Capitalism versus Socialism

[screamingman12 30]

Amtrak is most certainly not a failure. What would have been a failure woud be to have it not created, imagine what would happen then. Not to mention the fact that it was the only realistic method of transportation shortly after 9/11 (and, to a smaller extent, today).

But on to the point, socializing important aspects of life (education, fire dept. police, healthcare) all become a necessity at some point. People need to realize that not everyone is as well-off as they are, and that they might actually need to (ghasp!) help someone, at some point. Also, to anyone who thinks that capitalism merged with public service is a good idea, think about what happens to the masses that cannot get health insurance, or are raised to fear the police, and have never really gone to school. They will benefit from a government system. Because if people are scared and stupid, then, and only then, can totalitarianism be achieved.

[belfastuniguy 18]

While I am opposed to widespread nationalisation. I do actually live in a country where it exists.

I live in Northern Ireland and as a result of our history our entire public transport and water network are run by government companies. Translink for transport and Northern Ireland Water.

Now.....NI is a small place so this kinda set-up does work to a degree, we lack competition and we also lack the vast investments that private companies could bring to the market as well as competition on price. But they are investing and developing the networks and we can see the benefits., especially with public transport. We have some big developments lined up and all pretty much paid for by the government and of course the money from fares.

We are a special case within the UK, no other UK region has government controlled water or public transport.

Despite all this I still disapprove of widespread nationalism in services, I believe they function better as private companies, given the investment and competition. social health, education and the such, yes, perfectly happy to have the government control and run those but not trains, buses, water, telecommunications or electricity.

[MrFingers 0]

The Warfare/Welfare state was really born in Germany in the last quarter of the 19th century. Although, America, with Abraham Lincoln striking the first blow, was the first to really get into the 20th century warfare state, where government power thrives and grows through economically motivated wars.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

MrFingers said: The problem with claiming you have a right to healthcare is that you don't have self-ownership. Thus you are claiming a right over the product of someone else's life and liberty. Teachers and doctors don't work for free, so in order to give someone "free" healthcare and education, you have to remove property from someone else through government coercion, which violates someone's property rights. This is laid out in the constitution, and is why the income tax is actually unconstitutional (since the amendment was never ratified either).quote>

<br /><br />Can you expand on your comments? The reply seems rather garbled to me (maybe I'm sleepy). How does anyone lose property by supporting national education and healthcare? Do you mean they have less money (due to taxation), and therefore can't buy more land or the latest iPhone?<br /><br />BTW, I agree that the income tax should be banned. It was supposed to be temporary, just like the Excise Tax for telephony that was recently revoked (established for the War of 1812). However, (devil's advocate here), removal of the income tax will raise other taxes, since the government has become dependent on the income (for services you abhor, very likely, but which I support). <img src="https://community.simtropolis.com/assets/emoticons/2.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />Barbarossaquote>

Delayed response, apologies.  Since this, I have written a facebook note.  I'll copy it here, although it is slightly off target from our convo, it is still relevant:

There is no such thing as "free" healthcare or education

This particular fish-in-a-barrel has barely enough room to turn around. The socialist fantasy is flawed in several ways;

1) Doctors and teachers don't work for free. The land and capital required for hospitals and schools don't magically *poof* out of thin air. All this stuff costs money, so it bloody well isn't "free". In order for the government to pay for it, instead of the consumer through voluntary exchange, it has to engage in coercion and forcefully remove the product of someone's life and liberty. That's how the government pays for anything and everything, stealing private property from citizens through taxes or inflation. This is not only immoral, but due to the inefficiency and wastefulness of the route, these services ultimately cost more.

