this state. A contract is only legitimate when it's explicitly agreed to and voluntary. This state and all states did not go to everybody in the country and asked them to sign the constitution. If you choose to ignore me... well that's your choice, but it's dissappointing. I really wish you'd admit that a social contract is not a real contract. You can keep saying that I'm redefining words, but I've yet to see where this is true. Plus much of the land was stolen from the native americans.

Why are you still here then? Leave! Show us how anarchy works so much better in some 3rd world African country where it is a reality.

It's really disturbing how you say I'm being selfish, when I advocate the freedom of all men not to be aggressed on by their fellow men. I want men to be free to not obey me and choose to not obey anyone as long as they repect the life, liberty, and property of others. You advocate a world where I'm a cog in a machine, being pillaged for the benefit of a few. You advocate the product of my time and labor being taken away from me to be given to people I don't even know.

You are being selfish. You want your personal values to be respected, without having to respect the obligations you have to the group you choose to belong to. This group provides cooperation and protection which increases your ability to survive and all it asks is you voluntarily give up some of your personal freedom by following it's laws. Declaring you shouldn't have to pay for services rendered is incredibly selfish.

Leaders don't have to be rulers. I don't know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in. Rulers aggress. Leaders do not have to aggress, only lead. A leader can lead you, but when you no longer feel like being lead you can walk away, this is not the case with rulers. You must obey a ruler or be punished.

That is your definition of a ruler. A ruler and a leader are synonyms. Have you ever heard of a thesaurus? :rolleyes: All this arbitrary redefinition gets tiring after awhile. It seems all you have to build an argument on is equivocation and fallacies.

I haven't dodged any questions. I'm starting to feel as if you write your comments in advance before even reading mine. Besides this thread is about Commy, pinky, socialists, not about anarchism. I made a thread for anarcho-capitalism.

:laugh: And you didn't even answer the questions, once again proving you have no answers and you choose to dodge. Your ideology is a joke. You could have even replied to that post in your own thread, but you chose to do so here so you could avoid answering the questions.

Dreamer

03-12-2008, 09:43 PM

Lights

03-13-2008, 12:56 AM

To do so you would most likely suffer an economic penalty with moving and other such things like separation from family, and having to live in a different culture(this one depends on perspective though). I imagine it would also be time consuming...

If it isn't coercion, voluntary exile is not a very nice choice either.

From what part of heaven do the group claim its powers over the individuals?
Force of arms??
-That would be coercion now wouldn't it?

Social responsability/debt through services rendered??
-Maybe, but there are better ways to contribute to society then to donate a part of your income to some corrupt bureaucrat...

Um....ok. The point is that as long as a person chooses to live within a group which provides protection and cooperation, they are obligated to pay for those services by volunteering up some of their personal freedom by following the laws set down by the group.

If the group is obviously wrong, there is little point to follow its laws.

You are so right. I believe any man should be allowed to kill another man if he desires and so I believe laws that dictate that are immoral. Where do you live? ;) (If you haven't figured it out, I'm being sarcastic)

Breathing air is not a social contract.

No, but living within the group and enjoying it's benefits is part of a social contract.

Military service would be a much better way to contribute to the "enhancement of the ability to survive" than "volontary" financial contributions.

This way,EVERYONE would contribute equally to society by sharing the risk,regardless of wealth, intelligence, good looks, luck, genes,etc.

There are many people that have shed blood so that the western world could live free and have the high standards of living it has today. It may be a value judgement,but imho your life is worth more than your wallet and the people that contribute to society with taxation do not contribute anywhere near what veterans have contributed.

I think if we obligated everyone enlist in the military then we would probably go to war a hell of lot less.

paying for socialist ideas is not contributing to "society" but rather to the unproductive.

True. I believe the government should formulate a universal health care plan that is developmental,.

A meritocracy is the way to go.

I have no idea what that is. A wiki I will go. :thumbsup:

Dreamer

03-13-2008, 01:05 PM

Um....ok. The point is that as long as a person chooses to live within a group which provides protection and cooperation, they are obligated to pay for those services by volunteering up some of their personal freedom by following the laws set down by the group.

There is such a thing as "individual rights". The group has a right to curb my actions and freedoms if they are deemed harmful to other individuals. There is absolutly no harm done by wishing to diminishes taxation.

Either way,a man still has to pay his due to society,if not by taxation then by market price. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...

You are so right. I believe any man should be allowed to kill another man if he desires and so I believe laws that dictate that are immoral. Correct,if this man happens to behave in a very unappropriate manner, and if the group is not willing to correct this man...

Well...

"if the law is obviously wrong". But then to get to such a situation the government would have to have fucked up beyond all imaginable scenarios. I very much doubt that a man who killed another one would be morally defensible in the present circunstances,except in cases of self-defense.

It's not that I don't believe that the majority of laws shoudn't be respected. Most of them are quite reasonable(if would even say they are not harsh enough in many cases).It is a law that is clearly unconstitutionnal and immoral that should not be respected.

Not that I would do such a thing, me being a good upstanding citizen and unwilling to become a martyr at such young age.

Where do you live? ;) (If you haven't figured it out, I'm being sarcastic) Mogadishu ,Somalia.

No, but living within the group and enjoying it's benefits is part of a social contract. The social contract does not stipulate giving up our individual rights.

Society provides for common defense through the police and military, as you have mentionned before. This is hardly a contribution that can be quantified financially when a tiny minority of the populace defends the country. Only military service ensures an equal contribution by all to national defense.

In a capitalist system, you are still paying your dues to society. Indirectly, by paying the man who provides the infrastructure for your roads, the doctor who heals you (who is rewarded much more under a capitalist system than a socialist one), the man who cuts your hair, etc. Men who provide services are all rewarded in one way or another, and money that you pay for essential services is really another investment in society.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I can't think of one instance where I didn't pay in some fashion for a service rendered to me.

I think if we obligated everyone enlist in the military then we would probably go to war a hell of lot less. I agree that this is a good idea as to why there should be mandatory military service. Too few people are actually interested by foreign policy.

I also believe that it is a better and fairer way to contribute to society than paying taxes.

Lights

03-13-2008, 01:40 PM

The social contract does not stipulate giving up our individual rights.

The social contract stipulates volunteering up some of your personal freedom in exchange for the services rendered by the group. Individual rights are just the personal freedoms the group guarantees it will not interfere with.

Society provides for common defense through the police and military, as you have mentionned before. This is hardly a contribution that can be quantified financially when a tiny minority of the populace defends the country. Only military service ensures an equal contribution by all to national defense.

Wait...I think I've seen that movie before...Starship Troopers? ;)

In a capitalist system, you are still paying your dues to society. Indirectly, by paying the man who provides the infrastructure for your roads, the doctor who heals you (who is rewarded much more under a capitalist system than a socialist one), the man who cuts your hair, etc. Men who provide services are all rewarded in one way or another, and money that you pay for essential services is really another investment in society.

Exactly. You pay people in society, they pay their taxes, and it builds infrastructure. That is why I love living in the United States.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I can't think of one instance where I didn't pay in some fashion for a service rendered to me.

Yup, nothing is free.

I agree that this is a good idea as to why there should be mandatory military service. Too few people are actually interested by foreign policy.

Another good reason to have mandatory enlistment.

I also believe that it is a better and fairer way to contribute to society than paying taxes.

I think paying taxes is just an essential part of life. Just working in the military and pumping money into the economy won't fund the government or allow for welfare programs.

thod

03-13-2008, 01:48 PM

Another good reason to have mandatory enlistment

If all males of military age where enlisted you could work out the enlistment period to give the same number of man hours provided by the current military. This would be very small. The number of hours spent training those men to be of a similar skill level to the standing army would far exceed the service period. Its simply not efficient.

In the same way you expect the government to provide a policeman rather than have each person be a policeman 1 hour a month. You don't know enough about policing to do the job.

Its far better to pay tax and have specialists do these functions full time.

Lights

03-13-2008, 01:49 PM

ArchonAlarion

03-13-2008, 01:54 PM

Leaders do not have to coerce. That is your personal opinion based on you delusions.

Man, come on. You KNOW that boyscout scoutmasters do not coerce the boyscouts. If the boyscouts wish to participate in the group than they must obey the scoutmasters. This is not aggression. Its a property rights issue.

