posted
Not at all, Robes, I just consider it useless to argue with you on these things, because your conclusions are also your premises. It does not matter what I would argue, because you suppose these things as first principles further arguing is fruitless. I cannot persuade one who does not understand persuasion.
What it means is, if you consider involuntary taxes such a great injustice, that you pay them with no real protest merely convinces me how weak either your morals or your objections really are.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robes, you haven't shown the benefits of capitalism here - you've merely asserted them. Asking fugu to do more than you have done seems unfair to me.
Dagonee (And I'm generally pro-capitalist.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There can be no such thing as a "healthy dose" of socialism. All socialism can do is to destroy wealth, which can be equated to standard of living.
When I read this the first thing that popped into my head was: "The only good socialism is a dead socialism!"
Hasn't history taught us that extremism leads into problem followed by problem? Complete Capitalism, based entirely on reliance on commericial endeavors, has as many problems as Communism.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: under collectivist economics, the means of production are owned by the people, and managed by the state. Since there is one effective owner of all goods, there are no real exchanges, and therefor, no real prices. In a capitalist economy, resources are distributed according to who best serves their neighbors. If a company provides a service which people find useful, people exchange with this company, allowing them to expand their services. Companies which do not provide a useful service, quickly go out of business.
Companies in a capitalist system are able to engage in cost accounting, which allows them to maximize their efficiency, producing the greatest profits. Such cost accounting is not possible when all the means of production are owned by one entity. Thus, gross inefficiencies are inevitable under collectivism. There will always be shortages of desired goods and over abundance of unwanted goods. Many once used the Soviet Union as a "proof" against this viewpoint. Of course they accepted the information minister's word that the people were happy and there were no shortages. There is, however, another reason why the Soviets were able to cling to power for so long, just barely keeping their economy afloat. They were able to study the prices in non-communist countries, and make some rudimentary cost accounting. Had they been able to collectivize the entire world, this vital option would then be lost to them.
Even if I had not discussed the supports for my reasoning behind supporting capitalism, Fugu has yet to mention ANY reason why socialism should be pursued at any level in any amount. His only argument thus far is that total capitalism is "idiocy". This is far from any kind of support for socialism, in moderation or otherwise.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Complete Capitalism, based entirely on reliance on commericial endeavors, has as many problems as Communism.
It is possible to live in a Laisse-Faire system without having ANY commercial endeavors. One is free to be totally cut off from society if one so chooses.
For the sake of discussion, would you name one or two of the problems of complete capitalism?
posted
Robes, those benefits exist in many democracies that have socialistic tendencies, including the United States. None of that paragraph says anything against the problems of taxation for programs you insist are anathema to "capitalism."
For example, my company had to pay taxes that supported regulatory regimes and welfare programs. Yet we managed to do cost accounting just fine.
quote: Yet we managed to do cost accounting just fine.
Yes you did, and you were also forced to work as a government slave, as are all who work and report their incomes.
quote: Where does Facism come into place? Is it a branch of Socialism? Or Communism? Or both?
Facism can also be called state-capitalism, where the state controls all or most major industries, setting output, prices, and wages. The Germans called their system national socialism. The effect of facism is similar to that of socialism in that it removes freedoms from the individual and private sector, but it does not totally eliminate private property. Although some argue that it does, by removing many of the freedoms which such property generally affords.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: For the sake of discussion, would you name one or two of the problems of complete capitalism?
Let me first get Capitalism straight, please tell which are correct and which are not, and please answer my questions according to your vision:
I don't pay taxes... everything is owned by private companies or people, including roads (?) and other such things... national parks and such are owned by who? Rich companies? Millionaires?... If a company tries to buy something of mine, can I merely refuse?... where does money, say for an army, come from?... Do political parties owe their allegiance to political, economic or personal goals (for instance, could a politician be affiliated with a specific company)?
quote:Yes you did, and you were also forced to work as a government slave, as are all who work and report their incomes.
