... Do you even read your own posts? I don't mean to be rude bro, but have you ever read anything basic about economics? Also, do you realize that wealth is created? It does not exist in finite amounts. The amount of (potential) wealth is limitless, the only finite aspect of wealth is the speed at which humans can create that wealth (which is a function of how quickly they can work, how long they are willing to work, and the demand for the work they are producing). Imposing morality onto an economic system doesn't work. It's like trying to impose morality onto gravity. It doesn't work. You can complain about gravity all you want. You can pass laws banning gravity from making fat people run slower than Usain Bolt. You might even get people to play along for a while. But ultimately your laws are useless and do no good. You can punish Usain Bolt for being fast, but when you're actually running races, that mofo is going to beat every person and even some horses. It might not make you feel all good and warm and fuzzy about yourself, but gooid warm fuzzies aren't always reality. Imposing morality on economic systems gets you Greece. It gets you Fannie and Freddie. It gets you the CRA and the housing collapse. And multi-multi-trillion dollar bailouts in the name of "fairness." Life isn't fair. Individuals may choose to restrict or modify their economic activity in certain ways due to moral conditions, but that is their free choice. Try imposing your solution on them and they'll just work around it. A few posts above Gooch mentioned hippies doing sustance farming on a commune. A similar example would be the Amish. They CHOOSE to engage in that particular form of activity. Under normal circumstances I'd use this sort of post to point out how flawed education is in the West, that we primarily teach liberal indoctrination and emotivism instead of clear rational thinking, but I'm going to bed instead.
Exactly communism and socialism are hopeless ideals. You just can't get people to all think the same way and co-operate. People are born selfish, thats why capitalism works the way is does. You can't make people care and to tax them effectively forcing them to spend money they earned on people they don't care about and who have never helped them in their lives, thats fucking tyranny. Environmentalism aswell. It's the environment over everything. No costs are to high when your doing green things!
So, does this seem a pretty dim outlook on life to anyone? that life just is going to suck balls for some people, nothing you can do about it? do you really think that a completely "unregulated market" will solve our problems? Just curious.
I do read my posts, but no offence taken man. I've read a bit on the intrawebs, but I've never really had the opportunity to formerly study it - we never even had an economics class in high school. So I just pick up the pieces and plod along, trying to figure it out for myself. To be blatantly honest, I'm not actually particularly interested or engaged by economics. I should be, but it's pretty dry stuff... Obviously you've studied this more than me, but I have my doubts as to whether ANYTHING can be inifinte in this context. We don't have inifinite resources, and resources of some form are what create wealth, whether they're literally resources (oil, ore, gold, plastic etc) or human resources. Interesting perspective - I guess it depends on how you view economics. In the capitalist system, economics is the study of trade, value, labour, supply and demand and so forth. It's very much encumbant upon rules, like the theory of gravity - rules that are quite isolated from our postured notions of morality. However, in a socialist system I'm inclined to think it's not quite as complex. Quite simply, the means of production exist purely to feed and provide for everyone. There's (in theory) no supply and demand, no profit, no eternal struggle between the producer and the worker - it's basically "This machine exists and I will make stuff with it which is then distributed to everyone equally." It's a different kind of economic system, with different objectives and such. Does this mean that we give up hope, cease to have a vision of a warm and fuzzy future? Do we say "Right now it's not practical, but let's think of solutions, let's think what obstacles stand in the way of this vision and what we need to work out before the vision is viable", or do we go "Meh, fuck it"? They make the choice based upon many factors that we take for granted, but the most important one is wealth/opportunity. Those hippies can voluntarily go and do their commune because they have enough money, enough stability, enough opportunity etc - they've got nothing to really worry about, the world is there for them to craft to suit their needs. There are many people throughout the world who would probably LOVE to have a nice little sustainable commune where they don't need anything from anyone and can all share as voluntary, consenting Communists or whatever. However, they're stuck working under a nasty pig capitalist boss for a shitty wage which they need to feed their hungry families etc. But I agree, I'm all for choice. My hypothetical libertarian socialist revolution would never, never ever be a mandatory thing to be thrust upon everyone whether the ideology sits right with them or not. It's my hope that your hypothetical libertarian capitalist revolution would hypothetically show us the same hypothetical courtesy
Not all. There would be less problems though than what socialism creates. Heres an idea. If you want to help those people who are suffering, dedicate YOUR LIFE to that. Free markets are about individual rights! Why do you want to force everyone to help people who don't help them and that they don't care about in the first place. When will it end? Will be be taxed to give money to thrid world nations because we need to make the entire world equal income? Then what? We all live in poverty.
um... Thats never possible on the supply side because there are always shortages, thus some things that are rare cost more. Not possible ever on the demand side unless you train people not to want things. People have limited needs and unlimited wants. Who makes the stuff and why? Because they feel good about it? If you want that to happen go do that. You can go cut down tree's and build houses for homeless people. Infact start an organization dedicated to helping people. See if you can get people to willingly give you their money. Also wealth is unlimited. You can always create $300 more of marijuana. Marijuana is wealth. You can trade it. Money has value just like Things have values.
