Beyond social darwinism

[Mountain Lion]

This is from Trudeau's essay (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) "Economic rights" (he wrote it in 1961 while working as a law professor at McGill) exposing the reality that the guarantee of civil liberties alone is not enough to achieve democracy.


Germany in 1919, Spain in 1931, the USSR in 1936 wrote into their constitutions very noble declarations concerning the rights of man. And yet those very rights were soon to be trampled upon dictators.

It is the minds of men which must be changed, and their philosophies. Economic reform is impossible so long as legislators, lawyers and business men cling to economic concepts which were conceived for another age. The liberal idea of property helped to emancipate the bourgeoisie but it is now hampering the match toward democracy. The ancient values of private property have been carried over into the age of corporate wealth. As a result, our laws and our thinking recognize as proprietors of an enterprise men who today hold a few shares which they will sell tomorrow on the stock-market; whereas workers who may have invested the better part of their lives and of their hopes in a job have no proprietary right to that job, and may be expropriated from it without compensation whenever a strike or lock-out occurs, whenever they grow old, or whenever Capital decided to disinvest.

That same erroneous concept of property has erected a wall of prejudice against reform, and a wall of money against democratic control. As a consequence, powerful financial interests, monopolies and cartels are in a position to plan large sectors of national economy for the profit of the few, rather than for the welfare of all. Whereas any serious planning by the State, democratically controlled, is dismissed as a step toward Bolshevism.

Yet if this society does not evolve an entirely new set of values, if it does not set itself urgently to producing those services which private enterprise is failing to produce, if it is not determined to plan its development for the good of all rather than for the luxury of the few, and if every citizen fails to consider himself as the co-insurer of his fellow citizen against all socially-engineered economic calamities, it is vain to hope that [we] will ever really reach freedom from fear and freedom from want. Under such circumstances, any claim by lawyers that they have done their bit by upholding civil liberties will be dismissed as a hollow mockery.

[ArchonAlarion]

If there is no private property than you can't own yourself. Your own body becomes communal property. If you don't own yourself than how can you legitimately protect yourself from another's aggressions. Aren't they just manipulating common property, which in your eyes is their right?

If there is no private property, only communal property, than everyone owns your body, life, beliefs, and thoughts.

[thod]

Thats not what is being argued. The question is one of interests. If you work for 20 years in a business helping it grow you have an interest in it. If you lose your job you may be too old or too specialized to find equivalent work elsewhere. You have more interest than the guy who bought a single share yesterday. The same applies with the tenant who has been living in a building for a protracted period but can be turned out or have his rent raised to unreasonable levels simply because the owner decide to. There is the concept of fairness involved. If you are a judge then you must consider the interests of both parties in resolving the dispute fairly. If that tenant refuse to leave and you send in policemen as a matter of course you are simply acting in the interests of one party. Now the wealthy attempt to, and have managed to define the law to protect their own interests. The law does not consider the interests of both parties. You can see a vestige of the idea in alimony. The wife has kept house for the husband for all those years foregoing a career. If he leaves he still has his income whereas she is unemployable. The idea is too look beyond financial interests at the real world. If there was no property involved then the ruling would be that tenant has the right of abode. It may surprise you that feudal barons had a duty of care on the peasants on their land which they exercised. That duty has been removed whilst still retaining the rights of property that the baron had.

With every right comes a responsibility. The two cannot be separated. If you want the right not to be killed the contract is you will not kill others. We have the situation that you can have rights without responsibilities. The solution is to reinstate the responsibilities. So if you want wealth you will have a whole lot of duties that go with it. If you are unwilling to accept the responsibilities then the court removes your wealth for defaulting on the deal.

[ArchonAlarion]

Thod, you seem to agree with me at times:

"If you want the right not to be killed the contract is you will not kill others."

I totally concur. In terms of wealth, the time and labor you spend in making your wealth is what makes it your own.

"Now the wealthy attempt to, and have managed to define the law to protect their own interests. The law does not consider the interests of both parties."

That's why coerced mandates (laws) are wrong. Again I agree.

If a baron has property rights, but doesn't rule and coerce, than he isn't a ruler. He can ask you to work for him, but you don't have to. The beauty of laissez-faire capitalism is that if you don't want to work for the owner of a business than you don't have to. You can make your own business or join another business. You can live in a voluntary commune too. You can share and choose when you work. No one is forcing you to work, or to own a business, or to work for a business. The free market is voluntary.