Does Oprah aggress? Does Donald Trump aggress? Does Bill Gates aggress? Leaders only have to lead to be leaders. What are you smoking?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
co·er·cion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

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

[Origin: 1515–25; < ML coerciōn- (s. of coerciō), L coerctiōn-, syncopated var. of coercitiōn-, equiv. to coercit(us) (ptp. of coercére to coerce) + -iōn- -ion; r. late ME cohercion < MF < L as above]

—Related forms
co·er·cion·ar·y, adjective
co·er·cion·ist, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Not all anarchists are opposed to aggression.

Just because you say you're an anarchist doesn't mean you actually are one. Many anarchists have a deluded definition of what anarchy means. Anarcho-collectivists do not respect property and thus use aggression. But as I've said a bajillion times now, anarchy means "without rulers." People who aggress are in effect rulers, and so anarchy is based on voluntaryanism.

And as long as individuals have the right to leave the group, then they are never being forced to do anything.

Right, fine. As I've said though, it's unfair to tell me to leave the country if I don't like it, because the country is and never was based on a contract. And I believe (yes, my opinion) that politicians have gone behind are backs and broken the constitution anyways.

Why are you still here then? Leave! Show us how anarchy works so much better in some 3rd world African country where it is a reality.

Well no sorry, it's not a reality. Anarchy means "without rulers", not "A bunch of war lords fighting it out in a post imperialistic disease ridden vacuum where people still live in tribes and have no clue what libertarianism is"

You'd be lying to yourself to call Africa a bastion of the free-market.

You are being selfish. You want your personal values to be respected, without having to respect the obligations you have to the group you choose to belong to. This group provides cooperation and protection which increases your ability to survive and all it asks is you voluntarily give up some of your personal freedom by following it's laws. Declaring you shouldn't have to pay for services rendered is incredibly selfish.

What you're getting at is if I was under a real contract in which I was to pay for services in exchange for renting land here.

But we are not living under a contract. I think I've proved this. It's not your favorite little phrase "arbitrary redefintion" A contract is explicit and voluntary. If it is not than it is null and void. The end.

That is your definition of a ruler. A ruler and a leader are synonyms. Have you ever heard of a thesaurus? :rolleyes: All this arbitrary redefinition gets tiring after awhile. It seems all you have to build an argument on is equivocation and fallacies.

Leader and ruler are different. If I ask someone to follow me then I'm a leader. If I command someone to follow me than I'm a ruler. Why do you think kings are called rulers, and a CEO is called a leader. I think you'd agree with me that you shouldn't "rule" over other people, who aren't your property. Is a priest a leader or a ruler Lights, think about it.

:laugh: And you didn't even answer the questions, once again proving you have no answers and you choose to dodge. Your ideology is a joke. You could have even replied to that post in your own thread, but you chose to do so here so you could avoid answering the questions.

I did in fact answer your questions, if I didn't than it was not on purpose. Maybe I had to go to sleep :huh:

Now I have answered all your questions. Do not say I haven't in your next post, because I have. Maybe instead of constantly saying I'm using arbitrary redefinition you should actually give me the definitions you think are correct.

Ytterbium

03-13-2008, 02:00 PM

Well no, the stone age is more similar to the state. Going around wacking people you don't like, tribal society, mysticism, etc.What's the state who have done this to you?
If you don't want to have a state, who does the laws? Everyone makes their own? Does it feel better if I hit you in the face than the state?

Dude, you are totally not getting what I'm saying. If you kill my loved one, steal from me, and set my house on fire, than you are Aggressing against me. You are initiating coercion. I never said I was for that, in fact I said the EXACT opposite. In that situation I'd hunt you down and kill you and face the arbitration agency later. Or if your crime was less serious, I'd get my dispute resolution agency to contact your dispute resolution agency and we'd settle on a punishment/compensation (this is a totally different discussion). I'm fine with self-defense.That's why we have laws, rules and order. Set up by the state so the people can live peacefully next to eachother. I don't like your idea of having personal mobs hunting down people. Law and order is the responsibility of the state, a open state based on the peoples will.

If you don't like the Initiation of coercion, than why do you support the state, and further, socialism? Taxes are an example of coercion. People have learned to cooperate and trade and solve problems without violence as you say. So why do you then still support violence when its done by the government? Also I never said I was against leaders or authority. I'm ONLY against them when I am FORCED to obey them. Voluntary leaders are fine and even good. We do need leaders much of the time. That doesn't mean they must be coercive. I'm fine with self-defense.Who says states are bad? You? You say the state is bad, your state seems bad. Our is fine. Taxes are rent of having me living in my country. Using it's resources, it's communications, it's defence. I'm not forced to live here, I can move if I want and pay my "rent" somewhere else. But why would I?
Yes I'm forced to obey some rules but we all are. Otherwise I intrude in other peoples freedom. Coercion as you call it.

Actually, by what you said, I think you're well on your way to market anarchism. You have just argued to me its basic principle. Welcome to the darkside. :)

By the way, in my previous post, when I was advocating killing and rape, I was being very sarcastic.How then?

thod

03-13-2008, 02:06 PM

Of course if you were allowed to "opt out" and be declared an outlaw you wouldn't last a week. As soon as people saw your name and address on the outlaw list they would come around to your place to take your goods. The sadists would come around to torture you. Recall that being outlaw means you are outside the law and cannot call on the law for anything. Your shotgun would help but they would still get you.

ArchonAlarion

03-13-2008, 02:12 PM

Lights

03-13-2008, 02:27 PM

THE CONSTITUTION

I'm not talking about the Constitution. I'm talking about common sense. If you belong to a group, and they provide services to you, which in the case of our country is protection and cooperation, then you have obligation to pay for those services by volunteering up your personal freedom. You also have the choice of leaving the group if you desire not to pay for those services. I haven't mentioned a thing about the Constitution in that argument.

Just because you say you're an anarchist doesn't mean you actually are one. Many anarchists have a deluded definition of what anarchy means. Anarcho-collectivists do not respect property and thus use aggression. But as I've said a bajillion times now, anarchy means "without rulers." People who aggress are in effect rulers, and so anarchy is based on voluntaryanism.

Ruler is a synonym for leader. Not all leaders or rulers, coerce people.

Right, fine. As I've said though, it's unfair to tell me to leave the country if I don't like it, because the country is and never was based on a contract. And I believe (yes, my opinion) that politicians have gone behind are backs and broken the constitution anyways.

You have the right to leave the group if you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for the services rendered by the group.

Well no sorry, it's not a reality. Anarchy means "without rulers", not "A bunch of war lords fighting it out in a post imperialistic disease ridden vacuum where people still live in tribes and have no clue what libertarianism is"

You'd be lying to yourself to call Africa a bastion of the free-market.

:rolleyes:

That is exactly what anarchy is in reality. Leaders will take power aggressively in the real world, which is why anarchy is doomed to fail.

What you're getting at is if I was under a real contract in which I was to pay for services in exchange for renting land here.

But we are not living under a contract. I think I've proved this. It's not your favorite little phrase "arbitrary redefintion" A contract is explicit and voluntary. If it is not than it is null and void. The end.

A social contract is not the same thing as a real contract. Social contracts are implicit, which means they are implied by your presence within the group. There is no dotted line. As long as you enjoy the benefits of the group, you are obligated to pay for its services. Once you leave the group, that obligation is over. Just because a social contract is not the same thing as an real contract, does not dismiss that it exists. You were born into the social contract, enjoyed the education and protection it provided, and now that you are being asked to pay for those services, you are bitching. That is because you are selfish.

Leader and ruler are different. If I ask someone to follow me then I'm a leader. If I command someone to follow me than I'm a ruler. Why do you think kings are called rulers, and a CEO is called a leader. I think you'd agree with me that you shouldn't "rule" over other people, who aren't your property. Is a priest a leader or a ruler Lights, think about it.

Connotation is a word you obviously do not know.

I did in fact answer your questions, if I didn't than it was not on purpose. Maybe I had to go to sleep

No you haven't. But I will repost them so that you can answer them.

"How are you going to eliminate aggression from the world? Do you believe if you take up the principles of "non aggression" that the entire world will just follow suit and everything will fall perfectly into place? How are you going to get people to stop cooperating, choosing leaders, and declaring rules that they must live by, since that is pretty much all that is necessary to form a state? Are you advocating Hammurabi's Code or an "Eye for an Eye" law in your market anarchist society?"