2) There are effects on both the producers and consumers because the flow of money isn't voluntarily or directly between them;

a) Consumers that don't directly pay for a product tend to over-demand and waste it. For example, parents that don't pay for their child's education are less likely to care about truancy. Patients that don't pay for a doctor visit are less likely to be appropriately discretionary about whether their ailment is minor enough to avoid a visit. This helps explain to you why the NHS has chronic delays for service and 5 hour waits in "emergency" rooms. Patients are also less likely to take good care of their own bodies if they believe there are no financial ramifications to abusing it and they can get fixed up at someone else's expense.  

b) The effects on producers are profound. First of all, the profit and loss mechanism disappears because they receive their income through political influence rather than providing a good service. The profit and loss mechanism simply tells the person managing resources whether he/she is doing a good job and thus without it the resources are guaranteed to be inefficiently applied. Secondly, the consumers lose their sovereignty because the producer's income doesn't depend on their satisfaction. Finally, the industry becomes a monopoly, destroying the choices presented to consumers.

Ultimately, the name

[BurroDiablo 222]

We know its not free, your just running over the same old dead rabbit...  its not called 'Free Health Care', its called 'Universal Health Care', meaning its not just availible to those why the means of obtaining it, a persons Health is not a comoditiy to be exploited in the way Insurers do.

And since you think this Socialist 'Fantasy' is such a crime against our 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', please explain to me why every country in the Western World [except the US] acctually has Universal Health Care? Maybe its because they care more about the health of their citizens rather than how much money their making? Is that so wrong? To profit from someone else's misfortune is simply greed of the highest terms.

[belfastuniguy 18]

There is no such thing as "free" healthcare or educationquote>

Well...........................................duh. I think El Burro has expanded well on that point.

and paid for through theftquote>

Really, your government does not charge you tax from you pay, but instead waits will you get your wages then sends 'people' to steal it from you............please.

Instead of "free healthcare/education", we should name it "A government monopolised industry that provides poor quality services at a higher cost financially and in terms of freedom".quote>

hhmmmmmmmmm...............not so sure about that now. By providing quality universal health and education actually allows people to improve their social standing and lifestyle. Not all universal services are bad quality. Strange is not it, America is the ONLY western developed nation without universal healthcare and it also has the worst health statistics in the developed world and lowest life expectancy...................is there a connection, YES. But not providing good quality universal heath and education your nation is condemning the poorest in society to live in constant poverty and never be given the chance to improve their situation.....so much for the American Dream....

That's how the government pays for anything and everything, stealing private property from citizens through taxes or inflationquote>

Would seem you need some advice on the subject of economics, in particular inflation. I am an economist so I won't patronise you just yet by detailing the vast inaccuracies contained within that sentence, suffice to say there are many

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: El Burro We know its not free, your just running over the same old dead rabbit...  its not called 'Free Health Care', its called 'Universal Health Care', meaning its not just availible to those why the means of obtaining it, a persons Health is not a comoditiy to be exploited in the way Insurers do.

And since you think this Socialist 'Fantasy' is such a crime against our 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', please explain to me why every country in the Western World [except the US] acctually has Universal Health Care? Maybe its because they care more about the health of their citizens rather than how much money their making? Is that so wrong? To profit from someone else's misfortune is simply greed of the highest terms.quote>

I did say it was slightly off-topic.  read the first line.

That's because most western countries are not genuinely free societies.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Really, your government does not charge you tax from you pay, but instead waits will you get your wages then sends 'people' to steal it from you............please.quote>

What's the difference?  It's taking the product of your life and liberty, on pain of removing your liberty (throwing you in jail).  It's theft, I don't want the government to take my property, but it takes it anyway by force.  Are you saying it's OK to intercept something that's about to become my property and would have become my property for sure had it not been stolen?  That's fairly convoluted if you are.

hhmmmmmmmmm...............not so sure about that now. By providing quality universal health and education actually allows people to improve their social standing and lifestyle. Not all universal services are bad quality. Strange is not it, America is the ONLY western developed nation without universal healthcare and it also has the worst health statistics in the developed world and lowest life expectancy...................is there a connection, YES. But not providing good quality universal heath and education your nation is condemning the poorest in society to live in constant poverty and never be given the chance to improve their situation.....so much for the American Dream....

quote>

The American dream died quite a while ago, gradual, but almost entirely dead by now.  And if you must be joking if you are arguing that America's healthcare system is an example of free markets.

