Socialist governments.

[prometheus]

I also include communist and fascist in this category.

What is your opinion on 'em?

[Ytterbium]

Socialism is a very wide term. Just like candy.

By writing that you include fascism and communism in this category does not really help. Plus that fascism isn't tied to any political ideology. So it can be on the opposite side too.

[prometheus]

Socialism is a very wide term. Just like candy.

By writing that you include fascism and communism in this category does not really help. Plus that fascism isn't tied to any political ideology. So it can be on the opposite side too.


I was going to put authoritarian, but felt that was too broad, since it included monarchies, and democracies.

[Ytterbium]

I was going to put authoritarian, but felt that was too broad, since it included monarchies, and democracies.Why not all the other terms then?
It's not black and white, it's grayscales. It's not really possible to discuss it if it's so rigid. Since everyone has their own opionion about that term. It's like sewing a pair of jeans without making sure if it actually fits or not.

[pavman]

Well, if we believe what we've learned from Commanding Heights... socialism is just the wrong economic policy period.

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

[Lights]

That is quite a broad term to use. It doesn't appear that the UK, France, and Norway are a bunch of mass murderers. I would say that aspects of socialism are necessary but as a system by itself, it's pretty hard to imagine it succeeding.

[Octavianus Caesar]

Socialism is the idea that others can do for you. The base idea is decent, but where it fails, is that it does not allow for the person to respond in kind.

The rich man gives to the poor man and the poor man is restrained from doing anything in return for rich man. That is what is wrong with the system.

Most socialist goverments work this way, they give to the "people" the people can not act on that giving in anyway toward the government, when that happens that government suppress you. Would most view that to be wrong?

The other problem is Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. It would be one thing if the rich man gave to the poor, but how undecent is it for a rich man to have his wealth stolen and given to someone else?

What would you do if you created something and it was taken away from you and given to someone else?

[coffeeloverfreak]

Octavius, that's probably why all socialist experiments have been failures. Socialism is contrary to human nature.

[Ytterbium]

What would you do if you created something and it was taken away from you and given to someone else?I would like it. In return other people does the same. I get free education and health care. So I can engineer better things, which generates more money and more tax, which generates even better health care and education. For others who can create even better things.

[pavman]

Socialism is the idea that others can do for you. The base idea is decent, but where it fails, is that it does not allow for the person to respond in kind.

Actually, technically (yes, I have finance friends who are anal)... socialism is a monetary policy, like communism is a political policy. So socialism is equivalent to capitalism, where communism is equivalent to democracy, as far as terminology goes....

Ok, back to the regular why Socilaism fails discussion (and its been proven time after time after time in the 20th century). See the link above for more info (not sure if it has the info there, but the book/PBS movie are really well done and show where socialism has failed, and how to bring failed economic policies back from the brink of destroying societies).

[Lights]

Octavius, that's probably why all socialist experiments have been failures. Socialism is contrary to human nature.

What is human nature? Objectivists argue that humans are lazy, inept, and selfish creatures. I think humans are full of potential and unique strengths. They just need a stable environment with which to express them.

Anyways, it could just as easily be argued that there has never been a true socialist experiment.

[Ytterbium]

What is human nature? Objectivists argue that humans are lazy, inept, and selfish creatures. I think humans are full of potential and unique strengths. They just need a stable environment with which to express them.

Anyways, it could just as easily be argued that there has never been a true socialist experiment.Humans may be lazy and stupid. But education free for everyone is a way to balance that. It will also spawn new ideas among people and with education they're free to tweak their ideas. With good education and health care people are ready to leap with their ideas instead of just struggle to get their everyday economy to around. With good infrastructure such as tele communication, railways and roads people are free to market their products and share ideas.
Without a stable society things gets harder to accomplish things, other than the daily food gathering. Ones freedoms are there because of co-operation and tax money.

To you all, why is it so hard to share? Without sharing, it would not work.

[pavman]

Humans may be lazy and stupid. But education free for everyone is a way to balance that. ... With good infrastructure such as tele communication, railways and roads people are free to market their products and share ideas.

So are you for or against socialism? Its really hard to tell with your post.

Just some points....

First: someone paying for education is much more likely to take it seriously and not fail out (statistically, at least).

Second: There's always a cost to free programs, regardless of who is footing the bill. Its much better to allow successful individuals and corporations to give back than to have the government do it for you. This creates an incentive for not only class migration, but also to improve the lot of your culture by bringing back to them the fruits of your labor. But it should never be forced, otherwise there's no incentive to succeed.

Third: Socialism is an economic policy, not a social policy. It is something that has failed time and time again in the 20th century, and only with free markets and removal of entitlement programs could countries dig themselves out of their failed experiments.

E.G. Chile vs. Peru

[coffeeloverfreak]

Because being constantly required to produce without being able to profit from your efforts is counter-intuitive to human nature.

To illustrate: Imagine if you were told that, no matter what you did at your job forever, you would always have the same job, same pay, same responsibities. You could never get a merit raise. Even if you worked your butt off, you would never be eligible for promotion. But even if you slack off, screw up, don't show up, you'll still have the same job or the same pay.

Now multiply that by everyone in society.

(If you're a student, imagine that no matter what you do, you'll always get a C. Nobody fails, nobody gets an A. Always a C, no matter what.)

The thing is, people are motivated by the fact that effort is at least somewhat correlated to outcome. Increase effort, increase outcome. Sure, it's not a linear correlation, and sure, it's not always fair. Especially in our democratic societies where discrimination is rampant and it always seems like someone at the top is succeeding without trying too hard.

But socialist societies have equality of everything except opportunity. And it's opportunity - success, achievement, the American dream, whatever you want to call it - that leads to creativity and forward motion. Otherwise, society just stagnates, which is what we see in countries where the balance has tipped too far socialist. When more people are living off the system than paying into it, you get a sense of collective entitlement. People just assume that the state owes them, so why should they bother?

Personally I think it takes a bit of both. You need to help those less fortunate, but you also need to help yourself. There is a balance.

I like the quote by Hillel which goes: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, who am I? And if not now, when?" In other words, act for yourself. Act for others. And act now.





coffeeloverfreak added to this post, 2 minutes and 18 seconds later...

One more point: The concept of socialism only works in a closed society, because in an open society, those with more will always pick up and move elsewhere. That's why Communist USSR, China, etc. were all so crazed about not letting people leave. If those with money simply pick up and move, then there's less to share among everyone else.

That's also what we see to a lesser degree among uneven democracies. In Quebec, with our high taxes and social programs, we get a "drain" of rich investors, companies, and rich people in general to other provinces and to the U.S. After all, they're the ones with the means to leave.

So "tax the rich more" only works if the rich are trapped. If they can go elsewhere, they'll just leave, and you'll keep taxing the next-richest and the next-richest more and more until everyone is worse off.

[Ytterbium]

So are you for or against socialism? Its really hard to tell with your post.

Just some points....

First: someone paying for education is much more likely to take it seriously and not fail out (statistically, at least).

Second: There's always a cost to free programs, regardless of who is footing the bill. Its much better to allow successful individuals and corporations to give back than to have the government do it for you. This creates an incentive for not only class migration, but also to improve the lot of your culture by bringing back to them the fruits of your labor. But it should never be forced, otherwise there's no incentive to succeed.

Third: Socialism is an economic policy, not a social policy. It is something that has failed time and time again in the 20th century, and only with free markets and removal of entitlement programs could countries dig themselves out of their failed experiments.

E.G. Chile vs. PeruWhy do you want to know? As i written before there're many 'socialisms'. What your, mine, threadstarters and others' minds is their own view on the subject. My view on it does not fit the poll at all, because that's a very skewed opinion of someone else, not mine.

Why should I take it less seriously because I don't 'pay' for it? If I would like to learn then I'll do it. If I don't have the funds for it?

It's 'free' because I don't have to pay for it. I do it indirectly by tax. You don't call all roads toll roads do you?
Why should just only succesfully inviduals give back? All should, all use it.
Do you mean that I don't feel the need to grow. Because of the child care and schools are taken care of the local municipality or because I make my phone calls through the state owned phone company?

Why is it a failure? It has worked and still do great in Europe.

[ssfanatic]

Their only chance is governing a small, highly enlightened country, therefore it will never work but i still polled the third choice.

[Lights]

First: someone paying for education is much more likely to take it seriously and not fail out (statistically, at least).

Bull! The drop out rates in college far surpass those of high school in the United States. I'm gonna need to see some stats to back up that assumption.

Second: There's always a cost to free programs, regardless of who is footing the bill. Its much better to allow successful individuals and corporations to give back than to have the government do it for you. This creates an incentive for not only class migration, but also to improve the lot of your culture by bringing back to them the fruits of your labor. But it should never be forced, otherwise there's no incentive to succeed.

Value Judgment.

Third: Socialism is an economic policy, not a social policy. It is something that has failed time and time again in the 20th century, and only with free markets and removal of entitlement programs could countries dig themselves out of their failed experiments.

Wrong again. We utilize aspects of socialism here in the United States. But I would love to hear your argument for declaring it only as an "economic policy" and not a "social policy".

[coffeeloverfreak]

Bull! The drop out rates in college far surpass those of high school in the United States. I'm gonna need to see some stats to back up that assumption.

False analogy. High school is obligatory up to a certain age. Parents have more control over their kids at high school age than at college age. Besides, the incremental opportunity gained from high school diploma versus no high school diploma far outweighs the incremental opportunity for college degree versus high school diploma, especially for people with certain aspirations.

Your comparison relies on the assumption that high school and college are otherwise equivalent in every way, except for the fact that high school is free and college is not. But high school and college are different in many ways, so you can't make this comparison.

A better comparison might be to look at dropout rates for free colleges versus dropout rates for paid colleges. Here in Quebec we are able to make such comparisons because of CEGEP, which is free for most people (but costs money to go to a private CEGEP). The dropout rates in the public system are obviously far, far higher.

