Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

The free market, properly defined, is the interaction of players at the point of the deal. Capitalism is a pertubation of that system in that in capitalism it is assumed that some people have (not necessarily a monopoly) cornered the market on monies available for investment. Money available for investment is capital, the persons who control (not necessarily own) it are capitalists.

That some persons control these funds alters the market in that the control of money places the person into a position of more power than the control of any other factor within the deal. A true capitalist can eran money not by doing anything of intrinsic worth, but by "letting his money work for him".

This introduces another person (the capitalist) into a deal hitherto inhabited only by persons intrinscally involved in that deal.

This consitutes a pertubation of the free market.

When government gets into the act (taxes, fees, regulations, or the becomming of the capitalist by whatever means (such as the Federal Reserve system)) then the system is further perturbed.

If you wish to deal with someone then you would wish to deal with that person, and for these items (trade with, trade for). You probably do not need any parasites involved with the deal. You can make up your own mind as to the worth of the deal, you do not need anyone outside the deal controlling that deal.

We all know how to trade. No one had to tell you that you could trade sports cards for marbles. You still know how to trade. We do this. To perturb the system ALWAYS diminishes the freedom of individuals.

Question: how many people do you truly need - all telling you what to do and how to do it, and extracting their fee for having done so? If you feel so personally insecure that you feel a terrible need to be controlled, and are willing to pay whatever fee the controllers tell you to pay; then you are indeed a socialist.

The "Free market" is not the natural state of affairs, complex relationships cannot be broken down into idealogical jargon.

Next you forget that because of limited money supply the freedom of individuals is in fact LIMITED by those who have the most money. Imagine if the richest people owned all the air and could TAX you on it, that's how modern capitalism functions, the richest minority of the population TAXES all other peoples existence within the economic system because they have a monopoly on the money and profit supply.

Your definition of "Freedom" is the problem, there is no freedom divorced from economic freedom. The poor have less rights and less freedom then the richest people, a poor person is has less freedom and less rights (access) to resources and opportunity then a rich person. A rich person can afford to fail and bungle many more times before he suceeds (makes a profit/return on investment) for little cost since he can hire the best people to do it for him. A poor person cannot do this. The fact is the rich can generate money via interest, loans and passively through investment on the backs of other people via monopolizing the money and profit supply.

The power distribution of money is the #1 problem in our societies, capitalistic, communistic or socialistic. One class dominates other classes, period, through ownership and monopolizing the money and profit (social energy) supply.

You've defined "freedom", but you also need to define "rights".
The REAL problem here is how you build a society and protect all rights.
Do you have a right to be free from fear? If so, do you then ban all guns, or permit every man who wishes to arm himself?
Do you have a right to determine what you do with the money you've earned? Does that mean that merchants should immediately sell you what you want at the price you demand, or does this mean that forced government taxation is morally wrong?
Does your freedom of speech stop where it potentially offends somebody? If so, what's the point of defining a freedom of speech at all?
When "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion" conflict, who gets their right stolen? The religious man or the atheist?
Does a government fee for a required permit to hold a large outdoor gathering mean that the people do not have a right to peaceably assemble?
Do you have the right to access to goods and services, to the point of denying me or anybody their rights to keep the money they've earned, by the income redistibution necessary to get you what you need?
It is well known that when the tax on something goes over a certain amount, it causes people to stop doing that activity, or persuades them not to buy what they want. Thus, when the tax revenue goes down after sales fall off because of the tax, are the rights of the people violated, who would have benefitted from that tax?

No because ALL RIGHTS are meaningless if they cannot be enforced first (power = freedom) therefore economics is the parents of rights, rights are granted ECONOMIC PRILEDGES. (i.e. property "rights", etc)

Rights are artificial constructs invented to solve problems, but they are not immutable laws or anything, if we really believed in rights for instance of people, the US would not invade iraq, and we wouldn't kill people (violating their "Right" to life, and their "right" to their own body (as "property", a person "owns" themselves).




The problem is no one can really exist apart from society unless their is free space to make a new society with new rules and new rights... take for example the difference between US and Canada in healthcare, or US and Sweden (is it?).

Groups of people ESTABLISH what they want and call them rights, because they favor a certain custom or idea over another and hence make their own 'state' or country, etc, with its own laws.

Think about it, if ther was space left on earth, why don't all the pedophiles get together and make their own society? Don't they have a right to be them? When you start bandying about rights, at some point you realize rights are preferences for customs held to, ideas held to, etc.

I'm just going to say I believe in socialism
okay...I understand that some people like greed.
or "freedom"
That's find and okay but I like socialism.

What does all that have to do with the morality of forced income redistribution?