Would seem you need some advice on the subject of economics, in particular inflation. I am an economist so I won't patronise you just yet by detailing the vast inaccuracies contained within that sentence, suffice to say there are manyquote>

I'm not even remotely impressed by establishment educated "economists" who think inflation means an increase in price levels.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: El Burro We know its not free, your just running over the same old dead rabbit...  its not called 'Free Health Care', its called 'Universal Health Care', meaning its not just availible to those why the means of obtaining it, a persons Health is not a comoditiy to be exploited in the way Insurers do.

And since you think this Socialist 'Fantasy' is such a crime against our 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', please explain to me why every country in the Western World [except the US] acctually has Universal Health Care? Maybe its because they care more about the health of their citizens rather than how much money their making? Is that so wrong? To profit from someone else's misfortune is simply greed of the highest terms.quote>

I did say it was slightly off-topic.  read the first line.

That's because most western countries are not genuinely free societies.quote>

No society is Free, its simply an Illusion to pacify the masses, luring them into this unmitigated sence that they can do whatever they like. Can you do what ever you like? Of course you can't! Your bound by the rules of Society, break the rules and you will be punished.

Freedom and Liberty can only really be achieved through the dissolution of all control, including Government, Law, Order etc.

If you want total freedom and liberty theres a perfect Ideaology for you... its called 'Anarchy'... and as far as i'm aware, its not particularly a good thing to have a country decend into it.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: MrFingers I did say it was slightly off-topic.  read the first line.

That's because most western countries are not genuinely free societies.quote>

And is the US a free society? Of course not. You have free education, you have SEC, you have all kinds of different polices, the FDA, loads of government supported banks, you have the Federal Reserve, the FAA on so on... Why should one instituion more or less matter? Do you really think that the Bank of America is buying other banks before bankeruptcy because it's smart? Naturally not -- they would have been far cheaper after bankeruptcy, but neither the government nor the bank industry can afford that an institution in the one "rock solid" pillar in the capitalist West goes bust because of the trust issue.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: El Burro

No society is Free, its simply an Illusion to pacify the masses, luring them into this unmitigated sence that they can do whatever they like. Can you do what ever you like? Of course you can't! Your bound by the rules of Society, break the rules and you will be punished.

Freedom and Liberty can only really be achieved through the dissolution of all control, including Government, Law, Order etc.

If you want total freedom and liberty theres a perfect Ideaology for you... its called 'Anarchy'... and as far as i'm aware, its not particularly a good thing to have a country decend into it.quote>

There is "freedom to" and there is "freedom from".    Two entirely different things.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: El Burro

No society is Free, its simply an Illusion to pacify the masses, luring them into this unmitigated sence that they can do whatever they like. Can you do what ever you like? Of course you can't! Your bound by the rules of Society, break the rules and you will be punished.

Freedom and Liberty can only really be achieved through the dissolution of all control, including Government, Law, Order etc.

If you want total freedom and liberty theres a perfect Ideaology for you... its called 'Anarchy'... and as far as i'm aware, its not particularly a good thing to have a country decend into it.quote>

There is "freedom to" and there is "freedom from".    Two entirely different things.quote>

Granted, but they're 'freedom's' all the same. When people say 'We live in a Free Society', what they acctually mean is 'We live in a place where we can do certain things without regulation'. The word 'Freedom' is misinterperated this way; Yes, you may be free to do certain things, but your life is still controlled by the world around you and the workings of Society, you will never be able to escape that. The word 'Freedom' in Democratic terms is a laughable contradiction, they sell you a sickening notion that you are able to do whatever you want but proceed to regulate these Freedoms to within an inch of them being completely illegal. I have a freedom to drive my car, but I don't have the freedom to drive it as fast as I want, I don't have the freedom to drive it without insurance nor am I allowed to Park it in certain area's. If I were truely free, I could do these things.

'Freedom' as something that exists is unfortunately a myth, set out by Democratic societies to demeen the lesser-Democratic ones. Freedom to vote is very trivial [imo], but its the one people get worked up over the most.