But again, even though this is a better comparison, it's not a foolproof one; there's a self-selection process going on. Students who choose the private system over the public system tend to be higher-income, higher-motivated, and have lower propensity to drop out even before they start. In fact, the simple act of choosing private over public (when the quality of the public system is quite high) says something about these people. Besides, the public system offers vocational diplomas, part-time and night school, adult education, and a host of other programs with higher drop-out rates than the two-year pre-university programs that are offered everywhere but that are the only ones offered at the private schools.

[AgentofGaming]

Humans may be lazy and stupid. But education free for everyone is a way to balance that. It will also spawn new ideas among people and with education they're free to tweak their ideas. With good education and health care people are ready to leap with their ideas instead of just struggle to get their everyday economy to around. With good infrastructure such as tele communication, railways and roads people are free to market their products and share ideas.
Without a stable society things gets harder to accomplish things, other than the daily food gathering. Ones freedoms are there because of co-operation and tax money.
Agreed most people may be lazy and stupid. At least you can lessen the chances of them being ignorant.
It's rather unfortunate to bar someone from education with cost & the risk of loans.
Don't let the excuse for being uneducated be cost.


One more point: The concept of socialism only works in a closed society, because in an open society, those with more will always pick up and move elsewhere. That's why Communist USSR, China, etc. were all so crazed about not letting people leave. If those with money simply pick up and move, then there's less to share among everyone else.

That's also what we see to a lesser degree among uneven democracies. In Quebec, with our high taxes and social programs, we get a "drain" of rich investors, companies, and rich people in general to other provinces and to the U.S. After all, they're the ones with the means to leave.

So "tax the rich more" only works if the rich are trapped. If they can go elsewhere, they'll just leave, and you'll keep taxing the next-richest and the next-richest more and more until everyone is worse off.
China opened up their economy, now they are a giant. So I'd say they aren't as economically socialist [anymore].

I can see the unevenness in democracies, cost of living in Alberta skyrocketed, now everybody wants to live in Saskatchewan.

I'm supposing you can trap the capitalists with a well educated workforce, and superior infrastructure/technology level but yes incentives are definitely necessary. I just like the high-tech sector for some reason.

[prometheus]

I'm really sick of the slippery socialists here saying socialism/which is a stepping stone to communism hasn't been tried.

Here is what was tried, tell me which of the following 10 planks do you guys NOT support?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]

[pavman]

Ytterbium: Umm. Has it? Who is better off, Greece or the UK? Who has the more socialist economic policy?

Lights: Be more specific. I'd address your comments, but I'm not sure which part of my statements you are criticising.

I will try to interpret what you are addressing... stand back, its gonna be a BIG ball O text....

Bull! The drop out rates in college far surpass those of high school in the United States. I'm gonna need to see some stats to back up that assumption.
Higher college dropouts is most likely true, but there's other environmental factors at play here. I don't want to tangent off of the topic... but... First, parents/guardians are typically involved with students until a certain age. Most leave home and GO to college at an average age of 18, give or take. When they get to college, they have to learn to be independent (typically). Parents do not usually play a role any longer in the formation of their offspring during this time period, and I guarantee you that the ones who care and are paying for college will either pull funding or pull their children out of the school if they don't have some level of performance that is satisfactory. In fact, this happened to a friend of mine. Went to Bradely, failed out, went to Junior College, eventually went to Eastern. But parents pulled him out because he was failing and it was wasting money. Hmm...who will pull them out when the state pays for it?

Unfortunately, there are no statistics indicating parents who paid for college versus those who had to *pay* for college themselves versus those who got grants or scholarships. I've never met anyone who had to pay for college and did not finish it with a solid standing, with the exception of one friend who was an art major, going to a school that was FAR too expensive for him to sustain financial aid. His parents weren't paying for him, because they couldn't afford it. But his attending a private art school was his own mistake and going $60K in debt, to the point where Stafford wouldn't give him any more loans, and no private institution would give him loans based on what he already owed.

Like my friend, I know of a number of folks in similar situations where they kept changing majors, schools, and the like and eventually had lots of debt because they were foolish enough to think school was free or that a college degree is a ticket to making gobs of money.

This brings up lots of side issues, but if we realistically assess the state of public funding for institutions, we can easily see that it fails on a number of levels compared to that of private schools. Secondary schools that get no money in my state from the board of education pass federal tests 2/3 better than the public schools in my state. And we spend $20B a year on public education. Think about that number and then think about the number of private entities that do better, but don't see one dime of this funding. Hmm. What's the problem with this picture?

I'll gloss over that issue as coffeeloverfreak already brought up the main points.
Value Judgment.
Which part? The first, second, or third? Be more specific.

Free enterprise (ala capitalism) coupled with some form of free society (ala democracy) increases class mobilization and allows individuals the freedom, often incentivized, to improve their own economic conditions. Only in places where we saw a lockdown on class/class mobilization/economic activity did we see an elitist minority enjoy the benefits of their elitist position, while suppressing the People (E.g. Soviet Union, circa 20th century).

You tell me, what motivation served the mass emigration when the wall fell and the soviet Union collapsed? And why do we still see a number of emigrants from the Soviet Block moving to other areas? Why did Georgia secede from Russia 2 years after the wall coming down, at the risk and expense of revolutionary blood?

Wrong again. We utilize aspects of socialism here in the United States. But I would love to hear your argument for declaring it only as an "economic policy" and not a "social policy".

Realize the New Deal was a temporary social policy to fix a temporary economic problem. It has only become permanent because, amazingly, people like entitlement programs if they aren't productive members of society (gee...). Not to mention the fact that, along with the league of nations, was thought up by anti-Americans...a Fascist (New Deal) and a KGB spy (League of Nations). Who is the predecessor to the UN... ? I am not going to hunt this down, read a little and stop livin in your socialist la-la land we call the university system.

Lastly, you, my friend, are an idiot. The idea that socialism is an economic policy is pretty much a universally agreed upon fact, but since you don't seem to understand that...here're some clues for ya:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
so·cial·ism (so-'sh?-li(z'?m) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. (see 1)
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Merriam·Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \?so--sh?-?li-z?m\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

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

My argument is sound.

pavman added to this post, 21 minutes and 36 seconds later...

It's rather unfortunate to bar someone from education with cost & the risk of loans.
Don't let the excuse for being uneducated be cost.

Not sure about Canada, but in the US one doesn't have a right to education, at a Federal level, and certainly not a right to higher education.

The best place to study this is California, as they have a free university system. They also have one of the highest standards of living for a state, a very high tax rate, and just as many dropouts as those states that do not fund college for the People.
China opened up their economy, now they are a giant. So I'd say they aren't as economically socialist [anymore].

Yes, this is a prime example of why free markets and capitalism work. The problem with China is... its not a democracy, but a Communist state. The government still has a hand in all levels of Chinese life, from a one-child policy (which will cause major problems when the lack of girls catches up with population replacement rates), to freedom of religion (ie what religions can and cannot practice freely within its boundaries), to still attempting to play puppet-master for even simple business dealings, like whether or not a search engine company can come in without restricting access to information.

[AgentofGaming]

Not sure about Canada, but in the US one doesn't have a right to education, at a Federal level, and certainly not a right to higher education.

The best place to study this is California, as they have a free university system. They also have one of the highest standards of living for a state, a very high tax rate, and just as many dropouts as those states that do not fund college for the People.
Well this province has a law that you're not allowed to drop out until 16. Also all education up to secondary is essentially free (though they sometimes charge course fees).
Post secondary is subsidized a certain amount by the government only for Canadian citizens.

Well as I say systems are not without cost. However I'm concerned how many possible talents that are afraid of the risk of pursuing post-secondary education due to cost.
Certainly cost comes with responsibility, and with a 16K student loan on my head: failure is not an option.
If they want people to graduate maybe the government should only pay for it after they graduate. Sure beats a 32K student debt on graduation.

Instead of comparing dropout levels what are the differences in graduation levels? or quality of graduates? Those are the places that measure success.

Yes, this is a prime example of why free markets and capitalism work. The problem with China is... its not a democracy, but a Communist state. The government still has a hand in all levels of Chinese life, from a one-child policy (which will cause major problems when the lack of girls catches up with population replacement rates), to freedom of religion (ie what religions can and cannot practice freely within its boundaries), to still attempting to play puppet-master for even simple business dealings, like whether or not a search engine company can come in without restricting access to information.
China is an example prospering economy with a Communist government and a Capitalist economy. They have wealth but not freedom.
China does indeed influence business, but businesses won't leave because China has the cheap labour force, a huge untapped consumer market as well as a growing wealthy class of citizens. In essence they are held by incentive.

[Lights]

Here is what was tried, tell me which of the following 10 planks do you guys NOT support?

Alright, I'll play.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Nope.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Flat tax on income.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Nope.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Nope.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Nope.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Nope.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Nope.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Nope.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Nope.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]

Yup. Although I'm not too sure what you mean by "Combination of education with industrial production." I do agree with free public education and abolition of child labor in factories.

It seems by your definition, I'm not a socialist.

No wait, I support universal health care, so that must make me a commie. :rolleyes:





Lights added to this post, 4 minutes and 47 seconds later...

Edit: On second thought, I'm just gonna concede that you are 100% right and you aren't making tons of unsubstantiated assumptions. :thumbsup: If you would like to discuss the issues via PM sometime then let me know.

[Ytterbium]

coffeeloverfreak: Yes! You will always need both. What I'm trying to say here is that 'socialism' includes that. It depends on which socialism someone choose. Some here seem to live in their own enclosed little box. Without another outlook on the world. Socialism isn't one thing it's many different. Saying that socialism is massmurder or whatever seen in this thread earlier seems very strange in Europe. Where many countries implements various types of socialism. Socialism and Communism aren't equals either. Another thing is that 'liberals' seem to be left winged in the states whereas in Europe it's the opposite.

pavman: I don't know how it's to live in the UK or Greece. So I can't answer that.

