Private property can be protected without the government.
[/quote]
Do you really believe this? Or is this macho talk?
You might be able to “defend” your property from some high-school kids trying to take your TV, but that out of shape, scared, single mom trying to raise her kids becomes a victim.
And how many people do you think you can defend your property from, for how long?[/quote]
Could not an individual and/or a hired security force protect property?
A police force, established to protect property and not arbitrary laws established by governments, could serve this function as well.
[/quote]
And just to be academically rigorous with this idea it is already private property that protects private property; it is just none see past the theft of private property through taxation to establish this so-called protective government.
Private property must first produce that which government has to steal. Government in fact produces nothing and I would go so far as to say that it can only destroy.
The notion of expropriating “property protectors” – i.e., the state – is philosophically inconsistent.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Communism needs government not at all.
[/quote]
Except for the fact that there are some who would not voluntarily want to be a member of the commune. How does one force such a person into a commune? What are the implications if it is decided coercion is unethical in such a commune?
More importantly how does as a member of a commune force a non commune member into a government that those commune members already decided they did not want to be members of in the first place?
Your premise is not true though your conclusion may ultimately have some truth to it.
When you have a more equitable distribution of wealth, that frees up a lot of money to be used for other things.[/quote]
And THIS is the crux of the whole matter. This statement is why Conservatives and Liberals will never get along. It’s like trying to change a Pro-Choicer’s or Pro-Lifer’s opinion. It ain’t gonna happen.
My take on this statement: Fuck that. What’s mine is mine. If I work hard for it, I get it. I went to college, did well, built up a great resume’, and work my ass off. No way I’m “distributing” anything to anybody. No way I’m going to let a system put a cap on how much I can make and how many toys I can get. If that makes me a selfish asshole, then so be it.
Do I feel bad for the kid that didn’t have a daddy growing up and didn’t get the opportunities I had? Sure, I do. I will give some money to charity to help him out or give it directly to him or, better yet, hire him IF I CHOOSE TO. Because of the system that I endorse, I can choose to be and do anything I want. If I come up with a way to make a better mousetrap, I can profit from it. I don’t have to give it to the government for them to make it. I am motivated in life because there is no limit to how high I can go.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
OK. So we live in a mixed economy. And we realize laissez-faire capitalism will not work (Rand was too generous of mankind) and that full blown socialism will naturally self-destruct.
So my question is: What is the best ratio of capitalistic to socialistic concepts in a economy?
(75:25 is my guess)
And further more, what is the nation like now? Are we half n half?
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
OK. So we live in a mixed economy. And we realize laissez-faire capitalism will not work (Rand was too generous of mankind) and that full blown socialism will naturally self-destruct.
So my question is: What is the best ratio of capitalistic to socialistic concepts in a economy?
(75:25 is my guess)
And further more, what is the nation like now? Are we half n half?
[/quote]
Rand was an author of fiction[/quote]
So was Marx.
[/quote]
I think rather than designing policy to prove a point (like free market is best) Policy should be designed for success
I think rather than designing policy to prove a point (like free market is best) Policy should be designed for success[/quote]
I agree. Pure economies only work in pure fiction: like Rand and Marx. Leave them there.
Reality requires adaptation, and a willingness to change. A mixed economy has proved best. Government makes mistakes, private industry makes mistakes. The goal should be to craft the best policy for the circumstances we find ourselves in.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Policy should be designed for success[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! You kill me.
Isn’t policy already designed by the planners expressly for this purpose!?
I don’t think the planners intend for their policy to fail its just that they are always incapable of success since none of the planners can agree on what success means. And even if they could there is always someone who is hurt by this “successful policy”.
I’m neither a socialist nor a communist but I read “Das Kapital” , Karl Marx principle work about econommics and he had one example in it that has me thiniking about it from now till then, it goes somewhat like this:
“Premise: Money is solidified/crystalizied human workforce.(e.g. you “trade” your workforce for money at your workplace)
So lets look at this:
A bakery worker works 8 hours every day and produces baked goods worth 300 $. His boss pays him 200 $ a day for his work (just an example).
