Welfare state

[cappiej]

I don't see why we should have a welfare state, I view it as a violation of people's rights to keep the fruits of their labour.

I know it may sound selfish, but don't you believe people are entitled to just take care of themselves and their immediate family? It is, after all, their money.

[cappiej]

violation of people's rights to keep the fruits of their labour = capitalism.

I know, I'm just asking why someone can't keep what they earn? Why should they be made to give it to someone they, honestly, don't give a crap about?

[cappiej]

Welcome to socialism. Thats the question for which socialism gives the answer: abolish capitalism.

So, basically, you propose to steal people's income to give it to people who don't work?

How is this system you propose supposed to appeal to people again???

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Would you say society has a moral obligation to care for people born with serious mentalty disabilities? Technically, that's part of a welfare state.

Furthermore, if we went walking together in the forest and no one knew where we were, what would you say if I refused to help you up? You'll either die or give in to my demands. I want 50% of your wealth. That's exploitation.

The majority of wealth that is taxed is generated by exploitative relationships. The rich know the poor don't have the luxury of holding out for a better deal or building their own competitive company. It's just like being in a hole. It's exploitative to give people less they they are entitled to, and people are entitled to basic human rights.

The welfare state hardly prevents people from acquiring unreasonable amounts of wealth. There is also the idea that you should give a damn about other people. I'll admit that's not the best argument. It's more of an attitude.

A welfare state generally doesn't prevent people from caring for their family. I can't think of any situation where a welfare state would do that because of increased taxation.

Outside the context of a communist revolution, I'm actually quite sympathetic to welfare state Scandanvian socialism as a a "feasible now not later" type of governance, and I don't like states. But a state is like a train somewhat. If society revolves around a transit system, sometimes it's better to repair the train if people aren't willing to make the long-term necessary changes to fix the society itself.

Higher taxes don't prevent people from caring for their family when the majority of taxation provides services for low income individuals (especially in areas where the welfare state functions well). If someone can't afford something for their family because they bought a car despite a the presence of a publically fundeded and efficient public transit system, how sympathetic can we really be?

It's partly a social conception that luxuries are entitlements or necessities. That is partially true. But they aren't necessities in a public form.

I still like to purchase my own books and collect them. Why? The library at my university has many of these books. It's easily accessible. I'm simply being irrational because I have a value of private property ingrained in me, I like to show of what I read (value of being superior). I do like the flexibility and accessibility, but it this small advantage is hardly necessary. If people like me pooled our resources, we could have a much more efficient library system.

Collectivism and welfare politics achieve game theory maximizing results. It's just we refuse to throw our chip into the pot unless a state forces us to. This is where we are being illogical, again, because the administrative costs of running a state, et cetera, almost make the efforts unprofitable in the larger scheme.

[GPDP]

Welcome to socialism. Thats the question for which socialism gives the answer: abolish capitalism.

In case this isn't clear, we believe the ones taking the fruits of our labor are the capitalists. That is, they profit by remunerating us less than what our labor is actually worth. In other words, they exploit us.

The welfare state historically came about in order to mitigate this exploitation, and only after many a struggle by the working class. But it is not enough. We seek to completely supersede the gains of the welfare state by overthrowing the capitalist system altogether, and end exploitation in all its totality.

[cappiej]

Would you say society has a moral obligation to care for people born with serious mentalty disabilities? Technically, that's part of a welfare state.

Furthermore, if we went walking together in the forest and no one knew where we were, what would you say if I refused to help you up? You'll either die or give in to my demands. I want 50% of your wealth. That's exploitation.

The majority of wealth that is taxed is generated by exploitative relationships. The rich know the poor don't have the luxury of holding out for a better deal or building their own competitive company. It's just like being in a hole. It's exploitative to give people less they they are entitled to, and people are entitled to basic human rights.

The welfare state hardly prevents people from acquiring unreasonable amounts of wealth. There is also the idea that you should give a damn about other people. I'll admit that's not the best argument. It's more of an attitude.

A welfare state generally doesn't prevent people from caring for their family. I can't think of any situation where a welfare state would do that because of increased taxation.

Outside the context of a communist revolution, I'm actually quite sympathetic to welfare state Scandanvian socialism as a a "feasible now not later" type of governance, and I don't like states. But a state is like a train somewhat. If society revolves around a transit system, sometimes it's better to repair the train if people aren't willing to make the long-term necessary changes to fix the society itself.

Higher taxes don't prevent people from caring for their family when the majority of taxation provides services for low income individuals (especially in areas where the welfare state functions well). If someone can't afford something for their family because they bought a car despite a the presence of a publically fundeded and efficient public transit system, how sympathetic can we really be?

It's partly a social conception that luxuries are entitlements or necessities. That is partially true. But they aren't necessities in a public form.

I still like to purchase my own books and collect them. Why? The library at my university has many of these books. It's easily accessible. I'm simply being irrational because I have a value of private property ingrained in me, I like to show of what I read (value of being superior). I do like the flexibility and accessibility, but it this small advantage is hardly necessary. If people like me pooled our resources, we could have a much more efficient library system.

Collectivism and welfare politics achieve game theory maximizing results. It's just we refuse to throw our chip into the pot unless a state forces us to. This is where we are being illogical, again, because the administrative costs of running a state, et cetera, almost make the efforts unprofitable in the larger scheme.

First, let me say thank you for giving a big reply, whenever I've asked people this question in real life they've given clipped, one line answers like, "Disabled people have to be taken care of and that's it".

No, I don't have a responsibility to care for people with serious mental disabilities, I may CHOOSE to do so, but I would like it not to involve the government.

This sounds a lot like an 'ends justify the means' type of thing, basically you want to rule on what happens to the next man's money, who gives you, or anyone, that right?

You've not distinguished rights and entitlements, I've had this debate with tons of people concerning healthcare, but that's another story.

A right is something you are free to pursue, an entitlement is something you are entitled to have.

I don't support any kind of welfare programs, benefits, social security etc because its not fair on those who must pay for it.

Sorry for my inarticulate explanations its quite late!

[Conquer or Die]

The conservative argument is flawed because they wish to abolish inheritance taxes. Also, most conservatives are against the idea of Henry Georges who advocated a land tax on non personally created wealth.

The capitalist argument is flawed because workers do not earn what they make. They make what they are given as arbitrarily determined by Owner Pig or Government Pig.

[cappiej]

In case this isn't clear, we believe the ones taking the fruits of our labor are the capitalists. That is, they profit by remunerating us less than what our labor is actually worth. In other words, they exploit us.

The welfare state historically came about in order to mitigate this exploitation, and only after many a struggle by the working class. But it is not enough. We seek to completely supersede the gains of the welfare state by overthrowing the capitalist system altogether, and end exploitation in all its totality.

In my humble opinion one's services are worth what one is paid, they are worth that because the guy paying you think's they are worth that. Its the same reason I oppose the minimum wage, a good and noble concept in theory a bad idea in practice.

If I come to you and offer to dig your garden, you say, okay, I'll give you £10 for a whole day's work, I say its unfair and you say, okay I'll get someone who will do it. If £10 was truly unreasonable you would be forced to raise your price or not have the job done.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

First, let me say thank you for giving a big reply, whenever I've asked people this question in real life they've given clipped, one line answers like, "Disabled people have to be taken care of and that's it".

No, I don't have a responsibility to care for people with serious mental disabilities, I may CHOOSE to do so, but I would like it not to involve the government.

This sounds a lot like an 'ends justify the means' type of thing, basically you want to rule on what happens to the next man's money, who gives you, or anyone, that right?

You've not distinguished rights and entitlements, I've had this debate with tons of people concerning healthcare, but that's another story.

A right is something you are free to pursue, an entitlement is something you are entitled to have.

I don't support any kind of welfare programs, benefits, social security etc because its not fair on those who must pay for it.

Sorry for my inarticulate explanations its quite late!

I see where your coming from. The confusion I have with the right-wing position on this is basically the right/entitlement issue you mentioned.

Why is someone entitled to their property? Why can't I take it? Why say that and then claim someone is not entitled to things like health care?

Socialists tend to place everything good in the entitlement category. Then we do apply a sort of ends justify the means analysis. We try to figure out a way to maximize the results of all people. Libertarians and capitalists have actually done the same and argued in favor of a free market as a utility maximizing economy. That aside, you seem to have a different view.

I don't know that I have the "right" to take your money and redistribute it. I know that, in theory, I "can." If I can make society as a whole better off by applying a principle of redistribution, it seems like I should (if making people better off is good, which I think it is).

I think before you start talking about rights and entitlements, you start our in a position of agreement. Before we agree on the existence of any rights, what we "can" do and "want" is simply what we will do.

If redistribution seems to meet the goals of people, it seems like you need a positive case to be made for property rights that doesn't include a premise that results in other rights such as health care.

Most arguments people make in favor of capitalism include premises or rights. Communists tend to claim that certain rights like health care are logical conclusions of those ideas. I think you can derive communism from liberalism, for instance (though not necessary from conservatism).

I do agree that you should be able to "choose." I also think that you should "choose" to voluntarily redistribute your money. I just don't know how pragmatic that is now or in the long-term. People with a lot of money seem to be far less generous with it than we might like to hope. If this is a trend, it may be impractical to place economic matters in the hands of individuals (if improving the lot of everyone is the goal).

In the end, there may be a simple conflict. Taking your stuff is going to feel wrong to you, and it will be wronging you (from your perspective). However, sitting in poverty or letting others suffer for property rights may be wrong to others.

If we can't stop anyone from doing anything we think is wrong, we're left allowing people to murder because we may upset them by interfering.

[cappiej]

Not at all. Capitalism steals people's income and gives it to people to don't work (the capitalists, the bosses).

Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression their workers agreed to fulfill certain duties in return for monetary remuneration?

Entrepreuners make it happen, they bring the operation together.

Otherwise how would we build houses, in your society would a builder have to work on a single house for his whole life, build it brick by brick and accept no help because if he did he may 'exploit' the guy helping him by not showering him with money.

You can outsource work to other people and pay them money for doing it. That's the whole point of what I'm trying to say, society functions because no man can do everything.

Surely you don't oppose specialisation?

For example, you hire a lawyer because he knows the law, yes you COULD go and read a law book and defend yourself but its easier to get him to do it. Likewise, a builder could build a house by himself, but it would take forever, its better to contract 30 men to do it and do it in one hundredth of the time.

I recall my dad explaining this to me when I was younger, he would explain how certain projects in computer programming take a set number of man hours, say 3000 man hours, in theory, if one man possessed all of the necessary skills, you could do it with 1 man in 3000 hours or you could do it with 10 men in 300 hours.

Bottom line is, your system seems incredibly inefficient to me.

[cappiej]

I see where your coming from. The confusion I have with the right-wing position on this is basically the right/entitlement issue you mentioned.

Why is someone entitled to their property? Why can't I take it? Why say that and then claim someone is not entitled to things like health care?

Socialists tend to place everything good in the entitlement category. Then we do apply a sort of ends justify the means analysis. We try to figure out a way to maximize the results of all people. Libertarians and capitalists have actually done the same and argued in favor of a free market as a utility maximizing economy. That aside, you seem to have a different view.

I don't know that I have the "right" to take your money and redistribute it. I know that, in theory, I "can." If I can make society as a whole better off by applying a principle of redistribution, it seems like I should (if making people better off is good, which I think it is).

I think before you start talking about rights and entitlements, you start our in a position of agreement. Before we agree on the existence of any rights, what we "can" do and "want" is simply what we will do.

If redistribution seems to meet the goals of people, it seems like you need a positive case to be made for property rights that doesn't include a premise that results in other rights such as health care.

Most arguments people make in favor of capitalism include premises or rights. Communists tend to claim that certain rights like health care are logical conclusions of those ideas. I think you can derive communism from liberalism, for instance (though not necessary from conservatism).

I do agree that you should be able to "choose." I also think that you should "choose" to voluntarily redistribute your money. I just don't know how pragmatic that is now or in the long-term. People with a lot of money seem to be far less generous with it than we might like to hope. If this is a trend, it may be impractical to place economic matters in the hands of individuals (if improving the lot of everyone is the goal).

In the end, there may be a simple conflict. Taking your stuff is going to feel wrong to you, and it will be wronging you (from your perspective). However, sitting in poverty or letting others suffer for property rights may be wrong to others.

If we can't stop anyone from doing anything we think is wrong, we're left allowing people to murder because we may upset them by interfering.

LOL. It was all going well until you said, "Letting others sit in poverty", once again we're getting back to the fundamental problem, you seem to think I have a duty to my fellow man, I don't. My only duty is not to harm him, I don't have to help him.

If me having money is wrong to someone else then that's tough, if I stole it from them that's different.

So where do I stand on property rights? Well. If you acquired it legitimately its yours, so you can obtain it as a gift, free exchange etc.

Pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to give you something is not a legitimate acquisition of property in my view. People who agree with the welfare state think otherwise.

[Havet]

Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression their workers agreed to fulfill certain duties in return for monetary remuneration?

Entrepreuners make it happen, they bring the operation together.



Please don't commit the same mistakes many right libertarians do: start defending state capitalism accidentally when in fact you try to defend free markets.

I adressed that on this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialists-and-libertarians-t112434/index.html)


It must be conceded to the socialist that under actually existing capitalism, exploitation is taking place. For under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist. Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed. This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

In a free market, where more gain-oriented thought was present, where more entrepreneurs were around seeking to take from the reduced supply of voluntary wage labor workers, the capitalists would no longer have this unfair advantage. The workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, the libertarian's view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.

hope this was helpful

[Demogorgon]

In my humble opinion one's services are worth what one is paid,
If two people with identical experience doing an identical job to identical standards for the same employer are being paid a different wage (due to gender discrimination for instance), what is it that is making one's services more valuable than the other's? If you claim that it is all down to the employer's preferences then you concede that there is no rational basis for the distinction (as a rational person would value equal work identically and not pay more for the same work based on arbitrary criteria) and therefore your method of valuing labour simply is not going to work. If you want to find a way of saying the variation has some rational basis (and good luck), you will have to move away from claiming it is all subjective.

[cappiej]

If two people with identical experience doing an identical job to identical standards for the same employer are being paid a different wage (due to gender discrimination for instance), what is it that is making one's services more valuable than the other's? If you claim that it is all down to the employer's preferences then you concede that there is no rational basis for the distinction (as a rational person would value equal work identically and not pay more for the same work based on arbitrary criteria) and therefore your method of valuing labour simply is not going to work. If you want to find a way of saying the variation has some rational basis (and good luck), you will have to move away from claiming it is all subjective.

I totally agree that they are paid different wages because their employers want to pay them different wages and they chose to work for that wage.

Gender discrimination is counter productive in the sense that you exclude someone based on their gender, jobs should go based on merit alone in my view, but I wouldn't outlaw it.

If you own a company and you don't want to employ men, or women, or Black folks or Whites then that is your choice in my view. Its pretty ignorant and your company would probably fail, not least because of the boycotts of its products, but you retain the freedom to choose who is and who is not employed, even on a stupid, arbitrary basis such as race or gender.

[Havet]

If you own a company and you don't want to employ men, or women, or Black folks or Whites then that is your choice in my view. Its pretty ignorant and your company would probably fail, not least because of the boycotts of its products, but you retain the freedom to choose who is and who is not employed, even on a stupid, arbitrary basis such as race or gender.

