Socialism vs Free Market Capitalism

[Jello Biafra]

If you did the things I mentioned, you agreed to the constitution.

Im forced to. I was born here.

You can't emigrate?

Not to mention it coercive.

How so?

Thats like me saying I own your house and as long as you use it and the area surrounding I can do what I want with you.

No, since you are not the social contract.

[Wienholdland]

Interesting you'd say that considering the fact that the Soviet Union was the most heavily polluted country in the world.

"The extent of pollution and ecological collapse in Russia is due to decades of ill-considered military and industrial development undertaken in virtual secrecy and with scant concern for the environmental and health consequences."

http://www1.american.edu/ted/russair.htm

Why in god's name would you think I champion the Soviet Union? The Soviets were just another flavor of capitalist social relations, with a totalitarian statist flair instead. They just draped everything in red bunting and called it socialism.

If you don't support government control of everything then why are you even arguing against us?

You do know that if we had a free society you and your fellow socialists could form a voluntary socialist society within it, right?

[United Dependencies]

I don't understand. If you and wider society don't think something is wrong. How is it wrong?

So if I had everyone in your city thinking that its okay for me to kill your family it is okay?

By using your logic it is.

I don't understand. If you and wider society don't think something is wrong. How is it wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority

Do you honestly believe that your current values of right and wrong just popped into your head without any input from anyone? We can sit here and scoff at the idea of you being able to murder random families while being morally in the right because in our current societal system of beliefs this is wrong. Look at history, morality changes over time. In the Classical era owning slaves was a normal ordinary ok thing.
Yes. This is what has happened through all of human history.

[Conserative Morality]

Im forced to. I was born here. Not to mention it coercive.
Thats like me saying I own your house and as long as you use it and the area surrounding I can do what I want with you.

Erm, correct? I mean, the only thing really stopping that is the government saying that they have jurisdiction over the land of that you own and thus you have certain restraints, but without that, really, that's generally the way things work.

[Terra Agora]

Im forced to. I was born here.

You can't emigrate?

Not to mention it coercive.

How so?

Thats like me saying I own your house and as long as you use it and the area surrounding I can do what I want with you.

No, since you are not the social contract.

Im either forced to agree to your coercive contract (without my consent) or I can move somewhere else which will do the same.
Reason above.
Why not?

[Neu California]

That would depend on if they coud make a reasonable profit by dramatically improving the quality. If such couldn't happen, then what?

Someone else will enter the market. There is always someone else, assuming low barriers to entry.

Even if they did, would their quality be any better if there wasn't a reasonable profit in it?

Source? I looked and I could't find one.

Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

And their is sources from this PDF.
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/n ... aer_en.pdf

I'll concede this point, though I ask if this is necessarily a bad thing

[Malgrave]

I think it's time some of you watched the Keyenes vs Hayek

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo ... ure=relmfu

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc


Free Market capitalism is the way to go, although my NS nation takes a mixed approach, very little regulation (apart from environmental) however taxes are high . Although i'm trying to get it down >_>

"Capitalism is about profit and loss. If you bail out the losers theirs no end to the cost". Hayek rings true.

[Terra Agora]

I think it's time some of you watched the Keyenes vs Hayek

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo ... ure=relmfu

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc


Free Market capitalism is the way to go, although my NS nation takes a mixed approach, very little regulation (apart from environmental) however taxes are high . Although i'm trying to get it down >_>

"Capitalism is about profit and loss. If you bail out the losers theirs no end to the cost". Hayek rings true.

Hayek is always true silly

[Trotskylvania]

The only thing lolworthy is your continued insistence on having a monopoly on legitimate political values, and your ridiculous belief that notions of rights and justice are somehow not socially determined.

Monopoly on legitimate political values?

How so explain.

To put it bluntly, you conception of political rights and legitimacy just pops into existence as if by divine writ, and demands that everyone hold to certain conditions of individual sovereignty and property rights. As I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, it's nonsensical to say "the social contract violates my rights". Rights don't exist outside of a contract.

Why in god's name would you think I champion the Soviet Union? The Soviets were just another flavor of capitalist social relations, with a totalitarian statist flair instead. They just draped everything in red bunting and called it socialism.

