Fucking Capitalist Member Ever

[Star]

Because I keep parsing that other poll this way.

PM me with nominations for the most fucking capitalist members on here.

[booyalab]

I hope I win.

[songbird36]

Well there's one obvious one who likes to gad herself up as a dominatrix!

She'd be proud to receive a nomination to consider her nominated by me.

[Claverhouse]

This one would be worthwhile, if just to line them up by the wall when the revolution comes...

After you with the luger.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Serotonin]

Phyl. T. Mynd
Booyalab
Zedo
Thermo to an extent.

But these guys are all mild. It's good that we don't have any hardcore socialists here either.

[booyalab]

This one would be worthwhile, if just to line them up by the wall when the revolution comes...

After you with the luger.



Claverhouse :ph34r:
revolution? I wasn't aware you like any form of government

[Thermo]

Because I keep parsing that other poll this way.

PM me with nominations for the most fucking capitalist members on here.
Oh the irony, everyone on this board has bought into the capitalist system in one way or another. You never did answer me in the other threads about this.

Who pays your bills? How can we have free healthcare and no one working?

[Star]

Don't worry Thermo, you're definitely on the list. No need to campaign here.

[Thermo]

Don't worry Thermo, you're definitely on the list. No need to campaign here.
I don't think I have to campaign to get on any negative list you can come up with. I am just pointing out that your constant railing against conformity and capitalism is hypocritical and niavely unrealistic. If it wasn't, you would have no trouble answering my questions.

[Claverhouse]

revolution? I wasn't aware you like any form of government
I'm really not joking on the Divine Right monarchy thing, no matter how absurd it seems to those brought up in inferior traditions. The last King/Kaiser to rule that way was Wilhelm II, who was worth all the US presidents who ever lived, or will live, put together.

However as old Karl put it ( who detested monarchy as much as you, which is why I see no moral difference between America and the old Soviet Union; or any other republic ): the working class by supporting the bourgeoise against monarchy ( which he mixed up with feudalism, the little devil ) were creating worse oppressors and fighting the enemies of their enemies.

Mutual hatreds make strange bedfellows. Germany joined their worst enemies to train in Russia after WWI. In order to recreate their power and fight the infamous people who created Versailles. ( And to attack Russia ).

Capitalism sucks anyway. It's just an over-estimated economic system that shouldn't be allowed to join in or replace politics.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[mgb]

Relaxo
sbw
Robespierre might take the cake

[songbird36]

Someone had better nominate me for this.

I'm anti robbing from the rich to give to the poor in this country (currently pay 40% of my income in tax to support beneficiaries etc). I tend to vote conservatively.

Count me in.

[Edmond Zedo]

Robespierre might take the cake
Hands down. Being a complete..."Anarcho-Capitalist," and not even exaggerating in his posts. But he's been gone a while. *sadness*

[mgb]

Someone had better nominate me for this.

I'm anti robbing from the rich to give to the poor in this country (currently pay 40% of my income in tax to support beneficiaries etc). I tend to vote conservatively.

Count me in.

You can't hold a torch to those three. You're already going to win the crappiest member, do you have to win everything in this forum?

Get back to your sheep.

[songbird36]

You can't hold a torch to those three. You're already going to win the crappiest member, do you have to win everything in this forum?

Get back to your sheep.

Ooh careful, or I might make a woolly jumper out of you for winter.

Oops (sorry admins that could well be construed as a death threat, I do think under normal circumstances sheep have a right to life, and to follow their leader).

[Thermo]

Phyl. T. Mynd
Booyalab
Zedo
Thermo to an extent.

But these guys are all mild. It's good that we don't have any hardcore socialists here either.
I don't know what I would be classified as more than likely socialist leanings. I believe in a strong middle class, a small weak rich class, and programs that encourage or force the poor off social security. Universal equal education and possibly healthcare.

[mgb]

Ooh careful, or I might make a woolly jumper out of you for winter.

Oops (sorry admins that could well be construed as a death threat, I do think under normal circumstances sheep have a right to life, and to follow their leader).

Look Sheep Fucker: You suck. You suck sheep balls. Have fun with that.

[Serotonin]

Thermo, your comment about denying health care to obese, lung-cancerous people who can't afford it was a bit too harsh in my opinion, and definitely had inklings of uber-capitalism.
That said, I agree with most of the other ideas you've put forward.

[songbird36]

Look Sheep Fucker: You suck. You suck sheep balls. Have fun with that.

Pity you can't banter, you can only insult.

[booyalab]

I'm really not joking on the Divine Right monarchy thing,

Wont you find it difficult to get 98% of the members of this forum against the wall?

[mgb]

Pity you can't banter, you can only insult.

baa baa baa

[mgb]

Wont you find it difficult to get 98% of the members of this forum against the wall?

It doesn't really make him a capitalist either.

[booyalab]

Thermo, your comment about denying health care to obese, lung-cancerous people who can't afford it was a bit too harsh in my opinion
I agreed with Thermo on that. I have an idea, how about you pay for them?

[booyalab]

It doesn't really make him a capitalist either.

Huh? I'm referring to his "revolution" comment. I dont think that 98% of the people here want that. Not that it has anything to do with the intended topic, and not that you have anything to do with it either :) (buh bye)

[Serotonin]

I agreed with Thermo on that. I have an idea, how about you pay for them?

I'd be happy for a small portion of my taxes to go towards that, but hopefully Thermos other incentives would reduce the incidence of obesity and lung-cancer.

[Thermo]

I'm really not joking on the Divine Right monarchy thing, no matter how absurd it seems to those brought up in inferior traditions. The last King/Kaiser to rule that way was Wilhelm II, who was worth all the US presidents who ever lived, or will live, put together.

However as old Karl put it ( who detested monarchy as much as you, which is why I see no moral difference between America and the old Soviet Union; or any other republic ): the working class by supporting the bourgeoise against monarchy ( which he mixed up with feudalism, the little devil ) were creating worse oppressors and fighting the enemies of their enemies.

Mutual hatreds make strange bedfellows. Germany joined their worst enemies to train in Russia after WWI. In order to recreate their power and fight the infamous people who created Versailles. ( And to attack Russia ).

Capitalism sucks anyway. It's just an over-estimated economic system that shouldn't be allowed to join in or replace politics.


Claverhouse :ph34r:
I have no problem with Divine Right Monarchy as long as I get to be the King.

[Thermo]

I'd be happy for a small portion of my taxes to go towards that, but hopefully Thermos other incentives would reduce the incidence of obesity and lung-cancer.
That was exactly the point. I don't want to take anyone's insurance away, just encourage them to make decisions that are considerate of our society collectively.

[booyalab]

I'd be happy for a small portion of my taxes to go towards that, but hopefully Thermos other incentives would reduce the incidence of obesity and lung-cancer.

well I wouldn't be happy for a small portion of my taxes to go towards that. So how about people who dont want to pay for obesity or smoking related health problems dont have to pay for it...and those who do want to can start and contribute towards a Save the Fat Smokers fund. I'm sure it will be really successful!

[mgb]

What is this a race now to be more capitalist. Sorry. You guys still don't touch the other three. Unless you start posting anarcho-capitalist stuff non-stop, you won't be able to.

[Edmond Zedo]

That was exactly the point. I don't want to take anyone's insurance away, just encourage them to make decisions that are considerate of our society collectively.
With what, a pistol? Or maybe a lack of medical funds?

[booyalab]

What is this a race now to be more capitalist. Sorry. You guys still don't touch the other three. Unless you start posting anarcho-capitalist stuff non-stop, you won't be able to.
anarcho-capitalist does not =capitalist

[songbird36]

Well it would be interesting IMO to see some hard evidence on this smoking/obesity issue and its economic impact on society. Much has been said and touted about the high cost of smokers and the obese, but where's the evidence?

Take smokers first. They tend on average to die 8 years younger than non-smokers, and lung cancer kills people relatively quickly. Sure the cost of chemo/radiotherapy is quite high, but these are costs shared by breast cancer and prostate cancer sufferers, as well as others such as colon and stomach cancer which afflict people in large numbers.

The slow illnesses are expensive to treat (emphysema, heart disease etc), but then institutional and respite care for "old people" who are non-smokers is also very expensive. By dying "young" smokers avoid these costs to society.

I'd say obesity is more of a problem - mostly because it tends to cause slow degenerative illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes which don't kill quickly, and which require the State to provide expensive ongoing care such as dialysis, and hospital based coronary care.

Obesity is also a problem affecting a broader cross section of society - I've heard a figure quoted of 40% of Americans currently being overweight or obese.

I'm not defending amoking, but I just wonder whether the economic arguments actually stack up against it. Also note that in this country around 90% of the cost of a pack of cigs goes straight into the Government's consolidated fund, which (amongst other things) funds healthcare. So in a very real sense smokers are paying for their own healthcare, and probably paying over and above that.

[mgb]

anarcho-capitalist does not =capitalist

but it's a step in the right direction, a step taken long ago, not when it was a contest.

[Star]

New and improved, with 15% more free, and a poll.

[Thermo]

Well it would be interesting IMO to see some hard evidence on this smoking/obesity issue and its economic impact on society. Much has been said and touted about the high cost of smokers and the obese, but where's the evidence?

Take smokers first. They tend on average to die 8 years younger than non-smokers, and lung cancer kills people relatively quickly. Sure the cost of chemo/radiotherapy is quite high, but these are costs shared by breast cancer and prostate cancer sufferers, as well as others such as colon and stomach cancer which afflict people in large numbers.

The slow illnesses are expensive to treat (emphysema, heart disease etc), but then institutional and respite care for "old people" who are non-smokers is also very expensive. By dying "young" smokers avoid these costs to society.

I'd say obesity is more of a problem - mostly because it tends to cause slow degenerative illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes which don't kill quickly, and which require the State to provide expensive ongoing care such as dialysis, and hospital based coronary care.

Obesity is also a problem affecting a broader cross section of society - I've heard a figure quoted of 40% of Americans currently being overweight or obese.

I'm not defending amoking, but I just wonder whether the economic arguments actually stack up against it. Also note that in this country around 90% of the cost of a pack of cigs goes straight into the Government's consolidated fund, which (amongst other things) funds healthcare. So in a very real sense smokers are paying for their own healthcare, and probably paying over and above that.
If you look at the original post in the Rants section about my solution to the healthcare issue, I pegged the cost at around 350 Billion a year. I also think that number is low.

[mgb]

If you look at the original post in the Rants section about my solution to the healthcare issue, I pegged the cost at around 350 Billion a year. I also think that number is low.

Look if people can't hi-jack threads anymore with personal issues, you shouldn't be able to hijack the personal issue threads with real debates.

Move it or lose it you two.

[booyalab]

I'm not defending amoking, but I just wonder whether the economic arguments actually stack up against it. Also note that in this country around 90% of the cost of a pack of cigs goes straight into the Government's consolidated fund, which (amongst other things) funds healthcare. So in a very real sense smokers are paying for their own healthcare, and probably paying over and above that.

ok maybe over there that happens. But here, with healthcare insurance, premiums can increase when people get themselves into shittier and shittier states of health, because the health insurance companies expect you to get more illnesses.

[booyalab]

mwahahahaha! I voted for myself :devil: "burn dust and eat my rubber!"

[songbird36]

ok maybe over there that happens. But here, with healthcare insurance, premiums can increase when people get themselves into shittier and shittier states of health, because the health insurance companies expect you to get more illnesses.

Well they're not employing competent actuaries in that case.

In this country the cost of private medical insurance and life insurance roughly *doubles* if you are a smoker (vis-a-vis non smokers).

I've seen the figures first hand, because I took out a surgical insurance policy for myself and my family some three years ago.

I also carry life insurance which is relatively cheap if you are young and a non-smoker with no known medical conditions.

I would say the insurance system in the US is flawed and in need of change.

[Thermo]

Not that I really care about getting votes either way, but this is more of a "who I don't like" poll rather than a real poll on political leanings. I got two votes deepsky and Eileen the INFJ. The only thing they could possibly base how much of a capitalist I am is on one issue and about a month on this board. This is hardly enough to get an idea of someone's political leanings.