Robes, this is the part of your argument you've provided NO support for - it's your assertion that taxation equals slavery. And you totally ignored the point that the backup you provided does not only support your "pure capitalism" but also capitalism as practiced in the United States and Western Europe.
Meanwhile, fugu's very legitimate question as to why you pay taxes if that is your view remains unanswered.
posted
A Hegemon is a small animal found in Japanese nature preserves that with proper training can execute the "spike attack". They have been known to evolve into porcumon.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Meanwhile, fugu's very legitimate question as to why you pay taxes if that is your view remains unanswered.
What difference does it make whether or not I pay taxes to this discussion? The question is totally beside the point of the morality of using force to coerce citizens into supporting other citizens.
quote: don't pay taxes... everything is owned by private companies or people, including roads (?) and other such things... national parks and such are owned by who?
No income taxes. If you use government services, you pay for them as you go. Yes, everything should be owned by people. The question of who is to be decided the same as who should own any piece of land. Who used it first, or who payed for it last.
quote: If a company tries to buy something of mine, can I merely refuse?
Of course, I am not speaking about corporate fuedalism. Private property rights apply to all equally.
quote: where does money, say for an army, come from?
From those who wish to purchase an army?
quote: Do political parties owe their allegiance to political, economic or personal goals (for instance, could a politician be affiliated with a specific company)?
I don't fully understand this question, but the near monopoly source of corruption in our government stems from companies and individuals regulation or subsidizing the economy in their own interest, at the expense of taxpayers. With such economic tampering outlawed, many ethics issues would be much less important.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And still you ignored the main point of my post about your "proof" that capitalism requires no taxes to be successful.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And still you ignored the main point of my post about your "proof" that capitalism requires no taxes to be successful.
I'm really not sure what you want Dags.
Capitalism is a system of economic exchange, in which each individual is free to enter into contracts as he/she see's fit. Private property rights are held as the best way to settle disputes, and the role of government is to punish those who initiate the use of force.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Who polices the companies to see if they are tampering with the economy. While you fear governmental slavedom, I fear companies conspiring to set prices, bully competitors, and commit massive fraud on the customers. Who polices the corporations, and where does the money come from to do this policing, the judging, and the incarceration of these economic tamper-ers.
The closest example to complete Non-Governmental Hands Off economy I've seen in a while has been the "Food Supplement" industry.
Since legislation freeing it from almost all governmental oversight the Food Supplement industry has been exceedingly profitable. Millions upon millions have been made by the companies.
And the quality of the products produced have deteriorated to down right piosonous.
Drug Manufacturers have to prove their products are effective.
These companies do not.
Food Manufacturers have to prove their products are safe.
These companies do not.
If their product kills you, it is up to you to prove that it was their product that did it.
Which is why Aphedra remained on the market despite the string of deaths and heart disease it left in its wake.
You say that when company A produces better than company B, clients will go to company A. BUt what if Company B produces the better commercial, makes the wilder promise, has the prettier box.
Capitalism works great in the long run.
However, in the short run, millions can be made producing over hyped, highly toutted, shoddy and dangerous merchandise. If you have to hurt a few people to make your company successful, well thats the cost of doing business.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for answering my questions Robes... I'm sorry I have some more specific examples on a case-by-case interpretation as Capitalism as I interpret it...
quote: From those who wish to purchase an army?
So if I want to protect my country, say from more socialist countries who are trying to eradicate my capitalism, I can buy up a gun or a tank, or part of a tank, and put my tank into the war effort. If that is the case, what happens if I decide that my tank isn't going to go into a particular battle?
***
If MacDonalds owns a couple of battleships and pulls the USS Happy Meal, McNugget and McFlurry out of a convoy meant to protect the Intel Submarine Sealicon Chip, is MacDonalds held responisble for the defeat and capture of said Submarine?
quote: If you use government services, you pay for them as you go.
