Why Are You A Socialist?

[firefox]

I know that at least one or two members of this forum have chosen "Socialist" as their affiliation. I don't support socialism, but I know some people who do, and some of their promoted ideas are good, IMHO. However, I don't understand why one would choose to be socialist. What does it mean to you, and how did you come to this position? I'm curious.

Thanks.

[slappy]

I might label myself a socialist in some limited respects. I believe in a certain bare minimum of social welfare, although I also have a great deal of faith in the free market to provide the best bang for your buck in most respects. Still, I'm not against state ownership of certain resources in principle, if it is deemed necessary for the common good.

[firefox]

A problem, slappy: Who decides? This is the fundamental problem with government. Politics is usually defined in the academic community as "the method for deciding who decides". There's typically a lot more that is implied in the term "government", but if we just stick to this basic definition, the customers and various service providers in an economy could be considered a form of government, especially if the state (the so-called "legitimate monopolizer on force/violence within a defined territory") isn't around.

[slappy]

A problem, slappy: Who decides? This is the fundamental problem with government.

The majority decides. I'm a democratic socialist if I'm any type at all. :) I don't see a fundamental problem with that.

[Red Dragon]

Like slappy here I'm also a democratrc socialist, great minds think alike I guess. I support a mixed economy that has some basic economic rights like the right to buy, sell, and profit from stateplaning and free economics. As for those of you without knowledge of a mixed economy here's a basic example for you via wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Philosophy (wikipedia)

Now if you excuse me I'm going to leave this thread before Chess calls me a dirty Red. Hey I rhymed. :cool:

[firefox]

Why should 50%+1 or whatever proportion have all the power? What if, for example, the majority voted to institute the death penalty for all slap-happy socialists? You wouldn't like that being in the minority, would you? 8-)

[slappy]

Nope. I wouldn't like being stabbed through the head with a steak knife either, but I'm still okay about having them around. Most of the time, they're darned useful. ;)

Of course, unlike in my country, the simple (pun not necessarily intended) majority does not have all the power in the US. You need a supermajority to change a good many of the rules that tie the simple majority's hands. And anyway, it would take a lot fewer than two-thirds of the US population to take me out if someone really wanted to do it. Democracy is far from the greatest threat to my personal well being, all things considered.

[Buck Laser]

Why should 50%+1 or whatever proportion have all the power? What if, for example, the majority voted to institute the death penalty for all slap-happy socialists? You wouldn't like that being in the minority, would you? 8-)


Part of the genius of the American constitutional system is that it has tremendous levels of "built-in" supports and guarantees of the rights of minorities. I realize that most libertarians are anarchists at heart, and have problems with authority in one way or another.

But socialism can and does flourish in a number of constitutional democracies. There is absolutely nothing in socialist theory that prevents its implementation in a country like the US. If I had my druthers, the US would be a good bit more "socialist" than it is now. Widespread concern over health care is where most of the concerns are focused today, but the activities of the administration in attempting to privatize services that have been a part of the traditional role of government give me great concern. I want my roads, police, fire protection, basic education, etc., to remain under the control of local govt, as they all have until recently.

One of the things that really bugs me is the growing tendency to hire mercenaries to fight our battles.

[Leopardpm]

But socialism can and does flourish in a number of constitutional democracies. There is absolutely nothing in socialist theory that prevents its implementation in a country like the US. If I had my druthers, the US would be a good bit more "socialist" than it is now. Widespread concern over health care is where most of the concerns are focused today, but the activities of the administration in attempting to privatize services that have been a part of the traditional role of government give me great concern. I want my roads, police, fire protection, basic education, etc., to remain under the control of local govt, as they all have until recently.
in other words, you want to spread the cost of such services to people that perhaps do not even use them, or use them much less than you do - and you want the 'spreading' of such costs to be done at the point of a government gun. nice! You have no respect for the individual who might want to provide their own roads or fire protection or education and see fit to force them to help provide for yours before they can do so for themselves.

One of the things that really bugs me is the growing tendency to hire mercenaries to fight our battles.
why does this bug you? There are entire businesses who provide 'war-like' services and their use has been very efficient in obtaining peace and preventing violence.

[NortheastCynic]

I realize that most libertarians are anarchists at heart, and have problems with authority in one way or another.
Do you have any data or hard fact to back this up. 15% of the population lables themselves as small "l" libertarians and I don't see much of a concerted anarchist movement in the states.
But socialism can and does flourish in a number of constitutional democracies. There is absolutely nothing in socialist theory that prevents its implementation in a country like the US.Yes there is, the Constitution. Socialism inherently requires the federal government to regulate commerce within states and control aspects of life that it is given no authority to control.
Widespread concern over health care is where most of the concerns are focused today, but the activities of the administration in attempting to privatize services that have been a part of the traditional role of government give me great concern. I want my roads, police, fire protection, basic education, etc., to remain under the control of local govt, as they all have until recently.And building roads, maintaing police and fire departments and an education system are all things that local and state government have the legal power to maintain. I'm certainly not disagreeing with you in that regard. Once you bring the Feds into the equation, the above "services" become illegal [with the obvious exception of a military force].
One of the things that really bugs me is the growing tendency to hire mercenaries to fight our battles.At least they're loyal to the cash that you're paying them, as opposed to being unaccountable government bureaucrats.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

in other words, you want to spread the cost of such services to people that perhaps do not even use them, or use them much less than you do - and you want the 'spreading' of such costs to be done at the point of a government gun. nice! You have no respect for the individual who might want to provide their own roads or fire protection or education and see fit to force them to help provide for yours before they can do so for themselves.
Pardon me madam, but I don't think most laws are enforced "at the point of a gun." That's just a little rhetorical fiction invented by libertarians to over-dramatize things they don't like

One of the things that really bugs me is the growing tendency to hire mercenaries to fight our battles.
why does this bug you? There are entire businesses who provide 'war-like' services and their use has been very efficient in obtaining peace and preventing violence.

It bothers me because it cheapens the real cost of an optional war like the Invasion of Iraq. Fortunately, the majority of us have been awakened to the utterly bogus nature of this venture. But hiring mercenaries to hide the real cost of the war just heightens the hypcrisy of it.

I don't really expect that a real conversation is possible here. I've tried very hard for years and years to carry on a dialogue with libertarians, and there are just so many differences in basic perception of reality that it's like trying to have a conversation with ghosts.

[firefox]

Pardon me madam, but I don't think most laws are enforced "at the point of a gun." That's just a little rhetorical fiction invented by libertarians to over-dramatize things they don't like



Buck, are you kidding me? Government is fundamentally force. Pick a government service, any you like, and I'll prove it to you! 8-)

[Buck Laser]

Pardon me madam, but I don't think most laws are enforced "at the point of a gun." That's just a little rhetorical fiction invented by libertarians to over-dramatize things they don't like



Buck, are you kidding me? Government is fundamentally force. Pick a government service, any you like, and I'll prove it to you! 8-)


No, I'm not kidding you. What's happened is that you've bought into the libertarian mythology so thoroughly that you no longer understand the concept of a social contract. Talking to a libertarian is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig, and it wastes my time.