I'm really sick of the slippery socialists here saying socialism/which is a stepping stone to communism hasn't been tried.

Here is what was tried, tell me which of the following 10 planks do you guys NOT support?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.No
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.Not on income but on other things.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.No.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.No
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.Yes, not necessarily a monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.Yes, not necessarily the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.Yes
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.No
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.No
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]Yes

[pavman]

Lights... thanks for agreeing with me. Its not often that I can turn a socialist's head to the right way of thinking about it. Kudos...and may your new found love of classic liberalism create an enriching and creative future!

[Lights]

Lights... thanks for agreeing with me. Its not often that I can turn a socialist's head to the right way of thinking about it. Kudos...and may your new found love of classic liberalism create an enriching and creative future!

I never said I hated classical liberalism or capitalism. To the contrary, I've advocated possible compromises in other threads with the benefits of those systems in mind. I only hate anarcho-capitalists, Randists, neo-objectvists, hardcore-objectvists, and anyone else who claims their political ideology is perfect, universal, or absolute. Find me a hardcore socialist and I'll argue with him as relentlessly as I've argued with prometheus.

[Bossy Mom]

I never said I hated classical liberalism or capitalism. To the contrary, I've advocated possible compromises in other threads with the benefits of those systems in mind. I only hate anarcho-capitalists, Randists, neo-objectvists, hardcore-objectvists, and anyone else who claims their political ideology is perfect, universal, or absolute. Find me a hardcore socialist and I'll argue with him as relentlessly as I've argued with prometheus.

So you're an equal-opportunity hater. I may not be able to sleep tonight worrying about it. I think I'll stick to my moral standards, thank you. I'll leave moral relativity and moral compromise to others.

[Lights]

So you're an equal-opportunity hater. I may not be able to sleep tonight worrying about it. I think I'll stick to my moral standards, thank you. I'll leave moral relativity and moral compromise to others.

That would probably be wise. It takes a great many years of study to get it right.

[AgentofGaming]

Anyone heard of this?
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

[lordrrr]

They would work so well if there wasn't the greediness and power issues that come as a side effect and just distinegrate the whole system.

[schmidt]

Octavius, that's probably why all socialist experiments have been failures. Socialism is contrary to human nature.

It worked quite well in small country way up north for almost half a century...

As a small update this is a snippet from wikipedia:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community" -

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

You notice that "broad array of ideologies" ?

[mabts]

Lights, I was about to say there is no way you are an INTJ -- but then I looked on your profile and saw that you are an INFJ. Now it all makes sense.

No one has brought up the basic point of liberty. One cannot be free without being free economically. When your economic choices are enslaved to the government, liberty will certainly be lost.

Who will be "the enlightened" to run such a socialist economy? No human structure is advanced enough to deal with the wide array of goods and constant shifting of supply and demand that is necessary to allow for market stability and choice.

Do me a favor and read all of Marx and any other socialist economic theories and then read through the Austrian and Chicago economic schools and tell me if you actually still think socialism is a valid idea.

[Lights]

Lights, I was about to say there is no way you are an INTJ -- but then I looked on your profile and saw that you are an INFJ. Now it all makes sense.

Yeah, I get no love on this forum. :laugh:

No one has brought up the basic point of liberty. One cannot be free without being free economically. When your economic choices are enslaved to the government, liberty will certainly be lost.

Those foolish, enslaved Norwegians, Swedes, and Danish!

Who will be "the enlightened" to run such a socialist economy? No human structure is advanced enough to deal with the wide array of goods and constant shifting of supply and demand that is necessary to allow for market stability and choice.

Well if we follow the example of Animal Farm...then the Pigs would be a good choice. :thumbsup:

Do me a favor and read all of Marx and any other socialist economic theories and then read through the Austrian and Chicago economic schools and tell me if you actually still think socialism is a valid idea.

It couldn't hurt. ;D

[Sylvanus]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
-Karl Marx

These are the basic tenets, according to the father of modern sozialism. But abilities are easily concealed, and needs are easily claimed. Others have stated before that people are inherently lazy and stupid. I disagree. I say that people are inherently selfish and often willfully ignorant. Greed and laziness are both forms of selfishness (or more accurately, self centered-ness). To some, their selfishness allows them to overcome their laziness in order to have nice things for themselves. If the incentive to work for something isn't big enough, they won't overcome their laziness to obtain it. They have more to gain sitting on their butt collecting welfare checks than they do by going out and making an honest living.

[thod]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
-Karl Marx

These are the basic tenets, according to the father of modern socialism. But abilities are easily concealed, and needs are easily claimed. Others have stated before that people are inherently lazy and stupid. I disagree. I say that people are inherently selfish and often willfully ignorant. Greed and laziness are both forms of selfishness (or more accurately, self centered-ness). To some, their selfishness allows them to overcome their laziness in order to have nice things for themselves. If the incentive to work for something isn't big enough, they won't overcome their laziness to obtain it. They have more to gain sitting on their butt collecting welfare checks than they do by going out and making an honest living.

You say that its in the individuals interests to overstate in needs and understate his abilities. I agree.
You then say that without sufficient rewards people will not make the effort. I agree.

Yet the original statement still holds. You cant take more from a man than his abilities allow, you don't have a $million to pay as tax. Fail to feed them and you have a desperate mob seeking bread, no government survives that.

The truth is the poor man works 2 shifts to feed and house his family. After buying whats needed he has $5 left. There is no room to tax him anymore. If you want to increase state spending then you must take it from those with excess income. To take it from the poor man means he buys less bread for his kids.

That survey about the happiest people in the world the other day showed Denmark as tops, a very socialist country. The US is not a happy place. Its average income may be similar but thats because the rich have it all whilst the US poor really are wretched.

[Ytterbium]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
-Karl Marx

These are the basic tenets, according to the father of modern sozialism. But abilities are easily concealed, and needs are easily claimed. Others have stated before that people are inherently lazy and stupid. I disagree. I say that people are inherently selfish and often willfully ignorant. Greed and laziness are both forms of selfishness (or more accurately, self centered-ness). To some, their selfishness allows them to overcome their laziness in order to have nice things for themselves. If the incentive to work for something isn't big enough, they won't overcome their laziness to obtain it. They have more to gain sitting on their butt collecting welfare checks than they do by going out and making an honest living.Abilities are concealed and needs are claimed. If I claim that my Volvo is faster than your Porsche. You would say: prove it! Right? Do you think the state is keen on throwing money after people? Would you be?
Yes people wants the most out of nothing. Some thinks it's easier to whine about taxes and fees instead of inproving their business. Some people are genuinely lazy. They want to by a Porsche. Instead of isolating and get a new roof to the factory it's easier to whine about oil prices because it cost so much to heat. Some people are not smart enough to do this by themselves so rules and regulations are made to accomplish this instead.
There are people who are willing to do great things. These people shall get the same education, health care and help from the society as anyone else. It would be a huge waste to let such person to clean toilets at McDonalds because he need that money to pay the rent.

[1OFMANY]

Capitalist markets are the only true form of self government. period.

I dont want to complain that you have a porsche when I have a volvo, what I dont want is the government to hand me a volkswagon and tell me to like it or die...fuck socialists..they can all eat shit and die.

[ssfanatic]

Capitalist markets are the only true form of self government. period.

I dont want to complain that you have a porsche when I have a volvo, what I dont want is the government to hand me a volkswagon and tell me to like it or die...fuck socialists..they can all eat shit and die.
So you see no benefits in a socialist government?

[Ytterbium]

Capitalist markets are the only true form of self government. period.

I dont want to complain that you have a porsche when I have a volvo, what I dont want is the government to hand me a volkswagon and tell me to like it or die...fuck socialists..they can all eat shit and die.Whoa eat some ice ESFJ. ;)
Care to explain?

But if you ain't got no wheelz dude? Wouldn't a Volkswagen be a very kind an generous gift? It means that every man has atleast a vehicle to start the game of life with.

[ssfanatic]

But if you ain't got no wheelz dude? Wouldn't a Volkswagen be a very kind an generous gift? It means that every man has atleast a vehicle to start the game of life with.

Id kill for a car right now. I know im still in high school, but anything is better than nothing :)

[1OFMANY]

Whoa eat some ice ESFJ.


LOL sorry.

Look, I was a very pro-socialist type of guy til I was about 24ish. Then I grew up, realized that humans won't pull that off for many many years, probly centuries. Whats the only free option?? Thats right..the big ugly capitalist system. It does have its flaws but I would rather die poor and free economically, than live under a hand out from the gub'ment. I do see alot of benefits to it, but it just cant happen yet. Its like saying everyone should just not have auto insurance and pay out of pocket if you wreck. If EVERYONE agreed it would all look fine and dandy on paper until one morning you wake up and find your car smashed and NOBODY there to claim the damage.

Its not too hard to understand this. Its been tried many many times over hundreds of years in various forms. You might as well try to build a tower to get to heaven, sure you might have "new and improved" methods...but go ahead and tell me how it works out for ya! :)

[Sylvanus]

You say that its in the individuals interests to overstate in needs and understate his abilities. I agree.
You then say that without sufficient rewards people will not make the effort. I agree.

Yet the original statement still holds. You cant take more from a man than his abilities allow, you don't have a $million to pay as tax. Fail to feed them and you have a desperate mob seeking bread, no government survives that.


Or you don't feed him, you let him fend for himself. Once he starts getting hungry, you will quickly find that he actually does have the ability to work for himself and be gainfully employed.


The truth is the poor man works 2 shifts to feed and house his family. After buying whats needed he has $5 left. There is no room to tax him anymore. If you want to increase state spending then you must take it from those with excess income. To take it from the poor man means he buys less bread for his kids.

I have never advocated increasing state spending. Ever. If socialists like you would stop giving the poor bread, there would be no need for the government to tax so heavily to feed the poor. The poor man then has more money for food. More food being bought, businesses more succesful, more taxes going to the government, tax rates go down. It's a cycle of prosperity!


