Socialism

[Architectonic]

Actually no. I'd have killed everyone in the government if they asked me to pay a 102% tax rate.

My sister works for the ATO, I'm sure I can arrange something.*








* - not really as she isn't an accountant.

 

[Shai Gar]

My mate works for the ATO, he's a lawyer.

 

[Satya]

Increasing taxes is almost politically suicidal...

Ironically, this is the cause of 90% of our political troubles. Neither party really wants to cut spending, and if you aren't going to raise taxes, that leaves only the option of spending wisely. Right now the country is living like an unsupervised teenage girl with a credit card at the shopping mall.

 

[Satya]

Natural monopolies can be efficient - eg services on a small island - the island is not large enough to support duplication. Only the threat of competition is required.

Irrelevant since I already explained that pure economic systems are only feasible within small groups of isolated, homogeneous people.

As such, virtually commercial monopolies that exist only do so because they have recieved a substantial amount of government protection or support.

False assumption. If you actually look at the history of most monopolies, you will find that the leading factor in their formation was undercutting competitors. Given enough time, even within a virtual free market, eventually a single conglomerate would emerge for any industry. If that were not the case, then we would not need protections from price fixing. Using the government can and does facilitate the process, but the belief that the government is the leading factor in the formation of monopolies is baseless.

Not to mention you are also neglecting the fact that governments are also monopolies.

A government is only a monopoly if it asserts itself over an entire industry. The Post Office is an example of a government monopoly over the delivery of mail, but not over the delivery of packages. Fed Ex and other such services compete against the government in that respect.

Markets don't necessarily yeild the most efficient distribution (how is that even defined anyway?), but it does automatically perform computations of magnitude that are impossible to do through central planning. The ultimate limits aren't even due to lack of computational power, but rather lack of information input.

Capitalism distributes resources based on desire, not need. As such, socialism is vastly superior in distributing resources for the purpose of building infrastructure and providing public needs such as bridges and levies.

If you want socialism that approaches the efficiency you get with a market based economy, be prepared to give up all of your privacy and spend a large amount of time filling in questionaires.

Or I could do what I already do and vote in representatives to city councils who address the needs on the community level and distribute resources as necessary, like we do anyway. In a pure sense it would not work, because capitalism is far more efficient when it comes to desire based resources.

Otherwise, one size fits all policies never work effectively on a large scale(see higher suicide rates in comparable countries eg East vs West Germany).

See my past post where I already said exactly that.

Socialism might work ok for a family, but it faces major computational problems on larger scales.

Pure anarcho socialism is restricted to a community level, just as pure anarcho capitalism would be.

A socialistic government has control over the economy, whereas the alternative does not. How can that not be considered authoritarian?

A socialistic government can be liberalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


I recommend you read all the posts in the thread.

 

[Architectonic]

False assumption. If you actually look at the history of most monopolies, you will find that the leading factor in their formation was undercutting competitors.

So competition ultimately leads to monopolies? This is interesting logic.
If such an enterprise started price gouging, what is to stop a new competitor undercutting them?
Anti-dumping laws? Intellectual property laws? Oh wait, that is government interference again..
Monopoly utilitys providing electricity, water, telephone etc. all took advantage of government support when starting up.

Using the government can and does facilitate the process, but the belief that the government is the leading factor in the formation of monopolies is baseless.

Name some large monopolies and we'll see.

A government is only a monopoly if it asserts itself over an entire industry.

So you're saying I don't have to obey the law and pay tax? Interesting.

Capitalism distributes resources based on desire, not need. As such, socialism is vastly superior in distributing resources for the purpose of building infrastructure and providing public needs such as bridges and levies.

The only reason why is because the government is the only one who can get away with stealing the land to do so - eminent domain. Theft is defined as 'the taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.' It doesn't matter if they were compensated, because they were never given a choice in the first place, so it is still theft.

I recommend you read all the posts in the thread.

I have and I am familiar with libertarian socialism. I was putting forth my point of view, so such points were worth repeating.

You still don't seem to fully understand the implications of scale.

Firstly, it is not just a question of incentives that is lacking, but the fact that central planning lacks the complexity required to organize effectively. Lacking both information inputs and computational resources.

Secondly, you are aware that Libertarian socialism cannot take advantage of economies of scale, which means such economies will be far worse off than those which do integrate with a larger society. And indeed it is not possible to support the worlds population in such a way. Yet you consider it a viable alternative?