Or maybe it's like trying to talk comparative religion to a close-minded fundamentalist. There are just no points of common meaning. I mean no disrespect at all, but after ten years of trying to communicate, I've realized that my life isn't long enough to use up any more of it on this fool's errand.

[NortheastCynic]

Jesus, Buck. I'm not sure if that is condescending enough. I'm not an anarchist or voluntaryist, but to ignore the fact that the gov't uses coercive force in essentially everything it does isn't ideology, it's fact. Don't take my word for, just stop paying your taxes.

-NC

[Leopardpm]

Actually, miss Buck, I don't want to make 'war' cheaper or necessarily more efficient - the point I really wanted to get across is that private armies can be very effective and can defend against government armies. This understanding is necessary in promoting the possibility of a nation without taxation to provide for a standing army, various insurance companies can have the optional employment of private armies in the unlikely event of possible invasion from an extra-large criminal gang (ie: government).

If you don't want to discuss things with libertarians, then I would suggest looking elsewhere to strike conversations, not on the internet and in political or philosophical debate forums - you can't throw a rock without hitting one in here! Perhaps join a knitting group, or something at your local library might be more suitable so you won't feel like you are butting your head against a wall anymore. Good luck, buck!

[Buck Laser]

Jesus, Buck. I'm not sure if that is condescending enough. I'm not an anarchist or voluntaryist, but to ignore the fact that the gov't uses coercive force in essentially everything it does isn't ideology, it's fact. Don't take my word for, just stop paying your taxes.

-NC


NC, I know pretty well where you stand. But as a libertarian, you're pretty mild. There are certainly things we can discuss. But posters like Leopardpm get so far gone into their ideology that finding a ground for reasonable discussion is just impossible. I'm sorry if it sounds condescending about libertarianism in general, because I certainly have some libertarian tendencies myself--about such things as laws governing personal behavior, freedom of speech, etc.

But I believe in the social contract, as I think you do. I do NOT believe in anarchy. And the older I get, the more pragmatic I become. If governments can provide infrastructure, fire protection, health care, etc., effectively to everyone in the society, then why shouldn't they do it? I'm not willing to go on forever letting people "fall through the cracks" just to satisfy somebody's ideal of ideological purity.

[NortheastCynic]

I understand where you're coming from Buck, but your implication is false. Anarchists believe in a social contract, it is just extremely different from the current social contract. Also I understand what you're saying in that people with almost 100% ideological purity are very difficult if not impossible to debate with, but you made it appear as though you were grouping all libertarians together. In addition, your point that I am "mild for a libertarian" is false. I'm probably your typical libertarian, there are some more anarchy-prone than I and some that are siginficantly more pro-government, but as the so called "pragmatic libertarian" takeover the of Libertarian Party showed, most libertarians are reasonable people.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

I understand where you're coming from Buck, but your implication is false. Anarchists believe in a social contract, it is just extremely different from the current social contract. Also I understand what you're saying in that people with almost 100% ideological purity are very difficult if not impossible to debate with, but you made it appear as though you were grouping all libertarians together. In addition, your point that I am "mild for a libertarian" is false. I'm probably your typical libertarian, there are some more anarchy-prone than I and some that are siginficantly more pro-government, but as the so called "pragmatic libertarian" takeover the of Libertarian Party showed, most libertarians are reasonable people.

-NC


Since I don't follow libertarian news, I didn't know there was a pragmatic takeover, but I'm glad to hear it. Most of my experiences in discussion with libertarians have just foundered on ideology. It's good to see some flexibility, because politics can't really proceed without some flexibility.

A few years ago, I had a friend, a PhD candidate in political science, who was a doctrinaire libertarian. He wouldn't even vote in primaries, and rarely voted in general elections because there was no one who agreed exactly with his views. But I've also found that most libertarians need to be pushed to express their pragmatism. On another forum, I had a long exchange with a libertarian who professed to be an absolutist in his views on people's right to own firearms. When I pushed on him, he agreed that maybe ownership of nuclear weapons should be restricted. But he made that admission very reluctantly.

[Anti-Racism]

I am a Socialist because I don't trust the motivations of people when embroiled in capitalism.

I am not a Communist.

[Leopardpm]

Since I don't follow libertarian news, I didn't know there was a pragmatic takeover, but I'm glad to hear it. Most of my experiences in discussion with libertarians have just foundered on ideology. It's good to see some flexibility, because politics can't really proceed without some flexibility.


are you suggesting that when you debate, you do not rely on some sort of personal 'ideology'? Where do you get your ideas from, your views - haven't you thought out some sort of 'moral code' which you believe in?

the difference between your ideology, and a libertarian's ideology, is that theirs also is consistent.

(actually, the above statement isn't exactly true, a libertarian's ideology does have it's internal conflict because they still believe that a minimal government founded on force is 'OK' as long as it solely exists to protect national defense, property rights, and provide an avenue for resolution conflict/law - myself, I do not have this conflict and will readily state/advocate for no government at all)

[Buck Laser]

Since I don't follow libertarian news, I didn't know there was a pragmatic takeover, but I'm glad to hear it. Most of my experiences in discussion with libertarians have just foundered on ideology. It's good to see some flexibility, because politics can't really proceed without some flexibility.


are you suggesting that when you debate, you do not rely on some sort of personal 'ideology'? Where do you get your ideas from, your views - haven't you thought out some sort of 'moral code' which you believe in?

the difference between your ideology, and a libertarian's ideology, is that theirs also is consistent.

(actually, the above statement isn't exactly true, a libertarian's ideology does have it's internal conflict because they still believe that a minimal government founded on force is 'OK' as long as it solely exists to protect national defense, property rights, and provide an avenue for resolution conflict/law - myself, I do not have this conflict and will readily state/advocate for no government at all)


Leopard, with regard to consistency, you might do well to pay attention to my sig line. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." The ideological framework of my own philosophy grows more diffuse as I grow older--but it's also results oriented. While I admire logical consistency, it's not the ultimate goal of my striving.

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that you won't find very many OLD libertarians...the appeal of dogmatism dies as one moves from the fires of idealism to the drudge work of producing good.

[NortheastCynic]

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that you won't find very many OLD libertarians...the appeal of dogmatism dies as one moves from the fires of idealism to the drudge work of producing good. Only if a libertarian's definition of "producing good" changes.Â*Â*To me, the gov't can and should produce good.Â*Â*I define good as "security of land, rights and infrastructure".Â*Â*Your definition of good is different than mine.Â*Â*Being libertarian doesn't mean you don't want the gov't to do good things, being a libertarian means your definition of "good things" is more limited. In addition, to me, the government following the law of the land is not "idealism" or "dogmatic", it seems reasonable and pragmatic to have a minimum expectation of the rule of law.

-NC

[Leopardpm]

Leopard, with regard to consistency, you might do well to pay attention to my sig line. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." The ideological framework of my own philosophy grows more diffuse as I grow older--but it's also results oriented. While I admire logical consistency, it's not the ultimate goal of my striving.
Consistency has a benefit of avoiding hypocrisy. For instance, say that people have a right to own property, but then putting restrictions, limits, and all out prohibition on how they may use that property is hypocritical.

