Yes, I know what initiation means. Imagine, for example, a man is wandering around a rural, nearly unpopulated area and decides to camp out in a field. The next morning a man drives through the field, notices him, and jumps out of his truck holding a land deed and a shotgun. He orders him to leave his private property or he'll be shot. Who is the aggressor in your eyes? Does the camper have the right to retaliate? This is totally unrelated to my central argument against capitalism, but I'm curious about your position on the issue. You keep bringing up a flat earth, which is easily disproved through observation. As is the notion of an objective morality as I've stated several times. You're playing semantics games and grasping at straws, while proving me right. The fact that you concede there are people who "reject" a set of morals proves that morality is subjective. What they believe to be acceptable is what they believe to be "ethical". To believe that your personal code of ethics is the one true code of ethics reeks of arrogance. At the same time, I may point you to the Vatican. They seem to hold the same position as you. The scientific method is a rigid, formal standard and is a poor reference with no relevance. As is modern formal logic. Your family's relations do not maintain any mode of production. This is an absurd concept. Massachusetts is not socialist to any degree, they maintain the capitalist mode of production. I suggest you re-read the thread, as you seem to be confusing socialism with social democracy / a capitalist welfare state. I also suggest you look at the history of the welfare state, whose modern form was codified by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to resist the wave of socialist sentiment circa 1871, following the revolutionary wave in 1848 and the uprising in Paris in 1871. He introduced modern welfare programs to undercut the appeal of socialism. Further, you've yet to address what I posited regarding the global nature of both socialism and capitalism.
You said your version of socialism is based on common ownership of the mode of production, and that people produce things based on need instead of profit. The problem with your argument is, how do you determine someone's needs? When resources become scarce, when someone has to lose out, how, without currency, do you determine who loses out and who wins? Socialism would work if there was always enough to go around, I suppose, but in reality somebody HAS to lose. Also I have to point out that his family example is valid, since his family does maintain a mode of production, meaning they do have productive forces and social organization of said productive forces.
If the farmer doesn't want people on his property he should probably put up fences or at least visible signs that someone is entering private property. If there are no signs and no fences and no one is occupying it, it's hard for a traveler to be sure it's owned land. I don't think many free market courts would recognize that as owned land. Having a deed without any visible signs that it's your property doesn't count as ownership imo. It's one thing if you put visible work into it recently or you have a house on the property, but if there are no signs that it is owned property, it's for, all intents and purposes, unowned. Simply having a deed would be meaningless imo. Obviously, different places could do it different ways. If he could establish in a reputable court that the person who threatened him did not own the property and threatened him out of the blue then he would probably have right to some sort of compensation for his time, possibly damages, and possibly a punishment depending exactly on what happened; however, right then and there (when the alleged landowner flashes the deed and threatens the camper with violence), I wouldn't say the camper has the 'right to retaliate' as the person may very well be telling the truth and trespassing is a pretty serious offense. EDIT: If the dispute went to a reputable court, they would most likely agree to let the court decide on a reasonable amount of punishment and compensation. Scenarios like yours are pretty silly if you ask me. Don't expect me to keep entertaining you. Just because morality is optional, doesn't mean morality is subjective. I gave several other examples where this is the case. Ad hominem. I'm not interested in what you think of me as a person. If you need to attack me personally, PM me. Keep this kind of garbage out of the thread. Guilt by association and then straw man. What? My parents provide services. I provide services. We have plenty of ways to produce things. All the men in my family can perform unskilled manually labor. My dad is a medical doctor. I'm a computer programmer. I was posing a hypothetical. Let's say, hypothetically, that Massachusetts had a socialist society as defined by you... Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to read about the history of welfare programs. I'd recommend readings for you, but I don't know where to start... I addressed it. You just have trouble understanding what I post.
