NationStates

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Orostan wrote:but even so the money he accumulates off of others without working is still illegitimate.

So, Man works for other man for an incentive (that is controlled by the government) = illegitimate?

In other words, why work?

That's not what I said. I said nothing about incentives, or government control.

If you want to know about incentives under socialism, I'd be happy to discuss that.

Orostan wrote:1. Yes I have, I've stated the distinction at least twice.

:facepalm:

Orostan wrote:2. Here you are trying to apply your definition of private property to what Marxists define private property as. It's like calling an apple a pear, it doesn't make any sense. In addition, your sentence about profit tells me that you don't understand how a real economy works or how a planned economy would work, or how communism works.

Ahaha a Marxist telling me how a real economy works. That's great.

A socialist society is still privy to supply and demand. If people want apples and the central planners cannot deliver, then there will be capitalists like moi to fill that void.

In a Socialist system, you'd be able to sell as many apples as you like, either to a distribution cooperative or to a supermarket. Either way, you wouldn't be able to charge any more than the larger orchards are charging (which is based on how much labor it took to harvest the apples and care for the trees).

Why not? Perhaps my apples are tastier, or more easily accessible, and therefore have a higher demand— I could certainly get away with charging more. Or is the Socialist politburo going to stop me by seizing my apples?

Orostan wrote:If you want to know about incentives under socialism, I'd be happy to discuss that.

What incentives?

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Orostan wrote:1. Yes I have, I've stated the distinction at least twice.

:facepalm:

Orostan wrote:2. Here you are trying to apply your definition of private property to what Marxists define private property as. It's like calling an apple a pear, it doesn't make any sense. In addition, your sentence about profit tells me that you don't understand how a real economy works or how a planned economy would work, or how communism works.

Ahaha a Marxist telling me how a real economy works. That's great.

A socialist society is still privy to supply and demand. If people want apples and the central planners cannot deliver, then there will be capitalists like moi to fill that void.

In a Socialist system, you'd be able to sell as many apples as you like, either to a distribution cooperative or to a supermarket. Either way, you wouldn't be able to charge any more than the larger orchards are charging (which is based on how much labor it took to harvest the apples and care for the trees).

Why not? Perhaps my apples are tastier, or more easily accessible, and therefore have a higher demand— I could certainly get away with charging more. Or is the Socialist politburo going to stop me by seizing my apples?

1. Supply and demand matters. No shit. If demand for apples is accelerating, either new orchards will be built or apples will be dumped into stores from stocks already available. And even if this does not satiate the demand, the price can be raised above the labor value of apples. Read Cockshott.

2. A Socialist plan isn't going to keep track of all the apples from each individual cooperative. It's going to say "This is the demand for this kind of apple, this is the demand for that kind of apple, etc." and plan production accordingly. If you want to put your apples in stores, that's great. But if you've only got one tree, it's much easier for the stores to get someone else's apples. If you run a cooperative orchard that makes excellent apples, you'll probably be encouraged to expand your operations or allow other cooperatives to grow your apples. If your cooperative is responsible for breeding these apples first, then you might be given a pile of money to do whatever with and distribute as you and the other people involved please.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Orostan wrote:If you want to know about incentives under socialism, I'd be happy to discuss that.

What incentives?

Other than the labor currency or labor vouchers? If you can work in a field that you enjoy and you aren't at risk to die on the job, I don't see why people wouldn't voluntarily work.

Orostan wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:What incentives?

Other than the labor currency or labor vouchers? If you can work in a field that you enjoy and you aren't at risk to die on the job, I don't see why people wouldn't voluntarily work.

Because people don't like work?

The only "Job" that I could see being enjoyable is in the field of science,sport, and programming. The problem is, if we have a world of only Scientists, Sports players, and Programmers than the society would collapse in on itself.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Orostan wrote:Other than the labor currency or labor vouchers? If you can work in a field that you enjoy and you aren't at risk to die on the job, I don't see why people wouldn't voluntarily work.

Because people don't like work?

The only "Job" that I could see being enjoyable is in the field of science,sport, and programming. The problem is, if we have a world of only Scientists, Sports players, and Programmers than the society would collapse in on itself.

Perhaps for you. Other people have got different preferences. Some people like to work with their hands and even like working in coal mines.

Orostan wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Because people don't like work?

The only "Job" that I could see being enjoyable is in the field of science,sport, and programming. The problem is, if we have a world of only Scientists, Sports players, and Programmers than the society would collapse in on itself.

Perhaps for you. Other people have got different preferences. Some people like to work with their hands and even like working in coal mines.

Because that's been in their culture for many years, yes.

However, the majority wouldn't work period. We work because we need to, that's why they did. They didn't start mining because "Hitting rocks sounds like fun", they mined because their ancestors wanted an reward and they joined along. If a man's only incentive for working is entertainment, only a minority would work.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Orostan wrote:Perhaps for you. Other people have got different preferences. Some people like to work with their hands and even like working in coal mines.

Because that's been in their culture for many years, yes.