[belfastuniguy 18]

What's the difference? It's taking the product of your life and liberty, on pain of removing your liberty (throwing you in jail). It's theft, I don't want the government to take my property, but it takes it anyway by force. Are you saying it's OK to intercept something that's about to become my property and would have become my property for sure had it not been stolen? That's fairly convoluted if you are.quote>

Lets discuss government theft shall we. Firstly lets establish some things. Do you work or go to school. Use your nations public transport or road networks, depend on your military to defend your nation, the police to protect you, your property and family, the fire and emergency services to assist you when required. Also, depend on air traffic control when flying from city to city or another country, enjoy buying cheap food (taxes to subsidise farmers) and countless other things. You see without the government 'stealing' your private property, as you call it, you may as well live in the dark ages.

I'm not even remotely impressed by establishment educated "economists" who think inflation means an increase in price levels.quote>

Sorry to burst the bubble your living in.......but YES inflation is indeed primarily based on the costs of living. The vast majority of economists have determined that inflation is indeed linked with price levels. Other factors have been looked at, such as 'monetary supply' and supply side economic theory. Now a minority of economists that come from the Monetarist or Keynesian school do disagree to an extend with the importance played by price, however they do not disagree completely that inflation is not price related but have given their own theories. I am not going to get into a full debate about inflation as I would be here forever and would simply be arguing proven facts to some either misinformed or lacking any detailed economic knowledge whatsoever.

If you wish to continue an economics debate or indeed inflation, then I am indeed ready to pour criticism on any misinformed or inaccurate economic theory and correct you

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: El Burro We know its not free, your just running over the same old dead rabbit...  its not called 'Free Health Care', its called 'Universal Health Care', meaning its not just availible to those why the means of obtaining it, a persons Health is not a comoditiy to be exploited in the way Insurers do.

And since you think this Socialist 'Fantasy' is such a crime against our 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', please explain to me why every country in the Western World [except the US] acctually has Universal Health Care? Maybe its because they care more about the health of their citizens rather than how much money their making? Is that so wrong? To profit from someone else's misfortune is simply greed of the highest terms.quote>

I did say it was slightly off-topic.  read the first line.

That's because most western countries are not genuinely free societies.quote>

No society is Free, its simply an Illusion to pacify the masses, luring them into this unmitigated sence that they can do whatever they like. Can you do what ever you like? Of course you can't! Your bound by the rules of Society, break the rules and you will be punished.

Freedom and Liberty can only really be achieved through the dissolution of all control, including Government, Law, Order etc.

If you want total freedom and liberty theres a perfect Ideaology for you... its called 'Anarchy'... and as far as i'm aware, its not particularly a good thing to have a country decend into it.quote>

As I see it, true freedom is defined as uninfluenced from external factors.  As you say, that is not possible.  We are bounded by the laws of physics and society.  The less laws, the more free.  If you stick to respect for life, liberty, and property, you can't go far wrong.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Lets discuss government theft shall we. Firstly lets establish some things. Do you work or go to school. Use your nations public transport or road networks, depend on your military to defend your nation, the police to protect you, your property and family, the fire and emergency services to assist you when required. Also, depend on air traffic control when flying from city to city or another country, enjoy buying cheap food (taxes to subsidise farmers) and countless other things. You see without the government 'stealing' your private property, as you call it, you may as well live in the dark ages.

quote>

As long as it is property involuntarily taken, it is theft.  And you bring me to my own conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal.  All those functions you describe are possible through the free market, the necessity of the state is a myth.

Sorry to burst the bubble your living in.......but YES inflation is indeed primarily based on the costs of living. The vast majority of economists have determined that inflation is indeed linked with price levels. Other factors have been looked at, such as 'monetary supply' and supply side economic theory. Now a minority of economists that come from the Monetarist or Keynesian school do disagree to an extend with the importance played by price, however they do not disagree completely that inflation is not price related but have given their own theories. I am not going to get into a full debate about inflation as I would be here forever and would simply be arguing proven facts to some either misinformed or lacking any detailed economic knowledge whatsoever.

