Socialism vs Free Market Capitalism

[Terra Agora]

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

What makes the US Constitution special?[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Why is the US Constitution a valid social contract?

[United Dependencies]

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

Then nobody ever thought it was right in the first place.

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

To them it's right to me it's wrong.

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

How is this any different from what I'm saying?

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Just as you must learn to walk before you can run, human society must go through capitalism before it can hope to achieve socialism.

[North Calaveras]

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.[/quote]
Why is the US Constitution a valid social contract?[/quote]

i would hope our constitution is valid lol

[Jello Biafra]

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

Then nobody ever thought it was right in the first place.

They don't have to think it's right to do it.

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

To them it's right to me it's wrong.

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

How is this any different from what I'm saying?

Objective morality = morality exists independently of individual opinion.
Relative morality = morality differs based on individual or societal opinion, and we shouldn't criticize them for it (itself a moral position)
Subjective morality = morality differs based on individual or societal opinion, and I have no reason to accept any other moral code aside from my own unless you can give me one.

[Trotskylvania]

Why is the US Constitution a valid social contract?

The Constitution, in itself, is only part of the social contract for the United States. What validates it is the legitimacy that the subjects of the contract ascribe to it. And as the people's views on justice change, so does the contract.

[Jello Biafra]

Why is the US Constitution a valid social contract?

Because it was ratified. (People agreed to it.) Naturally, without agreement, there is no contract, by definition.

[Sibirsky]

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?

One tiny sector partially deregulating is not deregulation.

As a result of the actions of electricity wholesalers, Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were buying from a spot market at very high prices but were unable to raise retail rates. A product that the IOU's used to produce for about three cents per kilowatt hour of electricity, they were paying eleven cents, twenty cents, fifty cents or more; and, yet, they were capped at 6.7 cents per kilowatt hours in terms of what they could charge their retail customers.
As a result of the actions of electricity wholesalers, Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were buying from a spot market at very high prices but were unable to raise retail rates. A product that the IOU's used to produce for about three cents per kilowatt hour of electricity, they were paying eleven cents, twenty cents, fifty cents or more; and, yet, they were capped at 6.7 cents per kilowatt hours in terms of what they could charge their retail customers. As a result, PG&E filed bankruptcy, and Southern California Edison worked diligently on a workout plan with the State of California to save their company from the same fate.[19] PG&E and SCE had racked up US$20 Billion in debt by Spring of 2001 and their credit ratings were reduced to junk status. The financial crisis meant that PG&E and SCE were unable to purchase power on behalf of their customers.

When demand rises, so do prices. That's reasonable and has the effect of increased production and lowering demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ail_market

Sources for 2 are everywhere. And for 3 in your own link.

[Terra Agora]

Why is the US Constitution a valid social contract?

Because it was ratified. (People agreed to it.) Naturally, without agreement, there is no contract, by definition.

So because people in the past agreed to it I do?

[Wienholdland]

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-

Any evidence of your implied claim, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of it?

[Sibirsky]

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?

There would be a reasonable profit in it. They would compete on both price and quality and gain market share.

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

The state ownership of the sector is.

[United Dependencies]

Then nobody ever thought it was right in the first place.

They don't have to think it's right to do it.

You just broke the hypothetical.

To them it's right to me it's wrong.


How is this any different from what I'm saying?

Objective morality = morality exists independently of individual opinion.
Relative morality = morality differs based on individual or societal opinion, and we shouldn't criticize them for it (itself a moral position)
Subjective morality = morality differs based on individual or societal opinion, and I have no reason to accept any other moral code aside from my own unless you can give me one.

I never said we shouldn't criticize.
furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".[2]

can we please stop quoting like this? I took more time to fix this post up than to write it.

[Sibirsky]

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.

I already proved the negative effects of business regulations. You ignored it.

[Jello Biafra]

Because it was ratified. (People agreed to it.) Naturally, without agreement, there is no contract, by definition.

So because people in the past agreed to it I do?

No. They agreed to it, and agreed to it on behalf of their children who agreed to it implicitly when they reached the age of majority who agreed to it on behalf of their children who agreed to it implicitly when they reached the age of majority who agreed to it on behalf of their children...and so on, until now. Therefore, by living here, you are either agreeing to the social contract or it is being agreed to on your behalf.