Now I have answered all your questions. Do not say I haven't in your next post, because I have. Maybe instead of constantly saying I'm using arbitrary redefinition you should actually give me the definitions you think are correct.

I have been providing the correct definitions. Go look back on the previous posts. I guess that is just proof that you haven't actually read my posts.

Somehow I don't think you did a very good job of "destroying me". :laugh: You have yet to provide any evidence for you point of view beyond your personal values, assumptions, and attacks on other philosophies.

thod

03-13-2008, 02:38 PM

So you are a parent with 2 boys, one a few years older than the other. You give each of them $10 in pocket money a week. The first week the smaller one comes to you crying, it turns out his brother has the money. The elder boy claims it was all a fair trade. Since he is older and smarter he has little difficulty in getting the better half of the bargain. This happens again and again. The elder child ends up with the money. When you ask him to stop he claims that you are oppressing him, that he is only taking part in exchanges sanctioned by both parties, its free trade.

The parent loves both boys and can see the injustice. They want both boys to enjoy their spending money. Thats the leap you have to make to think like a leader instead of a player. You have to think like a parent.

Cant you break out of your mindset. You don't have anything new to say. We already know your position since its as old as the sun. Anarchy and Darwinism theories are familiar to every man. Try to go beyond it, to see new alternatives. Its that that defines you as a thinker. Come up with something I haven't heard before.

Lights

03-13-2008, 02:41 PM

If you do not obey the state and resist imprisonment, than they will kill you. Simple. I'm really tired of repeting myself. There are many online resources for market anarchism that explain, in detail, how this stuff works. I can't force you to read it I can only suggest it.

Please don't harass me for not explaining everything myself. I'm kinda up against the crowd, and my fingers are getting tired.

Yes, I've read the ideology. And the reality is it says not much more than you do. You are living in a dream world. And eventually you are going to wake up and realize that it's nothing but a rationalized delusion based on logical fallacies and equivocation, with the intent of justifying selfishness. There is no "enlightened self interest" only a bunch of people who willfully ignore science and reality because they want to preserve their individual rights at all costs. It's not unlike how a teenager argues with his parents when they ask him to clean his room. What right do the parents have to tell the kid what he should do? He didn't sign any contract? Of course, he is ignoring the reality that his parents have fed and clothed him for his entire life, and they are only asking him to volunteer some of his personal freedom so as to make life easier for the whole family. Which is why adolescents flock to this ideology before they get a taste of the real world and give it up.

Ytterbium

03-13-2008, 03:00 PM

If you do not obey the state and resist imprisonment, than they will kill you. Simple.Why would they? What does capital punishment have to do with this? I kill someone the state puts me in jail. In your world and I kill someone you call a private company to lock me up? And that's better because it's not the state who does it? Who will pay that company for that service, you?

I'm really tired of repeting myself. There are many online resources for market anarchism that explain, in detail, how this stuff works. I can't force you to read it I can only suggest it.You don't have to repeat yourself. You only have to answer our questions. By that I mean really answer them not repeating yourself.
I'm about to buy a car, there're brochures. But what about talking with an actual seller? I can say the same, check the net. But it will not change your mind. If you have your opinion based on that the state is bad because it's a state and kills people. You will get no way further because not all states are like that. The word state is just as wide as the word vehicle. A Chevrolet is a vehicle, but not all vehicles are Chevrolets. Different states and vehicles are built differently depending on various reasons and needs.

Please don't harass me for not explaining everything myself. I'm kinda up against the crowd, and my fingers are getting tired.I don't have a plan to harass you. This is a free discussion and anyone can participate. I just want to know how you would like to run your world.

ArchonAlarion

03-13-2008, 03:09 PM

Ytterbium

03-13-2008, 04:56 PM

It seems this argument is hinging on whether a social contract is legitimate.

I say it isn't. If a social contract can be implicit and involuntary, than why not any contract? If that is your reasoning, than why can't I make up contracts with my friends and expect you to follow them? So far, you haven't proved how social contract is legitimate.We the people vote on other people. These people establish the laws according to what the most people wants. I have a choice to follow them or not. If I don't I'll get punished. Just like you would punish me if I did something wrong to you.
There're common laws for one reason you know.

Let's say everyrthing is private property. Then 51% of the populace say, "Lets have a state." They draw up a constitution and just expect the remaining 49% to obey the new state because they didn't pack up and leave. Is this fair?That's democracy good or bad you choose. Then it's not black and white either. There're many opinions about many things. The people don't think all the same you know.
Even though you don't like your state you can probably come with better solutions on some things. You can't completely abolish a state, there must be some sort of agency handeling common matters. It's not much of a country then either without a state. Electricity, water supply how is your solution to that?

I can't believe you are telling ME to think alternatively.

My parents own the property I live on, so if I wish to continue living here I must obey there final commands. Your example only helps my case. I volunteer for my family because I love them, and they give me food and shelter. Thats an argument for property rights.My parents also owns a house and I help them to sometimes. The state provides a lot which we own and where our house is built on. The state coordinates power, water, postal services and roads so we can move freely. The state provides safety and defence. I pay for these services.

I'm not the one living in a dream world. I care about being right alot more than I care about ideals. I wouldn't argue here if I didn't believe what I was saying. I'm getting a little tired of hearing the "idealistic teenager" argument. You are the one with delusions. Communism and socialism fail again and again. State bureaucracy fails again and again. Free trade is fair, rational, and non-violent. You are the one refusing to look at reality. Try not being a good little slave some time.Do you say i live in a dream world then?
I'm not idealistic, i want to run a society the best possible way in many aspects. Therefore I want to know how you would run it. If you don't want to get called idealistic teenager, start with some hands on solutions to the soceity. So skip massmurder arguments, it will be fixed somehow etc.

Lights

03-13-2008, 10:20 PM

It seems this argument is hinging on whether a social contract is legitimate.

The argument is hinging on whether or not people should be obligated to follow through on their agreements. Your entire argument hinges on the abstract idea of "private property". You seem to assume that everyone will respect your right to have property, which is weird, because that is an implicit expectation. :laugh:

I say it isn't. If a social contract can be implicit and involuntary, than why not any contract?

A social contract is implicit, but it isn't involuntary. You consent by being a part of the group to follow through in your obligations to the group.

If that is your reasoning, than why can't I make up contracts with my friends and expect you to follow them? So far, you haven't proved how social contract is legitimate.

That is a pathetic straw man. :rolleyes:

A social contract is legitimate because it is governed by the consent of the people. The people have the right to overthrow the old contract if it no longer suits them, and individuals have the right to leave the group if they don't agree with the contract. I'm not a member of your friendship, so I'm not consenting to anything you agree, and since I'm not a part of your group, you have nothing with which you could deny me. Hence why your straw man argument has nothing to do with social contract theory.

You make implicit agreements with your friends all the time. When you tell them secrets do you have them sign confidentiality agreements? No, it is understood that they will not divulge that information as an implicit part of your friendship. That is a social contract. If you were to tell me a secret, I would not be bound by a friendship, so I would not have the same obligation not to divulge the information.

Seriously, if you are going to form straw man arguments, then you need to understand the concepts so you don't look so silly when you do it.

Let's say everyrthing is private property. Then 51% of the populace say, "Lets have a state." They draw up a constitution and just expect the remaining 49% to obey the new state because they didn't pack up and leave. Is this fair?

It wouldn't work. The state can only function if it is governed by the will of the people. If such a substantial percentage of the people rejected the government then it would eventually lead to war. We had a civil war for that very reason. And as you may recall, those rebels didn't leave non aggressively. They first attacked Fort Sumter. Which brings up another good point, what right did Lincoln have to emancipate the Confederate's property? You recall that slaves were once considered private property, so what right did Lincoln have to take them away? To borrow one of your tactics, "private property" is not concrete, it is just a concept. Why should I be obligated to respect your concepts? In a social contract, I respect your rights because you respect mine, but without such, I guess anyone can just take whatever they want from you as long as they don't believe in respecting the concept of "private property".

I can't believe you are telling ME to think alternatively.

You seriously should. You should read Crito.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It might open some new doors of thought for you on what it means to live up to your agreements.

Also, the Native Americans lived on communal lands for centuries. However did they manage? :laugh: Maybe you should do a little reading in that area and maybe it will change the way you think of property since your entire argument hinges on that abstract ideal.