For the record the GPL license was created for use, and is used, within a capitalist system. You haven't really satisfactorily explained what the "mode of production" is. What do you mean free access? Are you sure it's free, or are you just ignoring the cost? Almost everything that is produced is produced to be distributed in one way or another. I need clarification or I can't address your actual ideas. How is the threat, "finish this software by Friday coercive." It isn't, it isn't a threat of force. Your employer allows you to work for them. You can't force them to keep you on their payroll, that right there would be coercion. Misconceptions abound sir. So it seems the mode of production of capitalism and socialism differs in whether property is privately owned or collectively owned. Do you expect people who believe that they own a particular piece of equipment/factory that is used as a means of production will just give it up when a bunch of people lay claim to it? Shit will get ugly. Why do you draw a distinction between things with such uses and things like homes? For political reasons? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You might start with demonstrating how capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable. This is all I will say on the issue of ethics: You're right, I agree on this point. However, there is a strong ass argument for Kstigs view. Do you accept that no one wants to be murdered and that no one wants to be stolen from? I hold that it is a fact. It is your view whether we should respect their wishes or not, but not respecting them in these matters is a dick move and there's bound to be consequences. Property rights are different from the right to your life. The right to your life is not necessarily abridged by an abridgement of your property rights, and escalating the violence, e.g. shooting a man just cuz he's in your yard, is idiotic and I doubt anyone here views that as a legitimate move. Do you want to discuss this, really? Do you still not get it after my explanation above? Way to paint us as bumpkin ass retards, bias much? Nah, I'm just drunk, but the farmer is aggressing with threats, but the camper should just leave unless he doesn't think his own property rights should be respected either, in which case I don't see how his day to day interactions will remain very civil, unless he just chills with his fellow communists. It's fucking absurd. Capitalism and socialism, both things which are economic systems, are not necessarily globally adhered to. Look around you. /headdesk
I laughed at this. You are a socialist. A self-admitted socialist. You would take through force anything you feel you are entitled to, from anyone you think you should take it from, and distribute it according to how you would see fit without feeling an ounce of guilt, indeed you would probably feel good about or proud of yourself. You promote tyranny and subjugation because of your own insecurities and faithlessness in other people and would seek to have yourself promoted to a position of power over other people. You are not only dangerous, but unnatural and counter evolutionary. You are interested in equality in-so-much as you would have anyone capable of outperforming others intentionally handicapped and in doing so you bring harm to our entire species. I think such a creature only deserves angry outbursts and attacks because you are ultimately out to harm people like me. I know exactly how to interact with people like that - just because it doesn't make you feel good or bring on a warm and fuzzy feeling or isn't the way you like it or says things that may be too brutally real for you handle doesn't mean I'm incapable interacting with you. As far as being taken seriously - I could care less of you're opinion. It's clear what side of the line I stand on. The ones who stand with me understand what I'm saying, and like them even if I was standing alone it wouldn't stop me from being me and doing it my way. I'm not out to change people, I think diversity is strength. And a warning from the mods? I give zero fucks. I am here voluntarily. I am a guest on this board. They can enforce their rules however they see fit. Ultimately it's between them and me. I value being here but I won't cow down to make exception for something like you. The infraction is a by product of truth and is part of the cost associated with honesty.
This is, essentially, the only decent criticism Ludwig von Mises had of socialism. It was proposed as a problem in 1920 if I remember correctly. There is much debate among socialists on how specifically to address this. As socialism is, for all practical purposes, impossible without technological advances gained through capitalism (I stated earlier that capitalism was a necessary historical step, as was feudalism), it's widely accepted that information systems will aid in overcoming the economic calculation problem. One proposed solution is to organize a series of regional councils that convey need of a given product in a given area to the producer or group of producers, who then ship X amount to the location. As there will be free access to resources, one producer will not need to handle the distribution of a single item to an extremely large area, such as overseas. Anyone educated in the field of Widget X will be able to produce it without restriction. Rapidly advancing communications and transit systems make this much more probable than it was 100 years ago. However, this is, again, an oft-debated topic and such a proposal is not set in stone. Much of the scarcity in today's markets is artificial. As in, it is created by the market for the purposes of capital accumulation, rather than the market being a result of scarcity. When something is naturally scarce, socialism will provide the means to work around such a setback. For example, in the face of diminishing oil reserves, one will not need to secure funding for research in alternative fuels, nor will the researcher be limited by what is profitable, but by what works. His family's relationships are irrelevant to the predominant economic system in place. Curious concept. Emphasis mine: I'm thinking the same thing about you. This is becoming absurd. Your family's relationships are irrelevant to the predominant economic system in place. If you'd read my posts, you would understand that socialism cannot exist in isolation. It would clear up some confusion you have regarding socialism. You claimed that Massachusetts contains a degree of socialism; this exhibits your fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes socialism. Re-read the thread, and read the history of welfare states to understand that welfare programs are not socialism. I don't quite think you understand what I've been writing. Your argument was flawed and based on an incorrect model of what qualifies as "socialism". The GPL license artificially mimics the conditions present in socialism. I'm quite aware it exists in capitalism, as socialism does not currently exist in any location. I've already stated what constitutes the socialist mode of production. I don't like repeating myself. Arguments based on ethics are irrelevant, regardless of how often all of you want to bring ethics up. Re-read the thread. Also, the second-to-last sentence shows you haven't been paying much attention. I already explained the issue of personal possessions; they are irrelevant to the economic mode of production. I already wrote a bit on this. I believe I was addressing aaronman. My views on such matters are rather conventional. Of course I am not a thief, nor am I a murderer. However, it's because I personally see it as wrong; that I would not want someone to murder me or steal from me; not because of some wild belief in a natural, universal law of morality. I'm glad I received such a sane answer. I still would like an explanation of how property rights will be enforced other than by threats of violence (including a police force, private or public) (including detainment/jail). It's not really relevant to the issue of socialism, I'm just curious as to your position. Interesting explanation. Thank you for the response. You seem to have overlooked this part of my previous post: "Both capitalism and socialism are necessarily global, or at least to the extent that they will cover all required resources for a given society."
