[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eric_b', 'A')nother topic that starts off well, then ends up in the shitter.

Congratulations tards.

[MyOtherID]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'J')aws, your arguments are asinine, so I'll forego the pleasure of duelling with an unarmed opponent. Bye.

[CARVER]

I don't think any of us would like to be told what to do and what not to do. I think we would rather just decide for ourselves. Will we do what we think is best for us? Yes probably. But that does not prevent us from being wrong.

Let's say we would not tax fuel, so we would probably be less inclined to opt for a more fuel efficient vehicle. That way we would use more fuel and so we rush to a period of scarcity of fuel. That scarcity would increase poverty.

We could try to teach people to be more efficient and not waste so much, and show them it is for their own good. I think this would be preferred. However it does not guarantee success, people could ignore it and opt for a wasteful lifestyle.

When they get into trouble because of that we can say: "We told you so!", but that doesn't change the situation. If they can't get what they need, they will probably be inclined to steal it from those who invested/saved more wisely. So the people who made better decisions still suffer from the poor decisions of others. They will need to put in extra effort to protect their property to prevent it from being stolen and damaged by them. That's something we probably want to try to prevent.

There is a reason why we don't allow kids to do all the things that adults are allowed to do. It would most likely give bad results, for them as well as for others. That is something they might not understand (yet). Usually we apply these rules on something that can be easily measured/checked, like age. That is usually a bit inaccurate to decide whether a person is capable of handling certain responsibilities, but to be more accurate it would become more inefficient, more costly to implement. So there is a tradeoff. The result is that some are unnecessarily restrained in their actions, or required to perform additional actions to prove that they are living by the rules.

But who are we to decide to (partially) sacrifice the freedoms of the individual for the benefit of the majority? Basically it is just a majority deciding on the rules. Everyone that breaks the rules will be punished in some way by that majority or its representatives. But isn't this the same as with property rights? Everyone that breaks the rules will be punished in some way by that majority or its representatives. The rules about property rights are forced on someone as well. It's not a law of physics. It's law imposed by man. And it is imposed for a reason, the majority thinks it will give better results for themselves.

So the majority supports a group of representatives (government) and let them get away with theft and the use of force against people, including themselves, up to a point. The government tries to change the behavior of individuals/groups where they deem it necessary.

If all this is done properly then everyone could be better off, allthough you can't say for sure because one does not know exactly what would have happened otherwise. But since power corrupts, it can also go terribly wrong. Any group of people can do whatever they like as long as they get enough support and not too much resistance. A government can't attack people if those people of whom the army or the police consist decide not to do so. Or the citizens could resist. However with a policy of: 'You're either with us, or against us' people might be inclined to join the stronger side. That doesn't only happen with governments, it happens in gangs, mafia, etc. The fear of becoming a victim yourself might stop you from not supporting, or resisting them. They can play into that by making you scared and letting you know that they will go after those who 'betray' them first. If there would not be a government, there might be some other group to take its place of power. Maybe gangs, maybe corporations. All you have to do is convince enough people that it is in their best interest to do what you say. But if you do not treat them well, then at some point they will likely revolt. You could have many small security firms protecting small cities/communities. But those would not be able to defend against much larger organisations with that kind of power.

You need to keep the people happy, because losers become spoilers. If people see others doing much better then they are, they feel like losers, not all people but some are very sensitive to that. And that's why I think you don't want to keep people ignorant, because eventually the ignorant become losers. No system will work well when there are lots of ignorant people going around messing things up without realising it. Whatever system we use, at least teach the people how it works.

[Chaparral]

Never let human nature get in the way of a good ideology.

As much as I like the world of John Galt I'm afraid Carver has it right WRT keeping everyone happy. So long as jealousy and envy are hardwired into our brains our economic systems will have to take that into account.

The question then becomes one of finding that line that maximizes individual freedom and collective well-being. I envision almost as a socioleconomic derivitave equation. d[sub]individual[/sub]/d[sub]collective[/sub]=d[sub]where we need to be[/sub].

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'L')isten dumbo, I don't need to argue with your "Economics of Greed 101" theorizing because most civilized countries in the world have already implemented the system I favor.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', '
')But who are we to decide to (partially) sacrifice the freedoms of the individual for the benefit of the majority? Basically it is just a majority deciding on the rules. Everyone that breaks the rules will be punished in some way by that majority or its representatives. But isn't this the same as with property rights? Everyone that breaks the rules will be punished in some way by that majority or its representatives.

The rules about property rights are forced on someone as well. It's not a law of physics. It's law imposed by man. And it is imposed for a reason, the majority thinks it will give better results for themselves.

[MyOtherID]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'H')ow many violent revolutions has Switzerland had?

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'A')nd BTW, Swiss has only had peace for about 150 years. Before that it was always at war internally. Wiki on Switzerland: "The violent conflict between both sides was never-ending" (the conflicts were mainly between "Republicans" who were in favour of a centralised government, and "Federalists", as well as Protestants and Catholics.)