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that you won't find very many OLD libertarians...the appeal of dogmatism dies as one moves from the fires of idealism to the drudge work of producing good.
Actually, the way of the 'age' progression is: youth = socialist/communist or liberal, mid-life = conservatism / libertarianism, old age = libertarianism

[Buck Laser]

Leopard, with regard to consistency, you might do well to pay attention to my sig line. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." The ideological framework of my own philosophy grows more diffuse as I grow older--but it's also results oriented. While I admire logical consistency, it's not the ultimate goal of my striving.
Consistency has a benefit of avoiding hypocrisy. For instance, say that people have a right to own property, but then putting restrictions, limits, and all out prohibition on how they may use that property is hypocritical.

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that you won't find very many OLD libertarians...the appeal of dogmatism dies as one moves from the fires of idealism to the drudge work of producing good.
Actually, the way of the 'age' progression is: youth = socialist/communist or liberal, mid-life = conservatism / libertarianism, old age = libertarianism


So find me an old libertarian. I don't think you can.

[NortheastCynic]

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

Done.

-NC

[Leopardpm]

So find me an old libertarian. I don't think you can.


pick me! (40+ yr old)

pick John (67+ yr old)

pick Uncle Bob (yes, I really do have an 'uncle bob') (unknown age, but he is old)

pick the hundreds of Austrian economists, I am sure at least a handful would qualify in your 'old' category!

The infamous Zach Bass (Screen name)!

etc etc

Why do you think I couldn't come up with even one? silly proposition (and I realized my relating 'those that I know' does not prove my theory at all, in fact, I would doubt my own proposition - old people are just grouchy and crachetty, not necessarily disgruntled libertarians...)

[Buck Laser]

So find me an old libertarian. I don't think you can.


pick me! (40+ yr old)
Not old enough to be "old."
pick John (67+ yr old)
I'm 71.
pick Uncle Bob (yes, I really do have an 'uncle bob') (unknown age, but he is old)
I don't know "Uncle Bob."
pick the hundreds of Austrian economists, I am sure at least a handful would qualify in your 'old' category!
I don't believe in Austrian economists.:cool:
The infamous Zach Bass (Screen name)!
Never heard of him!

But, to give you your due, you tried. I still don't think libertarianism is a very mature political philosophy. I've seen too much of the economic displacement that's occured in the US and Mexico as a result of "free trade." Even though I still favor "free trade" in an ideological manner, I think economic planning by gov't entities is critically necessary for a good world economy. And to return to an earlier claim of yours, the internet is hardly the exclusive domain of libertarians, whatever you may think about it. Most liberals I know have a socially libertarian streak, in that they don't like gov't control of personal behavior. But most, like me, also have a deep distrust of corporate entities' ability to act for the common good.

etc etc

Why do you think I couldn't come up with even one? silly proposition (and I realized my relating 'those that I know' does not prove my theory at all, in fact, I would doubt my own proposition - old people are just grouchy and crachetty, not necessarily disgruntled libertarians...)
[/quote]

[firefox]

I've seen too much of the economic displacement that's occured in the US and Mexico as a result of "free trade." Even though I still favor "free trade" in an ideological manner, I think economic planning by gov't entities is critically necessary for a good world economy.

There are problems, yes. But what we don't have is real free trade. Think about it. How can you remove law by creating more of it, and throwing in special privileges for your political allies? You can't. ;) NAFTA, etc. are misnomered.

But most, like me, also have a deep distrust of corporate entities' ability to act for the common good.

Corporations are government created privileges. In that sense, the state is the ultimate "corporation", so why would it be any better at protecting you than organizations based on voluntary transactions for mutual benefit?

[NortheastCynic]

Never heard of him!You have heard of Clint Eastwood though, right?
I still don't think libertarianism is a very mature political philosophy. I've seen too much of the economic displacement that's occured in the US and Mexico as a result of "free trade." Have you not seen too much excess in governmetn, citizen abuse by government, unjust wars, unfair trials, police brutality, etc. in your time, Buck? What makes an ideology immature? That is a subjective word that I could use to describe any ideology with which I disagree. It's very easy to say "some parts of <insert ideology here> make sense, but the parts I don't agree with are immature". To ask us to point out any old libertarians is A: easy [we've done it] and B: irrelevant. In the 1860s could you point out to me one old civil rights activist? Does that mean that Abolitionism was an "immature political philosophy"?

-NC

[Buck Laser]

Never heard of him!You have heard of Clint Eastwood though, right?
I still don't think libertarianism is a very mature political philosophy. I've seen too much of the economic displacement that's occured in the US and Mexico as a result of "free trade." Have you not seen too much excess in governmetn, citizen abuse by government, unjust wars, unfair trials, police brutality, etc. in your time, Buck? What makes an ideology immature? That is a subjective word that I could use to describe any ideology with which I disagree. It's very easy to say "some parts of <insert ideology here> make sense, but the parts I don't agree with are immature". To ask us to point out any old libertarians is A: easy [we've done it] and B: irrelevant. In the 1860s could you point out to me one old civil rights activist? Does that mean that Abolitionism was an "immature political philosophy"?

-NC


Clint Eastwood--good director and actor, politically as apt as Ronald Reagan

Civil rights activists in 1860s:John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Tubman. And that's without googling. Ask a harder question.:D By the way, Abolitionism and civil rights were two quite different kinds of concepts.
When I speak of maturity, I'm really talking about pragmatism, not physical age. A philosophy that can't work in the political arena isn't mature, as I see it.

[NortheastCynic]

Clint Eastwood--good director and actor, politically as apt as Ronald ReaganOh for God's sake Buck. You asked for an old libertarian, Clint's older than you and a L/libertarian.


Civil rights activists in 1860s:John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Tubman.Neither of whom, as far as I know were old, but I think you got my point. Just because something isn't popular with a group of people doesn't make it invalid.

By the way, Abolitionism and civil rights were two quite different kinds of concepts.Yeah I know, typo-ish.

When I speak of maturity, I'm really talking about pragmatism, not physical age. A philosophy that can't work in the political arena isn't mature, as I see it. Okay...And how can we honestly say that libertarianism can't work if it's never been tried?

-NC

[Leopardpm]

I'm 71.
Congrats! To me, that, in and of itself, is an accomplishment!

I don't believe in Austrian economists.:cool:
yet, they exist

The infamous Zach Bass (Screen name)!
Never heard of him!
be thankful!


But, to give you your due, you tried. I still don't think libertarianism is a very mature political philosophy.
'mature' as in 'established', or 'mature' as in a young and immature idea

I've seen too much of the economic displacement that's occured in the US and Mexico as a result of "free trade."
is there some sort of governmental edict defining the 'free trade' agreement? if so, it isn't really 'free trade'

Even though I still favor "free trade" in an ideological manner, I think economic planning by gov't entities is critically necessary for a good world economy.
says you, I disagree - government 'planning' is really just manipulation at the expense of those involved to suit things from THEIR (those in government) desires.


