I came to this realization of this by deconstructing the ideas of Socialism. I came to the conclusion that both can be bad or good, but it depends on who's hands it is in. If the person who is head of a company or a head of nation cares about people, and not power, then the little man will be happy.If the person wants power, than the little man will suffer. This is true in either cases of government.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:00
Capitalism isn't government.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:03
Communist isnt government, its the goal of socialism, a true classless society where everyone has their needs fullfilled and no one has to work more than necessary.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:10
>>2
Essentially they are in the free market, who would be giving health care benefits?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:10
>>3
Retarded. People's needs are infinite and no one likes to work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:12
>>1
Capitalism prevents dumbasses getting into positions of economic power or worthless sectors of the economy continuing to waste resources.
There are only a finite number of things to satisfy most people. Sex, food, entertainment, shelter, etc. are all most people need in order to live a healthy satisfying life. There may be some people who do have an excessively greedy nature, but never does the entirety of humanity have an "infinite" amount of needs.
Also, your maxim "no one likes to work" is also debatable. Lots of people get off on working. Lots of people love their jobs. There are also lots of rich people who don't need to work a day in their lives and still do anyway.
So, stfu.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 0:35
>>9
Yeah, so if we make someone dictator as long as they live in opulent splendour they will work for the betterment of mankind and won't say implement crazy ass ideas about collective farms and starve millions of people to death or seek to increase their power beyond totalitarian by implementing purges and sending millions to death camps.
>>3
My vision of a classless society is one which eliminates the taxpayer/taxconsuer divide. Tax consumers are a priviledged class.
>>4
Please differentiate between "free market" and "open market". A market in which the government is involved is not a free market.
>>9
You're not addressing what he said. Demand is unlimited, supply is limited. Humanity has infinite needs, it lacks infinite supplies. You're seriously confusing those two.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 1:10
A market in which the government is involved is not a free market.
False dichotomy. It's not either/or, but degree.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 1:15
No, it's either or. Free Market = NO government intervention.
If you want some point between Free market but not a government monopoly, it's an open market. But the market can't be said to be free if the government is chaining it down.
And black markets, by their nature, are totally absent government regulation. They are the one purpetual, eternal free market which is inescapable.
Except saying that demand is unlimited is a baseless assumption. Take, well, me for example. I am not too big of a consumer. I don't care about having things. I just care enough to know I'll live through the next few months. Where the hell do you get this infinite demand stuff?
You think we're all spoiled, greedy bastards when that makes up only a small percentage of humanity.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 3:43
>>16
Well if you think everyone is like you you're naive.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 6:45
>>6
Oh yeah? Does the name George W Bush ring a bell?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 6:58
Economic stimulation is vital for both ideologies. The reasons capitalism works or does not work is the same reasons socialism work or does not work.
People often mention how "communism has failed in the past and will do so in the future if given the chance".
Personally I think that is preposterous. None of the so-called "communist countries" has had the original idea of communism, but some twisted abomination.
Take Cuba for example. I'm not defending Castro's dictatorship, but Cuba’s main source of money before the revolution was selling sugar beets to America. America who after the revolution refused to import from Cuba screwed their economy over. Cuba could have been not so bad maybe, but not thanks to the U.S.
Also there are examples of capitalist country’s that have crashed. Does this mean every capitalist country will?
I wouldn’t think so.
If we looks at the world's history, pretty much every contry has crashed at one point or another, economically or otherwise.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 7:55
>>5 >>12
Needs are not unlimited, wants are. Demand=needs+wants. You need roof over your head and you need three meals a day. You want six mansions on the moon and to have nineteen meals a day. Capitalism is wantfulfillment for some and workmaximation for many. Communism is needfulfillment for all and workminimization for all. You get that? One point of communism is to abolish the need to work just to satisfy the wants of others, or or put it in another way, not to produce what yields the most profit but what yields the most utility.
>>12
I dont know where you are from but where i live we have progressive taxation (you pay a percentage on your income, and this percentage increase with increasing income), which means the poor are net taxconsumers and the rich are net taxpayers. Are you trying to say that the poor are the priviledged class? Because thats just retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 11:53
That capitalism "works" is proof socialism "works".
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 12:27
REAL Communism occurs when the means of economic production are controlled by the working class, or proletariat. This has never happened in the history of the world. It is also uncertain whether that sort of socioeconomic makeup could even exist; when you put the power of production in the hands of the workers, the workers effectively control the capital, and the elite section of the proletariat that controls this capital is no longer part of the working class.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 14:53
>>23
I disagree, the "elite section" simply has the work to control the money. And if they were true communists they would distribute the money as they should.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 15:28
>>23
No, that is wrong. REAL communism is classless, meaning that it is not the proletariat that controls the means, its everybody. What you are reffering to is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the interim phase between capitalist democracy and communist democracy. And there is no need for a few "real" communists in elite positions in the long run, if you agree that communism is inevitable because of the systematic and structural failings of capitalism. That is not coupled to the struggle to empower the working class in any way possible, and at the expense on the ruling class.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 15:35
>>21
Demand is unlimited. Needs are unlimited. Wants are unlimited.
I don't 'need' three meals a day, I usually live on one. I would LIKE to have 50 meals a day if someone else is making them for me, I'm not going to go through the effort to cook more than I feel like I'm going to get a return on the effort. I have infinite demand for meals. I have little need for meals.
When you actually consider all the taxes, not just the income tax, the poor pay more taxes. And even the income tax isn't really progressive in practice. The rich incorporate to massively reduce their tax burden. It's progressive up to the middle class and regressive after that in practice. People like you complain one minute about "tax cuts for the rich" then go on and talk about how the rich are paying so much more in taxes and it's a good thing.
Bureaucrats (almost always middle-class) are also major tax consumers. In fact, 70% of the money for the Welfare system is paid out to bureaucrats administrating the system, that's money going to the middle class, only 30% of the money actually goes to the poor.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 15:54
Communism is the Natural State of Man, when anthropologists study primitive tribes, they discovered that the tribes had no class system, no proletariat, no bourgeoise, all the members of the tribes were equal, this is how our ancestors lived thousands of years ago, it is not natural to have a class system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 16:53
>>26
You have little need for meals? So then, you wont die it you dont eat or drink? Or is that a choice? People like you try to paint the world in with the chicago school ideology and then say it was like this all along. Your needs are finite and absolute. There is a certain number of calories, carbohydrates and proteins that your body needs, and if it doesnt get it it will slowly but surly die. You do want to eat, but you also need to eat. Maybe this is a semantic question, but i have always thought that people like you just dont accept reality for what it is, and therefore you suck at any hard science like biology or physics.
I agree about the rich and their taxes, meaning that they dont pay enough and that the system is inefficient in taxing them properly (im from sweden btw). And yes, the poor pay relatively more in sweden since they pay a flat VAT for example (in absolute rates the rich pay the most per capita of course but i assumed you realized this). But they are also the main consumers of benefits like welfare and healthcare, so it evens out in a way, if the system provides adequate quality (and it does this in sweden, highest lifesaving rates in the EU). But it is as you say, bureaucrats are a mess, and the system should be streamlined, making it easier for poor people to get their money.
>>27
I want to believe this, but i dont know if science actually agrees. Still, there has been some societies with remarkable classless structures and egalitarian views.
I think you had to have certain people as leaders to make society work. That's how it is with lower pack animals like wolves and apes with alpha males on top and lesser males on the bottom, and I don't think that would have changed too much with early humans.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 20:13
>>27
When everyone is dirt poor, everyone is equal yes. Communism can only be maintained at that standard of living, and only with small communes. Large-scale communism won't work, and high-standard-of-living communism won't work. Only when the resources used are abundant and near omnipresent, and when they take very little effort to make, can communism sustainably exist.
>>28
I have less need than you say I need. My needs are finite, not absolute. If you reduce how much I get to eat, I'll adapt. I'll do less, or do it with less effort. I'll surely die with or without you cutting off my food supply. And I'm good at science. I'm not big on biology, but physics and astronomy and chemistry and stuff keeps my interest.
And nobody should pay taxes reguardless of income. It's thinly veiled theft.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 20:38
>>30
"And nobody should pay taxes reguardless of income. It's thinly veiled theft."
Is that how you view taxes, as theft?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 21:16
Theft - Involuntarily depriving someone of their property.
Taxation - Involuntarily depriving someone of their property because the law says so.
Law - Written will of the Legislature.
Legislature - Group of people.
Thief - One who commits any kind of theft.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 21:26
Who says taxation is involuntary? In order to live with all the luxuries society gives (like, uh, police protecting your property from others) you have to pay taxes. You can live as a hermit in some out of the way mountains if you prefer, but most of us will pay taxes since it is done for our own sake, not for anyone else's.
That said I think we have a lot of unnecessary taxes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 21:32
>>30
First, read about some of the north american indian nations. They were dirt poor in the sense that they owned nothing, but they did not need a concecpt of property, and still they could achieve remarkable civilizationary advances, like a participatory democracy in a confederacy of six nations (the Iroquois) before any democracies evolved in Europe. I´m no friend of primitivism, and i am not sure if these societies were really as egalitarian as it is sometimes claimed, but if i would have lived in those times i would have preferred north america pre-columbus before europe any day.
There is enough money spent on the the iraqi war effort to make every human being a millionaire. So in what way are we not living in a abundant world? The only reason there is scarcity, is because thats good business.
