Happy Atheist Forum

Hello everyone. As some of you may know, I have stated that I think that socialism is irrational and unrealistic. However, I want to hear from the other side of the aisle. For all you supporters of socialism(if there are any) why do you think that socialism is a reasonable form of government? Let me be sure to clarify, I am by no means trying to lure you into here so I can attack you for your beliefs. I will only debate with you if you wish to have one with me. I just honestly want to know what reasons socialists have for supporting their beliefs. (I realize that this is my first actual thread that I've started here so if my topic is not suited for this particular area, feel free to move it.) Anyway, I look forward to your responses.

Just to add my 'two cents':

I'm not going to argue with you because I agree; in fact I'd go further and say that socialism is both dangerous and undemocratic. I base this on what's been going on with my country (and I'm sure many others) and the European Union. We're essentially being sold to the EU without any say in it ourselves, our corrupt MPs are being bribed with high salaries in Brussels and all of them want a place on the 'gravy train', so to speak. In fact our three leading political parties are all almost completely in the EU's pocket, so democracy is becoming virtually obsolete here already. Brussels doesn't have to answer to anybody, they already have a 60,000 strong army and spend increasing amounts of money on military and weapons research (see the Eurofighter) and come May 5th 2010 I'll bet you a golden goose egg that our own British army and police force will also answer solely to them. Could even conceivably be used against the British people some day. Yet they continuously spin lies like this:

Vote for EU constitution or risk new Holocaust, says Brussels (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/09/nve09.xml)

Which can be summated to "if you don't surrender sovereignty to an undemocratic elite then you are a nazi." Eeeeerm...... I see.

Just wanted to get that off my chest. And a warning to the USA, Canada and Mexico dwellers: if your NAU (North American Union) works out to be anything like the EU (which it most likely will, if it gets going) then you might as well have surrendered yourselves to the USSR during the cold war. I'd resist it adamantly, if I were you.

The natural social state of humans is somewhat socialistic. Humans are designed to operate in packs or tribes in which people are given responsibilities that serve the whole. It's actually quite beautiful, and it puts equality and the good of the whole above that of the individual, which I can appreciate. It's about responsibility as a member of a community instead of just an individual.

That said, socialism cannot work in an overpopulated world. An individual working for the common good of nearly 7 billion doesn't make sense, and because of overpopulation competition is absolutely necessary lest our genes are not passed down. Socialism does not include the same type of competition you find in a capitalistic system.

In a perfect world we would be socialist, but there is no morally acceptable way to significantly lower the population of the planet so we have to just wait for the shit to it the fan (using up all resources, disease, famine, etc.).

One last thing: Leninism is not socialism. Leninism really isn't even communism. Leninism is fascism and imperialism, and pretending that the USSR was an socialist or communist state is simply giving in to propaganda that is almost as old as I am. Lenin wanted to be worshiped. He wanted to be a leader in a system without leaders. I'm glad Karl Marx didn't leave to see his theories used to sucker people into fascism.

I'm a libertarian so I do agree with you. Problem with socialism is that they think that all men are equal. This means that their policies are based on the lowest common denominator of society. In practice this means that they increase taxes to  bring the middle and upperclass to a lowerclass level and increase the unemployment benefits to a level that people that don't have work are no longer motivated to find work. Another problem with socialism is that it sticks its nose in too many issues where it doesn't belong, because it thinks that it has to "protect" people against anything.

Socialism has also some good points. In general they are more concerned about the environment; better working conditions for people and protection of the poor and elderly. Nothing wrong with that, but socialism does have tendecy to overdo things. Creating huge burocratic hurdles, stiffling the society with senseless laws, overspending taxpayers money on socialist "causes" and making it impossible to fill in my german taxform without getting huge headaches.

I am in the difficult position of disliking both socialism and capitalism. They both work and heck, I would be content to live under either. I simply maintain that submitting to either is a failure to realise our full potential as human beings. I believe we can each live more fulfilling lives, without changing any laws, simply by choosing to do so. Read on if this interests you, but do so with an open mind:

The whole reason socialism and capitalism exist as competing systems is because the Industrial Revolution of the Ninteenth Century replaced the existing system of feudalism, and in so doing created a working class and a bourgeoisie. I don't want to paint a rosy picture of feudalism because nothing about the political structure of that time was rosy. It was an age of terrible tyranny, let's be clear. However, the economy under feudalism is of great interest to me. Local communities rested on the pillars of agriculture and artisans, and in turn on a teeming mass of professions within towns and urban areas. When you were born, you were guaranteed a profession for life, which you were taught for free: your family's trade and livelihood. You produced certain things or rendered services that people needed; in turn you supported the community by patronising the people who produced the things or rendered the services that you needed. This meant that nearly everyone was by today's terms 'self employed' (the average medieval peasant worked less hours than today's average worker) and, additionally, by living this way contributed directly to the cultural life of their local community.

This process or one like it still goes on in some form or other in towns and villages all over the world, but it is in danger of becoming extinct. Gradually, industrialisation has replaced this ancient social structure with one in which things are produced en masse, and services are most often rendered via some sort of middle man in the form of a company. We do not, as the aforementioned artisans of feudalism did, truly own our labour; we sell it to companies, and companies in turn sell us back the things we produce and the services we render. The concept of a local community is being phased out. Out with the old, in with the new: national and multinational companies, on whose existence we are all gradually becoming dependent.

Well, there is nothing much wrong with this system. Most of us 'get by' pretty well in it. Many of us even prosper. But I believe it is culturally poisonous and is creating a homogenous, boring, shallow, self-centred, angry, depressive society of distrusting automatons who don't so much live together as tolerate the existence of one another. Traditions, cultures, and the richness and diversity of human existence across this planet -- these things are dying in favour of one homogenous global economy with the same products and the same companies in every place in the world.

Ho hum.

Granted, thanks to (among other things) the advances brought about by industrialisation, we now have democracy, education, modern medicine -- all manner of great things. I say fine, keep those things. But how about some little changes: instead of shopping at a supermarket, buy vegetables from an organic market, or instead of buying clothes from a chain store, how about making them yourself? Let's return to the local economies of yore, this time not because we are compelled to by some King or other, but because we can choose to and because it's the most fulfilling way to live a life.

I don't think this simple concept is terribly idealistic and in fact it seems to be happening a lot, since it overlaps with the goals of the environmentalist and anti-globalisation movements, both very popular nowdays with the urban middle class. So many people are wanting to live more authentically in fact that companies are now trying to market authenticity -- you can observe this phenomena everywhere. But authenticity is not something you can buy and sell, and more and more people seem to be realising this. You own it already, you just aren't putting it to use.

In short, I hope that one day we won't need people on welfare OR people selling themselves to corporations. People will just choose to be autonomous. But it's a cultural aim, not a political one. People's minds need to be changed, they can't simply be forced into it by changing a few laws. In this regard I believe I am libertarian at heart. I'm just not a capitalist, or for that matter, a socialist. In fact, I'm not sure what my philosophy is called or how many other people subscribe to it because I didn't find out about it from anyone else. These are simply conclusions I've come to myself. If they seem naïve, so be it.

Great topic - and without being obsequious, let me just first say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading each and every word posted so far by each and every individual.  You folks are inspiring - I find a great depth of thought and consideration in your ideas.

My primary objections to socialism are two:

1) The "personal property" issue.  I find it very natural to view things as belonging to me or belonging to someone else.  I will admit that if I could trust other people to both freely share their belongings with me, and to treat my belongings responsibly, then perhaps I would not object to this aspect of socialism as strongly as I do.  Maybe I could come around on the idea of not personally owning anything.  As Willravel very legitimately points out:

Quote from: "Willravel"That said, socialism cannot work in an overpopulated world. An individual working for the common good of nearly 7 billion doesn't make sense

And --- that's probably what's going on with me.  Too many faceless strangers --- we can't possibly know and respect one another like we would be forced to do if we lived in smaller communities whose survival was dependent upon cooperation.

But still - this would be a really hard stretch for me.