If you don't support government control of everything then why are you even arguing against us?

You do know that if we had a free society you and your fellow socialists could form a voluntary socialist society within it, right?

Because I don't think that freedom is optional. A free society, where the economy is organized by participatory planning in a syndicalist arrangment of federated syndicates, combines and manifolds, can no more abide the existence of wagedom than it can abide the existence of chattel slavery.

[Jello Biafra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority

Do you honestly believe that your current values of right and wrong just popped into your head without any input from anyone?

Sure, but sometimes moral codes (both positively and negatively) form in spite of others, and not because of them.

We can sit here and scoff at the idea of you being able to murder random families while being morally in the right because in our current societal system of beliefs this is wrong.

No, we can scoff at that because in our (yours and my) personal system of beliefs this is wrong.

Look at history, morality changes over time. In the Classical era owning slaves was a normal ordinary ok thing.

No it wasn't. People just believed it was.

Yes. This is what has happened through all of human history.

Doesn't make it logical.

[Wienholdland]

That was partial deregulation which caused some utilities to be forced to provide electricity at a loss. Full deregulation would not have caused it.


Yeah, that's bullshit. The CRA, Fannie, Freddie, implied guarantee on their debt caused the crisis.


Passing ridiculous regulations and calling it deregulating is not actually deregulating.

1. you said they haven't been deregulating. I proved that there has been deregulation
2. One of my favorite phrases: Source for 2 and 3? As for 1, can you show that more deregulation would've kept the companies from losing money, while keeping power prices within reasonable amounts?

While you rail against this supposed "deregulation", you don't take into account all of the other regulations that have been put in place since the 70s.

[Terra Agora]

Monopoly on legitimate political values?

How so explain.

To put it bluntly, you conception of political rights and legitimacy just pops into existence as if by divine writ, and demands that everyone hold to certain conditions of individual sovereignty and property rights. As I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, it's nonsensical to say "the social contract violates my rights". Rights don't exist outside of a contract.]

Im not forcing people to " conditions of individual sovereignty and property rights."

Your forcing me to accept a coercive contract.

[Jello Biafra]

You can't emigrate?


How so?

No, since you are not the social contract.

Im either forced to agree to your coercive contract (without my consent) or I can move somewhere else which will do the same.

Move to Antarctica or some deserted island and live by yourself, if you don't want to live by the rules of others.

Why not?

Why are you not the social contract, or why can you not violate the social contract?

[United Dependencies]

No, we can scoff at that because in our (yours and my) personal system of beliefs this is wrong.

And in TA's hypothetical our personal system of beliefs would condone the action. So how is it wrong?
edit:well I would think it was wrong but my opinions would be in a tiny minority. Much like ancaps are in the modern day.

No it wasn't. People just believed it was.

So right and wrong exist objectively somewhere?

[Neu California]

1. you said they haven't been deregulating. I proved that there has been deregulation
2. One of my favorite phrases: Source for 2 and 3? As for 1, can you show that more deregulation would've kept the companies from losing money, while keeping power prices within reasonable amounts?

While you rail against this supposed "deregulation", you don't take into account all of the other regulations that have been put in place since the 70s.

Prove, unequivocally, that they're bad.

If they're beneficial, then the obvious thing to do is to keep them.

[Sibirsky]

I never gave verbal consent to taxation.

You gave implied consent to taxation.

False

[Wienholdland]

Because I don't think that freedom is optional. A free society, where the economy is organized by participatory planning in a syndicalist arrangment of federated syndicates, combines and manifolds, can no more abide the existence of wagedom than it can abide the existence of chattel slavery.

Uhh.. What?

[Trotskylvania]

To put it bluntly, you conception of political rights and legitimacy just pops into existence as if by divine writ, and demands that everyone hold to certain conditions of individual sovereignty and property rights. As I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, it's nonsensical to say "the social contract violates my rights". Rights don't exist outside of a contract.]

Im not forcing people to " conditions of individual sovereignty and property rights."

Your forcing me to accept a coercive contract.