However, the majority wouldn't work period. We work because we need to, that's why they did. They didn't start mining because "Hitting rocks sounds like fun", they mined because their ancestors wanted an reward and they joined along. If a man's only incentive for working is entertainment, only a minority would work.

>hitting rocks
Do you know how coal is mined in the modern world? It's far from just hitting rocks. It says in that article that it's a stimulating job that is rewarding to these people. Something like coal mining can be made safe, the subject of that interview i linked who was a coal miner even says so.

We work because we need to, but not just to survive. What else would we do without some kind of work? I'd think that a life without labor would be rather boring. People choose to go into certain fields not just for the money, but because they are interested in the subject. Life doesn't revolve around monetary incentives alone, you know.

Orostan wrote:We work because we need to, but not just to survive. What else would we do without some kind of work? I'd think that a life without labor would be rather boring. People choose to go into certain fields not just for the money, but because they are interested in the subject. Life doesn't revolve around monetary incentives alone, you know.

Sleep? Play state-approved video games? Watch TV? Fly a kite? Explore the world? Go to Utah? Emigrate from the shithole country that follows Marxism? Do tours of the East? Contract Diseases? Bury bones? Break up Homes? Send flowers by phone? Take to drink? Go to shrinks? Give up meat? Rarely sleep? Keep people as pets? Train dogs? Race rats? Fill the attic with cash?



If life gets boring, then do something else. I can think of a million things I would rather do than work, and I can think of a million things Most people would rather do than work.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Orostan wrote:We work because we need to, but not just to survive. What else would we do without some kind of work? I'd think that a life without labor would be rather boring. People choose to go into certain fields not just for the money, but because they are interested in the subject. Life doesn't revolve around monetary incentives alone, you know.

Sleep? Play state-approved video games? Watch TV? Fly a kite? Explore the world? Go to Utah? Move away from the shithole country that follows Marxism?

If life gets boring, then do something else. I can think of a million things I would rather do than work, and I can think of a million things Most people would rather do than work.

>follows marxism
I've explained why saying that as a criticism is stupid multiple times already.

And while, yes, you might avoid working. But it won't last very long. Eventually you will get bored and go to work.

Humans are social creatures and perform social acts, news at 11000BC

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Humans are social creatures and perform social acts, news at 11000BC

You just saved me the time of writing down 2 whole paragraphs that were summarized in this one sentence.

Orostan wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Sleep? Play state-approved video games? Watch TV? Fly a kite? Explore the world? Go to Utah? Move away from the shithole country that follows Marxism?

If life gets boring, then do something else. I can think of a million things I would rather do than work, and I can think of a million things Most people would rather do than work.

>follows marxism
I've explained why saying that as a criticism is stupid multiple times already.

And while, yes, you might avoid working. But it won't last very long. Eventually you will get bored and go to work.

What would be the motivation to work long enough or sufficiently enough to prevent everyone from facing shortages?

Orostan wrote:

Nulla Bellum wrote:
"Who are you calling pot you kettle ass muhfugga."

The irony is palpable.

You however, did not read what I asked you to read at the time I criticized you for it.

Northern Davincia wrote:Freedom and having infinite choices are not synonymous. Tell me, in a society where the unemployed can still reap the fruits of labor (socialism), does that not limit the freedom of society?

How do we answer to the law of gravity? Airplanes, rockets, etc. Humans are an inventive bunch when it comes to surpassing their limits.

I didn't see this before. Sorry about that.

1) No, it does not. Freedom means being able to live as you want to live, and when society can generate enough of a surplus to provide even for those that do not work, why should it not?

2) What do you mean by this?

1. Because those who do not work do not deserve that surplus. It rewards idleness. Regardless, if freedom is to live as I please, then I wish to live independently from collectivists.
2. When confronted with a dilemma, humans are known to find solutions. That is our defining characteristic.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:>follows marxism
I've explained why saying that as a criticism is stupid multiple times already.

And while, yes, you might avoid working. But it won't last very long. Eventually you will get bored and go to work.

What would be the motivation to work long enough or sufficiently enough to prevent everyone from facing shortages?

If someone enjoys their work, they will probably want to work long enough. Especially when how that work is done and when it is done is controlled democratically by them and other workers.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:You however, did not read what I asked you to read at the time I criticized you for it.






I didn't see this before. Sorry about that.

1) No, it does not. Freedom means being able to live as you want to live, and when society can generate enough of a surplus to provide even for those that do not work, why should it not?

2) What do you mean by this?

1. Because those who do not work do not deserve that surplus. It rewards idleness. Regardless, if freedom is to live as I please, then I wish to live independently from collectivists.
2. When confronted with a dilemma, humans are known to find solutions. That is our defining characteristic.

1. That is for a future socialist country to decide, personally I think idleness is its own punishment. If you'd like to live out in the woods under Communism, you'd certainly be able too. You'd just take what you need and walk away. Under Socialism, it depends if that socialist society chooses to allow you to take what you need to live in the woods.
2. I agree. That does not eliminate the laws that govern exchange or production on a market though.