[thod]

I totally concur. In terms of wealth, the time and labor you spend in making your wealth is what makes it your own.

Nope the assent of other men is what makes it your own. Other than that you only retain ownership by threats of violence. If someone enters "your land" you use threats or force to remove them. If you have the right to fire all the workers you have responsibilities to them too. You cannot become a billionaire and then do as you please. If ownership implies rights, such as the right to fire workers or evict tenants then what are the responsibilities that go with it? How you acquired that right, by time, labor, smarts or theft, is not the issue.

[cda]

workers who may have invested the better part of their lives and of their hopes in a job have no proprietary right to that job

As it should be. A company purchases labor from people and its the obligation of the workers to provide value to the company. The role of the company is to organize human capital with other inputs to provide a value to the consumer. What is the problem with this? A worker who provides value to a company will be compensated accordingly, otherwise the worker would easily be hired by another firm that would pay a premium.

Human capital is the most dynamic asset where it has the ability, almost always through self determination to either appreciate or depreciate over time. Workers who develop and *update* their skills with time, are amongst the most valuable in society, others however who work the 9-5 job and focus on fantasy football and the likes are the ones to find themselves out of step with the economy. The glory of waged labor and unemployment is that it keeps society moving forward with very little administration (no trips to the gulag).

What most socialist fail to realize, is that there is no conflict between the worker and the capitalist. The both work hand in hand. The capitalist provides the system and resources for the worker to develop and produce. In exchange the worker provides the vital human capital element to produce. What socialists need to realize is that the true antagonism in the economy is between the capitalist and the consumer (which we are all consumers). While the capitalist and consumer conflict and fight each other, a natural compromise develops and then *poof* we have price theory!

[Mountain Lion]

Human capital is the most dynamic asset where it has the ability, almost always through self determination to either appreciate or depreciate over time. Workers who develop and *update* their skills with time, are amongst the most valuable in society, others however who work the 9-5 job and focus on fantasy football and the likes are the ones to find themselves out of step with the economy.
Kind of hard being dynamic if you are working from paycheck to paycheck and can barely make it back home after being abused like an animal or even worse treated like an automaton, prevented from receiving quality education from the very childhood, without accessible quality health care, brainwashed by popular media and ideologies. 9 to 5 job? You don't know much about the real world, do you? More than half of the labour force is engaged in shift work and a third of that is part-time work. Which means a large portion of working class people (and that's in the so called "developed world) is covering night shift, often 12 hours a day at minimum wage or close, without extra pay and any benefits and not on one but several jobs 6-7 days a week.

The glory of waged labor and unemployment is that it keeps society moving forward with very little administration (no trips to the gulag).

Moving forward? Where is that...under the tyranny of the powerful minority (in this day and age, that would be corporate officers and their middle class henchmen) moving forward throughout human history meant more conflict, more poverty, more exploitation, more suffering.


What most socialist fail to realize, is that there is no conflict between the worker and the capitalist.
Of course, there is a conflict. Though, most workers are too naive to realize that. But then they did not have the luxury of studying business administration.


They both work hand in hand.
Interdependent to some degree, perhaps. Equal? No.


The capitalist provides the system and resources for the worker to develop and produce.
How do they acquire those systems and resources, I wonder... magically, is it? Or are you going to cite some rags to riches anecdote? Well, do that and I will find you more than one story showing that in most cases dedication and hard work mean nothing if you or your parents were not willing to exploit, lie, cheat and use violence.

In exchange the worker provides the vital human capital element to produce.
They do. In exchange for hope... and lies.

What socialists need to realize is that the true antagonism in the economy is between the capitalist and the consumer (which we are all consumers).
First of all, workers are consumers. Second, you don't know much socialism it seems, even though you refer to it quite often. But that could be rectified: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The free market is voluntary.
Haha... is that so? That would be news to people in Iraq and the million civilian casualties there.



If there is no private property than you can't own yourself. Your own body becomes communal property. If you don't own yourself than how can you legitimately protect yourself from another's aggressions. Aren't they just manipulating common property, which in your eyes is their right?

If there is no private property, only communal property, than everyone owns your body, life, beliefs, and thoughts.
A human body is not a property, unless it is commodified and treated as such... like in slavery and in capitalism.

[ArchonAlarion]

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with voluntary or the freemarket. Tha state isn't voluntary and so anything to do with the sate is not on freemarket principles. Please separate me from the republican party. Giving your friend an apple in exchange for an orange is trade. War is not free trade it is coercive.

