Capitalism vs. Communism

[Blakk Metal]

And you agree to cut your dick off by being within 12,000 miles from my house.

You'll probably find that he'd agree to no such thing... What's your point?

He said that by being in an arbitrary area, one agrees to anything.

[Jassysworth 1]

You'll probably find that he'd agree to no such thing... What's your point?

He said that by being in an arbitrary area, one agrees to anything.

He said that when you agree to live in a state, you have to abide by its rules.

Well last time I checked, the area covered by a circle that is formed with a 12,000 mile radius with the house of the player that controls Blakk Metal as the center did NOT constitute a state (and thankfully does not constitute one).

[Blakk Metal]

He said that by being in an arbitrary area, one agrees to anything.

He said that when you agree to live in a state, you have to abide by its rules.

Well last time I checked, the area covered by a circle that is formed with a 12,000 mile radius with the house of the player that controls Blakk Metal as the center did NOT constitute a state (and thankfully does not constitute one).

Why not?

[Jassysworth 1]

He said that when you agree to live in a state, you have to abide by its rules.

Well last time I checked, the area covered by a circle that is formed with a 12,000 mile radius with the house of the player that controls Blakk Metal as the center did NOT constitute a state (and thankfully does not constitute one).

Why not?

For many reasons...

For one thing you don't have a flag, don't have a seat at the United Nations, and for another you probably reside within the area covered by the jurisdiction of another already existing, long-standing, and legitimate state. Plus there's absolutely no chance of you being a state if not a single other state or organized society recognizes you as one.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Oh hey! Blakk is still here!

I heard some self-admitted Anarcho-Communists got arrested for trying to blow up a bridge in Ohio and I thought: "lol it must be Blakk!". But I guess I was wrong...

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I don't wish to see quotas and rationing applied. By "distribution of resources" I mean money, a job,etc.not essentials such as food and water.(Ex: you can pursue whatever job you want, but say you can't find one, you would only need to talk to a "monitor/observer" and you would be given one. You could then use the money as you please, not to get rations. I don't want people being told what job to do if they can find one they want, nor do I wish for people to be told how much food,water,etc. they can have.)

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

[Bojikami]

Communism. I know my land of Cuba isn't fully communist, but I enjoy my home and its ideals.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Rights do not exist naturally, they must be acknowledged (whether voluntarily or by force) in order to have any meaning whatsoever. Loss of that acknowledgement (not mere incidental violation) means loss of that right, its effective revocation. If a group prevents voters from submitting their ballot with impunity and these voters cannot overcome this somehow, their right of suffrage has been revoked. It must be reestablished somehow in order to have any further meaning.

No rights are natural, but there are many rights which ought to be treated as though they were.

If you value something enough to call it a right, you don't revoke it for bad behavior.

Which is not only an admission that rights can be revoked, but also a point against something I haven't even said.

[Socialdemokraterne]

He said that when you agree to live in a state, you have to abide by its rules.

Well last time I checked, the area covered by a circle that is formed with a 12,000 mile radius with the house of the player that controls Blakk Metal as the center did NOT constitute a state (and thankfully does not constitute one).

Why not?

Because you don't have a monopoly on the use of force within that set of borders, you don't constitute a state. The Westphalian state is defined as a political unit featuring a monopoly on the use of force within its defined borders. You would have what, yourself and a few of your friends to enforce your "Cut off your genitals" decree? Meanwhile there would be (depending upon where you put the center of the circle) multiple police departments and one or more groups of armed forces looking at your group and saying "Stand down, your laws are illegitimate and you've no right to enforce them within our territory." Unless you could overcome these and enforce your monopoly within that 450 million square miles or so, you've failed to meet one of the defining criteria of a state. You might get away with calling yourself a failed state, but that's sort of reaching considering you were never a state to begin with.

A man's (or woman's) house might be his (or her) castle, but it is not its own independent state as part of the bargain.

[Sociobiology]

Why not?