2) Individualism/Equality.  I don't view the idea of enforced equality very favorably, mostly because I don't think people behave equally.  What I'm getting at is that we should grant everyone equality in terms of rights and responsibilities, but I don't think that unequal efforts and abilities should necessarily result in equal compensation.

What if, for example, we "determined" what everyone would need for a comfortable and fair existence.  Except that, I really enjoy sailing --- I would love to have a sailboat - but sailboats are unnecessary and expensive.  But its okay --- I don't mind putting in extra effort, working longer hours, for the trade-off of buying my boat.  Why can't I?  Why would I have to be content with the same standards that everyone else is content with?

This keys into the individualist aspect of my personality --- I love individualism.  I know that we're all different, so I despair of finding a common solution that works for everyone.  I don't think it can.  But its okay if it doesn't --- why do we have to be the same to be acceptable to each other?  Individual diversity will lead to cultural diversity and a more rich environment that avoids the global homogenization that pjkeeley is objecting to (and that I object to as well - I'm right with you, pj, on those thoughts).  

Also, I have a subtle difference in opinion about how societies and individuals work (or should work).  For example, Willravel writes:

Quote from: "Willravel"It's actually quite beautiful, and it puts equality and the good of the whole above that of the individual, which I can appreciate. It's about responsibility as a member of a community instead of just an individual.

I consider myself to have a very fundamental philosophical difference of opinion on this topic, although the end result might not be that dramatically different.  I think its okay for individuals to values themselves first and foremost - its okay to look out for yourself.  For an example of an idea that strongly appeals to me, here's a thought of pjkeeley's:

Quote from: "pjkeeley"You produced certain things or rendered services that people needed; in turn you supported the community by patronising the people who produced the things or rendered the services that you needed. This meant that nearly everyone was by today's terms 'self employed' (the average medieval peasant worked less hours than today's average worker) and, additionally, by living this way contributed directly to the cultural life of their local community.

This isn't that different of an end effect from what Willravel describes, I would just place a little different emphasis on the parts.  The individual, in pursuing his/her goals, recognizes that existing in a cooperative society is in his best interests (as I believe it is).  So we have a functioning self-supporting society, but individuals are pursuing individual goals - which ends up supporting the community at large.  We don't work for the common good because working for the common good is a virtue: we end up creating a common good because it is in our best interest, as individuals, to do so.  The common good naturally arises from our pursuit of individual goals.  Something like: I don't like making bread, so I won't.  But I need bread.  I do like making beer: why not make more beer than I need and trade some to the baker (who wants beer - it gets hot in the kitchen  :wink:  ) for the bread that I need?  We each get what we need, we each get what we want, and its based on individuality.  We don't work together because we believe in working together; we work together because its best for each of us to do so.

Like I say, I think this is subtle, but hopefully I've expressed my opinion clearly.

I think all these broad topics (socialism, capitalism, libertarianism) are all composed of individual thoughts that have serious validity and are worthy of individual consideration.  I can't help but recognize, for example, that this thought:

Quote from: "Willravel"The natural social state of humans is somewhat socialistic.

appears to be fundamentally true.  My family functions in a very socialistic manner, for example, and it seems to work just fine - in fact, I can't even imagine it working differently.  What, for instance, would a capitalist family structure be like?  Buying and selling property and services to each other, within the family?!?

Eh, maybe it really is just an issue of scalability and over-population.  And, if this is the case, would my alternate "libertarian" way really succeed, or would it be plagued by the same problems for the same reasons?

Cheers all for a most engaging topic!  :cheers:

SteveS is wise beyond his years!~

The point I was making, though is that there's not enough to go around, so instead of comfortably contributing towards the whole, we have to compete for ourselves.

Imagine you're in a room with 12 people and there are 8 apples. You'd have to compete or go hungry. There would likely be several people who don't eat. Imagine that same room had 4 people. Suddenly competition turns into cooperation, as everyone will likely agree that it's fair that the 8 apples be divided up evenly among the 4 people. This isn't 100% consistent, of course, as someone like me would probably half my apple in the first room, but overall this is how things work. It's easier to cooperate with someone you're not competing with.

I think that under the right circumstances, most people would behave equally. If the members of this forum were marooned on an island (not the Lost island), I think that we'd become socialist by default. If we were capitalistic, people would likely starve or be eaten.

Would libertarianism work? I dunno. It worked for a bit, but was quickly replaced by bureaucracy when the population started rising. I was really concerned when I thought Ron Paul had a snowball's chance in hell because he was talking about not just getting rid of federal agencies like FEMA (which needs to be reorganized, not abolished), but public schools, public transportation, and public military. A population of 300m people needs some social programs in order to deal with the sheer volume of need. A private military to match our public volunteer military would be cost prohibitive, as would private transportation and schooling. I can't even imagine paying for firefighter insurance.

I think it all boils down to what I've said many times:
We're in a conundrum. The planet is becoming overpopulated (or has been so for a long time), but there is no morally acceptable way to reverse or even halt the process. People, on the whole, believe it is their right to reproduce... and who am I to say they're wrong? Who am I to say that by having little Sally, Jacky, Sammy, Marty, and Skyler (who names their kid Skyler?) you're furthering the biggest problem our species faces? The government could take steps, but even offering incentives is dangerously offensive to some people. Christians believe they have a divine mandate to reproduce, even. It's a conundrum.

Thanks Will, and yup, I hear you and I agree that if we were marooned we'd probably start behaving in a mostly socialistic fashion.  

Makes me wonder - doesn't is seem that our behavior would change based on our circumstance?  For example, when supply is plentiful but survival is difficult, our behavior will probably resemble a socialist flavor.  If supply doesn't become a big problem, but survival becomes easier, would we become more libertarian?

What I mean is that if we were truly marooned we probably wouldn't find it very easy to get by, especially at first.  But, if we somehow survived and worked out a stable society that could last through at least a few generations, wouldn't we start becoming more trade-oriented, rather than just all pitching in where required?  I think this is sort of the idea you're suggesting with the competitive aspect.  As survival becomes more assured, but resources diminish, our social behavior changes from entirely cooperative to entirely competitive?  If so, I agree, this seems likely.

One thing about libertarian ideas, I agree with you here:

Quote from: "Willravel"I was really concerned when I thought Ron Paul had a snowball's chance in hell because he was talking about not just getting rid of federal agencies like FEMA (which needs to be reorganized, not abolished), but public schools, public transportation, and public military.

I don't think scrapping these things is a very practical answer either.  You can't just radically change a developed system overnight and expect good answers --- just blanket abolishing systems that have developed over time, that we're used to having, would be a pretty major "system shock"!

On the other hand, I don't understand how just organizing a government structure somehow defrays the cost of things.  If firefighter insurance is worth a certain amount, I don't see how making it a function of government would change the value of it for the better.  If the government was providing a very expensive fire service for only a reasonable charge, how would the government maintain itself?  Wouldn't it become insolvent?

In other words, when you say:

Quote from: "Willravel"A private military to match our public volunteer military would be cost prohibitive, as would private transportation and schooling. I can't even imagine paying for firefighter insurance.

This is true, but consider that you'd have no tax burden first removed from you finances.  I mean, I consider the amount of tax burden placed upon us all to be highly considerable.  Right now, although these services are provided by the government, we're not paying for them on the cheap!  I mean add it all up: sales tax, real-estate tax, state income tax, federal income tax, liquor/beer tax (I get hit hard with this one  :wink:  ), gasoline tax, etc.  This is an awfully large bill for most folks.

Quote from: "SteveS"Makes me wonder - doesn't is seem that our behavior would change based on our circumstance?  For example, when supply is plentiful but survival is difficult, our behavior will probably resemble a socialist flavor.  If supply doesn't become a big problem, but survival becomes easier, would we become more libertarian?

What I mean is that if we were truly marooned we probably wouldn't find it very easy to get by, especially at first.  But, if we somehow survived and worked out a stable society that could last through at least a few generations, wouldn't we start becoming more trade-oriented, rather than just all pitching in where required?  I think this is sort of the idea you're suggesting with the competitive aspect.  As survival becomes more assured, but resources diminish, our social behavior changes from entirely cooperative to entirely competitive?  If so, I agree, this seems likely.