You have no idea how the freemarket works. If workers are so badly treated at a business than they can leave. If there were somehow no other businesses that were good, than they could pool their money and make their own business. Companies do not want trained employees to quit. Training costs money. Businesses therefore compete with each other to have the best wages and benefits for employees. If a business has no employees than it can't make money.

In slavery, people are involuntarily forced to obey their rulers, like in communism and socialism. People are forced to pay taxes whether they want to or not. If they don't than they will be imprisoned.

In capitalism human bodies aren't treated as commodities, human labor is. The freemarket is the OPPOSITE of slavery. Because it is voluntary. No one is forcing you to do anything. Self defense is the only acceptable form of violence. That's why communists and dictators hate it so much!

If there is no private property than you can't own yourself. Your own body becomes communal property. If you don't own yourself than how can you legitimately protect yourself from another's aggressions. Aren't they just manipulating common property, which in your eyes is their right?

If there is no private property, only communal property, than everyone owns your body, life, beliefs, and thoughts.

[Mountain Lion]

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with voluntary or the freemarket. Tha state isn't voluntary and so anything to do with the sate is not on freemarket principles. Please separate me from the republican party. Giving your friend an apple in exchange for an orange is trade. War is not free trade it is coercive.
Indeed. Capitalism can only exist if the state has the capacity to enforce the property laws with violence or create new markets and expropriate new resources. In US, politicians serve the interest of the capitalists and are capitalists themselves.



You have no idea how the freemarket works.
There is no such thing as free market in this world, but I am ware of the theories behind it. Free market is economically inefficient, but it is prefferable to capitalism.

If workers are so badly treated at a business than they can leave. If there were somehow no other businesses that were good, than they could pool their money and make their own business.
In a fantasy world, maybe. Not under capitalism.

Companies do not want trained employees to quit. Training costs money. Businesses therefore compete with each other to have the best wages and benefits for employees. If a business has no employees than it can't make money.

Ever heard of outsourcing? In every business the management team is trained, but it's very small in comparison to the labour force.




In slavery, people are involuntarily forced to obey their rulers, like in communism and socialism. People are forced to pay taxes whether they want to or not. If they don't than they will be imprisoned.

Socialism and communism can only exist in a democratic society where people choose to pay taxes, to pool their resources to achieve economic efficiency instead of competing with each other. You don't know much about socialism and communism, evidently.



In capitalism human bodies aren't treated as commodities, human labor is. The freemarket is the OPPOSITE of slavery. Because it is voluntary. No one is forcing you to do anything. Self defense is the only acceptable form of violence. That's why communists and dictators hate it so much!

Again, free market is a fantasy just like socialism and a democracy are. Capitalism is based on violence and coercion, it's totalitarian. There is nothing voluntary about it. It commodifies everything and everyone... MAXIM, pornography...



If there is no private property than you can't own yourself. Your own body becomes communal property. If you don't own yourself than how can you legitimately protect yourself from another's aggressions. Aren't they just manipulating common property, which in your eyes is their right

Who taught you that?

If there is no private property, only communal property, than everyone owns your body, life, beliefs, and thoughts.
Again, that's a ridiculous assumption.

[Theodoric]

If there is no private property than you can't own yourself. Your own body becomes communal property. If you don't own yourself than how can you legitimately protect yourself from another's aggressions. Aren't they just manipulating common property, which in your eyes is their right?

If there is no private property, only communal property, than everyone owns your body, life, beliefs, and thoughts.

Go read 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley. I'm starting to see how the issues raised in this book are truly legitimate and to some degree are starting to surface.

There are several issues with Trudeau's argument for ending personal property rights to foster democracy. How will such a system actually work? Without personal property or gain, there is little incentive to innovate, compete, or even work since no matter what you do or more importantly, how well you do it, the outcome will remain the same. All evidence points to that this will lead to economic stagnation. Things will be more fair but the trade off is that they will become unjust. Here we will have a value judgment. Those that are more interested in everything being fair will wish to end property rights. Those that wish for justice will advocate stronger property rights. Granted, people will argue mainly from their current socio-economic perspectives since the majority has a tendency to quickly change their views should their situation change.