You barely even respond to me. Exhibit A Actually, it's pretty relevant as many functional families operate in this very same way. How people behave is VERY relevant to the predominant economic system. I'm claiming they can. I gave examples. Your posts have not affirmed that there can only exist as a global system. Neither capitalism nor socialism completely dominates the globe. You made an extraordinary claim and have given only propaganda to support your claims. You re-read the thread. You haven't proved that economic systems can't coexist. I have given numerous example where they coexist. Personally, I'm thinking it's you who doesn't understand what socialism means, especially if you think it's only possible to exist as a global economic regime.
Can we really reform an entire economic system relying on future technological advances to address glaring problems with it? The issue I have with it is, if the mode of production is commonly owned, how are decisions about it's operation made? How is it run? Who runs it? If you elect a council or something, then do they not "own" it more than other people? It sounds like it would be hugely vulnerable to corruption. What about wealth, under socialism am I not allowed to gain wealth, just have all my needs provided for? Without currency, how can I gain wealth? And about the family analogy, his families relationships ARE the economic system in this metaphor. For instance, if I am in high school, have a job and make my own money and buy my own things while living with my family, we have a more capitalist arrangement. If I work but give all the money to my parents, and in return they provide me with everything, we have a more socialist arrangement.
lol... a more realistic application is.. A group of workers are worker-owners of a factory, at the end of the year they distribute the profit equally between each other after they put a percentage of the profit to the side for expansion and reinvestment.
That's exactly how capitalist enterprises work, investors own shares in an enterprise and distribute profits based on those shares.
You mean, like, when a company allows workers to buy shares of the company and share in the profits and even vote to have a say in how the company is run? In that case capitalism even allows workers who don't work for that company, and customers who shop, or even customers who don't shop with, that company to buy shares. How is that better than capitalism? Sounds like it's a lot more limited to me. Especially since when the money is distributed equally no worker has any incentive to work any harder than the worst worker in the factory.
Do you actually work for a living? A working person certainly does not make enough to buy enough shares to have a say. I invest in the company I work for and I definitely don't see me getting invited to any directors or shareholder meetings. I certainly think knowing that you will directly benefit and receive more money at the end of the year is an incentive..Or in the other case it really doesn't matter how hard you worked no matter what if you're lucky you'll get a 3% raise. Anyways when it comes down to it management is bureaucratic and aloof, the people who actually work know what needs to be done to speed up productivity and know which one of their co workers are lazy.
Working class may not, but whose fault is that? There are plenty of working people (i.e. people with jobs) that earn enough to buy large shares in small businesses or companies. If the company grows you'll have a say in a large company. It's called risk taking and it's the entire basis of how anything actually progresses.
Ummm yes. You realize their are plenty of stocks that can be bought for around $20.00 a share right? Cisco Cisco Systems, Inc.: NASDAQ:CSCO quotes & news - Google Finance GE General Electric Company: NYSE:GE quotes & news - Google Finance American Eagle American Eagle Outfitters: NYSE:AEO quotes & news - Google Finance Hell even Ebay stock is less than $40.00 a share. All you need is one share and by law you are invited to the shareholder meeting. You aren't invited to director meetings because you are not a director I'm curious if you actually work now, or perhaps it's just that you have no clue what you are doing with your money? In your system of "equality" where each person owns an equal share of the company, and therefore each others labor, if I work harder and make the company $10,000 extra dollars that is split evenly among 10 people each of us gets $1,000 for me working harder. I'd much rather get $2,0000 or $3,000 (which is quit low for a commission rate) let the company keep the other 8 or 7 thousands to invest how it sees fit and tell my coworkers to go fuck themselves or work harder. Even as a business model, if one company pays workers who perform better more money or let them keep a higher commission, they're going to quit working for your "equal" factory/company and then your lazy, skill/talentless workers are going to be even more fucked. You fail to understand incentive, most likely because you've never been poor or you've lived a life a privilege - but that's pure speculation. Honestly I think you're just a hipster. Yeah, this is true when you work at a fast food restaurant. When you have a real job at an actual company you find out that the company actually did something to make a name for themselves. Usually one of those things is reward performers and move them to positions where they can be the most effective. You're speculating on your own narrative and straw manning your own red herring. Good job.
If they're so smart but just being held down why don't they start they're own company and work their way up? There's always a way to get what you want in life, you just have to find it. Socialism is based on this sort of collectivist mindset that I don't agree with at all. I believe freedom is based on idividual rights not forced codependence on the each other and especially the on the government.
Yeah because the working poor can really afford to spend almost a full days work on one stock., I actually do have stock invested in PPL electric and my job. What're you retarded every job I ever worked we'd always gossip about the lazy fuckers, If we could vote who to kick out of our work for being lazy half the fucking warehouse would be gone, and I wouldn't be forced to work overtime the first three days of every week to pick up the other shifts slack. Yeah you got me I'm a hipster. So how is McDonalds not a real job? Go tell that to the 400,000 people employed by them. Why do you even have a Mark Twain quote in your sig, you do realize he was a socialist..
Are we codependent because we're forced to be, or because it's in everybody's best interest? If the latter, then wouldn't voluntary collectivism produce the best results?