Or I could do what I already do and vote in representatives to city councils who address the needs on the community level and distribute resources as necessary, like we do anyway.

Because the government already does exactly what you want right?

You do realize how large the government would have to be in proportion to the society for it to work well right?

Capitalism distributes resources based on desire, not need.

By the way, how do you quantify need? In terms of human happiness.

Do you know what makes me happy? In the last election, I voted for in this order: Liberty and Democracy Party, Australian Greens, Democrats, Liberal Party, Labor Party. (my other preferences aren't really relevant at this moment, since they were mostly arbitrary)

Do you think if you asked one of the politicians (or local councillors) you have voted for, they would be able to tell you what makes you happy and what you enjoy eating for breakfast?

The world is a bit of a mess, between global warming, the threat of nuclear disaster, war, poverty, high depression and drug abuse rates in developed countries, I almost think we were better off in the stone age.

The only thing new in that list is the threat of nuclear war and environmental damage. I really don't know why global warming rates so highly when there are worse environmental problems happening under our noses.

 

[Satya]

So competition ultimately leads to monopolies? This is interesting logic.

What is interesting about it? People cooperate to better compete. If Firm A can cooperate with Firm B to drive Firm C out of the market, then they have an economic incentive to do so. It is only a matter of time before all the surviving leaders in a particular industry are cooperating together rather than competing, and at that point, you have a virtual monopoly.

If such an enterprise started price gouging, what is to stop a new competitor undercutting them?

Apparently you are not aware of how price fixing works. First you get your competitors to agree to a low price that undercuts any new competition from entering the market. Once you have established dominance over the market, then you and your competitors can cooperate in raising the prices and can simply buy out any new competitors.

Monopoly utilitys providing electricity, water, telephone etc. all took advantage of government support when starting up.

I specifically stated that companies will use the government to facilitate gaining a monopoly. However, what actually causes the monopoly is undercutting the competition.

Name some large monopolies and we'll see.

We have antitrust laws in this country specifically for the purpose of keeping such monopolies from forming. However, before the government acted, Microsoft was a good example of a company trying to form a monopoly over the OS market by tying its web browser to its operating system.

So you're saying I don't have to obey the law and pay tax? Interesting.

We are talking about economics, and the economic definition of a monopoly is a market where there is many buyers but only one seller. The government has a "monopoly" as being the governing authority of this country but they are not automatically an economic monopoly. You are mixing up the economic definition of the term with the vernacular definition of the term.

The only reason why is because the government is the only one who can get away with stealing the land to do so - eminent domain. Theft is defined as 'the taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.' It doesn't matter if they were compensated, because they were never given a choice in the first place, so it is still theft.

The fifth amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of due process. Your argument is irrelevant.

Firstly, it is not just a question of incentives that is lacking, but the fact that central planning lacks the complexity required to organize effectively. Lacking both information inputs and computational resources.

I simply argued that when it comes to public needs, socialism is a superior. For virtually anything else, capitalism is superior.

Secondly, you are aware that Libertarian socialism cannot take advantage of economies of scale, which means such economies will be far worse off than those which do integrate with a larger society. And indeed it is not possible to support the worlds population in such a way. Yet you consider it a viable alternative?

I repeat for the third time in this thread, and the second time to you, that pure economic systems are infeasible beyond the community level. You have about as good a chance at establishing a libertarian socialistic market within larger society as you do establishing a laissez faire market. The natural trend on the national and global scale is towards mixed markets.

Because the government already does exactly what you want right?

You do realize how large the government would have to be in proportion to the society for it to work well right?

Why do you refuse to read the thread and make me repeat myself?

By the way, how do you quantify need? In terms of human happiness.

No. A need is something that is necessary for humans to live a healthy life. For example, education has become a public need since without it, an individual cannot attain employment and would lack sufficient knowledge to take care of themselves within the current society.

Do you think if you asked one of the politicians (or local councillors) you have voted for, they would be able to tell you what makes you happy and what you enjoy eating for breakfast?

Irrelevant.

 

[enfp can be shy]

I don't believe in the validity of any of the words describing societies. The definitions of these words never match reality.

About incentive, I just want to say that for whatever reason money, existential fear, or force never work as a good incentive for me. Quite the opposite - this type of "incentive" brings my weaker sides, I'm not motivated, and I may even feel like what I'm doing is wrong and I shouldn't do it. My best work was done in idealistic projects that didn't require anything specific from participants, didn't schedule, didn't evaluate, didn't reward, and didn't punish. I was just left to do what I like, unobserved, and that got me creating something that ended up appreciated.