[booyalab]

Well they're not employing competent actuaries in that case.

In this country the cost of private medical insurance and life insurance roughly *doubles* if you are a smoker (vis-a-vis non smokers).

I've seen the figures first hand, because I took out a surgical insurance policy for myself and my family some three years ago.

I also carry life insurance which is relatively cheap if you are young and a non-smoker with no known medical conditions.

I would say the insurance system in the US is flawed and in need of change.

oh I'm pretty sure the premiums increase if you're a smoker here (not sure about doubling..) but I mean, the sicker people get, the more it indirectly increases health costs.

[songbird36]

Don't worry Thermo. It's more of a compliment to be labelled a capitalist.

It makes more sense than socialism (which equates to robbing the rich and successful to pay the poor and unsuccessful).

[mgb]

Not that I really care about getting votes either way, but this is more of a "who I don't like" poll rather than a real poll on political leanings. I got two votes deepsky and Eileen the INFJ. The only thing they could possibly base how much of a capitalist I am is on one issue and about a month on this board. This is hardly enough to get an idea of someone's political leanings.

So. I voted for deepsky as a joke, not to be popular. The other three or nutso-capitalist and have been since the get go.

[songbird36]

oh I'm pretty sure the premiums increase if you're a smoker here (not sure about doubling..) but I mean, the sicker people get, the more it indirectly increases health costs.

I'm not sure how you figure that. Do you mean that the sicker people get, the higher the cost of the actual procedures gets? Where's your evidence for that?

If as I suspect is the case in the US hospital equipment and staff are largely privately funded, then the insurance companies through the higher premia they charge to smokers should be paying for all this.

[booyalab]

I'm not sure how you figure that. Do you mean that the sicker people get, the higher the cost of the actual procedures gets? Where's your evidence for that?

If as I suspect is the case in the US hospital equipment and staff are largely privately funded, then the insurance companies through the higher premia they charge to smokers should be paying for all this.

more sick people increases the demand for medical advancements which requires funding which causes them to increase hospital bills. I dont think I need to supply evidence for that.

[booyalab]

thanks for voting for me songbird :D

[songbird36]

more sick people increases the demand for medical advancements which requirse funding which causes them to increase hospital bills. I dont think I need to supply evidence for that.

Yes although two points here:

#1 - Medical advancements in cancer and heart disease treatment are a good which affects society as a whole, not just smokers who fall ill;

#2 - Lung cancer is almost invariably fatal. Thus any treatments offered tend to be of a delaying/palliative nature, rather than a curative nature. Advances in palliative care are also a common good which benefits all people with terminal illnesses.

[booyalab]

Yes although two points here:

#1 - Medical advancements in cancer and heart disease treatment are a good which affects society as a whole, not just smokers who fall ill;

#2 - Lung cancer is almost invariably fatal. Thus any treatments offered tend to be of a delaying/palliative nature, rather than a curative nature. Advances in palliative care are also a common good which benefits all people with terminal illnesses.

you're right, but I think they prioritize research for certain conditions over others. Those same priorities might not even be made if there wasn't a high obesity rate. Also, lung cancer isn't the only 'side effect' of smoking.

[songbird36]

True.

Heart disease is probably the most common "slow kill" effect of smoking and arguably one of the most expensive.

Lung cancer kills quickly, and emphysema affects a relatively low proportion of smokers.

But then there are other "high cost" conditions like asthma and chronic bronchitis which are worse in smokers.

I'd like to see some health economic analysis on this (if anyone can be bothered looking and posting).

[indie]

Um, hello? indiejade owns stock. Not stock as in cows, but stock as in the stock market. Doesn't that count toward being a "fucking capitalist"?

[mgb]

Um, hello? indiejade owns stock. Not stock as in cows, but stock as in the stock market. Doesn't that count toward being a "fucking capitalist"?

Do you think those stocks are the path to utopia?

[songbird36]

Depends if it's stock in a company making hemp shirts for Buddhists..

[mgb]

Depends if it's stock in a company making hemp shirts for Buddhists..

Yeah, because a lot of those companies went public back in the 80's.

[Edmond Zedo]

rofl

Who the fuck put Clara on this poll? That's some good shit.

[Hypnos]

Deepsky, we have a special something -- you're the only one who voted for me. :wub:

[Eileen]

Not that I really care about getting votes either way, but this is more of a "who I don't like" poll rather than a real poll on political leanings. I got two votes deepsky and Eileen the INFJ. The only thing they could possibly base how much of a capitalist I am is on one issue and about a month on this board. This is hardly enough to get an idea of someone's political leanings.

Yes, but I have not observed overly capitalist attitudes in anybody else (until now, after I've voted, songbird), and the entire thread about obese people and smoking was enough evidence for me. And actually, your attitudes about school (purpose being to make PRODUCTIVE and effective people, essentially for the workforce) was pretty nastily capitalist too.

So basically, you deserve the votes you get and if you're offended by the term "capitalist," then perhaps you should rethink your views on some things or accept that it's who you are.

EDIT: or you could stop caring what deepsky and I think of you.


ALSO EDIT: I really don't like capitalism and am borderline socialist.

[Lee]

I am a fucking capatalist pig too!

I just don't advertise it.

[Thermo]

Yes, but I have not observed overly capitalist attitudes in anybody else (until now, after I've voted, songbird), and the entire thread about obese people and smoking was enough evidence for me. And actually, your attitudes about school (purpose being to make PRODUCTIVE and effective people, essentially for the workforce) was pretty nastily capitalist too.

So basically, you deserve the votes you get and if you're offended by the term "capitalist," then perhaps you should rethink your views on some things or accept that it's who you are.

EDIT: or you could stop caring what deepsky and I think of you.

ALSO EDIT: I really don't like capitalism and am borderline socialist.
My point was that the case of you and deepsky voting for me was more about your personal opinion of me than whether I am a capitalist. I don't think my opinions on school and healthcare really pin me as a "capitalist." Even so, that is only two issues and really doesn't define my political views.

[Thermo]

Don't worry Thermo. It's more of a compliment to be labelled a capitalist.

It makes more sense than socialism (which equates to robbing the rich and successful to pay the poor and unsuccessful).
I don't mind being labeled capitalist or socialist. Just because a bunch of people voted for something doesn't make it true. Furthermore, all governments and people have a degree of socialism and capitalism, including the US. I am sure everyone here will work for the highest wage they can, but they will also cash retirement checks when they get them.

In short, the poll was meant to be derogitory, at least in my case, but is really dovoid of any meaning.

[Star]

I am sure everyone here will work for the highest wage they can
Why on earth would you think that? It's definitely not true. Read any of the career threads. You think INTPs jump from job to job to second to third career for money?

And indiejade, you weren't included because you have about 500 bitch parlor bonus points for your comments in Anti-booyalab. :devil:

[Star]

Deepsky, we have a special something -- you're the only one who voted for me. :wub:
Pff ... I wasn't the one who nominated you. :ph34r:

[Thermo]

Why on earth would you think that? It's definitely not true. Read any of the career threads. You think INTPs jump from job to job to second to third career for money?
When you can answer the questions I have already asked you, I will have your answer.

[sbw]

mwahahahaha! I voted for myself :devil: "burn dust and eat my rubber!"

I voted for myself too.

Scott

[Star]

When you can answer the questions I have already asked you, I will have your answer.
Sorry. I've no interest in sharing personal details about my life with the president of the He-Man-Woman-Hater's Club.

[sbw]

So having read the entire thread, I've encountered the terms "capitalist", "anarcho-capitalist" and "nutso-capitalist" ...anyone care to offer a differentiation amongst these terms? Could be fun.

Scott

[Thermo]

Sorry. I've no interest in sharing personal details about my life with the president of the He-Man-Woman-Hater's Club.
I don't feel the need to respond to your comments either then. I couldn't name you the president of a club, because quit frankly I wouldn't want to put you in charge of anything.

[Claverhouse]

Wont you find it difficult to get 98% of the members of this forum against the wall?
Oh dear me no. No, not at all. The thing is, you get them to do all the work.

I see you're not familiar with the 'Last Man Standing' genre...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[indie]

And indiejade, you weren't included because you have about 500 bitch parlor bonus points for your comments in Anti-booyalab. :devil:

:rofl: Got it. But, I'm still determined to get nominated "Fucking _____ Member Ever" for *something* ;)

[booyalab]

indiejade may have stock but I'm going to college on mutual fund dividends.

Looks like I'm winning still :D

[booyalab]

Do you think those stocks are the path to utopia?
you're one to talk Mr. Stupidity Tax is My Only Hope In Life

[crule81]

I'm really not joking on the Divine Right monarchy thing, no matter how absurd it seems to those brought up in inferior traditions. The last King/Kaiser to rule that way was Wilhelm II, who was worth all the US presidents who ever lived, or will live, put together.


Are you kidding? Wilhelm II was a buffoon. He blundered his way through foreign and domestic policy and left Germany with no substantial allies. He forced Russia to ally with France even though Germany and Russia had no direct disputes anywhere in the world (only indirect ones through Austria-Hungary, which should have been jettisoned as Germany's ally rather than Russia). He catered to the Naval League and began a Naval arms race with Britain that could not be won. All this did was create a threat from Germany to Britain where one had no previously existed. Again, this made it palpable for Britain to ally with what had been their greatest enemies, France and Russia.
Despite having the executive power generally consolidated in one person, there was absolutely no unity between the military and civilian government which proved disastrous in 1914 when military plans and foreign policy were not on the same wavelength. Bethmann Hollweg complained that he was isolated from the military cabinet, who were constantly in private audiences with the Kaiser.

In any case, Kaiser Wilhelm was hardly an absolute monarch in the tradition of Louis XIV or James I. The Reichstag had a great deal of control over budgets. It is not surprising that throughout the existence of the Kaiserreich, the far right was constantly planning a Staatsreich, or a coup de etat by the government and the conservatives against the Reichstag.

[mgb]

you're one to talk Mr. Stupidity Tax is My Only Hope In Life

look whorecuntalab, I never said it was the only hope in life, or that the hope was anything but fleeting, but wait until you graduate and wake up and discover that university wasn't much more than a gamble either. And I've never spent what you are paying a year for school for lottery tickets.

[Hypnos]

Pff ... I wasn't the one who nominated you. :ph34r:
While our love might not survive, you have comforted me. :blush:

[Eileen]

In short, the poll was meant to be derogitory, at least in my case, but is really dovoid of any meaning.

If you come to the bitching parlor for meaning, you're going to be searching pretty hard, because I'm pretty sure it's just all about bitching and fighting mindlessly.

And regardless of how I feel about you personally, out of all these people on this list that I've had any extended contact with, you are the most capitalist. But you're right, I'm not wild about you either, and I did vote for you partially because of that. *shrug* I didn't come into this to vote on anything serious.

Note: all of this established, Thermo, I am more than willing to be civil. I don't hate you; you just grate on my nerves and I think you're wrong about almost everything. ;) I do not intend to wage any wars upon Thermoland. (SORRY, guys, I had to NF some, I can't help it.)


One more thing... I just remembered that I also voted for booyalab because she too seems rather capitalist. And I like booyalab just fine, so while I think capitalism kind of sucks inherently, I don't think capitalists are all evil. Not completely, anyway.

[Dman]

Definitely Robespierre. Although he was only here for a couple of weeks over Christmas vacation, his posts still are mentioned. I could go on for hours and days arguing with him...oh, wait, I DID.

I was hoping he would pop in over spring break, which I noticed he did log in, but never posted. Chicken. He knew I'd burn him to the ground once and for all. Even if he did have * some * good points (although I can't remember what they were)

[booyalab]

One more thing... I just remembered that I also voted for booyalab because she too seems rather capitalist. And I like booyalab just fine, so while I think capitalism kind of sucks inherently, I don't think capitalists are all evil. Not completely, anyway.

ty for your vote.

I dont mind being evil.

[Dman]

rofl

Who the fuck put Clara on this poll? That's some good shit.

lol


Um, hello? indiejade owns stock. Not stock as in cows, but stock as in the stock market. Doesn't that count toward being a "fucking capitalist"?