South Park - Die, Hippy Die episode

Driver: [wearing green jacket] Wow, my friend Brittany was right. This is a really laid-back place.
Woman 1: [wearing tan jacket] Yeah, this will be a great place to spend spring break. [Stan, Kyle, and Kenny approach them]
Kyle: Hey, let's ask them. [the boys are wearing shoulder totes with magazines peeking out from them.]
Stan: All right. [the two parties meet] 'Scuse me. [holds out a clipboard] Hello, we are selling magazine subscriptions for our community youth program. Would you like to help young people like us by purchasing a subscription of your choice?
Driver: Oh wow, you guys shouldn't be doing that. Don't you know what you're doing to the world?
Kyle: Wha- whataya mean?
Man 1: [wearing a guitar over his back] You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that they can make money. [the other man is busily eating chips]
Stan: Who are the corporations?
Woman 2: [a blonde with a psychedelic fish on her shirt] The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.
Stan: Are you serious?? We never heard that.
Driver: We just spent our first semester at college. Our professors opened our eyes. The government is using its corporate ties to make you sell magazines so they can get rich.
Kyle: Ugh! Those dirty liars!
Kenny: (Sonofabitch!) [throws down his shoulder tote]
Man 2: [has finished his chips] This is a really nice town you have here. That's why the corporations are trying to use you to take it down.
Stan: Well... Well what do we do?
Driver: Just hang with us for a bit. We'll fill you in on everything you haven't been told. [Man 2 resumes eating chips]

WAVE THE RED FLAG IN THE BANK! TAKE DOWN THE CORPORATIONS, MAN!

That is hilarious!

haha let me explain the difference:
Socialism - Uses laws and other FORCE to make sure OTHERS forcibly GIVE to those who the SOCIALIST say DESERVE it. Socialism FORCES those with success to give LARGE amounts of PERSONAL earnings to those who do not have enough. REGARDLESS of freely chosen charitable donations, SOCIALISM FORCES MORE funds from PERSONAL resources.

Freedom allows people to spend their money more effectively. An open market allows more people to obtain jobs. Freedom allows MORE people to use LESS services which requires LESS funding which requires SOCIALISM to "piss off" and "go away" because FORCING people to do ANYTHING, even eating chocolate, DOES NOT WORK. In fact, go find someone in your home and force a piece of chocolate into their mouth. People LIKE chocolate and you're giving them what they LIKE or would do ANYWAYS. Do it, tell them they are going to go to jail if they don't eat it and cram that piece of chocolate into their mouth. This is Socialism. Its an invasion of privacy, its "prejudice" to WHO they think needs "help" (helping poor people but not "mentally sick" people? what about orphans? What about accident victims? etc.) and Socialism completely ignores a persons PERSONAL choice of where they'd like to donate, if any, their money. Maybe they'd prefer there money go towards to their children so they won't need help? Kind of like a "family" welfare security system. Or perhaps they want their access money to go to Cancer research. Nope, we'll let OTHERS, like you Gloomy, tell people what to do. Do you like being told what to do? I know giving money to others is SUPER nice and splendid and makes you feel ALL warm inside, but you cannot FORCE people to give. We aren't FORCED to give at christmas but every year, here I am, giving out presents.

Why is it socialism pretends that, even with ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the help and services they offer, charities still pop up EVERYWHERE around them. Obviously, a FORCED charity is a bad idea. It would suck if UNICEF didn't ask me for money but actually just ROBBED me on the street of it - its for a good cause, though. How come "socialist" don't understand there intrusion onto other peoples lives? If you left people alone, they'd help. They don't like helping because its NOT help. People, with their cars stuck in the snow, dont walk over to me, grab my arm and TELL me to push their car out of the snow. They come up and ask if I can help. They get more positive responses if they asked but again, Socialism and ALL its force is a terrific idea as it doesn't go against 'human nature' one bit (sarcasm).

But, ya, Greed and freedom are the same thing. Come to my apartment and see all my furniture that this "greedy" freedom lover has. I'm more inline with "Buddha" and his "possessions" then societies materialistic ways. I'd be more then happy in a life of no possession and "freedom" (with responsibility as I'm sure many associate "freedom" with "strapping guns to your body and shooting it in the air" like they do in Africa)

Socialist think they are doing the world a favour, yet, every problem it tries to solve STILL exists today. Its not a solution, never has been, never will be. Socialism doesn't solve the "employment" issues which create people in "poverty" which is why socialism is "required." Dont you think if you helped solve the employment issues that many 'povery issues' would decline? I think so, but socialist think throwing money at these people instead of getting them jobs or opportunities is the way to go about it. Even better, on someone else's dime (cough, dependence doesn't teach anyone anything, cough). Lead a horse to water. Handing out government paychecks isn't leading a horse to anything, its just a hand out.

I love ignorance - it reinforces BAD ideas

One thing. My system does not force people to give up their wealth, it distributes resources in a greatly different manner.