If you wish to continue an economics debate or indeed inflation, then I am indeed ready to pour criticism on any misinformed or inaccurate economic theory and correct you

quote>

"Monetarist" isn't a school and I was under the impression nearly all mainstream economists suffer from Keynesian bull*****.

Anyway, I'll simply refer you to an article I wrote earlier:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article803.html

However, I don't go into when and how the definition of inflation was corrupted.  If you are interested, let me know.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: MrFingers I did say it was slightly off-topic.  read the first line.

That's because most western countries are not genuinely free societies.quote>

And is the US a free society? Of course not. You have free education, you have SEC, you have all kinds of different polices, the FDA, loads of government supported banks, you have the Federal Reserve, the FAA on so on... Why should one instituion more or less matter? Do you really think that the Bank of America is buying other banks before bankeruptcy because it's smart? Naturally not -- they would have been far cheaper after bankeruptcy, but neither the government nor the bank industry can afford that an institution in the one "rock solid" pillar in the capitalist West goes bust because of the trust issue.quote>

Well that's an issue of central banking and fractional reserve banking   It's the inflation/deflation duo that evil men use to ill-gain property through those mechanisms... which are essentially theft and fraud respectively.

[belfastuniguy 18]

As long as it is property involuntarily taken, it is theft. And you bring me to my own conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal. All those functions you describe are possible through the free market, the necessity of the state is a myth.quote>

Pure theory....I can never see a private company providing the revenue and facilities for a national military for example, that is simply ludicrous. The implications for such a thing are too horrendous to think about. Whether though lack of investment and procurement leading to a nation being vulnerable or the compaines going to war themselves. It is no in any way practical nor viable. How would you solve this situation and if you in any way mention the government I would like you to detail how exactly you wish them to pay for it with "stealing" your private property, which to be frank is total and utter bull****

The same would also apply to roads. Private companies that had the chance to supply such things in a a truly free market would result in cost cutting, under investment, fatalities. If you really believe such a system would work then I do believe you really are living in a bubble. The use of private companies in infrastructure construction and maintenance only works in the current market due to accountability and government/local authority regulation.

A truly free market is still theory and has never been put into place and is unlikely to work given corporate corruption and greed in addition to a myriad of other factors.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I forgot to also add that you are clearly from the Austrian School....

Several of you theories are wildly overstated and without basis. You continue to fail to provide alternatives and indeed shun mathematics and econometrics, which does mean that a lot of your theory cannot be tested nor validated, one of the main reasons you continually fail to get permission to post in economic journals. I'm pretty sure you have heard of Caplan, he has some very interesting views on such matters, as I'm sure you are also aware of.

Edit - I did however like your article on the rich in society, I actually agree with you on that point. We are a very misunderstood section of society. So that was nice to read.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

As long as it is property involuntarily taken, it is theft. And you bring me to my own conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal. All those functions you describe are possible through the free market, the necessity of the state is a myth.quote>

Pure theory....I can never see a private company providing the revenue and facilities for a national military for example, that is simply ludicrous. The implications for such a thing are too horrendous to think about. Whether though lack of investment and procurement leading to a nation being vulnerable or the compaines going to war themselves. It is no in any way practical nor viable. How would you solve this situation and if you in any way mention the government I would like you to detail how exactly you wish them to pay for it with "stealing" your private property, which to be frank is total and utter bull****

The same would also apply to roads. Private companies that had the chance to supply such things in a a truly free market would result in cost cutting, under investment, fatalities. If you really believe such a system would work then I do believe you really are living in a bubble. The use of private companies in infrastructure construction and maintenance only works in the current market due to accountability and government/local authority regulation.

A truly free market is still theory and has never been put into place and is unlikely to work given corporate corruption and greed in addition to a myriad of other factors.

quote>

I'm still not sure why you don't associate involuntary removal of private property with theft, maybe you can explain that logic to me.  It doesn't matter who's doing it, what they do with it afterwards, or when they take it... to me that's still, and always will be, equivalent to theft.

I wrote another article on a general outline of how law and defense would work in an anarchist society, and just published it now on that site:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article1236.html

You are right though, it is still theory.  However, command economies are proven failures so maybe this deserves consideration beyond just "it's theory and will always be just that".