That survey about the happiest people in the world the other day showed Denmark as tops, a very socialist country. The US is not a happy place. Its average income may be similar but thats because the rich have it all whilst the US poor really are wretched.

I think you are seriously misinformed about the economic state of the US. We are not completely without problems, but the problems aren't really bad. I have posted this before, so I won't quote it, I'll just link it for you. US poverty (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)





Sylvanus added to this post, 23 minutes and 13 seconds later...

Abilities are concealed and needs are claimed. If I claim that my Volvo is faster than your Porsche. You would say: prove it! Right? Do you think the state is keen on throwing money after people? Would you be?

An example more appropriate to my statement would be:
Person 1: I'm moving some furniture, can you help me?
Person 2: Nope, I can't carry furniture in my car, there's no room.
Person 1: Really? It's just some small stuff, I could probably shove it into your backseat.
Person 2: Besides, I've got some stuff to do.
Person 1: What if I pay for gas?
Person 2: It's a brand new Volvo, I don't want to damage the upholstery.
Person 1: I'll buy lunch.
Person 2: Let me fold the seat down, we can get that stuff in there no problem, let's go.

And yes, I truly believe that people in the government like throwing money after people. It's in their best interest to have a large budget. Like earlier, I've posted this link before, I'm not going to quote it. bureaucracy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[headrush]

Socialism will not work because it abolishes the price system making economic calculation impossible. The socialist economy always ends up in utter chaos.

[prometheus]

You say that its in the individuals interests to overstate in needs and understate his abilities. I agree.
You then say that without sufficient rewards people will not make the effort. I agree.

Yet the original statement still holds. You cant take more from a man than his abilities allow, you don't have a $million to pay as tax. Fail to feed them and you have a desperate mob seeking bread, no government survives that.

The truth is the poor man works 2 shifts to feed and house his family. After buying whats needed he has $5 left. There is no room to tax him anymore. If you want to increase state spending then you must take it from those with excess income. To take it from the poor man means he buys less bread for his kids.

That survey about the happiest people in the world the other day showed Denmark as tops, a very socialist country. The US is not a happy place. Its average income may be similar but thats because the rich have it all whilst the US poor really are wretched.

Many posts you bring up some sort of "class warfare" scenario. Have you read this? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'll suggest listening to Judy Collins's Marat / Sade while reading it.

[Ytterbium]

LOL sorry.

Look, I was a very pro-socialist type of guy til I was about 24ish. Then I grew up, realized that humans won't pull that off for many many years, probly centuries. Whats the only free option?? Thats right..the big ugly capitalist system. It does have its flaws but I would rather die poor and free economically, than live under a hand out from the gub'ment. I do see alot of benefits to it, but it just cant happen yet. Its like saying everyone should just not have auto insurance and pay out of pocket if you wreck. If EVERYONE agreed it would all look fine and dandy on paper until one morning you wake up and find your car smashed and NOBODY there to claim the damage.

Its not too hard to understand this. Its been tried many many times over hundreds of years in various forms. You might as well try to build a tower to get to heaven, sure you might have "new and improved" methods...but go ahead and tell me how it works out for ya! :)I would rather see it as the society is the car insurance not leaving you alone if something happens. If there's not safety net it would be like to have money ready in case of something happens.
We are humans and always will be. So whether road we may choose we're facing the same things over and over again. It's just to improve and learn from mistakes, to become better.
One could say. The only car I drove was an Hyundai, I hate it, ban all cars!
I don't think it's a great conclusion nor is this thread.
An example more appropriate to my statement would be:
Person 1: I'm moving some furniture, can you help me?
Person 2: Nope, I can't carry furniture in my car, there's no room.
Person 1: Really? It's just some small stuff, I could probably shove it into your backseat.
Person 2: Besides, I've got some stuff to do.
Person 1: What if I pay for gas?
Person 2: It's a brand new Volvo, I don't want to damage the upholstery.
Person 1: I'll buy lunch.
Person 2: Let me fold the seat down, we can get that stuff in there no problem, let's go.

And yes, I truly believe that people in the government like throwing money after people. It's in their best interest to have a large budget. Like earlier, I've posted this link before, I'm not going to quote it. bureaucracyWho says it has to be like that? Because that's your experience from your country, it's not everybodies experience from their countries.
I don't like the goverment to throw away money. I want a stable working society.
If they want a large budget they shall get people to work and pay tax instead. By putting some pressure on those who just collecting benefits.
That money saved can be used for tax cuts or renewing the infrastructure.

[Sylvanus]

Who says it has to be like that? Because that's your experience from your country, it's not everybodies experience from their countries.
I don't like the goverment to throw away money. I want a stable working society.
If they want a large budget they shall get people to work and pay tax instead. By putting some pressure on those who just collecting benefits.
That money saved can be used for tax cuts or renewing the infrastructure.

It's not just my country. It's human nature to say "What's in it for me?" I also don't want my government to throw money away and to have a stable working sociaety. The easy answer, get the government out of our lives and we'll figure it out. If we can't, we'll decide when we want the government's help (i.e. someone broke into my house, I'll call the cops).

How do you propose to 'put pressure' on those receiving benefits? The current system is: "If you fall under the requirements, just apply and we'll give you money." There can be nothing less because anything else would be "discrimination". So the only thing to do is to cut back the benefits, but the sozialists won't let us do that because "they need the money". They see only the need, but refuse to believe they have any abilities. Cut them off and they'll figure it out.

[Ytterbium]

It's not just my country. It's human nature to say "What's in it for me?" I also don't want my government to throw money away and to have a stable working sociaety. The easy answer, get the government out of our lives and we'll figure it out. If we can't, we'll decide when we want the government's help (i.e. someone broke into my house, I'll call the cops).

How do you propose to 'put pressure' on those receiving benefits? The current system is: "If you fall under the requirements, just apply and we'll give you money." There can be nothing less because anything else would be "discrimination". So the only thing to do is to cut back the benefits, but the sozialists won't let us do that because "they need the money". They see only the need, but refuse to believe they have any abilities. Cut them off and they'll figure it out.Yes ofcourse people want to get things, but they're not keen on giving them away either.
How can you get the goverment out of your life, when you still want to have them around?

Here you are forced to search job to get benefits. You're also forced to participate in reschooling if there're no jobs in your sector.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I was going to say the same thing. If you want the government out of your life, you can't just call the cops when it's convenient.

Your right to call the cops necessarily implies the cops' rights to have salaries (taxpayer-funded), to arrest the people who broke into your house (intruding on their lives), and to have laws that they can arrest those people for breaking (implying the need for a legislative body to pass those laws, and courts to try and prosecute the law-breakers, and prison systems to lock up the guilty, etc.)

[Ytterbium]

I was born in 1986 in Stockholm, Sweden. As a neighbour to the former Soviet Union it has been sitting on needles all time. It has been really close many times to "push the button". Remember when I was very young when I an my mother visited the home guard meeting my dad was on. They all had their gasmasks on, it looked quite scary as a child. But now it just seems amusing, it's hard to hear what people are saying when they have a filter covering their mouths. As an INTx kid I liked to look in my fathers books. He had these books about crisis what to do when the power is out, the different messages of the air raid sirens etc. In case of war or similar me and my father shall travel to our destinations and do what we did as conscripts. He's in the Army and I'm in the Air force.
Even though he, his brothers, I or what other men like eachothers opinions or not they're going to defend them. Just like all other men with different opinions will do for eachother. Most men know that their existence and country are here because of that.
Although the Soviet doesn't exist anymore and money spending on the defence has dropped it's still the same.
Even though I'm not fond of weapons or is a war crazed lunatic. I will do what I can to defend myself and my compatriots, even though some of them don't share my world view.
I wouldn't call for help running around in circles assuming someone else does it for me. If I'm first at a car accident scene, I would probably do my best to help. Even though it happens to be a "huge intrusion" in my life. I hope other people would do the same for me in such situations.
I could whine about tax cuts so that I can buy a Plasma TV set. But I rather see that my surrounding people would get proper health care and education.
Then if they're to stupid to get the fact that nothing comes for free or that the streets get plowed by magic every winter night is another subject.

[ArchonAlarion]

Yes.

Oh yes yes yes.

So, you "socialists" (mass murderers) are saying that because I live on a big rock floating in a giant bubble with other big rocks and big fireballs, that somehow, I have to be enslaved to my brother men, because I have a genetic code similar to theirs.

You're so sickening and you don't even know it.

If you were in power, implementing your socialist dream, and you were collecting jewelry and gold from the populace, to redistribute, and I resisted when your hired goons ("my Brothers") laid their filthy hands on my dead grandmother's locket. You'd beat me and throw me in a cage. If I resisted that, attempting to kill the guards at all times, what would you be forced to do? You'd eventually have to terminate my life. You'd have to wipe my lifespark out of existence for "the people."

You'd have to beat, maim, kill, and torture thousands like me, who finally snap when they see their livestock, their money, their family heirlooms, and their way of life snatched from them. Stolen, robbed from them, things created with their time and energy, or goods bought by trading things gained by their labor.

All of course for the good of humanity, for the good of the state, for the poor, for God, for the environment, for the race, for everyone but you. Faulty and corrupt state planning leads to millions dying of famines and state suspicions lead to millions dying of execution.

Does this look like your vision? Is this what you wanted?

No you say, I didn't want that. I wanted peace and harmony, fraternity and good living standards. That just can't be the outcome of my dreams.

Wrong. The 20th century is bursting at the seams with the horrors and slaughter of collectivism. The idea that everyone else has a higher claim to your life than you do. That the individual and freewill don't exist. We are just cogs in the machine of the group.

See how far this will get you.

[Ytterbium]

See how far this will get you.Without a collective you wouldn't have a ground to stand on to call your own.
Without a collective there will be no defence of the ground you call your own.
Without a collective you have no roads to walk on.
Without a collective you couldn't be writing that here.
Why would you be enslaved by having a ground to stand on?