Yeah, bit of a bad choice of words, but you know what I mean? There's far, far less factors because the entire concept is simplified - the product doesn't go through this big middle man system of profit, marketing etc before it gets to the consumer, it's produced and goes straight to the consumer. You rely too much people giving shit out of the goodness of their hearts man. Sure, I could go do that, anyone could, but if that was the case why hasn't it been done? Why do we still have homelessness? Under a socialist system, the problem of homelessness is forever solved. I don't think you can refute that - you might call it theft etc, but homelessness IS solved because a home is built for everyone etc. Under capitalism, it COULD be solved if people are generous enough, but then again it could not be too, and judging on the failure of capitalism to house the homeless right now I'd say odds are capitalism and 'generosity' (which I always felt is stifled under a philosophy that preaches 'greed is good') will never solve homelessness.
I don't rely on peoples generosity, I don't give a shit thats what you can't seem to understand. I am alive to keep me alive. Why should I have to do things to keep others alive? Fuck them, they have never helped me. Fuck most of society infact. I'll help my friends out but I'm not gonna help everyone, I'm not gonna let everyone ride on my hard fucking work. Fuck them. A socialist system like you described will never work. Why would people work if they can just not work and get payed the same equal income as everyone else? INCENTIVES MATTER
No, your system relies on peoples generosity, not you. Capitalism relies on generosity to make sure the hungry, crippled and insane are fed, the homeless are sheltered, the thirsty have water to drink etc. Under capitalism there's no garuntee they will be, it's only peoples charity and generosity that hypothetically ensures that they are tended to. And people like you, as I'm sure you'd agree, are not generous at all and don't give a fuck about the beggar at the end of the street. As such, people like you are better off not living in a socialist society - and the primary reason is that you obviously don't want to. People who think like you can, as I say, forge a capitalist nation and see where that gets you. Best of hypothetical luck to you. That last question is a serious question, probably the most troubling to me. What I'm relying upon is that with the community, cooperating and pooling her resources, will not encounter scarcity and even those who don't work can get paid the equal wage. I've got a lot of half baked thoughts on this - for example, you can't stay jobless for more than a certain period of time or you don't get an equal wage, you get a rather dismal wage. Fact is, I don't know right now, but I've got my 'vision' which I'm trying to work towards, bit by bit, solving each problem that arises until this 'vision' isn't so far fetched at all.
See, this is why I've started staying out of the politics forum, we can't even ask 2 questions without descending into horrible slippery slope fallacies and forced political polarization. 1. There are more than 2 options, I promise you. Its not only "complete unregulated free-market capitalism" or "sole state-ownership of property socialism". False choice there guys, THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND. 2. So, since I'm apparently in the minority for wanting to have some sort of government in existence in my ideal world, I'll just take for granted in my argument that we'll all agree there should be a government for the sake of argumentation. Isn't the point of government to... I don't know... take collective action for individuals that they can't take themselves? Do we disagree on this as well? 3. I'll say it. Yes, I want you to help other people. Whether this be by paying for police services or a fire department or ensuring that other people in my country have enough to eat in the 21st century, I think that we need to advance past tribal mindsets of "me do for me, protect home" and start thinking bigger. Flame me if you will, its what I think. Well, I hope that SE will respond to this, since he'll probably have something good to say, and I also hope that we can actually have a discussion of issues without you telling me that I'm advocating for a return to Stalinist Russia and people on my side telling you that you want to kill all members of the lower class. Thank you. Good day.
Environmentalism is a capitalist tool to handicap emerging economies.. Funny how the big push here is coming from the US.. The US is to blame for all the ridiculous laws and quotas that countries are now expected to adhere too.
Good observation, but I wouldn't call it a "capitalist" tool if it is coercive or pushed by the state.
I would see it as more being "endorsed by the state" with the placing of an ex vice president as its figure head.. You dont get much more of an endorsement than that..