Also, and this is intended to demorgon, this same website retains the freedom to choose who can or can't post outside of opposing idelogies, which is a way to enforce private property rights, which goes against basic communist principles.

[Demogorgon]

Also, and this is intended to demorgon, this same website retains the freedom to choose who can or can't post outside of opposing idelogies, which is a way to enforce private property rights, which goes against basic communist principles.
The board does do that, and as you have probably gathered I would never have restricted you were it up to me. On the other hand experience does show that without any kind of restriction policy much of the board is soon rendered unusable due to trolls who turn every thread into a capitalist vs communist thread. It is necessary for the board to confine those that wish top make every thread into that to one part of the board, otherwise the site doesn't function. Of course things have gone a bit awry and people like you who never caused any trouble get restricted, but I am sure you must agree that on any website if trolls are ruining it, they need to be reigned in. I mean if you registered on the board of a music group and turned every thread into a debate on whether the band was any good or not, would you expect to be allowed to do that? This isn't hypothetical BTW, it is simply what happened before there was restriction. It came about out of necessity. It doesn't work properly any more though, I agree.

Moving past that however we return to the question of whether the same work can be valued differently on arbitrary grounds. I wasn't particularly talking about anti-discrimination (though opposition to that rarely focuses on real world arguments I notice), but rather about whether there can be any rational basis to any subjective theory of value when identical work can be valued differently by the same person at the same time based on irrelevant criteria. Does "value" mean anything at all under these circumstances?

[Dean]

I don't see why we should have a welfare state, I view it as a violation of people's rights to keep the fruits of their labour.

I know it may sound selfish, but don't you believe people are entitled to just take care of themselves and their immediate family? It is, after all, their money.

You assume that the means of production are just in their output of wealth. They are not.

[Havet]

The board does do that, and as you have probably gathered I would never have restricted you were it up to me. On the other hand experience does show that without any kind of restriction policy much of the board is soon rendered unusable due to trolls who turn every thread into a capitalist vs communist thread. It is necessary for the board to confine those that wish top make every thread into that to one part of the board, otherwise the site doesn't function. Of course things have gone a bit awry and people like you who never caused any trouble get restricted, but I am sure you must agree that on any website if trolls are ruining it, they need to be reigned in. I mean if you registered on the board of a music group and turned every thread into a debate on whether the band was any good or not, would you expect to be allowed to do that? This isn't hypothetical BTW, it is simply what happened before there was restriction. It came about out of necessity. It doesn't work properly any more though, I agree.

Moving past that however we return to the question of whether the same work can be valued differently on arbitrary grounds. I wasn't particularly talking about anti-discrimination (though opposition to that rarely focuses on real world arguments I notice), but rather about whether there can be any rational basis to any subjective theory of value when identical work can be valued differently by the same person at the same time based on irrelevant criteria. Does "value" mean anything at all under these circumstances?

thanks i guess

i wasnt exactly paying attention to your talk about value of work. I gave my point of view in my LTV thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-theory-value-t112448/index.html), in which i said:


First of all, I think the LTV is valid. This does not mean that I think everyone's labor is worth exactly $10 per hour, or that mudpies sell for $10 if they take 1 hour to make, or any of that stuff. I associate the LTV with Adam Smith and David Ricardo, not Karl Marx.

Adam Smith:

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people."

Notice he says "what every thing really costs", not "the price that everything sells for". All costs can be expressed as labor costs.

Ricardo:

"The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production, and not as the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour."

What's being said here is basically "cost and price are different; costs are always ultimately labor costs". That ought to put Ricardo's statement that value (stated in terms of costs or disutilities) derives only from labor into the correct perspective. Prices tend toward reflecting costs because where price exceeds cost, production ceases until that condition changes. Thus, the LTV does not say that the price that something sells for is always directly and solely coming from the labor put into it, only that it's costs are.

What is not being said here is that "people only want something as badly as the labor that went into it", or that "value is tied directly to the object and has nothing to do with evaluation by individuals" or that "two people can't value the same thing differently". It is not irreconcilable with STV. they are complementary if you understand them (or at least, if you don't start off with the belief that they are incompatible and then look for validation of that hypothesis). The LTV doesn't have to "provide a means for discovering when labor should not be done at all", or "comparing the value of alternative uses for labor." As I said, it is complementary, not exclusive, to a subjective understanding of value. I don't know how I can say "they're compatible" and get an objection like "LTV can't account for X that the STV can". Apply the immortal ethic of ARFCOM: "Get Both."

[Demogorgon]

I'll go into the LTV thread later I expect, but as for your quote, I don't see much objectionable about it, other than it seems to argue with an outlook that I have never encountered before (that people value-or desire-things based on how much labour went into them). I agree with Smith and Ricardo that cost is where value comes from and costs can be reduced back to labour.

As for what you say about subjective value, I may be misinterpreting you, but it seems you are saying that you can understand demand for a product based on Utility, which I agree with. If you are going to analyse markets based on the good old demand and supply diagrams, you are going to have to understand marginal utility if you want to understand demand after all, but when people get carried away and say that is all that matters things go awry.

As an aside, when I studied economics at University, we were taught that supply curves were the marginal cost curves (generally accepted theory) and hence marginalism is right. There is a sort of assumption that this renders the LTV obsolete, but I dopn't see how, we are still talking about cost of production.

Coming back on topic though. The op is claiming there is no way to objectively value cost of production and that itself is completely subjective. That seems to me to be very shaky ground.

[cappiej]

Also, and this is intended to demorgon, this same website retains the freedom to choose who can or can't post outside of opposing idelogies, which is a way to enforce private property rights, which goes against basic communist principles.

Yes, think of all of those poor disenfranchised people who can't buy a forum of their own, oh no they are victims of property rights, lets start a revolution.

Thanks for pointing this out hayenmill. It hadn't occured to me yet but it is indeed a case of the owners of something excluding people on the basis of their beliefs, I bet they're the same folks who wouldn't like it if someone opened up a forum that excluded people on the basis of beliefs, for example one which banned Jews or Muslims or Christians??? Same thing really.

I'm happy to tolerate being restricted (am I restricted yet?) because I don't own this place, if I want to post all over a forum I can start my own. But its beneficial to me to be here, even if I am only allowed on part of the forum my posts will get more exposure here than if I start my own forum. A little like what I said earlier about why capitalism is better for everyone.

[cappiej]

Okay, this is kind of getting off track, its becoming about whether or not people legitimately own their wealth or not.

In a society where everyone worked for and got their wealth fair and square by your standards would they be obliged to contribute to people who didn't or couldn't work???

[Dervish]

Okay, this is kind of getting off track, its becoming about whether or not people legitimately own their wealth or not.

In a society where everyone worked for and got their wealth fair and square by your standards would they be obliged to contribute to people who didn't or couldn't work???

Capital is not legitimate, because capital leads to inequality and to classes.

You cannot expect someone with physical disabilities to plow the fields.
From each according to his ability, we say, and when each gives according to his ability each shall get according to his need aswell. The needs of a person with disabilities are different than the needs of a healthy person.
Someone who does not give according to his ability -- will not receive according to his need.

In the communist society we wish to create there will be one and only one class - the working class.

The fruits of the labor of the working class belong to the whole working class.

[Bud Struggle]

Capital is not legitimate, because capital leads to inequality and to classes. You are making some some sort of judgment call from hell here-who has the right to say what is :legitimate or bogus? You?


You cannot expect someone with physical disabilities to plow the fields. According to Darwin the weak should die off. Nothing wrong with that.



From each according to his ability, we say, and when each gives according to his ability each shall get according to his need aswell. The needs of a person with disabilities are different than the needs of a healthy person. But society should question those that don't contribute their fair share.



Someone who does not give according to his ability -- will not receive according to his need. But each much give more than he takes.


In the communist society we wish to create there will be one and only one class - the working class. And those that don't work must be eliminated.


The fruits of the labor of the working class belong to the whole working class.

Indeed.:blackA::star2::reda::che::hammersickle:

[Dervish]

"According to Darwin the weak should die off. Nothing wrong with that."

I challenge you to provide proof that he said that.


"But society should question those that don't contribute their fair share."

Yes. But the "fair share" of a disabled person is different from the "fair share" of a healthy person!

"But each much give more than he takes."

huh?

"And those that don't work must be eliminated."

Those that refuse to work? There are other ways to 'treat' them. There is no need to be barbaric.

[cappiej]

Capital is not legitimate, because capital leads to inequality and to classes.

You cannot expect someone with physical disabilities to plow the fields.
From each according to his ability, we say, and when each gives according to his ability each shall get according to his need aswell. The needs of a person with disabilities are different than the needs of a healthy person.
Someone who does not give according to his ability -- will not receive according to his need.

In the communist society we wish to create there will be one and only one class - the working class.

The fruits of the labor of the working class belong to the whole working class.

I see a nice career ahead of you in propaganda, sadly it only pays 3 rubles a year the same as cleaning a toilet because they're both equal professions in the worker's paradise. A nice romanticised view of communism you have there.

So basically if you don't want to part with your earnings you won't earn anything? I think that's called coercion.

[Dervish]

I see a nice career ahead of you in propaganda, sadly it only pays 3 rubles a year the same as cleaning a toilet because they're both equal professions in the worker's paradise. A nice romanticised view of communism you have there.

So basically if you don't want to part with your earnings you won't earn anything? I think that's called coercion.

If an individual wishes to disassociate from the community, he should definitely be able to. However people need communities -- no one is able to produce by himself all that he needs even for mere existence (unless he possesses private property or wage-slaves) -- therefore it is in the interests of all to participate in such a community. Remember that a community is created in order to fulfill the common needs of the individuals who compose it.

[cappiej]

If an individual wishes to disassociate from the community, he should definitely be able to. However people need communities -- no one is able to produce by himself all that he needs even for mere existence (unless he possesses private property or wage-slaves) -- therefore it is in the interests of all to participate in such a community. Remember that a community is created in order to fulfill the common needs of the individuals who compose it.

Common needs? I see, so those who contribute are able to take out of it? What about those who don't contribute? Why do they get a slice of the pie, its a bit unfair on those poor old wage slaves who're working their socks off for those who don't contribute, sounds like capitalism.

[Plagueround]

Oh look, another neo-con who thinks we're Obama Democrats. Just what this site needs.

[Dervish]

Common needs? I see, so those who contribute are able to take out of it? What about those who don't contribute? Why do they get a slice of the pie, its a bit unfair on those poor old wage slaves who're working their socks off for those who don't contribute, sounds like capitalism.



Someone who does not give according to his ability -- will not receive according to his need.
.

[Conquer or Die]

According to Darwin the weak should die off. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm a revolutionary communist because I'm going to kill people who actively try to promote this philosophy. Laugh behind your fake revleft persona. Any person or organization who tries to actively kill off the "weak" intentionally or unintentionally is exactly when I put the second amendment into use.

[AnthArmo]

I don't see why we should have a welfare state, I view it as a violation of people's rights to keep the fruits of their labour.

I know it may sound selfish, but don't you believe people are entitled to just take care of themselves and their immediate family? It is, after all, their money.

Because Food, Health Care and Housing are human rights. Look it up. It says it right there in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

The whole point of society is to ensure each and every individual has their needs taken care of. If there is an individual who is contributing to society, but can't get their medication for Multiple Sclerosis, then Society isn't doing its job.


Okay, this is kind of getting off track, its becoming about whether or not people legitimately own their wealth or not.

In a society where everyone worked for and got their wealth fair and square by your standards would they be obliged to contribute to people who didn't or couldn't work???

You mean a functioning socialist society were workers got paid the full fruits of their labour and private property and inheritance was abolished?

No, you would have no obligation to care for those who can't be bothered to work, you do however have an obligation to care for the disabled and the elderly.

[Havet]

From each according to his ability, we say, and when each gives according to his ability each shall get according to his need aswell.

Just like to share a story (From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, which you all love here...) about "from each according to his ability to each according to their needs".


The Twentieth Century Motor Company
“Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody - almost everybody - voted for it. We didn’t know. We thought it was good. No, that’s not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

“We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut - because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn’t we heard it all our lives - from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn’t we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there’s some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan - and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma’am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil - plain, naked, smirking evil, isn’t it? Well, that’s what we saw and helped to make - and I think we’re damned, every one of us, and maybe we’ll never be forgiven …

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forthy-eight, then fifty-six - for your neighbor’s supper - for his wife’s operation - for his child’s measles - for his mother’s wheel chair - for his uncle’s shirt - for his nephew’s schooling - for the baby next door - for the baby to be born - for anyone anywhere around you - it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures - and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …

“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day - together, and you don’t all get a bellyache - together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first?voted on it. When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht - and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it’s not right for me to own a car until I’ve worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth - why can’t he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can’t? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he’s replastered his living room? … Oh well … Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We Yes, ma’am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars - rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn’t belong to him, it belonged to ‘the family’, and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his ‘need’ - so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife’s head colds, hoping that ‘the family’ would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it’s miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm - so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother’s. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

“But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty percent, in that first half year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. We voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay - because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

“Do I have to tell you what happened after that - and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been humans? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money - either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence - it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

“There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

“What was it they’d always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who’d do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn’t it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who’d do the worst job possible. There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness. The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not - your ‘housing and feeding allowance,’ it was called - and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn’t count on buying a new suit of clothes next year - they might give you a ‘clothing allowance’ or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn’t enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn’t get yours, either.

“There was one man who’d worked hard all his life, because he’d always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan - but ‘the family’ wouldn’t give the father any ‘allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn’t go to college, until we had enough to send everybody’s sons to college - and that we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular - such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.

“Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip lunch just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records - ‘personal luxury’ they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight year old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth - this was ‘medical need’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

“Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less. Don’t ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget - you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month - and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising - because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

“It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. The bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes - what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine - they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.

“God help us, ma’am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we’d been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it - for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man’s dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of a law of goodness? We were a pretty decent bunch of fellows when we started. There weren’t many chiselers among us. We knew our jobs and we were proud of it and we worked for the best factory in the country, where old man Starnes hired nothing but the pick of the country’s labor. Within one year under the new plan, there wasn’t an honest man left among us. That was the evil, the sort of hell-horror evil that preachers used to scare you with, but you never thought to see alive. Not that the plan encouraged a few bastards, but that it turned decent people into bastards, and there was nothing else that it could do - and it was called a moral ideal!

“What was it we were supposed to work for? For the love of our brothers? What brothers? For the bums, the loafers, the moochers we saw all around us? And whether they were cheating or plain incompetent, whether they were unwilling or unable - what difference did that make to us? If we were tied for life to the level of their unfitness, faked or real, how long could we care to go on? We had no way of knowing their ability, we had no way of controlling their needs - all we knew was that we were beasts of burden struggling blindly in some sort of place that was half-hospital, half-stockyards - a place geared to nothing but disability, disaster, disease - beasts put there for the relief of whatever whoever chose to say was whichever’s need.

