Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Because-

1. They want "freedom".

2. They don't like socialism.

The system I talk of is greatly different to the socialist model of Cuba or even the Soviet Union.

And, Awesomelyglorious, I should have pointed out that people would be free to start a company, with or without state payment, but they would not be able to make a profit at other people's expense, only get paid their allowance in resources, and of course, their wages. So long as such a company is viable, and not a waste of resources in that no-one ever uses it(which would be reviewed by a town's council appropriation commitee), it would be registered, as that person's property, licensed to perform a certain service. Heck, research would benefit greatly, though it would require extra reviewing.


Individual freedom= opportunity to think and act freely, without harm, relate to whoever you want, hold any views or tastes, so long as you are deemed responsible, your actions do not harm others, or spill out and harm society.

Those countries are often "developing" countries attempting to compete in a highly competitive market. What would you join? America, a country that dominates the economy OR Cuba? Doesn't take a genious to figure that out. Key word is "developing"

I recommend you read The Bridge at Andau. That perfectly explains my answer to SovietChess, which is that it has nothing to do with developing---if that was the case, why did so many people flee Europe to America?---and everything to do with taking controlled economies too far. "...mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." People are only willing to give up so much, and each person has his own tipping point. When people leave en masse, there is a huge problem.

Hmm, never thought about it like that.

Profit: a financial gain, esp. the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something

A profit is always made "at the expense" of something else; no one, except someone who has nothing to lose, would try to make something if he can't recoup his losses. If there is no gain, if everything is made at a wash, not very many people will make things.

And this is VERY fascist. The STATE gives allowances. The STATE provides funds to start businesses. The STATE decides whether a profit is made at someone's expense. The STATE decides if a company is viable. The STATE decides if it is not a waste of resources. The STATE licenses a business to perform a certain service. The STATE decides what needs to be researched. The STATE deems you responsible.

I am not saying that they are exactly the same, however, I do state that it will end up with the same type of problem as it still exists within the same category.
Right, I saw that, it seemed completely opposite to other statements made about the nature of enterprise within the state as you would either be micro-managing somebody else's corporation, or you would have free enterprise. As well, the only thing is that why not allow profit? Profit can recompense the owner for resources spent and allow growth and even be a reward for doing successfully. Businesses that do not satisfy their customers usually are not the ones that typically get this profit anyway. As well, I don't think that the council appropriation committee would even be the ideal ones to say what idea is good and what idea isn't. I'd say that individuals should choose what can go ahead and what will fail, as already happens, and as I view to be more efficient.
I'd include in that category to be the freedom to use one's resources as one deems is their best use, as well, I think that a large state controlled society has a lot of room for rats, no matter what system is used, and that can lead to bad things for the individual, that are by far worse than found in everyday society. Not only that, but the criterion of harming others and society needs to be clarified, personal and property damage are the only harms that should not lead to problems. If I criticize Meaty Co because I think that they have a stupid name and this takes hold, then I have hurt Meaty Co and everyone in Meaty Co, but I should have the right to criticize Meaty Co.

Free speech on that level harms no-one. Meaty co will not go out of business. And if you complained to the council, because meaty co had rubbish service, with good reason to do so, that would be investigated, and in the end, it benefits society that a dysfunctional company is taken out of business.

As for rats, claims must be assessed thoroughly, and if someone is at risk, they can be taken to safehouses, run by loyal and trusted police.

One critical principle is that the majority of people must uphold justice. Especially those in charge on every level. The credits system would actually reduce corruption. But explaining the credits system in detail is a different story for a different time.

Except that not everyone votes or even knows about local events but everyone votes in the marketplace. You replace a more efficient mechanism of showing human desires with a less efficient one.
Except who does the ratings? Companies are already voted upon by people, they do so with their dollars. If I don't like McDonalds because they are relatively inefficient and give low quality then I don't go there. If I love them then I do. Individuals ultimately are the judges of how their needs are served and the economic calculations are done by individuals. As well, ratings are given by consumer groups and consumers to deal with the The purpose of the company is serving, but it has nothing to do with the nation but rather with serving economic needs and deisires.
Except that they might not deserve that bonus. The high productivity and service might have more to do with the redesign of allocation systems by the engineers rather than with the actions of greeters. Companies already seek to be productive, a complaint is usually that they are too ruthless rather than too lax.


Except that I never said that meaty co HAD rubbish services. Not only that but "rubbish service" is no cause for investigation anyway, actually some places thrive off of the unorthodox nature of services, including one restaurant where the customers are insulted by the waiting staff. Bureaucrats may not appreciate this or understand, consumers do. If service sucks, it will go out of business anyway without the wasted effort of a council, and with private losses anyway.
Except that systems don't usually work that effectively. Claims may not necessarily be made or can be squelched. Not only that but the entire need for heavy bureaucracy to deal with everything will undoubtedly hurt efficacy to a great extent.
They never do "uphold justice" and too often "justice" is the most unjust system offered. I think that by the very actions required to deal with everything and check and balance everything will at best lead to large scale inefficiency due to the needs to support such a system and at worst end up with more and different forms of corruption due to difficulties of incentization and the ability of investigators themselves to subvert the law, which has been seen with the CIA under J. Edgar Hoover.

This is one of best debate threads in PPR right now.

Please keep the quality coming.

