[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Capitalism is the best form of economy and socialism the best form of government . I think most here confuse economy and government [/quote]
Socialism is a political system that seeks to do away with capitalism by nationalising the means of production. Why do you find it so difficult to understand basic concepts such as socialism? Why do you pretend you know what socialism is and advocate it when you clearly don’t know what it is? Is English your first language? Are you dyslexic? Learning difficulties?[/quote]
Oh bullshit socialism in it’s ideal form is to take projects that otherwise would be too expensive and pool money to pay for them . That’s it , none of you evil socialism bullshit
[/quote]
Pittbull I like you, but this is wrong and I should know I am a socialist.
Socialism is an ambrella term for all the political ideologies than in some respect wants to replace the private ownership over the means of Production With a collective ownership over the means of Production. This can mean that the state owns the means of Production, or the commune, or the workers( syndicalism ), or a mix of those 3 alternatives. There can be Money and some form of a market or no Money and no market as Sexmachine alluded too. What socialism is not, is governmental programs like social-security, Public School etc. Yes most socialists are in favor of programs like that, but so are many conservatives and liberals.
I think you mix up socialism With what we in the non-English western world Calls social-liberalism. Social-liberalism is all about creating a humane capitalism, where you have a safety-net, Public programs like education, universal Health care and so on. [/quote]
It should also be noted the workers owning the capital isn’t exclusive to non-capitalist systems. In even free market capitalism you certainly could have employee ownership of your entity, and it happens. [/quote]
capitalism is working in China (albeit not refined as of yet) it is a form of economy period . IT IS A HUGE MISTAKE TO TRY AND MAKE IT A Government
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Capitalism is the best form of economy and socialism the best form of government . I think most here confuse economy and government [/quote]
Socialism is a political system that seeks to do away with capitalism by nationalising the means of production. Why do you find it so difficult to understand basic concepts such as socialism? Why do you pretend you know what socialism is and advocate it when you clearly don’t know what it is? Is English your first language? Are you dyslexic? Learning difficulties?[/quote]
Oh bullshit socialism in it’s ideal form is to take projects that otherwise would be too expensive and pool money to pay for them . That’s it , none of you evil socialism bullshit
[/quote]
Pittbull I like you, but this is wrong and I should know I am a socialist.
Socialism is an ambrella term for all the political ideologies than in some respect wants to replace the private ownership over the means of Production With a collective ownership over the means of Production. This can mean that the state owns the means of Production, or the commune, or the workers( syndicalism ), or a mix of those 3 alternatives. There can be Money and some form of a market or no Money and no market as Sexmachine alluded too. What socialism is not, is governmental programs like social-security, Public School etc. Yes most socialists are in favor of programs like that, but so are many conservatives and liberals.
I think you mix up socialism With what we in the non-English western world Calls social-liberalism. Social-liberalism is all about creating a humane capitalism, where you have a safety-net, Public programs like education, universal Health care and so on. [/quote]
florelius , I like you to but I am talking Ideals , Your Government may be Socialist but I am sure it is as much Socialist as America is a Democracy or I know the CJS will say it is a Republic.
[/quote]
Can you define what you mean by “socialism” then please?
It doesn’t need to in order for us to examine the flaws of a relatively free market system. [/quote]
Cool, but there is a tricky part. Separating what are flaws of the “free market” system components vs. the flaws of the system which arise from the “non-free market” components. This is key
[quote]The formation of monopolies. The increasing centralisation of the means of production and resources. [/quote]This is not a real issue imo. Not in regards to a free market. Even if there is only one guy (or corporation) doing a particular thing, competition still exists. For example if Microsoft decides to shoot up its prices all of the sudden AND Apple quickly follows, more operating systems will rise. Microsoft and Apple already know that
I don’t see how a free market would lead to centralization of the means of production. I’ll admit I’m not very familiar with the term, and I looked it up
It may have appeared that a free market would lead to centralization in an industrial society, however mines and factories are inherently centralized - free market or not. I think it’s an illusion. Free market is what gave us computers, which are definitely not centralized
I’m going to separate some segments from that
I have to distinguish something here. I think you mean to say that there are other things that matter. Not that these things don’t matter…?