I agree completely, but I like to take that one step further. Not only is socialism the best for "oh christ we're fucked" situations, but also if you want/need to get something done.

Let's say, for example, that we lived in a society that was comfortableâ€"plenty of work and resources to go aroundâ€"but we wanted to start expanding into space. Like let's say we wanted to terraform Mars. In a capitalist system this would be severely cost prohibitive. It would take trillions of dollars over hundreds of years. A socialist system would be different, though. If instead of corporations investing monies that come from profit and not expecting to see a return on their investment until their children's children's children are running the company, we simply say "this is for the collective good of our species" and know that while it's costing us, the benefit to future generations and our whole species will be priceless (imagine two planets worth of resources and land as well as a backup in case something catastrophic ever happened on Earth). It's that element of selflessness in economics/government/society that can get really big things done.

Quote from: "SteveS"I don't think scrapping these things is a very practical answer either.  You can't just radically change a developed system overnight and expect good answers --- just blanket abolishing systems that have developed over time, that we're used to having, would be a pretty major "system shock"!

Which is why it would take revolution to chance the current systems of government. With a 4-8 year shelf life, there's not enough time to get big things done unless you know the next several administrations are on board. No one can know that (who would have thought Bush would invade Iraq as a response to being attacked by a small guerrilla force that had nothing to do with Iraq?!). I'm not arguing for longer terms, mind you, just that the kind of change Dr. Paul wanted/wants is virtually impossible in our current system.

Quote from: "SteveS"On the other hand, I don't understand how just organizing a government structure somehow defrays the cost of things.  If firefighter insurance is worth a certain amount, I don't see how making it a function of government would change the value of it for the better.  If the government was providing a very expensive fire service for only a reasonable charge, how would the government maintain itself?  Wouldn't it become insolvent?

There are other costs associated with capitalism, though. As you said, or rather insinuated, above, capitalist systems are about self, money, and me! Bearing that in mind, the economic system has tailored itself to making as much money as possible from said system by making being you very expensive. I hope you don't kill me for using health care to illustrate (a lot of my capitalist friends call me Universal Will because I bring it up so often).

Capitalist healthcare costs don't just include paying for a doctor, equipment, and medical services. They include a host of administrative, marketing, and malpractice costs that are all added to your bill. Add up the administrative costs of the largest healthcare providers in the US, Kaiser, Aetna, Humana, and Healthnet, and it's astronomical. Compare them to the administrative costs of all of Canada, Japan, the UK, and France combined and it's still not quite even. There's a reason that in the US one pays an average of $5k per person for mediocre care when someone with the best healthcare in the world, France, pays around $2k. And yes France does have some problems with their system, but there aren't 50 million frogs jumping around without coverage because they can't afford it.

Imagine a country in which 50 million Americans can't afford fire coverage. Or police coverage. Or sewers. That's kinda scary.

The point is that we pay less in taxes than we would in insurance.

Very interesting posts. We have so many smart people here on these forums.  Keep up the good work guys.

Rational liberal, are you a liberal or a libertarian? It seems by your aversion to socialism that you may be a libertarian (which I see as a somewhat opposing governmental/economic/social system to socialism). Most liberals, at least in the US, support socialist elements of government like single payer universal healthcare or social security.

Hey Willravel, I see where you're coming from, but I don't entirely agree.  In the Mars example:

Quote from: "Willravel"Not only is socialism the best for "oh christ we're fucked" situations, but also if you want/need to get something done.

My only issue with this is who wants/needs to get it done?  Socialism is basically constraining the individuals in the society to function as one large individual.  What if I don't want or feel I need to colonize Mars?  Too bad, if I'm in a socialist government --- I have to, because my mind's been made up for me by the government.

I don't disagree that in cases where there is a common best interest that socialism can meet this need well, but I do take issue as to what the common interest is and who gets to decide.  And somehow, I can't see myself agreeing that what a socialist government declares to be my best interest will always be my best interest.

My only point here is that the question of whether or not a large hypothetical undertaking like this Mars example is, in fact, in our best interest appears to be presented as a foregone conclusion: but is it?  Who decides?  What if not everybody agrees - are they enslaved to serve the majority opinion?  Why - because the will of most supersedes the will of the individual?  Might makes right, and we force a definition of "common best interest"?

In a non-socialist situation, the only people financially backing the project would be willing participants.  What's wrong with that?  The individual cost might be higher because not everybody is forced to pay (so some won't), but if there is a long term benefit, won't the non-backers suffer the long-term consequences of missing out on the benefit?  And, wouldn't this be fair?  How could they argue that its unfair?

About the Ron Paul thing,

Quote from: "Willravel"I'm not arguing for longer terms, mind you, just that the kind of change Dr. Paul wanted/wants is virtually impossible in our current system.

Yeah, I agree.  Also, just to clarify, my political thinking seems to run very parallel to the libertarian philosophy, but this hardly means I'm always in support of members of the Libertarian party.  I see myself as having the libertarian philosophy as a guidance, rather then the Libertarian party as an answer.  I couldn't have disagreed with Ron Paul more strongly on his interpretation of state/church separation, for example.  Nor am I convinced that a libertarian anarchy is really a plausible system.  It seems we must always have some level of government.

About the healthcare idea,

Quote from: "Willravel"I hope you don't kill me for using health care to illustrate (a lot of my capitalist friends call me Universal Will because I bring it up so often).

:lol:  If I ever wanted to kill anybody, I doubt very much that it would be because they decided to throw stones at the healthcare debacle!  No worries, dude.

My only comments here would be that there are certainly administrative costs with healthcare under a socialist system as well.  And if there aren't malpractice costs, then what recourse does a patient have who's been negligently injured?  I think the current insurance rates could be seriously influenced by some reason being executed on the judge's benches and jury rooms around the country.  The damage awards are totally ridiculous, and knowing that doctors are just going to pay larger insurance amounts and pass the costs on down, aren't we as jurors responsible for creating this situation?  Personally, I think people go a little crazy when they get into a jury box and contemplate damage values.  Where do they think all the award money is going to come from?

Suppose I do some job, and I screw it up.  Bad, my fault, never should have happened.  OK, go ahead and find me liable for $15,000,000 dollars - hell, send me a bill!  Do you think you're ever going to be able to collect?  But, everyone else who does my job is going "Wow!  What if that happened to me?  Better get some insurance so I can survive in case I screw up, and boy is it gonna cost with award suits like that coming down!  I'm gonna have to raise my prices...."

Doesn't taking away a doctor's medical license solve the problem of malpractice better then raising everybody's healthcare costs astronomically to cover fantastic damage awards?  And how many people are hypocritical in this situation?  There seems to be this undercurrent of "its okay for me to make mistakes, but my doctor better be perfect or I'm going to sue for tall cash!".

Quote from: "Willravel"The point is that we pay less in taxes than we would in insurance.

Sure, if you abolish the insurance industry and prevent people from suing doctors.  If we make a socialist government, and make healthcare a function of that government, then we still wouldn't really prevent any of the incidences of what is currently considered malpractice.  But, since we've got a government in charge, it just refuses to pay out large damage settlements.  Problem solved!  But, we don't need a socialist government to do this now --- just stop awarding ridiculous damages in the court room.   And, for that matter, not just a socialist government could effect this change.  A dictatorship would work just as well - just create state doctors and don't let people recover damage amounts.  

This is kind of an aside, but honestly, with all this current litigation, is malpractice actually declining and therefore quality of care improving, or is the cost of healthcare just increasing?  We should all seriously ask ourselves whether the legal action in the courts is having the intended result.  And what about overworked doctors making mistakes?  Well, why aren't there more doctors?  Because we have what amounts to a trade union (the AMA) artificially manipulating the market to make doctors scarce (and therefore, demand higher than supply - high prices).  I think medical treatment is overpriced, and remains so because we don't let the market adjust --- we won't let nurses open treatment centers and we won't let too many students graduate medical school.  But this isn't a flaw with the market system --- its a flaw with placing restrictions on the market system's ability to adjust itself.