Because you don't have a monopoly on the use of force within that set of borders, you don't constitute a state. The Westphalian state is defined as a political unit featuring a monopoly on the use of force within its defined borders. You would have what, yourself and a few of your friends to enforce your "Cut off your genitals" decree? Meanwhile there would be (depending upon where you put the center of the circle) multiple police departments and one or more groups of armed forces looking at your group and saying "Stand down, your laws are illegitimate and you've no right to enforce them within our territory." Unless you could overcome these and enforce your monopoly within that 450 million square miles or so, you've failed to meet one of the defining criteria of a state. You might get away with calling yourself a failed state, but that's sort of reaching considering you were never a state to begin with.

A man's (or woman's) house might be his (or her) castle, but it is not its own independent state as part of the bargain.

you do realize by this definition nearly every single society is a state. well except for feudalist Europe and nomads.

[Sociobiology]

I don't wish to see quotas and rationing applied. By "distribution of resources" I mean money, a job,etc.not essentials such as food and water.(Ex: you can pursue whatever job you want, but say you can't find one, you would only need to talk to a "monitor/observer" and you would be given one. You could then use the money as you please, not to get rations. I don't want people being told what job to do if they can find one they want, nor do I wish for people to be told how much food,water,etc. they can have.)

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

person A: I wanna be a porn star!

Person B: nobody wants to watch you have sex.

Person A: but its what I want.

Replace porn star with pop-singer if porn bothers you.

[Socialdemokraterne]

you do realize by this definition nearly every single society is a state. well except for feudalist Europe and nomads.

Refine the definition then, please. I have no problem with being the learner once in a while.

[Sociobiology]

you do realize by this definition nearly every single society is a state. well except for feudalist Europe and nomads.

Refine the definition then, please. I have no problem with being the learner once in a while.

I use the anthropological one a state is defined a society with a specialized group of policy makers with the authority to enforce said policy in said society. Many definitions include that they contain some level of centralization, but that is strongly implied by specialized so others leave it out.

[Renegade Island]

I don't wish to see quotas and rationing applied. By "distribution of resources" I mean money, a job,etc.not essentials such as food and water.(Ex: you can pursue whatever job you want, but say you can't find one, you would only need to talk to a "monitor/observer" and you would be given one. You could then use the money as you please, not to get rations. I don't want people being told what job to do if they can find one they want, nor do I wish for people to be told how much food,water,etc. they can have.)

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

There is no scarcity.

[Williamson]

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

There is no scarcity.

that's all i have to say.

[Dinahia]

There is no scarcity.

Yes there is.

[Divair]

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

There is no scarcity.

What world do you live in?

[Socialdemokraterne]

There is no scarcity.

I...what? You can just magic iron ingots out of thin air or something? Even if we assume that 100% of the iron in the world is fluidly accessible and can be recycled with perfect efficiency, there's only so much iron in the world to be used at any given time. That then leaves us with the question "What do we do with the iron we have?"

[The Joseon Dynasty]

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

There is no scarcity.

We're discussing Economics. Economics is the study of scarcity. You can't just assume away the most crucial component of the discussion.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Are you dividing money perfectly evenly across the entire society? That is, all firms' profits and all workers' wages are tallied up and then divided by the current adult population?

The system would be that all wages are the same, not adding different wages together, as I believe this would be much more difficult. The actual "distribution" of money,jobs,etc. would happen once Communism took power. After everything is distributed, the system would be to monitor and ensure no one starts getting greedy.

Once again, intervening in the market to set wages at some arbitrary constant is highly inefficient.

Wages exist in order to compensate the worker for the labour he has undertaken. But, depending on the labour itself, the opportunity cost is variable (this is a crucial consideration).

When the labour has high risk; considerable human capital acquisition (and the associated economic costs therein); unsocial hours; poor working conditions; or high relative efficiency per labour unit, the worker will be compensated more in order to generate incentive.