Is democracy even a form of government that we would actually want? Most Western nations, while advocating the lofty ideals of democracy, are in fact more akin to Constitutional Republics. In a true democracy everyone gets a say in the policies that are created by the government. Here, we have a problem. Those that do not understand the basic fundamental underpinnings of issues will be able to dictate how policies pertaining to them are to be implemented. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to make decisions and form ideas based upon feelings and whim rather than rationality and evidence. Another issue with democracy is that it is based solely upon majority rule. Unless the majority is receptive and tolerant of any minority whether they be racial, social, religious, or otherwise there will be greater strains between various groups.

Lastly, ending personal property rights, or any rights for that matter, is more of a fascist or socialist ideal rather than a democratic one. Democracy is based upon individual rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and yes, freedom to own property. Removing any of these freedoms actually erodes the ideals of democracy and more importantly limits people's freedoms.

* Interesting side topic the word democracy comes from the Greek roots demos, meaning "the mob, the many" and kratos, "rule". So loosely translated it means "mob rule". I personally would not want economic policy dictated by housewives that watch Opera or military power being controlled by Monday night football fans.

** Secondary side topic. Pierre Trudeau is more known for his failed economic policies in Canada while he was prime minister which led to a worsening economy and burgeoning national debt.

[ArchonAlarion]

No, frankly it's not a ridiculous assumption, it just doesn't sit well with your perfect communists world. I can sit here all day arguing for the free-market, but I realize that you've been entrenched in communist rhetoric. I will not change your mind, so I hope you can do some research on market anarchism.

I swear this is not a cop out. I'm being overwhelmed trying to argue alone. You have your socialist buddies here, but no anarchists are coming to help lighten the load for me. I'm getting tired of repeating myself to 4 different people and it's starting to make me look vague and annoying. Even with in depth free-market facts I doubt I'd change your mind anyways. You will have to learn on your own or meet a market anarchist outside of the internet.

*lol Theodoric

[Mountain Lion]

There are several issues with Trudeau's argument for ending personal property rights to foster democracy. How will such a system actually work?
It's not about ending personal property rights but redefining the notion and realizing the concept of common industries, goods and services.


Without personal property or gain, there is little incentive to innovate, compete, or even work since no matter what you do or more importantly, how well you do it, the outcome will remain the same. All evidence points to that this will lead to economic stagnation.
Show me that evidence, please... but as I've mentioned already, none wants the property rights abolished.


Is democracy even a form of government that we would actually want? Most Western nations, while advocating the lofty ideals of democracy, are in fact more akin to Constitutional Republics. In a true democracy everyone gets a say in the policies that are created by the government.
Before we get to that, a democratically elected government would be a good start.



Here, we have a problem. Those that do not understand the basic fundamental underpinnings of issues will be able to dictate how policies pertaining to them are to be implemented. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to make decisions and form ideas based upon feelings and whim rather than rationality and evidence.
Oh, really? Perhaps, most people simply lack necessary education.


Another issue with democracy is that it is based solely upon majority rule. Unless the majority is receptive and tolerant other any minority whether they be racial, social, religious, or otherwise there will be greater strains between various groups.
That's why there are civil and human rights. Trudeau argues about the addition of economic rights and in such democracy economic majority makes the laws.




Lastly, ending personal property rights, or any rights for that matter, is more of a fascist or socialist ideal rather than a democratic one. Democracy is based upon individual rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and yes, freedom to own property. Removing any of these freedoms actually erodes the ideals of democracy and more importantly limits people's freedoms.

Again, socialist idea is not the end of property rights but the establishment of communal services and industries.



* Interesting side topic the word democracy comes from the Greek roots demos, meaning "the mob, the many" and kratos, "rule". So loosely translated it means "mob rule". I personally would not want economic policy dictated by housewives that watch Opera or military power being controlled by Monday night football fans.

Just because people lack insight, doesn't make it right for them to be subjugated to the rule of violent narcissists. Create a system that will allow them to gain that insight, obtain good education and teach them to stop wasting their time.


** Secondary side topic. Pierre Trudeau is more known for his failed economic policies in Canada while he was prime minister which led to a worsening economy and burgeoning national debt.
Pierre Trudeau is primarily know for his consitutional and cultural legacies as well as inacting war measures act in response to terrorism from Quebect separatists. His economic policies did not leave Canada any more economic problems than experienced by the rest of the world at the time... :suspicious: and much less than US. He was far from perfect, but a great man.