So this bakery worker recieves 100 $ LESS money than his work is worth AND the bakery-owner recieves 100 $ MORE worth of goods than he pays for. Sum this up over years and decades and our bakery-worker will get ever poorer while the bakery-owner will get ever richer.
How is this possible? Well, because the bakery-owner owns the production facility.
How can we precent this? Production facilities should be comunity owned”
And this is the most basic principle of communism, everything else what came afterwards had not much to do with economics.
I think rather than designing policy to prove a point (like free market is best) Policy should be designed for success[/quote]
I agree. Pure economies only work in pure fiction: like Rand and Marx. Leave them there.
Reality requires adaptation, and a willingness to change. A mixed economy has proved best. Government makes mistakes, private industry makes mistakes. The goal should be to craft the best policy for the circumstances we find ourselves in.[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Capitalism needs the government to protect private property. Socialism needs government to protect the new society against expropriated capitalists and their allies. Communism needs government not at all.
Anarchists seem to think we don’t need it at all, but I think most of them are kidding themselves in this regard.[/quote]
Private property can be protected without the government.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Policy should be designed for success[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! You kill me.
Isn’t policy already designed by the planners expressly for this purpose!?
I don’t think the planners intend for their policy to fail its just that they are always incapable of success since none of the planners can agree on what success means. And even if they could there is always someone who is hurt by this “successful policy”.[/quote]
I think most of the politicians of today design their policy because Ronald Reagan said it would work, or some Russian immigrant that was writing about her life experience, with no intention of guiding people in economic policy. I imagine even some design their policy because that is what Marx thought would work.
I do not think they care if their policy works all they care about is they get that corporate sponsorship of their election campaign and they do not alienate their misguided constituents that are controlled by nut jobs like Limpdick and Beck.
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
(WARNING: I didnt read the thread to this point)
I’m neither a socialist nor a communist but I read “Das Kapital” , Karl Marx principle work about econommics and he had one example in it that has me thiniking about it from now till then, it goes somewhat like this:
“Premise: Money is solidified/crystalizied human workforce.(e.g. you “trade” your workforce for money at your workplace)
So lets look at this:
A bakery worker works 8 hours every day and produces baked goods worth 300 $. His boss pays him 200 $ a day for his work (just an example).
So this bakery worker recieves 100 $ LESS money than his work is worth AND the bakery-owner recieves 100 $ MORE worth of goods than he pays for. Sum this up over years and decades and our bakery-worker will get ever poorer while the bakery-owner will get ever richer.
How is this possible? Well, because the bakery-owner owns the production facility.
How can we precent this? Production facilities should be comunity owned”
And this is the most basic principle of communism, everything else what came afterwards had not much to do with economics.
[/quote]
The bakery owner took the risk of buying the building, stocking the shelves, providing the flour, and paying the light bill so that the baker could do his craft and get paid to do so. A baker with no place to bake is useless. We all make more for our company than we take. That’s why they keep us around. As soon as we produce less than we make, there is no point in having us around as amployees.
In ‘Das Kapital’, did Marx address what would happen if he were the best baker out there and decided he wanted to start selling cakes out of his own kitchen? If he’s the best, he should be able to do so, and profit from it, shouldn’t he?
[quote]florelius wrote:
A communist or a anarchist thinks that a society without a state is possible, and that it can be replaced with a system where people rule them self without a gun pointed to there head. This is in my opinion the true form of socialisme, [/quote]
Wait a sec.
You believe that if I produce goods or services of great value, you and your fellow socialists – or perhaps only those who are local enough, but you see my point – are entitled to the lion’s share of the wealth I produce.
Or you even assert that it is all yours, though you’ll deign to allot me some money, though perhaps no more than the street sweeper receives. It’s up to you, of course.
By virtue of the fact that you are breathing human beings, the majority of the wealth I produce in my working hours should go to your benefit, you say. Of course I might say that you are breathing leeches, but obviously you feel entitled. It’s your “right,” you say.