There is nothing about a free market that forces society to become either materialistic or spiritually void. People might become more materialistic when they have more access to more appealing materials. Don’t be a spiritual Luddite, be an Austrian economist. Don’t blame economic success for a spiritual failure - that’s exactly what the Shaitan wants you to do
[quote][quote]
free market capitalism… guided by the state
This doesn’t really make sense, free market capitalism is supposed to be guided by the supply of resources/goods/services, and the demand for them. Absolutely NOT guided by a central authority
[/quote]
I’m talking about a relatively free market system. You’ve acknowledged yourself that free trade needs to be facilitated by the state enforcing contracts. The state also needs to “manage” the economy in various ways - regulations of some form or another. This is the type of “guidance” I’m talking about and it takes many different forms - central banking, anti-monopoly laws, tariffs etc. obviously, in most cases the more intervention there is the less the market is “free” but no market can exist at all without some guidance and regulation which you’ve acknowledged yourself.
[/quote]
Two points
These examples (central banking, anti-monopoly laws, tariffs) are not necessary for a “free market”. These examples make a market less free. Enforcement of contracts is the only economic necessity I am aware of that a free market depends from the government on. Which is huge
The fallout from these and other “non-free market” factors can give rise to monopolies, centralization of resources, etc. Like I said in the beginning, the fallout from these factors cannot be blamed on free market
[quote][quote]
What you described is sometimes called “socialism for the rich”, or “crony capitalism”. It is when gov’t picks the winners (and maybe losers) in business, as opposed to the forces of “demand”, “buyers”, “the market”
[/quote]
No, I wasn’t specifically talking about that but crony capitalism is something that is hard to avoid due to human nature so it is another fair criticism of capitalism given that it can’t be entirely avoided and is therefore a natural consequence of capitalism.[/quote]
“Crony capitalism” is not a natural consequence of a free market, it is literally opposite. Blame the free market for not existing
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Pure “free market capitalism”, insofar as it means a total absence of “government intervention” has not ever existed and may not even be possible
[/quote]
Depending on scale your statement is either 100% true or 100% false.
It certainly does, has and will continue for as long as mankind communicates, just on a smaller scale, in niche areas, or for short periods of time.
On the scale of 300m people involved in an economy, you are 100% correct, but if you start breaking it down to smaller and smaller increments it happens. [/quote]
Yeah, I considered that before posting
I reasoned that the “market” portion of the statement requires or at least implies a large number of people who do not know each other. Which may be wrong
I disagree entirely. The free market itself leads to the rise of monopolies and oligopolies. That’s why we have anti-monopoly laws. Additionally, one or a few companies cornering the market is what facilitates the concentration and centralisation of the means of production.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Capitalism is the best form of economy and socialism the best form of government . I think most here confuse economy and government [/quote]
Socialism is a political system that seeks to do away with capitalism by nationalising the means of production. Why do you find it so difficult to understand basic concepts such as socialism? Why do you pretend you know what socialism is and advocate it when you clearly don’t know what it is? Is English your first language? Are you dyslexic? Learning difficulties?[/quote]
Oh bullshit socialism in it’s ideal form is to take projects that otherwise would be too expensive and pool money to pay for them . That’s it , none of you evil socialism bullshit
[/quote]
Pittbull I like you, but this is wrong and I should know I am a socialist.
Socialism is an ambrella term for all the political ideologies than in some respect wants to replace the private ownership over the means of Production With a collective ownership over the means of Production. This can mean that the state owns the means of Production, or the commune, or the workers( syndicalism ), or a mix of those 3 alternatives. There can be Money and some form of a market or no Money and no market as Sexmachine alluded too. What socialism is not, is governmental programs like social-security, Public School etc. Yes most socialists are in favor of programs like that, but so are many conservatives and liberals.
I think you mix up socialism With what we in the non-English western world Calls social-liberalism. Social-liberalism is all about creating a humane capitalism, where you have a safety-net, Public programs like education, universal Health care and so on. [/quote]
florelius , I like you to but I am talking Ideals , Your Government may be Socialist but I am sure it is as much Socialist as America is a Democracy or I know the CJS will say it is a Republic.