“Love of our brothers? That’s when we learned to hate our brothers for the first time in our lives. We began to hate them for every meal they swallowed, for every small pleasure they enjoyed, for one man’s new shirt, for another’s wife’s hat, for an outing with their family, for a paint job on their house - it was taken from us, it was paid for by our privations, our denials, our hunger. We began to spy on one another, each hoping to catch the others lying about their needs, so as to cut their ‘allowance’ at the next meeting. We began to have stool pigeons who informed on people, who reported that somebody had bootlegged a turkey to his family on some Sunday - which he’d paid for by gambling, most likely. We began to meddle into one another’s lives. We provoked family quarrels, to get somebody’s relatives thrown out. Any time we saw a man starting to go steady with a girl, we made life miserable for him. We broke up many engagements. We didn’t want anyone to marry, we didn’t want any more dependents to feed.

“In the old days, we used to celebrate if somebody had a baby, we used to chip in and help him out with the hospital bills, if he happened to be hard-pressed for the moment. Now, if a baby was born, we didn’t speak to the parents for weeks. Babies, to us, had become what locusts were to farmers. In the old days, we used to help a man out if he had a bad illness in the family. Now - well, I’ll tell you about just one case. It was the mother of a man who had been with us for fifteen years. She was a kindly old lady, cheerful and wise, she knew us all by our first names and we all liked her - we used to like her. One day, she slipped on the cellar stairs and fell and broke her hip. We knew what that meant at her age. The staff doctor said that she’d have to be sent to a hospital in town, for expensive treatments that would take a long time. The old lady died the night before she was to leave for town. They never established the cause of death. No, I don’t know whether she was murdered. Nobody said that. Nobody would talk about it at all. All I know is that I - and that’s what I can’t forget! - I, too, had caught myself wishing that she would die. This - may God forgive us! - was the brotherhood, the security, the abundance that the plan was supposed to achieve for us!

“Was there any reason why this sort of horror would ever be preached by anybody? Was there anybody who got any profit from it? There was. The Starnes heirs. I hope you’re not going to remind me that they’d sacrificed a fortune and turned the factory over to us as a gift. We were fooled by that one, too. Yes, they gave up the factory. But profit, ma’am, depends on what it is that you’re after. And what the Starnes heirs were after, no money on earth could buy. Money is too clean and innocent for that.

“Eric Starnes, the youngest - he was a jellyfish that didn’t have the guts to be after anything in particular. He got himself voted as the Director of our Public Relations Department, which didn’t do anything, except that he had a staff for the not doing of anything, so he didn’t have to bother sticking around the office. The pay he got - well, I shouldn’t call it ‘pay,’ none of us was ‘paid’ - the alms voted to him was fairly modest, about ten times what I got, but that wasn’t riches, Eric didn’t care for money - he wouldn’t have known what to do with it. He spent his time hanging around among us, showing how chummy he was and democratic. He wanted to be loved, it seems. The way he went about it was to keep reminding us that he had given us the factory. We couldn’t stand him.

“Gerald Starnes was our Director of Production. We never learned just what the size of his rake-off - his alms - had been. It would have taken a staff of accountants to figure that out, and a staff of engineers to trace the way it was piped, directly or indirectly, into his office. None of it was supposed to be for him - it was all for company expenses. Gerald had three cars, four secretaries, five telephones, and he used to throw champagne and caviar parties that no tax-paying tycoon in the country could have afforded. He spent more money in one year than his father had earned in profits in the last two years of his life. We saw a hundred pound stack - a hundred pounds, we weighed them - of magazines in Gerald’s office, full of stories about our factory and our noble plan, with big pictures of Gerald Starnes, calling him a great social crusader. Gerald liked to come into the shops at night, dressed in his formal clothes, flashing diamond cuff links the size of a nickel and shaking cigar ashes all over. Any cheap show-off who’s got nothing to parade but his cash, is bad enough - except that he makes no bones about the cash being his, and you’re free to gape at him or not, as you wish, and mostly you don’t. But when a bastard like Gerald Starnes puts on an act and keeps spouting that he doesn’t care for material wealth, that he’s only serving ‘the family,’ that all the lushness is not for himself, but for our sake and for the common good, because it’s necessary to keep up the prestige of the company and of the noble plan in the eyes of the public - then that’s when you learn to hate the creature as you’ve never hated anything human.

“But his sister Ivy was worse. She really did not care for material wealth. The alms she got was no bigger than ours, and she went about in scuffed, flat-heeled shoes and shirtwaists - just to show how selfless she was. She was our Director of Distribution. She was the lady in charge of our needs. She was the one who held us by the throat. Of course, distribution was supposed to be decided by voting - by the voice of the people. But when the people are six thousand howling voices, trying to decide without yardstick, rhyme or reason, when there are no rules to the game and each can demand anything, but has a right to nothing, when everybody holds power over everybody’s life except his own - then it turns out, as it did, that the voice of the people is Ivy Starnes. By the end of the second year, we dropped the pretense of the ‘family meetings’ - in the name of ‘production efficiency and time economy,’ one meeting used to take ten days - and all the petitions of need were simply sent to Miss Starnes’ office. No, not sent. They had to be recited to her in person by every petitioner. Then she made up a distribution list, which she read to us for our vote of approval at a meeting that lasted three-quarters of an hour. We voted approval. There was a ten-minute period on the agenda for discussion and objections. We made no objections. We knew better by that time. Nobody can divide a factory’s income among thousands of people, without some sort of a gauge to measure people’s value. Her gauge was bootlicking. Selfless? In her father’s time, all of his money wouldn’t have given him a chance to speak to his lousiest wiper and get away with it, as she spoke to our best skilled workers and their wives. She had pale eyes that looked fishy, cold and dead. And if you ever want to see pure evil, you should have seen the way her eyes glinted when she watched some man who’d talked back to her once and who’d just heard his name on the list of those getting nothing above basic pittance. And when you saw it, you saw the real motive of any person who’s ever preached the slogan: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’

“This was the whole secret of it. At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination - when five minutes of thought should have told them what would happen if somebody tried to practice what they preached. Now I know they didn’t do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently. If men fall for some vicious piece of insanity, when they have no way to make it work and no possible reason to explain their choice - it’s because they have a reason that they do not wish to tell. And we weren’t so innocent, either, when we voted for that plan at the end of the first meeting. We didn’t do it just because we believed that the drippy, old guff they spewed was good. We had another reason, but the guff helped us to hide it from our neighbors and from ourselves. The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we’d be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss’s, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted - that was the truth of it - but we didn’t like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

“Well, we got what we asked for. By the time we saw what it was that we’d asked for, it was too late. We were trapped, with no place to go. The best men among us left the factory in the first week of the plan. We lost our best engineers, superintendents, foremen and highest-skilled workers. A man of self-respect doesn’t turn into a milch cow for anybody. Some able fellows tried to stick it out, but they couldn’t take it for long. We kept losing our men, they kept escaping from the factory like from a pesthole - till we had nothing left except the men of need, but none of the men of ability.

“And the few of us who were still any good, but stayed on, were only those who had been there too long. In the old days, nobody ever quit the Twentieth Century - and, somehow, we couldn’t make ourselves believe it was gone. After a while, we couldn’t quit, because no other employer would have us - for which I can’t blame him. Nobody would deal with us in any way, no respectable person or firm. All the small shops, where we traded, started moving out of Starnesville fast - till we had nothing left but saloons, gambling joints and crooks who sold us trash at gouging prices. The alms we got kept falling, but the cost of our living went up. The list of the factory’s needy kept stretching, but the list of its customers shrank. There was less and less income to divide among more and more people. In the old days, it used to be said that the Twentieth Century Motor trademark was as good as the karat mark on gold. I don’t know what it was that the Starnes heirs thought, if they thought at all, but I suppose that like all social planners and like savages, they thought that this trademark was a magic stamp which did the trick by some sort of voodoo power and that it would keep them rich, as it had kept their father. Well, when our customers began to see that we never delivered an order on time and never put out a motor that didn’t have something wrong with it - the magic stamp began to work the other way around: people wouldn’t take a motor as a gift, if it was marked Twentieth Century. And it came to where our only customers were men who never paid and never meant to pay their bills. But Gerald Starnes, doped by his own publicity, got huffy and went around, with an air of moral superiority, demanding that businessmen place orders with us, not because our motors were good, but because we needed the orders so badly.

“By that time a village half-wit could see what generations of professors had pretended not to notice. What good would our need do to a power plant when its generators stopped because of our defective engines? What good would it do to a man caught on an operating table when the electric light went out? What good would it do to the passengers of a plane when its motor failed in mid-air? And if they bought our product, not because of its merit, but because of our need, would that be the good, the right, the moral thing to do for the owner of that power plant, the surgeon in that hospital, the maker of that plane?

“Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth. If this is what it did in a single small town where we all knew one another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale? Do you care to imagine what it would be like, if you had to live and to work, when you’re tied to all the disasters and all the malingering of the globe? to work - and whenever any men failed anywhere, it’s you who would have to make up for it. To work - with no chance to rise, with your meals and your clothes and your home and your pleasure depending on any swindle, any famine, any pestilence anywhere on earth. To work - with no chance for an extra ration, till the Cambodians have been fed and the Patagonians have been sent through college. To work - on a blank check held by every creature born, by men whom you’ll never see, whose needs you’ll never know, whose ability or laziness or sloppiness or fraud you have no way to learn and no right to question - just to work and work and work - and leave it up to the Ivys and the Geralds of the world to decide whose stomach will consume the effort, the dreams and the days of your life. And this is the moral law to accept? This - a moral ideal?

“Well, we tried it - and we learned. Our agony took four years, from our first meeting to our last, and it ended the only way it could end: in bankruptcy. At our last meeting, Ivy Starnes was the one who tried to brazen it out. She made a short, nasty, snippy little speech in which she said that the plan had failed because the rest of the country had not accepted it, that a single community could not succeed in the midst of a selfish, greedy world - and that the plan was a noble ideal, but human nature was not good enough for it. A young boy - the one who had been punished for giving us a useful idea in our first year - got up, as we all sat silent, and walked straight to Ivy Starnes on the platform. He said nothing. He spat in her face. That was the end of the noble plan and of the Twentieth Century.

[Plagueround]

For a self-professed free thinker, you sure rely on a lot of copy and pasted works. At the very least you could put up someone who did more than build strawmen to knock down and then make a half-assed philosophy out of it.

[Havet]

For a self-professed free thinker, you sure rely on a lot of copy and pasted works.

Rand says many things better than me. Of course I don't expecct anyone here to read it. You'd read Marx any day, but when it comes to contrary texts you're like:" oh it's too big, tl;dr, etc"

Also, you dont understand the term free thinker:

"Freethought is a philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), and reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason), and should not be influenced by authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority), tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), or any other dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma). The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

I can argue for any belief i hold basing my arguments on science, logic and reason. The fact i pasted such long post doesn't mean i've stop abiding by this. It means that on this matter, i'd prefer to show you Rand's view first before i start arguing about it, because many of the questions you can raise are likely to have been adressed in the long post.

But i suppose you just commented that to escape the necessity of reading it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression their workers agreed to fulfill certain duties in return for monetary remuneration?
Yes, but you have to look at the question of whether the circumstances that exist prior to the agreement are just.

Suppose, for example, that the state just gave me control over all the water in the country. And I will only give you water if you sign a contract agreeing to be my servant for the rest of your life. Naturally, you will sign this contract. You will "agree" to be my servant in exchange for water. But is this situation just? No. Why not? Because I have no right to control the use of water in the first place.

It's the same thing with capitalism. Just replace "water" in the above example with "the means of production." The state enforces private property over the means of production. This means that a small minority of people (the capitalists) have the power to control something that everyone needs in order to survive (the means of production). Workers will "agree" to serve the capitalists because they have no choice, in the same way you would "agree" to serve me because you need water to live.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hayenmill, Rand's argument is a complete strawman, because it utterly misrepresents the meaning of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Let me explain:


Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forthy-eight, then fifty-six - for your neighbor’s supper - for his wife’s operation - for his child’s measles - for his mother’s wheel chair - for his uncle’s shirt - for his nephew’s schooling - for the baby next door - for the baby to be born - for anyone anywhere around you - it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures - and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...
See, that paragraph is saying that one person works according to his ability and another person receives according to his need.

Ridiculous. The same person is supposed to work according to ability and receive according to need. In other words, you may work for your neighbor's supper, but only to the same extent that he works for yours.


“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day - together, and you don’t all get a bellyache - together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? Voted on it.
More nonsense. No communist ever suggested that a person's abilities and needs should be decided by vote.

As a general rule, everyone's needs are equal, unless one person suffers an accident or disease or some other misfortune that increases his need. And, of course, in such cases he would have to demonstrate his need, not just expect others to take his word for it.

Abilities, too, are considered to be equal - in the sense that everyone is expected to put in an equal amount of effort, or work an equal amount of time. But different people have different talents, so the phrase "from each according to his ability" refers to the fact that everyone should do the job he does best.

What should be decided by vote is the relative importance of needs. But NOT the relative importance of people. For example, we may vote to decide that the need to eat is more important than the need to watch TV. In that case, we will have to ensure that everyone has enough to eat before we start worrying about television. But we cannot vote to decide, for example, that my need to eat is more important than your need to eat. The same need is always equally important for all people. My need for X is always equally important to your need for X.

The rest of Rand's story is entirely based on the false notions that (a) some people are made to work according to ability without receiving according to need, (b) individual people's needs and abilities are decided by vote, and (c) it is acceptable to decide that one person's need for X is greater than another person's need for X. None of these is true in communism, which is why Rand's argument is a strawman.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to give you something is not a legitimate acquisition of property in my view.
Yet this is precisely how all existing property was initially acquired. You live in England. Do you not know that all property in England comes from the monarchy and the lords, who acquired it by the sword?

If you want a system based on property acquired peacefully, then you have to begin by getting rid of all existing property rights and setting up new ones.


Okay, this is kind of getting off track, its becoming about whether or not people legitimately own their wealth or not.
But that's not off track for us. The idea that capitalists do not legitimately own their wealth is one of the fundamental pillars of socialism.


In a society where everyone worked for and got their wealth fair and square by your standards would they be obliged to contribute to people who didn't or couldn't work???
Would they be obliged to contribute to people who could work but didn't? No.

Would they be obliged to contribute to people who couldn't work, due to illness, accident or age? Yes, in exchange for the guarantee that they, too, would be taken care of when they get sick, suffer an accident or grow old. It's called mutual aid. I agree to help you when you're in trouble in exchange for knowing that I will be helped when I'm in trouble.

[AnthArmo]

The institution of Private Property is itself illegitimate because Private Property is nothing more than Authority enforced by the State.

[Nwoye]

If you're looking for a justification of the welfare state in a capitalist system, research John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) and his Original Position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position). Now of course, as socialists we don't really agree with him, but it's a good place to start.

[Nwoye]

Yet this is precisely how all existing property was initially acquired. You live in England. Do you not know that all property in England comes from the monarchy and the lords, who acquired it by the sword?

