Tragedy of the commons: Socialsm vs Capitalism

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Do you prefer socialism or capitalism
Capitalism 43%  43%  [ 6 ]
Socialsm 57%  57%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 14

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Dec 2013, 5:00 pm

Communal ownership + communal co-operation would solve all of the problems presented in the video and more.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
I we don't have capitalism in America. The average man is taxed 70% if you include sales tax, property tax, income tax, and inflation tax, and increased price of goods because business have to pay the taxes mentioned above including the higheer wages of the employees who have to pay the taxes mentioned above and the extra price of goods because of t............................

This gets recursive in a way my head I cant get my head around. Trust me, there is a lot of tax.


I'm not opposed to tax, as long as it pays for services i need that i can later access at point of demand.

The problem comes when you're paying tax in one hand and having to pay excessive prices for other essential services that are only available by the private sector.

The state of my teeth is testimony to that.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

23 Dec 2013, 5:11 pm

thomas81 wrote:
I do wonder though if maybe the video in the OP is presenting a false dichotomy.

It assumes that the existance of overgrazing is an inevitability, rather than a result of private landlords who own excessive amounts of land thus reducing the carrying capacity for everyone else.

Perhaps rather than talking about the tragedy of the commons, we ought to be talking about the tragedy of private estates. The tragedy of the commons is only applicable to the paradigm of the free market.


Those who are willing to pay more for private land are usually those are able to "capitalise" the most efficient way possible. If one company wanted to cut down some trees to sell wood and make a one off profit cannot afford to spend as much on the land as a company who is willing to plant trees and cut them when they grow.



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

23 Dec 2013, 5:22 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
I we don't have capitalism in America. The average man is taxed 70% if you include sales tax, property tax, income tax, and inflation tax, and increased price of goods because business have to pay the taxes mentioned above including the higheer wages of the employees who have to pay the taxes mentioned above and the extra price of goods because of t............................

This gets recursive in a way my head I cant get my head around. Trust me, there is a lot of tax.


I'm not opposed to tax, as long as it pays for services i need that i can later access at point of demand.

The problem comes when you're paying tax in one hand and having to pay excessive prices for other essential services that are only available by the private sector.

The state of my teeth is testimony to that.


Tax is nothing but forcing one to buy products and services. If someone forces you to buy a product, I can guarantee that the product isn't worth the money you are forced to pay. Because if it was, why are they forcing you to pay for it. Like wise, if a man raped a woman, it is almost guaranteed that the man is unable to convince that woman to have sex with him. Because if he could, why is he raping the woman



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Dec 2013, 5:29 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:

Tax is nothing but forcing one to buy products and services. If someone forces you to buy a product, I can guarantee that the product isn't worth the money you are forced to pay. Because if it was, why are they forcing you to pay for it. Like wise, if a man raped a woman, it is almost guaranteed that the man is unable to convince that woman to have sex with him. Because if he could, why is he raping the woman


I don't know about you, but i like having a system where i can access urgent, life saving services upon demand. Taxes do a pretty job of ensuring i can have those, even if i fall between the social cracks and can no longer afford the premiums of insurance policies.

How would you like it where you had to give the operator your credit card or insurance details before they send a fire engine to save your burning house? Or to send an ambulance whenever you're having a heart attack? If libertarians had their way, thats what their dystopia would be like.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

23 Dec 2013, 5:31 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Communal ownership + communal co-operation would solve all of the problems presented in the video and more.


If you think that can work start a joint BitCoin bank service with other geeks on this site. There will not be much depositors I tell thee!



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Dec 2013, 5:34 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Communal ownership + communal co-operation would solve all of the problems presented in the video and more.


If you think that can work start a joint BitCoin bank service with other geeks on this site. There will not be much depositors I tell thee!


I know of a proto-community in Sweden that is already doing such a project.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

23 Dec 2013, 5:45 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
How would you like it where you had to give the operator your credit card or insurance details before they send a fire engine to save your burning house? Or to send an ambulance whenever you're having a heart attack? If libertarians had their way, thats what their dystopia would be like.


I believe my insurance and house details would be on their system. I could also choose to live in a gated community that have their own fire trucks that come as a part of the ground rent. Whatever you want, can be provided by the free market. Everyone would be much richer and be able to afford basics because they are not taxed so much . They would be able to pay for unemployment insurance and health insurance.



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

23 Dec 2013, 5:49 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Communal ownership + communal co-operation would solve all of the problems presented in the video and more.


If you think that can work start a joint BitCoin bank service with other geeks on this site. There will not be much depositors I tell thee!


I know of a proto-community in Sweden that is already doing such a project.

Will they hand over their private key to a big black man in a hoodie.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Dec 2013, 6:17 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Communal ownership + communal co-operation would solve all of the problems presented in the video and more.


If you think that can work start a joint BitCoin bank service with other geeks on this site. There will not be much depositors I tell thee!


I know of a proto-community in Sweden that is already doing such a project.

Will they hand over their private key to a big black man in a hoodie.