Okay, english is not my first language but if you agree that your needs are finite, then they are limited, yes? And you realise that your needs is not connected to your wants in the sense of nutrition and so on, its regulated by nature and not will, its not something you choose or are responsible for? You may think that you dont need vitamin C and that you will adapt to a life whitout fruit, but you will suffer malnutrition and death. Equally, you need shelter, you need clothes, you need people, you need hygiene, you need health care, you need medicine and so on. These are very different from wants, because when people dont fulfill their needs they suffer and die.
In other words, there is already enough resources to satisfy everybodies needs, but since needs does not equal profits, is capitalism not capable to achieve this. Or put another way, AIDS vaccine is developed when people with purchasing power gets AIDS. If only poor africans get it, is there no incentive for private business to invent it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 22:25
>>34
The first part of that post was irrelevant. Reread what I said and you'll realize you didn't contradict what I said and may have affirmed it.
Needs are finite. All needs are wants. I don't need shelter, I live in Florida, where the climate is always good. I don't need clothes, I live in Florida, where the climate is always good. Humans lived for thousands of years when the best medicine was questional folk remedies and prayer.
And if I give up on life and don't give a shit about whether I live or die anymore, I won't need anything, will I? A need is just a more urgent classification of want in terms of human satisfaction.
There is not enough resources to satisfy everybody's needs. Resources are limited. Stop saying profits out of the context of money. It makes you sound like an idiot.
Capitalism doens't assume it knows things it doesn't like precisely what everybody's needs are, that they want to live at a standard of living where they have nothing more than they need, and other things. I'd like to know how you came across this information. As without this information, all that you're saying is irrelevant as you have no way to put it into practice and have it work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 22:36
>>35
I agree, I think the only way Communism would work is if we lowered population to 2 billion.I think people need to fucking understand this and have 1 kid, why can't we be more like China :(
"Who says taxation is involuntary?"
What happens if I don't pay taxes? Guess what, they throw me in jail.
"In order to live with all the luxuries society gives (like, uh, police protecting your property from others) you have to pay taxes."
1. No you don't. If I wanted police protection, I'd pay for it by myself. I'd rather spend $340 on a shotgun and protect my property from others.
2. That doesn't make it voluntary.
"You can live as a hermit in some out of the way mountains if you prefer, but most of us will pay taxes since it is done for our own sake, not for anyone else's."
That doesn't make it voluntary. That you voluntarily pay taxes doesn't mean I can choose not to pay taxes.
"That said I think we have a lot of unnecessary taxes."
All of them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 23:15
>>35
Jesus, the abundancy of idiocy never ceases to amaze me. I will try to keep this short as your reading comprhension seems to be failing.
U said: When everyone is dirt poor everybody is equal and communism works. I gave an fine example of democratic civilization where property did not exist as we know it and which was fairly egalitarian. This civ was large (i assumed you knew that) by that times standard. So i refuted your claim. Either accept, answer in kind or of GTFO.
U said: Your needs are finite and you dont need shit because you live in florida. And you think that needs are part of wants, but wants were infinite so that seems to make no sense to me. And when you are suicidal you dont need anything? For that you get my special retard medal! All people who are starving in the world are suicidal, they are hungry because of choice! Or you didnt get that we were talking about larger enteties than you floridian homestead? You are dodging because you cant accept defeat. That makes you weak. Train harder little man.
U said: Not enough to satisfy everybodys need, there are limited resources. This is the first thing that is actually true, but not in the sense you mean it. Resources are limited in a longer timeframe but at the moment we (the human race) produce more than we consume (due to a little thing called competition, i´d like to explain how it works but i doubt that you´d be able to grasp the concept). This is of course not sustainable, but that is a question we will have to deal with later. Peoples needs first i say. And if enough money to make everybody in the world a millionaire is wasted in iraq we surely must live in an abundant world?
U said: Profit must money u idiot! No U.
U said: Capitalism does not read crystal ball about needs! No and i have never said it did, reread if it was not clear. The functionality of capitalism can be evaluated by studying certain criteria, benchmarks we can expect from a mode of production. One such benchmark is development. Another is longievety. A third is poverty and starvation. Freemarket supporters claim all these can be fulfilled by the system itself, yet when it clearly fails they claim that it was somebody elses fault. Capitalism, if it as good as you say, given the affluence we have achieved, should have fulfilled everyones needs by now. The reason it has failed, or rather, why never can succed is that fulfilling needs is not good business. If poor people have aids in a free market they will have aids in eternity. But i guess you would claim that the lazy bastards should invent their own vaccine. And living in florida that is a comfortable opinion. Just remember, all towers fall eventually.
Again, if you want to live completely independently from society, go ahead, no one is stopping you. In fact, I'm encouraging you. At least then you wouldn't have a computer to post on 4chan anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 23:44
1. You affirmed what I said. I said "Communism works when people are poor." You said "Look at this poor society where they were communist! See! It works!" You did not rebut my point. You demonstrated it true, dumbass.
2. I was showing you that what YOU say I 'need' isn't what I actually need. Your perception of reality is inherently flawed. You do not know everything. You do not know what needs are. You only think you know what most people need.
3. At this moment, so many resources are unavailable that there is not enough. And even if there was enough to meet current demands at current prices, we'd just want more.
4. Profit exists only in money.
5. Capitalism doesn't know the future, because it doesn't know anything, it's not a person, it's an idea.
6. Your benchmarks can only be arbitrary. If I set a benchmark as "How free the market is", then your ideal fails a benchmark. There is no unit of measurement for "development" so you can't benchmark it. I don't know what you're talking about with "longevity". I understand the word, not the context. Poverty and starvation are arbitrary standards. Besides, communism doesn't have a really good track record for that. And communism is NOT a cure for AIDS.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 0:16
holy fuck socialists are stupid
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 0:27
I think the OP is retarded. Of course the same factors affect communism and capitalism. If 50% of people in a country would resort to petty crime if given the chance, that would cause problems in both systems. However like someone said earlier
"It's not either/or, but degree."
Crime affects capitalism to a lesser degree because government resources are focussed purely on law enforcement, because people actually have the incentive to care about their work andtake measures to prevent crime or to lessen it's effects by taking it into account when calculating the effect of crime into their finances etc.. Also communism combines both the government and the economy into one, meaning it is easier for people in charge of sectors of the economy to corrupt the representation process and the law so they can unfairly redirect luxuries towards themselves.
If I wanted to lead a life of crime and could choose between living in a socialist or capitalist country of equal wealth I would choose socialism, since all I would need to do is join the military, suck some balls, get myself into a position where I can scratch a few backs etc... Socialists like to pretend the bureaucracy that runs their system of government is not a "state", but it is. It is unavoidable and by attempting to roll everything into one all they end up with is a machiavellian paradise. Of course that was their intention from the beginning as socialism is just tyranny parcelled up in fancy ideals which ignore the fundamentals of true liberty.
However, a lot of crime occurs within the lower class, and this is because they don't have the resources to feed and house and clothe themselves. Within a socialist framework you can feed and house and clothe these people, preventing crimes due to social status from happening.
Crime does not occur because people are poor. Rich people commit crime too. Crime is committed because the criminal believes that they'll benefit from it, that the risks outweigh the rewards, that the benefits exceed the costs.
A poor an that can't feed or house himself would not commit crime if everyone else was able and willing to defend themselves and their property. Machineguns cost about $80 to build. The poor can afford this, but the government prohibits it. The poor are poor because of crime, crime is increased when the people are disarmed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 0:56
>>43
Actually the socialist government corrupts the economy to the extent that the poorest workers in capitalisms can often afford more than socialist economies hand out for free. It is also a popular belief within socialism that punishment is wrong, thus violent crime would be the norm.
I didn't say that all crime result from being poor, but being poor is a big factor. After all, so much crime happens in poor parts of the US. It's impossible to deny the relationship between being poor and committing crimes. After all, it would be advantageous to steal when you can't afford food.
It would not be advantageous to steal food when you're more likely to eat lead.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 2:49
>>48
It would be more advantageous to work for food.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 3:01
>>48
Once again, you think like middle class members, if poor people cared about the risk of criminal activity (prison), they would work for their food.
However, there is a pervasive fatalistic mentality in poverty mindsets, and to them, they feel not in the least in general control of what happens to them. If they get away, thats how the cookie crumbles, if they get caught/killed, thats just how the cookie crumbles. Impoverished people lack empowerment, they don't feel in control of their own fates, which is a big reason why they take risks and resort to criminal behavior.
And the ones that won't will kill themselves off until they're no longer a problem.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 9:35
>>40
1. Yeah, but you said it had to be tiny and under developed. I gave a counter example of a huge higly developed society. And what i am really saying is that the idea of property is needed for capitalism, and this idea is not given by nature but by a certain culture at a certain point in time. Meaning that communism is possible in this world.
2. I am not claiming to know exactly what you need in specific terms, and you are an idiot to believe that i did. You are dodging the question again, but i take it as an admission of defeat.
3. Demands is not equal to needs. And wants are unlimited as you said. But needs are finite, and there is enough resources in the world to end starvation, homelessness, general sickness (meaning people dying for easili curable diseases), poverty. But your rebuttal to that is that the greedy poor starving sick children would just want more. Nice. My win.
4. Have never claimed different. Take reading courses.
5. capitalism is not an idea, its a mode of production. Read moar.