If the wage is too low, the opportunity cost of undertaking that particular work will outstrip the compensation, and the worker will have no incentive to produce. And if the wage is too high, you are wasting resources. In your proposal, both would be an issue. In reality, too, there are other factors which determine the wage rate, but we are just considering these for simplicity.

Intervening in the market to adjust wages is inefficient. It needs to be done to some degree for social reasons, but that is only because we value the social benefit greater than the economic cost.

Your proposal, however, would be ruinous.

[Canis Rex]

I don't wish to see quotas and rationing applied. By "distribution of resources" I mean money, a job,etc.not essentials such as food and water.(Ex: you can pursue whatever job you want, but say you can't find one, you would only need to talk to a "monitor/observer" and you would be given one. You could then use the money as you please, not to get rations. I don't want people being told what job to do if they can find one they want, nor do I wish for people to be told how much food,water,etc. they can have.)

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

I never said you would get the job you wanted originally. Say your situation does happen, economy only needs 20 and has 20, you could pick another job that is needed and be given it. You might not be a shoemaker, but you will have a job.

[Canis Rex]

This is a ridiculous system. It's easy to plop down and say "if I ran the world, everyone would be able to do what they wanted and have as much as they wanted".

Realistically, to maintain a functional society, considering scarcity, you would need to be cognizant, chiefly, of the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources. If you have 50 people wanting to be shoe-makers, but your economy only needs 20, by intervening in the market to add an additional 30 shoe-makers, you are not only wasting resources, but crowding out the other shoe-makers and reducing overall efficiency.

It's not feasible, in any sort of economic system.

person A: I wanna be a porn star!

Person B: nobody wants to watch you have sex.

Person A: but its what I want.

Replace porn star with pop-singer if porn bothers you.

See my above post.

[Renegade Island]

There is no scarcity.

We're discussing Economics. Economics is the study of scarcity. You can't just assume away the most crucial component of the discussion.

I can when there is a world food surplus combined with 1 billion starving people, free energy technology but an over reliance on finite energy sources, diminishing minerals combined with accelerating cyclical consumption, etc, etc, etc.

Modern economics is the perpetuation of scarcity.

[Canis Rex]

The system would be that all wages are the same, not adding different wages together, as I believe this would be much more difficult. The actual "distribution" of money,jobs,etc. would happen once Communism took power. After everything is distributed, the system would be to monitor and ensure no one starts getting greedy.

Once again, intervening in the market to set wages at some arbitrary constant is highly inefficient.

Wages exist in order to compensate the worker for the labour he has undertaken. But, depending on the labour itself, the opportunity cost is variable (this is a crucial consideration).

When the labour has high risk; considerable human capital acquisition (and the associated economic costs therein); unsocial hours; poor working conditions; or high relative efficiency per labour unit, the worker will be compensated more in order to generate incentive.

If the wage is too low, the opportunity cost of undertaking that particular work will outstrip the compensation, and the worker will have no incentive to produce. And if the wage is too high, you are wasting resources. In your proposal, both would be an issue. In reality, too, there are other factors which determine the wage rate, but we are just considering these for simplicity.

Intervening in the market to adjust wages is inefficient. It needs to be done to some degree for social reasons, but that is only because we value the social benefit greater than the economic cost.

Your proposal, however, would be ruinous.

This capitalist system is what made the world the mess it is today and needs overthrown and destroyed. It ignores all but the rich and leaves the rest of people to fend for themselves

[Occupied Deutschland]

There is no scarcity.

...
I know multiple people have responded to this already but I just have to add: Ha-Ha no.

I can when there is a world food surplus (1) combined with 1 billion starving people, free energy technology (2) but an over reliance on finite energy sources, diminishing minerals (3) combined with accelerating cyclical consumption, etc, etc, etc.

Modern economics is the perpetuation of scarcity.

1: A surplus in one sector does not mean there is no scarcity. Nor does it mean there aren't shortages in local markets related to that sector.
2: Trollscience doesn't actually WORK, you know...
3: Now you're getting it there.