What you have written isn't my vision. It will not end the way you wrote. It will not begin, nor continue the way you've written. It's up and running currently where I live.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well, the Earth's volcanic activity created the ground I live on.

I can defend my property personally or hire people to defend it for me.

The current road system might be a result of the state, so maybe roads aren't the answer (please think about this before you try to rebut this hypothesis). Alternative systems or travel is possible under a free market.

Um as far as I know the internet was invented in quasicapitalist America by entrepenuers, not bureaucrats in Soviet Russia.

The last question is a straw man because the ground I stand on was created by earthquakes and molten rock, not collectivism.

Sorry, but collectivism is an abomination and will only lead to chaos, enslavement, and murder.

[Ytterbium]

Well, the Earth's volcanic activity created the ground I live on.Is it because of that only? You don't live in some sort of state possibly? You know whom you bought or rent your lot from?

I can defend my property personally or hire people to defend it for me.What are you going to pay them with? Some twigs which happen to lay on your property?

The current road system might be a result of the state, so maybe roads aren't the answer (please think about this before you try to rebut this hypothesis). Alternative systems or travel is possible under a free market.How? If you step outside your property your're standing in someone elses'. Can I move around freely on your property?

Um as far as I know the internet was invented in quasicapitalist America by entrepenuers, not bureacrats in Soviet Russia.But what's internet then? Who's going pay you when they dig up your lot to put som fiberoptics and shed full of switches on your lot?

The last question is a straw man because the ground I stand on was created by earthquakes and molten rock, not collectivism.Do you live on Antartica?

Sorry, but collectivism is an abomination and will only lead to chaos, enslavement, and murder.So your collective of private soldiers will turn out that way?

[prometheus]

A market system, of course, works whether people believe in it or not. You may dislike capitalism, even feel that as a system it will eventually fail, yet do your job well because your family needs the money you earn. Capitalism can run, even flourish, in a society of selfish cynics. But a non-market economy cannot. The personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, for managers to make good decisions, are simply too weak. In the later years of the Soviet Union, workers knew that they would be paid regardless of how hard they tried; managers knew that promotions would depend more on political connections than on performance; and nobody was offered rewards large enough to justify taking unpopular positions or any sort of serious risk. (There can't have been more than a few dozen people in the Soviet Union - all of them politicians - who had the kind of lavish life style enjoyed by tens of thousands of successful entrepreneurs and executives in the United States). So why did the system ever work? Because people believed in it. I don't mean that people went singing to their jobs, praising the motherland. I do mean that they did not take as much advantage of the system as they might have (and did, in the system's later years). And I also mean that because people in authority believed in the system, they were willing to impose brutal punishments on those who did try to take advantage. (Stalin used to shoot unsuccessful generals).

We see this kind of thing all the time, in microcosm. The market does not require people to believe in it; but the centrally planned economies that live inside a market economy, known as corporations, do. Everybody knows that financial incentives alone are not enough to make a company succeed; it must also build morale, a sense of mission, which makes people work at least somewhat for the good of the company rather than think only of what is good for them. Luckily, under capitalism an individual company can fail without taking the whole society down with it - or it can be reformed without a bloody revolution.

Why did people stop believing in socialism? Part of the answer is simply the passage of time: you can't expect revolutionary fervor to last for 70 years. But perhaps also the unexpected resurgence of capitalism played a role. By the 1980s Russia's elite was all too aware that the country, instead of overtaking the capitalist nations, was slipping behind - that Russia was failing to take advantage of new technology, that if anyone was challenging the West it was the rising nations of Asia. Communism lost any claim to the mandate of history well before it actually fell apart, and perhaps that is why it fell apart.

In the end, then, capitalism triumphed because it is a system that is robust to cynicism, that assumes that each man is out for himself. For much of the past century and a half men have dreamed of something better, of an economy that drew on man's better nature. But dreams, it turns out, can't keep a system going over the long term; selfishness can.

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

[Ytterbium]

Who may dislike capitalism? Me? Lights?
Prometheus if it's me you thinking about then read my previous posts. I wouldn't like to have Soviet Russia planned economy. That's communism, this is not the threads subject as it reads Socialism. As mentioned many times before Socialism is a very wide term and many different alignments. Not all religious people are christians and all christians aren't orthodox. Are you with me? I could sit and write here about how bad capitalism is. Only based on what Micheal Moore have said. It wouldn't be very wide and nuanced view on it or would it? That's why I wonder why you are doing it yourself. I don't know you and I don't know what you've been through in your life. But it's something in your writing which reminds me of 9 year olds who have an argument of which sports car that's best.

[prometheus]

Are you seriously saying that socialism isn't the antithesis of capitalism? If so how did you come to this conclusion?

Your writing reminds me of a 14 year olds first day in debate class arguing semantics since they know their ground is so shaky.

[Ytterbium]

Still haven't you checked it out? I'm saying that the term Socialism is broad. Capitalism is broad too. Neither of these have existed in it's purest form. Get it? It's not much of a discussion. Every economy is mixed. I advocate a welfare state. Is that massmurder?
You see it does not fit. We can't discuss if we discuss "by" eachother. If the subjects don't connect somewhere.

[ArchonAlarion]

Anyone who doesn't want to have money taken from them by taxes will be imprisoned and, if they continue to defend themselves, will have to be killed.

The welfare state is based on force and violence. As long as someone, somewhere, doesn't agree than they will be forced to participate.

[prometheus]

OK, lets do it. Let's talk about common ground, here is the "broad" definition of Socialism as provided by Wiki.

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community

Do you agree this is a correct "broad" definition? If no, explain why.


Here is the "broad" definition of Capitalism as defined by Wiki.

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.

Do you agree this is a correct "broad" definition? If no, explain why.

The only problem I have with the above definitions is the word "predominantly" this is because I'm a Market anarchist. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Kristian]

Anyone who doesn't want to have money taken from them by taxes will be imprisoned and, if they continue to defend themselves, will have to be killed.

The welfare state is based on force and violence. As long as someone, somewhere, doesn't agree than they will be forced to participate.

Waow....that's so wrong.

I'm from Denmark - it's a welfare state. The government takes half of the paycheck. Sometimes more if you're making a lot of money, but the current government are working on fixing that. I don't like that they takes half of my money, but the overall system works fine - Denmark is one the most peaceful countries in the world.
We defend free speech and nakedness much more than in US and A.;D

We want to make fun of all religions:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And we are the happiest nation in the world:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




EDIT: Oh yeah...forgot...Our primeminister is INTJ :thumbsup:

[prometheus]

Waow....that's so wrong.

I'm from Denmark - it's a welfare state. The government takes half of the paycheck. Sometimes more if you making a lot of money, but the current government are working on fixing that. I don't like that they takes half of my money, but the overall system works fine.

Denmark is one the most peaceful countries in the world.
We defend free speech and nakedness much more than in US and A.;D

We want to make fun of all religions - the cartoon-drawings.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And we are the happiest nation in the world.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you refused to pay that tax, let's say you got some sort of cash job. Then the government caught you, they would demand "their" share right? If you refused to pay, they would attempt to take your property or freedom, right? If you resisted they would use force, right? If you resisted strongly, say with a weapon, they would eventually kill you, right?

AA is completely correct. The truth is rather unpleasant and most refuse to see it.

[Ytterbium]

Prometheus as you see the society is built on both. You have money and own stuff. But you still send your mail by a state owned monopoly. It's a matter of degrees on a scale.
I'm a Social Democrat (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) if want to know.
If you refused to pay that tax, let's say you got some sort of cash job. Then the government caught you, they would demand "their" share right? If you refused to pay, they would attempt to take your property or freedom, right? If you resisted they would use force, right? If you resisted strongly, say with a weapon, they would eventually kill you, right?

AA is completely correct. The truth is rather unpleasant and most refuse to see it.So if you do me a favour and I don't pay you. You want your share for it, right? I refuse to pay you would try to take it anyway, right? If I resist you'll use force, right? If I would use guns, you would do too, right? Eventually someone gets killed. Or is it so that you do things for free, without getting anything in return?

[prometheus]

Prometheus as you see the society is built on both. You have money and own stuff. But you still send your mail by a state owned monopoly. It's a matter of degrees on a scale.
I'm a Social Democrat (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) if want to know.
So if you do me a favour and I don't pay you. You want your share for it, right? I refuse to pay you would try to take it anyway, right? If I resist you'll use force, right? If I would use guns, you would do too, right? Eventually someone gets killed. Or is it so that you do things for free, without getting anything in return?

Funny you used the example of the mail. Did you know the esteemed gentleman Lysander Spooner, whom I quote so often open a private mail company? The government refused to be competed against and forced him to stop.

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

Furthermore, do you feel you get your money's worth from your taxes? What about those who don't, such as home schoolers who are forced to pay the school tax portion of their property taxes even though they receive no benefits. This is the beauty of Market Anarchism, you only pay for those services you use. In your example a favour would have no basis for a demand of payment. A voluntarily engaged business transaction would have the force of contract behind it and force could be a possible out come of refusal of the agreed payment.

[Kristian]

If you refused to pay that tax, let's say you got some sort of cash job. Then the government caught you, they would demand "their" share right? If you refused to pay, they would attempt to take your property or freedom, right? If you resisted they would use force, right? If you resisted strongly, say with a weapon, they would eventually kill you, right?

AA is completely correct. The truth is rather unpleasant and most refuse to see it.

I think I understand where you’re coming from - that we shouldn't let any one control our lives. We should decide for ourselves.

But understand this point of view. Some restrictions give you more freedom.

It's not just black and white.

2 examples from Denmark:
- I'm about to finish my education and I don't owe any money away because the state paid for it. So I don't have to worry about money issues that much.
- Almost all people got money to support themselves and more, even if they’re not to smart. So I don’t have to worry about criminals (that much).

It makes my life easier, so I can care about others things. More important things.

[prometheus]

I think I understand where you’re coming from - that we shouldn't let any one control our lives. We should decide for ourselves.

