LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Petrolheadia]

Are you saying one shouldn't be allowed to sell objects in their possession?

Are you surprised?

So how do you propose distributing things, accounting for individual preferences?

[Cekoviu]

Are you surprised?

So how do you propose distributing things, accounting for individual preferences?

Not distributing things without consent, for starters.

[Petrolheadia]

So how do you propose distributing things, accounting for individual preferences?

Not distributing things without consent, for starters.

What about choice then?

[Dumb Ideologies]

That's not true, no way you can have something without selling it! If I can't sell air freshener the world has basically ended and I have no rights nor possessions.

Are you saying one shouldn't be allowed to sell objects in their possession?

As an ethical matter that would depend on whether the people involved in making the object were fairly rewarded and whether the sale is price-gouging on something people desperately need. Air freshener, probably not so big, land, housing and so on maybe more so.

I personally have no problem with private property and buying and selling within a regulated market economy that redistributes wealth and looks to restrict socially parasitical behaviours on the part of the rich. Others here do have issues with such things, but that's probably why I'm only -5 or so on the political compass economically while they're on -∞

[Soviet Tankistan]

That's not true, no way you can have something without selling it! If I can't sell air freshener the world has basically ended and I have no rights nor possessions.

Are you saying one shouldn't be allowed to sell objects in their possession?

You shouldn't run a corporation with underpaid employees with no say in the operation of said business, which is typically be needed for I, a private citizen who does not work for a state run enterprise, to enable large scale private distribution. If I want someone to have air freshener, I can simply gift it or work for the state to give the freshener to people. Sales aren't wrong but the process that goes into making them must be regulated in order to protect workers and ensure consistent and efficient management of the national economy.

[Valrifell]

And also the drinking age of 21 is likely unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Age (of adults) is a protected class in the US, and it will likely be overturned if it's put in front of a sane supreme court. (Though our current Supreme Court just blatantly makes stuff up half the time based off what they personally want, so this'll take a while.)

SCOTUS has been doing that since the 30's, if not sooner.

Since basically forever, though it wasn't really admitted until the concept of Judicial Activism was advocated for.

[Petrolheadia]

Are you saying one shouldn't be allowed to sell objects in their possession?

You shouldn't run a corporation with underpaid employees with no say in the operation of said business, which is typically be needed for I, a private citizen who does not work for a state run enterprise, to enable large scale private distribution. If I want someone to have air freshener, I can simply gift it or work for the state to give the freshener to people.

"Make what I want to be made" is not a solid basis for an economy.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Are you saying one shouldn't be allowed to sell objects in their possession?

As an ethical matter that would depend on whether the people involved in making the object were fairly rewarded and whether the sale is price-gouging on something people desperately need. Air freshener, probably not so big, land, housing and so on maybe more so.

I personally have no problem with private property and buying and selling within a regulated market economy that redistributes wealth and looks to restrict socially parasitical behaviours on the part of the rich. Others here do have issues with such things, but that's probably why I'm only -5 or so on the political compass economically while they're on -∞

A "liberal socialist" economy may look promising but it would result in slowing of the economy and too many government expenditures compared to profit. I would propose that there be multiple companies run by the state dedicated to making as much of a product and maintaining quality within some restraints imposed for the country's wellbeing. I am around -8 on the economic axis, more so caused by my distaste for capitalism rather than extreme left wing economic policies.

[Cekoviu]

Not distributing things without consent, for starters.

What about choice then?

Er, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Can you rephrase it?

[Soviet Tankistan]

You shouldn't run a corporation with underpaid employees with no say in the operation of said business, which is typically be needed for I, a private citizen who does not work for a state run enterprise, to enable large scale private distribution. If I want someone to have air freshener, I can simply gift it or work for the state to give the freshener to people.

"Make what I want to be made" is not a solid basis for an economy.

It isn't, but I didn't say that. If I wish to hand others air freshener, I could offer to work for a freshener distributor instead of selling it. The same amount of freshener gets made without me increasing prices and hiring others. In the end, people still gain their product.

[Petrolheadia]

What about choice then?

Er, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Can you rephrase it?

Being able to get what fits your needs, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Cekoviu]

Er, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Can you rephrase it?

Being able to get what fits your needs, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.

I think you may have me mixed up with someone else, because I don't support any government wealth or property distribution other than welfare for the unemployed funded by taxes.

[Petrolheadia]

"Make what I want to be made" is not a solid basis for an economy.

It isn't, but I didn't say that. If I wish to hand others air freshener, I could offer to work for a freshener distributor instead of selling it. The same amount of freshener gets made without me increasing prices and hiring others. In the end, people still gain their product.

What if not enough or too many people want to hand it?

[Soviet Tankistan]

It isn't, but I didn't say that. If I wish to hand others air freshener, I could offer to work for a freshener distributor instead of selling it. The same amount of freshener gets made without me increasing prices and hiring others. In the end, people still gain their product.

What if not enough or too many people want to hand it?

They get another job they want to do. It's better to be employed than unemployed in any economy. At least my one would guarantee high employment.

[Petrolheadia]

What if not enough or too many people want to hand it?

They get another job they want to do. It's better to be employed than unemployed in any economy. At least my one would guarantee high employment.

In worthless jobs. I'd rather be unemployed with a possibility of a good job in a good economy.

[Cappuccina]

Are you saying one shouldn't be allowed to sell objects in their possession?