More on the subject, in this talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

 

[Pristinegirl]

Wow. I'd have killed someone...

Actually no. I'd have killed everyone in the government if they asked me to pay a 102% tax rate.

haha... DIE!!

Is there only dictatorship and democracy?

 

[Shai Gar]

There's Anarchy, the ultimate Libertarian Goal.

 

[slant]

I love how being called a socialist is considered an insult.

 

[Architectonic]

Satya, you may wish to actually consider other peoples points of view in some depth. Rather than stating 'irrelevant' or 'read the thread' because you only have a superficial understanding of the other points of view presented.

Its not a competition and the point isn't to ram your point of view down other peoples throats.

Not everyone lives in the USA, so those specifics don't apply to all cases. Secondly, how is taxation (or regulation etc) not a economic issue? Not that it matters as this was supposed to be a philosophical discussion, which means that the general definition is certainly more useful.

This is probably my last post in this thread so I'll just say the following before I get bored:

Undercutting competitors only ever works temporarily - you cannot maintain a monopoly this way. Sooner or later someone else will want to grab a slice of the pie and have enough backing to survive the initial period. An excellent example would be the Australian domestic air travel market which used to be an oligopoly.

A need is something that is necessary for humans to live a healthy life

How is an unhappy life considered healthy?

 

[Pristinegirl]

How is an unhappy life considered healthy?

EXACTLY!!

 

[Satya]

Satya, you may wish to actually consider other peoples points of view in some depth. Rather than stating 'irrelevant' or 'read the thread' because you only have a superficial understanding of the other points of view presented.

Forgive me. I don't like repeating myself. What is "superficial" about my understanding of your point of view?

Its not a competition and the point isn't to ram your point of view down other peoples throats.

I already stated the purpose of this thread on my part was to dispel myths about socialism.

Not everyone lives in the USA, so those specifics don't apply to all cases. Secondly, how is taxation (or regulation etc) not a economic issue? Not that it matters as this was supposed to be a philosophical discussion, which means that the general definition is certainly more useful.

This is an economic discussion. I'm not sure where I argued that taxation and regulation were not economic issues. Feel free to point it out to me where I said such and I'll clarify for you.

Undercutting competitors only ever works temporarily - you cannot maintain a monopoly this way. Sooner or later someone else will want to grab a slice of the pie and have enough backing to survive the initial period. An excellent example would be the Australian domestic air travel market which used to be an oligopoly.

Agreed. Nothing is forever. Eventually virtual monopolies either have to use the government to maintain their stronghold on the market or other competitors will eventually emerge. Of course, the former tends to happen most often in a "capitalistic" society.

How is an unhappy life considered healthy?

It seems rather pointless to answer a question when you are running away from a thread, but to answer it, you don't need to be happy to be living a functional life. Virutally no human being is happy with what they have, as they all want more, but that is the nature of desire. Once you get what you want, you want more.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Satya!! Is your only interest to prove everyone who dissagrees with you, wrong? and make them change opinion so that it fits your own?

 

[Satya]

Satya!! Is your only interest to prove everyone who dissagrees with you, wrong? and make them change opinion so that it fits your own?

Meh, I could care less whether people agree or disagree with me. I'm more inclined to want to know why they agree or disagree with me.

It is completely impossible for me to change anyone else's opinion, even if I wanted to do so.

 

[Faye]

Ironically, this is the cause of 90% of our political troubles. Neither party really wants to cut spending, and if you aren't going to raise taxes, that leaves only the option of spending wisely. Right now the country is living like an unsupervised teenage girl with a credit card at the shopping mall.

Credit card and an expensive rocket launcher to shoot the bitch that stole her boyfriend....

 

[Quinlan]

It worked in Star Trek!

The only incentive you should ever need is to seek out new life and new civilisations and boldly go where no man has gone before!

 

[Faye]

The only incentive you should ever need is to seek out new life and new civilisations and boldly go where no man has gone before!

I'm sorry. The capitalists were right; I cannot ever be motivated by anything other than money.

 

[Shai Gar]

I'm motivated by the desire to learn, create and change.

 

[Quinlan]

I'm sorry. The capitalists were right; I cannot ever be motivated by anything other than money.

What if all you're matierial needs and wants were met? What then? Would you stagnate? Sitting around doing nothing all day?