My parents own the property I live on, so if I wish to continue living here I must obey there final commands. Your example only helps my case. I volunteer for my family because I love them, and they give me food and shelter. Thats an argument for property rights.

So the only reason you feel obligated to respect your family's wishes is because you choose to live on their property? Nope, you mentioned the services rendered, so it seems you haven't rejected my argument.

I'm not the one living in a dream world. I care about being right alot more than I care about ideals. I wouldn't argue here if I didn't believe what I was saying. I'm getting a little tired of hearing the "idealistic teenager" argument. You are the one with delusions. Communism and socialism fail again and again. State bureaucracy fails again and again. Free trade is fair, rational, and non-violent. You are the one refusing to look at reality. Try not being a good little slave some time.

I think you just explained yourself perfectly. You just can't stand being wrong and therefore you refuse to listen. I'm just planting the ideas, because I know that eventually they will grow.

As far as your little slave comment, I am a proud and free American. I can choose to leave this country at any time if I know longer find the group to be satisfactory. Unlike the slaves we held, if I run, I won't be captured and brought back. I think you have just created chains in your mind that don't exist in reality.

And as far as your attacks on other ideas...yeah been there and done that a hundred times. Proving that something else isn't perfect doesn't prove your idea is. You have yet to provide any evidence beyond your assumptions and personal values of how things would be better in a market anarchist society. As I have said time and time again, you have no case.

You know why you are screaming in caps while I am calmly and intelligently discussing these ideas? Because you know you are wrong, but your personality (namely your Te function) and your pride are keeping you from admitting it.

Te works like this.

"Unfair!! I have to stick to my guns, I will not be bullied or cheated. Any number of authorities agree with me. All my friends agree with me. Everyone can see that my response is directly mandated by the situation: anything else would be irresponsible. These facts absolutely settle the matter, and there is no point in looking at it any further."

You just aren't willing to look beyond the facts you have accepted for yourself, and you have therefore limited your capacity to learn.

Consider yourself pwned. :p

Dreamer

03-14-2008, 09:31 AM

If all males of military age where enlisted you could work out the enlistment period to give the same number of man hours provided by the current military. This would be very small. The number of hours spent training those men to be of a similar skill level to the standing army would far exceed the service period. Its simply not efficient. I disagree very strongly. In Canada, we send reservists on 1 year tour of duty and they perform at the same level of the regular force (else they wouldn't be fighting there in the first place).

These reservists could be trained up to par with their regforce counterparts, and this with less training than with a civilian. Don't quote me on the exact numbers,but I think the pre-Afghanistan training for a fully qualified reservist is about 4-6 months. In the small but long wars of today,this is peanuts in terms of time.

I also think the period of service should be relatively long(as in several years) to take full advantage of a trained soldier, but in a reserve capacity.

The volunteer military present a clear problem with today's entitlement culture: there is simply not enough people to go around.Few are willing to contribute to society what society is giving back to them: defense.
If the draft were to occur, the US would have the manpower that today's insurgencies require.

A drafted army does not mean discounting the advantages of a volunteer one: the volunteers would still be there,training full time,after all. And could be part of a full-time QRF or something of this sort.

Its far better to pay tax and have specialists do these functions full time.Those specialists are asked an unfair burden of common defense and are given too little in return(they are still taxed,for one). The taxpayer is simply not contributing an equal amount (how many dollars is risking a limb worth to you?).

thod

03-14-2008, 10:10 AM

Dreamer

03-14-2008, 11:31 AM

It doesn't matter how much you train me, I wont make a good fighter pilot, I just don't have the reactions. It takes a long time to train one and then you put him in £100 million machine. Thats not going to work with a conscript. The guy that maintains the plane on the ground needs a lot of training too. Actually I think that a conscription would actually help the need for specific talents in certain trades.

The military could benefits from the varied skills of the whole populace instead of a limited few.Many needed skills are directly transferable from the civilian to the military world. Those from the medical professions are particularly in demand.

Another point:as I said the benefits of a volunteer military would still be there. The volunteers would still be there and would most likely fill out the leadership and more training-intensive roles. Fighter pilots comes to mind.

Conscripts make poor soldiers they don't want to be there. I'm not a conscript and have never met one, so I can't speak from personal experience,
but I suspect most of them would strongly disagree with you.

They are not given an unfair burden of common defense. Its like arguing that soliders are not pulling their weight in industrial production. They are, a taxpayer does not contribute anywhere near the same amount of his person than the soldier does. You cannot, in no possible shape or fashion, say that a man who shed blood for a just cause is the moral equivalent of an industrial worker who works in a relatively safe environment.

Both contributes but one more than the other. It may be part of the deal that the soldier while contributing more of his person inevitably gets less but it doesn't mean that the deal cannot be changed, and should not be changed.

National defense is a collective responsability. It is the one that asks for the most but in the end is the base upon which higher pursuits are built.

He has been picking up a pay cheque for years whilst producing nothing useful, So training for war is not a useful endaevour?

Dreamer added to this post, 13 minutes and 27 seconds later...

The social contract stipulates volunteering up some of your personal freedom in exchange for the services rendered by the group. Individual rights are just the personal freedoms the group guarantees it will not interfere with.
I think it is the other way around. The group is there to promote and protect fundamental freedoms,because there is no other way a free state is going to survive without strong cooperation from its members. The group is a nescessary evil.

At least in the US they are, them being "God-given" rights,and all.

Wait...I think I've seen that movie before...Starship Troopers? ;)
I 've never seen the movie, I've heard that it was great film in a craptastic fashion. Or Great Crap, to put it in simpler terms.

I did like the book and Heinlein is one of my favourite authors.

Exactly. You pay people in society, they pay their taxes, and it builds infrastructure. The US is not a very capitalistic country. No need to pass through a middle man/government. Instead,you pay people in society, and they themselves will reinvest in infrastructure.

Ex: you pay X hospital in the US, they re-invest it in their own infrastructure without passing by Washington. You pay Y garage shop,and they then reinvest in a new machine shop or whatever the hell garagists need these days, etc .Profit being there motivation,they are more efficient than the government bureaucrats(and no,bureaucrats do not nescessarly enter the profession to bring in a better statist utopia).

That is why I love living in the United States. Well good for you.

I think paying taxes is just an essential part of life. Agreed to the extent that it is used to fund the judiciary/military branch of government. And whatever apparatus they use to make elections happen.

Correction: And maybe its corrupt democratically elected politicians. Just maybe.

or allow for welfare programs. That however we can do better without.

Lights

03-14-2008, 03:33 PM

That however we can do better without.

Ah, you lost me there. I would prefer that people don't starve to death in the streets. History is on my side when it comes to social welfare.

I find that the people who argue otherwise, are simply limited because they have no grasp of the political, economic, and social causes of poverty. They just assume that anyone who wants to can work and survive and the poor are just lazy, moochers. Such narrowminded conceptions are proof that we have a long way to go.

Colette

03-14-2008, 04:49 PM

I find that the people who argue otherwise, are simply limited because they have no grasp of the political, economic, and social causes of poverty. They just assume that anyone who wants to can work and survive and the poor are just lazy, moochers. Such narrowminded conceptions are proof that we have a long way to go.

And I find it more than slightly ironic that the strongest views in favour of rampant 'libertarianism' are being promulgated on this thread almost exclusively by white middle class kids who are probably either living at home with their well-heeled parents, or have been supported through college by such parents, and have never had to struggle for a day in their lives to put food on the table, or be responsible for doing so, for another person.

That is why the views almost entirely lack credibility. They are in the realm of fantasy, not reality.

Dreamer

03-14-2008, 06:21 PM

Ah, you lost me there. I would prefer that people don't starve to death in the streets. I am not advocating "starving people to death" as you so poetically put it, rather I advocate the replacement of a compulsory social welfare system by a voluntary one.

Generous people abound. Despite its failing to improve economies,there are still plenty of people that addhere to some form of socialist/liberal ideology.I assume that those folks are motivated by genuine intention to help othes and not simply an irrational hatred of the rich. If only half those people gave what they asked of others in taxation to private charity,they would most likely be able to not only help those more destitute than themselves but addhere to it themselves. The wealth is there and so is the generosity,there is no need for a statist middle man to manage it for them.

There are few things that government is good at. Through the pressures of war, the government can legitimetaly claim that it has gained the upper hand in this domain.