Doesn't mean you're capitalist, more likely you just believe other people are stupider than you.

You know, the "Greater Fool Theory" - most people don't buy stock because they believe the company actually has a greater future value than it is presently valued at, they buy because they believe that someone else will be dumb enough to buy it at a higher price than you did

[Thermo]

And regardless of how I feel about you personally, out of all these people on this list that I've had any extended contact with, you are the most capitalist. But you're right, I'm not wild about you either, and I did vote for you partially because of that. *shrug* I didn't come into this to vote on anything serious.

Note: all of this established, Thermo, I am more than willing to be civil. I don't hate you; you just grate on my nerves and I think you're wrong about almost everything. ;) I do not intend to wage any wars upon Thermoland. (SORRY, guys, I had to NF some, I can't help it.)


One more thing... I just remembered that I also voted for booyalab because she too seems rather capitalist. And I like booyalab just fine, so while I think capitalism kind of sucks inherently, I don't think capitalists are all evil. Not completely, anyway.
Thanks for the candor. I can't understand why you believe the things you do either. I am not emotionally bothered by it, it just seems illogical to me. Civility is fine with me. I don't have any interest in a feud with you.

[Robespierre]

Definitely Robespierre. Although he was only here for a couple of weeks over Christmas vacation, his posts still are mentioned. I could go on for hours and days arguing with him...oh, wait, I DID.

I was hoping he would pop in over spring break, which I noticed he did log in, but never posted. Chicken. He knew I'd burn him to the ground once and for all. Even if he did have * some * good points (although I can't remember what they were)

I'll just poke my head in here to say hello. You're 100% correct Dman, I just don't have the courage to take you on anymore.

I'll do a quick outline of individualism, which some of you have called anarcho-capitalism. I happen to be an anarcho-capitalist, which means that I don't believe that any coercive form of government should exist, and that I happen to think that individual ownership of property and free markets represent the best and most natural method of human interaction. The second beleif does not necessarily flow from the first, however. There are anarcho-socialists as well who believe that there should be no coercive form of government, but that humans will organize themselves into collectives when left to their own devices.

I consider both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists to be individualists, as they ultimately reject centralized coercive government in favor of self-rule.

At the base of individualism is the non-aggression axiom. This is basic, and most people will agree with it, but not the implications. Simply put, take no action which results in aggression upon others. Don't steal, murder, threaten to murder, etc. In my opinion, the ends never justify the means. This is why I consider government actions which take property and limit individual liberties to be wrong. There can be no excuses for aggression. Be aware that I do not consider defensive violence, in proportion to the threat, to be aggression. I am not a pacifist.

[Architectonic]

I tend to vote conservatively.

Why oh why?

Conservative politics in both democratic and communist forms are evil. (along with anachists, fascists and libertarians)

The countries that rate highest on the UN Human Development list mostly due to social-democratic style policies.

[Architectonic]

Capitalism sucks anyway. It's just an over-estimated economic system that shouldn't be allowed to join in or replace politics.

I'm waiting for the "Fucking Socialist Member Ever" poll. ;)

[songbird36]

Define "social democrat".

A milder and more innocuous form of robbing from the rich to give to the poor?

Creating an underclass via the benefit and welfare system is not only making countries economically poorer, it is incredibly *patronizing* to those underclasses by conveying to them the impression that they have no chance of success in life, or of contributing constructively to the economic growth of the country.

Bah humbug I say.

[Dman]

I'll just poke my head in here to say hello. You're 100% correct Dman, I just don't have the courage to take you on anymore.

I'll do a quick outline of individualism, which some of you have called anarcho-capitalism. I happen to be an anarcho-capitalist, which means that I don't believe that any coercive form of government should exist, and that I happen to think that individual ownership of property and free markets represent the best and most natural method of human interaction. The second beleif does not necessarily flow from the first, however. There are anarcho-socialists as well who believe that there should be no coercive form of government, but that humans will organize themselves into collectives when left to their own devices.

I consider both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists to be individualists, as they ultimately reject centralized coercive government in favor of self-rule.

At the base of individualism is the non-aggression axiom. This is basic, and most people will agree with it, but not the implications. Simply put, take no action which results in aggression upon others. Don't steal, murder, threaten to murder, etc. In my opinion, the ends never justify the means. This is why I consider government actions which take property and limit individual liberties to be wrong. There can be no excuses for aggression. Be aware that I do not consider defensive violence, in proportion to the threat, to be aggression. I am not a pacifist.

YES! You took the bait (either that or you have an inside connection here...hmmm...). Excellent. Do poke in more often, I thoroughly enjoyed our debates. Don't have time right now, but I'll be back. Hopefully you will as well.

[Architectonic]

Define "social democrat".

A milder and more innocuous form of robbing from the rich to give to the poor?

Creating an underclass via the benefit and welfare system is not only making countries economically poorer, it is incredibly *patronizing* to those underclasses by conveying to them the impression that they have no chance of success in life, or of contributing constructively to the economic growth of the country.

Bah humbug I say.

Look it up.

I think you have to realize that a pure capitalist system simply does not work. (kind of like a pure communist system)

Those underclasses will be patronised and discriminated against just as much in a capitalist system - only they will have a poorer standard of living.

A fairer system doesn't necessarily lead to poorer economic growth. But nevertheless, who cares if the country is "economically poorer" if the quality of life is higher?

[Hypnos]

The countries that rate highest on the UN Human Development list mostly do so due to social-democratic style policies.
The US ranks highest among countries with more than 50 million people. Even then, the ranking is joke. As if any reasonable person would want to move to Canada.

Source:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html

[Robespierre]

...a pure capitalist system simply does not work. (kind of like a pure communist system)

Define what you mean when you speak of a "capitalist system".


Those underclasses will be patronised and discriminated against just as much in a capitalist system - only they will have a poorer standard of living.

How are the "underclasses" patronised and discriminated in a system of unbounded interpersonal exchange?


A fairer system doesn't necessarily lead to poorer economic growth. But nevertheless, who cares if the country is "economically poorer" if the quality of life is higher?

What is fair? What about your idea of capitalism is unfair? Also, you have directly contradicted yourself. How else would you define economic status, if not standard of living?

Trying to think in terms other than the collective. Groups of people aren't happy or sad or rich or poor, only individuals.

[melancholeric]

Oh shit, here we go again...

[Robespierre]

Conservative politics in both democratic and communist forms are evil. (along with anachists and libertarians)

Both democratic and communist? You set those systems up as though they were opposites, when in fact, they are not. Communism is an economic organization where no individuals own property, and all decisions are made either by the "people" or a ruling council. Democracy is a political arrangement where the majority votes on various issues of political importance. Democracy inexorably tends towards collectivism as the masses realize they can use the ballot box as effectively as a gun in robbing society for their personal benefit. However, it is possible for there to be democratic captialist societies, democratic socialist societies, or even a democratic communist society. And for all the socialist crack-pots out there, a democratic participatory-economic society.


The countries that rate highest on the UN Human Development list mostly do so due to social-democratic style policies.

What a naked and pointless appeal to authority. Why should anyone accept the UN's definition of a good society? What IS their definition?

[Robespierre]

Oh shit, here we go again...

Did you miss me?

[Robespierre]

Doesn't mean you're capitalist, more likely you just believe other people are stupider than you.

You know, the "Greater Fool Theory" - most people don't buy stock because they believe the company actually has a greater future value than it is presently valued at, they buy because they believe that someone else will be dumb enough to buy it at a higher price than you did


No, actually anyone who owns stock, either directly, through mutual funds, or 401K investments, is in fact, a capitalist. You are providing capital to companies which you believe will earn you profit It doesn't matter how you feel about the system. If you are playing baseball, you are a baseball player, no matter your feelings on the game.

[Thermo]

I'll just poke my head in here to say hello. You're 100% correct Dman, I just don't have the courage to take you on anymore.

I'll do a quick outline of individualism, which some of you have called anarcho-capitalism. I happen to be an anarcho-capitalist, which means that I don't believe that any coercive form of government should exist, and that I happen to think that individual ownership of property and free markets represent the best and most natural method of human interaction. The second beleif does not necessarily flow from the first, however. There are anarcho-socialists as well who believe that there should be no coercive form of government, but that humans will organize themselves into collectives when left to their own devices.

I consider both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists to be individualists, as they ultimately reject centralized coercive government in favor of self-rule.

At the base of individualism is the non-aggression axiom. This is basic, and most people will agree with it, but not the implications. Simply put, take no action which results in aggression upon others. Don't steal, murder, threaten to murder, etc. In my opinion, the ends never justify the means. This is why I consider government actions which take property and limit individual liberties to be wrong. There can be no excuses for aggression. Be aware that I do not consider defensive violence, in proportion to the threat, to be aggression. I am not a pacifist.
You sound like a libertarian. How would your nation maintain independence in the face of centralized governments with large organized and well financed militaries? How would you uphold the law with no central government? I would like to hear more about your opinion, but at face value it is a utopian idealistic fantasy.

[Robespierre]

You sound like a libertarian.

Indeed I am a libertarian.


How would your nation maintain independence in the face of centralized governments with large organized and well financed militaries?

To provide a correct, but unsatisfying answer, I don't know. The society in question would decide. This is like asking how a society will treat the production and distribution of can openers. Who can say? Only the market for that good can decide, in the end. So if the people fear outside invasion and domination, they are likely to value defense. In order to provide defense, some if not most will likely arm themselves with rifles and other small arms. Others may pay a defense force to provide them with security, not only from outside invaders, but from thieves etc from within the society.

But as I said, I can't tell you exactly how a society will provide for its defense other than saying that those individuals who value defense, will be likely to pay for defense.


How would you uphold the law with no central government? I would like to hear more about your opinion, but at face value it is a utopian idealistic fantasy.

Depending on how you define "law", the answer will vary. If by law you mean basic right and wrong distinctions like theft, murder, etc, then individuals will uphold the law. As in the defense situation, I cannot begin to tell you exactly how those individuals will choose to do this. It is probable that independent arbitration services for settling disputes will evolve. Those services which are seen as most impartial will likely get more business, as both sides of a dispute will be more likely to agree to accept the arbitration if the arbitrator is seen as reasonable and impartial by both sides, as opposed to a service that can be swayed to rule in favor of the side willing to pay more money.

If you refer to laws as social norms, issues of value, then I suggest that society is self-regulating in that respect. Is there a positive obligation to provide aid to someone lying on the street, bleeding to death? I say no. However, there may be social consequences for inaction, that are entirely in line with non-aggression. A desire to remain a part of society, through trade and social interaction is a fairly strong motivator for most individuals. If someone knew that by walking past a bleeding body in the street, their neighbors would completely shut them out, and some might not do business with them, a motivation, above and beyond the basic human compassion, exists.

I get the whole "utopian fantasy" thing a lot. That is precisely how I feel about the idea of a centralized state providing "order" and security. While I see my ideas of spontaneous order verified on a daily basis, I have yet to see a centralized state provide any sort of security. The state, which represents the solution to a problem, is often worse than the original problem.

I am sure that I have glazed over points which you may see as vitally important, so ask away. I'm not here to demand absolute agreement, but rather, to provide some meaningful definitions for the terms commonly used, and to at least propose the idea that the state is not always the answer.

[indie]

You know, the "Greater Fool Theory" - most people don't buy stock because they believe the company actually has a greater future value than it is presently valued at, they buy because they believe that someone else will be dumb enough to buy it at a higher price than you did

I'm familiar with that theory, but that is not why I bought stock. I bought (as part of not-so diversified portfolio that probably has too many tech stocks) shares of AMD because I hate Intel and am waging revenge for not hiring me. :D

Hey, Dman, look! Our pal Robespierre is here! The party can now begin.

[Robespierre]

Hey, Dman, look! Our pal Robespierre is here! The party can now begin.

Whatever you say....capitalist.

Haha.

[Architectonic]

I mustn't be very good at expressing myself, as Robespierre has misunderstood a number of my points. :huh: :blush:


Oh shit, here we go again...

Don't worry, this will be a short discussion - at least on my end....