And to return to an earlier claim of yours, the internet is hardly the exclusive domain of libertarians, whatever you may think about it.
you twist my words - I only implied that the internet is rife with libertarians, NOT that it was exclusive domain of them!

[slappy]

I've been away for a few days. So we're done with socialism then are we? :)

[Buck Laser]

I've been away for a few days. So we're done with socialism then are we? :)


Actually, I'm just arguing with libertarians because they're fun and easy. I'm a pretty mild socialist, even though they seem to think I'm some kind of fire breathing Marxist. It's the religious fervor they have that amuses me.

[Leopardpm]

I've been away for a few days. So we're done with socialism then are we? :)


Actually, I'm just arguing with libertarians because they're fun and easy. I'm a pretty mild socialist, even though they seem to think I'm some kind of fire breathing Marxist. It's the religious fervor they have that amuses me.


I agree that there seems to be almost a 'religious' quality about how libertarians and my fellows, AnCaps and FreeMarket Anarchists, are in discussions. If you would like a glimpse into their psyche, to see why they might act in such a manner, read on:

Imagine, in contemplating the entirety of the world, all the various multitudes, all the cultures, religions, opinions, scientists, and the like... imagine that you decide that no one, not one human, has discovered a 'plan' for the human race - there is no tablet set in stone with rules and regulations to follow to lead the 'perfect' human life. Not only that, it appears that everyone has various drives and motivations, different things which make them happy, different things which define, for themselves, what a 'successful' life is all about. Sure, there are religious folks on one side who claim to 'know' the answer (and maybe they do, but it takes a leap of faith - unprovable, unsolvable) and there are others steeped in rigorous scientific method who claim that they 'know' the answer (but, once again, they require a leap of faith and admit they don't know enough to 'prove' their beliefs, they are taking their own leaps of faith as well.) So, in all of this sea of relativity, what is it that we are to do? If the universe is amoral, and morality is solely a human invention, then no human, nor group of humans, has a higher claim to their perception of what is correct or what is not. Then, considering either way that there might be a true path or perhaps none at all, then it must be up to each one of us to discover for themselves this hidden nature of our existence. Simply because no one knows (yet?) then no one can say, with complete objective purity, what is 'right' or 'wrong' as far as actions taken, beliefs held, etc.

So, here we are, 6 billion folks on this planet, with no one able to give a verifiable objective truth as to the right/wrong of actions in our lives. What to do? Well, the first and obvious thing is that since we are all on our own paths, and each of us has equal potential to discover the 'one' truth, if it exists, then it is morally 'wrong' to actively interfere with another persons chosen path, for it may be the 'right' one, or at least, the 'right' one for them (if there is no objective truth). From this stems the basic libertarian principle of 'no offensive force' while it is ok to exercise 'defensive force'.

Again, put into this light of philosophical context, then all other 'reasons' to initiate force fall away. It IS wrong for government(or anyone) to force me to not use drugs because it is my right to discover whether or not drugs are 'right' for me. It is wrong for others to attempt to affect my dealings with another partner in trade (tariffs, sales taxes, etc). It is wrong to impede in any physical or coercive manner my own use of property I justly and rightly obtained.

As far as Economics goes, it is no coincidence that Austrian, or Free market' economics follows suit to the libertarian creedo: a free market is what results from non-aggression, and thus mimics and enhances the traits of the participants within while promoting peaceful interchange. The free market reflects on a larger scale, the actual values and perceptions of real humans - it is not some attempt to 'change' people, it does not matter what drives folks, or what the human make-up is, because a free-market will reflect it. For instance, if humans were 'naturally socialistic', then the free market would result in socialism (but without coercion). If people are altruistic, then the market will reflect that. If people are all killers, then the market would reflect even that! But the point is, the market IS just people, acting on their own, striving towards natural human goals and doing so peaceably.

Back to the religious fervor commonly seen in libertarians. Imagine you have digested all this, and what it all boils down to is that we each MUST be left to our devices to find our own 'success' or failure, find our own reason for being here, then when confronted with someone that says, "The government must provide education, must provide healthcare, must provide XYZ and YOU must be forced to capitulate because of the 'common good' " or because "the elites have more information and therefore 'know' better than others what is correct for the poor souls.", this is an attack, this is about the most 'evil' or 'immoral' position that can be taken AGAINST human freedom and life of self-discovery. Such thinking, such 'voting', such blatant use of force against 'equal' humans (but apparently not so equal as their ideas, desires, etc do not count compared against the socialist manifest, this force, no matter how small, is considered a 'violation' - libertarians feel violated daily by continued intrusions into their lives, and they (as all of us) do lead individual lives, no some abstraction known as society of which they are an insignificant cog. Society is a group of individuals - individuals FIRST and foremost, then VOLUNTARILY choosing to unite with others for common goal.

So, when it gets down to it, libertarians and other freedom lovers, really do feel as if they are debating with those that wish to enslave, oppress, and otherwise subjugate them. It can easily come across as extreme or unwarranted to those that either haven't thought it all through, or merely think that they really do know the answers to the universe.

Did I make my 'rant' quota yet?

[Buck Laser]

I've been away for a few days. So we're done with socialism then are we? :)


Actually, I'm just arguing with libertarians because they're fun and easy. I'm a pretty mild socialist, even though they seem to think I'm some kind of fire breathing Marxist. It's the religious fervor they have that amuses me.


I agree that there seems to be almost a 'religious' quality about how libertarians and my fellows, AnCaps and FreeMarket Anarchists, are in discussions. If you would like a glimpse into their psyche, to see why they might act in such a manner, read on:

Did I make my 'rant' quota yet?


I haven't had a chance to count the number of times you used "neo" and "post" prefixes in your diatribe, so I can't tell you whether it reaches rant status yet. I'll try to count them up when I get back from my gym session.:cool: But it looks like impressive verbiage!

[Leopardpm]

I've been away for a few days. So we're done with socialism then are we? :)


Actually, I'm just arguing with libertarians because they're fun and easy. I'm a pretty mild socialist, even though they seem to think I'm some kind of fire breathing Marxist. It's the religious fervor they have that amuses me.


I agree that there seems to be almost a 'religious' quality about how libertarians and my fellows, AnCaps and FreeMarket Anarchists, are in discussions. If you would like a glimpse into their psyche, to see why they might act in such a manner, read on:

Did I make my 'rant' quota yet?


I haven't had a chance to count the number of times you used "neo" and "post" prefixes in your diatribe, so I can't tell you whether it reaches rant status yet. I'll try to count them up when I get back from my gym session.:cool: But it looks like impressive verbiage!


I almost never use 'neo' or 'post'..... the term 'neo-con' is just an insultive term.

Yes, it is very impressive - I should win the argument just upon sheer volume alone!!!! I shall bury my opponent with verbiage!

[Buck Laser]

I almost never use 'neo' or 'post'..... the term 'neo-con' is just an insultive term.