6. The specific factors leading to human death and suffering is arbitrary yes. But the importance of evaluating those factors is not. And the benchmarks were for capitalism, so i dont get how free markets would apply. Is many free markets a capitalism win or loss? Do you see the difference between your suggestion and the number of dead by starvation and exposure? I can explain more if you have a hard time grasoing the concepts. And yeah, just because stalinism is bad capitalism is not good. Read more logic. (And btw, more people starve in india, the world largest democracy, than in china, the world largest totalitarian state, go figure).
>>53
The law doesn't describe right and wrong. If they passed a law against heterosexual intercourse and started busting people for having sex, would you still be saying "If the law says so, what's the problem?" This is a lesser version of the same kind of stupidity.
Yes, it has to be tiny and have a low standard of living. If you measure standard of living exclusively in terms of food and shelter, maybe they had a standard of living. Indian standards of living were low enough that they could sustain it with communism.
"I am not claiming to know exactly what you need in specific terms"
"needs are finite"
If you don't know what my needs are, you cannot know that they are finite. You can guess at what is required to keep me alive (although at the standard of living where I am barely kept alive I would rather die, and thus my wants are less than what you believe they are). You cannot know what my wants are except by my choices. If you take away my choices, you cannot know what my wants are.
When you say "U said: Profit must money u idiot! No U." I have to believe YOU are the one that should be taking reading courses, dumbass.
Capitalism is not just a means of production. It's an idea also. Big arguement over meaning of capitalism, etc.
Capitalism = free markets and private property. You have to have both to have capitalism. The capitalist method of production is corollary to Capitalism.
Number dead by starvation and exposure is not a failure of capitalism. It would be a failure of socialism because socialism assumes collectivism, but it's not a failure of capitalism because capitalism is individualist.
Democracy != Capitalism. And I think India has a higher death rate because it has a higher birthrate, because china has caps on how many kids you can have. That example sucks ass.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 12:42
>>55
"Indian standards of living were low enough that they could sustain it with communism."
Democracy (b4 europe) does not increase the standard of living then i assume?
"If you don't know what my needs are, you cannot know that they are finite."
Take more physics classes. I know your needs are not infinite, thereby i know that your needs are finite. And by this i mean that need is finite, both individually and collectivally, and the absolute ammount needed by each person varies, but it is always finite due to the definition of needs, what you need to not die and live healthy, its not arbitrary or choice. And i dont care about your wants, they have never come into question except as an example what needs are not.
"I have to believe YOU are the one that should be taking reading courses, dumbass."
Yeah, whatever. Still your loss however as no refutation, just dodging. Accept like a man, dog.
"Capitalism is not just a means of production. It's an idea also.""Capitalism = free markets and private property. You have to have both to have capitalism. The capitalist method of production is corollary to Capitalism."
Well okey, that is clearly not what i meant by it but i play ball. I guess by the second statement that there is no capitalism in world by the moment since there is no unregulated market (black market fails since its quite regulated by the mob and other protections agencies)? And am i rite in interpreting that there is no capitalist "method" of production yet since capitalism as in free markets+private property is not true anywhere yet? Do you see what i did there? I refuted you by making your definition absurd or at least meaningless in the present context. If you want to call an UFO capitalism go right ahead. Just do it somewhere else.
"capitalism is individualist"
And how can it be that? Is it more than a method and property+markets? Is it also a political philosohy? Or is it a n ethos? Maybe its a religion? You may be individualist and you may want capitalism to be it, but want does not make it so.
"Democracy != Capitalism. And I think India has a higher death rate because it has a higher birthrate, because china has caps on how many kids you can have. That example sucks ass."
Well, since capitalism is whatever you want it to be that does not matter. And its dead by starvation, not deathrate.
1. You affirmed what I said. I said "Communism works when people are poor." You said "Look at this poor society where they were communist! See! It works!" You did not rebut my point. You demonstrated it true, dumbass.
WRONG. "Poor" is subjective. When you don't have the concept of property "poorness" has no meaning. The only reason you think the Ameri-Indians were poor is because you have a DVD-player and Air-conditioning.
2. I was showing you that what YOU say I 'need' isn't what I actually need. Your perception of reality is inherently flawed. You do not know everything. You do not know what needs are. You only think you know what most people need.
How is him doing that any different from your assessment of who is poor and who isn't? There is a difference between needs and wants. Humans have the ability to make logical choices and adapt to any situation. Outside of the obvious need there isn't much else. You think free choice invalidates >>38's claim, but it actually proves his point if you could get your head out of your ass for one second.
It has never been ethically/morally right or socially acceptable to give in to greed and every want or whim- your attempt to put the negative aspects of man into a a positive light has been noted as a failure.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 13:00
>>54
They woulnd't make a law like that because laws are made to serve the society. Taxes are made to serve society.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 13:01
1. I retract that and propose instead the phrase more in line with what I intended, "Communism can only sustain a low standard of living." Granted, I can't define exactly how low, it depends upon various factors I don't know, like whether or not there happens to be massive amounts of food, shelter, air conditioning units, et cetera laying around, and how dedicated the people working within a communist framework are to make it work. But the standard is lower than the current standard of living.
First part of 2 is thereby irrelevant.
There's a difference between needs and wants, but not with respect to economics. If you need something to live, that doesn't necessarily mean you want it. If you need something you don't want, someone else is defining your needs as if they were your wants and giving you things they believe you "need" that you don't want. Needs economically are urgent wants.
I contest the statement that it has never been ethically or morally right or acceptable to be greedy and want things. You have been socially conditioned to believe it is, that doesn't mean it has always been. You live in a different culture from mine. In the circles I travel in off the internet, people understand, respect, and don't care that I care about myself first and others second. It is certainly socially acceptable where I am.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 13:02
>>58
No they're not. Laws are made to reward political friends and punish political enemies. That's how politics works. There's a general conception that laws and taxes "serve society" but that doesn't make it so.
OBJECTION! Morality is a construct created for the benefit of society. It is not and never was a cultural thing. The reason why greed is frowned upon is because it is necessary for people to be giving in order for all members of society to live healthily.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 14:09
>>59 There's a difference between needs and wants, but not with respect to economics. If you need something to live, that doesn't necessarily mean you want it. If you need something you don't want, someone else is defining your needs as if they were your wants and giving you things they believe you "need" that you don't want. Needs economically are urgent wants.
Also, this over complicates the idea of needs. Socialists focus on satisfying the biological needs of the people who can't afford them. Economic needs may be different but thats not what any of us are talking about when we say "needs."
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 14:23
>>62
Children need exercise and nutrients to grow into healthy adults. They almost never want this. A parent who helps his child to fulfill his wants is at best spoiling the child and at worst abusing it through negligence. If you have cancer you need a operation, even if you dont know you have cancer. If you are uneducated about nutrients and you loathe all vegetables and fruits you still need them. The economic (and i mean chicago school-type economics here) view of needs is meaningless when discussing political philospohy and ethics.
You can fairly say "You need X in order to Y." You can't fairly say "You need X."
Kids need exercise and nutrition in order to become healthy adults, there's some merit to that. If I have cancer, I might need an operation to live. This could be true.
However these things are needs for satisfying ends, not needs that I simply must have. If I do not want the particular end satisfied, then there is no reason to provide it. You can't assume that I want something just because I need it to satisfy a condition you deem to be a problem.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 16:37
>>60
So tell me then: What would the society be like if the government didn't theive us of our money?
The government would implode due to lack of income, creating a market for things where we normally have bureaucrats doing things. People would demand the services that government normally provides, and the obvious way to do so with minimal infrastructure requirements would be subscription-based service. Private fire departments already do this. It wouldn't be hard for the police to adapt this system.
The poor would be better off, the police would focus on protecting you rather than enforcing stupid laws, the roads would be used intelligently, Fedex would replace the post office, your income would immediately jump by about 20% just due to not paying taxes, you could buy a machinegun for $75, gas would be 50 cents cheaper in an instant, and become progressively cheaper after that, the terrorists would stay mad at us for 20 years and then get back to killing each other, and you'd never have to apply for another license or permit for the rest of your life.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 17:41
>>66
You rightists are all so fucking egocentric. Seriously, go back to being 6.
>>66
"Things get cheaper and I get to keep more of my money"
I agree with 67, that is pretty egocentric.
Maybe people look at themselves as individuals, pro tip though; People aren't.
You live in a country and you need to contribute to your country to make it a better place.
A doctor wouldn't be able to what he does if it wasn't for the farmer or fisherman to get food for him, or the car repairman that makes sure he gets to work.
Those people might not have the same education as the doctor but they make the country run just as much as he does.
And that is why people need to share and contribute to education(equal education for everybody), healthcare, eldercare. Some people don’t afford this, but they deserve it just as much as anyone else.
However, it doesn't matter whether or not you want your ends satisfied or not. That's always up to the individual. We're not arguing against that. There are, however, people deprived of the ability to feed themselves, or pay for medicine, or whatever. The thing is, they don't have any choice. Whether or not they can live is no longer up to them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 21:24
>>65
Some other entity, probably not as benevolent, would eventually take the governments place and restart the thievery. If the end of taxes didnt come with a agorist brainwash for all people. But it seems that only the state or a statelike entity is capable to do anything like than...
Relevant quote:
"The absurdity of public-choice theory is captured by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in the following little scenario: "Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing."
"Maybe people look at themselves as individuals, pro tip though; People aren't."