As an ethical matter that would depend on whether the people involved in making the object were fairly rewarded and whether the sale is price-gouging on something people desperately need. Air freshener, probably not so big, land, housing and so on maybe more so.

I personally have no problem with private property and buying and selling within a regulated market economy that redistributes wealth and looks to restrict socially parasitical behaviours on the part of the rich. Others here do have issues with such things, but that's probably why I'm only -5 or so on the political compass economically while they're on -∞

My views are more or less the same, hence why I'm also only (~)-5 on the compass, lol. I have no issue with the market as a concept, though it does require controls to mitigate it's shortcomings.

As an ethical matter that would depend on whether the people involved in making the object were fairly rewarded and whether the sale is price-gouging on something people desperately need. Air freshener, probably not so big, land, housing and so on maybe more so.

I personally have no problem with private property and buying and selling within a regulated market economy that redistributes wealth and looks to restrict socially parasitical behaviours on the part of the rich. Others here do have issues with such things, but that's probably why I'm only -5 or so on the political compass economically while they're on -∞

A "liberal socialist" economy may look promising but it would result in slowing of the economy and too many government expenditures compared to profit. I would propose that there be multiple companies run by the state dedicated to making as much of a product and maintaining quality within some restraints imposed for the country's wellbeing. I am around -8 on the economic axis, more so caused by my distaste for capitalism rather than extreme left wing economic policies.

Surprisingly I'm similar, I don't consider myself a "leftist" or socialist necessarily, anti-capitalist would probably be the only adjective that'd suitably describe my views on the economy. That being said, I don't support command economics on the basis that I view that as a form of capitalism.

[Soviet Tankistan]

They get another job they want to do. It's better to be employed than unemployed in any economy. At least my one would guarantee high employment.

In worthless jobs. I'd rather be unemployed with a possibility of a good job in a good economy.

I also would like to be unemployed and poor rather than fed and well treated.

[Petrolheadia]

In worthless jobs. I'd rather be unemployed with a possibility of a good job in a good economy.

I also would like to be unemployed and poor rather than fed and well treated.

I wouldn't like to be employed and poor, though.

[Cappuccina]

What if not enough or too many people want to hand it?

They get another job they want to do. It's better to be employed than unemployed in any economy. At least my one would guarantee high employment.

High employment doesn't necessarily equate to a better economy, in fact forcing it will probably negatively impact it.

[Soviet Tankistan]

I also would like to be unemployed and poor rather than fed and well treated.

I wouldn't like to be employed and poor, though.

Unless you have no skills to offer, you wouldn't be.

They get another job they want to do. It's better to be employed than unemployed in any economy. At least my one would guarantee high employment.

High employment doesn't necessarily equate to a better economy, in fact forcing it will probably negatively impact it.

Under a market economy, over employment can be a real concern. However, a command economy is different and doesn't have to worry as much. As long as the state is managing employment in a manner that is not detrimental in the long term, it is not an issue. Constant but controlled expansion of the economy negates the risks in a way that capitalism could not.

[Petrolheadia]

High employment doesn't necessarily equate to a better economy, in fact forcing it will probably negatively impact it.

Under a market economy, over employment can be a real concern. However, a command economy is different and doesn't have to worry as much. As long as the state is managing employment in a manner that is not detrimental in the long term, it is not an issue. Constant but controlled expansion of the economy negates the risks in a way that capitalism could not.

What you described isn't too controlled, and full employment tends to lead to people not caring enough about their labor.

[Cappuccina]

Under a market economy, over employment can be a real concern. However, a command economy is different and doesn't have to worry as much. As long as the state is managing employment in a manner that is not detrimental in the long term, it is not an issue. Constant but controlled expansion of the economy negates the risks in a way that capitalism could not.

What you described isn't too controlled, and full employment tends to lead to people not caring enough about their labor.

^this.

Full employment decreases the value of labor to simply "filling a spot", without competition, laborers have no power.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Under a market economy, over employment can be a real concern. However, a command economy is different and doesn't have to worry as much. As long as the state is managing employment in a manner that is not detrimental in the long term, it is not an issue. Constant but controlled expansion of the economy negates the risks in a way that capitalism could not.

What you described isn't too controlled, and full employment tends to lead to people not caring enough about their labor.

The whole point is for them to care about labor. It you don't fulfill standards as well as someone else, you are replaced. It is simple, there is no difference. Full employment won't happen, although something close could.

What you described isn't too controlled, and full employment tends to lead to people not caring enough about their labor.

^this.

Full employment decreases the value of labor to simply "filling a spot", without competition, laborers have no power.

The worker does have power as they practically control themselves. They choose the government and work out the terms on which they will be employed, they can quit and they can refuse to work. Doing so achieves nothing except getting a lower paid career. They compete with themselves and the rest in their trade to work well, not lazy observers. It is not "filling a spot"; it is completing a task the best if can be done.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

That's not true, no way you can have something without selling it! If I can't sell air freshener the world has basically ended and I have no rights nor possessions.

The objection of Marx was to capitalists owning the means of production, including, by extension, the workers. He never objected to individuals having personal possessions.

[Petrolheadia]

What you described isn't too controlled, and full employment tends to lead to people not caring enough about their labor.

The whole point is for them to care about labor. It you don't fulfill standards as well as someone else, you are replaced.

Enabling them to keep not caring at some other workplace.