In contrast,there is absolutly nothing to keep the state bureaucracies in check and it is subjected to no pressure to change whatsoever.The moral motivation of state bureaucracies is unfortunatly unexistent.
It has been tried in Cuba and other places in a totalitarian athmosphere,
it failed miserably. It is the same today in state offices managing welfare checks, minus the constant political brainwashing.

I find that the people who argue otherwise, are simply limited because they have no grasp of the political, economic, and social causes of poverty.Well,that's very nice of you.

Sylvanus

03-14-2008, 08:24 PM

And I find it more than slightly ironic that the strongest views in favour of rampant 'libertarianism' are being promulgated on this thread almost exclusively by white middle class kids who are probably either living at home with their well-heeled parents, or have been supported through college by such parents, and have never had to struggle for a day in their lives to put food on the table, or be responsible for doing so, for another person.

That is why the views almost entirely lack credibility. They are in the realm of fantasy, not reality.

White: yes, not that it matters. Middle class: I've worked my way into middle class, never taking a dime from my parents, currently paying my way through college, while simultaneously supporting three other people.

Colette

03-14-2008, 10:16 PM

White: yes, not that it matters. Middle class: I've worked my way into middle class, never taking a dime from my parents, currently paying my way through college, while simultaneously supporting three other people.

Well then have some sympathy for people who may not have your intellectual resources, or the advantages to have even been given an opportunity to study at college (whether they had to pay their way through or not).

Like it or not, you're in a relatively privileged minority, so it would pay to remember that, before you post self-righteous remarks about people feeding off the welfare state.

Lights

03-15-2008, 01:02 AM

I am not advocating "starving people to death" as you so poetically put it, rather I advocate the replacement of a compulsory social welfare system by a voluntary one.

Generous people abound. Despite its failing to improve economies,there are still plenty of people that addhere to some form of socialist/liberal ideology.I assume that those folks are motivated by genuine intention to help othes and not simply an irrational hatred of the rich. If only half those people gave what they asked of others in taxation to private charity,they would most likely be able to not only help those more destitute than themselves but addhere to it themselves. The wealth is there and so is the generosity,there is no need for a statist middle man to manage it for them.

It has been done before and it has failed. History shows that religious groups were the primary voluntary contributor to charity and they simply do not have the political or social resources to meet the need in the present. In effect, the rich need the poor to work and to provide value to the money. Post Middle Ages, when the church lost much of its financial resources, it could no longer contribute to all the poor, and the poor effectively stopped working because they were not being paid enough to survive. Workhouses, which were in effect prisons, were created to force the poor to work for minimal wages. Other laws were passed to keep the poor from moving and seeking better wages in other places. Because the church fell out of power, it became necessary to tax the populace to provide for the poor, simply because the rich would not otherwise do so. This provided enough to keep the poor alive, and so they would then have incentive to work. Hence why the first compulsory social welfare system, the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 proved to be a necessity. History has repeated repetitively that social welfare policies are necessary. In addition to that, charity does little to get people out of charity. Only programs such as job training can accomplish that.

In contrast,there is absolutly nothing to keep the state bureaucracies in check and it is subjected to no pressure to change whatsoever.The moral motivation of state bureaucracies is unfortunatly unexistent.
It has been tried in Cuba and other places in a totalitarian athmosphere,
it failed miserably. It is the same today in state offices managing welfare checks, minus the constant political brainwashing.

No, the changing values of society have proven to keep the government in check. Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research into the history of social welfare can see that policies change dramatically as people elect different leaders. An example would be the Conservative period of the 50's where welfare agencies were forbidden to provide services to any household that held an adult male who was capable of working, followed by the Liberal period of the 60's where Johnson's War on Poverty was initiated and civil rights became a major focus, followed by another Conservative period through the 70's and 80's where Reagan effectively cut off many of the welfare programs, into the 90's Clinton era where very middle of the road gains were made, and finally back into the compassionate conservative era of Bush Jr. who has stripped many programs to fund the war in Iraq.

Well,that's very nice of you.

It shouldn't offend you assuming you aren't one of those ignorant people.

Lights added to this post, 13 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Like it or not, you're in a relatively privileged minority, so it would pay to remember that, before you post self-righteous remarks about people feeding off the welfare state.

Relatively privileged? In the United States, the white heterosexual male is living on cream and honey compared to other groups. Women as a group make 80 cents on every dollar a man makes and are limited on how far they can climb by the glass ceiling imposed on the socioeconomic ladder. Hispanics, who have been historically limited to manual labor, face challenges in being hired outside that step. African Americans are the most discriminated group in the job market, and are 75% less likely to be hired for a job that than a similarly qualified white applicant. Native Americans have their land red lined and devalued, and so Reservations have some of the lowest property values. And Gays and Lesbians are the most openly discriminated group in the country, boasting some of the highest suicides rates as a result. Yup, being white and male is awesome in this country.

xanodel

03-15-2008, 01:05 AM

I think the problem with having no social welfare benefits or no socialist policies in place, and simply letting the market operate on its own, is first, the deterioration of meritocracy. Secondly, is inefficiency (economically and legally).

We can probably all agree on the merits of a meritocratic system where each individual has the environment and has fundamentally the opportunity to prove him/herself capable. Yet the very problem of absolute deregulation allows simply those who are already in power to rule. The problem with having a market rule itself is basic: the people who run the market will regulate the market. In short, if you can run the market, you can rule the market for however long as you desire. As much as it is against capitalist principles, it is nonetheless a fundamental issue of human nature-it is absolutely irrational to think that a person would naturally seek to allow completely unfettered competition. In light of having no higher authority that is capable of dictating what exactly the market rules are, a monopolist is capable of dictating the flow of the market on its own terms. Essentially then, it is not a measure of the market laws that govern the market, but an issue of monetary might. Areas where this may happen: natural resources.

Secondly, collusions can happen. Yes, in your theoretical hypothetical world every company would follow the orders of capitalism and not engage in collusions, monopolies or other anti-market practices,but based on past histories alone, since when did we as humans not engage in collusions when it is feasible? A company's priority is simple: maximize gain for the longest period and duration. Rather than encourage competition, it would prefer to squelch competition. That itself deteriorates a meritocratic society of open competition. In such cases, uniformed, consistent regulation is necessary.

Secondly, welfare to a degree is necessary to provide for areas such as education and health, as both are also key for maintaining a meritocratic society. I think it's rather self explanatory what would happen if education is limited to only those who can afford it-the tools themselves would be unequal, or in some cases, non-existent. As for why health care and general social welfare is necessary is equally simple. A person does not need to "deserve" bad luck to receive it. A downturn in the economy, temporary lack of training, and even disabilities that can impair a person for life-none of these justifies a viewpoint saying that once down a person should receive no help in climbing up.

Historically we need to look no further than feudal europe. The central government itself was weak, and the market economy itself did flow. Yet short of plagues and a gradual centralization of power in the monarchy, there was literally no social upward mobility. Education was limited to the few elites, and pretty much once a serf always a serf. We can agree that the economy did function, but not at its maximum. Yet the lack of centralization and no social net itself perpetuated a cycle of elitism. Our question is, would we want such a system again?

While I admire the people fully capable of climbing back up by their own bootstraps, that does not mean people who need help are less worthy, nor that they are necessarily lazy. Furthermore, the idea that social welfare should not exist engenders two distinct views that are equally repugnant: a) that a human once no longer "useful" should not exist; b) that a child should pay for the mistakes of the parents.

A, would allow us to engage in eugenics, selecting off who is useful and not useful, who should be allowed to live and not live. In a way, isn't that contrary to your views on individual liberty that each individual has a right to life? As for B, there are plenty of families with children that depend on social welfare-many of them probably have working parent/parents, yet cannot afford to live without the social welfare because of the high cost of living. Inflation has gone up in the US, but real wages has not appreciated. There are probably those among us who say, perhaps the parents should not have had so many kids-yet to say that social welfare nets should not exist for these kids is similar to saying the children should pay for the mistakes of the parents. That itself is illogical.

Secondly, a totally deregulated system can be equally as inefficient as the status quo. We can have a company that only specializes in a certain type of law enforcement, say traffic issues. Then another one that specializes in robberies, and still another in homocide. I would pay for a trillion of agencies that could be centralized into one. Likewise, government functions in areas that are unattractive to private entities. If I had to use a real life example, let's just contrast the amount of R&D devoted to researching HIV cures versus erectal dysfunction. Under the total market system, it'd be great if your concern was erectal dysfunction, but if you had HIV, good luck. Even if the system overflowed with HIV cases, arguments for not caring can be made: a) most of the people are poor; b) most of them deserved it; c) it's not a good market, as the R&D is too expensive; d) most of the people are going to die anyways, why bother?