At the moment, I tend to think that a more balanced system (between the state having full control and the state having no control) will be more useful in the current real world that we live in.


Define what you mean when you speak of a "capitalist system".

I mean the standard definition. Basically a system characterised by private ownership and prices are determined by competition in a free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_capitalism

By 'pure capitalist system' I mean a capitalist system with no government intervention whatsoever.


Both democratic and communist? You set those systems up as though they were opposites, when in fact, they are not.

No, you percieved that I set those systems up as though they were opposites. In fact I agree with you, which is why I mentioned both systems in the same sentence in the first place. I was simply making the differentiation out that the common "communist conservative" definition may be a little different to the "democratic conservative" definition.


Also, you have directly contradicted yourself. How else would you define economic status, if not standard of living?

Actually I did not contradict myself. I was refering to the less-well-off individual - increased economic growth status does not imply the wealth is distributed to those individuals, nor that it improves their standard of living.

You could define the economic status in terms of GDP, which doesn't directly imply anything about standard of living.


What a naked and pointless appeal to authority. Why should anyone accept the UN's definition of a good society? What IS their definition?

My selection of a measure is somewhat arbitrary - basically I was too lazy to look any further. However I thought a measure based on life expectancy, adult literacy and GDP per capita was not totally unreasonable.
Here is the wikipedia link (for those who are that way inclined :P )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_index

Perhaps a happiness/well being measurement system would be more suitable instead of a more conventional literacy/life expectancy/GDP measure.


How are the "underclasses" patronised and discriminated in a system of unbounded interpersonal exchange?

The terminology "underclasses" and "patronised" was inherited from songbird34's post, but anyway...

A highly efficient capitalist system makes a number of assumptions:

A perfect 'legal' system (which is perfectly enforced). This system may be comprised of private organisations, but an efficient legal type system is needed to avoid disputes. Otherwise issues from discrimination to crime will exist, dramatically reducing the efficiency of the system.

A second assumption is that monopolies will not exist. (there will be adequate competition to provide realistic prices)

Many problems will relate to the requirement that all information on all products is known to all and fully accounted for. Therefore everyone will know the true value of every product and make rational (fully accountable) decisons. One example is an employee will know exactly how much their labour is worth and therefore is able to negotiate for a perfect wage. Or that an industry takes full accountability for their waste (including air/water pollution etc)
In reality, this unrealisic because there are many uncertainties about the future, from climate to waste (inc. pollution) to health. Naturally people will need to invest in insurance provided by private organisations to account for these uncertainties. (which is in some ways equivalent to conventional tax)

Wealth distribution - now the 'capitalists' arguement is that although the wealth distribution will be unequal, due to the 'innovators' improving the efficiency of society, the quality of life of those who are 'not as well off' (due to a variety of reasons) will be higher than in alternative systems. I don't necessarily think this will hold in the real world - what is to stop the 'innovators' from holding on to all of the wealth? (unless all of the possible variables are all known) Secondly, what is to suggest that this wealth, even when distributed will improve the quality of life the happiness of the people. It is also assumed that there will not be any inherent psychological problems interfering with the system. Ie motivational problems due to wealth inequality, irrational decision making etc. (leading to psychological services......)

The last assumption that the transition from current systems to other systems will be done in a relatively smooth manner. (Well I personally hope that should it happen, it would be able to be done smoothly.)

As you can see, instead of taxes a significant portion of your income will go to private services to provide the basic services/insurances that you need. But the costs of living vs income variances will be larger.

[Claverhouse]

Are you kidding? Wilhelm II was a buffoon. He blundered his way through foreign and domestic policy and left Germany with no substantial allies. He forced Russia to ally with France even though Germany and Russia had no direct disputes anywhere in the world (only indirect ones through Austria-Hungary, which should have been jettisoned as Germany's ally rather than Russia). He catered to the Naval League and began a Naval arms race with Britain that could not be won. All this did was create a threat from Germany to Britain where one had no previously existed. Again, this made it palpable for Britain to ally with what had been their greatest enemies, France and Russia.
Despite having the executive power generally consolidated in one person, there was absolutely no unity between the military and civilian government which proved disastrous in 1914 when military plans and foreign policy were not on the same wavelength. Bethmann Hollweg complained that he was isolated from the military cabinet, who were constantly in private audiences with the Kaiser.

In any case, Kaiser Wilhelm was hardly an absolute monarch in the tradition of Louis XIV or James I. The Reichstag had a great deal of control over budgets. It is not surprising that throughout the existence of the Kaiserreich, the far right was constantly planning a Staatsreich, or a coup de etat by the government and the conservatives against the Reichstag.
We could argue this --- if I felt like it, and I don't argue generally because all is faith --- but since all these posts are, thanks be, gonna be swept into the dustbin of history every Sunday, there's even less point than usual.

Since it has been laid down that spillover from the bitching parlour onto the main forum will result in bans, I shall now argue that your post is overspill from the main forum into the bitching parlour.

And I never argued that he had enough power --- anymore than the two other monarchs mentioned; merely that the basis of his monarchial power was through Divine Right, and that he was the last major monarch ruling on this basis.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jyakulis]

Did you miss me?

lol I did buddy. (no seriously...he makes me think....)

[Thermo]

Indeed I am a libertarian.
Libertarians are to idealistic for me. There ideas will not work outside a very small society. Communism is the same way.




To provide a correct, but unsatisfying answer, I don't know. The society in question would decide. This is like asking how a society will treat the production and distribution of can openers. Who can say? Only the market for that good can decide, in the end. So if the people fear outside invasion and domination, they are likely to value defense. In order to provide defense, some if not most will likely arm themselves with rifles and other small arms. Others may pay a defense force to provide them with security, not only from outside invaders, but from thieves etc from within the society.
This is how third world countries operate where crime and corruption are rampant.



But as I said, I can't tell you exactly how a society will provide for its defense other than saying that those individuals who value defense, will be likely to pay for defense.
This will create Feudal Kingdoms as different factions control areas by brute force that will block trade and peace.



Depending on how you define "law", the answer will vary. If by law you mean basic right and wrong distinctions like theft, murder, etc, then individuals will uphold the law. As in the defense situation, I cannot begin to tell you exactly how those individuals will choose to do this. It is probable that independent arbitration services for settling disputes will evolve. Those services which are seen as most impartial will likely get more business, as both sides of a dispute will be more likely to agree to accept the arbitration if the arbitrator is seen as reasonable and impartial by both sides, as opposed to a service that can be swayed to rule in favor of the side willing to pay more money.
If there is no regulation, this will lead to armed groups competing for business. Either you will end up with a strong mafia, like Russia or Italy or a dictator will take control.



If you refer to laws as social norms, issues of value, then I suggest that society is self-regulating in that respect. Is there a positive obligation to provide aid to someone lying on the street, bleeding to death? I say no. However, there may be social consequences for inaction, that are entirely in line with non-aggression. A desire to remain a part of society, through trade and social interaction is a fairly strong motivator for most individuals. If someone knew that by walking past a bleeding body in the street, their neighbors would completely shut them out, and some might not do business with them, a motivation, above and beyond the basic human compassion, exists.
While there are isolated incidences of non-violence working, I don't think it is reliable to enforce laws. Crime would be rampant.



I get the whole "utopian fantasy" thing a lot. That is precisely how I feel about the idea of a centralized state providing "order" and security. While I see my ideas of spontaneous order verified on a daily basis, I have yet to see a centralized state provide any sort of security. The state, which represents the solution to a problem, is often worse than the original problem.
Centralized states do provide security and order. They also make it possible to have a unified currency, language, research, etc. I agree that they create problems, too. However, decentralized countries cannot expect to survive among centralized governments.



I am sure that I have glazed over points which you may see as vitally important, so ask away. I'm not here to demand absolute agreement, but rather, to provide some meaningful definitions for the terms commonly used, and to at least propose the idea that the state is not always the answer.
I think your ideas are very interesting and look forward to discussing the possibilities. I think political philosophy really boils down to whether you think people are basically good or bad. Your system requires a high degree of trust and strong bonds within the society to function and no outside influences to disrupt it. I think we have to assume the worst in creating a political system there are people who are insane, selfish and greedy and will rob, kill or steal to get what they want. I don't think your model can work in a world with people like this or central governments.

[Robespierre]

I mustn't be very good at expressing myself, as Robespierre has misunderstood a number of my points.

Quite possible.


Don't worry, this will be a short discussion - at least on my end....

At the moment, I tend to think that a more balanced system (between the state having full control and the state having no control) will be more useful in the current real world that we live in.

Useful for what?


I mean the standard definition. Basically a system characterised by private ownership and prices are determined by competition in a free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_capitalism

By 'pure capitalist system' I mean a capitalist system with no government intervention whatsoever.

Sounds good to me.


No, you percieved that I set those systems up as though they were opposites. In fact I agree with you, which is why I mentioned both systems in the same sentence in the first place. I was simply making the differentiation out that the common "communist conservative" definition may be a little different to the "democratic conservative" definition.

And both would be different than the democratic communist conservative, but I fail to see how either of these points clarifies your original arguments.


Actually I did not contradict myself. I was refering to the less-well-off individual - increased economic growth status does not imply the wealth is distributed to those individuals, nor that it improves their standard of living.

You are making the mistake of thinking in terms of the hive. This is dangerous, and as you have exposed, quite pointless. Why speak of economic growth of a nation, when the fact is, you mean economic growth of certain individuals within a nation?


You could define the economic status in terms of GDP, which doesn't directly imply anything about standard of living.

Exactly, which is why GDP is such a meaningless figure. Not only because it presumes to measure something that cannot be measured, but because those doing the measuring and deciding upon the standards, are those who stand to benefit by misrepresenting the figures.


My selection of a measure is somewhat arbitrary - basically I was too lazy to look any further. However I thought a measure based on life expectancy, adult literacy and GDP per capita was not totally unreasonable.
Here is the wikipedia link (for those who are that way inclined :P )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_index
Perhaps a happiness/well being measurement system would be more suitable instead of a more conventional literacy/life expectancy/GDP measure.

Happiness cannot be measured. All of the stats you mention rely on individual valuations to determine their validity. Perhaps the soviet union greatly increased literacy under its watch, but at what cost? Such ideals as literacy and life-expectancy tend to end up being used as excuses to grasp more and more power.


The terminology "underclasses" and "patronised" was inherited from songbird34's post, but anyway...

A highly efficient capitalist system makes a number of assumptions:

A perfect 'legal' system (which is perfectly enforced). This system may be comprised of private organisations, but an efficient legal type system is needed to avoid disputes.

Okay, I see what you are saying. Seems correct so far, except, I don't see why you use the adjective "perfect". It is clear that no legal system can ever operate in a "perfect" manner, and it is equally clear that individuals can exchange goods with one another regardless of the relative perfection of their legal system.


Otherwise issues from discrimination to crime will exist, dramatically reducing the efficiency of the system.

The efficiency of which system? Capitalism? How do you define the "efficiency" of the system?

And who is to say that discrimination is an inherent bad? Every decision made, is an act of discrimination, against the less qualified applicant for the job, against the more expensive toaster pastry, etc etc. You may not hold the same values as the person making the decision, but if they are deciding on a use of their own property, your values are not important.


A second assumption is that monopolies will not exist. (there will be adequate competition to provide realistic prices)

That's not an assumption, but a basic fact. A monopoly is a government grant of priviledge to be the only legal supplier of a good or service. It is something that can only exist alongside an economically interventionist government.


Many problems will relate to the requirement that all information on all products is known to all and fully accounted for.

If individuals value knowing the precise contents of a package, they will buy from those suppliers that provide such information. If all existing suppliers get together and agree not to provide the info, the advantage to some other individual getting into the market will be great, and the suppliers cartel will be broken by market pressures.


Therefore everyone will know the true value of every product and make rational (fully accountable) decisons.

This is the most important difference we have. I believe that there is no such thing as a "true value". Value is something that is totally subjective and individual. There is no inherent value to anything, only the individual's desire to own something give it value.


One example is an employee will know exactly how much their labour is worth and therefore is able to negotiate for a perfect wage.