Yes they are. Individuals are real. Collectives are purely fictive entities. They exist only as far as they contain individuals. The collective "purple people" doesn't exist because no individuals are purple.
"You live in a country and you need to contribute to your country to make it a better place."
How was this obligation created? Why do I owe something to someone because I was born in a certain region?
They can choose to work and buy food. You can always choose whether or not you want to work, and you can always find someone that wants some work done.
I don't get to choose whether or not I get to live in a big cushy mansion rolling in money with servants doing everything for me. But don't I deserve it just as much as anyone else? Society owes me a big cushy mansion. At least, by your logic.
The market would take the government's place. The market takes the government's place wherever the government doesn't prohibit it. It would take the government's place if the government was giving away free shoes and then suddenly stopped. It would take the government's place if the government was providing free police protection and then suddenly stopped. It would take the government's place if the government was providing free roads and then suddenly stopped. When you go to Walmart, they don't steal from you, they don't charge you according to your income, they charge you according to your consumption.
Agorism is revolutionary. We believe that the end of the state will be the market throwing it off. The effective end of the state is the point where the black market has grown large enough that it can provide better protection than the government's police, and so when the police harass people, the black market protection agencies would protect the people against the police. Smaller "government" like organizations could form, but they wouldn't be able to claim exclusive jurisdiction over areas owned by individuals not voluntarily partaking in that government, or the protection agnecies would start attacking the "government" until it left the involuntarily claimed territory alone. This would prevent other "state-like" entities from forming. Agorist and anarchocapitalist objections to the state's existence are rooted in the involuntary nature of it.
>>74
I'd really prefer you not pay taxes because the government will eventually use that money to commit theft against me. Involuntary taxation is theft, voluntary taxation is an expression of support for theft. If not for the fact that the government will use your money to harass me, I wouldn't care what you did with your money.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 11:18
>>75
If people were individuals their opinion would actually matter. A single individual’s opinion is drowned by other opinions, a single individual’s opinion doesn't matter. Only if many individuals together have an opinion it matters.
If you can live and survive all by your self, you are an individual. Not very many does though, most depend on groups. For example: The employer / employee relationship. The employer depends on the employee to do work; the employee depends on the employer to provide a work.
People work in groups, not as individuals.
Individuals are not important. If you yourself make a profit that is not the same as your country making a profit. What is the point of being rich when your country suck?
Which brings us to: What's the point of not being rich when your country is?
At first I didn't think I could answer that, but then I realized: because being rich is a waste of money.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 11:38
>>75
Did your mother give birth to you all alone? Did she raise and school you alone? Or did she heal you when you where injured?
I'd think not, those where the things society gave you so how can you say you don't owe society anything?
Please expand on this idea of "mattering". Don't assume democracy to do so. There is no reason to assume democracy.
Interdependance does not equate to unity.
Expand on this idea of "importance" also. Why do you assume countries? I see regions as real, but countries as entirely fictive. Which brings me to what I said before which you never responded to.
Collectives are fictive. Individuals are real. Collectives depend on the existence of the individual. Real things do not depend on the existence of imaginary things. Imaginary things depend on the existence of real things. The individual is supreme to the collective, the individual precedes the collective.
For what you are saying to make any sense, you must assume the supremacy of the imaginary over the real. Imaginary things are not above real things. In your reply, resolve this issue.
"Countries" are collectives. Businesses are collectives.
Maybe you should try answering your questions before you assume there is no answer to them. Maybe you should try being rich before you say being rich is a waste of money.
Because we paid for those things. The INDIVIDUALS who provided those services recieved payment they were owed. Once I pay them everything they asked for, I owe them nothing else.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 11:47
>>1
not equal. one failed after a few years; the other started long before the other and exists to this day.
>>78
*sigh* you don't get me at all. I didn't say there wasn't such a thing as a individual. I said that individuals don’t matter. I know this because I am a individual (believe it or not) and I know (in difference to you it seems) that my existence is close to none-existence. Oh yes, the irony.
And by matter I mean make a difference or have an influence. Only by joining a larger group can my existence "matter".
How is the view from your pedestal there by the way?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 12:14
>>75
"The effective end of the state is the point where the black market has grown large enough that it can provide better protection than the government's police, and so when the police harass people, the black market protection agencies would protect the people against the police."
Black market protection = organised crime. You don't pay or pay someone else and your daughter's teeth are knocked out when she's walking home from school and if they are the only people enforcing the law in a certain area, who is to stop their forensic scientists from framing you for knocking her teeth out if you try to complain to whatever democratic authority is left? No better than a bunch of socialist or fascist thugs.
Hey, let's not actually rebut the guy, ad-hominems are coming back in style.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 12:14
Oh my fucking god! It's insipid discussions like this that made me abandon newpol a long time ago!
You people are so incredibly stupid. Using abstractions to prove a point when inappropriate. You think you're super-intelligent, but you're fucking mouth-breathers.
"
Collectives are fictive. Individuals are real. Collectives depend on the existence of the individual. Real things do not depend on the existence of imaginary things. Imaginary things depend on the existence of real things. The individual is supreme to the collective, the individual precedes the collective."
I so want to bash you in the head with a 40OZ hammer until you think Nixson won the nobel prize for physics.
>>79
When you say that we are talking about rights. Right's are nice things, the only problem is that the more rights there is the fewer people can use them.
To me it's not important to have as many rights as possible. To me it's important that everyone has the same rights.
And what use are freedom and rights when not everyone is entitled to use them?
And who is not entitled? Poor people. But they are still people and they all deserve the same rights as anyone else. Those who keep these freemdoms and rights safe are people with money.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 12:20
>>85
I agree. The main reason I am here is to see how I can unfuck retards with incredibly low attention spans. A must if you want to go into politics for your values and compete with populism.
So individuals can't do anything? Thomas Edison didn't do anything? Benjamin Franklin didn't do anything? They didn't have to be part of a collective to make a difference.
Black market protection AT THIS TIME is organized crime. Mafias are not real protection agencies. If you define "crime" as "anything that is against the laws of the State", then yeah, black market protection agencies are organized "crime". If you define crime as "Hurting others without them hurting you first," then you can have black market protection without crime.
>>89
Is every individual Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin or any other american inventor?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 12:28
>>75
"Smaller "government" like organizations could form, but they wouldn't be able to claim exclusive jurisdiction over areas owned by individuals not voluntarily partaking in that government, or the protection agnecies would start attacking the "government" until it left the involuntarily claimed territory alone."
You are seriously confused. A statelike entity would try to gobble up all its competitors, by force if need be. Ever heard about mob wars? The statelike entity would be stronger than each individual by itself and it would own the protection agency you would employ, and in a matter of minutes it would start taking protection money from you (pay or your dog burns) and since they would be stronger than all alternatives you would be forced to pay. And the only difference in the end would be that before did your taxes at least lead to roads and satelites, now they would only pay for Tonys cigars. Or you would be forced to enter another statelike entity to organize a defense against the hostile one, and this would also demand tax to function. Add couple of years and stir and we are back to where we are now.
Agorism=Exchanging the government for the mob, or worrrrrrsseee!
If you start with a conclusion and look for a way to fuck with reality to make it happen, assume that everybody is evil, and stuff like that, yes. But no.
>>92
What, assuming people are evil? The mob dont exist now? Companies dont compete? Companies dont kill union leaders? Companies dont hire mercenaries to conquer oil wells and mines in conflict ridden areas? What are you, naive? Im not fucking with reality, reality is fucking with YOU!
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 13:50
>>94
No, too many exceptions make the rule bad but not even then invalid.
What are the chances of doing something that will be put of use by future generations?
If your individualism was any good everyone would have to do that. Or at least that would be reachable for everyone, which it isn’t.
Wake up to the reality will you?
Your life is not in your own hands, your existence is of no significance, practically nobody know you are even alive, the world wont end when you die and if you seriously believe in individualism you might as well believe in unicorns and pixies.
Alright, let's assume for a moment that people are evil. Then what's government but a tool for people to exert evil over others?
Let's assume half the population is evil. Government is a magnet for the evil half, and democracy will let them screw over the good half.
Let's assume 1% of the population is evil. All it takes is 1% of the population to govern. Add that to the magnet effect, and you get most of the evil people in power.
Let's assume it's .001% of the population. The evil people rise to the top.
So if people really are evil, and evil is undesirable, the last thing you want to do have a government, because it will attract evil and then give it power to advance it's evil.
>>96
One exception makes a rule invalid. You can still have the "rule" but only as a general tendency. If I say "If you drop something, it will fall," that's a general tendency, because there are exceptions. If you drop something lighter than air, it'll move up. It's invalid as a rule, but it's true as a general tendency. And the way you were using it, a general tendency isn't good enough.
Your second sentence was incoherent.
My life is in my own hands. I'll do what I want with it reguardless of anyone else. Just because I have to interact with other people throughout my life doesn't mean my life is out of my own hands. You can't say that my life is of no significance because you don't even know who I am. That people do not know that I am alive does not make me insignificant. The world won't end when I die and I have never said otherwise. None of these have anything to do with the topic. Individualism is reality. Collectivism is a fairyland where imaginary things are real.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 15:30
>>97
Your life is in the hands of the collective. Not even the human race is of significance so you are certainly not.
I didn't even say that just because people don't know you’re alive you are insignificant.