Also, consider that if insurance companies would no longer be paying out large sums, would the socialist government be paying out large sums in place of the insurance companies?  If not, then you're comparing apples to oranges.  You're comparing capitalism with ridiculous malpractice awards to socialism with no malpractice awards.  No wonder that makes healthcare look cheaper under socialism :wink:  .  But, if we're going with socialism and the malpractice awards, where is the socialist government going to get the money from if not taxes?

I also think this statement is sort of wrong:

Quote from: "Willravel"There are other costs associated with capitalism, though. As you said, or rather insinuated, above, capitalist systems are about self, money, and me! Bearing that in mind, the economic system has tailored itself to making as much money as possible from said system by making being you very expensive.

Surely, we can't just artificially create value, and I don't see how any capitalist system can do so.  "Making as much money as possible" doesn't really work this way --- if we just increase currency costs, inflation catches up and keeps the relative balance.  Value is based, at some level, on reality, right?  So, returning to the Mars mission, I don't understand why the relative value would somehow be far less in a socialist society.  If money can be equated to effort (expended effort creates value), just pitching in free "voluntary slave effort" must still be considered to have value.  Whether or not you are paid in currency for your work value, or just eat from the free soup kitchen for dinner.

In other words, the Pyramids weren't free (or even cheap), even if nobody was paid in coinage to build them.

I probably should have used a more realistic and generally acceptable example. I'd friggin' love to terraform Mars, obviously.

How about curing a disease that isn't really a cashcow? Let's say, for example, there is a need to find a cure for a disease that's mostly effecting the poor. Let's say millions die. Could 300 million people come together to save a few million poor people? Is it okay for people to say, "Fuck the poor"? Is that freedom, the freedom to passively kill? Is it passively killing?

Quote from: "SteveS"It seems we must always have some level of government.

A pragmatist libertarian?! Sweet!

Healthcare: administrative costs for one organization would be a lot cheaper than many organizations. As for malpractice, the doctor is punished and the healthcare system makes any repairs it can (like if you accidentally get a new asshole instead of a new knee, the doctor will be put on probation and you'll get your knee). In addition, I know that France and the UK have monetary incentives for patients that are in good health. They are showing great results.

Quote from: "SteveS"Surely, we can't just artificially create value...

This is a toughie. Can the capitalist system be blamed for the Federal Reserve Bank? If so, then yeah it can create value and then ruin the credibility of money. If not, I dunno.

BTW, voluntary slave is a contradiction in terms. If they've volunteered, they're volunteers. If they didn't volunteer, they're slaves.

My 2cts about healthcare. A government based healhcare system runs inefficiently. You can see that in many european countries, like in Germany and England, where the costs of the public healthcare system are unaffordable. In Germany I pay 4 times more for my heath insurance than in Switzerland, although the swiss doctors are better paid and the quality of the healthcare is much higher. Why is it in Switzerland better? Because there is no public heathcare system. Everone is privately ensured; there is a lot of competetion and there is barely any burocraty because the insururance company pays the doctors directly. In Germany however there is no competition. The huge state organisations devide the money among themselves and don't pay the doctors directly, but to an organisation of doctors which adds an additional layer of burocraty and costs. This doctor organisation than dstributes the money among the doctors based on a very complicated scheme that is not based on the work that the doctor has done but by the amount of patients that the doctor has. In many cases that means that some doctors earn less than the minimum hourly wage. The doctors therefore heavily rely on private insurured patients, beacause there is where the money is. So basically a socialist healthcare system generates exactly what they are desperately trying to avoid, namely a two class system where the privately insured people receive better healthcare than the public ensured people. Not to mention ofcourse that in order to have a decent salary many doctors submit the privately ensured people to needless tests in order to fillup their wallets.

QuoteWhy is it in Switzerland better? Because there is no public heathcare system. Everone is privately ensured

If there was no public healthcare in a lot of other countries I doubt they could boast the same.

Just FYI, Tom62, but Germany and the UK pay a lot less in taxes (less than 50%) than people in the US pay for insurance. I'm not sure why you think they pay more.

Quote from: "Willravel"I probably should have used a more realistic and generally acceptable example. I'd friggin' love to terraform Mars, obviously.

Eh - doesn't matter to me.  Terraforming Mars is a cool idea.  I'd love to do it, too.  In fact, I'd even be willing to help pay for it.  :wink:  

Quote from: "Willravel"How about curing a disease that isn't really a cashcow? Let's say, for example, there is a need to find a cure for a disease that's mostly effecting the poor. Let's say millions die. Could 300 million people come together to save a few million poor people? Is it okay for people to say, "Fuck the poor"? Is that freedom, the freedom to passively kill? Is it passively killing?

Yeah - I don't know.  We'll probably disagree on how we see the poor --- are all poor people victims, or are some of them that way for a reason?  I don't condone heartless profiteering, but I also don't see it as my responsibility to save everyone from themselves.

Take this mortgage crisis, for example.  I'm not happy that people are losing their homes, and its not in my best interest that they are.  Yet - how many of these people bought a home that they could only afford by maxing out their personal finances to make interest-only payments on a variable-rate mortgage at a time when interest rates were historically low?  It doesn't seem that hard to predict that rates were going to increase, and with it their payments, and yet how much equity were they building to help them through a tough spell by making interest-only payments?

The government could assist, but that really means that I'm assisting.  My tax payments would go to bail people out.  So - let them starve?  This seems cruel, and yet the alternative is that I'm paying for their mistakes --- they took an incredible risk, but they want all the reward of a big risk without any of the risk of a big risk.  How is this fair?  Couldn't it also be considered heartless to subject the people who were much more reasonable to a major financial burden to save the others from themselves?

Here's another case that I find interesting: there was a high-school in Kansas where 50% of a students grade in biology class was from a single leaf-project, where they collect like 50 different leaves and put them in a book and describe the characteristic of the leaf and the tree that produces it.  (Aside: Doesn't this seem like a really weak standard for a high-school biology class?).  Anyway, the teacher warned the students up front about plagiarizing internet pages in their reports.  Even made them sign a paper that stated they wouldn't do it.  And yet, some did.  29, in fact.  So - the teacher was fully prepared to flunk 29 students (rightfully so, IMHO).  The school board, however, intervened and changed the weight of the paper to 10% of the students grades.  But - there was a girl who scored 100% on her work.  Now, instead of getting 100% of 50% of her grade, she only got 100% on 10% of her grade.  And - what did she do wrong?  If the paper was only worth 10%, would she have put in as much effort as she did?  Maybe not - and yet, they changed the rules on her after the fact!  This is what I mean about compassionate intervention --- it could seem kind, but in some ways it can seem cruel.  In this case it clearly seemed to me that we ended up punishing the responsible and rewarding the irresponsible.

Quote from: "Willravel"A pragmatist libertarian?! Sweet!

:(  Anyway, it seems senseless to argue that a pure unregulated capitalist (or libertarian) system wouldn't have major problems.  I think there are a lot of issues where a government can have a very desirable effect.  I don't really think a total anarchy would work.

Just a few last comments,

Quote from: "Willravel"I know that France and the UK have monetary incentives for patients that are in good health. They are showing great results.

This seems like a great idea --- but, I think that monetary incentives are more in line with a competitive social structure than a cooperative one.

Quote from: "Willravel"Can the capitalist system be blamed for the Federal Reserve Bank? If so, then yeah it can create value and then ruin the credibility of money.

If they've somehow attempted to artificially increase value, but ended up ruining it in the process, this is what I'm saying about artificial value.  You can try to prop it up, but it will all fail in the end.  You can't really artificially create value --- not in the long run.  Look at the Japanese real-estate failure --- they were making loans based on real-estate assessments that were false --- they valued buildings and property at levels that nobody would actually be able to pay!  This is artificial -- the property wasn't really worth what they were trying to pretend it was worth.  No artificial value.  :wink:  

Quote from: "Willravel"BTW, voluntary slave is a contradiction in terms. If they've volunteered, they're volunteers. If they didn't volunteer, they're slaves.