Dreamer

03-15-2008, 11:18 AM

History shows that religious groups were the primary voluntary contributor to charity and they simply do not have the political or social resources to meet the need in the present. The private welfare system does not have to pass by the Church. I think it would be better served by secular institutions.

As I`ve said before, generous people abound,and their wealth is there.
A shift in values away from government is nescessary.

The push to a private welfare system might be encouraged by the government itself(through tax cuts and "sensibilization" campaigns,maybe?), but it is not an unattainable goal. Also,I do not think that a private welfare program has to be exclusively charity(I think you had in mind a system where a non-profit organization would give regardless of productivity exclusively). It can include medical institutions that are run for non-profit goals,collective associations who might protect members against unfair prosecution,private soup kitchens,etc. There is little that the pool of generous socialists cannot accomplish underneath the private system.

In effect, the rich need the poor to work and to provide value to the money. Other laws were passed to keep the poor from moving and seeking better wages in other places. This provided enough to keep the poor alive, and so they would then have incentive to work. I'd say that an employer that does not pay a living wage will soon find itself without any employees.

In addition to that, charity does little to get people out of charity. Only programs such as job training can accomplish that. Exactly, despite all the statist programs introduced by the Democratic party during the 20th century, poverty seems not to be decreasing.

No, the changing values of society have proven to keep the government in check. The democratic checks and balance seldom tend to keep bureaucracies slim and efficient.
It does tend to change the general strategy/focus of government,but like Bill Gates have trouble controlling whether an illegal janitor sweeping Microsoft's office in Beijing might be sleeping or working, the electorate have trouble controlling what happens in the offices of the bureaucrats that is allegedly serving them. Society seems to be unable to change the little details(like for example,those that contribute to bureaucratic waste). At best,it can slash them(as in the various conservative administrations) completely. At worse,it can keep funding them.

A prime example of this is the military, whose reputation as a soviet-style centrally planned bureaucracy is unfortunatly all too truth. Could the military be made more efficient speaking in administrative terms? With the amount of red tape the troops have to go through to get something, highly probable. Is it going to happen? Of course not. The differnece between the military and welfare is that the military is nescessary while compulsory welfare is not.

It shouldn't offend you assuming you aren't one of those ignorant people. You`ll find that few things offend me , it is my jovial nature that is sometime mistaken for sarcasm.

Of course,while I do not wish to "starve people to death in the streets",I find ignorant the view that the poor are all virtuous citizens that somehow were screwed over by a rich and greedy Uncle Scrooge.Not that my view on the matter of whether or not the poor are deserving of help actually changes anything in the debate.

Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Lights

03-15-2008, 01:02 PM

The differnece between the military and welfare is that the military is nescessary while compulsory welfare is not.

I guess we are just going to continue to disagree on that point. Although history does show that compulsory welfare is necessary. I would say that your belief in the generosity of others is sorely misplaced. That isn't what social welfare is about. As I stated above, the economy is dependent upon a welfare system, and not since the church has a voluntary one ever succeeded. In the present it is simply an unrealistic ideology. Such volunteer agencies simply don't have the resources, incentive, or structure to do as good a job as the government. We would be stepping back to the feudal era if we attempted such a ludicrous idea.

Of course,while I do not wish to "starve people to death in the streets",I find ignorant the view that the poor are all virtuous citizens that somehow were screwed over by a rich and greedy Uncle Scrooge.Not that my view on the matter of whether or not the poor are deserving of help actually changes anything in the debate.

Indeed, that is just as ignorant a view. Poverty is caused when wages don't keep up with inflation and not enough adequately paying jobs exist for people to earn what they need to survive. It also occurs when communities are stripped of their jobs by companies that are going overseas for cheaper labor. It results from soaring food costs as a result of rising energy costs. It increases when social welfare programs are cut by the government. It also increases when the taxes on the poor and middle class are increased while the taxes on the rich are reduced. It also is the result of people learning to live in poverty, by accepting that they can never escape, and effectively "giving up". Sadly, all these things are occurring right now, and so it seems that the United States economy is just about doomed.

Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The problem is that people think that social welfare is simply "good intentions". The economy will collapse without it. History has proven it time ant time again, and it seems people ignore it because they can't equate that social welfare isn't charity, it is promoting the development of the economy. Without that development, the economy will stagnate and die. Then the rich will take it upon themselves to force the poor to work so as to maintain the social order and the value of their money. The irony is that eventually the poor will revolt, and because of their sheer numbers, they will win. Hence history will repeat itself.

1OFMANY

03-15-2008, 07:51 PM

I used to hold the opinion that military service should be mandatory for most youngsters. A conscription service type of thing. Since I joined the active duty infantry in 2001 and now being a reserve trainer/instructor I have changed my mind. A large part of the misery and malcontent that occured in the Vietnam era was specifically tied to the draft. I would NEVER want to work with people who didnt want to be there. And the more "front-line" your job is, the more that truth becomes clear. Less than 1% of the U.S. serves in the military and besides an occasional idiot who signed up for the wrong reasons, that 1% is doing a better job than most civilians could even understand. That would drop exponentially if people had to serve unwillingly.

Heres an idea. Instead of forcing people to serve in the military for low wages, lets force people to serve in the health care community for "universal healthcare" recipients while getting low wages. That solves 2 of the longest threads on these boards :P

C'mon, you know the level of care would be phenominal!! LOL

Lights

03-15-2008, 11:13 PM

Heres an idea. Instead of forcing people to serve in the military for low wages, lets force people to serve in the health care community for "universal healthcare" recipients while getting low wages. That solves 2 of the longest threads on these boards :P

Haven't you been watching the news? A large chunk of the new jobs that have been created are low wage health care jobs, which are expected to be filled by people who can't get work elsewhere. Capitalism is doing a far better job at forcing people to work in areas they don't want to than conscription ever could. :laugh:

I'm sure the service we can expect will be just as phenomenal. :rolleyes:

Ytterbium

03-16-2008, 06:07 AM

Xanodel that's good. Your're rare in this thread which is bad. This thread is locked in the belief that the opposite is bad. When it's actually how you run the system that counts. No matter how we do, it's going to be a porridge in the middle of different ideas.

I'm not a conscript and have never met one, so I can't speak from personal experience, but I suspect most of them would strongly disagree with you.At your service. Do you have any questions about that?

Blaze2000

03-16-2008, 11:34 AM

Exactly prometheus. I'm very liberal, but I see the benefits that capitalism and competition bring. But I also see the negatives. I think that the evidence shows (pollution, monopolies, consumer safety) that a purely capitalistic system is not in the best interest of society and thus needs some level of regulations and counter balance to ensure that the untallied costs of production(pollution, etc) are taken into account and that there is some accountability for those costs.

1OFMANY

03-16-2008, 01:44 PM

America is not purely capitalistic. We regulate when it needs be done. We break up monopolies when needs be done, albeit a little slow in my opinion some times. We basically take the best of democracy and change the dirty parts. You cant get a better system than we have ATM. I hope all the people who have great ideas on these boards put them to work in real life as well.

thod

03-16-2008, 04:03 PM

You cant get a better system than we have ATM.

God bless America. Bald eagles, apple pie and all that. Do you wear stars and stripes pants and have a picture of Bush on the wall too? I reckon there are quite a few people who could point on faults in the current system.

Lights

03-16-2008, 04:05 PM

God bless America. Bald eagles, apple pie and all that. Do you wear stars and stripes pants and have a picture of Bush on the wall too? I reckon there are quite a few people who could point on faults in the current system.

Don't get me started. I could talk for hours about the electoral college, lobbyists, outsourcing, etc.

1OFMANY

03-17-2008, 02:01 PM

Thod..you can talk all the shit you want..you still cant prove it wrong...

And Lights...

Don't get me started. I could talk for hours about the electoral college, lobbyists, outsourcing, etc.

I hate lobbyists too. outsourcing I am still up in the air about.

Lights

03-17-2008, 05:52 PM

I hate lobbyists too. outsourcing I am still up in the air about.