Individualism is reality? You think that because you lack the ability to see past your own nose.
If even the human race is insigificant then the definition of "insigificant" you're using is so broad as to be absolutely meaningless.
Individuals are real. Collectives are fictive.
Individualism is reality. Collectivism is fantasy.
You lack the ability to see past your optic nerves.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 15:46
>>99
I can see what you are writing and it makes me disappointed in the human race. Which is of no significance because my sight is THAT broad. Imagine the life time of the earth as 24 hours. The human race would appear somewhere at 23:59:30. Which would make us quite insignificant in relation to our home planet. And imagine also that the collected mass of the universe is as big as the earth the earth would be as big as a grain of sand, that makes us even more insignificant.
Stating: "Individuals are real. Collectives are fictive." Over and over again won’t make it true.
dude, you're just being dumb now. Collectives are the reason we are what we are, we coudl've never developed to what we are today without them, collectives give us both a sense of belonging as well as some of the very most basic norms and values. Collectives are a great part of what creates us as individual beings, and if individiuals are real, and individuals are made of collectives, then so must collectives be real.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 16:06
>>89
And that they are imaginary has nothing to do with what they are or their function. It's fucking tangential, just made to make you seem smart by using huge edumacational words like "fictive". Completely non-practical, and completely useless. You're full of hot air. And that doesn't go just for you, but everyone involved with this fucking failure of a forum.
>>99
Why say "you lack the ability to see beyond your optic nerves" like some stupid ass greek scholar pederast wannabe when "LOL, u dumb!" will work just as well? You indluge the stupid shit like that, using long-winded sentences to make yourself seem smart. It's probably why people like you never acheive anything useful, you just amount to douchers arguing in the university lounge. Nobody else will tolerate being around you.
Their function is referring to large numbers of objects in fewer words. That this is done does not unite the objects.
"Can't see past your optic nerves" implies both that they are blind to reality, and that everything they see, they are seeing within their own head, i.e. in la-la land. With two seconds of thinking and a basic knowledge of human anatomy, this would have been obvious.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 16:26
Individualism is reality. Collectivism is fantasy.
Hi, I'm trying to sound profound.
Too bad I'm incapable of thinking carefully about what I write.
>>97
"So if people really are evil, and evil is undesirable, the last thing you want to do have a government, because it will attract evil and then give it power to advance it's evil."
Man, that must be the stupidest i ever read! Especially if its an argument for Agrocism.
But whatever, imagine this instead. People are not evil, people just act in selfinterest. Tony acts in selfinterest, he likes cigars. He is good at consolidating power through intimidation and force. When the government disappears in teh magic fagorist revolution, do you think he will loose power or gain power? And what do you think he will do with this power? Accept that your property is your by some abstract right? No, all property is his, because he is the strongest. Now, how is Tony Soprano not going to force you to pay taxes in your fagorism?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 18:14
>>106
LOOK AT ME, I USE COOL LATIN LOLZ
just say false argument and stop slapping your e-penis around
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 18:31
>>106
What would become of this world if everyone pointed that out whenever it happend?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 18:42
>107
Agorism. Based on the greek word "Agora" for "Marketplace".
If you're implying that he was in the Mafia, he'll lose power. The mafia would have to start competing in the arms trade, drugs, and everything else except protection rackets, so it would have a lot less money. The black market rising and overthrowing the state means everything is the "black market", and when that's the case, you have regular old market competition. Without the police, protection agencies would spring up, certainly (demand creates supply). These would be at least as effective as the police (they have the same manpower and technology available), and likely more efficient (markets do this to things like that). The mafia's job would not be made any easier. Also, once it became legal to own several kinds of weapons presently prohibited, the protection racket would even fail. The victims could shoot back with machineguns, or if the Mobsters were just trying to mess up the business to get them to pay, they'd be lead in back and shot with a silenced weapon. The mobsters wouldn't be doing this because they depend on business owners living to get their money, they can't afford to just knock off every little business owner before attempting intimidation.
So he won't have more power. Governments directly and indirectly empower violent organizations like mafias. Directly, through political bribes, funding, et cetera, and indirectly, by disarming victims, providing insufficient monopoly protection, prohibiting substances like drugs and alcohol which create markets that mafias easily get into while massively increasing prices, and so on. Without the government's witting or unwitting aid, it's unlikely mafias would be as powerful as they are at present.
He is not the strongest. There are infinite variables of the contest that can decide who is the strongest. Physical strength and numbers are just two factors.
Tony Soprano is not going to force me to pay taxes in agorism because I will have machineguns, training, and preparation for someone like him. He will have machineguns, thugs, and numbers. I, as defender, have not only the defender's advantage but the fortified defender's advantage. He won't be getting any taxes. And if I can get all my neighbors to help bring Soprano down, we will win by having the asshole surrounded, and being fortified, with machineguns.
The natural order of things is not on the side of the aggressor.
>108
Because there's a proper term for making fun of someone in a debate. You don't even have to know any latin to have heard the term.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 18:43
>>109
We'd be saying "Ad hominem fallacy" at each other until we learned what it was and stopped doing it. We'd also sound a lot less like 5 year olds.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 18:51
>>111
Because here we really need people who think they know what they are talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 19:17
>>106 doesn't really understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. What we have in >>104 is satire.
Care to explain how "individualism" is real and "collectivism" isn't? They're both concepts. Please refer to your nearest dictionary for details.
I guess one idea is more real than another now. Hah.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 19:49
>>113
Good point. But I believe you understood what I was attempting to say. Individuals are real, individualism is a belief in things which are real. Collectives are fictive, collectivism is a belief in things which are not real. That was my intent.
And attempts at defamation of character qualify as ad hominem, don't they? At the least they suffer from the shortcomings of ad hominems.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 19:56
Collectives are fictive? What are all our social organisations? Are they somehow less real because they aren't tangible?
Does that mean that I can break any contract I make? They're just as real as the aforementioned.
If you want to break it, who can stop you? But don't expect other people to live up to their end of the contract or ever plan on making a contract with you again.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 20:14
>>103
I wasn't saying that I didn't understand. I was saying that it was something stupid to say.
And the whole thing with collectives is exactly what I'm talking about you people being stupid. You saying that collectives are ways of referring to groups of objects shows that you don't know how to analyze things. You've learned the basics of logic, but you lack the intelligence to pull it off.
>>113 pointed out why you're wrong, but the fact that you didn't notice right away that both the things you were comparing were ideas shows just how far up your ass your own head is.
I AM NOT LETTING YOUR STUPID ASS OPPONENTS OFF THE HOOK EITHER, they're just as dumb, but I don't feel like finding an example.
You people are nowhere near as smart as you think you are. Taking a philosophy class and "learning logic" doesn't magically turn you into a genius.
If collectivism is a believe in things that are not real, what about the products it produces? Culture for example?
This is beginning to sound like philosophy. If it's not tangible but it affects the tangible, is it real?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 20:54
>>110
I know how it is spelled, i was mocking you.
And you seriously dont know how the market works. The the most important thing for markets to exist is property rights and the enforcement of these rights (according to my national economics book at least). The nice thing with having something other than the market agents to define property rights is that market agents are self serving. If MicroSoft had the power to write laws it would illigelize everything that wasnt MS and it would claim that all your shit was its. This is not because MS is evil, or that its a mafia-like organization, its just how business works. So, my critique to your utopian fantasy is that with a system without the government to have the violence monopoly to enforce law you will have a thousand despots all trying to get ahead using all possible means. And violence is such a mean. So what if you have guns and ammo. Can you make food? Purify water? Clothes? All this will be controlled by the ones with weapons and iron wills, and you either starve or conform. And so what if you happen to be the omega man and find an impenetrable fortress with unlimited supply of ammo and food, is that possible for all or at least a majority? And since collectives are fictive i assume that nobody would like to help you. They either want to steal your shit or guard their shit from thiefs like you.
And yes, the mafia would buy the protection agency. Dont you think they would like to own the police if they could? Or are the mafia not allowed to buy companies under La-laism?
Protip:Watch Mad Max 2. Is good example of fagorism in practice.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-08 21:48
>>118
Physically nothing is going to stop you from breaking a contract. Besides, you don't need collectives to have contracts.
Culture is also imaginary.
We could argue about the physical manifestation of subjective things as patterns of neural activity, in that sense they exist and can influence reality. Imaginary things only affect reality through human behavior.
Market agents don't have to define property rights. Microsoft wouldn't have the power to write laws.
It is unlikely that you will have people trying to get ahead using all possible means, beyond what we presently see. All important functions of the state would still exist.
Undoubted some will attempt to use violence to get ahead. But if it is made easier to achieve the same ends without violence, violence will be a last resort, not a primary method. People generally want to avoid violence. They want to avoid violence today because of the police and victims that defend themselves. They would want to avoid it under agorism because of the protection agencies and victims that defend themselves.
I don't expect or intend to fend off an army with guns and ammo. I expect to make violence a last resort by making it well known that I have guns and ammo.