No, frankly it's not a ridiculous assumption, it just doesn't sit well with your perfect communists world. I can sit here all day arguing for the free-market, but I realize that you've been entrenched in communist rhetoric. I will not change your mind, so I hope you can do some research on market anarchism.


I swear this is not a cop out. I'm being overwhelmed trying to argue alone. You have your socialist buddies here, but no anarchists are coming to help lighten the load for me. I'm getting tired of repeating myself to 4 different people and it's starting to make me look vague and annoying. Even with in depth free-market facts I doubt I'd change your mind anyways. You will have to learn on your own or meet a market anarchist outside of the internet.

*lol Theodoric

Market anarchism is not viable. Trade has to be regulated by laws. Nor it is economically efficient. Centralizing economic production to the degree that is environmentally friendly while decentralizing political power to make laws is the optimal solution.

[Theodoric]

It's not about ending personal property rights but redefining the notion and realizing the concept of common industries, goods and services.

From your first post:

"Economic reform is impossible so long as legislators, lawyers and business men cling to economic concepts which were conceived for another age. The liberal idea of property helped to emancipate the bourgeoisie but it is now hampering the match toward democracy."

Here Trudeau states simply that the idea of property is making democracy difficult if not impossible. Either he wishes to abolish property rights or he wants to redefine them. In either case, property will be redistributed and consequently property rights will be violated.




Without personal property or gain, there is little incentive to innovate, compete, or even work since no matter what you do or more importantly, how well you do it, the outcome will remain the same. All evidence points to that this will lead to economic stagnation.

Show me that evidence, please... but as I've mentioned already, none wants the property rights abolished.

When the Bolsheviks took over Russia 2 million people fled the country. Many were wealthy landowners, intellectuals, and people that were highly skilled. They saw this new government basically exploiting their hard work to benefit the less fortunate. Eventually due to the inability to compete because of loss of skilled workers along with the lack of desire to compete from the rest of the workforce the former USSR collapsed. The tangle of bureaucracies that inefficiently and ineffectively managed the state controlled industries which created massive overhead did not help either.

China was headed for the same economic disaster as the USSR until the 90s when they started adopting more capitalist principals. Allowing free trade, entrepreneurship, and individuals to start owning and competing in what were traditionally state owned industries has led to increased freedoms and a burgeoning middle class. This has now forced the Chinese government to become less restrictive than it has in the past and start to address the many human rights abuses that have occured in the past. With the death of socialist ideals and increasing personal property for the Chinese has done more to promote democracy, rather than the opposite of what Trudeau is proposing.


Before we get to that, a democratically elected government would be a good start.

If that were possible. Election proceedings are rigged in many developing countries (Kenya, Venezuela), the media grossly misrepresents facts (Obama's middle name is Hussein, he MUST be a terrorist), and the majority of the people don't bother to participate leaving fringe groups to decide who is elected.


Oh, really? Perhaps, most people simply lack necessary education.


A lofty ideal. It might be possible in the US in the near future. More and more people are becoming college educated and may soon start being a majority. However, I'm sure these people will be more interested in looking out for their own self interests rather than making things 'fair' for poorer people by increasing taxes. This is not to say people are selfish, it is merely a fact of reality.


Again, socialist idea is not the end of property rights but the establishment of communal services and industries.


"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. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production"

Meaning if I own an industry the government steps in, takes it from me, and I lose what I have worked for and what I built myself. That is in effect, violating my right to own property.


Just because people lack insight, doesn't make it right for them to be subjugated to the rule of violent narcissists. Create a system that will allow them to gain that insight, obtain good education and teach them to stop wasting their time.

How would you propose that? Make college free so that we can start enjoying the same lackluster performance and dropout rates of our public schools? Again, here we would see a lack of competition. It would no longer mean anything if you went to Harvard of if you went to a rundown community college. It would all mean the same thing because all colleges would start being the same due to the fact that there is no emphasis or incentive to compete. We would start to see an even bigger drift toward the lowest common denominator and mediocrity. Couple this with people's insatiable appetite for distraction and we start to see the real issues. Playing video games and drinking is honestly, a lot more fun than going to classes and attending lectures.


Market anarchism is not viable. Trade has to be regulated by laws. Nor it is economically efficient. Centralizing economic production to the degree that is environmentally friendly while decentralizing political power to make laws is the optimal solution.

I never advocated market anarchism. What I am purely against is socialist ideals of community and unjustly redistributing wealth and property to benefit those that did not work to produce it.