But understand this point of view. Some restrictions give you more freedom.

This should be a voluntary choice such as Homeowners Association, toll roads, etc.


- I'm about to finish my education and I don't owe any money away because the state paid for it. So I don't have to worry about money issues that much.

Except for that 50% of everything you ever earn part, you mean, right?

- Almost all people got money to support themselves and more, even if they’re not to smart. So I don’t have to worry about criminals (that much).

Is this really a good thing for society, and the human race? Historically the members of society who were "terminally impoverished" due to a severe lack of intelligence didn't contribute (genetically) to future generations. Let nature run its course. Or it might end up like this: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Is this cold hearted, yes.

It makes my life easier, so I can care about others things. More important things.

"Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth." -- Ken Schoolland.

[Ytterbium]

Funny you used the example of the mail. Did you know the esteemed gentleman Lysander Spooner, whom I quote so often open a private mail company? The government refused to be competed against and forced him to stop.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. here in Sweden it's ok to compete the the Postal service.

Furthermore, do you feel you get your money's worth from your taxes? What about those who don't, such as home schoolers who are forced to pay the school tax portion of their property taxes even though they receive no benefits. This is the beauty of Market Anarchism, you only pay for those services you use. In your example a favour would have no basis for a demand of payment. A voluntarily engaged business transaction would have the force of contract behind it and force could be a possible out come of refusal of the agreed payment.Yes, I think so. I got free dental care until I got 19. Education is free, I think I'm going to become an engineer in the future. I have no intent to move abroad, I'm going to live here and repay what's been given to me. I like my country and I'm going to defend it. I don't think you get happy by whining that your neighbour got a tea spoon more cream on the cake than you.

[prometheus]

Yes, I think so. I got free dental care until I got 19. Education is free, I think I'm going to become an engineer in the future. I have no intent to move abroad, I'm going to live here and repay what's been given to me. I like my country and I'm going to defend it. I don't think you get happy by whining that your neighbour got a tea spoon more cream on the cake than you.

OK, so you might be receiving fair compensation for your taxes. But, what about those who don't, is it fair to use the force of government to take their earnings to send you to school, the doctor etc? Shouldn't this be a voluntary decision? What is the difference between this and theft except for the use of government middlemen?

Actually I get really pissed off when I thought about the taxes that were taken from me (when I had our business) and given to the "poor" to go to college when I realized I'd have to earn the money to send my own kids. Cream, college it's just a matter of degrees.

[Kristian]

This should be a voluntary choice such as Homeowners Association, toll roads, etc.

Perhaps it should. But it works because everybody is in on it. The restrictions are there and they give me more freedom. That's good enough for me.


Except for that 50% of everything you ever earn part, you mean, right?

Yes, that's the deal. And it hurts a little bit, but then I remain myself to look at the big picture: Not that many poor people. Not that many rich people. = happy people.

Besides that I don't have to work so much and have lots of vacation.



Is this really a good thing for society, and the human race? Historically the members of society who were "terminally impoverished" due to a severe lack of intelligence didn't contribute (genetically) to future generations. Let nature run its course. Or it might end up like this: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Is this cold hearted, yes.

I like Australia.


"Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth." -- Ken Schoolland.

Yes, I know that's your point of view.

[Ytterbium]

OK, so you might be receiving fair compensation for your taxes. But, what about those who don't, is it fair to use the force of government to take their earnings to send you to school, the doctor etc? Shouldn't this be a voluntary decision? What is the difference between this and theft except for the use of government middlemen?

Actually I get really pissed off when I thought about the taxes that were taken from me (when I had our business) and given to the "poor" to go to college when I realized I'd have to earn the money to send my own kids. Cream, college it's just a matter of degrees.Well ofcourse it's almost impossible to get things even. If I get ill or get hurt in some accident the social security gives me compensation depending on how much I earn. So it comes back to you that way amongst others. But ofcourse it doesn't mean that you have don't have to look into things to make them better. I think both you and I want to run things the most effective way.

That's bad all children shall have the same minimum rights no matter if they're rich or poor.

[prometheus]

I think both you and I want to run things the most effective way. I agree and I believe yourself and some of the pro-socialist people have their hearts in the right place, but just haven't thought through the unintended consequences of their beliefs.

That's bad all children shall have the same minimum rights no matter if they're rich or poor.


I wasn't up set about having to pay to send my own kids to school but to be forced to send other's.

Be careful when you start speaking of "Rights" so loosely.

In 1918, the Soviet Union’ s universal “cradle-to-grave” health-care coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine, was introduced by the Communist government of Vladimir Lenin. “Right to health” was introduced as one of the “constitutional rights” of Soviet citizens. Other socioeconomic “rights” on the “mass-enticing” socialist menu included the right to vacation, free dental care, housing, and a clean and safe environment. As in other fields, the provision of health care was planned and delivered through a special ministry. The Ministry of Health, through its regional Directorates of Health, would pool and distribute centrally provided resources for delivery of medical and sanitary services to the entire population.


Every single one of our Rights, and no privileges paraded as "Rights" are contained in the following paragraph.

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (consequentialist libertarians do not base their libertarianism on it[1]). It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense against aggression.

The non-aggression principle typically includes property as a part of the owner; to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. Thus, the principle leads to the rejection of theft, murder and fraud. When applied to governments, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation and the military draft. When taken to the extreme, individualist anarchists argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself and protecting individuals from aggression through voluntary payments rather than taxation.

[Ytterbium]

Prometheus so you don't want the children to go to school? Is it up to the parents to choose? Are the children adults from birth? It's a right but I'll guess you see it as a constraint? If the school cost money out of the pocket not everybody can send their children to school. What's the problem of you paying tax so all children can go to school, including your own? The others does the same you know.

Even though you own a property the property belongs to some form of higher stance such as a country or community. Let's say we are neighbours. My property is run down, ugly and I have two junk cars standing on it. This brings the value of your property down I don't care because it's my property and I do whatever I want with it. Would that be ok with you? As if you would do anything about it you would attack my rights.
Who takes care of the actual mapping of lots? Who will build roads? If I pay for a piece of road to my house. It will connect to your neighbours roads further down. How are you going to pay to the wear you cause? They further up your road will they pay you for using your stretch? What about the other roads that interconnect cities etc? Electricity supply shall people have their own diesel power plants? Wouldn't that cause both noice and pollution on my property coming from your property?

[ArchonAlarion]

you guys keep on saying your happy and you don't mind the taxation.

Why can't you receive the same services from private institutions?

Plus, private companies compete to lower prices and raise wages because if another company has lower prices people will shop there and if a company has higher wages than people will rather work there.

The government doesn't care about competition because it is expressly forbidden. The government can't raise taxes ridiculously overnight because the people might rebel, but through brainwashing (public education) and raising taxes in slow increments they can eventually get where they want.

A business must compete peacfully for customers or they will fail, whereas a government can relax because it's here to stay. Do you understand the problems and evils this can create?

Lastly, a higher order, God, humanity, or your neighbors do not have a higher claim on your life than you.

[Kristian]

you guys keep on saying your happy and you don't mind the taxation.

Why can't you receive the same services from private institutions?

Plus, private companies compete to lower prices and raise wages because if another company has lower prices people will shop there and if a company has higher wages than people will rather work there.

The government doesn't care about competition because it is expressly forbidden. The government can't raise taxes ridiculously overnight because the people might rebel, but through brainwashing (public education) and raising taxes in slow increments they can eventually get where they want.

A business must compete peacfully for customers or they will fail, whereas a government can relax because it's here to stay. Do you understand the problems and evils this can create?

Lastly, a higher order, God, humanity, or your neighbors do not have a higher claim on your life than you.

It is clear to me, that you don't know the situation in Denmark. It’s like your talking about some former soviet countries or something. Let me update you about the situation in Denmark.

In Denmark - over the last decades - a lot of services are now controlled by private institutions. The service level has propelled down because of this - I hope it's a transition period.

The current government in Denmark is lowering taxes – primarily among people with high income. The Prime minister won the election because he said he would stop raising taxes. The government is chosen by the people to take care of a lot of things we otherwise should use a lot of time and energy on – and they can make overall strategies which we profit from and all criticize when we don’t profit from them. The danish media is very critical of the politicians – and the politicians don’t interfere with the medias work - and that’s how it should be.

Our prime minister, who is an INTJ, was known in his youth to be a liberalist, but is now more a social-liberalist. He calls the idea of pure liberalism for outdated. And I agree with him. I would love to see you people try out your thoughts.

Why don't all anarchists (or what you would call yourself) move to your own country/place where there aren’t any government. All you people do is talk talk talk and some of you might even destroy things because you are unhappy with governments (those people who have problems with authority figures – a picture of your unfinished business with your mother or father).

For you it's a control issue, but you haven’t thought it through – what would the consequences be of these survival of the fittest-thoughts? I bet there would be massive constrains on your daily life because of violence, theft, administration tasks and so on. Not so free after all…

In Denmark…if you don't like the system, you can always move out. Actually that's what almost every politician from Denmark is saying right now in the media. It's a free choice if you want to stay or not. If you don't like the system and like it here, then we don't want you here.

In my country your talk would be considered "lefties talk" in an extreme degree. It sounds like conspiracy theories. Uuuh the government brainwash us.

My so-called brainwashing college education has made me an independent thinker. I now know how to differentiate between science, opinions and bullshit. I'm grateful for that.

I’m not saying this works everywhere…I’m not sure a social-liberal welfare state would work in USA. It's not a harmonies population.

[errrzarrr]

I also include communist and fascist in this category.