Yes, it is very impressive - I should win the argument just upon sheer volume alone!!!! I shall bury my opponent with verbiage!

I wasn't really talking about "neo-con;" though I'm not sure it's always used in an insulting mode. I was thinking more of terms like "neo-Malthusian," post-modern (one of my favorites), and post-industrial age. You really need to work some of those terms in to make it sound authentic. Maybe a "deconstructionism" here and there would make it sound ante-authentic!

I think your affliction is called logorrhea.:D

[Leopardpm]

I almost never use 'neo' or 'post'..... the term 'neo-con' is just an insultive term.

Yes, it is very impressive - I should win the argument just upon sheer volume alone!!!! I shall bury my opponent with verbiage!

I wasn't really talking about "neo-con;" though I'm not sure it's always used in an insulting mode. I was thinking more of terms like "neo-Malthusian," post-modern (one of my favorites), and post-industrial age. You really need to work some of those terms in to make it sound authentic. Maybe a "deconstructionism" here and there would make it sound ante-authentic!

I think your affliction is called logorrhea.:D


I can't think of a time I EVER used 'post modern' or 'post industrial age' - you must think I am someone else... will look up the term 'logorrhea' --- here it is LOGORRHEA via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea) -though, sounds funny!

[Harry01]

Socialism actually takes away stolen money made by capitalists and gives it back to the masses through state subsidies etc.I say stolen because capitalist survives on 5 principles according to Lenin and one of them is the concentration of capital and production which leads to a dangerous phenomenom called surplus value.For those that dont know, surplus value is the unpaid labour a worker gives at the mercy or extraction of their capitalist owners.In other words it is when a worker works hard to produce a good but his salary is not adjusted accordingly.

[slappy]

The word "stolen", of course, presupposes property rights in whatever is at issue.

In Marx's case, he seems to go along with the Lockean idea that a man owns the product of his labour because of a resulting increase in the value of whatever he has invested his labour in. What Marx doesn't tell us (nor does Locke for that matter) is how he moves from the subjective notion of value to the objective notion of property rights.

Anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians who say that taxation is theft sometimes likewise base their property claims on a Lockean view of value and rights. It seems to me that these capitalists face the same subjective-objective leap as the Marxists.

I prefer to move away from the language of absolute rights and theft to the less confusing notion that government can and should exist as a cooperative venture for the common good. From that perspective, government is not playing robin hood against the evil capitalists nor is it playing the robber to the poor victimized capitalists. It's simply doing what needs to be done in order to elevate the weakest and worst off in society to a minimum level of dignity and opportunity. Capitalism is a vital part of that whole picture, of course, and the capitalist benefits at least as much from the other functions of government as the poorest in society do from the redistribution of wealth.

[Harry01]

The word "stolen", of course, presupposes property rights in whatever is at issue.Â*Â*

In Marx's case, he seems to go along with the Lockean idea that a man owns the product of his labour because of a resulting increase in the value of whatever he has invested his labour in.Â*Â*What Marx doesn't tell us (nor does Locke for that matter) is how he moves from the subjective notion of value to the objective notion of property rights.

Anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians who say that taxation is theft sometimes likewise base their property claims on a Lockean view of value and rights.Â*Â*It seems to me that these capitalists face the same subjective-objective leap as the Marxists.

I prefer to move away from the language of absolute rights and theft to the less confusing notion that government can and should exist as a cooperative venture for the common good.Â*Â*From that perspective, government is not playing robin hood against the evil capitalists nor is it playing the robber to the poor victimized capitalists.Â*Â*It's simply doing what needs to be done in order to elevate the weakest and worst off in society to a minimum level of dignity and opportunity.Â*Â*Capitalism is a vital part of that whole picture, of course, and the capitalist benefits at least as much from the other functions of government as the poorest in society do from the redistribution of wealth.


The bottom line is not neccessarily about Marx or whomever.Its about capitalism not as an ordinary concept but its morality in the national body politik.....Show me a single capitalist state where the state is at peace with the majority-the workers? Who benefits from capitalism which is exploitation by any stretch of the imagination?It is a failed concept and this is why it is now being redefined to come up with new concepts like social-democracy....

[slappy]

Show me a single capitalist state where the state is at peace with the majority-the workers?
I'm not entirely certain how you're defining "peace" here, but visit Canada someday. I'd say that labour-capital relations are pretty peaceful here, on the whole.

Who benefits from capitalism which is exploitation by any stretch of the imagination?
Again, the word "exploitation" presupposes certain Marxian notions of property rights in the product of labour. Employing that word without addressing the problems with its presuppositions opens socialist rhetoric up to charges of sophistry.

It is a failed concept and this is why it is now being redefined to come up with new concepts like social-democracy....
I'm also not sure how you'd define social-democracy. Most people would identify Canada as a social-democracy, yet good old fashioned capitalism thrives here. The two notions are not mutually inconsistent.

Perhaps you have more of a 19th century, robber-barons idea of capitalism in mind? I note that you're from Zimbabwe and South Africa. Perhaps capitalism in those countries has a more sinister presence than it does in Canada.

[Harry01]

Show me a single capitalist state where the state is at peace with the majority-the workers?
I'm not entirely certain how you're defining "peace" here, but visit Canada someday.Â*Â*I'd say that labour-capital relations are pretty peaceful here, on the whole.

Who benefits from capitalism which is exploitation by any stretch of the imagination?
Again, the word "exploitation" presupposes certain Marxian notions of property rights in the product of labour.Â*Â*Employing that word without addressing the problems with its presuppositions opens socialist rhetoric up to charges of sophistry.

It is a failed concept and this is why it is now being redefined to come up with new concepts like social-democracy....
I'm also not sure how you'd define social-democracy.Â*Â*Most people would identify Canada as a social-democracy, yet good old fashioned capitalism thrives here.Â*Â*The two notions are not mutually inconsistent.

Perhaps you have more of a 19th century, robber-barons idea of capitalism in mind?Â*Â*I note that you're from Zimbabwe and South Africa.Â*Â*Perhaps capitalism in those countries has a more sinister presence than it does in Canada.


I`m 100 percent glad that you have mentioned the points in your last paragraph that the capitalism in my African soil might have a more sinister presence than that of your country Canada.Right, i hope i dont have to remind you that your country together with several other Western nations built their fortunes on imperial behaviourisms such capitalism which historically flourished with the colonial conquest of thy Africa.Well,back to business,sorry,politics.
Now, your honourable, can you please tell me how capitalism evolved and its primary concern?Is it not a commonsensical fact that the primary objective of capitalism is not just profit but excessive profit which at times spills into reckless super-profits if it goes unchecked? Now you also seem not to get my meaning of ``peace``. Well i will re-explain my point for you.If one says capitalism does not lead to peace between workers and capital it doesnt mean a person is talking about running battles with the police or physical street demonstrations.It is unpolitical,unphilosophical,unintelligent and uncunny to suggest so!!!!
I am not sure if all Canadians are as lucky as you sound but logically i am not aware of any worker black or white,short or tall,clever or dull,who goes to work and comes back praising his capitalist bosses.Unless ofcourse you are in a capitalist directorate!!!!!!!