A free market, where prices are set by consumers and producers and not coerced by third party entities, with little government regulation unless it is absolutely necessary is what I advocate. It might not be a perfect solution, but try to come up with one that is perfect and makes everyone happy.

[Mountain Lion]

In either case, property will be redistributed and consequently property rights will be violated.
The old property rights, yes.



When the Bolsheviks took over Russia 2 million people fled the country. Many were wealthy landowners, intellectuals, and people that were highly skilled. They saw this new government basically exploiting their hard work to benefit the less fortunate. Eventually due to the inability to compete because of loss of skilled workers along with the lack of desire to compete from the rest of the workforce the former USSR collapsed. The tangle of bureaucracies that inefficiently and ineffectively managed the state controlled industries which created massive overhead did not help either.

China was headed for the same economic disaster as the USSR until the 90s when they started adopting more capitalist principals. Allowing free trade, entrepreneurship, and individuals to start owning and competing in what were traditionally state owned industries has led to increased freedoms and a burgeoning middle class. This has now forced the Chinese government to become less restrictive than it has in the past and start to address the many human rights abuses that have occured in the past. With the death of socialist ideals and increasing personal property for the Chinese has done more to promote democracy, rather than the opposite of what Trudeau is proposing.

Your statement indicates lack of familiarity with the historical realities in Russia and China in the 20th century. The most simple response I can offer you is that neither Russia nor China were ever socialist or communist. Their economic stagnation was the result of their military competition with the west not lack of talent or economic potential.

If that were possible. Election proceedings are rigged in many developing countries (Kenya, Venezuela), the media grossly misrepresents facts (Obama's middle name is Hussein, he MUST be a terrorist), and the majority of the people don't bother to participate leaving fringe groups to decide who is elected.
Not only that, the US electoral system itself is undemocratic. Just as it is in most "democratic" countries


A lofty ideal. It might be possible in the US in the near future. More and more people are becoming college educated and may soon start being a majority. However, I'm sure these people will be more interested in looking out for their own self interests rather than making things 'fair' for poorer people by increasing taxes. This is not to say people are selfish, it is merely a fact of reality.
There is nothing wrong with being self-interested and trying to survive. The problem arises when one is willing to put one's desires ahead of everyone else's needs and fails to see how for everyone involved co-operation is a much more efficient choice than competition.


Meaning if I own an industry the government steps in, takes it from me, and I lose what I have worked for and what I built myself. That is in effect, violating my right to own property.
Meaning, you obtained your property through violence and now exploit people to benefit yourself and the people took away your property and utilize it to benefit everyone in the community.



How would you propose that? Make college free so that we can start enjoying the same lackluster performance and dropout rates of our public schools? Again, here we would see a lack of competition. It would no longer mean anything if you went to Harvard of if you went to a rundown community college. It would all mean the same thing because all colleges would start being the same due to the fact that there is no emphasis or incentive to compete. We would start to see an even bigger drift toward the lowest common denominator and mediocrity. Couple this with people's insatiable appetite for distraction and we start to see the real issues. Playing video games and drinking is honestly, a lot more fun than going to classes and attending lectures.

Finland... Quality education system means that people are not simply given access to knowledge, but are also inspired, motivated and even pushed to become the best they can be.

I never advocated market anarchism.
I was responding to another post.

[Theodoric]

The old property rights, yes.

So you are maintaining the fact that existing property rights will be abolished.


Your statement indicates lack of familiarity with the historical realities in Russia and China in the 20th century. The most simple response I can offer you is that neither Russia nor China were ever socialist or communist. Their economic stagnation was the result of their military competition with the west not lack of talent or economic potential.


Where do you get your information? Are you one of those revisionist historians? In both cases the state controlled all industry. In both cases the state controlled all media. In both cases the state compensated people based upon need, not work performance. These are the qualities that defines what is a socialist state. Lastly, in both cases they were headed by the Communist Party at one time.


Not only that, the US electoral system itself is undemocratic. Just as it is in most "democratic" countries


True. To be more truly democratic delegates and electorates should be abolished along with campaign financing. But none of the current parties in power are willing to concede what has allowed them to stay in power virtually unopposed by outside influence.


Meaning, you obtained your property through violence and now exploit people to benefit yourself and the people took away your property and utilize it to benefit everyone in the community.