Perfect wage? An individual's labor services are worth something different to every individual. I personally value the labor of car-washing at zero. I can do this myself in very little time, and have no need to employ car washers. However, someone operating a fleet of vehicles may value the labor a car washer much higher, as he needs the job done, and cannot do it himself. Then, the individual who proposes to sell his labor as a car washer, must weigh his own personal valuation of his labor services against the values of others proposing to purchase his services. Only when each party values the other's input more than their own, will a transaction take place. If you value sitting around the house more than $6 an hour for washing cars, you will remain at home.


Or that an industry takes full accountability for their waste (including air/water pollution etc)

The issue of pollution can only really be solved by recognizing absolute individual property rights. When we assume that any resource can be owned in common, like water, we create the breeding ground for abuse and the classic "tradgedy of the commons".


In reality, this unrealisic because there are many uncertainties about the future, from climate to waste (inc. pollution) to health. Naturally people will need to invest in insurance provided by private organisations to account for these uncertainties. (which is in some ways equivalent to conventional tax)

What sort of system is typically best suited to deal with changes? A large centralized bureaucratic system, or a decentralized bottom up order? I suggest the latter.


Wealth distribution - now the 'capitalists' arguement is that although the wealth distribution will be unequal, due to the 'innovators' improving the efficiency of society, the quality of life of those who are 'not as well off' (due to a variety of reasons) will be higher than in alternative systems. I don't necessarily think this will hold in the real world - what is to stop the 'innovators' from holding on to all of the wealth? (unless all of the possible variables are all known)

In order for innovators to gain wealth, they must exchange the result of their innovation for something. If I invent a vegetable oil powered engine, will I gain anything by keeping it to myself? Not possible. I would be required to trade either my knowledge of the contruction of the engine or the engines themselves in exchange for items which I value, in order to gain wealth from my innovation. In the process, others gain the use of my engine, and both parties are enriched.

Unless it is at the point of a gun or the result of a fraud, all trade leaves both parties better off than they would have otherwise been.


Secondly, what is to suggest that this wealth, even when distributed will improve the quality of life the happiness of the people.

The very fact that people freely obtained it suggests that they valued the objects which they obtained. This is enough, as there is no objective standard of happiness.


It is also assumed that there will not be any inherent psychological problems interfering with the system. Ie motivational problems due to wealth inequality, irrational decision making etc. (leading to psychological services......)

Define irrational decision making. You may assume that someone is acting upon the wrong values, but this doesn't make the irrational.


The last assumption that the transition from current systems to other systems will be done in a relatively smooth manner. (Well I personally hope that should it happen, it would be able to be done smoothly.)

As you can see, instead of taxes a significant portion of your income will go to private services to provide the basic services/insurances that you need. But the costs of living vs income variances will be larger.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but I do agree that a reasonable transfer from any system into individualist capitalism will be complicated at best, given the complex nature of interweaving relationships between the government, business, and everyday life.

[Robespierre]

Libertarians are to idealistic for me. There ideas will not work outside a very small society. Communism is the same way.

That does seem to be a popular opinion of libertarianism, but not one that I share. I actually think that libertarianism defines the world as it is. It doesn't presume to define what people value, and so, cannot ever accurately predict the specific outcome of a system. I believe that many people value security over uncertainty, and don't know any better, and so the aberation of the nationstate is allowed to persist.



This is how third world countries operate where crime and corruption are rampant.

Third world countries suffer for many reasons, primary is the lack of any idea of property rights. Many of the nations referred to as "third world" were driven from tribal societies with no writing or large scale economic activities, to full blown nation state in 100 years or less by the various colonial powers. Their instability is a result of outside interference and the relatively primative nature of their societies and understanding of the world.


This will create Feudal Kingdoms as different factions control areas by brute force that will block trade and peace.

I agree completely, the proof is our modern world. The question is, how best to limit the tendancy of individuals to centralized power. I suggest that this is often done with the consent of the many, witout their realization.


If there is no regulation, this will lead to armed groups competing for business. Either you will end up with a strong mafia, like Russia or Italy or a dictator will take control.

The only difference between our current system, and the outcome you describe based off of mine, is in scale. Either small local mafias, or large ones with armies and nuclear bombs. The large-scale mafias killed over 500 million people last century, it's hard to imagine la cosa nostra topping that figure.


While there are isolated incidences of non-violence working, I don't think it is reliable to enforce laws. Crime would be rampant.

Not non-violence, non-aggression. If you attempt to violate my property, and I feel sufficiently threatened,(basically that you aren't just planting a tree in my yard, but trying to harm me or my family), I will respond with violence to prevent the crime. As it is, gun control laws reduce the individual's ability to actually stop crimes while being committed, and they are reduced to waiting for the police to show up, and begging them to help.


Centralized states do provide security and order. They also make it possible to have a unified currency, language, research, etc.

Define a unified currency. If you refer to a currency not backed by some commodity, eg gold, then I must argue that a unified currency does not provide security and order, but rather, uncertainty and chaos. Central banking and fractional reserve banking are the two main causes for the business cycle, the periodic ups and downs the plague our society. Languages can be unified without centralized government, I see no connection there. And centralized research is of dubious quality. Why should one central comittee decide what is to be researched? This calls to mind the example of ancient china vs. europe. China originally had a fairly well developed community of scientists and a large body of knowledge. However, the entire area of china was centralized under on authority in ~200bc. Since that time, their scientific development has been greatly decreased, where as europe saw dramatic improvements in science, culture, etc due mainly to the relative independence of most areas of europe from other areas, a very decentralized system.


I agree that they create problems, too. However, decentralized countries cannot expect to survive among centralized governments.

I disagree. With the invention of the rifle, no centrally organized force has been able to occupy a well armed population.


I think your ideas are very interesting and look forward to discussing the possibilities. I think political philosophy really boils down to whether you think people are basically good or bad. Your system requires a high degree of trust and strong bonds within the society to function and no outside influences to disrupt it. I think we have to assume the worst in creating a political system there are people who are insane, selfish and greedy and will rob, kill or steal to get what they want. I don't think your model can work in a world with people like this or central governments.

Thanks, I look forward to a good discussion.

Also, I suggest that my position is actually fairly cynical when considering the basic nature of humans. I suggest that centralized states require a faith in individuals acting on behalf of the "greater good" which has just never been shown to exist. Instead of placing decisions in the hands of those concerned, but instead concentrating power to make decisions in one person's hands, we place and undue amount of faith on that individual to make the right decision.

[booyalab]

*looks at poll*

oh well...
"it was a pleasure just to be nominated"

[mgb]

It's almost like his re-appearence was just to insure victory.

[Robespierre]

It's almost like his re-appearence was just to insure victory.

Victory is mine!



... what do I win?

[Claverhouse]

Victory is mine!



... what do I win?

A Gap-Year of voluntary work in North Korea.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Architectonic]

Basically we differ in values.

When considering political/social systems I consider not just myself, but every individual - the whole picture.
I do not necessarily believe myself to be 'better' or 'worse' than humans and therefore don't think it is unreasonable to have equal entitlement as others to a reasonable living standard - but I guess you differ on that issue and consider it dangerous. But there is also the potential that you may have a life changing experience that will provide you with a different outlook on life.

You make a big assumption that the humans (and the information to make the decision) making the decisions will be infallible - their decisions will be totally consistent with their values. In reality, peoples perceptions don't always correlate with their values. Unfortunately, manipulation can and will occur.

Now I myself am fallible, I guess it might be a bit of a stretch to imply that all other people are also potentially fallible.....

The efficiency/usefulness of the system is about all people meeting their values (including needs) to be happy.

Perfect wage/true values/rational decision making etc. all relate to the individual's values.

Discrimination follows on from the fallibility of humans. Some people just naturally discriminate against other people because they happen to look different, have different tastes, or have health problems or whatever. Discrimination may interfere with the price or whether someone gets a particular job. Now I personally don't see that as fair, but.....

You made a number of other questionable (not necessarily incorrect, just questionable) points, but its not really relevant to refute them.

[Robespierre]

Basically we differ in values.

When considering political/social systems I consider not just myself, but every individual - the whole picture.
I do not necessarily believe myself to be 'better' or 'worse' than humans and therefore don't think it is unreasonable to have equal entitlement as others to a reasonable living standard - but I guess you differ on that issue and consider it dangerous. But there is also the potential that you may have a life changing experience that will provide you with a different outlook on life.

I've had plenty of life expiriences, none of them have yet convinced me that collective decisionmaking is superior to individualism.

I don't see how considering yourself equal to all other persons necessarily leads to believing that anyone is "entitled" to a "reasonable" standard of living.

First, how will you provide this standard, which you have decided upon? If you want to do this with your own legitimately obtained resources, then be my guest, I won't try to stop you. However, if you suggest plundering others to fulfill your own value and opinion of what a reasonable standard of living is, then I will resist you. You then become a dictator of standards, rather than a defender.


You make a big assumption that the humans (and the information to make the decision) making the decisions will be infallible

Not at all. This is a common fallacy suggested by those who are afraid of libertarian ideas, but don't quite understand them. As I stated in another thread, the system that places its trust in central planners and leaders is the one that makes the assumption that individuals can have perfect knowledge and know what is best for all. It is precisely because I realize that perfect knowledge is impossible that I urge individualism, and the avoidance of centralization. See my example about china vs europe.


- their decisions will be totally consistent with their values. In reality, peoples perceptions don't always correlate with their values. Unfortunately, manipulation can and will occur.

Explain what you mean. What about a perception can either corrolate or disjunct with values? The two are seperate.


Now I myself am fallible, I guess it might be a bit of a stretch to imply that all other people are also potentially fallible.....

Exactly, so why should anyone trust you, or any other human, to make decisions regarding laws and actions that effect millions?


The efficiency/usefulness of the system is about all people meeting their values (including needs) to be happy.

And since all people have different values, what sense does it make to force people into collective systems?


Perfect wage/true values/rational decision making etc. all relate to the individual's values.

As I stated.


Discrimination follows on from the fallibility of humans.

I disagree. Discrimination follows from the limitations of time and space. Each individual must make decisions to take some actions, and not others. Thus, discrimination.


Some people just naturally discriminate against other people because they happen to look different, have different tastes, or have health problems or whatever. Discrimination may interfere with the price or whether someone gets a particular job. Now I personally don't see that as fair, but.....

What is fair? I have yet to have that explained.

It is the individual's absolute right to dispose of his property as he pleases, so long as he respects the right of others to do the same.

[Robespierre]

I'm probably missing something really obvious here, but how is it that some people have voted more than once in this poll?

[songbird36]

I'm an arch-capitalist and was very upset not to be nominated for this poll as I've already declared my political leanings lie somewhere to the Right of Genghis Khan.

On liberalism, I agree it can't operate unchecked in a Western liberal democracy, to the extent that there will always be a group of vulnerable people needing protection and support from the Government. My argument however is that the class we have created of "those in need of protection" is *far* too large, so that we assume anyone who can't or won't find a job, or who has a mild sickness or disability, is incapable of supporting themselves or contributing to the economic future of the country.

This is both patronising to the "false underclass" we create, and detrimental to the economy and wealth of the country and to its social structure, as many of these people become disaffected, de-motivated, and ultimately (in some cases) destructive.

Liberalism is precisely that - it *liberates* people through the ethos of opportunity. We need to work harder at creating opportunities, rather than handing out welfare checks.

[SheepDog]

I'm probably missing something really obvious here, but how is it that some people have voted more than once in this poll?
You're allowed more than one choice when you vote. Not radio buttons, but check boxes.

[Robespierre]

You're allowed more than one choice when you vote. Not radio buttons, but check boxes.

I see. Carry on.

[Thermo]

That does seem to be a popular opinion of libertarianism, but not one that I share. I actually think that libertarianism defines the world as it is. It doesn't presume to define what people value, and so, cannot ever accurately predict the specific outcome of a system. I believe that many people value security over uncertainty, and don't know any better, and so the aberation of the nationstate is allowed to persist.
I agree there is probably a better way, but ultimately central governments with a stronger military trump and dominate any decentralized decision. This is exactly why they have succeeded.