[slappy]

i hope i dont have to remind you that your country together with several other Western nations built their fortunes on imperial behaviourisms such capitalism which historically flourished with the colonial conquest of thy Africa.
My country has a pretty uneventful history of imperialism. I don't think you'll find many examples of Canadians overturning or propping up local governments in the third world, with the possible exception of events of the two World Wars and, arguably, certain United Nations actions.

You seem to be conflating capitalism with colonialism/imperialism. The two can certainly go hand-in-hand but one does not imply the other.

can you please tell me how capitalism evolved and its primary concern?
One of our resident libertarians would likely do a nicer job of that history lesson than I can, but of what relevance is the distant past of capitalism to the morality of capitalism in developed countries like Canada?

Is it not a commonsensical fact that the primary objective of capitalism is not just profit but excessive profit which at times spills into reckless super-profits if it goes unchecked?
Corporations should pursue as much profit as possible for their shareholders. That is what they are generally designed to do. Governments are designed to protect the common good, and so it is their job to police the activities of corporations with respect to workplace safety, environmental standards and so on. In other words, I definitely agree that profit-seeking should not go entirely unchecked, but this does not make capitalism intrinsically evil.

Now you also seem not to get my meaning of ``peace``. [...]
I am not sure if all Canadians are as lucky as you sound but logically i am not aware of any worker black or white,short or tall,clever or dull,who goes to work and comes back praising his capitalist bosses.
So you're just saying that workers in all countries are not exactly in love with their employers? But what of it? Labour and management are bargainers in the free market. The marketplace is not supposed to be a love fest. It's supposed to be a place of trade and maximizing utility. If I sell my house and the buyers walk away singing my praises, I've probably just been suckered. If both parties walk away grumbling a little, chances are that they both got a pretty reasonable deal. That's the sign of a compromise, which itself signals a meeting of minds, which is what the free market is all about.

[Harry01]

i hope i dont have to remind you that your country together with several other Western nations built their fortunes on imperial behaviourisms such capitalism which historically flourished with the colonial conquest of thy Africa.
My country has a pretty uneventful history of imperialism.Â*Â*I don't think you'll find many examples of Canadians overturning or propping up local governments in the third world, with the possible exception of events of the two World Wars and, arguably, certain United Nations actions.

You seem to be conflating capitalism with colonialism/imperialism.Â*Â*The two can certainly go hand-in-hand but one does not imply the other.

can you please tell me how capitalism evolved and its primary concern?
One of our resident libertarians would likely do a nicer job of that history lesson than I can, but of what relevance is the distant past of capitalism to the morality of capitalism in developed countries like Canada?

Is it not a commonsensical fact that the primary objective of capitalism is not just profit but excessive profit which at times spills into reckless super-profits if it goes unchecked?
Corporations should pursue as much profit as possible for their shareholders.Â*Â*That is what they are generally designed to do.Â*Â*Governments are designed to protect the common good, and so it is their job to police the activities of corporations with respect to workplace safety, environmental standards and so on.Â*Â*In other words, I definitely agree that profit-seeking should not go entirely unchecked, but this does not make capitalism intrinsically evil.

Now you also seem not to get my meaning of ``peace``. [...]
I am not sure if all Canadians are as lucky as you sound but logically i am not aware of any worker black or white,short or tall,clever or dull,who goes to work and comes back praising his capitalist bosses.
So you're just saying that workers in all countries are not exactly in love with their employers?Â*Â*But what of it?Â*Â*Labour and management are bargainers in the free market.Â*Â*The marketplace is not supposed to be a love fest.Â*Â*It's supposed to be a place of trade and maximizing utility.Â*Â*If I sell my house and the buyers walk away singing my praises, I've probably just been suckered.Â*Â*If both parties walk away grumbling a little, chances are that they both got a pretty reasonable deal.Â*Â*That's the sign of a compromise, which itself signals a meeting of minds, which is what the free market is all about.


Slappy i actually spotted a smile on my face as i went through your prosiac piece.You made some very wild, blind and unsound commentary especially as regards co-operations being designed to make profit.You go on to puke that as a result it is the job of the government to`` police the activities of corporations with respect to workplace safety, environmental standards and so on``.
What type of medication are you on Slappy or are you even taking your medicine as recommended?So in your desert imagination you believe workers only go to work for ``workplace safety, environmental standards and so on``. Well you are ocean wrong though you have a desert imagination!!!!! Workers go to work for nothing but money which is what makes them earn a living!!!
As for capitalism why do you want me and my ripe geniusness not to view it and debate it in the equal basis as imperialism/colonialism?
To put it short, capitalism cannot be defined without its link to imperialism or colonialism.

[slappy]

Just a word of advice on good rhetoric, Harry: Keep it clean and courteous. In other words, there's absolutely no need to attempt to insult the person you're debating. It ends up reflecting more poorly on you than your target, every time.

All I can say to the bulk of the points you've raised is that, giving you every possible benefit of the doubt, your experience of capitalism appears to be so radically different from what I see in Canada as to make continuing this discussion very difficult, if not hopeless.

In purely theoretical terms, however, the fact remains that capitalism is something separate and distinct from imperialism. You appear to know your Marx. You should know that he defined capital as private ownership of the means of production. This does not logically imply imperialism, despite the fact that the two have gone hand in hand on many occasions in history. Ideally, in a non-imperialist world, capitalists in North America would obtain any overseas resources they need from capitalists in those foreign countries, rather than interfering in the affairs of those countries from outside.

[Leopardpm]

What is wrong with profit maximizing? THe workers do it when they negotiate their wages, consumers do it when shopping for goods, the businessmen do it when attempting to sell a good, and everyone does it in each and every aspect of their lives. You act as if 'profit' is a negative or evil, it is why we do things. Why do you walk a straight line to get from point a to point b? Because it lessens your costs, maximizes your profit.

[Harry01]

What is wrong with profit maximizing? THe workers do it when they negotiate their wages, consumers do it when shopping for goods, the businessmen do it when attempting to sell a good, and everyone does it in each and every aspect of their lives. You act as if 'profit' is a negative or evil, it is why we do things. Why do you walk a straight line to get from point a to point b? Because it lessens your costs, maximizes your profit.


Ideally there is nothing evil about profit.Here you are correct.What is evil is when profit is no longer ordinary profit but super profit. I say so because if you want to be honest with yourself workers are rarely upgraded in terms of salary even when a capitalist firm moves into super profits.This becomes EXPLOITATION!!!As a scholar of development studies i`m not saying this as a Marxist radical or anything.Everything is purely commonsensical.
I will give you an example;You take a very successfull Hollywood movie that sells prominently and you compare the rewards the actors(directors) get as compared to the mediocrity given to the non-acting workers who would have probably worked full time to either market the movie,sort out logistics or such other jobs.The point is the actors are 100 percent right in earning more and so lavishly but commonsense will tell you that there is more to the production of a movie than just having the actors!!! Profits should be made but as they are made salaries should be upgraded equally,something which rarely happens under capitalism.
As for Slappy i will give you an academic defination of imperialism which you will find anywhere including the internet.It is defined as ``the highest stage in the development of Capitalism``. So ideally i agree with some of your arguements but clearly i think you are missing the point if you separate imperial thinking from capitalism.