Anyone got some examples of right-libertarian societies/cultures/nations/whatever (either historical or currant)?

(edit: not related to whatever you're talking about rn, just interested)

The Grene Knyght wrote:Anyone got some examples of right-libertarian societies/cultures/nations/whatever (either historical or currant)?

(edit: not related to whatever you're talking about rn, just interested)

America under Washington technically...

It just all went down hill from there.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:What would be the motivation to work long enough or sufficiently enough to prevent everyone from facing shortages?

If someone enjoys their work, they will probably want to work long enough. Especially when how that work is done and when it is done is controlled democratically by them and other workers.

Yeah, but who says that everyone will work long enough at the same time?

Even if everyone magically wanted to work for more than an hour a day, who's to say that they will work together efficantly?

And, also, what the hell does Democratic workplaces have to do with how long and how much you work? I don't care if my boss is some rich Bureaucrat or a elected memeber, doesn't mean A: I (or anybody else) would want to work more, or B: That they even know HOW to lead a place of work.

The Grene Knyght wrote:Anyone got some examples of right-libertarian societies/cultures/nations/whatever (either historical or currant)?

(edit: not related to whatever you're talking about rn, just interested)

States, nations, societies and cultures aren't generally things we can pinhole ideologies too. In fact I can argue that most of them tend to be statist and authoritarian due to their sheer nature. As for cultures with a libertarian bent, this is all relative but I think the US (especially the early US) is a great deal more libertarian than most societies.

I don't know if it is excplicitly "right-" libertarian, but medieval Iceland has been usually upheld as a working example of anarcho-capitalism...at least the government was mostly "privatized" in the sense that it relied much on market decisions over any sort of innate bureaucracy.

Early Providence, Rhode Island's government did not enforce much beyond property rights, and could be seen as an example of a nightwatchman state.

Pennsylvania too was practically anarchic during the early 1700s.

Several city states tended to be more libertarian than larger states (a notable exception is Venice.) I forget the name, but there was an Italian city-state which profited by the tobacco trade and became very rich, despite really not having any central government.

The Grene Knyght wrote:Anyone got some examples of right-libertarian societies/cultures/nations/whatever (either historical or currant)?

(edit: not related to whatever you're talking about rn, just interested)

Early America, as well as the Dutch after they gained their independence from Spain. The Dutch were so economically successful, they called it the Dutch Miracle.

Nulla Bellum wrote:attention all passengers

I'd call the USSR going from a society just out of feudalism to an atomic superpower that invented the technology that makes modern society possible a success, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries have done better than Capitalist countries at the same level of development.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Orostan wrote:If someone enjoys their work, they will probably want to work long enough. Especially when how that work is done and when it is done is controlled democratically by them and other workers.

Yeah, but who says that everyone will work long enough at the same time?

Even if everyone magically wanted to work for more than an hour a day, who's to say that they will work together efficantly?

And, also, what the hell does Democratic workplaces have to do with how long and how much you work? I don't care if my boss is some rich Bureaucrat or a elected memeber, doesn't mean A: I (or anybody else) would want to work more, or B: That they even know HOW to lead a place of work.

1) Whose to say they do now?
2) Working hours have a great impact on job satisfaction. If someone is working 15 hours a day they probably won't like working, even if their work itself is something they enjoy creating. Working conditions also have an impact, and when someone can act to improve those conditions and set working hours at something reasonable I think that people will enjoy their jobs more, and voluntarily work. In a Socialist system,required working hours would be on a steady decrease because of automation anyway.

It's sort of funny to see libertarians, who claim to be in favor of the voluntary, telling me that workers must be made to work involuntarily.

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

The Grene Knyght wrote:Anyone got some examples of right-libertarian societies/cultures/nations/whatever (either historical or currant)?

(edit: not related to whatever you're talking about rn, just interested)

Early America, as well as the Dutch after they gained their independence from Spain. The Dutch were so economically successful, they called it the Dutch Miracle.

Does that include the property restrictions that Virginia placed on members of its legislature to prevent someone who acted in the interests of the working class getting into power?

Orostan,

The countries your study mentions aren’t actually socialist countries, so you are just proving Mises’ point that socialism only works in so far as it’s not actual socialism.

Additionally, any historian worth their salt knows that you can characterize a time period in a certain way if the evidence, on balance, supports that characterization. On balance, the historical evidence shows that Early America was a bastion of classical liberal thought. Pointing out a single instance where Early America was not classically liberal is not sufficient to overcome my characterization of the time period. History is not black and white. We must always ask “To what extent?”.

Additionally, whatever progress the Soviet Union experienced is irrelevant to whether or not socialism is superior to capitalism, for we can always ask if the Soviet Union would have seen more progress under capitalism than it did under socialism. (Speaking of that, they weren’t even real socialists and relied on some capitalist mechanisms in their economy.)

One last thing. The Soviet Union stole most of its nuclear technology from the West, so you can cannot credit the Soviet Union’s fake socialism for turning them into an atomic power. You must credit Western market economies.