No, the mafia would not buy the protection agency. First of all, they're not the police. Police are not protection, but law enforcement. Also, police recieve geographic monopolies, PAs do not. The primary advantages a PA has over a Mafia is that the PA gets paid voluntarily whereas a Mafia must resort to violence, and resultantly PAs are seen as legitemate and Mafias are not. The Mafia could buy the PA's resources, but that wouldn't give the Mafia a way to oppress people while appearing legitemate as you seem to believe. If the Mafia ran the company just like the other one, then the fact that the Mafia owns it doesn't change the fact that there's nothing unjust about the PA's action. If the Mafia used the PA to steal from the customers, the customers would switch PAs and have their new PA protect them from their old PA, now controlled by the Mafia. So the Mafia has nothing to gain in buying a PA except additional resources...guns, buildings, cars, et cetera. And it could purchase these resources cheaper elsewhere. Suppose there are three PAs in a certain area and the Mafia buys two of them to get them out of business. The third won't be selling for any "reasonable" price, because he'll have essentially all the business in the area unless someone else moves in. The future rewards far outweigh the potential costs for the PA owner, and he wouldn't sell.
The problem with buying up all your competitors is that it's ineffective except temporarily, and when it wears off, it's worse than it was before. If I own a PA, and you're a Mafia king, and you buy my PA, I'm going to sell it at a massively inflated price, knowing you're willing to pay, as stealing a PA would be damned near impossible. Then I'm going to take my money and start up another PA bigger than my old one for you to deal with. Want to buy that one? 200% markup. I know you want it. If you're silly enough to buy, I'm going to use the money you pay me to start up a PA twice as big as the previous one, until it reaches the point where you're flat out broke and I'm rolling in money and in charge of a force larger than yours. You made me rich because of your irrational desire to control others by any means necessary.
One man did that to Rockefeller. He started 11 oil companies sequentially, using the money from the previous oil company to start a new one, which Rockefeller then bought. The man retired rich.
And stop calling it fagorism. You're making yourself look like a 5th grader.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 3:06
lol emergence
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 3:19
>>120
"Market agents don't have to define property rights. Microsoft wouldn't have the power to write laws."
So no private interest would write laws? Laws would write themselves? If we we have private or sponsored courts, then it is as if the market had defining power. And laws would enforce themselves?
"It is unlikely that you will have people trying to get ahead using all possible means, beyond what we presently see. All important functions of the state would still exist."
Well, crimes and scams exist today.
"No, the mafia would not buy the protection agency..."
Ever heard about an offer you cant refuse? There is a fundamental difference between organized crime and monopolists like Rockefeller. And that is "either you give this to me or the dog gets it". Besides, if the mafia would have an army it would be bad for business for the PA to stand in that armys way, this is the reason why resistance fighters seldom are able to hire merceneries.
The thing is, the market logic you are using are only applicable when there is an (more or less) objective entity writing and enforcing law.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 6:42
>>114
"A collective is a group of people who share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. Collectives are also characterised by attempts to share and exercise political and social power and to make decisions on a consensus-driven and egalitarian basis. Collectives differ from cooperatives in that they are not necessarily focused upon an economic benefit or saving (but can be that as well)."
"Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the unrestricted exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, communalism, and communitarianism which stress communal, societal or national goals."
You say "Individualism is real, collectives are fictive" over and over again. But you never explain why, in difference to me who have spent every post explaining the opposite.
Stop throwing worthless bullshit at me and explain why you're saying something that makes no sense at all according to the definitions above.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 8:25
back a long long time ago when people started thinking up theories about state and government and such, they had this basic thing they called the state of nature, which was the condition in which there were no laws or anything, and it pretty much sucked for everybody, you should go look this up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 12:21
If you don't want no government or taxes, move to Somalia. Heard they are pretty good at that there.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 2:43
>>120
So, all abstract concepts are by their merit of being "imaginary" are worthless? Culture is an abstract concept, but it describes an intangible but nevertheless noticeable phenomenon.
Man, where'd you get your faggotry degree, you have amazing credentials.
Individualism is based on something that is not imaginary, but real.
Collectivism is based on something that is not real, but imaginary.
Collectives exist in the sense that they can be observed and discussed, but they are often arbitrarily defined and do not actually in any way connect the people in the collective, it simply groups them together based on a criteria.
Grouping someone in a collective against their will and using that do things to them against their will is wrong and stupid.
>>126
Ideas themselves are not necessarily worthless. However, a lot of worthless things are valued highly, such as culture or collectives. To value these things above other people is stupid because other people cannot be evaluated in that sense in the first place. To hurt other people who don't respect your culture is attempting to put something you value highly against something that is impossible to give a comparative value and say that culture values higher. It's stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 4:15
Communism would be the government of a utopia.
However, it is contrary to human nature to rise above and be better. It offers no room for improvement or free enterprise, which are fundamental to human nature and our need as a species to strive to improve.
Communism is easier to corrupt than capitalism, because one can simply manipulate the flux of wealth to a few individuals. And since there has never really been a leader that didn't abuse his power to some extent...
True communism will never be achieved by force. A commune that people are free to leave from and join will work, and has worked in the past (though not reliably, some have been successful). However, forcing people who are not ready for communism and can't override their natural desires to improve their lot in life to participate in communism will fail every time.
In practice, this means small-scale communes existing within a capitalist system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 7:32
>>127
Nice "rephrase" there, but alright.
What is individualism based on that is real? And collectivism as you say is based on people "who are randomly connected", which is not necessarily true. That however doesn’t make collectivism any less real.
Because: Individuals exist in the sense that they can be observed and discussed, but they are often arbitrarily defined and do not actually in any way make a difference, single individuals simply have too little power.
Why do you assume collectives are against peoples will? Collectives where made to make life easier. If you want to push a 2 ton rock you don’t do it your self, you get a “collective” to make the task easier. If you want your opinion to be heard, you don’t do it your self, you get a “collective”. Or are you just afraid of splitting the reward?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 11:46
>>130
Individualism is based on individuals, which are actual physical objects. They are not arbitrarily defined. They have definite identities. Their inability to "make a difference" as you say it, does not change the fact that they are actual physical identifiable objects. Besides, it's not mental collectives that act, it's individuals which you have grouped into collectives that are acting.
I didn't say collectives were based on people randomly selected, I said arbitrarily. There's a difference. I can create a collective of blacks by arbitrarily deciding that all blacks are part of a collective. That doesn't create any real link between them. It only creates an imaginary one. I can create a collective "country" by deciding that everyone in a certain area is part of "France". That doesn't actually link them. Pretending that a link exists where none does is irrational. Some links may exist, but arbitrary definitions invariably create connections where none exist and ignore connections which do exist.
Collectives arbitrarily defined and treated as individuals often result in treatment of people against their will. Collectives make discussion easier. Cooperation makes life easier. You don't need to collectivize people in order for them to cooperate. If I want to push a 2 ton rock, I get a truck. If I want my opinion to be heard, I buy advertising. If other people want part of the reward they can say so before they help me and I'll decide if I want their help anymore or not. Forcing me to split up the reward reduces my incentive to act.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 12:04
so you're saying because collectivity is not a big rock thay says "this is collectivity, look at me and touch me" it is not real, therefore of no importance and should be disregarded?
No, just that it's illogical to believe it is more important or somehow supreme to individuals. Collectivity is an idea. Ideas, while they can be communicated to others, are subjective, and exist only within the individual minds which think them. I'm not saying it should be disreguarded, but that it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats at gunpoint. You can have all the collectivity you want if you can get everyone else to voluntarily participate in the collectivity. Otherwise you are forcing your fantasies down other people's throats. This requires an implicit belief that you are more important, that you know better than them, or that you are in some way superior to them, which flies in the face of any belief that people are equal, which they often say they believe.
I understand collectivism in terms of 2+2=4. This kind of collectivism is perfectly compatible with individualism. But people who say they are collectivists often say things which sound to me like 2+2=5, that the collective is greater than the sum of it's parts, and therefore it's okay for the individuals to be harmed for the collective benefit. As the "collective" and especially "collective good" are almost always arbitrarily defined and are subjective by nature, such beliefs are arbitrary themselves. If the individuals voluntarily form a collective, there's no need to use force for the collective good. If there is need to use force, then the collective is not defined by the voluntary participation of members. Such a collective is arbitrary, pretending relationships exist where they do not and do not exist where they do. At best, the belief in collective supremacy and the cognitive seperation of the collective from the individuals constituting the collective is irrational. The things collectivists often use collectivist arguements to support require those two things.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 12:38
China is communist on paper but not in practice
Sweden is communist in practice but not on paper
Discuss
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 12:42
>>134
Communism only works if you place it below liberty?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 13:41
>>133
I'm going to talk your language and say that the things you try telling me about individualism sounds like 2+2=0.
You claim individuals are real, I do not disagree. Individuals that do something together, like pushing a rock form a collective. And if the individuals that form the collective are real then so is the collective. That's just how it is.
I don't know why you don't want to acknowledge collectives. I’m going to take a few shots at how your life looks like. I’d think you are an American or maybe British, doesn’t really matter but I think you live in a country with highly capitalist standards. You have never had to worry about money. Well, at least you have never been out of money. And you seem almost brainwashed to think that depending on other people is wrong. That’s why you don’t want to acknowledge collectives.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 14:49
>>136
I acknowledge collectives. I did so. I disagree in how collectives should be percieved and treated. Arbitrary collectives, mental groupings based on shared criteria, should be treated as merely cognitive tools to refer to a group more easily, and not as if they united the parts in any way. Collectives which are united, like a group that wants to be referred to by a single name, Coca-Cola Corporation for instance, can be treated like a single object because they formed themselves into one and can leave at any time and become unrelated individuals once again. Participation in collectives of people should be voluntary unless the idea of all people being equal was repealed and I didn't hear about it. If all people are equal you have no more authority to say that someone is in a collective than they do when saying they are not. If you say they're part, and they say they're part, you can act like they're part of a collective. If they say they're not part, and you say they are, it's a he-said-she-said and neither has inherent authority to enforce their perception on the other because all people are equal, right?