:lol:  Yeah - you got me dead to rights on that one!  Reads really stupid, in fact, doesn't it?  I'm blaming beer damage....  :wink:

I can't bring myself to punish people for being stupid. You can hold them responsible for their actions, but as long as they've learned from their mistakes I can't bring myself to allow them to suffer. The sub-prime victims are a fantastic example. "If you make $50,000 a year you probably can't afford a $750,000 home no matter what the bank promises you, numb nuts." And yes, those people are now paying a rather serious price for their inability to do basic maths, but should they be allowed to drag down the housing market? Why should me $1.2m home in the Bay Area drop down to $900,000 just because of some idiots? So when your any my tax dollars go towards paying to help stabilize the system, we are actually investing in ourselves. I won't be paying $300,000 in taxes, so it's actually a bargain for me.

Quote from: "SteveS"Here's another case that I find interesting: there was a high-school in Kansas where 50% of a students grade in biology class was from a single leaf-project, where they collect like 50 different leaves and put them in a book and describe the characteristic of the leaf and the tree that produces it. (Aside: Doesn't this seem like a really weak standard for a high-school biology class?). Anyway, the teacher warned the students up front about plagiarizing internet pages in their reports. Even made them sign a paper that stated they wouldn't do it. And yet, some did. 29, in fact. So - the teacher was fully prepared to flunk 29 students (rightfully so, IMHO). The school board, however, intervened and changed the weight of the paper to 10% of the students grades. But - there was a girl who scored 100% on her work. Now, instead of getting 100% of 50% of her grade, she only got 100% on 10% of her grade. And - what did she do wrong? If the paper was only worth 10%, would she have put in as much effort as she did? Maybe not - and yet, they changed the rules on her after the fact! This is what I mean about compassionate intervention --- it could seem kind, but in some ways it can seem cruel. In this case it clearly seemed to me that we ended up punishing the responsible and rewarding the irresponsible.

This is a bit different. I would have suspended the kids and then held them back. All 29 of them. The school board wasn't being socialist, though, they were being coerced by parents. I'd liken that more to special interests bribing or blackmailing politicians if we're illustrating governmental systems. One thing is clear: those 29 kids are probably going to grow up thinking it's okay to cheat, which their parents reinforced by protecting them. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be prudent to have parenting classes and licenses.

I think we both agree about artificial value. The Fed has done more damage to our economy in it's lifetime than anything before. I miss gold backing...

Hehehe... on the slave thing, I can't really talk. I've said some things in my time that make your statement look like It was a collaborative effort between Steven Hawking and William Shakespeare.

Yeah, Willravel, I'm in a fairly good agreement with you here.

Mortgages:  Indeed, as I alluded too, its not really in my best interests to allow the housing market to fail too badly --- I have a large investment in my home which I'd like to preserve.  Bailing them out might be my best choice --- I just wish they wouldn't have screwed up in the first place.  And the loan officers, and therefore the bank, deserve to do some bleeding of their own to rectify the situation.  They should suffer some of the financial backlash --- although to be fair, it seems like they are.  :wink:  

Schoolboard thingy:  Yup.  In particular,

Quote from: "Willravel"One thing is clear: those 29 kids are probably going to grow up thinking it's okay to cheat, which their parents reinforced by protecting them.

Agreed - wholeheartedly.  The teacher immediately resigned her job, BTW, for which I credit her.

Quote from: "Willravel"I miss gold backing...

:lol:  I have a really old 2-dollar note that is printed with a phrase indicating it is backed by silver in the national treasury.  Probably not true anymore, though, huh?

And hey, cheers dude, I enjoyed this discussion!  :cheers:

It seems that absent religion, dogma, and fundamentalism, people can see eye to eye...

...go figure! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/images/smiles/smilie_prost.gif)

Well ... its true!  We might disagree on some aspects of this political philosophy, but in the end, I have no doubt we'd get along together just fine.

Quote from: "Willravel"Just FYI, Tom62, but Germany and the UK pay a lot less in taxes (less than 50%) than people in the US pay for insurance. I'm not sure why you think they pay more.

In my post I compared the german public healthcare system with the private swiss system. I fancy the swiss system, because  all parties involved (patients, doctors and government)  profit from the lack of burocracy  and overhead costs. Of what I know about US healthcare, I also believe that the people in the UK and German are better off.

When I compare my german insurance and taxes with what I paid in Switzerland then the differences are truly astounding. Here in Germany I pay 300$ (without family coverage) for my health insurance and 50% of my salary goes to taxes. In Switzerland I paid only $50 for insurance and 12% taxes. That might the reason why so many german celebrities (like Michael Schumacher and Boris Becker) fled Germany to live in Switzerland.

What I would like to know is how much money people pay in the US for health insurance and taxes. As you probably know,  I intend to immigrate to the US in one year from now. Via my wife's employer (Worldbank) I will get an Aetna insurance for approx. $100 for full coverage. This sounds extremly reasonable to me.  Is that amount common in the US or do people pay much more?

Oops, don't know how I missed Switzerland. That will require further study. My first thought was that Switzerland is rich, but the difference between Switzerland and Germany as far as wealth is insignificant.

I make about $86k a year after taxes. I pay $600 a month for health insurance with Kaiser. I pay about 1/6 of my paycheck in taxes (and I'm really doing a lot of tax magic to pay that little, gotta love accountants).

Quote from: "Willravel"Rational liberal, are you a liberal or a libertarian? It seems by your aversion to socialism that you may be a libertarian (which I see as a somewhat opposing governmental/economic/social system to socialism). Most liberals, at least in the US, support socialist elements of government like single payer universal healthcare or social security.

Hey Willravel, To answer your question I am, in fact a liberal. I have many beliefs that are synomous with the liberal party. To clarify my belief about socialism, I don't necesarily hate the idea I just don't see it as pratical or realistic. To me, socialism just can't seem to get through  two monumental obstacles. 1. Is the reality of human selfishness and greed. 2. The other is the economic burden it places on the government. Our goverment in particular is already in a mountain of debt. If socialism was applied here then our governments debt would skyrocket to unreasonable levels. This, in turn would cause our economy to undergo some extreme instability and eventually it would collapse under the huge weight of the goverment. That would be disastrous and I believe lead to Americas demise. Not exactly the rosey picture socialists like to paint thats for sure

Quote from: "rational liberal"Our goverment in particular is already in a mountain of debt. If socialism was applied here then our governments debt would skyrocket to unreasonable levels. This, in turn would cause our economy to undergo some extreme instability and eventually it would collapse under the huge weight of the goverment.

Really?  Where did that mountain of debt come from?  - The extremely pro-"capitalist" policies of Reagan and Bush part deux.



Anyway, you all haven't really been talking about socialism, but more of the pros/cons of social democracies.  Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the "community", where community can mean a federal government or a small township, etc.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system in which the means of production are privately owned.  Is it really that simple?  on the economic side, yes.


A socialist country wouldn't necessarily control everything, or tax heavily, or do anything but "own" a factory or a farm.  Profit wouldn't necessarily be stifled, or creativity, or anything in the same way that capitalism doesn't necessarily engender creativity or competition.



What seems to be the debate here is over the problems of part socialist-part capitalist countries which most, if not all, western democracies happen to be.  Neither system would work if instituted wholesale(in the world we currently live in), nor do they work all that well together(but it's still better than one without the other).



Also, are all you libertarians essentially capitalist libertarians?
Have you not heard of libertarian socialism?  (hint: in a capitalist society you are under the control of those with ownership of the means of production.  You don't actually have the freedom you think you have, or want, when someone else is calling all the shots)

Hey donkeyhoty - long time no speak!  Watch any bad FEARnet movies lately?  I've tried to cut back  :wink:  , but they are sort of like guilty pleasures.

I get the gist of most of your comments.  One thing I find really interesting,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Neither system would work if instituted wholesale(in the world we currently live in), nor do they work all that well together(but it's still better than one without the other).

Frankly, I'm wondering if this is the answer: view the two competing ideas as diametrically opposed, but the "best" way might be some sort of blend.

Earlier, for example, I agreed with Willravel that there are many ways in which human natural existence resembles socialism (like my family function).  But, there are also many ways in which human natural existence resembles capitalism or free trade.  Within a hunter-gathered tribe, for example, people probably functioned socialistically --- but when the tribes encountered each other they probably traded with each other.  This would evidence some sort of a blend of ideas, existing naturally.