Uh no it's a leftist tool to redistribute wealth. Thats what all the AGW alarmist bullshit was. An excuse to bring about "Social justice" as the canadians environmental minister said back in 1998. Real free marketers are not for cap and trade. I don't know why you would think that though since it's obama and the democrats pushing that. And what was the Kyoto Protical? Certainly not a USA sanctioned thing. That was other countries who signed that.
The people who would suffer most from global environmentalist legislation would be third world nations that haven't gotten a chance to industrialize yet. I think it's more of an elitist tool to preserve western wealth, under the guise of saving mother earth, therefore the leftists are the tools.
I thought under the new copenhagen deal they were trying to get, rich nations would have to pay carbon debt tax's or something like that. Bassically it amounted to rich nations "paying" for ruining the environment.
I'm unclear what you would like me to reply to, since you quoted GG and not me. But here are my thoughts: 1) It is not the free market/free behavior types that are painting a false dichotomy. Rather, it is the pro-socialist folks that paint the false dichotomy. 2) There is a legitimate dichotomy at the starting point. Our starting point can be 1 of 2 things only: --A) People should generally be free to do as they wish and engage in economic activity as they wish, within reasonble limits that we can disagree about. --B) People should NOT be free to do as they wish. Others should decide for them. 3) The socialist perspective (B) does not really have room for different degrees, since all the different degrees are tantamount to slavery. Let me explain. --A) The statement, "People should be free, but how extensive that freedom should be is something to discuss" is the starting point for the pro-freedom individuals. That has room for lots of different positions of disagreement. --B) The statement, "People should not be free." Is only able to discuss just, precisely, how enslaved persons should be. Of course, who the slaver masters are is also not a topic for discussion. The people advocating against freedom are to be the slave masters, of course. 4) For all the talk of "diversity" we hear from the pro-slavery crowd, there never seems to be room for diversity of persons having power. 5) What we have today in America, and in the west, is not capitalism or a free market. It is a series of government protected monopolies and cartels, that we have also recently discovered are government funded and insured (via bailouts). 6) There is indeed a "middle ground" in terms of how economies and society ought to be structured. But that "middle" ground is actually an expression of the pro-freedom position. If people in city A wish to freely choose to engage in some form of collectivist activity (as do the Amish in many ways, or as does a hippie collective, or as does a Catholic Monastery), then they are indeed free to choose to engage in that form of acitivty. And people in city B can can be focused on some other form of activity (more individual activity and less collective activity). That is the authentic middle ground. --A) But the authentic middle ground that we've now discussed is only possible with the pro-freedom position as the default economic and societial structure --B) The pro-slavery position is this: The people from City A force their position on the people from City B. That isn't a middle ground. That is slavery, where City A rules City B. 7) I'm glad to have a detailed and extensive discussion about what the purpose of government is, and how much we should have. But you must first ask yourself these questions: --A) What is the purpose of government? --B) From where does government draw its authority to rule? 8) The people advocating the pro-freedom position have thought about these question, have reached a clear philosophical principled conclusion. Thus our positions are based on specific principles. 9) The pro slavery position is often NOT based on principles, but on emotion. Once critical thinking is turned on, pro slavery is revealed to be exactly what it is. A group of people wanting to force other people to do what they say, when they say it, and how they say it. 10) Have you actually laid out what it is you think, or have you actually laid out an emotional position? Reason and logic should trump emotion and impulse. FINALLY: Only free actions have real moral value. I understand your ethical concerns, and I think AND feel they are very legitimate. But for the response to moral problems to be morally good responses, they must also be free responses. If a slave owner sees some problem, say, people are starving in a certain place due to their crops failing, and he forces all his slaves to make bread and cheese to send to those starving people... great. Good for him. Strictly speaking the slave owner has done a good thing, he is helping people in need etc. He has sacrificed his potential profits (he surely could have sold that bread and cheese and made money, or could have had the slaves do something more profitable) to help others. Great. But the slaves have no legitimate claim to say they did anything to help those people. What good moral deed have they done? They were forced to make the bread and cheese. They couldn't say no, they'd get beaten or whipped or killed or otherwise punished. And really, what is the slave owner's claim to having a good deed? Okay he helped people in need. That's great. But he did so using slave labor and forcing people to work for him. What is the greater moral evil? I say slavery. You may disagree. Go ahead and disagree. But to do so you'll need to argue in favor of slavery to solve the world's problems. Good luck doing that.