[slappy]

As for Slappy i will give you an academic defination of imperialism which you will find anywhere including the internet.It is defined as ``the highest stage in the development of Capitalism``. So ideally i agree with some of your arguements but clearly i think you are missing the point if you separate imperial thinking from capitalism.
Are you quoting V.I. Lenin? I don't think that counts as an uncontroversial definition, Harry. :)

[Harry01]

As for Slappy i will give you an academic defination of imperialism which you will find anywhere including the internet.It is defined as ``the highest stage in the development of Capitalism``. So ideally i agree with some of your arguements but clearly i think you are missing the point if you separate imperial thinking from capitalism.
Are you quoting V.I. Lenin? I don't think that counts as an uncontroversial definition, Harry. :)


I did actually qoute Lenin as you correctly observed.In what way is it controversial? In fact i suspect you are a protege of Emanuel Wallerstein arent you? The guy who wrote about the World System

[slappy]

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

I'm a high school English teacher in central Canada. I have no ideological agenda whatsoever. I'm simply applying regular skepticism to your (or rather Mr. Lenin's) rather strong claim that capitalism necessarily leads to imperialism. I see no reason why any country's domestic capitalism cannot expand its marketplace through free and ethical international trade, rather than cooperation or collaboration with the most sinister elements in any overseas neighbourhood.

[Leopardpm]

Ideally there is nothing evil about profit.Here you are correct.
good. we have a common point.

What is evil is when profit is no longer ordinary profit but super profit.
how does one tell the difference without making arbitrary and subjective judgments? Is it 'ordinary' profit when I sell my bike for $10 or for $100? Is it 'super' profit when I sell it for $1000?

I say so because if you want to be honest with yourself workers are rarely upgraded in terms of salary even when a capitalist firm moves into super profits.
I, of course, think of myself as being honest (with myself at least!) - What I 'see' is that wages of those would sell their labor follow productivity and that is modified but profit margin. I see workers still getting the same amount of wage, even when the business owner takes a loss or returns minor profits, I see times when great profits are made due to circumstances which are transitory and wages do not have time to adjust upwards, yet, when profits stay above their natural level, wages follow suit.


This becomes EXPLOITATION!!!
no - Exploitation is relative and undefined - is it exploitation for me to offer a person $10 to mow my lawn? To find the truth, one can only ask the worker who agrees - there is no outside reference. To be 'exploited' in the manner you infer, it would involve force, as in slavery. Slaves are exploited, free men choosing to work a particular job for an agreed upon wage and conditions is NOT being exploited.

You take a very successfull Hollywood movie that sells prominently and you compare the rewards the actors(directors) get as compared to the mediocrity given to the non-acting workers who would have probably worked full time to either market the movie,sort out logistics or such other jobs.The point is the actors are 100 percent right in earning more and so lavishly but commonsense will tell you that there is more to the production of a movie than just having the actors!!!
If the labor a carpenter makes on the market is $20/hour when the end product (a house?) might be worth on up to $5 million, why should their labor be paid above market wage when working on a successful movie? Those that DO earn alot, also take risk - no one knows how much a movie might earn, and people negotiate their contracts accordingly (some accept a percentage of profits for their labor, some folks have necessity to count on a set amount so they negotiate set labor rates (carpenters, etc). The difference between constructing a movie set and a house compared to the amount of profits earned by the actors or developers ARE due directly to the labor those two bring to the project.

Profits should be made but as they are made salaries should be upgraded equally,something which rarely happens under capitalism.
There is nothing preventing anyone from negotiating different contracts for their labor, the reasons they don't have something to do with personal preference and values - they would rather have a guaranteed amount in the present then a 'possible' greater amount in the future - such stability and guarantees have costs.

[Harry01]

Ideally there is nothing evil about profit.Here you are correct.
good. we have a common point.

What is evil is when profit is no longer ordinary profit but super profit.
how does one tell the difference without making arbitrary and subjective judgments? Is it 'ordinary' profit when I sell my bike for $10 or for $100? Is it 'super' profit when I sell it for $1000?

I say so because if you want to be honest with yourself workers are rarely upgraded in terms of salary even when a capitalist firm moves into super profits.
I, of course, think of myself as being honest (with myself at least!) - What I 'see' is that wages of those would sell their labor follow productivity and that is modified but profit margin. I see workers still getting the same amount of wage, even when the business owner takes a loss or returns minor profits, I see times when great profits are made due to circumstances which are transitory and wages do not have time to adjust upwards, yet, when profits stay above their natural level, wages follow suit.


This becomes EXPLOITATION!!!
no - Exploitation is relative and undefined - is it exploitation for me to offer a person $10 to mow my lawn? To find the truth, one can only ask the worker who agrees - there is no outside reference. To be 'exploited' in the manner you infer, it would involve force, as in slavery. Slaves are exploited, free men choosing to work a particular job for an agreed upon wage and conditions is NOT being exploited.

You take a very successfull Hollywood movie that sells prominently and you compare the rewards the actors(directors) get as compared to the mediocrity given to the non-acting workers who would have probably worked full time to either market the movie,sort out logistics or such other jobs.The point is the actors are 100 percent right in earning more and so lavishly but commonsense will tell you that there is more to the production of a movie than just having the actors!!!
If the labor a carpenter makes on the market is $20/hour when the end product (a house?) might be worth on up to $5 million, why should their labor be paid above market wage when working on a successful movie? Those that DO earn alot, also take risk - no one knows how much a movie might earn, and people negotiate their contracts accordingly (some accept a percentage of profits for their labor, some folks have necessity to count on a set amount so they negotiate set labor rates (carpenters, etc). The difference between constructing a movie set and a house compared to the amount of profits earned by the actors or developers ARE due directly to the labor those two bring to the project.

Profits should be made but as they are made salaries should be upgraded equally,something which rarely happens under capitalism.
There is nothing preventing anyone from negotiating different contracts for their labor, the reasons they don't have something to do with personal preference and values - they would rather have a guaranteed amount in the present then a 'possible' greater amount in the future - such stability and guarantees have costs.


Let me start by giving you a generalised defination of super-profits.
Super-profits are not mere profits made out of business good faith but these are profits that result from what is generally called``surplus value``.Surplus value is the exploitation that i am always reffering to. It is a concept created by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy, where its ultimate source is claimed to be unpaid surplus labour performed by the worker for the capitalist, serving as a basis for capital accumulation.That is exploitation.
If for example you work for me to produce a commodity like bread then after total cost i sell the loaf of bread at say $100 and your salary is $3 whilst the cost of production is $5 is that not exploitation in a way?Under normal circumstances you would deserve even $15 is that not logical sir?