How are you going to get it from me if I don’t want to give it to you, which I don’t, except via political power emanating from the barrel of a gun?
And suppose I build or myself purchase the things required to be a new means of production? How will you prevent me from owning it and doing as I will with it – which you object to, feeling that instead you (collectively) should own it, though you did not create it – except with your armed, jackbooted government agents that will imprison me if I don’t sign it over to you socialists, or kill me if I won’t allow myself to be taken to jail?
But you see, this is my point: “Successful policy” ultimately means whatever policy enriches the politically connected class by means of looting those not protected by those policies.
Understanding this point is essential to any further argument about politics as afar as I am concerned.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But you see, this is my point: “Successful policy” ultimately means whatever policy enriches the politically connected class by means of looting those not protected by those policies.
Understanding this point is essential to any further argument about politics as afar as I am concerned.[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Communism needs government not at all.
[/quote]
Except for the fact that there are some who would not voluntarily want to be a member of the commune. How does one force such a person into a commune? What are the implications if it is decided coercion is unethical in such a commune?
More importantly how does as a member of a commune force a non commune member into a government that those commune members already decided they did not want to be members of in the first place?
Your premise is not true though your conclusion may ultimately have some truth to it.[/quote]
Some may disagree, but I have no interest in forcing anyone to be a part of a commune who does not wish it. Some provisions would have to be made for those who wished to leave.
To the second part of your question, it would be no more unjust than our present government, which forces people to be a part of it, who do not wish it. While you have a legitimate point, it is not one that comes into being only under socialism.
That’s fine. But what does it have to do with socialism? You continue to refute an argument that no one is making. If you had read so much as The Communist Manifesto, you would see that socialists, far from wanting to confiscate your income, want you to have more of it, specifically, that part which is now confiscated by your employer to constitute his profits.
Do you work for your money? If so, I have no interest in “regulating” that wage, or diminishing it. In fact, though I don’t know what you make, I would probably be of the opinion that you deserve more.
Income disparity is at its highest point right now since the 1920s. Such a distribution of wealth is not only unjust, it poses significant threats to the stability of the economy.
You believe that if I produce goods or service of great value, you and your fellow socialists – or perhaps only those who are local enough, but you see my point – are entitled to the lion’s share of the wealth I produce.
Or even that it is all yours, though you’ll deign to allot me some money, though perhaps no more than the street sweeper receives. It’s up to you, of course.
By virtue of the fact that you are breathing human beings, the majority of the wealth I produce in my working hours should go to your benefit, you say. Of course I might say that you are breathing leeches, but obviously you feel entitled. It’s your “right,” you say.[/quote]
No one is saying anything of the sort Bill, and this lunacy in no way follows from what florelius said.
[quote]And suppose I build or myself purchase the things required to be a new means of production? How will you prevent me from owning it and doing as I will with it – which you object to, feeling that instead you (collectively) should own it, though you did not create it – except with your armed, jackbooted government agents that will imprison me if I don’t sign it over to you socialists, or kill me if I won’t allow myself to be taken to jail?
[/quote]
You are free to buy and possess anything that you can afford with the money that you earned through your work.
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
(WARNING: I didnt read the thread to this point)
I’m neither a socialist nor a communist but I read “Das Kapital” , Karl Marx principle work about econommics and he had one example in it that has me thiniking about it from now till then, it goes somewhat like this:
“Premise: Money is solidified/crystalizied human workforce.(e.g. you “trade” your workforce for money at your workplace)
So lets look at this:
A bakery worker works 8 hours every day and produces baked goods worth 300 $. His boss pays him 200 $ a day for his work (just an example).
So this bakery worker recieves 100 $ LESS money than his work is worth AND the bakery-owner recieves 100 $ MORE worth of goods than he pays for. Sum this up over years and decades and our bakery-worker will get ever poorer while the bakery-owner will get ever richer.
How is this possible? Well, because the bakery-owner owns the production facility.
How can we precent this? Production facilities should be comunity owned”
And this is the most basic principle of communism, everything else what came afterwards had not much to do with economics.
[/quote]