Communism and Captialism are equal

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.

lol emergence

>>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.

>>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.

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.

If you don't want no government or taxes, move to Somalia. Heard they are pretty good at that there.

>>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.

>>123
Lemme rephrase.

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.

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...

IMO True communism will never be achieved.

>>128

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.

>>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?

>>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.

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?

>>132

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.

China is communist on paper but not in practice

Sweden is communist in practice but not on paper

Discuss

>>134
Communism only works if you place it below liberty?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>138
Yes.

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
DEMOCRAZY GO!

>>140
Can't say I wouldn't like doing that but my politic principals forbid me from aggression.

>>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.

>>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.

>>134
Not communistisc enough.

>>143
(>>139 here)

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.

>>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

>>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?

>>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.

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.

"rich will always be better off"
That's why I don't want anyone to be richer than another.

>>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.

>>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.

>>152
They help to build up the country, which will in the length make their lives better as well.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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?

>>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). 

>>158

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.

>>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.