Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Sibirsky]

Bullshit argument is bullshit. You make a choice to go into a restaurant and order food. You do not make a choice where to be born. In any case, almost all societies charge you, simply for being alive.

You do not make a choice about where to be born, but you are free to leave wherever you find yourself. I can guarantee that your ancestors made this choice for themselves at some point.

There is a charge for being alive wherever you find yourself. If you want shelter, you need to either build a place for yourself or pay somebody else to build it for you. If you want to eat, you need to either catch or grow your own food or pay somebody else to get food for you. And so on and so on. What's your point?

More bullshit. The Cubans, North Koreans, the Russians are free to leave?
And where can I grow my own food? On a plot of land I have to pay property taxes for?

[Great Altai]

Right! that was it!

except that gasoline tax doesn't fully cover the cost of road works nor the associated bureaucracy needed as well as the system of checks and balances to insure that said bureaucracy doesn't become insanely corrupt. Even if it did, it doesn't cover the costs associated with the truck driver (education, health care, access to clean water etc. etc. etc. and all the associated government required) nor the costs of the police that help insure the truck doesn't get jacked nor the army that .. .well you should be getting the point by now. And the viability, or lack there of, is not the responsibility of the government (except in specific cases . . .if the government isn't letting you leave then it certainly is coercion and is wrong) and therefore has no bearing on whether the government is coercive.

The cost of the shipping the product includes the labor costs for the truck driver, the insurance costs in case of loss. The gasoline taxes cover 87% of building and maintaining roads.

The government charges you to leave. How many time do we have to go through this nonsense?

Do you believe that if you use a service, you should pay for it? If so, I don't see how it's a problem that you have to pay for gas.

Your position is so extreme and based on ideals that are so abstract that if you were to be entirely consistent in following it, I don't see how you could possibly leave your home.

[Sibirsky]

Bullshit argument is bullshit. You make a choice to go into a restaurant and order food. You do not make a choice where to be born. In any case, almost all societies charge you, simply for being alive.

actually that's not true. You, generally, don't start paying taxes until you have . . .you know. . an income. Meaning you don't pay until you choose to work in the country in which you were born. More importantly there are costs to "just being alive" in any worthwhile country.
(we've done THIS song and dance before too).

Sales taxes, property taxes, and a host of other taxes ring a bell? Without having any income, the government still taxes the shit out of people.

[Avenio]

You do not make a choice about where to be born, but you are free to leave wherever you find yourself. I can guarantee that your ancestors made this choice for themselves at some point.

There is a charge for being alive wherever you find yourself. If you want shelter, you need to either build a place for yourself or pay somebody else to build it for you. If you want to eat, you need to either catch or grow your own food or pay somebody else to get food for you. And so on and so on. What's your point?

This.

As well, societies, almost by definition, are coercive and have social contracts, even anarcho-capitalist ones. In an ancap society, there are certain rules you need to abide by, whether they be enforced by private militias or not. These can include anything from property rights to the sacredity of contracts, but their overall composition is clear; they are a set of expectations that society has for you in order to participate in it.

In a 'statist' society, these include laws, and if you break them or disagree with them, you get put in jail or can leave/work to change it, respectively.

In an ancap society, if you break those expectations or disagree with them, you get ostracized/live in abject poverty/prosecuted, or are told to 'go somewhere else', be that another country or to create your own society in order to avoid them, respectively.

Either way, the options for those who disagree are exactly the same.

[Sibirsky]

The cost of the shipping the product includes the labor costs for the truck driver, the insurance costs in case of loss. The gasoline taxes cover 87% of building and maintaining roads.

The government charges you to leave. How many time do we have to go through this nonsense?

Do you believe that if you use a service, you should pay for it? If so, I don't see how it's a problem that you have to pay for gas.

Your position is so extreme and based on ideals that are so abstract that if you were to be entirely consistent in following it, I don't see how you could possibly leave your home.

Where did I say we shouldn't pay for gas? You're the one that supports government handing out free goodies. Your position is extreme and full of ideals.

[Bafuria]

I say, let the market operate freely, but provide people with free and non-negotiable access to housing, healthcare, and education.

Seconded.

[Glorious Homeland]

Yes, but you claimed the state is the only thing which is a threat to the freedom of the market,

Incorrect, read my post again.

"Because the only threat to a free market is government regulation"?

Sicilian Mafia, a good historical example of what happens when capitalism takes hold with little to no government involvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia#Post-feudal_Sicily

No , the Sicilian Mafia is an example of how government gets set up.

The Sicilian Mafia emerged due to the withdrawal of feudal government as capitalism emerged on the island, they are structurally an anarchist organisation as no single leader organises them. They are tribal anarchists - with each clan conducting business in its territory, and clans communicating between one another and perhaps following the leadership of a particularly powerful leader if they need to, or when the need arises. Under normal conditions no such leader exists and they go about their daily business in their own defacto jurisdictions, extracting protection money and providing protection and murder services in return. They are the perfect historical case study of capitalist anarchy at work.