If you want a system based on property acquired peacefully, then you have to begin by getting rid of all existing property rights and setting up new ones.
"Don't hate me, my folks is poor, I just got money
America's five centuries deep in cotton money
You see a lot of brothers caked up, yo straight up
It's new, Y'all living off of slave traders paper"
- Mos Def

[danyboy27]

i am not really convinced by the whole welfare state thingy,it may work in a verry small scale but on a larger scale welfare state are organisational nightmares.

the state itself is a nightmare already and it dosnt have 1 third of what a welfare state would have to do for it citizen. its complicated, cloggy, bureaucratic and slow.

statism and capitalism complete eachother, if you want a state, capitalism will be somehow needed if you dont want to fall into complete isolation.

if you want to get rid of capitalism, you would have to get rid of all the states, no matter if you like it or not, even welfare state would end up with people gaining the monopoly of violence and use it to stay in power, no matter if those people are bureaucrats, skilled craftman or simply revolutionaries.

get rid of capitalism or live with it, you dont have much choice.
i live with it

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Welfare is abit like lube, your still getting fucked over but it just hurts abit less.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I don't see why we should have a welfare state, I view it as a violation of people's rights to keep the fruits of their labour.

If someone is uneducated he cannot be employed to his most productive, this is wasteful.
If someone is injured and doesn't receive appropriate treatment they cannot be employed to there most productive, this is wasteful.


I know it may sound selfish, but don't you believe people are entitled to just take care of themselves and their immediate family? It is, after all, their money.

If you believe humans have an inherent responsibility to there families as social animals, then why not to other members of there social group. Human society has grown well beyond the bounds we were designed for, but the underlying principle that we benefit from by helping each other than killing each other applies. In the modern global economy the people currently helping you numbers somewhere literally in the billions.

Also, no it's not selfish, it's just foolish. Unless your fanfuckingtabously wealthy your getting a raw deal from the current system.
I was born with enough that I'll never have to work a day in my life if i don't want to, I'd still be better off living in socialism.

[trivas7]

Yet this is precisely how all existing property was initially acquired.

No, this is not how all existing property was initially acquired.


The institution of Private Property is itself illegitimate because Private Property is nothing more than Authority enforced by the State.
No; this isn't private property at all.


Would you say society has a moral obligation to care for people born with serious mentalty disabilities?
Society isn't a person, it has no moral obligations at all.

[cappiej]

Yet this is precisely how all existing property was initially acquired. You live in England. Do you not know that all property in England comes from the monarchy and the lords, who acquired it by the sword?

If you want a system based on property acquired peacefully, then you have to begin by getting rid of all existing property rights and setting up new ones.


But that's not off track for us. The idea that capitalists do not legitimately own their wealth is one of the fundamental pillars of socialism.


Would they be obliged to contribute to people who could work but didn't? No.

Would they be obliged to contribute to people who couldn't work, due to illness, accident or age? Yes, in exchange for the guarantee that they, too, would be taken care of when they get sick, suffer an accident or grow old. It's called mutual aid. I agree to help you when you're in trouble in exchange for knowing that I will be helped when I'm in trouble.

How about if they would rather set up their own pension policy and not give to other people?

[Plagueround]

Rand says many things better than me. Of course I don't expecct anyone here to read it. You'd read Marx any day, but when it comes to contrary texts you're like:" oh it's too big, tl;dr, etc"

I've read it. Many a time. Because not only did I read as much of her trash as I could stand, but people like you keep posting this same drivel as if we've not heard it before. Interesting of you to assume I'm a Marx hardliner though.



Also, you dont understand the term free thinker:

"Freethought is a philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), and reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason), and should not be influenced by authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority), tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), or any other dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma). The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

I can argue for any belief i hold basing my arguments on science, logic and reason. The fact i pasted such long post doesn't mean i've stop abiding by this. It means that on this matter, i'd prefer to show you Rand's view first before i start arguing about it, because many of the questions you can raise are likely to have been adressed in the long post.

Except deferring to Rand instead of making your own argument is a pretty big appeal to authority. She's also not very scientific.


But i suppose you just commented that to escape the necessity of reading it.

I read it. It was terribly written, like most of her work, and it's premise was flimsy. Rand lacks the intellectual honesty to do anything beyond writing books with one dimensional socialist demons and the gallant capitalist that oppose them. Politics and philosophy aside, stop embarrassing yourself by even pretending she's legitimate literature.

[AnthArmo]

No; this isn't private property at all.

Then what is it? you need to give me an alternate definition.

Regardless, I fail to see where my definition fails.

If you privately owned a plot of land, and a bunch of thugs stronger than you started to loiter on it. Would you not need the State to enforce your authority?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

LOL. It was all going well until you said, "Letting others sit in poverty", once again we're getting back to the fundamental problem, you seem to think I have a duty to my fellow man, I don't. My only duty is not to harm him, I don't have to help him.

If me having money is wrong to someone else then that's tough, if I stole it from them that's different.

So where do I stand on property rights? Well. If you acquired it legitimately its yours, so you can obtain it as a gift, free exchange etc.

Pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to give you something is not a legitimate acquisition of property in my view. People who agree with the welfare state think otherwise.


P1: I don't have a duty to my fellow man.
P2: My fellow many has something I want.
P3: Since I don't have a duty to him, I can take what I want.
C: I should take his property.

Either you have duties to do something or you don't. Why do you have a duty to leave property alone and not help people? Why only passive duties to leave people alone and not active ones to help them?

[cappiej]

P1: I don't have a duty to my fellow man.
P2: My fellow many has something I want.
P3: Since I don't have a duty to him, I can take what I want.
C: I should take his property.

Either you have duties to do something or you don't. Why do you have a duty to leave property alone and not help people? Why only passive duties to leave people alone and not active ones to help them?

I'm not a proponent of asking someone to give their money to someone else, just not to steal the other person's money.

[Havet]

See, that paragraph is saying that one person works according to his ability and another person receives according to his need.

So the people who produce support those who need, and vice versa.


Ridiculous. The same person is supposed to work according to ability and receive according to need. In other words, you may work for your neighbor's supper, but only to the same extent that he works for yours. i suppose



More nonsense. No communist ever suggested that a person's abilities and needs should be decided by vote. How would you decide them? are they axiomatic? can they be empirically proved? Should it be left to oneself, even though oneself might lie about their needs in order to receive more?


As a general rule, everyone's needs are equal, unless one person suffers an accident or disease or some other misfortune that increases his need. And, of course, in such cases he would have to demonstrate his need, not just expect others to take his word for it.

Which is why in the book everyone started bringing their distant relatives, showing they needed medical assistance, and everyone started having more babies, because they knew they would need more resources to support them.


Abilities, too, are considered to be equal - in the sense that everyone is expected to put in an equal amount of effort, or work an equal amount of time. But different people have different talents, so the phrase "from each according to his ability" refers to the fact that everyone should do the job he does best. I agree, everyone should work at the job she does best and likes best, but without the purpose to support others, but with the motive of strictly supporting for oneself and their family first, and then to others if they want.


What should be decided by vote is the relative importance of needs. But NOT the relative importance of people. For example, we may vote to decide that the need to eat is more important than the need to watch TV. In that case, we will have to ensure that everyone has enough to eat before we start worrying about television. But we cannot vote to decide, for example, that my need to eat is more important than your need to eat. The same need is always equally important for all people. My need for X is always equally important to your need for X.

So it could be argued (like it was in my quote) that a person who applied to receive money for his son's college couldn't get it because first everyone else's kids would have to be ensured to go through primary school, and then everyone's kids should have enough resources to go through secondary school and only then should they decide to give the initial person (who probably died waiting) money for his son's college.


The rest of Rand's story is entirely based on the false notions that (a) some people are made to work according to ability without receiving according to need, (b) individual people's needs and abilities are decided by vote, and (c) it is acceptable to decide that one person's need for X is greater than another person's need for X. None of these is true in communism, which is why Rand's argument is a strawman.

Well, some people were more abler than others, therefore they produced more than others. Others could have more needs (babies, medical issues) than others who are healthy. Which is why those with less needs but more abler should work a bit extra to support those who cannot produce as much now, which ends up creating a system which does not incentive production but instead incentives begging.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So the people who produce support those who need, and vice versa.
Yes, precisely.


How would you decide them? are they axiomatic? can they be empirically proved? Should it be left to oneself, even though oneself might lie about their needs in order to receive more?
Two things are axiomatic: First, there are certain biological needs required for the survival of the human body. These needs are the same for everyone, and furthermore they are the most important needs for everyone (you cannot need something more than you need to be alive). Therefore, these needs will have to be satisfied first, for everyone. After that is done, we can judge the other needs.

The second thing that can be considered axiomatic is that people in similar situations have similar needs. Thus, we may not know what your needs are, but if you are, for example, a 25 year old single woman living in a city, then your needs must be fairly close to the needs of other 25 year old single women living in cities. This is the principle we can use to discover when people lie about their needs: If they claim to have needs far above the needs of others in their demographic group, they will have to justify those claims with solid proof.

Of course, it may be possible for all the people in the same demographic (all city-dwelling 25 year old single women, for example) to get together and agree to lie about their needs, but that would be almost impossible to pull off. You'd have to somehow get thousands of people to get together and agree to cheat the system in the same way, without anyone else knowing.


Which is why in the book everyone started bringing their distant relatives, showing they needed medical assistance, and everyone started having more babies, because they knew they would need more resources to support them.
Were the distant relatives also required to work according to their ability? No. So you had a commune giving away wealth to people who were not part of that commune and did not follow its rules.

That's stupid, and no real communist society would do that. If the relatives want to receive help according to need, they have to join the communist society and work according to ability.


I agree, everyone should work at the job she does best and likes best, but without the purpose to support others, but with the motive of strictly supporting for oneself and their family first, and then to others if they want.
In a society based on division of labour, the purpose of your work is always to support others. I mean, if you produce air conditioners, you don't make them all for yourself, do you? You make them for others. And in return, you expect others to make all sorts of things that you need.


So it could be argued (like it was in my quote) that a person who applied to receive money for his son's college couldn't get it because first everyone else's kids would have to be ensured to go through primary school, and then everyone's kids should have enough resources to go through secondary school and only then should they decide to give the initial person (who probably died waiting) money for his son's college.
Didn't this man's son also need to go through primary and secondary school before going to college? Of course we need to put children (everyone's children, including the son of this man in your story) through primary and secondary school before they can go to college. So, yes, schools would have a higher priority than colleges.

But each person's college expenses would have the same priority as every other person's college expenses. The man in your story would only have to wait for college if everyone has to wait for college. And that's highly unlikely, because education and health care are pretty much the second and third most important activities in society (the production of food being first). College education would be very high on the list of needs to be satisfied.

Your scenario would be more realistic if you replaced "a college education" with, for example, "a luxury car." Yes, a man would probably have to wait a long time for a luxury car, because that need would be very low on the list of priorities. But I see it as a great advantage, not a flaw, that a communist society would first ensure everyone is fed, educated and healthy before worrying about your car.


Well, some people were more abler than others, therefore they produced more than others. Others could have more needs (babies, medical issues) than others who are healthy. Which is why those with less needs but more abler should work a bit extra to support those who cannot produce as much now, which ends up creating a system which does not incentive production but instead incentives begging.
You only have an incentive to beg if other people don't know what you really need and have to take your word for it. Obviously, a communist society wouldn't work if you could just say "I'm sick, give me money!" For one thing, you would have to prove you were sick and needed medicine - by showing a doctor's prescription, for example. And secondly, unlike in Rand's story, you wouldn't receive money. You would receive the medicine directly. Thus you would have no incentive to fake an illness, because the only thing you'd get in return would be useless drugs.

More generally, you would not have an incentive to make up fake needs or accidents, or to get pregnant for personal gain, because you would not get money for such things - even if you could pull it off, you would get all sorts of goods that you don't really need (drugs, a wheelchair, baby clothes).

[trivas7]

If you privately owned a plot of land, and a bunch of thugs stronger than you started to loiter on it. Would you not need the State to enforce your authority?
Why can't you call your neighbors to help you eject them?

[Havet]

Two things are axiomatic: First, there are certain biological needs required for the survival of the human body. These needs are the same for everyone, and furthermore they are the most important needs for everyone (you cannot need something more than you need to be alive). Therefore, these needs will have to be satisfied first, for everyone. After that is done, we can judge the other needs.

Well someone might need sugar more than me, or i might need a certain drug more than someone else. This all depends on the situation though.


The second thing that can be considered axiomatic is that people in similar situations have similar needs. Thus, we may not know what your needs are, but if you are, for example, a 25 year old single woman living in a city, then your needs must be fairly close to the needs of other 25 year old single women living in cities. This is the principle we can use to discover when people lie about their needs: If they claim to have needs far above the needs of others in their demographic group, they will have to justify those claims with solid proof. Good point.


Of course, it may be possible for all the people in the same demographic (all city-dwelling 25 year old single women, for example) to get together and agree to lie about their needs, but that would be almost impossible to pull off. You'd have to somehow get thousands of people to get together and agree to cheat the system in the same way, without anyone else knowing. Yes i agree. (in response to another completely different matter), why do you not agree that it would be almost impossible to somehow get thousands of business owners to get together and agree to cheat the system in the same way without anyone else knowing? How would they prevent another person from starting their own business? This is basically to explain how businesses naturally cannot achieve monopoly.



Were the distant relatives also required to work according to their ability? No. So you had a commune giving away wealth to people who were not part of that commune and did not follow its rules. nice argument, i hadnt thought about that in that way yet.


That's stupid, and no real communist society would do that. If the relatives want to receive help according to need, they have to join the communist society and work according to ability. i agree, it seems logical by the extension of the arguments.


In a society based on division of labour, the purpose of your work is always to support others. I mean, if you produce air conditioners, you don't make them all for yourself, do you? You make them for others. And in return, you expect others to make all sorts of things that you need. oh yes i was just arguing from the commune/collective point of view.



Didn't this man's son also need to go through primary and secondary school before going to college? Of course we need to put children (everyone's children, including the son of this man in your story) through primary and secondary school before they can go to college. So, yes, schools would have a higher priority than colleges.

ok


But each person's college expenses would have the same priority as every other person's college expenses. The man in your story would only have to wait for college if everyone has to wait for college. And that's highly unlikely, because education and health care are pretty much the second and third most important activities in society (the production of food being first). College education would be very high on the list of needs to be satisfied. hmm..i understand


Your scenario would be more realistic if you replaced "a college education" with, for example, "a luxury car." Yes, a man would probably have to wait a long time for a luxury car, because that need would be very low on the list of priorities. But I see it as a great advantage, not a flaw, that a communist society would first ensure everyone is fed, educated and healthy before worrying about your car.

i think i can agree with that. I dont particularly like the idea that hobbies would be somewhat restricted: i couldnt own a videogame console until everyone had one ( even tho a better way to deal with lack of that resource could be to have common game rooms).



You only have an incentive to beg if other people don't know what you really need and have to take your word for it. Obviously, a communist society wouldn't work if you could just say "I'm sick, give me money!" For one thing, you would have to prove you were sick and needed medicine - by showing a doctor's prescription, for example. And secondly, unlike in Rand's story, you wouldn't receive money. You would receive the medicine directly. Thus you would have no incentive to fake an illness, because the only thing you'd get in return would be useless drugs.

interesting. i already knew communes wouldnt be bad but this makes them interesting.


More generally, you would not have an incentive to make up fake needs or accidents, or to get pregnant for personal gain, because you would not get money for such things - even if you could pull it off, you would get all sorts of goods that you don't really need (drugs, a wheelchair, baby clothes).

and thats assuming money wouldnt be collectively forbidden.

[Havet]

Why can't you call your neighbors to help you eject them?

depends on whether the property was or not acquired through the interconsensus and prevalent criteria of ownership... hehe

[AnthArmo]

Why can't you call your neighbors to help you eject them?