[/quote]
Can you define what you mean by “socialism” then please?[/quote]
I am using fAUX news definition , all things that social, Public Schools, Public Health, Public Water, Public Roads , Social Security, Medicade and Care
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Capitalism is the best form of economy and socialism the best form of government . I think most here confuse economy and government [/quote]
Socialism is a political system that seeks to do away with capitalism by nationalising the means of production. Why do you find it so difficult to understand basic concepts such as socialism? Why do you pretend you know what socialism is and advocate it when you clearly don’t know what it is? Is English your first language? Are you dyslexic? Learning difficulties?[/quote]
Oh bullshit socialism in it’s ideal form is to take projects that otherwise would be too expensive and pool money to pay for them . That’s it , none of you evil socialism bullshit
[/quote]
Pittbull I like you, but this is wrong and I should know I am a socialist.
Socialism is an ambrella term for all the political ideologies than in some respect wants to replace the private ownership over the means of Production With a collective ownership over the means of Production. This can mean that the state owns the means of Production, or the commune, or the workers( syndicalism ), or a mix of those 3 alternatives. There can be Money and some form of a market or no Money and no market as Sexmachine alluded too. What socialism is not, is governmental programs like social-security, Public School etc. Yes most socialists are in favor of programs like that, but so are many conservatives and liberals.
I think you mix up socialism With what we in the non-English western world Calls social-liberalism. Social-liberalism is all about creating a humane capitalism, where you have a safety-net, Public programs like education, universal Health care and so on. [/quote]
florelius , I like you to but I am talking Ideals , Your Government may be Socialist but I am sure it is as much Socialist as America is a Democracy or I know the CJS will say it is a Republic.
[/quote]
Can you define what you mean by “socialism” then please?[/quote]
I am using fAUX news definition , all things that social, Public Schools, Public Health, Public Water, Public Roads , Social Security, Medicade and Care
[/quote]
Okay, then I can now explain to you what you are talking about. That is not “socialism” but rather “democratic socialism.”
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Capitalism is the best form of economy and socialism the best form of government . I think most here confuse economy and government [/quote]
Socialism is a political system that seeks to do away with capitalism by nationalising the means of production. Why do you find it so difficult to understand basic concepts such as socialism? Why do you pretend you know what socialism is and advocate it when you clearly don’t know what it is? Is English your first language? Are you dyslexic? Learning difficulties?[/quote]
Oh bullshit socialism in it’s ideal form is to take projects that otherwise would be too expensive and pool money to pay for them . That’s it , none of you evil socialism bullshit
[/quote]
Pittbull I like you, but this is wrong and I should know I am a socialist.
Socialism is an ambrella term for all the political ideologies than in some respect wants to replace the private ownership over the means of Production With a collective ownership over the means of Production. This can mean that the state owns the means of Production, or the commune, or the workers( syndicalism ), or a mix of those 3 alternatives. There can be Money and some form of a market or no Money and no market as Sexmachine alluded too. What socialism is not, is governmental programs like social-security, Public School etc. Yes most socialists are in favor of programs like that, but so are many conservatives and liberals.
I think you mix up socialism With what we in the non-English western world Calls social-liberalism. Social-liberalism is all about creating a humane capitalism, where you have a safety-net, Public programs like education, universal Health care and so on. [/quote]
florelius , I like you to but I am talking Ideals , Your Government may be Socialist but I am sure it is as much Socialist as America is a Democracy or I know the CJS will say it is a Republic.
[/quote]
My government is not socialist, it is a social-liberalist government. We have capitalism in Norway, but With a generous welfare state and some state owned Companys. I know it can be confusing since socialdemocracy is almost a synonym With social-liberalism today. Originally they where not the same.
I disagree entirely. The free market itself leads to the rise of monopolies and oligopolies. That’s why we have anti-monopoly laws. Additionally, one or a few companies cornering the market is what facilitates the concentration and centralisation of the means of production.[/quote]
Well, you might disagree entirely, but I would like to point out that what you wrote and what I wrote are not opposites. They are not mutually exclusive
A “monopoly” formed by “govt intervention” is far more detrimental than one formed “naturally” imo. More destructive AND less likely to die
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
A “monopoly” formed by “govt intervention” is far more detrimental than one formed “naturally” imo. More destructive AND less likely to die[/quote]
As libertarians, you and I agree here; however, a statist will not. Of course, preventing or destroying a monopoly will only happen if a great enough number of people care enough to do so.