Also, by not funding public healthcare and education, you find that poor families are downtrodden. Gifted children in poor families are wasted.

If you don't give everyone an equal chance, and at least a certain level of fair footing in life, then how do you expect them to achieve? Libertarianism destroys society, it keeps the rich rich, and it craps on the poor. Not only does society need more professionals, more skilled workers, but people need to realise that welfare benefits everyone.

Plus, does it matter one bit if someone with a £1 million salary is charged 50% tax? Heck no, that amount is obscene. The limit, in my system would be 500,000 credits per year. It IS greed if someone is so possessive over their wealth. Is it fair if there is a super- wealthy elite and a downtrodden underclass? It's slavery.

Would anyone here like to be poor, without money, and in a Libertarian society? NO.

when you made that comment and compared hippes to socialists, its not true,
hippes are poser socialists!! !! !! !!

Super, so you took socialism, cleaned it up a bit, give it a new name to satisfy yourself, and here we are.

In a libertarian market, it is believed every WILL have a fair chance (I dont know why you think people wouldnt?), especially at employment. With the amount of business allowed (government restrictions removed) it would be infinitly simpler to start a business. After that happens, the market becomes flooded with companies and choice. An employee, it is believed (like in Hong Kong now, I think), is now not only presented more choice, but may be fought after. The model is almost like a Sport leagues. Perform well for a "team" (company) and another "team" (company) may become interested in you. Its the spirit of "competition" or "drive." You put in 25% effort, expect 25% pay.

Its fair market. It allows people to set there own worth. It requires responsibility upon the individual, not society. It shouldn't BE societies problem. Each problem would be the individuals, then they'd have the insurances, the charities, the services they'd required (for problems that require it). All of those exist today and all government models are simply "future entreprenuerial" business, such as health care (insurance) and welfare (life insurance? unemployment insurance? New line of insurance?)

You are ignoring my point about education. How is it fair and equal ground, when children are denied education because their parents cannot afford it? Leave it all to charity? Charity has an irregular and unguaranteed income. You assume that everyone is on equal ground to start off with.

sounds like a free market to me. LOL

You assume that change happens "instantly."

You start implementing the system (libertarianism), this system (one we have now) changes over to the new one - process is never instant. But, over time, more people obtain jobs, more get off welfare, etc. and more become independent. You can start ridding of those services as less people require them. 'Less money' going towards services that 'less people' are using is more money going towards 'people who earned it.'

No one said anything about everyone being on equal ground "instantly" but with more jobs and opportunities available, the only one holding you back is "you." I think having more jobs and more money flowing freely will help correct many problems.

Takes time to heal the problems. Everyone wants those instant "quick" fixes but they aren't "natural"

Heh, I leave the internet for a year and miss out on this gem.

But don't worry, I'm less of an a**hole this time around

There is far too much ground to comment on, so I'll just pick one.

Capitalists aren't worthless, as was reasoned earlier. I should say, the capitalist role isn't worthless, as we are all capitalists when it comes to our own property and how we employ it (just like we are all suppliers, consumers, entrepreneurs, etc.)

The role of the capitalist is to save and invest. To put this in the simplest terms, consider Crusoe on his island. Let's suppose he picks berries to feed himself, but only picks enough to satiate himself, leaving the rest of the day to rest (leisure). His prosperity will never improve; there will be no growth. He will forever be picking berries the same manner today as the day he will die. However, consider if he were to pick enough berries as to have a surplus. With these savings he is able to invest in fashioning a stick or basket to more efficiently gather berries. With this new line of production, he is then able to pick even more berries or have more leisure.

Clearly, the role of the capitalist is essential for economic growth and any material improvement (including leisure). The question then becomes wether capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, is an essential prerequisite, or if the capitalist role can be filled by some other means.

The fundamental problem boils down to the fact that without (free market) prices, it is impossible to perform economic calculation in an industrial economy. Even in the simplest case of Crusoe on his island, it is Crusoe himself who must decide his time preference and what 'profit' is gained by his investment of labour. When we introduce another person to the example, Friday, who fishes instead of picking berries, the price (the ratio of fish to berries) becomes essential to each capitalist since it reduces material profit to one indicator.

The problem with socialism/interventionism is it interferes with or abolishes prices so we no longer know how best to allocate resources (to maximize profit). These interventions cause problems (bad capital allocation, over-investment, etc.) which raises further interventions until the system is so politicized that reality is discarded as being impractical or irrelevant. Ultimately, prices will reflect policies and nobody knows what efforts are ultimately profitable in terms of creating valuable capital goods. The capital base, which is responsible for our high productivity, shrinks and we end up poorer and may even starve.

(It goes without saying, but the US system is fascist and interventionist more than it is capitalist. I wouldn't call any economy with a fiat currency capitalist.)