[Trotskylvania]

Because it was ratified. (People agreed to it.) Naturally, without agreement, there is no contract, by definition.

So because people in the past agreed to it I do?

People still agree to it en masse. The great thing about social contracts is that they're not static, but dynamic, changing in response to changing demands made on it.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Again, false.

He may choose the lesser evil perhaps. Nothing more. There is never implied consent. If he left the US he would still be required to pay taxes. To avoid taxes he would have to pay an exit tax and renounce his citizenship. He would most likely have to move to another place, that would also tax him.

Moving to Antarctica is a not a real suggestion and you know it.

[Jello Biafra]

They don't have to think it's right to do it.

You just broke the hypothetical.

Objective morality = morality exists independently of individual opinion.
Relative morality = morality differs based on individual or societal opinion, and we shouldn't criticize them for it (itself a moral position)
Subjective morality = morality differs based on individual or societal opinion, and I have no reason to accept any other moral code aside from my own unless you can give me one.

I never said we shouldn't criticize.
furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".[2]

can we please stop quoting like this? I took more time to fix this post up than to write it.

I find this method to be ugly, but all right, if you want.

1) I didn't break the hypothetical. Just because someone does something doesn't mean they ought to do something. "Is" doesn't equal "ought".
2) The definition of moral relativism you quoted is a reworded version of what I posted.

[Terra Agora]

So because people in the past agreed to it I do?

No. They agreed to it, and agreed to it on behalf of their children who agreed to it implicitly when they reached the age of majority who agreed to it on behalf of their children who agreed to it implicitly when they reached the age of majority who agreed to it on behalf of their children...and so on, until now. Therefore, by living here, you are either agreeing to the social contract or it is being agreed to on your behalf.

I dont agree with it so someone else will agree to it for me?

[Jello Biafra]

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.

Again, false.

He may choose the lesser evil perhaps. Nothing more. There is never implied consent. If he left the US he would still be required to pay taxes. To avoid taxes he would have to pay an exit tax and renounce his citizenship. He would most likely have to move to another place, that would also tax him.

Moving to Antarctica is a not a real suggestion and you know it.

Ah. So then consent is not equal to picking an option from a set of choices? Must there be meaningful choices?

No. They agreed to it, and agreed to it on behalf of their children who agreed to it implicitly when they reached the age of majority who agreed to it on behalf of their children who agreed to it implicitly when they reached the age of majority who agreed to it on behalf of their children...and so on, until now. Therefore, by living here, you are either agreeing to the social contract or it is being agreed to on your behalf.

I dont agree with it so someone else will agree to it for me?

If you didn't agree with it, you wouldn't be there.

[Conserative Morality]

Any evidence of your implied claim, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of it?

If you're really disputing the idea that food contamination was more common before regulation of food production, I'm really not going to waste my energy on you.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Again, false.

He may choose the lesser evil perhaps. Nothing more. There is never implied consent. If he left the US he would still be required to pay taxes. To avoid taxes he would have to pay an exit tax and renounce his citizenship. He would most likely have to move to another place, that would also tax him.

Moving to Antarctica is a not a real suggestion and you know it.

I continue to struggle to give a fuck.

The whole thing doesn't come to a halt because one person is to proud to admit that rights cannot exist without a social contract. Just because he says "No" doesn't mean we put the brakes on civilization.

[Wienholdland]

Any evidence of your implied claim, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of it?

If you're really disputing the idea that food contamination was more common before regulation of food production, I'm really not going to waste my energy on you.

Not really, just before the federal government started regulating food production.

Any defense of these regulations you love so much?

[Conserative Morality]

Not really, just before the federal government started regulating food production.

lol

[Trotskylvania]

If you're really disputing the idea that food contamination was more common before regulation of food production, I'm really not going to waste my energy on you.

Not really, just before the federal government started regulating food production.

The federal and state governments have been regulating aspects of food and drug production since around the time Upton Sinclair published The Jungle. It's present form only dates from the 70s, but the policies existed much longer.

[Augarundus]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

You realize the Gilded Age was the epitome of state subsidies, rite? And monopolies.

Anyway, socialism =/= state regulations. OP doesn't understand that all major statist societies to date were/are capitalist.

Oh yeah; there's no school like the Austrian School. Just sayin'.