I am a twelve year old daughter of a single mother who works as a caretaker, and she has no health insurance. I get appendicitis/something worse, and the cost of the operation is more than we can afford. Who pays for my operation?
***
I live at number 64 on a road. Do I pay a small fee every time I use the road? Do I tip the snowplough driver as he passes my house or does he leave a tiny bill in my mailbox, which I then have to pay him.
If the snowplough driver charges exorberant amounts and also owns the rights to clear the road and the road itself, what do I do?
***
I'm still confused about National Parks. Are there government rules stopping Mr. Smith from developing Yellowstone Park? Why shouldn't he build houses there? After all, he owns it!
quote:Argent, Yes, they did. Also, considering that the same systems have been transported (in many parts) to America and have again proven significantly better than standard mass production techniques, such questions are largely irrelevant. This is a new style of doing things that is not tied to Japan or it's culture, except for a willingness to adopt collectivist ways of doing things.
Except that GM didn't switch to a Japanese way of doing things, nor the techniques that Japan employed. In fact, GM managed to improve on its own practices, and car production in the US today is more like it used to be in the first or second quarter of the century, up to and including the resiliency of its automobiles. One could conceivably argue that the Japanese learned from examples like Ford in his early years. Regardless, giving the workers a stake in the success of the business isn't a Communist or Capitalist only paradigm.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason I joined this forum was to read and post in this thread. I find it extremely hard to resist such winsome topic. I'd also would like to applaud you all (especially the Anarcho-Capitalists such as Robespierre) for not resulting to vilification of those opposing their views and beliefs. Kudos.
This past summer, I was a staunch Anarcho-Communist, however blindly. I supported the ideology to the fullest degree, and took immense pride. It made sense to me. I grew up with the ideals of the 60's, and here was an ideology which professed of pure equality, and money not being the head of everything. Then I began visiting a forum, where I met an Anarcho-Capitalist who made me question a lot of what I believed. I came to the realization that what I believed was based immeasurably on fideism, something which conflicted with the rational side of my mentality. I became incredibly confused, and decided it was time I took further consideration into what it was I was advocating.
I believe the biggest problem with Communists/Socialists/Marxists is that they have a hard time defending what they believe, and I believe with good reason; in the nations where 'Communism' has been implemented it has been perverted and raped into something which is bloody and diversiformed from the original idea. Also, the Capitalists have been very productive in creating literary works to support their ideas. Smith, Locke, Mises, Bastiat, Rand, Hayek, etc, were individuals who wrote and preached of Capitalism, how it could work, how it made sense, and why collectivism is an evil. How many Communist/Socialists have taken the liberty to make the same effort? (The irony makes me chuckle)
Communism can never work. It is primarily based on the belief that individuals want to give to their fellow man; altruism. It takes away personal freedoms, and the freedom to succeed, something which is essential. Capitalism can never work. It is based on the belief that human nature is inherently evil and the goal in life is to create profit.
(I know this is sounding redundant in relation to many other posts, but bear with me)
Capitalists give a very good strong argument, especially the one that Robespierre here is giving about 'Slavery', in a metaphorical sense. Most of us who advocate Communists/Socialists/Marxists fail to see exactly what such a society would entail. What good is a life where you are born with a predestined future? Where you have nothing to aspire to? Sure, every individual will have food, water, a home, and a static income but..that's exactly what life and society would become, static. Dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the most, if not the most, ironic aspects of Communism. Was not the point of Communism to escape from an overruling class? Yes, it's a dictatorship run by "the workers" but even then there is the elitism, which seems to be inevitable. People will argue that Communism has worked in Cuba! Hah, for it to work it must first exist. Cuba is Neo-Communistic with a teaspoon of Capitalism.
Capitalism depends on people being basically selfish. The whole point is that, if you work hard, you can get rich, ride to the top, and do whatever (more or less) you want; also on the survival of the fittest ideal. It has existed as well, not it's pure form but in abundance. It's done some good, but also a lot of evil. Capitalism has created exploitation, and a class society. The current state of our world is the prime example of this. What's wrong with helping your fellow man? What's wrong with giving some of your profits to your government in order to stabilize and keep order in your country?