Ultimately, I don't know that we can defeat our nature - an argument anyone of a libertarian mindset is probably used to hearing.

For example, a common criticism of libertarianism is that not everyone will agree to behave like a libertarian.  But, the opposite charge is equally worthy: in a socialist society, will everyone actually agree to pursue the common good, or not?  Would just declaring our society "socialist" put an end to personal greed and special interest?  Both philosophies have to deal with this same pragmatic concern.

This is why I freely concede that I have pragmatic issues with a "purely" libertarian system - would it really function?  Do the socialists here accept the same doubt about a "purely" socialistic system?  Maybe they do - offering monetary incentives to successful doctors, for example, seems to be embracing a system of unequal reward for unequal ability or effort.

Just a final comment:

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"(hint: in a capitalist society you are under the control of those with ownership of the means of production. You don't actually have the freedom you think you have, or want, when someone else is calling all the shots)

The statement here is that if I don't own the means of production, then I do not have freedom.  So, in a capitalist society, if other people acquire all the means of production then I would not have the freedom I think I would have.  Why?  Because I would not own the means of production.  But - if this is true, then I cannot have any freedom in a socialist society, where I have completely ceded my ownership of the means of production right off the bat.  So, I don't see how this idea supports socialism over capitalism -- it seems to me to do the opposite.  At least give me a chance to have freedom.

And, ultimately, this is where my personal philosophy motivates me.  I feel that I own my life.  My labor, my sweat, is a "means of production", and I feel that I own it.  I don't think anyone else owns it, or even can own it.  Ultimately, even a slave can refuse to work (although they would probably be killed for doing so).

Collective ownership isn't the same as ceding one's ownership. You still own it, but everyone else does, too. I know it's a minor difference, but from my perspective, it's quite big.

Imagine that you have a single stock in a company. While it may seem that you don't have the freedom to run the company, collectively with other people you can. In actuality, it's not dissimilar from democracy.

I don't believe in an ism-I just believe in me! 8)

Quote from: "nummymuffin"I don't believe in an ism-I just believe in me!

Indeed,

Quote from: "Ferris Bueller"Isms, in my opinion, are bad.

:wink:

Quote from: "Willravel"Collective ownership isn't the same as ceding one's ownership. You still own it, but everyone else does, too. I know it's a minor difference, but from my perspective, it's quite big.

Imagine that you have a single stock in a company. While it may seem that you don't have the freedom to run the company, collectively with other people you can. In actuality, it's not dissimilar from democracy.

Okay - good point.  But "collective" ownership is very different from "personal" ownership.  So, to tie this into the "freedom" argument from above, one would only have "collective" freedom rather than "personal" freedom, right?  What I mean by this is I can't take my own personal path unless I persuade the collective to come along with me.  By owning only $1 in a corporation, I have the freedom to change corporate policy only if the entire collective is of a like mind --- then, collectively, we have a certain sense of freedom, but it really isn't very personal.

And what, in our current mostly-free market system, is preventing one from behaving collectively with others?  Your stock example is perfect --- individuals have chosen to have collective ownership in a case where it suits them.  Aren't there even some small collective farms, collective stores, co-ops and such, in operation as well?

But, in a socialist system, wouldn't we have enforced collectivism?  In other words, could I decide to pursue individual ownership if I wanted to?  Would I be allowed to opt out of the collective and go it alone?

In my libertarian ideal, wouldn't the system allow for collective behavior that was voluntary?

I see the contrast as enforced, versus willed, collectivism.  One system allows for both (edited for clarity: allows for individual and collective arrangements is what I meant), the other does not (as I see it).  If the best way is a blend of ideas --- why not go for the "freedom philosophy", and enter into collectives when it suits us and when we want to, without making everyone follow suit?  Why rule individuality out and enforce collective behavior on everyone?  If collectives are the best approach in the end, and they are allowed in our current system, why aren't there more of them and why aren't they more successful?

On the other hand, perhaps the collectives that exist now feel they are successful.  Maybe they don't generate as much wealth, but the members feel they are better off because of a more satisfactory/assured life style.  Okay - but then why force this on everyone else?  Why not just enjoy the good life they have, that is allowed for, in our current way of things?  Why must they force everyone else to agree that the collective approach is best for everyone, just because they feel it is best for them?

Eh, this is just the way I see these issues.  Sorry about all the rhetorical questions --- I'm certainly not trying to be annoying.

What is preventing behaving collectively? I like to cell it "capitalist mindset". In a capitalist system, one is essentially taught from birth to fend for him or herself, and while collectivism isn't strictly banned it's usually frowned upon. Just ask your average American about unions for more insight into that particular phenomena. The capitalist mindset grows as each child is pushed from the nest to get a job to pay for their own stuff, instead of to pay for their share of the household. They individuate, and then create their own nests where their kids will be socialist until they day they can get a job. Instead of helping to pay for food with that job, they're told to pay for their own expensesâ€"car, gas, car insurance, fast food, clothes, etc.â€", but don't become socialist again until they're either dating a poor person (been there) or start their own family unit. This pattern in real world economic education manages to create the illusion that individuation is the only option because we're all alone. I disagree.

A socialist system would and wouldn't be forced collectivism because, as I said, there's no way a true socialist system would work today with our massive populations and scarce resources. It will work within a more complex framework, though. When it comes to certain necessities in a societyâ€"military/police, fire/ambulance, roads, schools, etc.â€"pooling resources becomes more than an option; it becomes a necessity for necessities. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives or add-ons. (don't worry, I'll get to property in a sec...) If the military/police isn't enough, there are private security forces. Schools not good enough? There are private schools.

Now on to property. Collective property can only exist in an abundance or a small population. In many cities around the world, the local government provide bicycles for pedestrians to use. They have more than enough bikes, so people can use them as they please. It's a very successful program and it's often seen a reduction in carbon emissions. This is collective ownership in the modern world that's successful. Why? Because they have a shitload of bikes. Can you still buy your own bike? Sure, but lock it up. And if you do have your own bike, you can modify it or do whatever you want to it because it's yours, but the collective option is still always available to you.

Most important of all? The only person who's annoyed by someone asking questions is either an exhausted parent or someone without answers. As long as I've got answers, I won't be annoyed. And if I don't have answers, the only person I should be annoyed with is myself.

I favour the collective approach, which I agree is still possible under capitalism. I think the disagreement between myself and someone like SteveS ought to be cultural rather than political. SteveS,

Quote from: "SteveS"If collectives are the best approach in the end, and they are allowed in our current system, why aren't there more of them and why aren't they more successful?

I think you answered your own question quite adequately here:

Quote from: "SteveS"On the other hand, perhaps the collectives that exist now feel they are successful. Maybe they don't generate as much wealth, but the members feel they are better off because of a more satisfactory/assured life style.

This seems to be the case, based on encounters with collectives that I've read about. But I believe it's also because of the "capitalist mindset" Willravel described. If people aren't in any way informed about the benefits of a collective approach, if they have had few encounters with collectives and are their whole lives taught to favour a competitive and individualist system, that system will quite obviously dominate. Especially since it's the way we've been doing things for the past two centuries...

Quote from: "SteveS"Okay - but then why force this on everyone else? Why not just enjoy the good life they have, that is allowed for, in our current way of things? Why must they force everyone else to agree that the collective approach is best for everyone, just because they feel it is best for them?

They shouldn't force them, in my opinion, which is why I don't consider myself a socialist. But whether people continue to follow a competetive, individualist model or move to a collectivist one is a cultural dialogue that I feel ought to be given much more consideration than it has. I firmly believe more people would be better off if they moved towards the latter. Eventually capitalism would disappear: if nearly every company was collectively owned, who'd want to work in one which wasn't -- one in which they had very little share of the profit? But since very few collectives exist, and very few people know about or understand their benefits, it's impractical to expect someone to choose or be able to join one over simply 'getting a job' and working at a normal business under the normal conditions that that entails.

"Flavour"? Loves socialism?