What is your opinion on 'em?

uh? As far as I know Communist, Socialism and Fascism are NOT the same stuff. In fact, they are on the oposite sides of the spectrum :suspicious:





errrzarrr added to this post, 9 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Who may dislike capitalism? Me? Lights?
Prometheus if it's me you thinking about then read my previous posts. I wouldn't like to have Soviet Russia planned economy. That's communism, this is not the threads subject as it reads Socialism. As mentioned many times before Socialism is a very wide term and many different alignments. Not all religious people are christians and all christians aren't orthodox. Are you with me? I could sit and write here about how bad capitalism is. Only based on what Micheal Moore have said. It wouldn't be very wide and nuanced view on it or would it? That's why I wonder why you are doing it yourself. I don't know you and I don't know what you've been through in your life. But it's something in your writing which reminds me of 9 year olds who have an argument of which sports car that's best.

Thats the problem here Ytterbium. Many people think Communism, Socialism and FASCISM is all the same. Heck! the thread starts putting it all together! :stunned:

[Kristian]

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

One possible projection of the European political spectrum.

This is from wikipedia:
The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.

Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

In practice, however, the differences between the two may be harder to perceive. This is especially the case nowadays as many social democratic parties have shifted towards the centre and adopted one version of Third Way politics or another.

[thod]

Um as far as I know the internet was invented in quasicapitalist America by entrepenuers, not bureaucrats in Soviet Russia.



As an old git that was on the net prior to the web, I got my first home connection in 1990, I can say this is wrong. The net back then consisted of 2 groups, academics and computer geeks. You would join to read alt.physics.wackonewstuff or comp.c. programming. It was a great new way for geeks to talk to other geeks that were interested in their weird subjects. It had nothing to do with capitalism, most of the infrastructure was government financed university nets running a free OS called UNIX. Geeks are distributed around the world and this allowed them to converse. It doesn't matter where they are located it was global from when I first got onto it. I first heard about it from an obscure UNIX magazine I used to subscribe to.

The whole thing was government sponsered coming out of DARPA. Your tax money paid for the development of TCP/IP as the govenrment wanted its own protocol for a defence network.

Only later did commercial elements kick in when they saw it was useful as a porno distribution channel. Then the online stores came out with the web. Commerce didnt do anything in the early part. Commerce exploited what was there, it did not develop it. That was all public funds.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well Marx called Communism "scientific socialism." The difference is mostly in degree, with communism being much more intense. Also communism is usually considered revolutionary, and Marx thought it would eventually lead to a communist anarchy.

Fascism is a form of extreme nationalism, where the superiority of a group is placed above individuals and other groups. Fascism must, in the end, create a centralized economy and state to maintain the level of control it wants.

Therefore, all are command economies, all have large centralized states, all elevate a group to be superior to other groups (germans over jews, poor over rich, proletariat over bourgeiosie, christians over muslims, whites over blacks, blondes over brunettes, dogs over cats, this over that), and all generally have a hatred for the individual.

The main point is they are all forms of collectivism, The belief that the group is more real than the individual, and hence more important. They are just branches of the same tree.

Internet:
eww if you're right, that sucks for me. :huh: I concede that I was wrong. However, I think that the internet still had a better chance of being created in america, than in any socialist state. I think commerce, adapted to it, and found a new way to market goods. Exploitation is not the right word. Now the internet is a capitalist paradise and the way we can buy things off of the net only helps capitalism.

[Ytterbium]

you guys keep on saying your happy and you don't mind the taxation.

Why can't you receive the same services from private institutions?I can recieve the same service from private alternatives. It's still paid by taxes though. Such as health care dental care and so on.
There're some services I can't recieve from private companies. In many places there're no cell phone coverage except by the state owned company. Because private ones don't make money on building their sites there. There're places where's there no coverage at all. The state owned company have responibilities which competing companies don't have. So I'll guess they cut back in some places too.

Plus, private companies compete to lower prices and raise wages because if another company has lower prices people will shop there and if a company has higher wages than people will rather work there.Lower prices, higher wages. So the owners get nothing you say? In a community controlled "business", health care, waste water treatment whatever. It's never meant that it will make profit, merely to go around. If it makes profit, it results in improvements or tax cuts. Instead of landing in one person's pocket.

The government doesn't care about competition because it is expressly forbidden. The government can't raise taxes ridiculously overnight because the people might rebel, but through brainwashing (public education) and raising taxes in slow increments they can eventually get where they want.Ofcourse they don't care about competition. What they care about is to provide what's needed to the public.
Did you have public education? Did you become brainwashed? I had public education, did I become brainwashed?

A business must compete peacfully for customers or they will fail, whereas a government can relax because it's here to stay. Do you understand the problems and evils this can create?

Lastly, a higher order, God, humanity, or your neighbors do not have a higher claim on your life than you.A goverment can't really relax either. If you have some form of open society and freedom of speech. What's the problem then? Everyone can see what the authority does.

[ArchonAlarion]

I can recieve the same service from private alternatives. It's still paid by taxes though. Such as health care dental care and so on.
There're some services I can't recieve from private companies. In many places there're no cell phone coverage except by the state owned company. Because private ones don't make money on building their sites there. There're places where's there no coverage at all. The state owned company have responibilities which competing companies don't have. So I'll guess they cut back in some places too.

If its paid by taxes what choice do you have to choose another company? The cell phone coverage is something that could be solved by a freemarket. People could ask a company to build a tower there. The company that built the tower was helpful in building it, and can expect future work from the thankful customers. The use of the tower might have higher rates in a low population area. If you can't stand that, than move.

Lower prices, higher wages. So the owners get nothing you say? In a community controlled "business", health care, waste water treatment whatever. It's never meant that it will make profit, merely to go around. If it makes profit, it results in improvements or tax cuts. Instead of landing in one person's pocket.

It's in the interest of a truly greedy and selfish business man to lower prices, raise wages, and increase quality because than he will have a successful business and thus increase his wealth. If you could create a voluntary community business, than fine. Why not? That's capitalism! If it's not voluntary than you are forcing people to do things, which you have no right to do.

Ofcourse they don't care about competition. What they care about is to provide what's needed to the public.
Did you have public education? Did you become brainwashed? I had public education, did I become brainwashed?

Or provide whats needed for themselves;) State bureaucrats are individuals too. They have their own motives and goals. The coercive nature of the state attracts people who are amoral and willing to boss others around. Power tends to corrupt.

Yes I am in public education. It's full of idiots and sheep. I have met homeschooled kids and they may be less social, but are at least competent. One of the smartest guys I know (an INT for sure, imagine Gregory House) is a public school teacher at a better than average public school, yet he is home schooling his kids. I wonder why. Being an INTx I'm resistant to conformance and institutions, so I have been successful so far in evading the brainwashing. I can't speak for you; I can only hope you haven't been brainwashed.

A goverment can't really relax either. If you have some form of open society and freedom of speech. What's the problem then? Everyone can see what the authority does.

Well sort of, but what happens when a government throws away free speech? What happens when the government restricts passage into and out of the country? What happens when a government does this to combat "terrorism?" What happens when the state creates secretive organizations like the CIA?

"Ideas are far more powerful than guns.
We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"
-Josef Stalin

[Ytterbium]

If its paid by taxes what choice do you have to choose another company? The cell phone coverage is something that could be solved by a freemarket. People could ask a company to build a tower there. The company that built the tower was helpful in building it, and can expect future work from the thankful customers. The use of the tower might have higher rates in a low population area. If you can't stand that, than move.If I choose to go to a private dentist. The taxes pays that visit. Same as I go to the "collective" instead.
The problem is that there're not enough thankfull costumers it won't work economically. No company would build things if it get losses. Except monopolies which does it for a greater good.
It's in the interest of a truly greedy and selfish business man to lower prices, raise wages, and increase quality because than he will have a successful business and thus increase his wealth. If you could create a voluntary community business, than fine. Why not? That's capitalism! If it's not voluntary than you are forcing people to do things, which you have no right to do.A work ain't volutary. You need it to survive no matter what. It doesn't matter if you work for the state or a private person, it's still involuntary. It's a matter of if you like your job or not.
Or provide whats needed for themselves;) State bureaucrats are individuals too. They have their own motives and goals. The coercive nature of the state attracts people who are amoral and willing to boss others around. Power tends to corrupt.Yes if you have an open society you'll will find out what their agendas are. You don't have the same insight in a private company. If you say it corrupts why do you support a system which you're supposed to rip off eachother?
Yes I am in public education. It's full of idiots and sheep. I have met homeschooled kids and they may be less social, but are at least competent. One of the smartest guys I know (an INT for sure, imagine Gregory House) is a public school teacher at a better than average public school, yet he is home schooling his kids. I wonder why. Being an INTx I'm resistant to conformance and institutions, so I have been successful so far in evading the brainwashing. I can't speak for you; I can only hope you haven't been brainwashed.Are you still in education? Idiots are everywhere and most people don't care about things until they need them. They rather whine about high taxes. They want to have a flatscreen tv. But when the thief come to take the flatscreen tv they're very eager to get the police there.
Well sort of, but what happens when a government throws away free speech? What happens when the government restricts passage into and out of the country? What happens when a government does this to combat "terrorism?" What happens when the state creates secretive organizations like the CIA?

"Ideas are far more powerful than guns.
We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"
-Josef StalinThe people will protest violenty, the surrounding world will react and so on.

[prometheus]

Prometheus so you don't want the children to go to school? Is it up to the parents to choose? Are the children adults from birth? It's a right but I'll guess you see it as a constraint? If the school cost money out of the pocket not everybody can send their children to school. What's the problem of you paying tax so all children can go to school, including your own? The others does the same you know.

Even though you own a property the property belongs to some form of higher stance such as a country or community. Let's say we are neighbours. My property is run down, ugly and I have two junk cars standing on it. This brings the value of your property down I don't care because it's my property and I do whatever I want with it. Would that be ok with you? As if you would do anything about it you would attack my rights.
Who takes care of the actual mapping of lots? Who will build roads? If I pay for a piece of road to my house. It will connect to your neighbours roads further down. How are you going to pay to the wear you cause? They further up your road will they pay you for using your stretch? What about the other roads that interconnect cities etc? Electricity supply shall people have their own diesel power plants? Wouldn't that cause both noice and pollution on my property coming from your property?

