Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ahh, okay. Thanks for the clarification

[DaWoad]

Ahh, okay. Thanks for the clarification

No worries. We can certainly debate the merits of stateism vs. mirach/libertarian/anarch ism if you like but that would be a separate argument.

[DaWoad]

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.

cool, gimme a headsup when you get it edited and I'll respond.

[Conservative Ad Droid]

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?

You'll have to excuse me for the non-clarification (and using the wrong nation for General.) I meant laissez-faire capitalist 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.

Laissez-faire capitalism provides grounds for the most scrupulous economics which are known to exist. All other forms lack any form of probity, and invariably limit the free individual's spirit.

[Zutroy]

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

As I understand it, they only confuse you further.

Ask 10 bourgeois economists how capitalism works, and you will get 10 variations. Ask 10 Marxian economists, same result.

[DaWoad]

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?

You'll have to excuse me for the non-clarification (and using the wrong nation for General.) I meant laissez-faire capitalist system.

it's all good. Now do you exclude public services such as roads, schools, healthcare etc. (as a creation of "govenrment monopolies") in lessez-faire capitalism?

(sorry for the questions, I just kinda need a feel for where you stand before i can debate/agree)

[Conservative Ad Droid]

You'll have to excuse me for the non-clarification (and using the wrong nation for General.) I meant laissez-faire capitalist system.

it's all good. Now do you exclude public services such as roads, schools, healthcare etc. (as a creation of "govenrment monopolies") in lessez-faire capitalism?

The only moral government services are those of defenses of the free individual. I.e. law enforcement and such related.

And as for your edit, s'all good. Nice to know someone in General actually attempts to understand before immediately going, "Rawr diZagre die11!!1!SHIFT+1."

[Occupied Deutschland]

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

As I understand it, they only confuse you further.

Ask 10 bourgeois economists how capitalism works, and you will get 10 variations. Ask 10 Marxian economists, same result.

Are you kidding me? There's possibly more division in Communist thought than in Capitalist (as you can't really compare all-encompassing "Capitalism" with "Marxism" as the categories they are in specifics-wise is much different)

[Great Altai]

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

As I understand it, they only confuse you further.

Ask 10 bourgeois economists how capitalism works, and you will get 10 variations. Ask 10 Marxian economists, same result.

Economics is bunk. It's got a veneer of fairly complicated mathematics over it, which allows economists to pretend to be scientists, but it's still bunk based on highly questionable assumptions.

[DaWoad]

As I understand it, they only confuse you further.

Ask 10 bourgeois economists how capitalism works, and you will get 10 variations. Ask 10 Marxian economists, same result.

Are you kidding me? There's possibly more division in Communist thought than in Capitalist (as you can't really compare all-encompassing "Capitalism" with "Marxism" as the categories they are in specifics-wise is much different)

uh, I think he/she may have meant that you get the same result (ie. ten different opinions) in both cases.

[Servantium]

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.

cool, gimme a headsup when you get it edited and I'll respond.

I already edited it. Not much was changed, but I think what I changed was important. You might not think so. I'm about half-way done with my most recent rebuttal.

[DaWoad]

it's all good. Now do you exclude public services such as roads, schools, healthcare etc. (as a creation of "govenrment monopolies") in lessez-faire capitalism?

The only moral government services are those of defenses of the free individual. I.e. law enforcement and such related.

And as for your edit, s'all good. Nice to know someone in General actually attempts to understand before immediately going, "Rawr diZagre die11!!1!SHIFT+1."

heh heh heh *grins* to be fair I'm pretty sure I did alot of the latter in earlier years around here.

alright, last question. In terms of defenses of the free individual, are we speaking strictly direct (police,court system, military and etc.) protection or would you include more indirect measures of the same nature (sanitation being the first example that springs to mind)?

[DaWoad]

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.

ah fair enough, in that case
yes, you have to leave to somewhere and the options out there are not good for a libertarian/minarchist etc. (they consist primarily of: more of the same or worse, failed states or uninhabited locations) but that is not the responsibility of the government at hand and, as such, has no bearing on the issue of coercion.

[Zutroy]

As I understand it, they only confuse you further.

Ask 10 bourgeois economists how capitalism works, and you will get 10 variations. Ask 10 Marxian economists, same result.

Are you kidding me? There's possibly more division in Communist thought than in Capitalist (as you can't really compare all-encompassing "Capitalism" with "Marxism" as the categories they are in specifics-wise is much different)

It wasn't an exact analogy. My point is that economics is a divided science in general.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Are you kidding me? There's possibly more division in Communist thought than in Capitalist (as you can't really compare all-encompassing "Capitalism" with "Marxism" as the categories they are in specifics-wise is much different)

It wasn't an exact analogy. My point is that economics is a divided science in general.

True enough. As someone mentioned earlier, economics is mostly a profession that was made to give economists jobs

[Great Altai]

The only moral government services are those of defenses of the free individual. I.e. law enforcement and such related.

And as for your edit, s'all good. Nice to know someone in General actually attempts to understand before immediately going, "Rawr diZagre die11!!1!SHIFT+1."

heh heh heh *grins* to be fair I'm pretty sure I did alot of the latter in earlier years around here.

alright, last question. In terms of defenses of the free individual, are we speaking strictly direct (police,court system, military and etc.) protection or would you include more indirect measures of the same nature (sanitation being the first example that springs to mind)?

A lot of the differences in opinion here come down to an understanding of the "free individual". The Libertarians and Anarchocapitalists appear to believe in a highly atomized individual self with clear and sharp boundaries between this self (and their well-being) and that of other selves. I think it's safe to say they would agree with Thatcher's statement that "there is no society, only individuals" (of course, she added "and their families", which arguably undermines her statement, but nevertheless...).