A fellow Labour! Are you one of the good old labours who can't stand Blair's "New Labour"?

Hey guys,

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I think the disagreement between myself and someone like SteveS ought to be cultural rather than political.

Yes - actually, I agree with this completely.

Quote from: "pjkeeley"They shouldn't force them, in my opinion, which is why I don't consider myself a socialist. But whether people continue to follow a competetive, individualist model or move to a collectivist one is a cultural dialogue that I feel ought to be given much more consideration than it has.

I agree with this as well.  My primary objection to socialism is what I perceive to be institutionalized socialism.  I don't see how that can function without embracing a degree of authoritarianism that I am uncomfortable with.

If we're talking about a "hearts and minds" issue (the "capitalist mindset" vs. a "socialist mindset") - I am completely open to exploring this.  My "political" aspect comes out in the "They shouldn't force them" part.  The difference in mindset is the "cultural" part.

Here's where the political parts strikes me: if I feel I need a "safety net", and in many cases I do, I buy insurance.  I don't get a choice on Social Security, though.  In fact, if I refuse to pay for this, because I don't want it, I'll be put in prison.  This is a requirement that is backed up by threat of force.

Culturally, on the other hand?  Well, if we're making collective behavior voluntary, I have no bones with this at all.  Why would I?  If it works better and we can demonstrate this, I could certainly see myself agreeing.  I don't think it will work - but I don't really know.  Why not determine this empirically?  Then, there would be little left to argue about.

The only problem is that "works better" is a concept that I think will always be open to personal interpretation (individual interpretation).  I could easily foresee a case where many people would voluntarily join collectives and feel they made the right choice, while others would remain "rugged individuals" and feel they have made the right choice.  Again, this comes down to my individualist personality - I think only an individual can evaluate what is best for themselves.  They should have this right, but it does come with responsibility.

Politically?  I would certainly never argue that I should enact, through authoritarian means, a system which prevents people from forming collectives.

Culturally? Show me how it works and I'll join in if I want to.  There's really nothing stopping me from emigrating to a more socialist nation right now, in fact.  But --- I'm not doing it, because I very strongly do not desire to.  Am I foolish?  Some will say yes, some will say no.  Who's right?  Is there an objective "right" answer, or is this evaluation necessarily subjective?

I would make one comment about things like unions, though, that we're viewing as collective enterprises:

Quote from: "Willravel"In a capitalist system, one is essentially taught from birth to fend for him or herself, and while collectivism isn't strictly banned it's usually frowned upon. Just ask your average American about unions for more insight into that particular phenomena.

Well, in many ways I guess I qualify as an "average American", so I suppose I fit the bill  :wink:  .

I don't have a problem with a union in many ways - but here is a way that I don't think unions function well.  If a union is enacted by authoritarian backing, say by making a law:  "If you want to work on plumbing, you must be a member of the plumbing union.  Not optional, "plumb" ( :lol: ) without being a member and we adjudicate you as guilty of a crime", well, this appears to me to be a "special interest" group manipulating the market more than a collective enterprise serving the "common good".  Suppose the plumbers say "We've got all the cards - nobody can be a plumber but us, so let's set our new price for plumbing work because nobody really gets a choice, do they?".  This is an attempt to create artificial value --- there's nothing about being a member of the plumbers union that makes me a better plumber --- we've just declared that nobody can be allowed to do the work without belonging, and we've used our monopoly to corner the market and set high prices that aren't really backed up by anything real.  This enterprise is destined to failure, because we've agreed that we can't really create artificial value.  The union, in this case, is operating no differently than a capitalist monopoly.  They're not collectively serving the common good after all.

The capitalist monopoly is one of the failures of a pure, unregulated capitalism, which is why I qualify my "pure libertarian" idea.

Anyway, Will, I thought these were worthwhile and interesting thoughts:

Quote from: "Willravel"A socialist system would and wouldn't be forced collectivism because, as I said, there's no way a true socialist system would work today with our massive populations and scarce resources. It will work within a more complex framework, though. When it comes to certain necessities in a societyâ€"military/police, fire/ambulance, roads, schools, etc.â€"pooling resources becomes more than an option; it becomes a necessity for necessities. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives or add-ons. (don't worry, I'll get to property in a sec...) If the military/police isn't enough, there are private security forces. Schools not good enough? There are private schools.

Now on to property. Collective property can only exist in an abundance or a small population. In many cities around the world, the local government provide bicycles for pedestrians to use. They have more than enough bikes, so people can use them as they please. It's a very successful program and it's often seen a reduction in carbon emissions. This is collective ownership in the modern world that's successful. Why? Because they have a shitload of bikes. Can you still buy your own bike? Sure, but lock it up. And if you do have your own bike, you can modify it or do whatever you want to it because it's yours, but the collective option is still always available to you.

Seems like we agree in so many ways on the practical, or applied, aspects of these differing philosophies.  Maybe our discussion is just an argument of the degree and instance of regulations.  In which case, if we're going to adopt a blended technique, this discussion is very healthy.  Trying to find the right balance......

Anyway, here's some personal experiences I thought of, that I offer as food for thought.

In college, I had two very different lab partners.  For one class, we had to work on a semester long project with a partner.  I was paired with one of the other students.  This guy, quite frankly, was terrible.  I view his grade as a total gift from me.  He did absolutely nothing to further or better the project.  Every part of the design, and the implementation of that design, was performed by me while he conducted ultimately fruitless "library research".  It was still in my interest to succeed because my grade was tied into the shared enterprise, but if I wasn't forced into this collective, I'd have opted out in a heartbeat.  Honestly, the guy was shockingly incompetent, and I don't think he deserved his degree.  Pity to whoever ends up hiring him.

Another course, in this case programming, I had a wonderful lab partner.  We got along very well, divided up the work, debugged together, and we were very successful.  In fact, I think we did much better together then we would have done apart.  The fact that both he and I actively planned further courses to take together and partner in makes me feel he believed likewise.  This was a very healthy collective, and we pursued it voluntarily.

My personal experience, then, is that collectives can work, but they have to remain voluntary.

In Germany we now have nowaday a big discussion about privatizing the public railroad company Deutsche Bundesbahn. Should it get into private hands then first thing we expect to happen is that many trainstations will be closed because they are not profitable. Should they also privatize the maintainance of the railroad tracks then we could endup in a similar situation like England, where trains can no longer run full speed due to bad tracks. Privatization is also unfair towards the taxpayer, because the taxpayer doesn't get his money back when the company changes hands. In general it is a good idea to run a tight, lean company, which is unfortuately not the case with a lot of old public companies. Privatizing such companies will therefore mean that a lot of people are thrown on the street.  Another problem is that when the state-owned company doesn't have any competition the private company that takes over the company has a monopoly in its hands and therefore no reasons at all to lower their prices or to improve their services. In the end we may well be better off by keeping these public companies public.

Some "socialist" experiments are very interesting to watch and are extremely succesful. The bicycle plan that Willtravel mentioned is one of them. Another one is the introduction of free public transport in some Belgium and Dutch cities. In the city of Tilburg alone this caused a reduction of 24% of cars on the road. Less polution in the air but, what most people find more important, also far less trafficjams.

I believe that the best system would be a right mixture of socialist and capitalist systems. Under a pure socialist or pure capitalist system only the people on the top seem to benefit.

Quote from: "SteveS"Well, in many ways I guess I qualify as an "average American", so I suppose I fit the bill  :wink:  .

I don't have a problem with a union in many ways - but here is a way that I don't think unions function well.  If a union is enacted by authoritarian backing, say by making a law:  "If you want to work on plumbing, you must be a member of the plumbing union.  Not optional, "plumb" ( :lol: ) without being a member and we adjudicate you as guilty of a crime", well, this appears to me to be a "special interest" group manipulating the market more than a collective enterprise serving the "common good".  Suppose the plumbers say "We've got all the cards - nobody can be a plumber but us, so let's set our new price for plumbing work because nobody really gets a choice, do they?".  This is an attempt to create artificial value --- there's nothing about being a member of the plumbers union that makes me a better plumber --- we've just declared that nobody can be allowed to do the work without belonging, and we've used our monopoly to corner the market and set high prices that aren't really backed up by anything real.  This enterprise is destined to failure, because we've agreed that we can't really create artificial value.  The union, in this case, is operating no differently than a capitalist monopoly.  They're not collectively serving the common good after all.