The question the statist will always ask/The question to which the libertarian has few answers(other than to ask how the formation of the state can possibly prevent…the formation of the state): How will a society remain free if a large enough number of its people no longer desire freedom?
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
A “monopoly” formed by “govt intervention” is far more detrimental than one formed “naturally” imo. More destructive AND less likely to die[/quote]
As libertarians, you and I agree here; however, a statist will not. Of course, preventing or destroying a monopoly will only happen if a great enough number of people care enough to do so.
The question the statist will always ask/The question to which the libertarian has few answers(other than to ask how the formation of the state can possibly prevent…the formation of the state): How will a society remain free if a large enough number of its people no longer desire freedom?[/quote]
Every word you’ve written of states and statists is nothing more than a noxious concoction of hippy-dippy bullshit with zero intellectual grounding.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
As libertarians, you and I agree here; however, a statist will not. Of course, preventing or destroying a monopoly will only happen if a great enough number of people care enough to do so.
The question the statist will always ask/The question to which the libertarian has few answers(other than to ask how the formation of the state can possibly prevent…the formation of the state): How will a society remain free if a large enough number of its people no longer desire freedom?[/quote]
Every word you’ve written of states and statists is nothing more than a noxious concoction of hippy-dippy bullshit with zero intellectual grounding.
Max Weber- Politics as a Vocation
Please explain your post. What is your problem with my first post?
Will a statist(one who supports the formation of a state-a group claiming a monopoly on the legitimate initiation of physical force in an area) agree that the formation of a monopoly by STATE INTERVENTION/FORCE is far more detrimental than one formed “naturally”/by virtue of the quality of service/goods produced?
If a large enough number of people do not care to prevent the formation of a monopoly, what will prevent it?
This is the question that neither side can answer. Neither side has a way for its people to remain free when a large enough majority does not desire freedom. A libertarian wonders why anybody supports monopolizing force, a phenomenon to which I see no solution. A statist supports a monopoly on physical force, while possibly believing that the entity with a monopoly on physical force will permit freedom in other areas.
Every word you’ve written of states and statists is nothing more than a noxious concoction of hippy-dippy bullshit with zero intellectual grounding.
[/quote]
You’re talking to a radical Utopianist. His understanding of history and human nature is so poor he thinks all society’s ills and conflict itself can be done away with by convincing everyone on earth to adhere to the Non Aggression Principle - you are right about the hippy-dippy shit. Radical libertarianism is essentially (John) Lennonism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’re talking to a radical Utopianist. His understanding of history and human nature is so poor he thinks all society’s ills and conflict itself can be done away with by convincing everyone on earth to adhere to the Non Aggression Principle - you are right about the hippy-dippy shit. Radical libertarianism is essentially (John) Lennonism.[/quote]
No, he’s not. Who has the poor understanding of history and human nature? The one who says, “Let’s try something a little different,” or the one who says, “Let’s do exactly what has never worked?” The one who says, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” or the one who says, “I always have problems with my elected representatives, but we’ll get it right next time?” I once heard that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I would say pretty much all of society’s ills and conflicts would be done away with if everyone adhered to the non-aggression principle, but it will obviously never happen. A state will always emerge, but continuing to support it once it becomes tyrannical is insane.
If each of the bricks of a home’s walls are smashed to dust, would it be more sane to attempt to reform bricks from the dust of the originals, or to use new bricks to repair the walls?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
No, he’s not. Who has the poor understanding of history and human nature? The one who says, “Let’s try something a little different,” or the one who says, “Let’s do exactly what has never worked?” The one who says, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” or the one who says, “I always have problems with my elected representatives, but we’ll get it right next time?”
[/quote]
Strawman. Anyone who adheres to a dogmatic utopian system of any kind doesn’t understand human nature, history or the natural of the political.
Another strawman.
[quote]
If each of the bricks of a home’s walls are smashed to dust, would it be more sane to attempt to reform bricks from the dust of the originals, or to use new bricks to repair the walls?[/quote]