Third world countries suffer for many reasons, primary is the lack of any idea of property rights. Many of the nations referred to as "third world" were driven from tribal societies with no writing or large scale economic activities, to full blown nation state in 100 years or less by the various colonial powers. Their instability is a result of outside interference and the relatively primative nature of their societies and understanding of the world.
I agree there is a strain in joining the modern world, but I disagree on property rights. Generally people in third world nations kill each over land or food. Property rights is what you can hold onto by force.




I agree completely, the proof is our modern world. The question is, how best to limit the tendancy of individuals to centralized power. I suggest that this is often done with the consent of the many, witout their realization.
Is centralization the root problem? Why?




The only difference between our current system, and the outcome you describe based off of mine, is in scale. Either small local mafias, or large ones with armies and nuclear bombs. The large-scale mafias killed over 500 million people last century, it's hard to imagine la cosa nostra topping that figure.
The Russian mafia all but owns the Russian government.




Not non-violence, non-aggression. If you attempt to violate my property, and I feel sufficiently threatened,(basically that you aren't just planting a tree in my yard, but trying to harm me or my family), I will respond with violence to prevent the crime. As it is, gun control laws reduce the individual's ability to actually stop crimes while being committed, and they are reduced to waiting for the police to show up, and begging them to help.
Vigilanti justice is a dangerous thing. The wild west was eventually tamed.




Define a unified currency. If you refer to a currency not backed by some commodity, eg gold, then I must argue that a unified currency does not provide security and order, but rather, uncertainty and chaos. Central banking and fractional reserve banking are the two main causes for the business cycle, the periodic ups and downs the plague our society. Languages can be unified without centralized government, I see no connection there. And centralized research is of dubious quality. Why should one central comittee decide what is to be researched? This calls to mind the example of ancient china vs. europe. China originally had a fairly well developed community of scientists and a large body of knowledge. However, the entire area of china was centralized under on authority in ~200bc. Since that time, their scientific development has been greatly decreased, where as europe saw dramatic improvements in science, culture, etc due mainly to the relative independence of most areas of europe from other areas, a very decentralized system.
A common currency makes trade and economic development possible. As for China versus Europe. Each state was a nation state so that plays more to the theory of nation states than decentralized government.




I disagree. With the invention of the rifle, no centrally organized force has been able to occupy a well armed population.
Bush's wars in Afganistan and Iraq proved how overwhelming a modern power can be, sure they can setup guerilla resistance, but they wont have real autonomy or control of the government. Rifles are not enough to ensure independence.




Also, I suggest that my position is actually fairly cynical when considering the basic nature of humans. I suggest that centralized states require a faith in individuals acting on behalf of the "greater good" which has just never been shown to exist. Instead of placing decisions in the hands of those concerned, but instead concentrating power to make decisions in one person's hands, we place and undue amount of faith on that individual to make the right decision.
It has existed in small tribes and the distant past.

[Robespierre]

I agree there is probably a better way, but ultimately central governments with a stronger military trump and dominate any decentralized decision. This is exactly why they have succeeded.

I'll respond in full tomorrow. I'm out of here for now.

[songbird36]

Oh good - 'cos I'd like to take issue with your view that liberalism defines the world "as it is" rather than defining values.

Liberalism is per se a value - the value that the free market and individual responsibility are a "good" and that any other system leads to social inequity and economic harm.

Would the market and society operate in a "liberal" fashion left to its own devices? No, because the market and society have to be structured in a certain way for liberalism to operate. Thus it is a construct rather than a reality.

[Dman]

No, actually anyone who owns stock, either directly, through mutual funds, or 401K investments, is in fact, a capitalist. You are providing capital to companies which you believe will earn you profit It doesn't matter how you feel about the system. If you are playing baseball, you are a baseball player, no matter your feelings on the game.

Wrong-o.

If you own stock purchased in the secondary market, which virtually all individuals do, you haven't provided a single thing to the company. Only the purchaser of the initial stock offering did. You should know that.

[Architectonic]

Dman, that is just semantics. The company still earns you profit (dividends) for your investment (assuming you hold it over the ex div date). If the share was not sold directly to you, then it could have been sold back to the company and then to you - its just semantics.

Robespierre - the reality is that you are simply rejecting one extreme (unrealistic ideal) view (communism) for another extreme (unrealistic ideal) view (pure capitalistic society).

You believe that the individual in general will have more freedom (than current democratic systems) in a pure capitalistic society - that is where we disagree.

You are just rejecting one form of totalitarianism for another (trading governments for large organizations).

[Hypnos]

[...] You believe that the individual in general will have more freedom (than current democratic systems) in a pure capitalistic society - that is where we disagree.

You are just rejecting one form of totalitarianism for another (trading governments for large organizations).
This assumes that corporations would achieve the same hegemony as a state, but without assuming the privelege of force (in which case a corporation would just be an organized crime organization).

Perhaps you think that corporations cannot help but become organized crime organizations without some prior restraint from the state. That's quite a leap, since coporations rely on the law just to do business.

What's dangerous is that because the gov't is granted the very regulatory power you desire, corporations can lobby for special treatment.

[Architectonic]

I personally am not necessarily suggesting that corporations will become "organized crime organizations" (within current definitions of those terms). That is indeed quite a leap.

[Hypnos]

I personally am not necessarily suggesting that corporations will become "organized crime organizations" (within current definitions of those terms). That is indeed quite a leap.
Then what's the problem with cutting the fat from the state, and letting the market pick its own winners and losers?

[sbw]

look whorecuntalab, I never said it was the only hope in life, or that the hope was anything but fleeting, but wait until you graduate and wake up and discover that university wasn't much more than a gamble either. And I've never spent what you are paying a year for school for lottery tickets.

This is (possibly) the beginning of a fantastic discussion. I have a whole theory as to why the vast majority of college attendees absolutely should not be wasting their time.

Scott

[sbw]

Define "social democrat".

A milder and more innocuous form of robbing from the rich to give to the poor?

Creating an underclass via the benefit and welfare system is not only making countries economically poorer, it is incredibly *patronizing* to those underclasses by conveying to them the impression that they have no chance of success in life, or of contributing constructively to the economic growth of the country.

Bah humbug I say.

Yes, patronizing, that's the exact proper term. I think the same about affirmative action; it's inherently condescending and racist.

Scott

[sbw]

I get the whole "utopian fantasy" thing a lot. That is precisely how I feel about the idea of a centralized state providing "order" and security. While I see my ideas of spontaneous order verified on a daily basis, I have yet to see a centralized state provide any sort of security. The state, which represents the solution to a problem, is often worse than the original problem.

I am sure that I have glazed over points which you may see as vitally important, so ask away. I'm not here to demand absolute agreement, but rather, to provide some meaningful definitions for the terms commonly used, and to at least propose the idea that the state is not always the answer.

Robespierre, thank you for existing; I'm glad that I'm not the only libertarian here (maybe thermo too). "While I see my ideas of spontaneous order verified on a daily basis, I have yet to see a centralized state provide any sort of security." This, especially, is relevant; I kinda think that because everything here in america is so politicized (right vs. left) that people are distracted by all that and don't even ask "does it work?" on a macro-level, just because they're too fuckin' dumb.

Scott

[sbw]

At the moment, I tend to think that a more balanced system (between the state having full control and the state having no control) will be more useful in the current real world that we live in.

(thinks of hayek's "the road to serfdom", is stricken with indecision over whether to giggle or cry)

Scott

[sbw]

Libertarians are to idealistic for me. There ideas will not work outside a very small society. Communism is the same way.




This is how third world countries operate where crime and corruption are rampant.



This will create Feudal Kingdoms as different factions control areas by brute force that will block trade and peace.



If there is no regulation, this will lead to armed groups competing for business. Either you will end up with a strong mafia, like Russia or Italy or a dictator will take control.



While there are isolated incidences of non-violence working, I don't think it is reliable to enforce laws. Crime would be rampant.



Centralized states do provide security and order. They also make it possible to have a unified currency, language, research, etc. I agree that they create problems, too. However, decentralized countries cannot expect to survive among centralized governments.



I think your ideas are very interesting and look forward to discussing the possibilities. I think political philosophy really boils down to whether you think people are basically good or bad. Your system requires a high degree of trust and strong bonds within the society to function and no outside influences to disrupt it. I think we have to assume the worst in creating a political system there are people who are insane, selfish and greedy and will rob, kill or steal to get what they want. I don't think your model can work in a world with people like this or central governments.

I'm reading thermo and robespierre (my homies, philosophically, it seems) discussing the utopianism of laissez-faire capitalism. Granted. I think the real point is not necessarily that a society based upon undiluted libertarian ideology wouldn't work, but rather that such a utopian vision isn't the only alternative to our current increasingly-theocratic, pseudo-capitalist morass of rampant corruption and whoring. (America, fuck yeah!) If we were to observe the tenets set forth in the original constitution of the united states, we would have no HUD, social security, affirmative action, drug prohibition, the postal service, or any of the other repressive, corrupting influences that our shitty government foists upon us.

A purely libertarian society really only has 2 rules: don't hit people (covers murder, assault, rape, and other acts of agression) and don't take their stuff (covers theft, embezzlement, fraud, etc.), with the obvious necessity of an effective judicial system so as to enforce these rules.

I am not clamoring for anarchy; rather, our constitution basically set it up so that the government was in charge of courts, jails, cops, and the military. And that's it. If our government performed those functions, and didn't perform millions of others that they have no constitutional right to inflict upon us poor citizens, I would be happy with that. And it WOULDN'T be anarchy.

Scott

[Thermo]

Robespierre, thank you for existing; I'm glad that I'm not the only libertarian here (maybe thermo too). "While I see my ideas of spontaneous order verified on a daily basis, I have yet to see a centralized state provide any sort of security." This, especially, is relevant; I kinda think that because everything here in america is so politicized (right vs. left) that people are distracted by all that and don't even ask "does it work?" on a macro-level, just because they're too fuckin' dumb.

Scott
I do have some libertarian leanings, but I think it needs to be used judiciously. I think libertarian ideas can be incorporated and successful within a centralized framework. A good example is my healthcare idea of allowing insurance companies more freedom and less regulation by allowing them to drop smokers and the obese. It would act as a way to encourage rather than regulate.

[Thermo]

I'm reading thermo and robespierre (my homies, philosophically, it seems) discussing the utopianism of laissez-faire capitalism. Granted. I think the real point is not necessarily that a society based upon undiluted libertarian ideology wouldn't work, but rather that such a utopian vision isn't the only alternative to our current increasingly-theocratic, pseudo-capitalist morass of rampant corruption and whoring. (America, fuck yeah!) If we were to observe the tenets set forth in the original constitution of the united states, we would have no HUD, social security, affirmative action, drug prohibition, the postal service, or any of the other repressive, corrupting influences that our shitty government foists upon us.
What do you have against getting mail?



A purely libertarian society really only has 2 rules: don't hit people (covers murder, assault, rape, and other acts of agression) and don't take their stuff (covers theft, embezzlement, fraud, etc.), with the obvious necessity of an effective judicial system so as to enforce these rules.
You need a centralized government infrastructure to police and have a military. They are both necessary to protect society against human nature.



I am not clamoring for anarchy; rather, our constitution basically set it up so that the government was in charge of courts, jails, cops, and the military. And that's it. If our government performed those functions, and didn't perform millions of others that they have no constitutional right to inflict upon us poor citizens, I would be happy with that. And it WOULDN'T be anarchy.
You want less government.

[Robespierre]

I agree there is probably a better way, but ultimately central governments with a stronger military trump and dominate any decentralized decision. This is exactly why they have succeeded.

This is certainly an unresolved issue with individualism, the transfer from statis to individualist society. I don't see it as something that will happen suddenly, or at the point of a gun, but the logical next step in human society. I'm going a bit off the path here, but it is my opinion that space exploration, on a private basis, will lead to many reforms in the direction of my beliefs. People will have the option of leaving the current nation-states for colonies, much as they did during the enlightenment, 1600-1850, and later, from the east coast, to the west. So I'm not expecting any countries to disolve into individualist societies overnight, but at some point, it will be the best available social model.