The UK is shit because of Labour letting bankers go greedy, didn't that happen in the US? (You were referring to the economy weren't you?)

Soooooo much more to it than that.

I tend to agree, you can trace it back to the failures of pre-war liberals and conservatives, then old labour, the failures of Thatcherite conservativism, and the failures of new labour, and now the failures of the coalition.

[DaWoad]

-snipped for the part with which we, appear at least to be agreeing on-

Argument 2: Given that schools are run via profit motive in a free market society, even the cheapest 1 teacher, hundreds of students, school is going to be too expensive for some parents.

Accepted, and to alleviate this cost a family could pursue options such as the ones above (loans) plus things like scholarships. According to this source, the amount of money available for students offered by private scholarships [free money] was around $3,000,000,000 in 03-04. Couple this with the fact that educational institutions typically have less expenses than your average business being that they provide a service and not a good.

*shrugs*
1-services are often as expensive or more so than certain goods. A teacher, for example, is a rather expensive "commodity" all things considered given that they have to be recompensed for their time studying (think:paying off student loans) along with their basic needs on top of which you get supply demand considerations.
2- scholarships are wonderful things and I fully support merit based scholarships. unfortunately we're not talking about university level education here. We're talking about every levle of education and without any way to determine a students ability how does one award scholarships?
3-If, instead, you're looking at trying to base scholarships on need, you run into the problem of "not enough funds" very very quickly. 3 billion in private scholarships is great (wonderful in fact) but I guarentee you that even with available public schooling, it's not enough (thus the merit basis for deciding who gets scholarships). Even assuming that people would give proportionally more and get proportionately more wealthy, you're not going to have enough to cover public schooling for those who can't afford it let alone university/college level educations.

I take issue with your assumption that most people would only be able to afford poor levels of education. Everyone would have more money to spend under a free market and coupled with the fact that the price and quality of education would drop due to an increase in competition.

and this is where I was talking about base cost. Aside from the fact that there already is competition, there is a required cost. Teachers don't really get paid enough as is there's almost no wiggle room there at all and schools (of the public variety) run at a massive loss. increasing competition can't (physically cannot) change that fact.

I think I've adequately addressed your criticisms thus far. So no, I do not see a problem.

see arguements

[DaWoad]

oooo we've done this before!
if the robber gives you the options "pay for this thing you don't want" or "walk away" that's not robbery it's salesmanship.

to which you responded . .. drat . . .I can't remember.

The state does not give you that option. Fail.

It doesn't let you leave?

[Sibirsky]

The state does not give you that option. Fail.

It doesn't let you leave?

Depends on the state. Some let you leave if you pay them.

[DaWoad]

actually that's not true. You, generally, don't start paying taxes until you have . . .you know. . an income. Meaning you don't pay until you choose to work in the country in which you were born. More importantly there are costs to "just being alive" in any worthwhile country.
(we've done THIS song and dance before too).

Sales taxes, property taxes, and a host of other taxes ring a bell? Without having any income, the government still taxes the shit out of people.

If you aren't working then you either
a)don't have money and therefore can't be taxed
or
b)got your money through gifts in which case the person providing the gift implicitly agreed to the taxes that you would spend on spending said gift.

[DaWoad]

It doesn't let you leave?

Depends on the state. Some let you leave if you pay them.

Some just let you leave and again if a state won't let you leave it's coercion. Most, modern first world, mixed economy states do let you leave.

[Servantium]

The state does not give you that option. Fail.

It doesn't let you leave?