The system that is proposed transcends the current paradigm of private ownership.
Of course everyone would get their own home and so fourth, but it would be within the parameters of the technate which is a proposed alternative to governments. Those who are skilled in their fields get to govern how their particular fields are governed. There will be no racism or social discrimination.

If you want i can PM you the facebook details of the group co-ordinators if you want to learn more information.

I personally am not the best qualified to act as their promoter.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


TheWizardofCalculus
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 68

23 Dec 2013, 6:23 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
Could the problem of the government be that it is a collection of shared resources and money.
Wouldn't trying to share resources and money be like having a joint bank account. Imagine it.
Lets say a bank account has 10k in it and it earns 30% interest yearly and that bank account is shared
amongst 30 people in a small town.

1. How do you think it effects incentives to save.
2. How do you think it effects incentives to withdraw money.
3. Would it work if we had a banker who forces us to put money by fear of violence. He would get paid an admin fee from the some of the interest.


Yes, and we know that unfettered capitalism has done nothing but improve the economy; we know that private ownership never results in improper stewardship of land and resources because as we all know, property owners are always responsible; and, of course, we know that the government never succeeds at anything and corporations and the private sector always succeed at everything. Especially charity.


I'll never understand libertarians and conservatives. I understand that they present what sounds like a simple, systematic framework from which to derive moral and political decisions; however, the chief question for an axiomatic system is whether or not it's true and whether or not it actually applies to this universe. Systematic frameworks are no doubt appealing to the aspergian/autistic mind, but I really wish people would actually bother to understand that "systematic" is not a criterion for "truth". Most things we, as a species, know very little about; about politics and political systems we really know even less. Assuming that we have discovered the ultimate political system 200 years ago is, frankly, a bit silly. Capitalism is hardly an efficacious, fair, or rational system for distribution of goods and services; nor are the caricatures of socialism as obtuse as libertarians (mis)understand them to be.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

23 Dec 2013, 7:51 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
The person who invented "tragedy of the commons" my have been as mad as a hatter but the logic of "tragedy of the commons" is sound.


precisely If we do not fence our resource or produce the moral equivalent to fences then the resources will be degraded in short order.

Also if we do not charge for external side effects then our streams, rivers and oceans will soon become a public toilet.

ruveyn



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,256
Location: Minnesota, United States

23 Dec 2013, 9:56 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
Lets say a bank account has 10k in it and it earns 30% interest yearly and that bank account is shared
amongst 30 people in a small town.

1. How do you think it effects incentives to save.
2. How do you think it effects incentives to withdraw money.
3. Would it work if we had a banker who forces us to put money by fear of violence. He would get paid an admin fee from the some of the interest.

State ownership isn't common ownership, and common ownership dosen't necessarily mean a free for all commons.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0BXCiKOsKY[/youtube]


I need to watch the rest of the video but it appear that the guy believes libertarian sociality would be communities shared ownerships of various resources and services such as schools, parks, roads and allotments. In a libertarian or anarchist society these things would be privatised. Parks, schools, libraries would be privatised thus have a single owner. The apartments block gated community that I live in have a single owner. I pay ground rent to them to provide lighting, roads, parking and security. It is no more a commons then Apple computers though I own an Iphone and some apple shares. One would vote with their feet by purchasing products they want and need. No other voting would be necessary.

He is a left-libertarian, in other words a classical libertarian or libertarian socialist. Anarchism is mainly the anti-authoritarian branch of socialism.

Consumer 'democracy' dosen't work for multiple reasons. In markets, people don't have the same amount of cash, and information in markets is fragmented.



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

24 Dec 2013, 2:42 am

thomas81 wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Communal ownership + communal co-operation would solve all of the problems presented in the video and more.


If you think that can work start a joint BitCoin bank service with other geeks on this site. There will not be much depositors I tell thee!


I know of a proto-community in Sweden that is already doing such a project.

Will they hand over their private key to a big black man in a hoodie.


The system that is proposed transcends the current paradigm of private ownership.
Of course everyone would get their own home and so fourth, but it would be within the parameters of the technate which is a proposed alternative to governments. Those who are skilled in their fields get to govern how their particular fields are governed. There will be no racism or social discrimination.

If you want i can PM you the facebook details of the group co-ordinators if you want to learn more information.

I personally am not the best qualified to act as their promoter.


ok



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,993
Location: Alberta, Canada

24 Dec 2013, 2:58 am

Why isn't there an option for "neither" or "both"? There should be, I think.

Pure socialism doesn't work, and pure capitalism doesn't work either. For a stable, functioning society that can accommodate everyone's needs, you need to have both elements of socialism AND capitalism, in my opinion. Canada is a great example; we allow for individual rights and free enterprise, and in some ways we actually offer people more rights than our neighbors down south, the so-called "land of the free", but at the same time, we also have strong social programs, including a highly-regarded public healthcare system. Is our system perfect? No, but no one's system is. Ours does happen to be pretty darn good though. :D