Socialism is legalized theft.

emo star,You are employing a false dichotomy. Capitalism unimpeded is self-destructive and anti-egalitarian. It requires the right institutions to prop it up--institutions that accredit firms, to authorise money, to counter negative externalities, etc. The very motive of the firm is to out-compete others: this does not result in everyone reaching the finish line at the same time (perfect competition), but that over time, small differences (advantages or disadvantages) can be magnified to create disproportionate inequality.

quote:

---

no choice? no choice is a government where you HAVE to buy the government toilet paper. driving prices up is a totalitarian system that disregards the individual for the 'fatherland' or the 'public good'. no choice is communist berlin where you can only buy size 12 boots. competition drives the prices down - if you can not afford housing you are not being productive enough.

---

When you write this, you show that you have no clear understanding of capitalist society. Secondly you didn't at all address the point raised--that is, that there are assymetries in starting conditions for a capitalist society--people who are born rich tend to do well, people who are born poor tend to do badly. Obviously there are exceptions in every case, but for the vast majority, the "science of choice" sadly leaves them neglected, because their class conditions provide them with insufficient avenues for education and training. While the authoritarian socialist position is bad, that does not mean some efforts to create a level playing field are at all bad. In fact, capitalist societies need this sort of leveller which is why Marx hated the social democrats so much. They argued that a more just society could occur through welfare redistribution, but while maintaining a capitalist/market-based model. And you know what? They won. Not Marx or the Libertarians, but the people who argued for a middle ground, and history vindicates them as such: you will not find a single country where some form of welfare, social nets, and progressive income tax does not exist. The only question that remains is, to what extent should these forms of ameliorating the social costs of poverty go?

quote:

---

you suppose that wealth is a static substance. wealth is produced. no one is forced into poverty. no one is kept from creating wealth. capitalism produces wealth due to its freedom. All INDIVIDUALS are free to do whatever they want in their rights. socialism is forced poverty. look at socialist countries. Don't see any mass surplus in those countries do you? Capitalism creates wealth, socialism destroys it. maximum profit is right. but it only exists at levels which people will buy

---

Please look up a definition of wealth. Next, find one for capital. Then you'll see you're only revealing your astounding ignorance with paragraphs like these.Joel

Well, well, well. You know something is wrong when someone uses a dictionary to define economic terms and makes no attempt to figure out which definition we're actually using! But never mind that, let's look at your argument (if I may be allowed the liberty of calling it that).

quote:

---

capitalism Impeded is destructive. wtf? yeah its anti egalitarian. so...? that's good. that's the point. i don't want the other firm to reach the finish line? perfect competition my ass.

---

Out of curiosity, what experience in economics do you have? Actually, scratch that question, I know the answer to it. What experience in logic and argumentation do you have? Because for all your incredulous questions, I can't find a single argument in these first few lines. Let's look at some more of your points:

quote:

---

how the hell is that competiton? your definition of equality is based on statism and collectivism - that somehow the majority or the state is above the individual.

---

Well, I gave a definition of equality? Where? Do you have a clue what I'm talking about? Equality that I'm talking about here is between firms. That is to say, some firms will do better than others (i.e. greater profits, more excess for technical investment, etc.), and thus start to exercise market power. This leads to monopolistic competition, which of course, is the only type of competition between firms that exists in the world today. But I'm sure you don't even know what I'm talking about (as shown by your first little tirade and your inability to grasp that I'm talking about firms and market structure). So moving swiftly on...

quote:

---

it is not. true equality is justice.

---

Do explain what you mean by "true equality is justice."

quote:

---

i am here to serve myself and not the state. Therefore, i may do whatever i wish within my rights as long it does not interfere with other mans rights. I live my life for me and my own happiness and not the happiness of other men.

---

And who fed you when you were young? And how long would you last if a plague wiped all of humanity out bar yourself? We cooperate with others as a part of our existence. Think of some non-capitalist institutions, like, say, the family. Humanity wouldn't last very long if every single parent decided taking care of their children wasn't worth doing (what a sacrifice!). There are things beyond individual selfishness that make our fragile world go round. Cooperation is one of them.

quote:

---

and by leveller you mean legal theft through taxes of those members of our society who have earned their wealth legally and through smart decisions.

---

No. By the "leveller" I mean an institution that understands that poverty brings social costs on the whole of society, and that it is worth doing something both from an economic and humanistic viewpoint, to prevent people from suffering. Have you heard of the French Revolution? Letting the poor eat cake didn't quite work out now did it? Of course, it might be a good idea to explain exploitation to you, but then I'd probably end up being called a Marxist.

quote:

---

do not introduce ken lay agian into this argument. they inititated force into their business relationships through fraud and should therefore be punished for their crimes.