What if my neighbors aren't tough enough to eject the thugs off my property.

Or what if they don't all acknowledge my property.

Private property cannot exist without a state. And I can play the "what if" game all day

[danyboy27]

What if my neighbors aren't tough enough to eject the thugs off my property.

Or what if they don't all acknowledge my property.

Private property cannot exist without a state. And I can play the "what if" game all day

i am not quite sure if you talk about private property in the sense of possesing land or in the pure sense of hownership.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'd just like to say, Hayenmill, that I'm glad we can actually agree at times. You've shown that you really are open to ideas from outside your own ideology, and for that I respect you a lot more than I used to.

I think we've reached the end of the discussion on Ayn Rand (but correct me if I'm wrong), so I will reply to your question about a different matter:


(in response to another completely different matter), why do you not agree that it would be almost impossible to somehow get thousands of business owners to get together and agree to cheat the system in the same way without anyone else knowing? How would they prevent another person from starting their own business? This is basically to explain how businesses naturally cannot achieve monopoly.
It depends on whether this form of "cheating the system" is legal or illegal. If it's legal (or if there is no government or authority that will try to punish the businessmen for doing it), then they can get together and form a cartel quite easily and openly. All they have to do is sign a contract and agree to collectively punish any one of them who breaks that contract. It might take a long time to iron out the agreement if there are thousands of them, but they don't have to worry about secrecy, and once the contract is signed it can be easily enforced.

If "cheating the system" is illegal, on the other hand, or if you are certain to be heavily punished by some entity if you get caught doing it, then it's almost impossible to get thousands of people to cheat the system together, because they have to meet and agree in secret, because they cannot openly enforce the contract on one of them who breaks the agreement, and because each of them might have an incentive to betray the others and expose the whole thing.

In my example of the demographic group cheating the communist society, they would be getting together to do something illegal. That's why it is very unlikely to work. If they could do it openly, then they could pull it off.

Of course, even with legal agreements, they get more difficult to enforce as the number of people in them increases. Above a certain number of members, even a legal agreement becomes highly unlikely to work. But I think that number is in the thousands or tens of thousands, and there are plenty of industries where the number of separate business owners is only in the hundreds or dozens. Sometimes even less than 10. You could never get a working cartel in the production of hammers, but you could easily get one in car manufacturing.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm not a proponent of asking someone to give their money to someone else, just not to steal the other person's money.
But why? That's what he asked you. Why should you not steal the other person's money? If you don't have a duty to help others, why do you have a duty to respect their property?

[cappiej]

But why? That's what he asked you. Why should you not steal the other person's money? If you don't have a duty to help others, why do you have a duty to respect their property?

Simply because that's the way society should be in my view, I go about my business, you go about yours, I won't harm you, you won't harm me and I'll buy my healthcare and you'll buy yours, if you can.

You don't have unlimited rights, you don't have to right to punch your neighbour, you don't have the right to his money and he has no right to yours either.

[Jack]

If I can't work for what I need, or be given what I need, I'm going to take what I need. Think of it as a more humane way to prevent crime.

[cappiej]

If I can't work for what I need, or be given what I need, I'm going to take what I need. Think of it as a more humane way to prevent crime.

Well you'd be dealt with as and when you did so. And also, I can think of much cheaper insurance policy against crime, its a one-time payment and when you're not killing the peasant robbers you can shoot cans.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Simply because that's the way society should be in my view,
In other words, because you say so? I'm sorry, that's not good enough. It's not even an attempt at an argument.

But at least it's honest. You want capitalism, probably because it's good for you. I want socialism for a variety of reasons, and one of them is because socialism is good for me. So we will fight and see who wins. That's class struggle. Bring it on.

But if you think it's ok to make everyone conform to your view of how society should be, don't complain if we win and shoot you. After all, maybe that's how we think society should be. (for the record, I do not personally believe you should be shot, but if my comrades want to do it, I won't stand in their way)

[danyboy27]

But if you think it's ok to make everyone conform to your view of how society should be, don't complain if we win and shoot you. After all, maybe that's how we think society should be. (for the record, I do not personally believe you should be shot, but if my comrades want to do it, I won't stand in their way)


in other words: freedom is verry important, and human right too, look at how bad cappies are kiling ton of people everyday ZOMG!

but well, i dont mind people depriving live of other to live beccause they are not like me in term of ideology.

[cappiej]

In other words, because you say so? I'm sorry, that's not good enough. It's not even an attempt at an argument.

But at least it's honest. You want capitalism, probably because it's good for you. I want socialism for a variety of reasons, and one of them is because socialism is good for me. So we will fight and see who wins. That's class struggle. Bring it on.

But if you think it's ok to make everyone conform to your view of how society should be, don't complain if we win and shoot you. After all, maybe that's how we think society should be. (for the record, I do not personally believe you should be shot, but if my comrades want to do it, I won't stand in their way)

Hahahaha, shooting people, you guys are funny. Comrades lol, this isn't Russia in 1917 its England in 2009.

I bet half of the people on this site are ten times as rich as my parents and think its fashionable to be a Marxist.

Capitalism is good to me, yes, my parents are middle class and we would lose if a one-house-one-person policy was enacted but not nearly as much as some.

I think a lot of people pay lip service to communism and liberalism, simply because they know it will never happen.

No I don't want to make everyone conform to my view of how society should be, if you want to form your little communist society, go ahead, but please be decent enough to allow me to opt out of socialism in your hypothetical society and found a libertarian, capitalist micro-society with my ideological brethren.

[cappiej]

In other words, because you say so? I'm sorry, that's not good enough. It's not even an attempt at an argument.

But at least it's honest. You want capitalism, probably because it's good for you. I want socialism for a variety of reasons, and one of them is because socialism is good for me. So we will fight and see who wins. That's class struggle. Bring it on.

But if you think it's ok to make everyone conform to your view of how society should be, don't complain if we win and shoot you. After all, maybe that's how we think society should be. (for the record, I do not personally believe you should be shot, but if my comrades want to do it, I won't stand in their way)

You're a Christian are you? Shouldn't you be off giving Africans condoms or harassing gay people, it is after all in the Bible that pro-creation is what God wants the gay folks are evil.

Sorry but Christianity and Communism are about as far apart as possible.

I've heard some ultra-capitalist 'Christians' and said the same thing to them, one American who thought socialised medicine was the work of Satan, doesn't the Bible say you are your brother's keep or something like that?

You get idiots on both the left and the right, don't you agree?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

in other words: freedom is verry important, and human right too, look at how bad cappies are kiling ton of people everyday ZOMG!

but well, i dont mind people depriving live of other to live beccause they are not like me in term of ideology.
Cappiej believes we should die. So, no, I don't mind people killing someone who wants to see me dead.

And I'm certainly not going to be kind to people who, as you said, crush freedom, exploit workers and kill tons of people every day. I'm not going to try to show them the error of their ways by "not stooping to their level" or acting stupid "because otherwise we're no better than they are." That kind of attitude will only lead to them shooting me in the back and laughing at my idiocy. Screw that. If you really want justice for the oppressed, you must give no quarter to the oppressors.

[cappiej]

Cappiej believes we should die. So, no, I don't mind people killing someone who wants to see me dead.

And I'm certainly not going to be kind to people who, as you said, crush freedom, exploit workers and kill tons of people every day. I'm not going to try to show them the error of their ways by "not stooping to their level" or acting stupid "because otherwise we're no better than they are." That kind of attitude will only lead to them shooting me in the back and laughing at my idiocy. Screw that. If you really want justice for the oppressed, you must give no quarter to the oppressors.

WTF? I believe you should die, no I don't. I believe you're very misguided, but that's no grounds for being killed, until the wisdom of Ron Paul convinced me otherwise I was something of a socialist (well not in the sense of you guys but I supported benefits and the NHS).

[Demogorgon]

Cappiej believes we should die. So, no, I don't mind people killing someone who wants to see me dead.

And I'm certainly not going to be kind to people who, as you said, crush freedom, exploit workers and kill tons of people every day. I'm not going to try to show them the error of their ways by "not stooping to their level" or acting stupid "because otherwise we're no better than they are." That kind of attitude will only lead to them shooting me in the back and laughing at my idiocy. Screw that. If you really want justice for the oppressed, you must give no quarter to the oppressors.
If you don't mind me saying so, that probably isn't the best line of argument to be taking with someone who holds these views, not because they are an oppressor but because they are a naive teenager.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You're a Christian are you? Shouldn't you be off giving Africans condoms or harassing gay people, it is after all in the Bible that pro-creation is what God wants the gay folks are evil.
Wow, that's quite amazing. You're not even good at stereotyping Christians.


I've heard some ultra-capitalist 'Christians' and said the same thing to them, one American who thought socialised medicine was the work of Satan, doesn't the Bible say you are your brother's keep or something like that?
That was a question addressed by Cain to God after... you know what, nevermind. The short answer is no, but the Bible does charge us to provide for each other, and particularly for the poor.


You get idiots on both the left and the right, don't you agree?
Oh yes. I dare say we have living proof of the latter right here.


Hahahaha, shooting people, you guys are funny. Comrades lol, this isn't Russia in 1917 its England in 2009.
And in 50 years it will be England in 2059. Who knows what that might be like?


I bet half of the people on this site are ten times as rich as my parents and think its fashionable to be a Marxist.
Amusing. Thank you for revealing that you rely on your parents for financial support, though. That explains a lot. It's easy to be a libertarian when you don't have to work for a living.


I think a lot of people pay lip service to communism and liberalism, simply because they know it will never happen.
Remind me when libertarianism will happen.


No I don't want to make everyone conform to my view of how society should be, if you want to form your little communist society, go ahead, but please be decent enough to allow me to opt out of socialism in your hypothetical society and found a libertarian, capitalist micro-society with my ideological brethren.
Sure, you can go right ahead and do that. You cannot take any property with you except your personal possessions, though.

[danyboy27]

Cappiej believes we should die. So, no, I don't mind people killing someone who wants to see me dead.

And I'm certainly not going to be kind to people who, as you said, crush freedom, exploit workers and kill tons of people every day. I'm not going to try to show them the error of their ways by "not stooping to their level" or acting stupid "because otherwise we're no better than they are." That kind of attitude will only lead to them shooting me in the back and laughing at my idiocy. Screw that. If you really want justice for the oppressed, you must give no quarter to the oppressors.

i didnt know he wanted you dead.

so, if one day i start a small buisness, you will cathegorize me has an opressor and wouldnt mind having people burning down my shop and killing me?

wtf

[cappiej]

Wow, that's quite amazing. You're not even good at stereotyping Christians.


That was a question addressed by Cain to God after... you know what, nevermind. The short answer is no, but the Bible does charge us to provide for each other, and particularly for the poor.


Oh yes. I dare say we have living proof of the latter right here.


And in 50 years it will be England in 2059. Who knows what that might be like?


Amusing. Thank you for revealing that you rely on your parents for financial support, though. That explains a lot. It's easy to be a libertarian when you don't have to work for a living.


Remind me when libertarianism will happen.


Sure, you can go right ahead and do that. You cannot take any property with you except your personal possessions, though.

We can make steps in the right direction, get rid of socialised healthcare and benefits for a start. Libertarianism as I want it will probably never happen but we can always make society a little better.

I think if anything I'll become even more resentful toward benefits recipients and the like when I start working, as I see my money given to them. It sounds selfish but every penny you have to give to someone else is one penny you can't spend on yourself.

In 50 years we will probably be much like we are today, some successful people at the top, the majority of people working, they'll have enough food and they can go on a couple of holidays a year, they'll moan, maybe even vote for the SWP but ultimately they'll stick with what they know. Maybe if their hatred of those better off than them reaches epic proportions the government will jack up taxes on the wealthy and placate them. Bottom line is, I don't think this revolution is ever coming, our standard of living keeps going up and up.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

WTF? I believe you should die, no I don't.
Yes you do. The direct consequence of abolishing public health care would be that I would die as soon as I got any remotely life-threatening illness (since it is extremely unlikely that I would ever be able to afford private health care). Your political views are a direct threat to my health, and pose a serious risk to my life.


until the wisdom of Ron Paul convinced me otherwise I was something of a socialist (well not in the sense of you guys but I supported benefits and the NHS).
If you are open to it, I am sure I can counter any argument that Ron Paul has made.

The only thing I cannot counter is a belief that capitalism is good for you and that other people's well-being doesn't matter. If that is indeed true (which it might not be, since capitalism might end up being bad for you later in life), then there is nothing I can say to persuade you to change your views.


If you don't mind me saying so, that probably isn't the best line of argument to be taking with someone who holds these views, not because they are an oppressor but because they are a naive teenager.
You are correct, but my patience was running thin and I was not yet aware that he is a teenager.

[cappiej]

i didnt know he wanted you dead.

so, if one day i start a small buisness, you will cathegorize me has an opressor and wouldnt mind having people burning down my shop and killing me?

wtf

I don't want him dead and he's failed to explain when I ever said this. It appears that if I don't want to cater to his every whim that amounts to wanting him dead.

I don't know who all of you are, but I know this, I know you're not starving, you have a computer and you'll sleep in a warm bed tonight, and that if we lowered taxes you'd have even more, maybe you should consider coming over the dark side?

[cappiej]

Yes you do. The direct consequence of abolishing public health care would be that I would die as soon as I got any remotely life-threatening illness (since it is extremely unlikely that I would ever be able to afford private health care). Your political views are a direct threat to my health, and pose a serious risk to my life.


If you are open to it, I am sure I can counter any argument that Ron Paul has made.

The only thing I cannot counter is a belief that capitalism is good for you and that other people's well-being doesn't matter. If that is indeed true (which it might not be, since capitalism might end up being bad for you later in life), then there is nothing I can say to persuade you to change your views.


You are correct, but my patience was running thin and I was not yet aware that he is a teenager.

I don't want special treatment because of my age, although I'd appreciate not having my life threatened.

Why is your patience wearing thin, because I disagree with you? Well get used to it because 95% of people aren't communists, I admit I'm a pretty extreme capitalist and most people don't agree with me but I don't get frustrated about it.

By all means, counter Ron Paul's arguments, I want to hear it. I'm genuinely open to persuasion, my beliefs are not set in stone, they change and they will continue to change.

Firstly, as far as I know, and all I know is what you've chosen to tell me, you don't have a life threatening illness. Secondly, its not really up to anyone else to pay for you is it, or for me? If they WANT to then that's fine and to that end many give to charity.

Also, lack of health insurance does not mean lack of health care, there's charities, churches, benevolent and generous Doctors etc

[Kwisatz Haderach]

so, if one day i start a small buisness, you will cathegorize me has an opressor and wouldnt mind having people burning down my shop and killing me?

wtf
The response to oppression must be proportional to the magnitude of the crime. There is no way that being a small business owner could ever warrant death. And burning down a perfectly good shop would be stupid in any circumstances.


We can make steps in the right direction, get rid of socialised healthcare and benefits for a start. Libertarianism as I want it will probably never happen but we can always make society a little better.
For whom would that be better?


I think if anything I'll become even more resentful toward benefits recipients and the like when I start working, as I see my money given to them. It sounds selfish but every penny you have to give to someone else is one penny you can't spend on yourself.
You're right, it is selfish. But besides that, consider the fact that the amount of money your boss takes from you (in the form of his profit) is far greater than the amount that goes to people on benefits.