About corporate corruption, I found the following quite cogent:

"Private corporate power exists only because it is protected by the state."

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I forgot to also add that you are clearly from the Austrian School....

Several of you theories are wildly overstated and without basis. You continue to fail to provide alternatives and indeed shun mathematics and econometrics, which does mean that a lot of your theory cannot be tested nor validated, one of the main reasons you continually fail to get permission to post in economic journals. I'm pretty sure you have heard of Caplan, he has some very interesting views on such matters, as I'm sure you are also aware of.

Edit - I did however like your article on the rich in society, I actually agree with you on that point. We are a very misunderstood section of society. So that was nice to read. quote>

Thanks

I'm a theoretical physicist by study, Austrian economics is my side passion.  I don't consider economics a science, I consider it a common sense subject.  I think that is important actually because it dissuades meddling from those who try to quantify and regulate.  I have no interest in engaging in mainstream economics, I studied it for 2 years in high school and found it deadly boring and incomplete, until I discovered the Austrian school recently.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

I'm still not sure why you don't associate involuntary removal of private property with theft, maybe you can explain that logic to me.  It doesn't matter who's doing it, what they do with it afterwards, or when they take it... to me that's still, and always will be, equivalent to theft.quote>

Citizenship is not free, by taking your country's citizenship you signed a contract. State's money is not growing in trees, the money that is retrieved to all citizens with taxes is reinverted into them. A country is a society, not a playground to earn money.

Originally posted by: MrFingers

As long as it is property involuntarily taken, it is theft.  And you bring me to my own conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal.  All those functions you describe are possible through the free market, the necessity of the state is a myth.quote>

anarcho-capitalist? something like capital-communism? Because enterprises are also based into hyerarchy, so they are not anarchist at all. You should know what happens to anarchist societies anyway, anarchism (and communism too) was founded following the wrong idea that humans have no nature and they can be "reprogrammed" only by changing their education. Humans are also hyerarchic animals by nature, so all the "anarchic" countries have finished into dictatorships or foreign invasions (no state is a perfect opportunity to invade a country), this was predicted by Plato by the way (The Republic, book VII, Plato)

Btw, to my old philosophy teacher and my favourite philosopher, the Austrian School members are referred as the "postmodern clowns"

[krbe 193]

MrFingers, I find it interesting that you bring up Somalia as an example of how "well" a country without a central government functions. Even if the studies findings are true, local warlords still enforced their varity of the law; virtually meaning several local dictarorships based on the presence of AK47s.

Many Somali refugees have fled to Norway, and some of them ended up in my old hometown, amongst them a diplomatic family and a Somali colonel from the old army. Now, one would think that rich diplomats and colonels would have the appropriate contacts and monies to survive in the new economy, but it really all depended on which clan you'd belong to. Also, in this "free market" you could risk being taxed up to three times just to get from Mogadishu Airport to Mogadishu by three different warlords. depending on the region and the warlords control, you also risked payments to them to see a doctor, to sell groceries and so on -- after all, they were in control. The reason I know this is that this "liberal haven didn't suit everyone is that my mother worked for the Red Cross which ran some programs for the Somali community -- few would talk, but the colonel and the daughter of the aforementioned diplomat at least provided some insight into how a clan system worked.

And if the Xeer law requires everyone to be insured in case of misconduct -- how is this different from the central government stealing from you?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: MrFingersAs long as it is property involuntarily taken, it is theft.  And you bring me to my own conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal.quote>

You mean to de-regulate all Commerce so they have the freedom to do whatever they wish? Thats almost as, if not more radical that quintessential Marxist Ideal. I can imagine an unregulated Capitalist society would break down very quickly, order could only be contained with Privately owned Police forces and even that could esculate into them funding their own Armies; they've got to protect their assets somehow. I could imagine companies going to war with each other over prices... eliminating one and other untill there is one Company left standing... by then then it would be a Corporate Police State, a horrible Orwellian nightmare, far worse than even the most fanatical Communist state.