Sorry I took so long getting back to you. I've had an interesting weekend (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The public goods problem

The "public goods" argument is certainly the most popular economic argument for the state. It allegedly shows that the existence of government can be Pareto optimal, and that the non-existence of the state cannot be Pareto optimal; or at least, it shows that the existence of government is justifiable on cost-benefit grounds. Supposedly, there exist important services, such as national defense, which benefit people whether they pay for them or not. The result is that selfish agents refuse to contribute, leading to disaster. The only way to solve this problem is to coerce the beneficiaries to raise the funds to supply the needed good. In order for this coercion to work, it needs to be monopolized by a single agency, the state.

Public goods arguments have been made not only for national defense, but for police, roads, education, R&D, scientific research, and many other goods and services. The essential definitional feature of public goods is "non- excludability"; because the benefits cannot be limited to contributors, there is no incentive to contribute. (A second definitional characteristic often attributed to public goods is "non-rivalrousness"; my own view is that this second attribute just confuses the issue, since without the non- excludability problem, non-rivalrousness would merely be another instance of the ubiquitous practice of pricing above marginal cost.)

The concept of externalities is very closely connected to the concept of public goods; the main difference is that economists usually think of externalities as being both "positive" (e.g. R&D spill-overs) and "negative" (e.g. pollution), whereas they usually don't discuss "public bads." In any case, again we have the problem that agents perform actions which harm or benefit other people, and the harm/benefit is "non-excludable." Victims of negative externalities can't feasibly charge polluters a fee for suffering, and beneficiaries of positive externalities can't feasibly be charged for their enjoyment. Government is supposed to be necessary to correct this inefficiency. (As usual, it is the inefficiency rather than the injustice that economists focus upon.)

Left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists would probably have remarkably similar replies to this argument, although doubtlessly the tone and emphasis would vary.

Objection #1: The behavorial assumptions of public goods theory are false.

It is simply not true that people always act in their narrow self-interest. Charity exists, and there is no reason to think that the charitable impulse might not be cultivated to handle public goods problems voluntarily on an adequate basis. Nor need charity as such be the only motive: in Social Contract, Free Ride, Anthony de Jasay lays out an "ethics turnpike" of possible voluntary solutions to serious public goods problems, moving from motivation from high moral principles, to "tribal" motivations, to economic motivations. As de Jasay writes, "On the map of the Ethics Turnpike ... three main segments are marked off according to the basic type of person most likely to find his congenial exit along it. The first segment is primarily for the type who fears God or acts as if he did. The second segment has exits to suit those who are not indifferent to how some or all their fellow men are faring, and who value only that (but not all that) which people want for themselves or for others. The third is for homo oeconomicus, maximizing a narrowly defined utility that varies only with the money's worth of his own payoffs."

In short, much of the public goods problem is an artificial creation of economists' unrealistic assumptions about human nature. Anarchists would surely disagree among themselves about human nature, but almost all would agree that there is more to the human character than Hobbesian self-interest. Some people may be amoral, but most are not. Moreover, charitable impulses can even give incentives to uncharitable people to behave fairly. If the public boycotts products of polluters, the polluters may find that it is cheaper to clean up their act than lose the public's business.

Interestingly, many economists have experimentally tested the predictions of public goods theory. (Typically, these experiments involve groups of human subjects playing for real money.) The almost universal result is that the central prediction of public goods theory (i.e., that no one will voluntarily contribute to the production of a public good) is totally false. While the level of contributions rarely equals the Pareto-optimal level, it never even approaches the zero- provision level that public goods theory predicts. Summarizing the experimental literature, Douglas Davis and Charles Holt write "[S]ubjects rather persistently contributed 40 to 60 percent of their token endowments to the group exchange, far in excess of the 0 percent contributions rate..." Subsequent experiments examined the conditions under which voluntary provision is most successful; see Davis and Holt's Experimental Economics for details.

Objection #2: Government is not the only possible way to provide public goods.

Even if individuals act in their narrow self-interest, it is not true that government is the only way to manage public goods and externalities problems. Why couldn't a left- anarchist commune or an anarcho-capitalist police firm do the job that the neoclassical economist assumes must be delegated to the government? The left-anarchist would probably be particularly insistent on this point, since most economists usually assume that government and the market are the only ways to do things. But thriving, voluntary communities might build roads, regulate pollution, and take over other important tasks now handled by government.

Anarcho-capitalists, for their part, would happily agree: while they usually look to the market as a first solution, they appreciate other kinds of voluntary organizations too: fraternal societies, clubs, family, etc. But anarcho-capitalists would probably note that left-anarchists overlook the ways that the market might take over government services -- indeed, malls and gated communities show how roads, security, and externalities can be handled by contract rather than coercion.

Objection #3: Public goods are rarer than you might think.

Anarcho-capitalists would emphasize that a large number of alleged "public goods" and "externalities" could easily be handled privately by for-profit business if only the government would allow the definition of private property rights. If ranchers over-graze the commons, why not privatize the commons? If fishermen over-fish the oceans, why not parcel out large strips of the ocean by longitude and latitude to for profit-making aquaculture? And why is education supposed to create externalities any more than any other sort of investment? Similarly, many sorts of externalities are now handled with private property rights. Tort law, for example, can give people an incentive to take the lives and property of others into account when they take risks.

Objection #4: Externalities are a result of the profit-oriented mentality which would be tamed in an anarchist society.

Left-anarchists would emphasize that many externalities are caused by the profit-seeking system which the state supports. Firms pollute because it is cheaper than producing cleanly; but anarcho-syndicalist firms could pursue many aims besides profit. In a way, the state- capitalist system creates the problem of externalities by basing all decisions upon profit, and then claims that we need the state to protect us from the very results of this profit-oriented decision-making process.

While few left-anarchists are familiar with the experimental economics literature, it offers some support for this general approach. In particular, many experiments have shown that subjects' concern for fairness weakens many of the harsh predictions of standard economic analysis of externalities and bargaining.

Objection #5: The public goods problem is unavoidable.

Perhaps most fundamentally: government is not a solution to the public goods problem, but rather the primary instance of the problem. If you create a government to solve your public goods problems, you merely create a new public goods problem: the public good of restraining and checking the government from abusing its power. "t is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government, that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey," wrote Thomas Paine; but what material incentive is there for individuals to help develop a vigilant national character? After all, surely it is a rare individual who appreciably affects the national culture during his or her lifetime.

To rely upon democracy as a counter-balance simply assumes away the public goods problem. After all, intelligent, informed voting is a public good; everyone benefits if the electorate reaches wise political judgments, but there is no personal, material incentive to "invest" in political information, since the same result will (almost certainly) happen whether you inform yourself or not. It should be no surprise that people know vastly more about their jobs than about their government. Many economists seem to be aware of this difficulty; in particular, public choice theory in economics emphasizes the externalities inherent in government action. But a double standard persists: while non-governmental externalities must be corrected by the state, we simply have to quietly endure the externalities inherent in political process.

Since there is no incentive to monitor the government, democracies must rely upon voluntary donations of intelligence and virtue. Because good government depends upon these voluntary donations, the public goods argument for government falls apart. Either unpaid virtue can make government work, in which case government isn't necessary to solve the public goods problem; or unpaid virtue is insufficient to make government work, in which case the government cannot be trusted to solve the public goods problem.

David Friedman has a particularly striking argument which goes one step further. Under governmental institutions, he explains, good law is a public good and bad law is a private good. That is, there is little direct personal incentive to lobby for laws that benefit everyone, but a strong personal incentive to lobby for laws that benefit special interests at the expense of everyone else. In contrast, under anarcho-capitalist institutions, good law is a private good and bad law is a public good. That is, by patronizing a firm which protects oneself, one reinforces the existence of socially beneficial law; but there is little incentive to "lobby" for the re-introduction of government. As Friedman explains, "Good law is still expensive - I must spend time and money determining which protection agency will best serve me - but having decided what I want, I get what I pay for. The benefit of my wise purchase goes to me, so I have an incentive to purchase wisely. It is now the person who wishes to reintroduce government who is caught in a public goods problem. He cannot abolish anarchy and reintroduce government for himself alone; he must do it for everyone or for no one. If he does it for everyone, he himself gets but a tiny fraction of the 'benefit' he expects the reintroduction of government to provide."

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





[i]prometheus added to this post, 34 minutes and 39 seconds later...

It looks like the Socialist heavy "mixed market" of Kalifornian's are looking at failure soon. Thanks to Simon Jester for sharing this information.


Looks like the governments in the KPR are headed down the tubes. Will there be a domino effect? One can only hope!

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

[Ytterbium]

I like that you spent great amount of time on your post. But the questions I asked might have been to "S". I want to know how issues in the real world is solved. As these things you've written are theories about how a society would be run. I also don't the get thing where you mention people won't bother looking into the goverment all the time. Then I wonder how they manage to bother about all the other things in your "free" society. You don't necessarily have look into the goverment, there're also others doing that. Such as media and especially people with different opinions.

[ArchonAlarion]

Actually, you can choose not to work in a free society, but unless you having a very loving family, you'll go hungry soon.

It is easier to survive if you work. You can't just force business men or others to work for you, or give up their property just so you can get by without working.

If a company won't build something for someone voluntarily, is it more moral to force the company to do it instead? Or force people to give money to the state?

[Ytterbium]

Actually, you can choose not to work in a free society, but unless you having a very loving family, you'll go hungry soon.

It is easier to survive if you work. You can't just force business men or others to work for you, or give up their property just so you can get by without working.

If a company won't build something for someone voluntarily, is it more moral to force the company to do it instead? Or force people to give money to the state?I can choose not to work and start to live under a pine in the forest. If I want. I can pick berries and collect twigs. I'm allowed to do so by law. On the land you own or someone else owns. I have the freedom to walk everywhere I want and can.

The goverment shall take action for such things. People pay tax for such purposes. So yes people pay the goverment, who builds a house or pays the best contractor.