[MyOtherID]

That's right, Jaws, don't defend the US health system, because you know you'd lose on that one.

Hey, with a good health system, maybe you could've gotten your teeth fixed properly, huh?

[jaws]

I've never defended the U.S. health system because it's completely corrupt and completely unjust. It has been rigged by the government to make it unnaffordable to the poor. In fact I have attacked it and pointed this out in just this thread, as well as others. For some reason you have ignored it.

The U.S. is not a free country. Using the U.S. as some kind of symbol for the free market just makes you look like a fool.

[MyOtherID]

I see. So in conclusion you're an impractical idealist with lots of esoteric and unworkable notions of "freedom" and how it will solve all our ills. How quaint! Enjoy your mental masturbation then.

[jaws]

I may be an idealist, but at least I stand up for the little guy.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'B')ut the rules about property rights are universal, egalitarian laws.

[Odin]

Jaws, you are using the definition of totalitarian, Marxist-Leninist, centrally planned socialism for all branches of socialism (I am a non-Marxist socialist who has no problem with private property or the Market), in other words, you are regugitating right-wing propaganda and ignorant layman misconceptions about socialism. the only requirements for socialism is that the means of production, except for small "Ma & Pa" businesses, be in the hands of employees (co-ops) and/or the government; and that there are no private investors. Some forms of socialism are perfectly compatible with the market and with property rights.

The free market-worshiping Neo-classicists like Jaws are just as loony as the Marxists IMO, both are like religious fundimentalists. There is no such thing as a truely free market, such an institution would self-distruct, you would end up with a market regulated by Big Business for Big Business's benefit, as opposed to regulation by the government for the benefit of consumers and labor.

[kabu]

Fever’s over! Ruined ¾ of my holiday!

Eric, spare us. This is but a thread on a message board. It’s not like we hijacked a compilation of essays that were on the verge of being published. You’re being too sentimental.

Speaking of being sentimental, Jaws, my thanks to you for catalyzing the bettering of my understanding of socialism and capitalism, forcing me to flesh out what once contently remained superficial, at best. When you asked ID what real socialism is, I admit, I felt the need to google it- now I feel like studying economics. Formally, even… sort of… well, not really ($$$).

Anyhow, because socialism and capitalism are intertwined in virtually every society, it’s negligent to causally blame any form of depravation on one system or another, which is why I protested to your causally blaming Africa’s problems all on socialism (food drops, although, seem socialist, and they’re ruinous because they promote mere-dependency rather than self-sufficiency or even interdependency). That’s all I meant to say, but now we’re debating the merits of pure socialisms vs. pure capitalism, Eric’s lost his cool, Bill’s loosing hope, and now the moderates are intervening (and I agree with them too, but still wish to continue this debate; a good debate is one of the few things that hold my attention- it’s really the only way I can effectively learn about something).

I’m going to create subtitles for each subtopic, I think, just so that the readers who’ve so far managed to stand reading this thread can easily follow what we’re bickering about. I’ll also reorder everything so that premises within one subtopic that rest one another are underneath it that subtopic. Let me know if this makes things worse.


Whether or not basic needs are objective:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')It is impossible to know what people's needs are. They are, have always been and will always be individually subjective.

You can't even claim that "food" is an objective need, since some people will find some foods to be incomestible while others will find them to be delicacies.

If you want to "scientifically" determine people's needs, then you need to give someone the power to determine everyone else's needs. But since ethics requires that the rules apply for everyone, it must mean that everyone must have the power to determine everyone else's needs. That will be chaos. We can only ethically let people determine their own needs subjectively.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Odin', 'J')aws, you are using the definition of totalitarian, Marxist-Leninist, centrally planned socialism for all branches of socialism (I am a non-Marxist socialist who has no problem with private property or the Market), in other words, you are regugitating right-wing propaganda and ignorant layman misconceptions about socialism. the only requirements for socialism is that the means of production, except for small "Ma & Pa" businesses, be in the hands of employees (co-ops) and/or the government; and that there are no private investors. Some forms of socialism are perfectly compatible with the market and with property rights.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'S')am Walton once had a small, ma & pa business. He was very good at it, and now his business is the biggest in the world. It is still very good at what it does. If Sam Walton had been forbidden from expanding his business, the consumers would never have profited from his talents.
........
When Wal-Mart supports an increase in minimum wage, it's not because they have such a big heart. It's because it will kill off all the mom and pop businesses that compete with it and can't afford to pay high wages.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', '[')b]Whether or not basic needs are objective:
These are basic needs. These are the needs that a state that’s adopted a socialist economy must insure all people have.

Is it the case that a society collecting and redistributing scarce goods for the purpose of supporting everyone’s basic needs is not compatible with everyone pursuing their wants outside of this socialist market, in what you’d call a... grey market *checks dictionary*?

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'N')ow remind me how Standard Oil was formed, during the heyday of laissez faire.

[rogerhb]

In true capitalism:

1. are monopolies inevitable?

2. are cartels permitted?

3. are workers' unions permitted?