It doesn't let you just leave, and you have to leave to a different state.
~~~~~

Currently formulating rebuttals, also I made a pretty big mistake in my original rebuttal that was edited if that might change your response.

[Great Altai]

You do not make a choice about where to be born, but you are free to leave wherever you find yourself. I can guarantee that your ancestors made this choice for themselves at some point.

There is a charge for being alive wherever you find yourself. If you want shelter, you need to either build a place for yourself or pay somebody else to build it for you. If you want to eat, you need to either catch or grow your own food or pay somebody else to get food for you. And so on and so on. What's your point?

More bullshit. The Cubans, North Koreans, the Russians are free to leave?
And where can I grow my own food? On a plot of land I have to pay property taxes for?

Totalitarian states do not have social contracts; I would agree with you that in this case there is a high level of unjustifiable coercion in these countries. Nevertheless, Cubans, North Koreans, etc. still face the choice of trying to survive under authoritarian regimes or attempting to escape. Many of them have made the latter choice. There is of course also the choice to revolt and form a new, legitimate social contract.

As far as property tax goes, you never answered my earlier objection: that if you're going to go down the path of calling taxation theft, then you should at least be consistent and understand that all property is theft. You can't separate the concept of "property" from a legal system and a government to enact and enforce that legal system. To challenge the existence of government is to likewise challenge the whole institution of property.

[Sibirsky]

Depends on the state. Some let you leave if you pay them.

Some just let you leave and again if a state won't let you leave it's coercion. Most, modern first world, mixed economy states do let you leave.

And some of them charge you. That's coercion. And you have some really fucked up states that simply do not let you leave. Like North Korea.

[Sibirsky]

More bullshit. The Cubans, North Koreans, the Russians are free to leave?
And where can I grow my own food? On a plot of land I have to pay property taxes for?

Totalitarian states do not have social contracts; I would agree with you that in this case there is a high level of unjustifiable coercion in these countries. Nevertheless, Cubans, North Koreans, etc. still face the choice of trying to survive under authoritarian regimes or attempting to escape. Many of them have made the latter choice. There is of course also the choice to revolt and form a new, legitimate social contract.

As far as property tax goes, you never answered my earlier objection: that if you're going to go down the path of calling taxation theft, then you should at least be consistent and understand that all property is theft. You can't separate the concept of "property" from a legal system and a government to enact and enforce that legal system. To challenge the existence of government is to likewise challenge the whole institution of property.

What do property rights have to do with taxes?

[DaWoad]

Right! that was it!

except that gasoline tax doesn't fully cover the cost of road works nor the associated bureaucracy needed as well as the system of checks and balances to insure that said bureaucracy doesn't become insanely corrupt. Even if it did, it doesn't cover the costs associated with the truck driver (education, health care, access to clean water etc. etc. etc. and all the associated government required) nor the costs of the police that help insure the truck doesn't get jacked nor the army that .. .well you should be getting the point by now. And the viability, or lack there of, is not the responsibility of the government (except in specific cases . . .if the government isn't letting you leave then it certainly is coercion and is wrong) and therefore has no bearing on whether the government is coercive.

The cost of the shipping the product includes the labor costs for the truck driver, the insurance costs in case of loss. The gasoline taxes cover 87% of building and maintaining roads.

The government charges you to leave. How many time do we have to go through this nonsense?

a bunch, it's always good times.
the cost of shipping doesn't even come close to covering the costs associated with the driver (see my quote) it covers insurance, gasoline, labor, the building from which the object was shipped, associated costs and profit. It does not cover clean water, healthcare, education, power, police, army, navy, airforce, sanitation etc. and yet all those things are involved with the simple act of shipping something down a road.
Source on the 87%. 13% of a rather large costs is still a TON of money.

Most governments don't charge you to leave if you leave before you start working. If you have started working then you are being charged for services you agreed (by working) to use.

[Servantium]

As far as property tax goes, you never answered my earlier objection: that if you're going to go down the path of calling taxation theft, then you should at least be consistent and understand that all property is theft. You can't separate the concept of "property" from a legal system and a government to enact and enforce that legal system. To challenge the existence of government is to likewise challenge the whole institution of property.

I own myself, did I steal myself? All arguments for property stem from accepting this premise.

[DaWoad]

Some just let you leave and again if a state won't let you leave it's coercion. Most, modern first world, mixed economy states do let you leave.

And some of them charge you. That's coercion. And you have some really fucked up states that simply do not let you leave. Like North Korea.

and North Korea is coercive as is anywhere else that won't let you leave (which would be why I said, and I quote " if a state won't let you leave it's coercion". The rest is covered in my other post.

[Aurensia]

I affirm that capitalism is the most meritorious economic system ever to grace the earth. Thus, whilst being such, and retaining the most probity, the most justified, and quote, "Better" economic system.

[Occupied Deutschland]

DaWoad It sounds like you're saying that since the government has created these things it HAS to own/operate/tax them, and since the government essentially built these things the private sector has no business interfering with them. Is that about right or am I way off base?

[DaWoad]

I affirm that capitalism is the most meritorious economic system ever to grace the earth. Thus, whilst being such, and retaining the most probity, the most justified, and quote, "Better" economic system.

You need to clarify, are you talking about pure capitalism (free market system) or "capitalism" as in what you see in Canada/Us of A/ GB/etc. which is actually a mixed economic system?

[St George of England]

I affirm that capitalism is the most meritorious economic system ever to grace the earth. Thus, whilst being such, and retaining the most probity, the most justified, and quote, "Better" economic system.

I hope you don't think me facetious, sir, to ask for some evidence to support such an affirmation? It would help, seeing as others your statement is just that, and has no basis in fact.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Whatever works best; I'll decide once I get my economics degree in 4 years time.

[DaWoad]

DaWoad It sounds like you're saying that since the government has created these things it HAS to own/operate/tax them, and since the government essentially built these things the private sector has no business interfering with them. Is that about right or am Iway iff base?

Fairly way off base. my argument goes: "Because the government provides these services it is not coercive to allow you to either use these services and pay for them or leave and not pay for them. Staying and not paying for them is contraindicated as there is no way to live in a mixed economic society without reaping the benefits of the services it provides."
there's an associated "I like stateism" argument but it's not actually the one in question here.