Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[St George of England]

Theres no taxes because you dont get payed in N Korea they take all your money.

You do get paid in north korea.

Hence why North Koreans have so much disposable income.

[Arilando]

You do get paid in north korea.

Hence why North Koreans have so much disposable income.

That is irrelevant.

[New Hampshyre]

So you say that private companies are better at limiting they green house gas emissions?

The free market is, yes. You see, in a free market private property rights are protected. If I can legally destroy your property whenever I want, then we're not in a free-market system. Air pollution violates the property rights of others through acid rain damage, burning holes in the ozone layer, causing global warming, ect. In a free market our property rights are protected from polluters and other causes of negative externalities. The most efficient way of doing that is through a system of fines against polluters dependent on the quantity they pollute and the relative harm caused by that form of pollution.

Libertarians have, in fact, been calling for this since at least the 1970s. It is the statists like yourself who have prevented us from protecting property rights. The government "planners" decided it was too politically painful to fine polluters, so they allowed them to wantonly abuse our property rights.

Now that some of the statists are finally getting ready to address the problem of air pollution after letting it start to get out of hand, they are insisting on making an overly complicated system that will let them dole out favors to whoever they like in the guise of managing pollution. I am talking, of course, about the corrupt cap&trade proposals that have been talked about so much by our politicians. The right way to handle pollution has been known about for decades, the politicians just don't care to implement it. Their incentives lead them to create a system that is inherently corruptible instead.

PS: Your post before this one got all messed up due to an error with your quotes, can you please fix it?

[Arilando]

So you say that private companies are better at limiting they green house gas emissions?

The free market is, yes. You see, in a free market private property rights are protected. If I can legally destroy your property whenever I want, then we're not in a free-market system. Air pollution violates the property rights of others through acid rain damage, burning holes in the ozone layer, causing global warming, ect. In a free market our property rights are protected from polluters and other causes of negative externalities. The most efficient way of doing that is through a system of fines against polluters dependent on the quantity they pollute and the relative harm caused by that form of pollution.

Libertarians have, in fact, been calling for this since at least the 1970s. It is the statists like yourself who have prevented us from protecting property rights. The government "planners" decided it was too politically painful to fine polluters, so they allowed them to wantonly abuse our property rights.

Now that some of the statists are finally getting ready to address the problem of air pollution after letting it start to get out of hand, they are insisting on making an overly complicated system that will let them dole out favors to whoever they like in the guise of managing pollution. I am talking, of course, about the corrupt cap&trade proposals that have been talked about so much by our politicians. The right way to handle pollution has been known about for decades, the politicians just don't care to implement it. Their incentives lead them to create a system that is inherently corruptible instead.

PS: Your post before this one got all messed up due to an error with your quotes, can you please fix it?

I think the best way to avoid pollution is by having a tax on green house gas emission. And i am not responsible for the actions of other so called "statists".

And i cannot fix my post because i dont know why it got all messed up.

[New Hampshyre]

But the argument was that GOVERNMENT dont save they money.

And? You can find SOME people who have HIV who have have not acquired AIDS even after several years, that doesn't prove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

If 95+% of all people with HIV get AIDS withing X amount of years that is a pretty darn good indication that HIV is causing AIDS. Pointing out that 4 people out of 130-150 didn't get AIDS doesn't really prove much at all.

That is exactly what you're trying to do with countries. There are about 130-150 countries that were likely to be measured and only 4 turned out to not be in debt. That prevalence rate is a HUGE indication that governments strongly tend towards going into debt.

[New Hampshyre]

I think the best way to avoid pollution is by having a tax on green house gas emission. And i am not responsible for the actions of other so called "statists".

"Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning"

That is exactly what you're advocating for. Therefore you are a statist.

One of the major problems with statism is that if you give the government more power then just the protection of life, liberty, and property from aggressors, then you're giving it the power to perpetuate violations of life, liberty and property. That is exactly what the government has done in the case of air pollution. The government was given the responsibility of "promoting" national businesses and they have done so by giving them the legal power to violate our property rights.

If you want to prevent too much air pollution from being emitted then the most responsible course of action for you to take would be to retract your advocacy of government "planning" and statism, and instead demand that the government only perform its primary and proper function of protecting people's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.

And i cannot fix my post because i dont know why it got all messed up.

Then can you just go in and delete the content of the post, it is confusing and makes it look like I'm saying a lot of things I'm not, and same with you.

[Arilando]

I think the best way to avoid pollution is by having a tax on green house gas emission. And i am not responsible for the actions of other so called "statists".

"Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning"

That is exactly what you're advocating for. Therefore you are a statist.

One of the major problems with statism is that if you give the government more power then just the protection of life, liberty, and property from aggressors, then you're giving it the power to perpetuate violations of life, liberty and property. That is exactly what the government has done in the case of air pollution. The government was given the responsibility of "promoting" national businesses and they have done so by giving them the legal power to violate our property rights.