American, yes. Flat out broke. Living in the ghetto, stealing wifi. Looking for a second job, but nobody is hiring. In debt $1000. Do not own car. Rent with roomate. A minimum wage increase will probably get me fired from my current job.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 15:33
>>137
And do you believe with no taxes or government you will get more money? Or would it be the ultimate freedom not to be governed or pay taxes?
What do you say >>138, feel like depriving >>139 of his civil liberties? I'm quite sure he can't take both of us armed, hell, I can get some buddies and we can LOLSTEAL his propertay.
>>140
Can't say I wouldn't like doing that but my politic principals forbid me from aggression.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 18:08
>>139
This is why I called you short sighted. If you don't pay taxes then there would be coin-machines everywhere; the elevator, the escalator, the street, the roads. Your money would be lost anyway. What the government does is to round up all those things and make you pay for them once.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 18:54
>>143
Yeah, but this doesnt bother >>139 since on an average there will be more money in the system if there are no taxes and if everything is paid for directly. What he forgets is the bell curve and that there is no garuantee that he will not be in the lowest percentile. Or in other words, more money on average does not mean more money for everybody, higher wages on average is not higher wages for everybody. There are structural and systematic reason behind poverty, processes that is not detectable on the individual scale but the whole population scale. And these reasons are not taxes alone.
When people pay according to consumption people consume more economically. For example, a mile of road may be paid for in taxes, but everyone will use that mile of road at will with no cost-benefit analysis because the road is "free". If people had to pay for using things presently given away for free, they would use less, which would lower the maintenence costs and result in us being better off. And the government doesn't tax according to consumption, it taxes according to income, value of assets, spending, and other things which have little to do with the actual use of state resources. Thus, people are motivated to consume as much of the state-provided resources as possible, since reducing their use of the resources will not reduce their payment by any substantial amount.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 22:15
>>146
Aha, so you want to lower consumption? Lower maintenence costs are not equal we being better off, and it is also not equal increased economic efficiency (if you include service quality in the equation). If we assume that we cant afford using a road we used earlier, well then it also has to do how much money we had from the start. For a rich person the tolls will be chickenfeed while the poor the tolls will compete with more basic needs like food and drink. And this means that flat costs will affect poor people moore, an effect i find unjust.
Otherwise, what you describe is called the tragedy of the commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-10 22:31
>>147
Rich people will always be better off than poor people, all other things being equal, no matter the socio-economic system. To be honest, is the road toll system >>146 described any different from paying for a ticket every time you ride the subway?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-11 1:49
>>148
Yeah, of course they rich will always be better off, but that is not an argument for or against. The road toll system aggrevates the poors biggest problem, namely having little or no money. And yes its the same with the subway tickets, it would be better if it was tax funded and free to ride. Since poor people use public transportation to a higher degree than rich, poor people would gain more from such a reform.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-11 6:58
Big businesses prefer the maximum output from a given set of property and resources that they own, thus the tragedy of the commons will not occur since they will ensure that the number of cattle in the field is optimum for the maximum output of valuable meat, leather and milk. They will strive to achieve neither too many or too few cattle per acre.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-11 7:19
"rich will always be better off"
That's why I don't want anyone to be richer than another.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-11 8:02
>>149
What about the people who don't ride but have to pay the tax? It would be even more of an injustice if a person were poor AND didn't use the rods/subway.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-11 8:03
>>147
If it costs about 6 cents to repair the damage caused by one car on one mile of road, and people presenty use (which damages) the roads as if they were free, they are using the road uneconomically. If the use of the road is more valuable than the 6 cents to the user, they will pay 6 cents and be getting something better than what they paid for. If they value the road use at 4 cents per mile, as they are doing something utterly pointless, like driving around for the hell of it, then they will be causing more damage than they are gaining from the road use, which is destructive. Charging 6 cents per mile would make it so that only the uses which are truly worth the damage caused to the road actually get a chance to damage the road.
It doesn't hurt the poor as badly as the present gas taxes and property taxes which increase the price they pay for rent and fuel. It does not aggravate the problem. The problem is presently being hidden by taxes, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That we will suddenly see it does not mean the problem has been made worse.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-11 8:28
>>152
They help to build up the country, which will in the length make their lives better as well.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-11 20:29
>>153
Yeah, but this fancy (not really, more retarded, are you what, twelve?) calculus example assumes that there is competition present. If there is a multitude of roads with equal quality (meaning that the sum of comfort, travel time, roadside stops, scenery etc is equal) that goes to the same location, than there will be competition between road companies and the toll price will be close to the maintenance price. But if there is only one road that is quickest and safest and etc and goes to a specific location, then a monopoly exists, and the price will be very high. As we all know, there isnt several roads to choose from when going from A to B, and therefore private road tolls will always be monopolical and wasteful. Of course, trains can be seen as a cokmpetitor to roads, but trains have a higher initial maintenance cost, and is therefore only economical when travelling a larger distance, and is therefore not comparable to roads.
"It doesn't hurt the poor as badly as the present gas taxes..."
And it doesnt hurt as much as a bullet in the head. Is not an argument for tolls. Just an argument that poor people should be exempt from gas and property tax, which i fully support. Your idiocy is presently being hidden by your fursona, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Come on, have a real argument or accept defeat, why dont ya?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-12 0:25
>>155
If you want to call something a monopoly, you can do so. You could make an arguement that every store has a geographic natural monopoly in the area immediately surrounding. It doesn't change the fact that they must compete.
There is competition with roads. Multiple roads do lead to the same areas. There's the "last mile" thing that you get with ISPs at present, but there are a great number of roads you can take from Miami to New York, or New York to Buffalo, or Boston to LA.
Not all monopolies have high prices. Competition exists on many levels, including dollar competition, where everyone has to compete against absolutely everyone else for the customer's dollar.
In areas where road owners abused their "monopoly", people would just move out and stop using the roads, and go to places where the roads are inexpensive.
Tolling isn't the only potential system for private roads. There's subscription-based roads, where you buy a license and get a plan for road use, as you do with cellphones. You could just transfer ownership of the road to the adjacent landowner, and the landowners would discuss road maintenance . You could do it a number of other ways. If tolling is inconvenient, another system will be devised.
I agree that the poor should be exempt from gas and property taxes. So should the middle and upper classes. After all, the upper classes just pass the cost onto the lower classes.
That you can make a rebuttal does not mean you automatically win.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-12 0:35
>>154
right. So paying for use is an injustice, but paying even when not used is "helping to build up the country". Srsly this is the best rebuttal you have?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-12 4:31
>>156
Okay, monopolies are not arbitrary. That stores have an geographical monopoly in teh surrounding area is only relevant in countries without cars. And of course there is multiple roads that lead to the same place. But the traveltime differs and there is only one road that is optimal, which has the shortest route. And all private monopolies have high prices. And saying that people would move is like saying that if you dont like taxes, move to somalia, meaning that people are not that flexible, many cant afford to move. Also, the ratinal monopolist will set the highest possible price that people still will pay of course. The majority of roaduse is not recreational, meaning people havve to use at least one mode of ransportation. This disqualifies dollar competition concerning roads. Method of payment matters not, its not the system of tossing a coin that is the matter of this discussion. You are claiming that poor people will be better of without taxes but with tolls (or subfees or whatever), i claim the opposite. You havent presented a reason for why they would be better off, except that taxes are expensive lol. Well, tolls are expensive too, and because of the monopolyeffect, prolly more so in most cases (meaning that just because there is one place where tolls are cheap, the overall trend is towards expensive).
Monopolies are arbitrary. The only monopolies which are not arbitrary are the monopolies decreed by government. And those are decreed by arbitrary bureaucrats within government.
Differences in product quality and prices are to be expected. You don't bitch that a Ferrari is optimal, but it's expensive, and pretend it somehow rebuts the idea that cars should not be given away for free. If the fastest route was the most expensive, you'd have traffic jams clearing up overnight, but only with free prices and private property can the roads be priced according to supply and demand as they should be.
There is no "highest possible price that people will still pay". That's collectivethink. Different people will pay different amounts. As the price goes up, the number of people willing to pay goes down. As the price goes down, the number of people willing to pay goes up. It's not like everyone buys uniformly up to a certain price and then suddenly stops. Because of the way the market works outside your imagination, there won't be monopoly pricing.
It wasn't me that discussed paying for subway tickets. That was someone else.
Taxes involve bureaucracy, which is wasteful. Purchases do not involve bureaucracy. Taxes are regressive. Anyone who thinks taxes are progressive in anything other than name is uninformed on the subject. The poor pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich. When the rich pay the taxes, they pass the cost onto the poor. That's why it's better to have direct payment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-13 12:18
>>159
"Monopolies are arbitrary..."
Whatever, i believe monopolies are real and has an observable effect, but if you dont then i wont be able to convinve you otherwise.
"Differences in product quality and prices are to be expected. You don't bitch that a Ferrari is optimal, but it's expensive..."