Unless you're a capitalist yourself, of course. Then capitalism is good for you. But if you work for a wage, capitalism is bad for you.


In 50 years we will probably be much like we are today, some successful people at the top, the majority of people working, they'll have enough food and they can go on a couple of holidays a year, they'll moan, maybe even vote for the SWP but ultimately they'll stick with what they know. Maybe if their hatred of those better off than them reaches epic proportions the government will jack up taxes on the wealthy and placate them. Bottom line is, I don't think this revolution is ever coming, our standard of living keeps going up and up.
The only thing that is certain about the future is that it will not be like the present.

And global standards of living had been going up and up for at least 100 years when October 1917 came around.

[cappiej]

The response to oppression must be proportional to the magnitude of the crime. There is no way that being a small business owner could ever warrant death. And burning down a perfectly good shop would be stupid in any circumstances.


For whom would that be better?


You're right, it is selfish. But besides that, consider the fact that the amount of money your boss takes from you (in the form of his profit) is far greater than the amount that goes to people on benefits.

Unless you're a capitalist yourself, of course. Then capitalism is good for you. But if you work for a wage, capitalism is bad for you.


The only thing that is certain about the future is that it will not be like the present.

And global standards of living had been going up and up for at least 100 years when October 1917 came around.

Well. It will not mirror the present exactly but I think the general class structure will remain in tact, its just everyone will be that little bit wealthier.

I'm not a capitaist or a worker, I'm in school still. I'll start off as a worker and hope to venture into something as and when the time is right, if I get a good idea I'll go with it.

[Jack]

Well you'd be dealt with as and when you did so. And also, I can think of much cheaper insurance policy against crime, its a one-time payment and when you're not killing the peasant robbers you can shoot cans.

So if I steal a loaf of bread to feed my kids, you're okay with shooting me?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't know who all of you are, but I know this, I know you're not starving, you have a computer and you'll sleep in a warm bed tonight,
That is true in my case, but we have many people here who are struggling to make ends meet. Having a computer only proves that you had a decent bit of money in the past (when you bought it). It does not mean you still have money today. A computer is a one-time expense, and where I live, an average computer costs the equivalent of about one month's worth of food. If you spread it out over, say, 5 years, you spent a lot less money on that computer than on food.


and that if we lowered taxes you'd have even more, maybe you should consider coming over the dark side?
If we eliminated capitalist profits, we would gain far more than if you cut our taxes. Also, for most people, the value of the services they receive from the state is greater than what they pay in taxes.


I don't want special treatment because of my age, although I'd appreciate not having my life threatened.
Come on, you know as well as I do that the chances of anyone here ever being in a position to meet you in person, let alone pose any danger to your safety, are practically nil. The threats we make are not personal, they're just general statements about what we would like to do if the revolution happened within our lifetimes.


Why is your patience wearing thin, because I disagree with you?
No, because I've been arguing against capitalists for the past few hours and I'm tired. Speaking of which, this will be my last post tonight. We can continue tomorrow.


By all means, counter Ron Paul's arguments, I want to hear it. I'm genuinely open to persuasion, my beliefs are not set in stone, they change and they will continue to change.
Ok, but first give me the arguments to counter. I don't know where to begin otherwise. What did Ron Paul say that persuaded you to be a libertarian?

Now, as I said, if you want to be absolutely selfish and if you think you will be a business owner, then I cannot persuade you away from capitalism, because capitalism really is good for business owners.

But if you think you will be a wage worker, then I can argue that capitalism will not be good for you. And if you are not entirely selfish, then I can argue that you should oppose capitalism because it's bad for most other people.


Secondly, its not really up to anyone else to pay for you is it, or for me?
Yes it is, because I would do the same for them (and for you, if you would pay for me).


If they WANT to then that's fine and to that end many give to charity.
Ah, but what counts as "wanting," exactly? Right now in the UK, you have the NHS. Do you want it? No? Then why don't you move to America? They speak the same language, and they have no public health care over there. Ok, maybe you rely on your parents for now, but you could move after you're on your own.

If you choose not to move, doesn't that mean that you accept the NHS? That you want it - or at least that you want the package deal that comes with living in the UK, which includes the NHS?

Most people in the UK actively want the NHS. I don't have to tell you that a political party openly calling for its abolition would be crushed at the polls. A few people, like you, don't like the NHS. But as long as you remain in the UK, you are saying that you are willing to abide by its rules - including paying for the NHS. In this way, the NHS is actually voluntary, because no one is forced to stay in the UK against their will.


Also, lack of health insurance does not mean lack of health care, there's charities, churches, benevolent and generous Doctors etc
Charity has been around since the dawn of human civilization. The British welfare state has been around since 1945. In England, you've had 879 years of charity without the welfare state (1066 - 1945). If charity solved anything, poverty should have been eliminated long ago.

And churches? Don't make me laugh. The Church of England is a rotting corpse.

[cappiej]

So if I steal a loaf of bread to feed my kids, you're okay with shooting me?

Yeah.

If you've got the ability to steal, admittedly very badly if you get yourself caught, you've got the ability to work and get that bread legally and morally soundly.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you've got the ability to steal, admittedly very badly if you get yourself caught, you've got the ability to work and get that bread legally and morally soundly.
And yet there are millions of people who want to work but can't find jobs. They're called the unemployed. (note: the official definition of "unemployed" is a person who is looking for work and can't find any; people not looking for work are not counted as unemployed)

Also, there are millions of people who do have jobs but are still not able to provide for their families, because their wages are too low.

In capitalism, being able and willing to work does not guarantee that you'll be able to feed your children.

[cappiej]

That is true in my case, but we have many people here who are struggling to make ends meet. Having a computer only proves that you had a decent bit of money in the past (when you bought it). It does not mean you still have money today. A computer is a one-time expense, and where I live, an average computer costs the equivalent of about one month's worth of food. If you spread it out over, say, 5 years, you spent a lot less money on that computer than on food.


If we eliminated capitalist profits, we would gain far more than if you cut our taxes. Also, for most people, the value of the services they receive from the state is greater than what they pay in taxes.


Come on, you know as well as I do that the chances of anyone here ever being in a position to meet you in person, let alone pose any danger to your safety, are practically nil. The threats we make are not personal, they're just general statements about what we would like to do if the revolution happened within our lifetimes.


No, because I've been arguing against capitalists for the past few hours and I'm tired. Speaking of which, this will be my last post tonight. We can continue tomorrow.


Ok, but first give me the arguments to counter. I don't know where to begin otherwise. What did Ron Paul say that persuaded you to be a libertarian?

Now, as I said, if you want to be absolutely selfish and if you think you will be a business owner, then I cannot persuade you away from capitalism, because capitalism really is good for business owners.

But if you think you will be a wage worker, then I can argue that capitalism will not be good for you. And if you are not entirely selfish, then I can argue that you should oppose capitalism because it's bad for most other people.


Yes it is, because I would do the same for them (and for you, if you would pay for me).


Ah, but what counts as "wanting," exactly? Right now in the UK, you have the NHS. Do you want it? No? Then why don't you move to America? They speak the same language, and they have no public health care over there. Ok, maybe you rely on your parents for now, but you could move after you're on your own.

If you choose not to move, doesn't that mean that you accept the NHS? That you want it - or at least that you want the package deal that comes with living in the UK, which includes the NHS?

Most people in the UK actively want the NHS. I don't have to tell you that a political party openly calling for its abolition would be crushed at the polls. A few people, like you, don't like the NHS. But as long as you remain in the UK, you are saying that you are willing to abide by its rules - including paying for the NHS. In this way, the NHS is actually voluntary, because no one is forced to stay in the UK against their will.


Charity has been around since the dawn of human civilization. The British welfare state has been around since 1945. In England, you've had 879 years of charity without the welfare state (1066 - 1945). If charity solved anything, poverty should have been eliminated long ago.

And churches? Don't make me laugh. The Church of England is a rotting corpse.

I'm not worried about being in danger its just the sentiment of wanting to kill someone over something as stupid as this.

Ron Paul spoke of liberty, and its said that, with the exception of Daniel Hannan, we have nobody like him high up in UK politics. He made sense, he spoke of individual liberty, of the right to keep what you earn, to choose your own Doctor, not to have the government intefere in your lives, to have low taxes and to have friendship with other nations but not entangling alliances. It sounded right to me then and it does now.

You're right, in fact I think a survey revealed 9 out of 10 Brits want to keep our current system. And its part of the deal of living here.

Maybe one day I will go to America, I've heard many say entrepreunerialism (is that even a word??) can take on dimensions in America that it cannot take on anywhere else. Its a land born of individual liberty, there is a terrible human price for that liberty but its part of the package of America, like the NHS is part of 'our' package.

The C of E is failing, but its not the only Church in the UK, with the recent influx of eastern Europeans I wouldn't be suprised in the Catholic church going population is greater than the C of E church going population.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ok, one more post before I go... what can I say, politics is addictive.


Ron Paul spoke of liberty, and its said that, with the exception of Daniel Hannan, we have nobody like him high up in UK politics.
Yes, thank God for that.


He made sense, he spoke of individual liberty,
That's a nice buzzword, but what does it really mean? What do you want to do that you are not already free to do? And what do you want to do that you couldn't do in socialism?


of the right to keep what you earn,
But capitalism does not allow you to keep what you earn. I'm not sure if anyone here has given you the actual socialist argument about exploitation or if we've only alluded to it, but here it is:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a wage. But this wage has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. Labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the wage he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Of course, you could always say that a worker is free to refuse the deal given to him by capitalists, but then what else will he do for a living?


to choose your own Doctor,
I'm not entirely sure how the NHS works because I don't live in the UK, but there is no reason why you couldn't choose your own doctor under a public health care system.


not to have the government intefere in your lives,
We don't think the government should interfere in your personal life either.


to have low taxes
Why? Most people get services from the government worth more than the taxes they pay.


and to have friendship with other nations but not entangling alliances.
Many leftists support that too.


You're right, in fact I think a survey revealed 9 out of 10 Brits want to keep our current system. And its part of the deal of living here.
So here's my question: What's the difference between the freedom to accept or reject the deal given by a government, and the freedom to accept or reject the deal given by a business owner?

I don't think there is any difference. You can only say that government only forces you to do things if you accept that your boss also forces you to do things. On the other hand, if you want to say that capitalism does not restrict your freedom because you can choose your boss, then the government does not restrict your freedom either, because you can choose your country.


Maybe one day I will go to America, I've heard many say entrepreunerialism (is that even a word??) can take on dimensions in America that it cannot take on anywhere else. Its a land born of individual liberty, there is a terrible human price for that liberty but its part of the package of America, like the NHS is part of 'our' package.
Well, America has lower taxes than any other place in the Western world (except for microstates like Monaco), and less business regulations, and much more freedom to own firearms, but those 3 things are the only kinds of "individual liberty" that America provides to a greater extent than Europe. The drug and alcohol laws in America are a lot tougher, the proportion of people in jail is much higher, there's a lot more violence in the cities, and there is a lot less social mobility in America than in Europe (in other words, it's harder to get rich in America). And, of course, if you're poor you don't get health care.

[Demogorgon]

I'm not entirely sure how the NHS works because I don't live in the UK, but there is no reason why you couldn't choose your own doctor under a public health care system.

Just to clarify, here in Scotland where the NHS is probably closest to its original version (the NHS in Scotland operates separately to the rest of the UK) you normally register with your local GP surgery and pick the Doctor you like best out of the ones there*. If for whatever reason not of them are acceptable then you transfer to another surgery. So you are most certainly free to choose your own doctor.

As for specialists, when you are referred to one, obviously you get whoever your doctor thought it was best to send you to, but you can request a different one if whoever you were sent to is not satisfactory.

*There is, or at least used to be, an odd system where you would be given a "named doctor" at the start but were not under any obligation to actually use them. I haven't heard anything about that for a few years now though.

[Robert]

Demo, how does this work: you are 90 years old and want a hip replacement or a heart bypass operation. The health authorities don't recommend it either because they don't think you need it or because they don't see the utility of allocating surgical resources to a 90 year old man.

You disagree and want the surgery anyway. You even make a legal demand for it. If they stand firm in their refusal to fund it, can you hire your own doctor in he UK to do the surgery and pay for it yourself? Assume the doctor and the hospital are agreeable to do the service if you pay.

I understand that in Norway you cannot make such private arrangements, even if you can fund it yourself.

[cappiej]

Demo, how does this work: you are 90 years old and want a hip replacement or a heart bypass operation. The health authorities don't recommend it either because they don't think you need it or because they don't see the utility of allocating surgical resources to a 90 year old man.

You disagree and want the surgery anyway. You even make a legal demand for it. If they stand firm in their refusal to fund it, can you hire your own doctor in he UK to do the surgery and pay for it yourself? Assume the doctor and the hospital are agreeable to do the service if you pay.

I understand that in Norway you cannot make such private arrangements, even if you can fund it yourself.

There are private hospitals, and private health insurance, many people are covered by BUPA (similar to a HMO), and unless you're in full time education, a prisoner (yes criminals get free dental care), a pensioner or under 16 you have to pay for your dental care.

However high taxes and social pressure mean private healthcare is beyond the reach of most people.

Look at survival rates for certain forms of cancer in the UK, twice as likely for an American to survive as a Brit, even with their 'evil' healthcare system.

[Robert]

And, of course, if you're poor you don't get health care.

I think you mean you aren't entitled to free health care. At least I hope that's what you mean. Otherwise you're giving the impression that the poor are dying unattended in the streets. The fact is that there is medicare for the poor, and then there are charity hospitals associated with some of the top med schools, and no hospital, even an evil private one, may lawfully turn away a person from the emergency room due to his lack of funds or insurance. There are on average 70 babies born daily in the Dallas County (Parkland) Hospital, the same one that treated Kennedy after the assassination, to undocumented aliens.

Many who are treated in the emergency room are then moved to ICU or a rehab unit and stay there for months, free of charge. That is a fact.

So even the non citizen gets health care here as a matter of reality, if not as of right. At least that's the reality in Texas.

This "no health care for the poor" business is one of the great lies told repeatedly about the USA.

[cappiej]

I think you mean you aren't entitled to free health care. At least I hope that's what you mean. Otherwise you're giving the impression that the poor are dying unattended in the streets. The fact is that there is medicare for the poor, and then there are charity hospitals associated with some of the top med schools, and no hospital may turn away a person from the emergency room due to lack of insurance. There are on average 70 babies born in the Dallas County (Parkland) Hospital, the same one that treated Kennedy after the assassination, to undocumented aliens.

Many who are treated in the emergency room are then moved to ICU or a rehab unit and stay there for months, free of charge. That is a fact.

So even the non citizen gets health care here as a matter of reality, if not as of right. At least that's the reality in Texas.

This "no health care for the poor" business is one of the great lies told repeatedly about the USA.

Quite, as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm misinformed, when they introduced federal programs such as medicaid, for old people, and medicare for the poor it was NOT because the poor and old were not receiving adequate medical care, they were (via charities), but because the government of the day, President Johnson I think, felt it was unfair that anyone should have to rely on charity, even if that charity was reliable.

It was a matter of saving people's pride not of providing them with healthcare, they already had it.