Hey, let me know when you come to the ground. I bet it will be sometime around when you realize you can't get a job because most of them have been shipped to China. :p

Sylvanus

03-19-2008, 12:09 AM

Well then have some sympathy for people who may not have your intellectual resources, or the advantages to have even been given an opportunity to study at college (whether they had to pay their way through or not).

Like it or not, you're in a relatively privileged minority, so it would pay to remember that, before you post self-righteous remarks about people feeding off the welfare state.

Every advantage I have is not due to who I was born to, it is due to my work ethic and achieving more because I tried harder than most. I am not being self righteous, I just have a reasonable expectation that people should provide for themselves and not depend on the nanny state.

Sylvanus added to this post, 2 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Haven't you been watching the news? A large chunk of the new jobs that have been created are low wage health care jobs, which are expected to be filled by people who can't get work elsewhere. Capitalism is doing a far better job at forcing people to work in areas they don't want to than conscription ever could. :laugh:

I'm sure the service we can expect will be just as phenomenal. :rolleyes:

If people don't want the jobs, they don't have to take them. If the jobs don't pay enough, the wages will go up until they pay a reasonable amount.

Lights

03-19-2008, 12:37 AM

If people don't want the jobs, they don't have to take them. If the jobs don't pay enough, the wages will go up until they pay a reasonable amount.

You do realize that the current situation we are in proves that comment to be a load of crap? :laugh:

Sylvanus

03-19-2008, 12:53 AM

You do realize that the current situation we are in proves that comment to be a load of crap? :laugh:

Recently we had the lowest unemployment rate this country has seen in years. With the oncoming recession (that's not a recession but really is) it has come up a little but not enough to prevent most people qualified and competent to get a good job.

Lights

03-19-2008, 02:16 AM

Recently we had the lowest unemployment rate this country has seen in years. With the oncoming recession (that's not a recession but really is) it has come up a little but not enough to prevent most people qualified and competent to get a good job.

What does the former unemployment rate have to do with whether or not people can currently get jobs that will pay decent enough wages? :rolleyes: I think that was perhaps the weakest counter argument I have ever had on this site. :laugh: The vast majority of the jobs that have been created during the Bush administration have been low paying jobs and we just lost over 100,000 jobs, with the likeliness that far more layoffs are to come. Many people have given up trying to find a decent job, and there has not been any noticeable change in the wages, except for a downward trend since most of the jobs that are currently being created are low paying. I'm sorry, but just because your free market delusions may sound reasonable to you doesn't mean it has anything to do with the real world. It was the private sector that got us into this mess, and even though the government isn't making it better by bailing out the super rich investors who screwed up, it is evident that the days of believing in the market being adjusted by the average man are completely gone.

Sylvanus

03-19-2008, 02:35 AM

What does the former unemployment rate have to do with whether or not people can currently get jobs that will pay decent enough wages? :rolleyes: I think that was perhaps the weakest counter argument I have ever had on this site. :laugh: The vast majority of the jobs that have been created during the Bush administration have been low paying jobs and we just lost over 100,000 jobs, with the likeliness that far more layoffs are to come. Many people have given up trying to find a decent job, and there has not been any noticeable change in the wages, except for a downward trend since most of the jobs that are currently being created are low paying. I'm sorry, but just because your free market delusions may sound reasonable to you doesn't mean it has anything to do with the real world. It was the private sector that got us into this mess, and even though the government isn't making it better by bailing out the super rich investors who screwed up, it is evident that the days of believing in the market being adjusted by the average man are completely gone.

Dec. | Jan. | Feb. | Change from Jan -Feb
Unemployment
5.0 | 4.9| 4.8 | -0.1

Average hourly Earnings
$17.70| $17.75| $17.80| p$0.05

BLS (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The unemployment rate tells us how many people have jobs that desire to be employed. During normal operations in any business, they will hire and fire people at a relatively constant rate, keeping approximately the same amount of people employed. When the unemployment rate is low, most businesses have at least a little trouble finding qualified applicants to fill positions. This means there are generally more jobs available when unemployment is low, and it is easier to get hired if you are qualified. Perhaps you thought my counter argument was weak, but I just assumed I wouldn't have to explain somethig so obvious and left it unsaid. I'll have to remember that in the future. Also, apparently I was wrong, the unemployment rate went down.

It was the Fed who got us into this mess and Washington playing along not keeping them on a short leash, letting them lend to anyone with a pulse with adjustable rate mortgages regardless of whether they have the ability to pay it back, especially when they jack up interest rates. On top of that, they add tax after tax on us (especially fuel), ensuring that if your mortgage doesn't bankrupt you, filling up your car will.

Dreamer

03-19-2008, 01:27 PM

In light of having no higher authority that is capable of dictating what exactly the market rules are, a monopolist is capable of dictating the flow of the market on its own terms. Essentially then, it is not a measure of the market laws that govern the market, but an issue of monetary might. Areas where this may happen: natural resources.
I think that there is yes a risk of monopoly in all industries, but it is no better or worse than a monopoly held by the government(where the legal option of competing against it is not even availble). The democratic checks and balance have failed to keep the bureaucracies in check.

Monopolies are hard to attain, and those corporation that do end up in oligopolies often uses the government itself against possible competition. t is better to slash the laws, for if the government has no say in regulating the market,it can't regulate in favour of a single corporation.

Secondly, welfare to a degree is necessary to provide for areas such as education and health, as both are also key for maintaining a meritocratic society. I think it's rather self explanatory what would happen if education is limited to only those who can afford it-the tools themselves would be unequal, or in some cases, non-existent. Agreed,as long as the welfare is delivered by private institutions.

Historically we need to look no further than feudal europe. The central government itself was weak, and the market economy itself did flow.
There is QUITE a difference between the middle ages and today. Back then,the serfs had little to no chances to fight back against the vassals, and needed the protection of royalty against foreign invaders. They had very restricted access to information, and could not spot opportunities that could have insured "social mobility".

Today, the people have a plethora of small arms at their disposition. There is very little dangers of invasion, and access to information is at anyone's reach(and that thanks to no small part to the free market). The tools are there to insure social mobility.

A, would allow us to engage in eugenics, selecting off who is useful and not useful, who should be allowed to live and not live. The US does this by incarcerating and putting to death criminals.

Secondly, a totally deregulated system can be equally as inefficient as the status quo. We can have a company that only specializes in a certain type of law enforcement, say traffic issues. Then another one that specializes in robberies, and still another in homocide. I would pay for a trillion of agencies that could be centralized into one. On the contrary,the de-centralized structure that the market promotes is exactly what makes it desirable.

In any organization(even those that have a traditionally very hierarchical), it is better to push authorithy toward the bottom.
One example of this is the military, despite its traditional centralized command structure, "the man on the ground is always right".

In VERY few instances is it desirable to have somebody have a monopoly over an area (telephone poles for example).

Likewise, government functions in areas that are unattractive to private entities. If I had to use a real life example, let's just contrast the amount of R&D devoted to researching HIV cures versus erectal dysfunction. Under the total market system, it'd be great if your concern was erectal dysfunction, but if you had HIV, good luck. Even if the system overflowed with HIV cases, arguments for not caring can be made: a) most of the people are poor; b) most of them deserved it; c) it's not a good market, as the R&D is too expensive; d) most of the people are going to die anyways, why bother? The market is a reflection of the people. So is government.

In government, some causes naturally gets more funding than others, because of public perception, it naturally gets twarted toward most popular solutions but may point against more efficient one.

Lights

03-19-2008, 03:55 PM

It was the Fed who got us into this mess and Washington playing along not keeping them on a short leash, letting them lend to anyone with a pulse with adjustable rate mortgages regardless of whether they have the ability to pay it back, especially when they jack up interest rates. On top of that, they add tax after tax on us (especially fuel), ensuring that if your mortgage doesn't bankrupt you, filling up your car will.

Yes, it's the fed that gives out adjustable rate mortgages. :rolleyes:

Dreamer

03-19-2008, 07:33 PM

Although history does show that compulsory welfare is necessary. I would say that your belief in the generosity of others is sorely misplaced.
The number of addherents in socialism in the United States(and the willingness to part with a certain percentage of their wealth, instrinsic in their political philosophy) leads me to believe otherwise.That and the majority of arguments in the mainstream medias for socialism/liberalism seems to be moral.