If you want to prevent too much air pollution from being emitted then the most responsible course of action for you to take would be to retract your advocacy of government "planning" and statism, and instead demand that the government only perform its primary and proper function of protecting people's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.

LOL it is mostly libertarians that say global warming is fake.

[New Hampshyre]

"Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning"

That is exactly what you're advocating for. Therefore you are a statist.

One of the major problems with statism is that if you give the government more power then just the protection of life, liberty, and property from aggressors, then you're giving it the power to perpetuate violations of life, liberty and property. That is exactly what the government has done in the case of air pollution. The government was given the responsibility of "promoting" national businesses and they have done so by giving them the legal power to violate our property rights.

If you want to prevent too much air pollution from being emitted then the most responsible course of action for you to take would be to retract your advocacy of government "planning" and statism, and instead demand that the government only perform its primary and proper function of protecting people's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.

LOL it is mostly libertarians that say global warming is fake.

You didn't have anything intelligent to retort with, so instead your just decide to mis-portray your opponents on a different issue.

The fact of the matter is that if we protect property rights, global warming becomes a non-issue. Libertarians have been calling for the fining of pollution in 1970, possibly earlier, far before global warming had even been raised as an issue.

If global warming is a serious problem, it is only because you statists and your government planning has made it so.

[The Merchant Republics]

A person does vote for the price of a product when they choose to buy it. Every cent spent is a vote in capitalistic system.

To believe that allowing people to vote in open elections would be the end all would do a great deal of harm to producers as people are generally rational and would always prefer to save the most amount of their money. While people in a free market will go to the lowest priced product so long as the quality does not drop significantly, or if it does the price justifies it.

But there may not be enough investment, savings etc. And commercials can mislead consumers.

Fraud is a punishable offence.

[The Merchant Republics]

What do savings and investments have to do with either case? So far, in every planned economy we have had, we had taxes.

There are no taxes in north korea.

There are 100% taxes in North Korea.

[Arilando]

LOL it is mostly libertarians that say global warming is fake.

You didn't have anything intelligent to retort with, so instead your just decide to mis-portray your opponents on a different issue.

The fact of the matter is that if we protect property rights, global warming becomes a non-issue. Libertarians have been calling for the fining of pollution in 1970, possibly earlier, far before global warming had even been raised as an issue.

If global warming is a serious problem, it is only because you statists and your government planning has made it so.

Are you saying global warming is fake? And i would like to see a source for your claim that "Libertarians have been calling for the fining of pollution in 1970, possibly earlier, far before global warming had even been raised as an issue".

[Arilando]

There are no taxes in north korea.

There are 100% taxes in North Korea.

No.

[Sibirsky]

What do savings and investments have to do with either case? So far, in every planned economy we have had, we had taxes.

There are no taxes in north korea.

You sure about that?

And we should all aspire to be like North Korea!

[Arilando]

There are no taxes in north korea.

You sure about that?

And we should all aspire to be like North Korea!

No we should not.

[Wamitoria]

There are no taxes in north korea.

You sure about that?

And we should all aspire to be like North Korea!

Those are on foreign business owners. And no, the DPRK is bad.

[Sibirsky]

There are no taxes in north korea.

http://www.asiatradehub.com/n.korea/tax1.asp

Found within 5 seconds.

North Korea is also 1 of 2 nations that has worldwide taxation.

[St George of England]

http://www.asiatradehub.com/n.korea/tax1.asp

Found within 5 seconds.

North Korea is also 1 of 2 nations that has worldwide taxation.

Worldwide taxation???

[Sibirsky]

You sure about that?

And we should all aspire to be like North Korea!

No we should not.

So why use them as a source? FFS the less central planning there is the better.

[Arilando]

No we should not.

So why use them as a source? FFS the less central planning there is the better.

Source?

[Sibirsky]

You sure about that?

And we should all aspire to be like North Korea!

Those are on foreign business owners. And no, the DPRK is bad.

You guys understand I was being sarcastic correct?

[Sibirsky]

North Korea is also 1 of 2 nations that has worldwide taxation.

Worldwide taxation???

Yes. As a British national, if you move to (random nation name) and retain your British citizenship, but earn your money in the new nation you call home, you do not pay any UK taxes.

A North Korean citizen can move anywhere, and he would still owe income taxes, for income derived outside of the DPRK to Dear Leader.

[Sibirsky]

So why use them as a source? FFS the less central planning there is the better.

Source?

Source for the entire economic history of the world eh? Try a library or book store.

[Wamitoria]

Those are on foreign business owners. And no, the DPRK is bad.

You guys understand I was being sarcastic correct?

I did.

[Staenwald]

i'm a consequentialist, so i dont care if you think it is tyrannical.

What if it was proved that genocide of one race of people would prove better safety and standard of living for the rest of society? What would you do then?

[Lackadaisical2]

http://www.asiatradehub.com/n.korea/tax1.asp

Found within 5 seconds.

North Korea is also 1 of 2 nations that has worldwide taxation.

The other being the good ol' US of A, correct?