[Robert]

Look at survival rates for certain forms of cancer in the UK, twice as likely for an American to survive as a Brit, even with their 'evil' healthcare system.

Change "American" to "a person found physically present in the USA."

But "twice as likely"? That's scary. Do you have a source for that stat, and how/why did you come across it, if it's not too impertinent or personal to ask?

[Robert]

please correct me if I'm misinformed, when they introduced federal programs such as medicaid, for old people, and medicare for the poor it was NOT because the poor and old were not receiving adequate medical care, they were (via charities), but because the government of the day, President Johnson I think, felt it was unfair that anyone should have to rely on charity, even if that charity was reliable.

Damnation, you know more about it than I do. :lol:

Medicaid is charity that is funneled from the fed government to the states for them to use to pay for health services to the poor, regardless of their age. I honestly doubt you can get a heart bypass operation with medicaid.

Medicare is part of the social security system that pays for services and meds for qualifying individuals, typically retirees or, if they be dead, their dependents. Supposedly the patients earned their right to it by paying into the social security system during their working years, but the expenditures will soon be dwarfing the income to the system due to the absurd level of entitlement for the patients relative to their contributions, and the dwindling number of new contributors due to lower birthrates.

I am hearing that this is a looming catastrophe in Russia and in Western Europe to a lesser extent, but it ain't looking to good here either at the moment.

[cappiej]

Change "American" to "a person found physically present in the USA."

But "twice as likely"? That's scary. Do you have a source for that stat, and how/why did you come across it, if it's not too impertinent or personal to ask?

As I recall it was some kind of paper produced on this issue, I think I found it by googling socialised medicine. I'll look again and if I find it I'll send you the link.

Its mainly due to a board known as NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. This board basically decides which drugs are too expensive for patients, they will not spend more than £30,000 a year on a single patients drugs, whereas in the US where people choose their own Doctors, their own HMO and their own provider there is a lot more choice.

[cappiej]

Damnation, you know more about it than I do. :lol:

Medicaid is charity that is funneled from the fed government to the states for them to use to pay for health services to the poor, regardless of their age. I honestly doubt you can get a heart bypass operation with medicaid.

Medicare is part of the social security system that pays for services and meds for qualifying individuals, typically retirees or, if they be dead, their dependents. Supposedly the patients earned their right to it by paying into the social security system during their working years, but the expenditures will soon be dwarfing the income to the system due to the absurd level of entitlement for the patients relative to their contributions, and the dwindling number of new contributors due to lower birthrates.

I am hearing that this is a looming catastrophe in Russia and in Western Europe to a lesser extent, but it ain't looking to good here either at the moment.

Well I think it highlights the issue of entitlements fully, governments often cannot honour the entitlements they promise to people, which is why big government tends to fail organically.

People tend to want it both ways, they want low tax and they want lots of public services, personally I don't see there's much the public sector does the private sector can't do.

A lot of western Europe is in a state of chaos regarding healthcare, massive waiting lists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE4DRML0S3U&feature=channel_page

According to the guy in that video I've linked to, I think he's from Fox News, in France 90% of people have to buy private health care because the government service is so bad.

In fact people in England often go to France for medical treatment, so if Americans think France is bad they should come to England.

Also, for those who think government healthcare providers are held accountable, watch the end of that video. I wasn't aware of this but apparently the government introduced a law saying you had to see a doctor within four hours of being admitted to the hospital, so to circumvent this law they were keeping people in ambulances outside the hospital until they could see a Doctor. If they're in the ambulance it doesn't count as part of the four hour time limit.

[Jack]

Yeah.

If you've got the ability to steal, admittedly very badly if you get yourself caught, you've got the ability to work and get that bread legally and morally soundly.

You're disguisting.

[cappiej]

Change "American" to "a person found physically present in the USA."

But "twice as likely"? That's scary. Do you have a source for that stat, and how/why did you come across it, if it's not too impertinent or personal to ask?

We get 'health tourists' too, people who come here from the third world to get treatment for AIDS.

Though I think if we get into the whole illegal immigration debate thing they might decide we're fascists and ban us. Marxists are really easy to offend about immigration, its like immigrants are infallible to them.

I hear Obama wants to give the 20 million illegal aliens in the US amnesty, surely this will swell the number of people eligible for medicare, medicaid and welfare thereby giving the democrats a 'reason', or more accurately an excuse, to increase taxes to finance these new dependents on the government?

I suppose you can view an amnesty in one of two ways, its bad because it will increase the number of people dependent on the taxpayer but its good in the sense that it would be impossible, at least not without a huge government, to find and deal with all of the illegal entrants to America so it makes sense to at least make them citizens and make them pay taxes etc

[cappiej]

You're disguisting.

:crying: I'm so offended, I hold your opinions in such high esteem you see.

Besides, you asked the question, don't pretend you didn't know what the answer would be.

[Jack]

Yeah.

If you've got the ability to steal, admittedly very badly if you get yourself caught, you've got the ability to work and get that bread legally and morally soundly.

Lets expound upon that logic.

You want to get to school quicker, so you cut across someone's lawn. They shoot you dead, and by your logic, you were violating their property rights thus deserve it. So next time you walk on private property, just remember that you are violating their property rights and you couldn't object if they decided to shoot you in the face.

[cappiej]

Lets expound upon that logic.

You want to get to school quicker, so you cut across someone's lawn. They shoot you dead, and by your logic, you were violating their property rights thus deserve it. So next time you walk on private property, just remember that you are violating their property rights and you couldn't object if they decided to shoot you in the face.

Indeed I couldn't. Except for the fact my wishes are not law, if its fair I be shot for that then we must implement the other measures I propose to safeguard our freedom.

I don't walk onto people's lawns, there's no need to.

[Jack]

Indeed I couldn't. Except for the fact my wishes are not law, if its fair I be shot for that then we must implement the other measures I propose to safeguard our freedom.

I don't walk onto people's lawns, there's no need to.

So life is worth the same as a loaf of bread or handful of dirt? Maybe yours is, but you're a sick "person" anyways.

You mean to tell me you've never taken a walk into the woods or a feild or anything like that? Because if you have, it's pretty much garunteed you've walked onto private land, and thus could be shot by your standards.

[cappiej]

So life is worth the same as a loaf of bread or handful of dirt? Maybe yours is, but you're a sick "person" anyways.

You mean to tell me you've never taken a walk into the woods or a feild or anything like that? Because if you have, it's pretty much garunteed you've walked onto private land, and thus could be shot by your standards.

I could tell you I had never taken a walk in the woods and you couldn't prove I had. As it so happens I COULD well have walked onto private land without permission, but I guess I'll never know.

Why are you so vitriolic? You don't intend to steal from me do you, unless you do I can't see why you were offended by my comment.

[Jack]

i could tell you i had never taken a walk in the woods and you couldn't prove i had. As it so happens i could well have walked onto private land without permission, but i guess i'll never know.

Why are you so vitriolic? You don't intend to steal from me do you, unless you do i can't see why you were offended by my comment.

because you value a dollar over a life, how do you not understand why i'm offended?!

[cappiej]

because you value a dollar over a life, how do you not understand why i'm offended?!

I really, honestly don't. I don't know why you would take it to heart, especially considering that:

a) You asked me for my opinion, you got an honest response and are now offended.

b) I never directed anything at YOU, YOU directed at you by asking, "If I stole a loaf of bread", not, "If someone stole a loaf of bread"

c) Wouldn't it be better to just knock on the door and ask if you could have some bread, if I had a loaf lying around and a genuinely hungry person knocked on my door I'd give it to them.


It seems like you have a mentality that attracts you to conflict.

[Jack]

I really, honestly don't. I don't know why you would take it to heart, especially considering that:

a) You asked me for my opinion, you got an honest response and are now offended.

b) I never directed anything at YOU, YOU directed at you by asking, "If I stole a loaf of bread", not, "If someone stole a loaf of bread"

c) Wouldn't it be better to just knock on the door and ask if you could have some bread, if I had a loaf lying around and a genuinely hungry person knocked on my door I'd give it to them.


It seems like you have a mentality that attracts you to conflict.

You don't know who I am, and odds are if I'm stealing from a shop neither does the person who would shoot me, so it doesn't matter, your comment wasn't specifically against any individual, but against society in general.

Wouldn't going up to your door mean stepping on your property? With the way you defend the most trivial property claims I would be too afraid to ask for bread because you might shoot me.

Am I seeking conflict? There is no conflict prone mentality required to call someone a fucking disguisting human being.

[cappiej]

You don't know who I am, and odds are if I'm stealing from a shop neither does the person who would shoot me, so it doesn't matter, your comment wasn't specifically against any individual, but against society in general.

Wouldn't going up to your door mean stepping on your property? With the way you defend the most trivial property claims I would be too afraid to ask for bread because you might shoot me.

Am I seeking conflict? There is no conflict prone mentality required to call someone a fucking disguisting human being.

No but there's a degree of immaturity. Firstly, do you think it really bothers me that you think I'm a 'fucking disgusting human being'? Firstly, you kno next to nothing about me, secondly I know next to nothing about you and thirdly this is clearly a much more divisive and explosive topic than I had anticipated when I first posted.

What do you gain and what do I lose from you calling me that? Nothing, you just come off looking immature.

I never said I'd shoot someone for stepping onto my property in my hypothetical world I said I'd do it for stealing my property. So if you came to knock on the door you wouldn't be shot.

Just like now, in parts of the US you can shoot people who encroach upon your land, but it doesn't deter salesmen from knocking on the door.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm not a proponent of asking someone to give their money to someone else, just not to steal the other person's money.

But why is it not alright to steal from someone but it's alright to keep your money for yourself?

Why can I keep twenty bucks to buy a pizza when someone is staving and that's legitimate, but I can't steal from someone when I'm starving?

I don't see why you can have an obligation not to steal from other people when you said you don't have an obligation to help others.

You have an obligation not to harm people but no obligation to help them? That distinction seems somewhat arbitrary. The consequences seem to be similar in both situations and suggest a respect for the person's individuality.

I don't see why it can be expected that people don't steal yet not expected that they help others. Can you explain the reasoning that this view is based on? I know it's the commonplace view, but I've never seen the rational behind it.

What makes the viewpoint logically consistent?

[cappiej]

But why is it not alright to steal from someone but it's alright to keep your money for yourself?

Why can I keep twenty bucks to buy a pizza when someone is staving and that's legitimate, but I can't steal from someone when I'm starving?

I don't see why you can have an obligation not to steal from other people when you said you don't have an obligation to help others.

You have an obligation not to harm people but no obligation to help them? That distinction seems somewhat arbitrary. The consequences seem to be similar in both situations and suggest a respect for the person's individuality.

I don't see why it can be expected that people don't steal yet not expected that they help others. Can you explain the reasoning that this view is based on? I know it's the commonplace view, but I've never seen the rational behind it.

What makes the viewpoint logically consistent?

I'm new to this, but for me its about the whole negative vs positive duties thing.

You have a duty not to harm your fellow man, i.e. actively harm him, but not one to help him. So if someone is starving you don't have to feed him, although it would be a good thing to do, but you can't kick him.

Ultimately, I'm an individualist and my outlook is distinctly individualist, I see people as individuals. Now they can choose to belong to a group, for example Blacks or Whites (well you don't really choose that) or to be part of a family, or married but its not an obligation.

Your duty is to not harm anyone else, and to provide for yourself.

[cappiej]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJi_kOTS6H4&feature=channel_page

Sayfuckalot's video on Welfare pretty much sums up my views on it, minus the swearing and loudmouth behaviour.

Out of interest, does anyone else watch sayfuckalot on YouTube?

[Jack]

I find his obesity too appropriate for his political beleifs.

[cappiej]

I find his obesity too appropriate for his political beleifs.

:laugh:

Oh well, at least when he has a heart attack he doesn't expect you to pay for his treatment.

[cappiej]

I'm probably going to sign off for the night, well morning, as its 5 am here. If I don't get any sleep I'll probably be back online.

[Demogorgon]

Change "American" to "a person found physically present in the USA."

But "twice as likely"? That's scary. Do you have a source for that stat, and how/why did you come across it, if it's not too impertinent or personal to ask?
It is something Daniel Hannan likes to claim.

The reality of course is that American health care is obviously inferior even if you have the money due to America's very poor preventative medicine. After all it is less profitable to let someone get sick and then treat them than it is to prevent them from getting sick in the first place.

Some comparisons:

Government spending per person on healthcare in the US is around four thousand dollars a year. In Britain it is about three and a half thousand (that's right American's pay more in tax for healthcare than we do in this country, the reason being the American system is so inefficient with no economies of scale in the hospitals plus the insurance companies PLUS Americans also have to buy health insurance (or be hit by hospital bills) the average cost being close to five thousand dollars a year for a single person and that won't cover you for everything either. Here on the other hand there are no insurance costs, with only minor extra charges for prescriptions that the poor do not pay and at any rate are being abolished in Scotland anyway. And we are covered for everything. So we certainly win on cost, both in terms of taxes and out of pocket expenses.

Life expectancy. The average life expectancy here is 78.7 compared to 78.06 in America. Not a huge difference, but remember this country's much higher rates of smoking and alcohol consumption.

Infant mortality here is 6.3 for under 12 months and 7.8 for under five in the US. In the UK it is 4.8/6.0

In terms of antivirals available for potential pandemics, America has enough stockpiled for one in every six persons. In Britain it is one in every two.

Most important are perhaps the WHO rankings. The World Health organisation ranked Britain 18th and America 37th. More importantly perhaps is the fact that America is by far the highest ranking non-Universal healthcare system. All 36 countries ranked ahead of it use Universal healthcare. Beating it (but not Britain) are countries like Morocco, Dominica and Costa Rica. Also while Britain is indeed fairly down the list as well, the top twenty are all fairly close together in level of performance (and all Universal of course), by the time you get to America it is trailing by some margin.

[Havet]

I'm probably going to sign off for the night, well morning, as its 5 am here. If I don't get any sleep I'll probably be back online.

tell me something (unless you're sleeping). What are you exactly?

Libertarian right-Minarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism)? (believes maximum freedom in all things but there must be a minimal state/government to take care of things such as defense, police and courts)

libertarian right-anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist) (aka anarcho-capitalist)? (basically a minarchist that thinks those minimal state services can be provided by a free market)

individualist anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism)?

geoanarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoanarchism)?

objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29)?

or just plain conservative, but uses the word libertarian to seem less of a logically bankrupt person?

Because libertarian conservative is a contradiction in terms. You CAN'T be a libertarian and oppose personal freedom issues such as abortion, race, religion, etc

[Demogorgon]

Demo, how does this work: you are 90 years old and want a hip replacement or a heart bypass operation. The health authorities don't recommend it either because they don't think you need it or because they don't see the utility of allocating surgical resources to a 90 year old man.

You disagree and want the surgery anyway. You even make a legal demand for it. If they stand firm in their refusal to fund it, can you hire your own doctor in he UK to do the surgery and pay for it yourself? Assume the doctor and the hospital are agreeable to do the service if you pay.

I understand that in Norway you cannot make such private arrangements, even if you can fund it yourself.
You can use Private healthcare, but in practice the ninety year old is not going to be refused the operation. If something is assigned a lower priority they may have to wait longer for it, but they won't be refused. There is a big point about raising quality of life for the elderly, so such a hip operation would be considered important. Heart bypass would always be considered high priority regardless of age.