The capitalist monopoly is one of the failures of a pure, unregulated capitalism, which is why I qualify my "pure libertarian" idea.

Any organization or group is open to manipulation by selfish people, but I've seen the amazing things that unions have accomplished. It's about equality (as socialism often is) between the workers and the managers. When the management has too much power, the workers are exploited. Likewise, when the unions are too powerful, management suffers. I just prefer to think of them on even grounds, like the checks and balances that are supposed to exist between branches of government.

What's the old phrase? Always in moderation.

Quote from: "SteveS"Seems like we agree in so many ways on the practical, or applied, aspects of these differing philosophies.  Maybe our discussion is just an argument of the degree and instance of regulations.  In which case, if we're going to adopt a blended technique, this discussion is very healthy.  Trying to find the right balance......

I get the same feeling. We're each arguing half of a whole. Still, it is good to know that despite the fact that we are coming from different schools of though we're ending up at many of the same conclusions. Maybe bipartisanship doesn't always mean both sides lose!

Quote from: "SteveS"Anyway, here's some personal experiences I thought of, that I offer as food for thought.

In college, I had two very different lab partners.  For one class, we had to work on a semester long project with a partner.  I was paired with one of the other students.  This guy, quite frankly, was terrible.  I view his grade as a total gift from me.  He did absolutely nothing to further or better the project.  Every part of the design, and the implementation of that design, was performed by me while he conducted ultimately fruitless "library research".  It was still in my interest to succeed because my grade was tied into the shared enterprise, but if I wasn't forced into this collective, I'd have opted out in a heartbeat.  Honestly, the guy was shockingly incompetent, and I don't think he deserved his degree.  Pity to whoever ends up hiring him.

Another course, in this case programming, I had a wonderful lab partner.  We got along very well, divided up the work, debugged together, and we were very successful.  In fact, I think we did much better together then we would have done apart.  The fact that both he and I actively planned further courses to take together and partner in makes me feel he believed likewise.  This was a very healthy collective, and we pursued it voluntarily.

My personal experience, then, is that collectives can work, but they have to remain voluntary.

Group grading only works when done hand in hand with individual grading. Done alone it's as unfair as a bell curve. Your terrible partner should have been graded collectively with you AND separately. After all, in the "real world" sometimes you work with someone and sometime you work alone, and school is supposed to prepare you for real life.

As for it being voluntary: sometimes in life it isn't. I've had to work with complete idiots and part of being an adult in the real world sometimes means dragging someone else's weight. BUT, when you make it clear to the authorities that the person is dead weight, said dead weight is still held responsible. In socialist systems, everyone is expected to perform. Dead weight has consequences in both capitalism and socialism, but in socialism society is more motivated to help the dead weight in becoming a valued contributor to society. In capitalism, he ends up living outside a McDonalds and smelling like feet. There's  something to be said about society being motivated to help the weak.

Hey Will - all I can think of to say is, "yeah".  :wink:  (shrugs)

I think we read each other okay, and I think we're in a decent place here.

Quote from: "Willravel"As for it being voluntary: sometimes in life it isn't. I've had to work with complete idiots and part of being an adult in the real world sometimes means dragging someone else's weight.

Indeed!

Quote from: "Willravel"Maybe bipartisanship doesn't always mean both sides lose!

I read you loud and clear.  Sometimes I think a healthy contention is preferable.  Different opinions might be necessary to find the common denominator.  Like medical differential diagnosis, for example.  If all the doctors always agreed, maybe they'd lose more patients then they do by arguing about symptoms and trying to find the common ground.  If they always agreed, how would they find out when they were wrong?

Again - cheers dude,  :cheers:

You're a hell of an enjoyable, interesting, and intellectual person to have a discussion with!

Ditto!

Hey Tom62,

Quote from: "Tom62"Another problem is that when the state-owned company doesn't have any competition the private company that takes over the company has a monopoly in its hands and therefore no reasons at all to lower their prices or to improve their services.

Keen observation.  Reminds me of the situation in Chicago right now with the city harbors.  The city park district used to maintain all the harbors in the city limit, but a few years ago they outsourced it to a private corporation.  The promise was improved services (boaters felt the facilities had become run-down and sub-standard).  In the years since, the new ownership has dramatically increased the prices without improving anything, which has gotten the boaters up in arms (reasonably so).

The company points out that all the slips and moorings are remaining as full as usual, so the harbor service had been undervalued.  Which seems true.  The boaters point out that increased income should be allowing the company to improve the services - which also seems true.  But, as per your example, all the harbors are managed by the same firm with no competition.  Monopoly.  Worse, since the city taxes boaters at a fixed percentage rate of the harbor fee (now significantly increased), the city is actually profiting as well.  With government and a private monopoly aligned, its hard to foresee how the situation is going to improve for the boaters.  I don't currently own a boat or a mooring in a Chicago harbor ($ and time), but I would dearly like to one day, so I follow these developments with some personal interest.

Of course boating (at these harbors) is a pleasure/luxury industry - hardly necessary (look at it as wealthy yacht owners whining - hard not to find some humor in it  :wink:  ).  But - this same development could be pretty ugly were it visited upon a more essential industry.

Competition doesn't always drive quality up and prices down. Case in point: big oil. Profit driven markets are.... well, they're profit driven. It's in their interest to keep quality down and prices up so they can pocket the most at the end of the day. They often have investors to please with profit numbers and are basically legally obligated to do everything in their power to keep their investors happy.

Sometimes the free market is the answer, and sometimes it's not. Here are a few examples of when the free market doesn't work:
Healthcare
Oil
Tobacco
Blackwater
Prisons
Chinese toys


It brings up a fundamental question, something that very few people have the balls to ask: is freedom selfish?

Hey Will - We're obviously going to disagree on the value of competition, but I don't see how we can resolve that.  This part is more interesting to me:

Quote from: "Willravel"is freedom selfish?

Unhesitatingly, I answer this question: yes!

Ultimately, life is selfish.  I can't live without killing: everything I eat was once alive.  Why should I live at the expense of these other things dying?  Of course, why should they live at the expense of me dying?  There is no right answer.  I'm trying to live, everything else alive is trying to live, but nothing can live without killing (directly or indirectly).  It seems many view selfishness negatively from an abstract perspective, but I would point out that it is required to live.

The counter-question I came up with is: If living without selfishness implies living without freedom, then is living selflessly really good?

Being selfish, with freedom, doesn't necessarily imply superiority.  I'm in an Ayn Rand mood today; here's what she said about freedom:

Quote from: "Ayn Rand"Everyone has the right to make his own decisions, but none has the right to force his decision on others

So, I can be selfish (make my own decisions the way I want to), but that doesn't imply that I must supersede other people's rights.

Here's a more classic libertarian question: is equality fair?

EWW, Ayn Rand? Restating simple capitalistic rationality... damn you, Bioshock. (Sorry, I'm obviously not a fan of Rand)

If living without selfishness implies living without freedom, then is living selflessly really good? This depends on your own subjective value of the abstract idea of freedom. I believe in certain freedoms and not in others. Not only that, but viewing selfishness not with the axoims of "good and bad" but rather constructive or destructive, we ultimately find ourselves returning to the question that's been bouncing around throughout the thread: serve the whole or serve one's self? If you believe a bit more in serving the whole, then a great deal of selfishness is destructive. If you believe a bit more in serving self, then a great deal of selfishness is constructive. This delves into the fundamental states of community minded vs. self minded.

Cool stuff, cept Rand.

Quote from: "Willravel"If you believe a bit more in serving the whole, then a great deal of selfishness is destructive. If you believe a bit more in serving self, then a great deal of selfishness is constructive. This delves into the fundamental states of community minded vs. self minded.

Fair enough - I think that's a decent appraisal of the situation.

Quote from: "Willravel"Cool stuff, cept Rand.

 ( :wink: )