I agree there is a strain in joining the modern world, but I disagree on property rights. Generally people in third world nations kill each over land or food. Property rights is what you can hold onto by force.

You are talking about might makes right, which has no connection to rights. Property rights are based primarily on the idea that each individual owns himself. From this, we grant that each individual also owns his labor, and those things with which he mixes his labor that are not already owned by another. This is basic Lockean homesteading. Such concepts simply don't exist in their modern form, below the Sahara desert.


Is centralization the root problem? Why?

Centralized power becomes absolute. The same problems with economic centralization(central planning) result. A lack of flexibility, and basic self-interest of those in power insure that suffering and wrongs will flow from centralized power. Lincoln was a powerful centralizer in US history. He destroyed the once widely accepted idea that the union was an agreement between the states that could be broken when the states saw fit, thus removing the last and only serious check on centralized federal power.


The Russian mafia all but owns the Russian government.

I completely disagree. I've been there, and while the mafia exist, they are not the force that people make them out to be. The government of Russia is the real mafia, with Putin as the new strong-man. It's sad too, when you ask them what they think about russian politics, they all say the same thing, "we need a strong man to take control". They're brewing up another Stalin.


Vigilanti justice is a dangerous thing. The wild west was eventually tamed.

The "wild west" wasn't so wild as has been suggested. I don't have the figures at hand, but even considering the tiny populations of many western towns, the per-capita murder rates were often equal to or much smaller than those in the big cities at the same time. The myth of the wild west is popular, but has been exagerated to the point of absurdity.


A common currency makes trade and economic development possible.

Explain international trade.

Also, note that my objection here is not to a widely used currency, but to a currency which has no real backing, and one which is forced upon the users at the point of a gun, as the US dollar is and was.


As for China versus Europe. Each state was a nation state so that plays more to the theory of nation states than decentralized government.

Each region of europe was not a nation-state. Many were tiny principalities ruled by a royal family, some were ruled by citizen's councils, others by the catholic church, and others were fuedal vassals. The important feature of 14th-16th century europe though, is the massive decentralization and the important struggle between secular rulers, kings, princes, etc, and the church rulers, for power within those various countries. This struggle allowed for some degree of freedom of movement. Granted, it was still a fuedal nightmare for many, but it was superiour to the chinese empire, and eventually lead to better things for the individuals of europe.


Bush's wars in Afganistan and Iraq proved how overwhelming a modern power can be, sure they can setup guerilla resistance, but they wont have real autonomy or control of the government.

And look what it took to accomplish even a pyrric victory, years of commitment and billions of dollars. No other state in the world could have pulled it off at this point in history. And those wars are clearly not yet settled, the fanatics in both areas won't rest.


Rifles are not enough to ensure independence.

Not in and of themselves, but coupled with the proper understanding of the world, and a will to defend individual liberty, they do provide a check against rampant invasion. The japanese knew they could never occupy lower 48 american territory during wwii, they recognized that "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."


It has existed in small tribes and the distant past.

I would say that it is possible, but not probable.

[Robespierre]

Oh good - 'cos I'd like to take issue with your view that liberalism defines the world "as it is" rather than defining values.

You can argue all you like about liberalism, I'm not speaking of it. I am speaking of individualism. While they are similar, they are not identical. Classic liberals accept the need for a state, which I do not.


Liberalism is per se a value - the value that the free market and individual responsibility are a "good" and that any other system leads to social inequity and economic harm.

Would the market and society operate in a "liberal" fashion left to its own devices? No, because the market and society have to be structured in a certain way for liberalism to operate. Thus it is a construct rather than a reality.

What way do societies have to be structured for liberalism to operate?

As for individualism, it merely describes the current ways that individuals interact. All individuals act in the own self interest as they see it, at all times. There is no such thing, outside of fantasy, as altruism. While plenty of individuals may be loving and act selfless, donating to charity, etc etc, they do so because they feel they will personally benefit from doing so, either because they value the happiness they get from giving more than they value the gift, or because they wish to impress someone, or any number of infinite other reasons.

[Robespierre]

Robespierre - the reality is that you are simply rejecting one extreme (unrealistic ideal) view (communism) for another extreme (unrealistic ideal) view (pure capitalistic society).

Yes, you do say that, but I have yet to see it demonstrated on any level that my ideas are unrealistic. Communism can be shown to be radically against human nature, and plenty of examples of failed communist states exist to bring home the point. The more libertarian the nation, the more well off they tend to be.


You believe that the individual in general will have more freedom (than current democratic systems) in a pure capitalistic society - that is where we disagree.

You are just rejecting one form of totalitarianism for another (trading governments for large organizations).

Governments ARE large organizations. However, I fail to see how I am trading governments for corporations. Do you think global-wide corporations will be able to exist without the various supports they receive from government?

[sbw]

What do you have against getting mail?

The private sector could provide this service more efficiently (as evidenced by the existence of fedex, UPS, etc.); as such, the government should not be running it (and because the constitution did not set forth a postal service as one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government)

You need a centralized government infrastructure to police and have a military. They are both necessary to protect society against human nature.

Agreed. I explicitly stated that the government DOES have the enumerated responsibilities of providing police, military, and a judicial system.

You want less government.

Correct. LESS government, rather than NO government.

Scott

[Robespierre]

Robespierre, thank you for existing; I'm glad that I'm not the only libertarian here (maybe thermo too). "While I see my ideas of spontaneous order verified on a daily basis, I have yet to see a centralized state provide any sort of security." This, especially, is relevant; I kinda think that because everything here in america is so politicized (right vs. left) that people are distracted by all that and don't even ask "does it work?" on a macro-level, just because they're too fuckin' dumb.

Scott

People are still very comfortable. This alone will deter many from questioning things, or striving to improve. I don't want people to become uncomfortable to force them to change, I want to win them with keen arguments.

[sbw]

What do you have against getting mail?



You need a centralized government infrastructure to police and have a military. They are both necessary to protect society against human nature.


You want less government.

1. The private sector could provide this service more efficiently (as evidenced by the existence of fedex, UPS, etc.); as such, the government should not be running it (and because the constitution did not set forth a postal service as one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government)

2. Agreed. I explicitly stated that the government DOES have the enumerated responsibilities of providing police, military, and a judicial system.

3. Correct. LESS government, rather than NO government.

Scott

[Robespierre]

A good example is my healthcare idea of allowing insurance companies more freedom and less regulation by allowing them to drop smokers and the obese. It would act as a way to encourage rather than regulate.

I'm with you on that. The market will reward those behaviours that result in less medical risk with cheaper health insurance. Socializing health insurance does the opposite, it promotes those activities which result in degraded health by subsidising the health of those individuals.

[Robespierre]

What do you have against getting mail?

I can't speak for him, but it is currently ILLEGAL to deliver first or third class mail if you are not a postal employee. The post office has a legal monopoly on the delivery of first and third class mail. Do you suppose mail would go undelivered without them? I don't think so. I think UPS FedEx Et Al have shown that the free market can provide brilliant delivery services, which vastly out-perform the post.


You need a centralized government infrastructure to police and have a military. They are both necessary to protect society against human nature.

The cure is worse than the sickness. Look at the shameful war on drugs. The majority of americans in jails right now are there for possessing and distributing banned plants and other substances. Millions of people in jail for this... I don't see how this helps anyone. As for centralized militaries, just take a look at the 20th century and the 500 million dead.

[Robespierre]

as such, the government should not be running it (and because the constitution did not set forth a postal service as one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government)

Not true, and a good lesson that the founders were not always right.


Article. 1.
Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...


Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

[Robespierre]

(thinks of hayek's "the road to serfdom", is stricken with indecision over whether to giggle or cry)

Scott

http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

[melancholeric]

http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm
Your avatar is apparently from that site, right?

[Robespierre]

Your avatar is apparently from that site, right?

You're the intuitive genius, you tell me.

[SheepDog]

http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm
Some of that seems a little bit familiar.

[melancholeric]

You're the intuitive genius, you tell me.
Well, it is somewhat similar to this (0http://www.mises.org/TRTS/02.jpg), just after cropping and resizing, but I wasn't sure after the first glance. Now it's quite obvious.

[Robespierre]

Well, it is somewhat similar to this (0http://www.mises.org/TRTS/02.jpg), just after cropping and resizing, but I wasn't sure after the first glance. Now it's quite obvious.

Do you any internal monologue at all?

[sbw]

Not true, and a good lesson that the founders were not always right.

Right on both counts, robie; thanks for the correction. And that cartoon was great.

Scott

[melancholeric]

Do you any internal monologue at all?
Occasionally.

Do you reply to every post even if you don't have anything to say? A simple 'yes' (or 'no') would have been a lot easier.

[Robespierre]

Occasionally.

Do you reply to every post even if you don't have anything to say? A simple 'yes' (or 'no') would have been a lot easier.

I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. What do you get out of it?

[melancholeric]

I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. What do you get out of it?
Not much. A good way to fight boredom.

[Thermo]

I'm with you on that. The market will reward those behaviours that result in less medical risk with cheaper health insurance. Socializing health insurance does the opposite, it promotes those activities which result in degraded health by subsidising the health of those individuals.
Where were you last week when we discussed this?

[Thermo]

This is certainly an unresolved issue with individualism, the transfer from statis to individualist society. I don't see it as something that will happen suddenly, or at the point of a gun, but the logical next step in human society. I'm going a bit off the path here, but it is my opinion that space exploration, on a private basis, will lead to many reforms in the direction of my beliefs. People will have the option of leaving the current nation-states for colonies, much as they did during the enlightenment, 1600-1850, and later, from the east coast, to the west. So I'm not expecting any countries to disolve into individualist societies overnight, but at some point, it will be the best available social model.
Until those space colonies develop better communication and travel with each other and the earth and then you are back to centralized governments.




You are talking about might makes right, which has no connection to rights. Property rights are based primarily on the idea that each individual owns himself. From this, we grant that each individual also owns his labor, and those things with which he mixes his labor that are not already owned by another. This is basic Lockean homesteading. Such concepts simply don't exist in their modern form, below the Sahara desert.
Property rights are intimately tied with power. Might makes Right is reality and the main lesson of history, IMHO. We don't have rights, because of highminded principles. We have rights, because of the government's ability to enforce order and prevent outside invasion.



Centralized power becomes absolute. The same problems with economic centralization(central planning) result. A lack of flexibility, and basic self-interest of those in power insure that suffering and wrongs will flow from centralized power. Lincoln was a powerful centralizer in US history. He destroyed the once widely accepted idea that the union was an agreement between the states that could be broken when the states saw fit, thus removing the last and only serious check on centralized federal power.
This proves might makes right. However, I disagree that people generally want to create bad systems and that systems themselves are basically bad. The good of the group need to be balanced with individual freedoms.




I completely disagree. I've been there, and while the mafia exist, they are not the force that people make them out to be. The government of Russia is the real mafia, with Putin as the new strong-man. It's sad too, when you ask them what they think about russian politics, they all say the same thing, "we need a strong man to take control". They're brewing up another Stalin.
OK, I read a few books on it, but you have been there.




The "wild west" wasn't so wild as has been suggested. I don't have the figures at hand, but even considering the tiny populations of many western towns, the per-capita murder rates were often equal to or much smaller than those in the big cities at the same time. The myth of the wild west is popular, but has been exagerated to the point of absurdity.
You could be onto something with this.




Explain international trade.

Also, note that my objection here is not to a widely used currency, but to a currency which has no real backing, and one which is forced upon the users at the point of a gun, as the US dollar is and was.
My point is without a central authority, it isn't possible to have a united currency or language. This creates barriers to trade, culture, and community.




Each region of europe was not a nation-state. Many were tiny principalities ruled by a royal family, some were ruled by citizen's councils, others by the catholic church, and others were fuedal vassals. The important feature of 14th-16th century europe though, is the massive decentralization and the important struggle between secular rulers, kings, princes, etc, and the church rulers, for power within those various countries. This struggle allowed for some degree of freedom of movement. Granted, it was still a fuedal nightmare for many, but it was superiour to the chinese empire, and eventually lead to better things for the individuals of europe.
How many wars?