[Leopardpm]

Let me start by giving you a generalised defination of super-profits.
Super-profits are not mere profits made out of business good faith but these are profits that result from what is generally called``surplus value``.Surplus value is the exploitation that i am always reffering to. It is a concept created by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy, where its ultimate source is claimed to be unpaid surplus labour performed by the worker for the capitalist, serving as a basis for capital accumulation.That is exploitation.
all sounds very circular so far, no definition.

If for example you work for me to produce a commodity like bread then after total cost i sell the loaf of bread at say $100 and your salary is $3 whilst the cost of production is $5 is that not exploitation in a way?Under normal circumstances you would deserve even $15 is that not logical sir?
Why would I work for you, producing bread for you to sell, if I could just sell it myself a garner the entire $100? Fact is, if I were able to do the entire thing myself (which obviously involves alot more than production, there is the actual sales, distribution, research,, etc) then I would! Would you pay someone $10 to put your clothes on you? no - because you could 'pay yourself' then $10 for doing the easy work... same with the bread example and why it does not reflect the entire picture.

"ultimate source is claimed to be unpaid surplus labour"? Sounds like slavery, but where is the slavery when I make you an OFFER and you ACCEPT? The only way you can translate this into slavery is if the acceptance (or the offer) is made in a state of coercion - I make you an offer with a gun to your head. That is not the case, and, the fact that all humans are required by the universe to eat and shelter themselves is not coercion.

[firefox]

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

I'm a high school English teacher in central Canada. I have no ideological agenda whatsoever.


Don't kid yourself, Slappy. Everyone has an agenda. I feel that it is physically *impossible* for someone not to have one. The matter is how you use it, how respectful you are, and how open to new ideas you are.

[slappy]

I said that I have no ideological agenda. In other words, there is no ideology driving my remarks on capitalism and socialism or my reaction to Harry's remarks. That was not always the case, and I am well aware of the difference. Of course I have beliefs and preferences, and I suppose that anyone's disposition to believe or prefer can be cast as an "agenda" of sorts, but that's defining the term so broadly as to drain it of all useful meaning.

[Buck Laser]

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

I'm a high school English teacher in central Canada. I have no ideological agenda whatsoever.


Don't kid yourself, Slappy. Everyone has an agenda. I feel that it is physically *impossible* for someone not to have one. The matter is how you use it, how respectful you are, and how open to new ideas you are.


I think libertarians are as drunk on ideology as fundamentalist Christians or committed Marxists. If one calls pragmatism an ideological agenda, then I suppose a few more of us could be called ideologues also. But as a pragmatic liberal, I'm willing to see what works. The evidence I've seen so far is that free trade the way we've experienced it over the last 15 years or so is a net loser. Nor do I favor selling traditional government activities like education, infrastructure, or defense off to private entrepreneurs. Clearly, some of my "agenda" includes a deep mistrust of an ideology that proposes to do away with government in the very modes that most of us actually experience it.

You are certainly free to advocate it, but I and the rest of us are equally free to dismiss it as pie in the sky idealism.

[firefox]

Buck, there has never been a general free market in the US during any of our lifetimes. That is the fundamental problem we face today. I say we don't necessarily have to "sell" existing government infrastructure. An alternative way to achieve a more free and equitable society is to simply repeal all laws protecting the entity from competition. For example, we could enhance the efficiency of the US Post Office by getting rid of the laws that give it a monopoly on First Class mail under $1, stop Federally bailing out its pension system and bad investments, etc. If the PO is capable of giving people what they want, it will do fine, and even improve itself through competition with other organizations. If not, it will be forced to change its ways or face decline. How does this compromise sound, Buck? IMHO, it's the best of both worlds in that it is gradual and does not put all eggs in one basket or another. The people (customers) will choose- the market is the ultimate form of democracy, if you think about it. Everyone can have what they want in most situations, and we aren't forced into a one-size-fits-all, all-or-nothing scenario (as in the case of government programs).

Marketization, let's call it, can be implemented in all kinds of arenas. Let's start with the least controversial, see how it goes, and proceed from there. Another idea in the education sphere would be to give home owning parents with kids a 100% amnesty on the taxes (usually property) they pay relating to government school if they decide to send their children to a private school or do home schooling. The single most cited reason why parents choose to use the government system is financial, not because they think it is their first choice.

To further aid the middle and especially lower classes, many of whom rent rather than own, property taxes can be eliminated for landlords who demonstrate that their tenants send their kids to non public schools. The easiest thing would be to do it on a percentage basis. In other words, if you have 1/5 of your tenants doing this, you get a 1/5 reduction in your burden. This would have the effect of passing on the savings from landlord to renter. The property owner could decide to lower the rent for everyone, or ideally, give 100% of the break to the parents. This could be a powerful marketing incentive for landlords to attract new families to an area!

My proposal here is mostly applicable to the state and local level, but it would encourage school competition without the corrupt redistribution-of-wealth and church/state problems associated with school vouchers. Rather than forcing others to pay for someone's choices, we instead let individuals keep their finds in order to put them to good use. Everyone wins!

Finally, the federal level issue could be done as well, but in a different way. Please tell me how federal education taxes are levied, as I have no idea, honestly. It doesn't really matter, as the same scheme could be molded around the federal appropriations method. One way I can think of, not knowing the details of the current system, would be to simply give parents a 100% tax write-off on the private education cost. On average, private solutions cost about 1/2 of what is spent per pupil in government schools, and competition can only lower it. This would be a boon for taxmeisters who want to give the hard working American the least number of breaks possible. A compromise to be sure, but everyone does benefit significantly.

[Leopardpm]

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

I'm a high school English teacher in central Canada. I have no ideological agenda whatsoever.


Don't kid yourself, Slappy. Everyone has an agenda. I feel that it is physically *impossible* for someone not to have one. The matter is how you use it, how respectful you are, and how open to new ideas you are.


I think libertarians are as drunk on ideology as fundamentalist Christians or committed Marxists. If one calls pragmatism an ideological agenda, then I suppose a few more of us could be called ideologues also. But as a pragmatic liberal, I'm willing to see what works. The evidence I've seen so far is that free trade the way we've experienced it over the last 15 years or so is a net loser. Nor do I favor selling traditional government activities like education, infrastructure, or defense off to private entrepreneurs. Clearly, some of my "agenda" includes a deep mistrust of an ideology that proposes to do away with government in the very modes that most of us actually experience it.

You are certainly free to advocate it, but I and the rest of us are equally free to dismiss it as pie in the sky idealism.


OK, fine, you have your ideas, I have mine, and Dave, Tom, Dick, and Harry have theirs. I have no problem with that... the 'problem' I have is when other people use force to make me pay for the institution of THEIR ideas! Since when is it right, just, or moral to enslave those of minority opinion to the will of the majority? And that is even giving you the very debatable point that policy IS instituted by majority, to me it appears that special interest groups hold much more sway over the policies, laws, and regulations which are legislated.

Look, we could sit here and debate the pro's and con's of so-called 'free trade' until we were blue in the face, what really is at issue is why you have a problem with me choosing to trade with another person - how exactly does that hurt you, or others?