Originally posted by: MrFingersHowever, command economies are proven failuresquote>

Full command economies are, yes, but as China demonstrates, a mix is certainly worth considering.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Thought i'd post this here since its quite fitting-

Is Capitalism Making us ill?

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Citizenship is not free, by taking your country's citizenship you signed a contract. State's money is not growing in trees, the money that is retrieved to all citizens with taxes is reinverted into them. A country is a society, not a playground to earn money.

quote>

So your attitude is that if you don't like your property being stolen, bugger off.  That's fair enough, and probably what I'm going to end up doing anyway.

anarcho-capitalist? something like capital-communism? Because enterprises are also based into hyerarchy, so they are not anarchist at all. You should know what happens to anarchist societies anyway, anarchism (and communism too) was founded following the wrong idea that humans have no nature and they can be "reprogrammed" only by changing their education. Humans are also hyerarchic animals by nature, so all the "anarchic" countries have finished into dictatorships or foreign invasions (no state is a perfect opportunity to invade a country), this was predicted by Plato by the way (The Republic, book VII, Plato)

quote>

Are you mad?  How can you confuse communism (total state control over the economy) with anarchism (non-existent government)?

Btw, to my old philosophy teacher and my favourite philosopher, the Austrian School members are referred as the "postmodern clowns"

quote>

speaks volumes about your teacher.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: krbe MrFingers, I find it interesting that you bring up Somalia as an example of how "well" a country without a central government functions. Even if the studies findings are true, local warlords still enforced their varity of the law; virtually meaning several local dictarorships based on the presence of AK47s.

Many Somali refugees have fled to Norway, and some of them ended up in my old hometown, amongst them a diplomatic family and a Somali colonel from the old army. Now, one would think that rich diplomats and colonels would have the appropriate contacts and monies to survive in the new economy, but it really all depended on which clan you'd belong to. Also, in this "free market" you could risk being taxed up to three times just to get from Mogadishu Airport to Mogadishu by three different warlords. depending on the region and the warlords control, you also risked payments to them to see a doctor, to sell groceries and so on -- after all, they were in control. The reason I know this is that this "liberal haven didn't suit everyone is that my mother worked for the Red Cross which ran some programs for the Somali community -- few would talk, but the colonel and the daughter of the aforementioned diplomat at least provided some insight into how a clan system worked.

And if the Xeer law requires everyone to be insured in case of misconduct -- how is this different from the central government stealing from you?quote>

If you are going to bother spending 10 mins writing this, you may as well spend 10 mins reading the article which basically answered most of that.  (that is the article I linked to at the bottom of my anarchy piece)

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: El Burro

You mean to de-regulate all Commerce so they have the freedom to do whatever they wish? Thats almost as, if not more radical that quintessential Marxist Ideal. I can imagine an unregulated Capitalist society would break down very quickly, order could only be contained with Privately owned Police forces and even that could esculate into them funding their own Armies; they've got to protect their assets somehow. I could imagine companies going to war with each other over prices... eliminating one and other untill there is one Company left standing... by then then it would be a Corporate Police State, a horrible Orwellian nightmare, far worse than even the most fanatical Communist state.

quote>

Read my article on anarchy, it explains how this is actually a very passive system, and certainly much much more so than centralised power governments.

Full command economies are, yes, but as China demonstrates, a mix is certainly worth considering.quote>

Point taken, I don't know much about China, but I suspect there is more to it than meets the eye.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

So your attitude is that if you don't like your property being stolen, bugger off.  That's fair enough, and probably what I'm going to end up doing anyway.quote>

exactly, i don't remember having ever heard that greed or selfishness were morally good, let's wonder why?

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Are you mad?  How can you confuse communism (total state control over the economy) with anarchism (non-existent government)?quote>

No, at all, I was talking about imcompatible things, like your example

Anarchism is suicide, it will only work in an utopic world, it's the best way to destroy a country

btw, stop flooding please, use the edit button

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Ok, MrFingers, I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but could you consolidate your posts a bit?  You're really flooding this thread quite a bit.  Please make use of the edit button.