So, using money I earned, investment capital that I was able to obtain, and / or grants that I was given in good faith for development purposes, to purchase property, develop it, and turn a profit, is an act of violence? If I owned a company, took out loans to grow it, worked hard to build it up, took all the risks, I should then evenly distribute all the profit to each person working for the company regardless of what the have done for it no matter how much time, effort, and money they put into building it up? It might be fair yes, but it is surely unjust.


Finland... Quality education system means that people are not simply given access to knowledge, but are also inspired, motivated and even pushed to become the best they can be.


Finland is also a highly industrialized free market society. The World Economic Forum has declared Finland to be the most competitive country in the world for three consecutive years (2003–2005) and four times since 2002. In recent years there has been national focus on innovation and research and development, with special emphasis on information technology.

Finland is one of the few European countries that understands that competition, free trade, and little to no government intervention into industries does nothing but improve the quality of life for its citizens. Then again, this lesson was probably learned the hard way after the economic overheating in the late 80s fueled by massive debt and worldwide depressed markets leading to a severe depression where only 20% of the population was employed. This is probably also why the education system is as good as it is in Finland. After the depression many realized that the only way to ensure economic independence is to have a good education, rather than in America where the education system is taken for granted.





Theodoric added to this post, 3 minutes and 52 seconds later...

*lol Theodoric

Not sure what you mean by this, but at least I got a laugh out of someone this time rather than uninformed responses or the occasional 'huh?'

[blueback]

Socialism and communism can only exist in a democratic society

Capitalism is based on violence and coercion, it's totalitarian.


Wow. Apparently the dictionary is wrong.

Socialism: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
Communism: a theory advocating elimination of private property
Democracy: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods
Totalitarian: of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures

You should start your own dictionary. You could call it "I don't know basic economic or political theory".





blueback added to this post, 9 minutes and 35 seconds later...


Show me that evidence, please... but as I've mentioned already, none wants the property rights abolished.


Okay. Imagine you're working at a job. Lets say you are fitting the plastic cover onto a pair of electric hair clippers (I just watch how it's made on the discovery channel. I swear that show is like crack). Now, you have a pretty simple job. All you do is inspect the parts and put them together. Easy.

Now, in example 1, we're going to pretend you live in a capitalist economy. You have to do your job well or you will be fired and replaced with someone who will do your job well. . .or you will be payed a lot less. You are going to work hard and well because you want to eat. You know that if you don't get paid you won't have money to buy food and then you will starve. So you work hard because you like living and find the idea of starving to death to be mildly unpleasant.

In example 2 we are going to pretend you live in a socialist/communist economy. You don't have to do your job well. You can, but it doesn't really matter. The company can't fire you because the law says you need the job. They can't pay you less for doing a bad job because the law says you need the money. Even if you didn't have any money you know that the state will provide you with enough food to live on because they have to, you need it.

Can you see how in example 1 you work hard and contribute to the GNP of the country while in example 2 you don't? Example 1 leads to a better standard of living for everyone while example 2 leads to stagnation, starvation, and. . .oh yeah, the break down of the Soviet Union. America prospered, Russia died. Capitalism wins.





blueback added to this post, 12 minutes and 21 seconds later...


The old property rights, yes.


So what are the new property rights? Do they involve the right to own things you never produced? Do they involve the right to consume things you haven't earned?


The most simple response I can offer you is that neither Russia nor China were ever socialist or communist.


Well, I probably don't understand the social realities of China or Russia either, but my totally uninformed guess is that they would disagree with you. I mean, they do (or did) refer to themselves as communist Russia and communist China.


Not only that, the US electoral system itself is undemocratic. Just as it is in most "democratic" countries


Well, you don't understand the social realities of America. Try taking a basic class in Amercian political history. You will find that the founding fathers specifically debated whether or not to build a direct democracy or a republic. They settled on a republic because it is too easy for "factions" to take over a direct democracy. They specifically constructed the system to protect the rights of the minority as well as the rights of the majority.


co-operation is a much more efficient choice than competition.


Well, it didn't work for Russia and the opposite worked for America.

Everything in the world, with the exception of base elements, was created through competition. Plants, animals, insects, humans. . .everything. It is enlightened self-interest that has produced every great invention.

That is why personal property protection is so important to capitalism. If you give someone the right to get rich off of their own hard work and creativity then you will get a lot of hard working, creative people. If you give everyone enough to live on just because they are alive you will get a lot of unmotivated lazy loafers.


