Socialism vs Free Market Capitalism

[Sibirsky]

By that logic if I go to your house and force you by gun point to hand over money it is mine.

If the social contract says that you can do this, it would be yours. Otherwise, you'd merely be possessing it.

So if you mug someone and spend the money on drugs you're spending your own money. That is essentially what you are saying.

Not at all. The government's actions are legitmate, because the social contract says they are. Mine wouldn't be, because the social contract says they aren't.

Government possesses other peoples' money. They spent that money on welfare, wars and regulations, subsidies to the politically connected and pet projects.

[Trotskylvania]

Why is reality hilarious to you?

Probably because you think it's a reality.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones

[Terra Agora]

By that logic if I go to your house and force you by gun point to hand over money it is mine.

If the social contract says that you can do this, it would be yours. Otherwise, you'd merely be possessing it.

Sure I'll sign some piece of paper and get some other people to sign it that says I can steal from you.

You dont believe it you say? Then I have this other piece of paper signed by other people saying that last piece of paper is legitimate.

[Vostokja]

Socialism = chronic inefficiency, bureaucratic mess, stagnated technological development.

Free Market Capitalism = Chronic over-efficiency, extreme economic inequality, and the boom-bust cycle.

I'll choose a third route and just say that Keynesian/State Capitalism is the best system.

Oh, and Hong Kong is Mixed Free Market, and has a well-funded welfare system.

My thoughts exactly.

[Trotskylvania]

If the social contract says that you can do this, it would be yours. Otherwise, you'd merely be possessing it.

Sure I'll sign some piece of paper and get some other people to sign it that says I can steal from you.

You dont believe it you say? Then I have this other piece of paper signed by other people saying that last piece of paper is legitimate.

You have this fetish with signatures on paper. It's cute.

[Abdulhafidia]

That's deductive logic, and it's pointless to use unless all your premises are true. Premise "1." is false.

Colour me impressed, I rarely find a forum where people understand basic philosophical concepts.

Anyway, after backtracking through the thread a bit wondering how we ended up at this point I realise you think I'm advocated leaving charity to governments? Alas no, as an anarchist I don't trust governments to run a bath.
Yeah, forgot the thread was Socialism V Free Market, rather than just a chance at capitalism-bashing. my bad.
Though admittedly, its not like free enterprise has a great record for promoting charity either, unless there is long term investment opportunities available (even then it's a minority of far sighted corporations).

[Sibirsky]

Socialism = chronic inefficiency, bureaucratic mess, stagnated technological development.

Free Market Capitalism = Chronic over-efficiency, extreme economic inequality, and the boom-bust cycle.

I'll choose a third route and just say that Keynesian/State Capitalism is the best system.

Oh, and Hong Kong is Mixed Free Market, and has a well-funded welfare system.

My thoughts exactly.

Over efficiency does not exist.

Free market capitalism reduces income inequality and central banks and government exacerbate the boom-bust cycle.

[Jello Biafra]

If the social contract says that you can do this, it would be yours. Otherwise, you'd merely be possessing it.

Sure I'll sign some piece of paper and get some other people to sign it that says I can steal from you.

Unless I sign it I am not in the contract, and thus it is impossible to "steal" from me.

You dont believe it you say? Then I have this other piece of paper signed by other people saying that last piece of paper is legitimate.

Unless I'm in the contract, I have no rights, and therefore what I believe is irrelevant.

[Jimanistan]

Sure I'll sign some piece of paper and get some other people to sign it that says I can steal from you.

You dont believe it you say? Then I have this other piece of paper signed by other people saying that last piece of paper is legitimate.

You realize that the social contract isn't a literal, physical document, right?

[Conserative Morality]

I love how my only choices are the Gilded Age or the USSR.

[Trotskylvania]

My thoughts exactly.

Over efficiency does not exist.

Free market capitalism reduces income inequality and central banks and government exacerbate the boom-bust cycle.

Which is of course why boom-bust cycles decreased after the widespread institutionalization of Keynesian and Monestarist economics within government spending and central banking policies...

[Trotskylvania]

I love how my only choices are the Gilded Age or the USSR.

On the first day of studying political theory under the resident theory guru here at MSU, she told us "Reject the poverty of a dichotomous choice." I have taken the to heart ever since then.

[Abdulhafidia]

Try this logic.

Poverty causes crime. Usually property crime. Charity and contributions to charity lower property crime. Thus contributions to charity is a benefit to those with property.

It's good, though of course, most such charity takes the form of government social welfare programs, a Socialist mainstay.

*Edit: and of course EVERYONE giving to charity does so with the express intent of decreasing property crimes.

[Sibirsky]

Sure I'll sign some piece of paper and get some other people to sign it that says I can steal from you.

You dont believe it you say? Then I have this other piece of paper signed by other people saying that last piece of paper is legitimate.

You realize that the social contract isn't a literal, physical document, right?

Right. Verbal contracts and even implied contracts stand up in court.

You go into a restaurant and order food. You are implying that you will pay for it. You do not have to tell the waiter that you will pay for it. You do not have to sign a contract saying you will pay for it. You entered the restaurant and ordered food voluntarily, thereby agreeing to the implied contract of paying for food.

Terra Agora did not agree to the social contract simply by being born. The social contract is coercive.