It is one of the longest certainly. Possibly one of the more intellectual ones too. It is likely because this is one of the threads where ideas vary widely and differences of opinion cannot be that easily squelched by pointing out intellectual X or fact Y.

So, Awesomelyglorious, I just sat through a very boring economics lecture (boring because it is now week five and we are STILL trying to figure out the slope of a production possibility curve.) The topic of corporate responsibility came up, as did the film The Corporation. I dislike that film, but I can also see where they are coming from. Business people have done terrible things in the name of business, and continue to do terrible things in the name of business---which is why, I think, the demand for a protectionist response is increasing (have you read Polanyi, and even Hayak, too)--but I disagree with the implied message in the film, which is that Government is the Answer.

And I am conflicted because these business owners are using their corporate charter as a sort of cop out to rationalize their behavior, and if the individual refuses to change and does harm (polluting rivers?), then intervention is necessary. I am conflicted because I think that if shareholders and business operators took personal responsibility for their actions, then no government is necessary---but they are NOT taking personal responsibility, and their actions are indirectly and directly affecting me and everyone else.

So what do you propose to do in that situation? (I haven't quite worked it out in my mind yet, and was looking for some different perspectives.)

Also, have you read Omnipotent Government by Mises? I am in the middle of that one, and I find it absolutely enthralling.

I have not read much by Hayek or Polanyi. I have not read the Omnipotent government by Mises either. What class is that though?

My response to corporate responsibility stands on this: have they damaged anyone else's property or removed somebody else's negative rights? If they have then they have then they are part of a problem. For the former and the latter recompensation for losses should be imposed as should some level of punitive damage, as after all, such is inexcusable from both individuals and corporations. This does lead to difficult questions though, as I cannot condone punishing people who were not a part of a bad act which exempts stockholders to some extent. However, I can see punishment for people who push for irresponsible acts so I can see this leading to punishment of corporate leaders who do this. I think that the minimum necessary is punitive damages against corporations so that the message is sent to them that such actions will not be tolerated.

Really, I think that corporations tend to lead to more positive than negative though. There are questions on certain legal structures involved with corporations, as the corporation is a government creation and how this can lead to perverse incentives. However, the other issue is that corporations are tied to their customers and play a role in economies of scale. Government creations however, are not necessarily tied to their customers as well and can sustain themselves by petitioning for additional resources. I think that by imposing proper legal structures for disincentizing negative acts of corporations we can make them work. Really though, I suggest trying to look up interviews with milton friedman on Google video or something as he is the main argumentator against corporate responsibility as some like to see it and will add to your thoughts more than I necessarily could. I do think that profit should be the driving goal for corporations for the most part and I think that a major issue will be that change will often occur faster than how legislatures can deal with it. Really, the big problem is that there is no ideal solution, I mean, I think that post-Enron changes are now being accused of hurting corporate growth, though of course I don't remember the entire thing.

It is a basic economics class for incoming freshman. The principles class was only open to students who had ALREADY completed their math requirement, and since I was going to take it concurrently, it didn't work out. Bummer. Read Hayek before Polanyi, because Polanyi has been discredited. His assessment of the English welfare state is interesting, though.



I agree with this, and I completely agree with Friedman on corporate responsibility---he is actually "featured" in The Corporation---for about three minutes and says exactly that, that corporations are essentially the same as a building, and you can't expect a building to have morals, can you? I have a corporate charter--well, it's a LLC--and it is just a 12 page document that sits in a file drawer. I stared at it for about ten minutes, telling it to get up and go make money, but it didn't listen. Because making my business make money is MY responsibility; all the LLC does is make it so I won't be completely ruined if my business fails, that I can still have my personal belongings (like a house, except I don't have a house, but that is beside the point) but have to shut down my business.

Actually, I think that the corporate model is probably the BEST kind of protectionist measure, since I can fail at business without losing everything. It kind of negates the risk a little bit AND requires that I actually go out and do what I say I am going to do.

Interesting. Ok, well, Hayek is a more quotable figure anyway.

Right, well, of course I recognize that individuals are the ones that make money, corporate structures just offer an effective way to do some of this. Really, I was not thinking of the limited liability so much as the ability to get together large amounts of capital which can be required for certain industries. The limitation of liability does help with that though.
Well, it most certainly isn't the worst. The real issue is that you won't be the owner of a corporation, just a figure head. It just means that other interested individuals will have their hand in corporate control.

Capitalism works because of human weakness and the fact that quality people (demographics) and evolutionary forces must be challenged ... until future technology arrives that makes capitalism obsolete or transforms it into something else completely.

More evolved human beings will not use capitalist systems as they exist today, Labels do no one any good.. "capitalist". "communist", etc are all misnomers, any economic system you can imagine can be unjust to some group of people. Capitalism is a sign of humanity still existing in barbarism. (social warfare).

Um..... ok? I really don't consider the fact that I am interested in promoting my own welfare to be a weakness. Nor do I consider the fact that I am an individual with individual desires to be a weakness. Any process to remove that "weakness" would require ungodly totalitarian measures. I don't think that technology will be able to abolish capitalism without creating the hive mind, which humans really tend not to like the idea of.
Well, ok, so capitalism will change. Labels do lots of good in terms of categorization. In fact, the only reason why we can put together this sheer wealth of information in the world around us is that we relate it all together and effectively label it. I don't see any major war going on, and I see a society that is less barbaric than ones that have come before it, as it is both less cruel and less primitive.