Meaning, you obtained your property through violence and now exploit people to benefit yourself and the people took away your property and utilize it to benefit everyone in the community.


This is a perfect example of why socialism doesn't work. Socialists can't build anything. They can only take away what someone else has built. If you tell all your hard working, talented people that they are slaves to all the lazy, talentless people they will stop working hard.

Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

[thod]

None of the European socialist parties eliminate private property. They ensure that essential services are provide by the state. From the perspective of the poor man it is better to have an inefficiently provided service than non at all. Nobody cares if the rich man drives a Ferrari, it is when private property stops another man from obtaining sufficient food that problems arise. Thus you have state provided essential services with everything else provided by open markets.

This is a perfect example of why socialism doesn't work. Yet Europeans are richer, are happier, and have better services than Americans. Seems to work well enough. All in a mined out, deforested continent. The resources spent on fighting each other in the market can be used to do the job instead. I don't need doctors spending cash on advertising and marketing campaigns, I want him spending that cash on doing his job.

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

[blueback]

Yet Europeans are richer, are happier, and have better services than Americans.

They also have smaller populations.
USA (300 mil)

The 5 happiest countries according to the Happiness Foundation
8,0 Denmark (5 mil)
8,0 Malta (400 K)
8,0 Switzerland (8 mil)
7,8 Iceland (300 K)
7,8 Ireland (4 mil)

America strongly embraces democracy and capitalism, which means it takes more risks than many other countries, especially of comparable area and population. That means that its fortunes will rise and fall over time because the culture accepts the possibility of grand failure as necessary for grand success. For example, your statement might be defensible at the moment, but it would have been laughably absurd at nearly any other point in the last century. America has been coasting on its success and has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle with debt, both personal and international. However, its still got plenty of room to maneuver.

[Lights]

Cooperation and competition are both necessary for an economy to survive. End of story.

[Theodoric]

Information from Wikipedia.

They also have smaller populations.
USA (300 mil)

The 5 happiest countries according to the Happiness Foundation
8,0 Denmark (5 mil)


Currently suffering from 'brain drain'. Well educated Danes are currently leaving Denmark for other countries. Why? Socialist programs have increased taxes to nearly 63% for some people, many of which are the best trained and most talented. This has had an adverse effect on the economy and increasing national debt.


8,0 Malta (400 K)


Malta is a Republic with few socialist programs. The current political force in power is the Nationalist Party which has instituted many capitalist economic reforms. Investment in infrastructure since 1987 has stimulated an upswing in Malta's tourism economic fortunes along with the privatization of state controlled firms and market liberalization leading to a more free and open market.


8,0 Switzerland (8 mil)


Switzerland has a stable modern mixed market economy, with a nominal per capita GDP that is higher than those of the larger western European economies, the United States, and Japan ranking 6th behind Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar, Iceland and Ireland. If adjusted for purchasing power parity it ranks 5th. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report currently ranks Switzerland's economy as the most competitive in the world. Switzerland is also a direct democracy, officially and confederation.


7,8 Iceland (300 K)


Until the 20th century, it was probably the poorest country in Western Europe. The fast economic growth that it has experienced in the last decades is only recently allowing for upgrading of infrastructure such as transportation.
The government coalition plans to continue its generally neo-liberal policies of reducing the budget and current account deficits, limiting foreign borrowing, containing inflation, revising agricultural and fishing policies, diversifying the economy, and privatizing state-owned industries.


7,8 Ireland (4 mil)


This situation changed dramatically in the mid 1990s as the result of a second, more prodigious, economic boom, known as the "Celtic Tiger" (as in "tiger economy"). This was led by a surge in inward investment in high end industries in services, and lower taxation levels. From 2002, this was augmented by low interest rates set by the European Central Bank which encourage private sector consumption. In July 2006, a survey undertaken by Bank of Ireland Private Banking showed that, of the top 8 leading OECD nations, the Republic of Ireland was ranked the second wealthiest per capita country in the world, showing an average wealth per head of nearly €150,000 (~ $190,000).[70] This is behind Japan, and ahead of other countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, Italy, France, Germany and Spain.

In each of these countries (except Denmark, which was nice but now is declining rapidly) we see one underlying principal. Privatization of industries, lower taxation, and opening up markets has only increased economic freedom and personal wealth.

So much for the happy socialist utopia Europe that many US 'liberals' like to imagine.

[blueback]

Hooray for people who do research!