There is equal substitutes to Ferraris (menaing other sportscars that fill the same market niche). The fastest route between two places are but one. But what you are saying is that the high price is to be expected and even that that is good. So then, wouldnt this mean an increase in cost for road users? And wouldnt this cost be harder for the poor than the rich?
"There is no "highest possible price that people will still pay". That's collectivethink."
No, that is statistics. The mean price is what i am after here, but you maybe think that means and averages is a breach on your individualism. There is an optimum where priceXbuyers is the highest possible ammount, and this is where the monopolist will set himself. And this could mean that its more beneficial for him that only 5 millionaires per year use the large interstate highway, and do you really mean that this is more efective and just?
"Taxes involve bureaucracy, which is wasteful..."
So you go on saying. But what i have tried to show you is that it at least POSSIBLE that the free market is also wasteful, and makes things more expensive for certain groups of people.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-14 19:54
We can agree on one thing: both of them are not perfect. And both are ass.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-15 13:17
>>160
Now why are you entitled to take the fastest route? Many routes will get you there in about equal time, you don't NEED to take the fastest to get there on time. If you need to get their so much faster badly enough that you'd pay to get their just five minutes faster, you'll be going 140 down a relatively empty road.
If the road owner let only 5 millionaires per year use the interstates, he'll lower prices. After all, that's a massive oversupply because at the price, demand is so little. There are alternatives to roads that people would use. There's trains and other roads and planes and boats.
The free market is inherently less wasteful, as waste is limited by competition. A company which wastes a lot can't compete with a company that wastes just a little, and the wasteful company goes out of business. With government, the waste is ongoing and gets worse over time.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-15 18:26
"Now why are you entitled to take the fastest route?"
Entitlement has never entered the issue. My point was that roads are natural monopolies and private ownership of them will tend to increase prices. And roadcompanies will prolly also consolidate and try to buy eachother out, and roadcompanies will prolly be bought by carcompanies so they can optimize sales.
"If the road owner let only 5 millionaires per year use the interstates, he'll lower prices."
Assuming he has no competition, he would set the price where revenues are at a maximum. Oversupply does not matter. Why doenst luxury resturant lower prices, they should if your argument would be true. Other modes of transportation is not real competitors as they are not equal goods, they are just like the other modes of transportation. For example, one person prefers planes because of comfort while another prefers cars because of freedom, planes and cars are not complete competitors because of this, they satisfy different wants.
"The free market is inherently less wasteful, as waste is limited by competition."
Yes, but not if there is a monopoly, this have been my point all along. Come on, its stupid to assume that the free market allways in any world in any circumstances is more efficient than the state. For one, this makes your claims unfalsifiable, meaning they are not arguments but opinions equal to religious belief.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-15 22:13
>>163
Perhaps toll roads can be considered local monopolies, however, tax is a greater monopoly. Take your pick.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-16 1:39
>>163
If there is no reason why you simply must take the fastest route, then you are free to take alternative routes, therefore competition.
The luxury resturaunt sets prices according to supply and demand. If the demand is low, the resturaunt owner might prefer to go out of business rather than operate at a loss, or they might lower prices temproarily to increase demand and minimize their loss. If they keep their prices constant, they're losing money. However, my personal belief is that when the resturaunt changes it's prices, it just doesn't tell you, making you think the prices never change.
There is competition between buses, trains, aircraft, personal vehicles, and occasionally boats. Whether you like it or not, they have to compete. It's just one more level of competition among many. Direct competition is not the only kind that will keep prices low. We could arbitrarly decide the level at which different places "satisfy different wants", for example, I want a grocery store 1 mile away, and only one exists, therefore it is a monopoly. The store 1.2 miles away satisfies a different want and therefore is not a competitor.
The government is a monopoly. The government is THE monopoly. Anything a monopoly can screw up, the government can screw up worse, and raise taxes to cover the costs, because it's THE monopoly of monopolies. It's the monopoly that decides which monopolies must exist and which must not. There is no monopoly above the State.
Show me a case where the government did something more efficiently than the market. As of yet I've never found a case of this.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-16 8:08
Neither are perfect. But capitalism is better.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-16 11:29
>>165
"If there is no reason why you simply must take the fastest route..."
Yeah, and how often do you think that happen in reality, people not being concerned with the traveltime. That is very marginal.
"The luxury resturaunt sets prices according to supply and demand."
Of course, and it exist on the planet earth. This is irrelevant. What is the difference between a macdonalds and a luxury resturant? Which has more customers, which has higher prices? They can have the same quantity of revenue, but their business strategy is completly opposite. There cant be luxury roads according to you? Also, according to you, they are competitors, but in reality, they are not. They supply to different demands, one can not substituate the one for the other. Its the same with planes and roads.
"The government is a monopoly."
Blahblahblah.
"Show me a case where the government did something more efficiently than the market."
Healthcare. Sweden has better than the US. The quality is higher, therefore the efficiency is higher. You meassure efficiency of healthcare in saved lives since a healthcare that does not save lives is not a healthcare at all. I cant be bothered to google it up, but since i am contesting the claim that the market is always more efficient, the burden of proof is actually on you, as if i was contesting the claim that UFOs or God exist.
Sometimes there is no choice but to have a complete monopoly. If there has to be a monopoly I want it regulated by a democratically elected government, rather than having an institution free to increase price up to the point where some people would be better off getting water from a stream and boiling it using a wood fire like they did in the medieval era instead of pay for piped water.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-16 15:58
>>167
If you must take the fastest route, then you can afford to pay.
The luxury resturaunt isn't offering exactly the same good, but nobody is offering exactly the same good as anybody else. If that's the case, then everything is a monopoly and competition is just a fantasy, and when you expand the definition of monopoly to include everything, the word monopoly means nothing, and in that case you should stop throwing around meaningless words.
Efficiency is (quality x quantity) / (costs). Your analysis of Sweden's healthcare ignores the quantity and costs. There is more to the quality part of healthcare than saving lives. There are non-lifethreatening medical problems, there is the issue of costs, how long it takes to get the treatment, whether treatment is available, and a number of other factors. If treating an ingrown toenail costs $20 in the US and $200 in Sweden, then US healthcare is more efficient, even if Sweden hides 99% of the costs in taxes.
You are contesting the claim that the market is *always* more efficient. You only need to provide one example that demonstrates otherwise to show that I am incorrect. You provided one example which was invalid for a number of reasons, so go find another one.
>>169
I personally would love to see that happen, because if that happened, all I would have to do is lay down more pipes and sell cleaner cheaper water than the other guy. I wouldn't even have to serve an entire city at once, I could do it in a neighborhood, use the revenues to expand into other neighborhoods, and use that revenue to expand to the rest of the city. At some point before I completely replaced the old water company, the other water company WOULD lower it's prices, lest I drive it out of business. Such a stupid move by the company ignorantly assuming it has a monopoly would make my life far easier and make me much richer.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-16 19:16
>>170
"If you must take the fastest route, then you can afford to pay."
Man, you are really good at making claims that begs the question. Okay, ill bite. Why does someone, just because one is in a hurry, afford to pay any cost to reach a destination? Magic seems to be the only answer to me, but i guess that is not what you meant.
"The luxury resturaunt isn't offering exactly the same good..."
So in your world macdonalds and a luxury resturant are competitors? A company that makes arrows are a competitor to a company that make bullets? Please answer yes or no. And no, competition is not fantasy, and i am not saying everything is a monoploy. Macdonalds and Burger King are competitors, they have different branding strategies, but the same business strategy. Is this difference to hard for you to grasp?
"Efficiency is (quality x quantity) / (costs). Your analysis of Sweden's healthcare ignores the quantity and costs."
I didnt do an analysis. I didnt say that lifes saved was the only factor, why would i say that. Again you state the obvious as a rebutal, but i am not inclined to mire my responses in truisms. Okay, lets play a game. The first thing you can think of as a rebutal, is prolly something i have already implied or am at least aware of. Instead, try to rebut the point of tha argument, and if you cannot, accept deafeat. Your analysis of sweden is just assumptions. Well, i can do that to. In the US an ingrown toenail costs 20000$ while in sweden it costs 2$ with all hidden taxcosts included. Now, according to my baseless assumptions, the US is less effiecient, and Swedens crazy pinko system is more so.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-21 7:11
>>170
According to studies, US has the most expensive healthcare system per capita in the world (double the second most expensive) while ranking around 20th among OECD countries in quality. So, the US is doing something very wrong compared to cheaper and better healthcare systems, like Swedens (half the price, half the infant mortality). Source is from University of Maine http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-21 9:55
Where has all the angry agorists of yeasteryear flown?
Name:
Xel2007-01-21 12:02
>>172 But we suffer from insane taxation. There's the big rub. I'm as yet unconvinced that a hard-left solution (Sweden's) or a hard-right solution (complete laissez-faire) is preferable to something on the grayscale.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-21 12:32
>>174
Well, if the US system is the alternative, then we actually pay little for our health care quality at the moment. Privatization (=tax cuts) does not automagically mean decreased net costs, so it may be that we are better off in the present-soon-to-be-demolished system, meaning that the taxes are actually the lowest possible price (per capita) for high quality health care. This is understandable when one adds the fairness (how equal health care different groups get, WHO does this) of the system into the equation, i find it actually hard to imagine a private health care system where also poor people get adequate health care. One reason american health care is so expensive is because around 20% dont have insurance, and therefore dont go to the doctor unless there is a BIG problem. Swedens health care is more effective in this area.