If you are a staunch Paleo-Libertarian Hoppean propritarian Anarcho-capitalist..why do you succumb to the obligations of the State? Why do you travel on the roads and highways paid for by money being stolen FROM YOU? Why? Fight the State! Defeat it! Do not succumb to what it asks from you. Life, Liberty, and property..put it into effect.
I am currently still in teh process of determing my own stance, however I can somewhat say that I can be considered a Socio-Capitalist. More so left leaning, however.
posted
Pure capitalism is a tad rough on the consumer - if any of you remember the book "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
<edit> The much-touted "enlightened self-interest" of laissez-faire systems doesn't work. The Enron scenario is one example - the executives had little or no reservations about plundering their company to the ground and cheerfully abandoning ship with their ill-gotten gains and corporate parachutes.
<edit> Without forced moderation and regulation from a stronger organization, the consumer is at the mercy of companies that could and probably otherwise wood, in turn, play neighborhood bully for their own benefit. The government can at least claim in some instances to be looking out for the well-being of the greater whole and not the handful of would-be bullies.
Without a strong central government, it would be difficult to raise and maintain a military capable of repelling attacks from countries that do have a standing, unified military instead of a "military by committee" that would result from individual organizations (companies, city-states, what-have-you) trying to rally together.
As for the slavery point - Robes point is well-taken, allowing for the contextual definition of slavery. Webster's provides one defintion of slavery as:
quote: 2 : submission to a dominating influence
Which in strictest definition, can be <edit> applied </edit> to every person who pays taxes not because they want to support the government and pay for social services, but rather because they don't want to go to jail.
From a more practical standpoint, I find the word to be a bit extreme in the emotional context - as I informally define slavery as the total and complete submission of one's person to a stronger authority.
That said, any time someone surrenders any liberty either to a demanding power or the collective good (social contract?) one could argue that we are slaves to either the government or society as a whole.
Edit: And as much as I didn't care for "Hero" and the political rhetoric behind it, the movie makes a good point about the application of force.
posted
All laws require coercion, Robe, that is the point. Pure capitalism is not any better of a system because the people who have the most resources would have an undue advantage over the rest of us.
Did YOU read any of the replies above? If you had, perhaps you would understand why the military was mentioned. I won't bother to repeat it...if you didn't pay attention the first time I doubt you would a second.
quote:Safety regulations are inherently UN-SAFE and destructive.
All hail those who makes absolutes a religion not to be questioned.
Almost all laws are a form of safety regulation, in one way or another.
There are things that are used for the common good, things you use almost every day and don;t think about, that were built with tax money...things like hospitals and highways...that supersede "pure" capitalism. There are things that are used by all of us that would not exist without the government to develop them, and they use tax monies to do so....which could be termed a loose form of socialism.
Do you buy food in a supermarket? If you do you are reaping the benefits of the highway system, built by the federal government using common funds gathered by taxes on the public.
I don't like communism much, not as it has actually appeared in the world OR in "pure" theory; I much prefer the current state of affairs, which is really a combination of the two.
quote: Socialism is the FORCED collectivization of some resources. It creates a situation where participants have no choice but to work for the well-being of another, without being compensated. I define this as slavery
We know what YOU define it as....
The rest of us call it human society.
You aren't forced to do anything...you are free to leave and go somewhere else, or to try and "beat" the system....but when you fail, don't ask for a public defender.
That would be communistic....actually it wouldn't be, as you think you shouldn't have to pull your own weight in our society. (not reporting income)
There is a difference between stating something as fact, and actually proving it as fact.
So far all you have proved is that you believe specific things.
I fail to see any proof about anything I quoted above...and I actually READ the posts I am commenting on. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
...wow.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