And look what it took to accomplish even a pyrric victory, years of commitment and billions of dollars. No other state in the world could have pulled it off at this point in history. And those wars are clearly not yet settled, the fanatics in both areas won't rest.
Yes, but do the fanatics have peace and security? They can't insure independence with a decentralized military.




Not in and of themselves, but coupled with the proper understanding of the world, and a will to defend individual liberty, they do provide a check against rampant invasion. The japanese knew they could never occupy lower 48 american territory during wwii, they recognized that "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
look what it got them.




I would say that it is possible, but not probable.
I don't think it can happen, if you have anything someone else would want.

[Robespierre]

Where were you last week when we discussed this?

The same place I will likely be next week, not here. The enjoyment I get from debating these issues on this forum is limited. It's charming for a while, but then degrades quickly. But this was my previous experience, and did not include you and some of the other newer users.

[Robespierre]

Until those space colonies develop better communication and travel with each other and the earth and then you are back to centralized governments.

Possibly. Perhaps we are doomed to constant upheaval of individualist and collectivist ideologies. For now though, I take comfort in a logically consistent philosophy that suits my view of the world.


Property rights are intimately tied with power.

What sort of power do you refer to? In many cases, the lack of property rights is what enables power, not their respect.


Might makes Right is reality

Not quite. Might makes possible is reality, right is something else.


and the main lesson of history, IMHO. We don't have rights, because of highminded principles. We have rights, because of the government's ability to enforce order and prevent outside invasion.

I disagree. I believe that human rights are a natural consequence of our being human, and governments may recognize these rights, or not, as has been demonstrated. I would not suggest that when the government chooses not to recognize a right, that it doesn't exist, but merely that it is ignored. The government can declare that 2 + 2 = 3, and force people to operate that way, but they cannot change the truth value of the statement.


This proves might makes right. However, I disagree that people generally want to create bad systems and that systems themselves are basically bad. The good of the group need to be balanced with individual freedoms.

What are the needs of the group? Who decides? I don't believe there are such things as the "greater good" or "collective decisions". Only individuals may have goals and values, and thus, only individuals may take actions.


You could be onto something with this.

There's a few books on the topic, but it's been a while. I'll try to dig up some titles.


My point is without a central authority, it isn't possible to have a united currency or language. This creates barriers to trade, culture, and community.

Why is it not possible? Everything that we have seen suggests that spontaneous order, like the usage of one fixed weight of gold as currency, arises naturally when large groups interact. Governments don't create these things, but attempt to regulate them so they may gain wealth by doing so. The Federal Reserve is a perfect example of this. Originally, the US dollar was defined as 1/20th an ounce of gold. It was simply a measure of gold. And that measure, was already being used throughout the colonies before it was written into the constitution. The sole goal of the treasury at this point, was to convert raw silver or gold which individuals brought to them, into coinage, and to keep the accounts of the government.

This all changed in 1913 when the big bankers of Wall Street rammed through their federal reserve act. The federal reserve was given the power to regulate all banks, set centrally planned interest rates, etc etc. Their noodling with a system that was once kept in check by market forces, interest rates represtenting the availability of loanable money by banks, the economy began even more serious business cycles than it experienced before the fed's creation. These cycles culminated in the great crash of 1929, which was a direct result of the inflationary expansion of the 20's, much like the tech-bubble was a result of massive credit expansion during the 90's, and so on.

So in my opinion, central authority over the money supply only serves to destabalize the economy, and transfer wealth in immoral ways.


How many wars?

Not as many as during modern times, and not 1/100th the amount of deaths.


Yes, but do the fanatics have peace and security? They can't insure independence with a decentralized military.

They can, and are doing so right now. They are trying to get the US to leave in both cases. Unless you take those conflicts as settled...


look what it got them.

Well, they never invaded the US. And in the end, we all take a loss due to the developement of nuclear weapons. Although I will be clear in stating that I don't think techonology is ever the source of a problem, people and their uses are. I just think that nuclear weapons would not have been developed so soon without the urging of various governments.


I don't think it can happen, if you have anything someone else would want.

We were talking about the ability of a ruler to rule "in the interest of the people". If all his subjects happen to agree with his goals and methods and rule, then it is possible. But it should be fairly clear that even in family sized groups, this rarely happens.

[Thermo]

Possibly. Perhaps we are doomed to constant upheaval of individualist and collectivist ideologies. For now though, I take comfort in a logically consistent philosophy that suits my view of the world.
I agree, the frontier is always being pushed. Maybe that is where you belong?




What sort of power do you refer to? In many cases, the lack of property rights is what enables power, not their respect.
There is no such thing as property rights. Power creates the ability to control property.




Not quite. Might makes possible is reality, right is something else.
I am not saying it is morally right, only that humans that have power will use it to get what they want.




I disagree. I believe that human rights are a natural consequence of our being human, and governments may recognize these rights, or not, as has been demonstrated. I would not suggest that when the government chooses not to recognize a right, that it doesn't exist, but merely that it is ignored. The government can declare that 2 + 2 = 3, and force people to operate that way, but they cannot change the truth value of the statement.
Morality is more mallable than math.




What are the needs of the group? Who decides? I don't believe there are such things as the "greater good" or "collective decisions". Only individuals may have goals and values, and thus, only individuals may take actions.
The group is a collection of individuals. If an individual feels like killing ten people, he has infringed on the rights of a group.




There's a few books on the topic, but it's been a while. I'll try to dig up some titles.
thanks. I think of Putin more as a KGB front man than anything else.



Why is it not possible? Everything that we have seen suggests that spontaneous order, like the usage of one fixed weight of gold as currency, arises naturally when large groups interact. Governments don't create these things, but attempt to regulate them so they may gain wealth by doing so. The Federal Reserve is a perfect example of this. Originally, the US dollar was defined as 1/20th an ounce of gold. It was simply a measure of gold. And that measure, was already being used throughout the colonies before it was written into the constitution. The sole goal of the treasury at this point, was to convert raw silver or gold which individuals brought to them, into coinage, and to keep the accounts of the government.

This all changed in 1913 when the big bankers of Wall Street rammed through their federal reserve act. The federal reserve was given the power to regulate all banks, set centrally planned interest rates, etc etc. Their noodling with a system that was once kept in check by market forces, interest rates represtenting the availability of loanable money by banks, the economy began even more serious business cycles than it experienced before the fed's creation. These cycles culminated in the great crash of 1929, which was a direct result of the inflationary expansion of the 20's, much like the tech-bubble was a result of massive credit expansion during the 90's, and so on.
This is an interesting point. Maybe it is possible.



So in my opinion, central authority over the money supply only serves to destabalize the economy, and transfer wealth in immoral ways.
I wouldn't blame central authority, I would blame power and human nature. Anywhere that one human has power over another, inequities will exist.




Not as many as during modern times, and not 1/100th the amount of deaths.
Would you rather live then or now? Life wasn't fun.




They can, and are doing so right now. They are trying to get the US to leave in both cases. Unless you take those conflicts as settled...



Well, they never invaded the US. And in the end, we all take a loss due to the developement of nuclear weapons. Although I will be clear in stating that I don't think techonology is ever the source of a problem, people and their uses are. I just think that nuclear weapons would not have been developed so soon without the urging of various governments.



We were talking about the ability of a ruler to rule "in the interest of the people". If all his subjects happen to agree with his goals and methods and rule, then it is possible. But it should be fairly clear that even in family sized groups, this rarely happens.

[Dman]

Dman, that is just semantics. The company still earns you profit (dividends) for your investment (assuming you hold it over the ex div date). If the share was not sold directly to you, then it could have been sold back to the company and then to you - its just semantics.


First, that assumes the company actually pays a dividend.

Second, if it does pay a dividend, it assumes you actually directly receive the dividend rather than reinvest it into more shares (which virtually all mutual funds do and many private investors do).

Third, if the company bought back the share, it can never "sell it back". It would have to have another public offering of stock to sell shares, which of course would be a new stock, at a new price and primarily sold to institutional investors and insiders.

Fourth, the future value of dividends expected to be received are built into the stock price in the secondary market before you buy it. Thus, in a sense, you have already paid for the future dividends you are expecting to receive.

Fifth, semantics my arse, based upon the above reasons.

[Dman]

This is certainly an unresolved issue with individualism, the transfer from statis to individualist society. I don't see it as something that will happen suddenly, or at the point of a gun, but the logical next step in human society. I'm going a bit off the path here, but it is my opinion that space exploration, on a private basis, will lead to many reforms in the direction of my beliefs. People will have the option of leaving the current nation-states for colonies, much as they did during the enlightenment, 1600-1850, and later, from the east coast, to the west. So I'm not expecting any countries to disolve into individualist societies overnight, but at some point, it will be the best available social model.

I actually really like that. Naturally, it’s likely it would also follow the same progression. Once the colonies were well established and masses of people began to populate them, the same old problems would start cropping up and the same old solutions – central gov – would move in with them. Unless there was compelling enough reason to not allow this to happen, such as convincing the masses that it was a better model than existing ones. Given the history of human behavior dating back thousands of years, unlikely. The individualist societies only remain that way while the individualists are the ones primarily representing that society – which is not the case once the masses (squatters) move in.

Besides, once you have a few situations where the corporations in those societies act dishonestly or cause harm to the people, they will likely demand some type of regulation. I’m referring to situations which are not “corrected” by the market until many people have died or other irreversible damages have been done, such as environmental. In these cases, sure, the market eventually corrects itself, but the market can take longer to correct itself than people’s life spans last. For this reason alone people will demand some form of regulation – no one wants to be harmed waiting for the market to correct itself.

I agree that taking a more libertarian stance in a social system is realistically sustainable, but is not realistic to the extent that you suggest. At some point you have to reconcile idealism with reality if you truly want to move towards a superior sustainable model.

Oh yeah, who’s gonna build the roads in these government-free colonies?


The same place I will likely be next week, not here. The enjoyment I get from debating these issues on this forum is limited. It's charming for a while, but then degrades quickly. But this was my previous experience, and did not include you and some of the other newer users.

Translation = stays here long enough to preach from soap box, leaves when the questions start to get tough ;)

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[dubbeltop]

ive got no problem with capitalists i love it. but why cant capitalists accept that some people dont need 50 cars and a house with 14 guest rooms. Come on thats uber capitalism. But thats the nature of the beast i guess .greed is good unless youre eating.

[Edmond Zedo]

ive got no problem with capitalists i love it. but why cant capitalists accept that some people dont need 50 cars and a house with 14 guest rooms. Come on thats uber capitalism. But thats the nature of the beast i guess .greed is good unless youre eating.
So you do have a problem with it.

[sbw]

ive got no problem with capitalists i love it. but why cant capitalists accept that some people dont need 50 cars and a house with 14 guest rooms. Come on thats uber capitalism. But thats the nature of the beast i guess .greed is good unless youre eating.

one of the best things about capitalism is that it allows us all to pursue our interests as we see fit, no matter how stupid those interests may be. hell, its ENCOURAGED.

for instance, I don't want 50 cars, or 14 guest rooms; I wanna not work, instead. if I pursued the goal of owning 50 cars--to use your example--I would have to keep working instead, to pay for the cars, which is not what I want. instead, my only vehicle is paid off, so that I have less monthly debt, which assists me in my ongoing retirement. played golf yesterday.

the flip side, of course, is that the reason we do and should encourage vain, insecure rich people, with their 50 cars and 14 guest rooms, is that more regular people are employed by that hypothetical rich man's decision to buy 50 cars, and a huge house, than would otherwise be employed if everyone were like me (with a modest condo and pickup truck).

Scott

[Dr. Haight]

I read through this the other day and found it very entertaining.
Is that Robespierre dude for real?
And, why did he leave?
Given my limited experience with the cast presented above, I would have to say booyalab.

[Claverhouse]

I read through this the other day and found it very entertaining.

Is that Robespierre dude for real?
And, why did he leave?
Given my limited experience with the cast presented above, I would have to say booyalab.

Ah, I think they're the same person.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Lee]

pssh... they're all ametuers.

[Tmaq]

That's what I was thinking, then I remembered that I don't know most of them...

-Tom