Those who favor mixed economies or socialism all seem to have an understanding of individuals as interdependent, which creates the possibility of a common good.

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

That is why it is inaccurate, you are defending taxes by saying that they aren't coercion, because you have another choice (leave), that however does not make it non-coercive, coercion is literally the use of force to achieve a goal, it is not the elimination of all other options, if a thief puts a gun up to your head and demands money but also gives you the option to leave unharmed that does not mean he is not using coercion in levying his taxes, if you stay you will be subject to violence, your staying their is by choice but far from uncoerced. Taxes are also not direct levies for usage of state services.

[Servantium]

*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.

Yep, but this cost is mitigated because many of the costs associated with running a school are one-time fees. The building being almost the whole cost. There are few successive costs the school would have to pay other than employees and there are other ways for schools to make profits such as hosting community events or renting out their facilities when they aren't in use.

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 [level] of education and without any way to determine a students ability how does one award scholarships?

A lot of scholarships aren't merit-based at all, for instance many you can only get if you or your family is in a certain income bracket, and for things such as lineage. A friend of mine got a $500 scholarship because his grandfather immigrated to America from Poland. You'd be surprised at how much stuff is out there. Millions of the scholarship pool goes un-awarded every year.

I also just thought of another way that education could be paid for. By the parent's employer as a work benefit. I don't exactly know how viable this option would be, but it is a valid one.

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.

This is a simple disagreement that we won't be able to resolve. You think this will still be a large problem under capitalism and I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I'm not saying that every single person will be able to afford great education, but significantly more than most would be able to provide decent education.

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'm not disputing that there exists a base cost. However, this cost would be reduced in a free market (due to increased competition in the industries that provide things like bricks, construction crews, asphalt, etc.) and a main reason that the current system runs at a loss is because nearly all of its funding comes from the government, that government does not provide it with much, and current schools are not for-profit.
~~~~~

I also noticed you asking about roads, health-care, and such. Those would also be taken out of government hands. Roads would be provided by private companies in that their upkeep would be funded by per-use tolls and subscription services, and health would be insurance like it is now except with less regulations to increase competition and, you guessed it, reduce costs.

I also can't necessarily speak for others, but when we say "provide for the safety of the individual" we usually mean military, police, courts, and defense agencies like the CIA and FBI.

[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?

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.

Hello? You think drivers are volunteers? How do you think they are paid? I know how. Any product you buy off a store shelf has the cost of shipping the product included in it.

So now you suggest kids leave their home countries because that way they can avoid taxes? What kind of person are you?

[DaWoad]

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.

That is why it is inaccurate, you are defending taxes by saying that they aren't coercion, because you have another choice (leave), that however does not make it non-coercive, coercion is literally the use of force to achieve a goal, it is not the elimination of all other options, if a thief puts a gun up to your head and demands money but also gives you the option to leave unharmed that does not mean he is not using coercion in levying his taxes, if you stay you will be subject to violence, your staying their is by choice but far from uncoerced. Taxes are also not direct levies for usage of state services.

1-agreed coercion is the use of force to achieve a goal but unless you are claiming everything (literally everything) is coercion, then the limiting of reasonable options has to be included in the definition. Otherwise asking you to pay for food you chose to eat is coercive, as is asking you to pay for anything, as is asking you to do anything etc.
2-Taxes are indirect levies for the usage of state services as direct levies are either impractical or downright impossible.

[Sibirsky]

As I understand it, they only confuse you further.

Ask 10 bourgeois economists how capitalism works, and you will get 10 variations. Ask 10 Marxian economists, same result.

Economics is bunk. It's got a veneer of fairly complicated mathematics over it, which allows economists to pretend to be scientists, but it's still bunk based on highly questionable assumptions.

Your assumption is highly questionable.

[EnragedMaldivians]

As I understand it, they only confuse you further.

Ask 10 bourgeois economists how capitalism works, and you will get 10 variations. Ask 10 Marxian economists, same result.

Economics is bunk. It's got a veneer of fairly complicated mathematics over it, which allows economists to pretend to be scientists, but it's still bunk based on highly questionable assumptions.

On what basis do you make this arguement?

[DaWoad]

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.

Hello? You think drivers are volunteers? How do you think they are paid?

no? look up just a little. See labor costs . . . see how it comes after the words "it covers". . . how did you miss that?

I know how.

me too?

Any product you buy off a store shelf has the cost of shipping the product included in it.

yes?

So now you suggest kids leave their home countries because that way they can avoid taxes? What kind of person are you?

1- the ad-homs just make your argument weaker.
2-The "think of the children!" fallacy is even worse.
3-no, I suggested that if you are opposed, entirely opposed, to being taxed that you should leave before you begin working. That doesn't mean children. That just means leave before working. (alternatively, you can stay and attempt to change the system or stay and pay and not bother to change the system, or attempt to avoid paying taxes and face the consequences)

[Forster Keys]

Socialism all the way. Capitalism has ruined Pakistan. The rich are obscenely wealthy, living in giant mansions next door to slums. The government, ironically led by the Pakistan People's Party, does barely anything to help the poor, and pays no attention to the suffering of the working class.

I reckon there would have been alot of corruption involved there. No offense to pakistan, it's not fo the the most renowned places for civil liberties and individual rights...and constistne government for that matter..

I reckon that most of the corruption's due to the poverty present there.

[Great Altai]

Economics is bunk. It's got a veneer of fairly complicated mathematics over it, which allows economists to pretend to be scientists, but it's still bunk based on highly questionable assumptions.

On what basis do you make this arguement?

One of the basic requirements of any science is that its models are capable of making consistently accurate predictions.

How many standard economic models predicted the financial meltdown?

I think it may be possible to create an economics that is a soft science, but most conventional economics is about as scientific as astrology.