In the present it is simply an unrealistic ideology. Such volunteer agencies simply don't have the resources, incentive, or structure to do as good a job as the government. In the matter of organization, it is better to think small than to think big, espescially when dealing with serving such a large and diverse territory like the United States.

You wouldn't run a counter-insurgency campaign by micro-managing platoons from the safety of a bunker in Fort Benning.
You wouldn't run a welfare program by micromanaging a welfare office in Harlem from a desk in Washington.

We would be stepping back to the feudal era if we attempted such a ludicrous idea. There are many technological and cultural factors that differentiate the free market ideal of today and the middle ages of the past. Not to mention legal and political differences.

Indeed, that is just as ignorant a view. Poverty is caused when wages don't keep up with inflation and not enough adequately paying jobs exist for people to earn what they need to survive. Inflation can be kept in check by proper government policies, which are not nescessarly coming from the left.On top of my head, Ronald Reagan and Augusto Pinochet were known for cutting back inflation as well as government intervention in welfare programs.

Their predecessor(Allende and Carter) were known to have reached record high inflation in their respective countries while maintaining very left-wing course sof action.

It also occurs when communities are stripped of their jobs by companies that are going overseas for cheaper labor. Agreed that it causes poverty in the US. Companies moving overseas creates wealth overseas

It increases when social welfare programs are cut by the government. Then how would you explain that poverty have not been significantly cut back despite the social welfare programs in government.

It also increases when the taxes on the poor and middle class are increased[quote]Agreed,taxation is evil.

[quote]
The problem is that people think that social welfare is simply "good intentions". Naturally, most proponents of social welfare in the US base their propaganda campaigns around a moral argument.

Without that development, the economy will stagnate and die. Then the rich will take it upon themselves to force the poor to work so as to maintain the social order and the value of their money. The irony is that eventually the poor will revolt, and because of their sheer numbers, they will win. Hence history will repeat itself.Wrong,take for example Chile under Pinochet. Despite having very few if any social welfare programs, it had noneoftheless a very efficient economy.

xanodel

03-19-2008, 09:37 PM

Dreamer:

While I agree that the current system itself needs reform, serious reform, it is not necessarily a good idea to completely deregulate everything.

In an anarcho-capitalist system, it's agreed that each private party would sign a basic contract and agree to uphold a law. Wonderful ideal, yet no teeth. In and of itself it runs into a basic contradiction: to enforce such a law/contract between private parties, it necessitates a strong central, neutral body that is able to play umpire. Rather than a race to the top, a completely unfettered system may have a race to the bottom. If you could get people to work just for basic bread and water, why would a corporation not do that? Yet the creation of an umpire itself would turn against some basic principles of anarcho-capitalism.

A second question is that of the legal system itself and the issue of fundamental rights. Even without a deregulated courts system (which is advocated by anarcho-capitalism I think), let's just take the US legal system for example, while I am not an expert, I am fairly certain that the basic fundamental laws embodied in the Bill of Rights applies to a government entity, and that private entities are pretty much free (private universities and the freedom of speech for example). For example, the case of private contractors in Iraq-it may be legally iffy if the companies can be fully charged (it hinges on its relation to the government). It could be extended to private entities, but that would require a form of power that I think Anarcho-capitalists would oppose.

Another issue is that of a sliding scale. Let's just say you have rights on a scale of 0 to 10 (ten being full rights). You may have several companies that provide basic law enforcement and protection, and let's just assume each of them start with private rights at 0. Someone gets the bright idea to increase it to 1, then 2. You could have the positive incentive to move it up, but likewise you may have the negative incentive that no one has to move above 0, or no one has to move above a certain number.

The reason why I brought up feudalism is because back then the system itself was highly deregulated in the sense of decentralization. Anarcho-capitalism is not so much no regulation, but essentially no centralization of regulation. Correct me if I'm wrong also, but Anarcho-capitalism itself is internally split on whether or not someone can sell itself into slavery and serfdom. Likewise during feudalism period there were no centralized welfare system funded by the crown/central government. Welfare did exist in the form of Church, yet obviously the Church itself was a) highly tied and dependent upon the lords; and b) the Church private charity system itself was not enough to solve basic economic inequity problems. The fundamental problem with both a totally deregulated system is the same as the feudal system-inequity. Noble families/ vassals basically functioned as a economic/government hybrid. In such a deregulated system, especially if the courts and law enforcement system itself also deregulates and decentralizes, it's equally likely that a corporation may function as a economic/governmental hybrid in terms of power.

There lies a central problem with the concept of anarcho-capitalism: It assumes and depends upon everyone following the laws of capitalism, without naming a specific system of enforcement-the enforcement is "the market." Such a "market" depends upon everyone not abusing the system, not cheating the system, and upholding the values and ideals of capitalism. In the case that someone, or a group of someones deciding to no longer follow the system, the retaliation itself lacks teeth.

It relies upon basic human nature behind the corporations-and human welfare, human security is not a basic fundamental right secured under market capitalism, nor is it the nature of corporations. By which I mean there is nothing in a market system saying child labor is illegal; underpayment is illegal; the question is where is the bottom line in terms of human cost? Hence it is totally possible that the economic/government hybrid power exercised by vassal lords during feudalism may occur again. That itself can be a significant barrier to creating a meritocratic society (via making all education private and deprive the poor of education), or of even ensuring basic property rights since you can force someone to sell their property by decreasing wages to the degree they can no longer afford it.

Likewise there are industries which cannot be fully maintained by a private system. One example I recall from economics class is aviation. Simply there are no aviation corporations (like Boeing which makes planes for commercial and military use) that is viable by itself as a private company. A lack of basic uniform standards also creates problems in some services. A study of railroads in the UK for example, basically finds that it decreased in efficiency after deregulation, because different companies were applying different standards, and then issues also of economic redundancy.

In the case of law enforcement, firefighting etc, I can see prices being even higher than with a government. You might have to pay 100 a year for basic firefighting, then about say 100 a year for traffic regulation, then about another 100 for theft and so on. Sure they could charge you a lump sum, but why bother if you can charge separately? My goal as a private corporation is to earn profit, and if I earn more by separating them into hair splitting differences, with very specific guidelines for when I intervene, why not follow it? It's folly to believe that a corporation will not try to engage in monopolies if it can do so, especially if the legal system of enforcement itself lacks teeth.

Likewise there is the problem of coverage. There are necessary areas (for example AIDS) which do not capture public spotlight as much, which private corporations may not fund because it's a loss, and another source may need to step in. It cross applies also to charity. There are countries like China which do not have a wide social welfare program, yet due to prejudice on charity and donation (and philanthropy in general) there is no social net outside the immediate and sometimes extended family. Such a system of using extended relations may not work in the US, and not for poor families. And the issue of private charity raises the issue of whether it is sufficient to cover even people who do not abuse a welfare system. The overwhelming concern, and oft heard complaint, is of abuse, people who simply have kids or not work to leech off the system. Yet it is not clear that in a totally private system such leeching will not occur. A private system may run into similar problems. Private charities can be founded around an ideology (such as helping fellow evangelicals, fellow christians etc) which are not need centered-and abuse can still occur extensively if religious or ethnic affiliations are the sole considerations. Likewise it would leave out people who are working, not leeching off a system yet nonetheless require aid-simply because they do not fit into the rubric offered by a private institution. It's easy to say a private institution would do a better job, yet how better to significantly outweigh a public system, and at what cost is undecided (since we don't really have a totally private system-the only obtainable data I would have would be in developing countries which I dare say are doing a piss poor job). Another problem with a totally deregulated, private system of welfare is funding. There seems to be a dominate view that tax money in welfare systems are given to undeserving people-such a view can still permeate a private welfare system. Hence, the best system is one where private and public welfare systems are both in place, since it offers the maximum coverage with the most amount of choice. A person can elect to use whichever one they desire, not forced either way since there are inevitably some who would not be covered (even if deserving of aid) under a private system.

There are historic examples and even current examples of when deregulation itself may not fully work. There was the banking crisis in the 1860's over currency regulations, then there was the belief during the great depression that the market will heal itself. Likewise we can point to the industrial revolution itself-and in fact, most of the problems that Anarcho-capitalism already occurred during the industrial revolution, and it was out of that mess that the basic concepts of socialism and communism were formed. A reversal of the status quo to a totally anarcho-capitalism system may lead us right back to square one-where we are right now.

And I apologize for the length.