---

You must be confusing me with someone else. How good are your reading comprehension skills?

quote:

---

...snip meaningless definitions of wealth and capital which only go once again to show that someone doesn't realise that we're looking for economic definitions, since the debate, er... exchange is probably a better word... is on economic structure

---

I'd tell you the point, but you wouldn't understand, as you'd have to be familiar with Marx's Labour theory of surplus value (or more probably, I'd have to tell you what it is in agonising detail though flying over your nescient head). Secondly you'd have to figure out that socialism is not necessarily anticapital or antimarket. But I wouldn't want your brain to explode just yet. Thirdly, I'm not a socialist, so it's far too much trouble.But if you're interested, you might try reading an introductory economics text book. Look out especially for the section on "externalities." If you're getting more adventurous, try the following list. But don't forget that introductory economics text!Here are introductory texts to theories of economic institutions. You'll notice that the reason that these institutions (including government) exist, is that they increase efficiency. It's a rather obvious reason once you think about it.Eggertsson, T. (1990) Economic Behaviour and Institutions, Cambridge University PressNorth, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University PressFor more historical perspectives--here's the sort of hard data that analyses the efficiency of institutions. I don't know which I like better, but I've only just started to get my teeth into the second one.North, D. (1973) The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History, Cambridge University PressNorth, D. (1981) Structure and Agency in Economic History, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.For a devastating methodological critique of neoclassical economics (although it would help you to first find out what neoclassical economics does and doesn't say--remember that introductory text!), this book is particularly powerful in deconstructing the methodological individualist and ahistorical mathematical positions:Hodgson, G. (2001) How Economics Forgot History: The Problems of Historical Specifity in Social Science, London: RoutledgeFor understanding that basal equality exists in different spheres and that differing paradigms place differing levels of importance to these parameters, read this:Sen, A. (1992), Inequality Reexamined, Oxford: Clarendon PressFor understanding why heterogenous economic theories for development and change are important to society, and why we shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume we have all the answers, try this. It also has a good a discussion of the shortcomings of both the Austrian and Marxist schools:Hodgson, G. (1999), Economics & Utopia: Why the Learning Economy is not the End of History, London: RoutledgeAnd finally, a nice professional take on why neoliberal structural adjustment programs in the third world failed and caused so much problems (and some possible solutions), there's this (you probably don't know what structural adjustment is, but rest assured, it does have to do with the sorts of ideas you like):Stiglitz, J. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents, London: Allan LaneThree of the aforementioned authors are mere Nobel prize winners in economics, and I'll go out on a limb to predict that Hodgson will join them one day. You would do well to learn from some of them.JoelEdited to correct the format.[This message has been edited by Celsus, 04-26-2003]

Huh. How come I don't get a reply to my post?

quote:

---

justice is fairness in all your relationships. That is, is it fair for the government to take a larger percentage of the rich minority's money than the rest of the people? I use Martin Luther King Jr.'s definition of a just and unjust law. A Just law is a law that affects all people equally. An unjust law is a law that the majority enforces upon the minority and not enforce upon itself.

---

All good in theory, except that people vary in any number of characteristics. Hence you have rules for positively discriminating when it comes to people with disabilities, and the types of positive discrimination vary according to the disability. A universally enforced law which does not take into account inherent differences in people is naive. Think of employment laws regarding maternity leave. Are they biased against men?

quote:

---

I apologize. To clarify, I do not think man should live outside of society, Man needs one another. Each man in a relationship has something to offer. The parent chooses to have a child it doesn't just happen. I believe that capitalism is more cooperative than socialism. In capitalism each man exchanges something for something voluntarily. In a socialist society, it is impossible to quit your job, or engage in a private dealing with another person without being prosecuted.

---

You are talking from idealistic cases. In fact, under unregulated capitalism, most people have the option of work for bastard employer #1, #2, ... #n, or starve. The labour market is a monopsony--that is, there are many sellers (workers selling their skills), and few buyers (employers). That puts workers automatically at a disadvantage, and hence trade unions are a means of offsetting this inequality. As for socialist society, there has never been a socialist society, so you are spouting nonsense again. If you're talking about authoritarian state capitalism, as in the former USSR, you will still find that labour mobility was possible.

quote:

---

Please explain exploitation to me.

---

For a simplistic example, let's assume there are no labour laws, minimum wages--it's the free market utopia. We'll imagine a worker--let's call him Emo. Let's say Emo's contribution in labour to the factory is worth $1000 (i.e. the value he adds to the products he works on). However, because of competition for a job in that factory, different workers have underbid for the position (after all, they'll starve if they don't get a job), resulting in a market equilibrium pay of $500. Emo knows that if he demands more than $500 will lose his job (and other starving unemployed workers will quickly step in to fill his shoes at no cost to the factory), so he cannot claim his fully deserved pay. Thus, Emo ends up being exploited because he is not fully remunerated for his services to the firm. Er, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), as you need to say in Economics 101.Now the profit-maximising firm decides that it needs to cut costs. So it turns off the fans that were keeping the workers cool, and turns off the drinking fountain, since it was running up the water bill. It also decides that scheduled tea breaks, which the workers are being paid for, are an additional burden, and removes that too. The firm also notices that some workers are popping out for a quick cigarette, and thereby sneaking breaks, so it allows the workers to smoke while they work. Also, it stops hiring cleaners as frequently, letting them come in once a month instead of every day, since that's just wasteful.Because of all these, we need such things as minimum wages (which puts a minimum on how low the firm can undercut their workers' wages), labour standards (to prevent firms from abusing their workers), welfare (so that people don't starve to death while unable to find work), etc. All these are value-laden, but the free market cannot determine "right" levels of values, only what the laws of supply and demand tell it to. Since one of the good things about humanity is the ability to rise up beyond the invisible hand and create a just order where previously there was none, these laws are in place to prevent the likes of 19th century industrial conditions from happening again. Of course, not every labour market is monopsonistic, but the vast majority are, and hence these rules seek to prevent exploitation. You need only visit a Third World country to see how horrible the conditions are for workers who do not benefit from these enforced standards. A bare minimum of these is not negotiable, but again, how far these rules should extend are open for debate.Joel[This message has been edited by Celsus, 04-28-2003]