Yeah, you are. Those notions cannot exist outside of a social contract. In an anarchist society, you'd coerce people to accept those notions just as much as you are coerced to accept a social contract that is based on some notion of a Rawlsian conception of justice.

[Sibirsky]

Well you have yet to put forth these negatives.

Institutions already do this. People working in an office need to work together, teachers need to work together, etc. etc. Simply being employed ANYWHERE requires you to work together with other individuals, if you don't, you will quickly find yourself out of a job. People work together in spite of, not because of, government force.

Well you said that a society build on such a foundation will destroy itself, I have yet to see that happen.

Industrial capitalism has existed for scarcely two-hundred years. In that time, it has caused more ecological devastation then every society before it. And far from relieving this problem, the advance of technology has only served to exacerbate the ecological damage. The capitalist market has continued to place short term profitability over long-term sustainability

Industrial capitalism has also caused masses to be lifted out of poverty. And it can create better, cleaner technology when people demand it and can afford it.

[Terra Agora]

Im either forced to agree to your coercive contract (without my consent) or I can move somewhere else which will do the same.

Move to Antarctica or some deserted island and live by yourself, if you don't want to live by the rules of others.

Why not?

Why are you not the social contract, or why can you not violate the social contract?

What makes the US Constitution special?

[Jello Biafra]

No, we can scoff at that because in our (yours and my) personal system of beliefs this is wrong.

And in TA's hypothetical our personal system of beliefs would condone the action. So how is it wrong?

Not necessarily. If 90% of the population got together to lynch you, it would still be wrong.

edit:well I would think it was wrong but my opinions would be in a tiny minority.

Which is it? Either the majority opinion is always right, or it isn't.

No it wasn't. People just believed it was.

So right and wrong exist objectively somewhere?

Nope, but neither are they relative. They're subjective.

[Wienholdland]

While you rail against this supposed "deregulation", you don't take into account all of the other regulations that have been put in place since the 70s.

Prove, unequivocally, that they're bad.

If they're beneficial, then the obvious thing to do is to keep them.

Heh. Well usually the one supporting something(in this case, government regulations) should be giving reasons for it. I guess I'll start it off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fo ... ted_States

Boy that FDA works wonders doesn't it?

[Sibirsky]

Fact, government caused business to compete for labor by offering health insurance as a perk. Fact, this grew into a requirement for most businesses. Fact, comprehensive care and a third party payer system increase costs greatly. Fact, the more an employer has to pay for healthcare to hire someone, the less they will pay to the employee.

Government hands out loans and grants for education. This increases demand for degrees increases their costs. It also decreases their quality and earnings that come with them.

Businesses offered health insurance as an incentive all their own. Government never required them to do shit about it, beyond requiring that businesses not repudiate union contracts and bust unions.

Unless you believe that there is no such thing as an economy of scale, then the rationalization of health insurance by employers buying bulk has only had a positive effect on employees. If the government hadn't expanded education, then those people would be stuck in low pay, low skill jobs. If anything, government education policy has assisted the transition to higher wage, high technology industry in the US.

Government introduced wage controls causing businesses to offer health insurance as a perk to compete to employees.

Employer provided health insurance has had a negative effects on the employees pay. The fact that's a highly regulated, capitalist, yet not a free market, third party payer system exacerbates the problem of inflation.

Government contributed to inflation in education.

[Conserative Morality]

Heh. Well usually the one supporting something(in this case, government regulations) should be giving reasons for it. I guess I'll start it off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fo ... ted_States

Boy that FDA works wonders doesn't it?

Right. Because before the FDA everything was nice and clean, and such outbreaks were not merely yearly, but instead never happened rather than being a common occurance.

...

Oh shi-

[Jello Biafra]

You gave implied consent to taxation.

False

If he is over the age of majority, lives in a country that taxes, and uses its services, he gave implied consent.
If he is not over the age of majority, consent was given on his behalf.

Move to Antarctica or some deserted island and live by yourself, if you don't want to live by the rules of others.


Why are you not the social contract, or why can you not violate the social contract?

What makes the US Constitution special?

It's not special; all social contracts are equal.
Are you asking why the social contract is special? Because, as Trotskyvania said, rights don't exist without it.