[Wienholdland]

Industrial capitalism is sustained by a system of conventional myths: the chief of which is that a system of private vices will yield public benefits. It has long been understood that a society build on such a foundation will destroy itself in time.

Ever read a world almanac? You'd be surprised how many inventions(that contributed to the human race as a whole) were created/discovered in 19th century USA. The prosperity that comes from capitalism inevitably benefits society as a whole.

How many people do you think would be motivated to work hard, achieve and innovate without the fiscal incentive? As shallow as it may sound, it is reality, humans do act in their own self interest.

The US government has grown exponentially over the last 100 years, capitalism has been gradually pushed away, so the decline of the US can hardly be blamed on capitalism.

[Sibirsky]

Over efficiency does not exist.

Free market capitalism reduces income inequality and central banks and government exacerbate the boom-bust cycle.

Which is of course why boom-bust cycles decreased after the widespread institutionalization of Keynesian and Monestarist economics within government spending and central banking policies...

The Great Depression and Global Financial Crisis disagree.

[Wienholdland]

Sure I'll sign some piece of paper and get some other people to sign it that says I can steal from you.

Unless I sign it I am not in the contract, and thus it is impossible to "steal" from me.

Exactly his point. He didn't sign the contract for the government to take his money. Yet it still does.

[Jimanistan]

Terra Agora did not agree to the social contract simply by being born. The social contract is coercive.

He didn't really agree to be born, either.

[Sibirsky]

Try this logic.

Poverty causes crime. Usually property crime. Charity and contributions to charity lower property crime. Thus contributions to charity is a benefit to those with property.

It's good, though of course, most such charity takes the form of government social welfare programs, a Socialist mainstay.

*Edit: and of course EVERYONE giving to charity does so with the express intent of decreasing property crimes.

It doesn't matter why they give. The fact that they do give is all that matters.

Most give because they want to help.

[Vostokja]

My thoughts exactly.

Over efficiency does not exist.

Free market capitalism reduces income inequality and central banks and government exacerbate the boom-bust cycle.

I know someone who has been reading radical Liberation craponomics..
Seriously, I want actual proof of this process.
The United States has been deregulating since the late 1970s, yet average middle class incomes are either down or stagnant, the wealth gap has soared, and education/health are in ruins. And to add to that ,100% Free market economics cant get a nation through a though war like other forms of economic systems can.

[Sibirsky]

Terra Agora did not agree to the social contract simply by being born. The social contract is coercive.

He didn't really agree to be born, either.

I'm not sure I understand the point. We can agree to implied and verbal contracts, voluntarily. The social contract isn't one of them.

[Jello Biafra]

Both of you are being quoted because this applies to both of you.

Terra Agora did not agree to the social contract simply by being born.

Unless I sign it I am not in the contract, and thus it is impossible to "steal" from me.

Exactly his point. He didn't sign the contract for the government to take his money. Yet it still does.

Certainly. His parents agreed to it on his behalf. Which is another facet of contract law. Unless you're suggesting that infant abuse should be legal?

[Wienholdland]

Over efficiency does not exist.

Free market capitalism reduces income inequality and central banks and government exacerbate the boom-bust cycle.

I know someone who has been reading radical Liberation craponomics..
Seriously, I want actual proof of this process.
The United States has been deregulating since the late 1970s, yet average middle class incomes are either down or stagnant, the wealth gap has soared, and education/health are in ruins. And to add to that ,100% Free market economics cant get a nation through a though war like other forms of economic systems can.

They haven't been deregulating.

[Abdulhafidia]

It's good, though of course, most such charity takes the form of government social welfare programs, a Socialist mainstay.

*Edit: and of course EVERYONE giving to charity does so with the express intent of decreasing property crimes.

It doesn't matter why they give. The fact that they do give is all that matters.

Most give because they want to help.

Snap, wish I hadn't made the edit and given you an excuse to ignore the other point.

Oh well, time for sleep I think.

It's been fun, my friends.

[Trotskylvania]

Industrial capitalism is sustained by a system of conventional myths: the chief of which is that a system of private vices will yield public benefits. It has long been understood that a society build on such a foundation will destroy itself in time.

Ever read a world almanac? You'd be surprised how many inventions(that contributed to the human race as a whole) were created/discovered in 19th century USA. The prosperity that comes from capitalism inevitably benefits society as a whole.

How many people do you think would be motivated to work hard, achieve and innovate without the fiscal incentive? As shallow as it may sound, it is reality, humans do act in their own self interest.

The US government has grown exponentially over the last 100 years, capitalism has been gradually pushed away, so the decline of the US can hardly be blamed on capitalism.

What makes you think that will go on forever? Feudalism served to increase the productive forces of human civilization, until it reached a final crisis, where the negatives it created outweighed the benfits, forcing a transformation of social relations. It'd be hubris to say that capitalism wouldn't be susceptible to the same.

No socialist has ever suggested that socialism even required altruism, or couldn't have self-interest. Far from it. Rather, we argue based on precedent that institutions that emphasize organic solidarity and participatory decision making tend to make people behave more altruistically to their fellows.

I'm not talking about "the decline of the US", but either way, I find it pretty funny that the modern libertarian insistence that capitalism has been declining seems to perfectly mirror the delusions that Marxists in the 30s and 40s had that capitalism read reached the final stage of decline.