[Demogorgon]

tell me something (unless you're sleeping). What are you exactly?

Libertarian right-Minarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism)? (believes maximum freedom in all things but there must be a minimal state/government to take care of things such as defense, police and courts)

libertarian right-anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist) (aka anarcho-capitalist)? (basically a minarchist that thinks those minimal state services can be provided by a free market)

individualist anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism)?

geoanarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoanarchism)?

objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29)?

or just plain conservative, but uses the word libertarian to seem less of a logically bankrupt person?

Because libertarian conservative is a contradiction in terms. You CAN'T be a libertarian and oppose personal freedom issues such as abortion, race, religion, etc
Of come on, you know perfectly well what his ideology is: bigoted narcissism.

You also know, I daresay, that most people who use the word Libertarian simply don't use it as you do. I've seen enough of your posts to see that you don't think the same way as most of them. You think your version of Libertarianism is the best treatment for the world's many ills and a way of reeling in the obvious injustice. Many who call themselves Libertarians, including the specimen here see a blatantly unjust world that nonetheless benefits them and seek to rationalise it, using the word "freedom" to do so, making it look like they are the just ones. And when the combine it with heavy social conservatism, well that is just to be expected. Their talk of "freedom" in economics is just a cover for a hierarchical system, so they are likely to want the same in other fields as well.

[cappiej]

tell me something (unless you're sleeping). What are you exactly?

Libertarian right-Minarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism)? (believes maximum freedom in all things but there must be a minimal state/government to take care of things such as defense, police and courts)

libertarian right-anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist) (aka anarcho-capitalist)? (basically a minarchist that thinks those minimal state services can be provided by a free market)

individualist anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism)?

geoanarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoanarchism)?

objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29)?

or just plain conservative, but uses the word libertarian to seem less of a logically bankrupt person?

Because libertarian conservative is a contradiction in terms. You CAN'T be a libertarian and oppose personal freedom issues such as abortion, race, religion, etc

Probably a libertarian right minarchist (or closest to it out of that list), I'm a libertarian conservative in the sense that I don't mind others having deviant lifestyles but I'm pretty run of the mill myself and live a normal conservative life myself.

[trivas7]

Probably a libertarian right minarchist (or closest to it out of that list), I'm a libertarian conservative in the sense that I don't mind others having deviant lifestyles but I'm pretty run of the mill myself and live a normal conservative life myself.
Being from the Left Coast I haven't a clue what a "normal" conservative is... :(

[cappiej]

Being from the Left Coast I haven't a clue what a "normal" conservative is... :(

In my mind it would tend to be someone who wants to impose their conservative lifestyle on others, at least that's what I think seperates libertarian conservatives from other types of conservatives.

[Havet]

In my mind it would tend to be someone who wants to impose their conservative lifestyle on others, at least that's what I think seperates libertarian conservatives from other types of conservatives.

thats what separate libertarians from conservatives. There is no such thing as a libertarian conservative, because as a pre-requisite for being a libertarian one must believe that people should be free to do what they want with their bodies, pray to whatever gods they believe in, etc even if they do not agree with such practices.

[Havet]

Of come on, you know perfectly well what his ideology is: bigoted narcissism.

You also know, I daresay, that most people who use the word Libertarian simply don't use it as you do. I've seen enough of your posts to see that you don't think the same way as most of them. You think your version of Libertarianism is the best treatment for the world's many ills and a way of reeling in the obvious injustice. Many who call themselves Libertarians, including the specimen here see a blatantly unjust world that nonetheless benefits them and seek to rationalise it, using the word "freedom" to do so, making it look like they are the just ones. And when the combine it with heavy social conservatism, well that is just to be expected. Their talk of "freedom" in economics is just a cover for a hierarchical system, so they are likely to want the same in other fields as well.

Good post, although i should say, that my "version" of libertarianism is the one that tolerates other "versions" the most. What i hate the most is seeing "vulgar libertarians" (sorry cappiej but this is your case) that haven't looked in the matter with much attention and often end up defending the current system, which is terribly unjust, by mistake.

[Jack]

Good post, although i should say, that my "version" of libertarianism is the one that tolerates other "versions" the most. What i hate the most is seeing "vulgar libertarians" (sorry cappiej but this is your case) that haven't looked in the matter with much attention and often end up defending the current system, which is terribly unjust, by mistake.

Actually, you are a vulgar "libertarian".

[Havet]

Actually, you are a vulgar "libertarian".

actually i have NEVER defended corporate capitalism or economic inequality. I have argued economic equality can be achieved by greater freedom in every aspect of one's life.

[Robert]

Most important are perhaps the WHO rankings. The World Health organisation ranked Britain 18th and America 37th. More importantly perhaps is the fact that America is by far the highest ranking non-Universal healthcare system. All 36 countries ranked ahead of it use Universal healthcare. Beating it (but not Britain) are countries like Morocco, Dominica and Costa Rica.


Come on, Demo, you're too smart to follow the "commie" logic of that WHO study! All you have to do is consider: 1) our life expectancy; 2) our murder rates; and 3) our hideous lifestyle habits (don't you dare blame capitalism for that one!), add them up and see that our healthcare system has to be superior! What else explains those life expectancy figures? Our genetic superiority?

The WHO "study" has been effectively demolished, to the satisfaction of fair minded people, by looking at the criteria they use. Here's a representative example:

http://smartgirlnation.com/2009/06/01/popular-ranking-unfairly-misrepresents-the-us-health-care-system/



The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention

[Lynx]

Here's why America's health care system is so wonderful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_debt).

[Havet]

Here's why America's health care system is so wonderful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_debt).

Here's why it sucks and how to improve it (1 of 6):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

[Lynx]

Sorry hayenmill, I don't have the bandwidth to watch videos :(

[Havet]

Sorry hayenmill, I don't have the bandwidth to watch videos :(

Damn that sucks. You should definitely watch them, you might come to agree with the videos.

Here's (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3580676&page=1) a sort of summary of the videos. You should really watch them, John stossel debates michael moore in them.

And yes, the overwhelming debt most americans are in is sort of adressed in the videos as well (as something bad).

[Robert]

It seems to me that we never ever hold ourselves responsible as individuals. For anything. Ever.

No matter how much or what we eat, drink, or smoke, no matter how little or how rarely we exercise, we still demand that society provide us with "health care" after the inevitable obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and atherosclerosis sets in. It's like pouring sugar into a an auto's gas tank and screaming that government isn't providing us with decent affordable transportation.

Most health care providers will tell you that preventative care starts with healthy personal choices.

Blame capitalism, blame Republicans, blame Democrats, blame corporations, blame anything. But don't blame us.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm new to this, but for me its about the whole negative vs positive duties thing.

You have a duty not to harm your fellow man, i.e. actively harm him, but not one to help him. So if someone is starving you don't have to feed him, although it would be a good thing to do, but you can't kick him.

Ultimately, I'm an individualist and my outlook is distinctly individualist, I see people as individuals. Now they can choose to belong to a group, for example Blacks or Whites (well you don't really choose that) or to be part of a family, or married but its not an obligation.

Your duty is to not harm anyone else, and to provide for yourself.

But what is the basis for having a duty not to harm anyone else? How can you support such a duty without it logically entailing a duty to help others?

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't see why we should have a welfare state, I view it as a violation of people's rights to keep the fruits of their labour.

I know it may sound selfish, but don't you believe people are entitled to just take care of themselves and their immediate family? It is, after all, their money.

When you lose your job, the advantages of having a welfare state immediately become obvious.

[Lynx]

I'm familiar with John Stossel on the ABC network. I may have seen this on TV, if it was aired in 2007. I don't remember any details.
Certainly health insurance is to be used for major expenses only. The concept should be clear to most people and they should be able to purchase the plan of their choice. But there are millions of Americans who don't have health insurance. When they show up at a hospital, the hospital is required by law to treat them. The cost of their care has to be covered by someone (ie. the taxpayer, or by padding the bills of insured patients). This is unsustainable and fraudulent.

I agree that having employers provide health coverage is bizarre.

[Lynx]

It seems to me that we never ever hold ourselves responsible as individuals. For anything. Ever.

No matter how much or what we eat, drink, or smoke, no matter how little or how rarely we exercise, we still demand that society provide us with "health care" after the inevitable obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and atherosclerosis sets in. It's like pouring sugar into a an auto's gas tank and screaming that government isn't providing us with decent affordable transportation.

Most health care providers will tell you that preventative care starts with healthy personal choices.

Blame capitalism, blame Republicans, blame Democrats, blame corporations, blame anything. But don't blame us.
We take our health for granted. If being physically fit came with a nice tax deduction perhaps we would be more inclined to behave differently.

[cappiej]

thats what separate libertarians from conservatives. There is no such thing as a libertarian conservative, because as a pre-requisite for being a libertarian one must believe that people should be free to do what they want with their bodies, pray to whatever gods they believe in, etc even if they do not agree with such practices.

In all honesty it was more about distinguishing myself from the libertarian commies or libertarian socialists. I'm a 'right libertarian', although right and left can be very nebulous terms.

[danyboy27]

We take our health for granted. If being physically fit came with a nice tax deduction perhaps we would be more inclined to behave differently.

it actually make sense in the case of national healthcare system, a reward for resposable peoples.

reconciling accountability with a social measure.

there is not enough accountability for such things these day

[Havet]

In all honesty it was more about distinguishing myself from the libertarian commies or libertarian socialists. I'm a 'right libertarian', although right and left can be very nebulous terms.

people here do prefer using "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" than that oxymoron of yours, but its just a matter of semantics, so dont worry too much about it.

why do you call yourself a "right" libertarian? would libertarian just suffice? right libertarian presuposes that you favor more economic freedom than personal freedom, but to be a libertarian you'd have to believe in both of these freedoms. May i suggest changing to libertarian minarchist? (and if you want to have a proper conversation, i can show you how to support free markets without being a vulgar dckhead ancap or vulgar libertarian, and actually ending up agreeing with some things many people say here.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Come on, Demo, you're too smart to follow the "commie" logic of that WHO study! All you have to do is consider: 1) our life expectancy; 2) our murder rates; and 3) our hideous lifestyle habits (don't you dare blame capitalism for that one!), add them up and see that our healthcare system has to be superior! What else explains those life expectancy figures? Our genetic superiority?
As I told cappiej, the United States is a package deal. What you're saying is that the positive side of the package would be great if it were not for the negative side. Well, yeah, obviously, but the negative side exists and you can't ignore it.

Furthermore, the lack of a welfare state in America certainly can be blamed for your insanely high murder rate (by Western standards), and the lack of government regulation of the food industry certainly can be blamed for the results of your "hideous lifestyle habits" (not for the lifestyle itself, but certainly for its results - American food is overflowing with fat and sugar compared to European food, so the same eating habits would be far less unhealthy in Europe).


Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior.
No, it's "biased" to make countries that place a greater burden on the poor look inferior. The value judgment is that the poor should not be punished with greater medical bills (relative to their income) just because they are poor.

I consider that value judgment to be as obviously and self-evidently correct as the value judgment that health care needs to cure people.

Also, it's only one factor in the WHO rankings.


It seems to me that we never ever hold ourselves responsible as individuals. For anything. Ever.

Blame capitalism, blame Republicans, blame Democrats, blame corporations, blame anything. But don't blame us.
So when things go wrong in America, it is the fault of individuals - but when things go wrong in a less capitalist society, it is the fault of the system?

Stop holding double standards. If you don't want people to blame your system, then you can't blame theirs either.

[Robert]

So when things go wrong in America, it is the fault of individuals - but when things go wrong in a less capitalist society, it is the fault of the system?

KH, would it kill you to admit that eating apples and exercising instead of eating Skittles and playing video games is likely to reduce your need for "universal health care"?

Or is "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" just too bourgeois of a proverb for the modern revolutionary?

By the way, the original of that is: "Ait a happle avore gwain to bed, An' you'll make the doctor beg his bread."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

KH, would it kill you to admit that eating apples and exercising instead of eating Skittles and playing video games is likely to reduce your need for "universal health care"?
Would it kill you to admit that the problem of bad lifestyle habits could be easily solved through an additional dose of government intervention? And that, due to this fact, the problem could be blamed on too little government interference in the economy - in other words, on too much capitalism?

[cappiej]

Would it kill you to admit that the problem of bad lifestyle habits could be easily solved through an additional dose of government intervention? And that, due to this fact, the problem could be blamed on too little government interference in the economy - in other words, on too much capitalism?

So do you want to tell people what to eat?

Isn't it just easier to let them eat what they like and take the consequences?

[Robert]

Would it kill you to admit that the problem of bad lifestyle habits could be easily solved through an additional dose of government intervention?

Oh my god.

You cannot be serious. Of course it would. An additional dose? I'm gagging already! There are already compulsory government warnings on cigarette packages, disclosures of calories and nutritional content "per serving" on our fucking candy bars, for god's sake, OSHA agents on our oil rigs, criminal sanctions for failing to wear safety belts in cars, health classes in elementary school, warnings on hair dryers not to use them in the shower, public service announcements regarding car seats, littering, smoking, polluting, speeding, child abuse, and even
loving. I'll have the government crawling up my ass before it's over with to be sure I'm eating enough fiber.

And you want MORE?

The more the government "helps," the worse our health seems to get.
I am flabbergasted that anyone yearning for a stateless society could even think of an "additional dose (where does it end?) of government intervention to 'solve' our lifestyle habits."

Wait ... I get it. This is "provoke RTG" day or something. That's the only explanation. Good job.:thumbup1:

[danyboy27]

Oh my god.

You cannot be serious. Of course it would. An additional dose? I'm gagging already! There are already compulsory government warnings on cigarette packages, disclosures of calories and nutritional content "per serving" on our fucking candy bars, for god's sake, OSHA agents on our oil rigs, criminal sanctions for failing to wear safety belts in cars, health classes in elementary school, warnings on hair dryers not to use them in the shower, public service announcements regarding car seats, littering, smoking, polluting, speeding, child abuse, and even
loving. I'll have the government crawling up my ass before it's over with to be sure I'm eating enough fiber.

And you want MORE?

The more the government "helps," the worse our health seems to get.
I am flabbergasted that anyone yearning for a stateless society could even think of an "additional dose (where does it end?) of government intervention to 'solve' our lifestyle habits."

Wait ... I get it. This is "provoke RTG" day or something. That's the only explanation. Good job.:thumbup1:

yea i somehow understand you on that. People are annoyed that the governement is playing the bogeyman all the time with the people, and now they just ignore what he been trying to do.

i know you dont see stuff like me robert, i am not really a libertarian, but here is how i see this:
how about making the governement change his behavior with people and help them to be responsable instead of playing the bogeyman?

like i mentionned earlier, with proper incentives, fuck the scare and awareness campaign, lets be straight up, you take care of yourself, you got a reward, you dont, screw you.

i am with you 100% that the governement should stop telling us what to do and what to think, but it should reward those who take care of themselves and reduce the collective burden on our back.

better :D

[cappiej]

yea i somehow understand you on that. People are annoyed that the governement is playing the bogeyman all the time with the people, and now they just ignore what he been trying to do.

i know you dont see stuff like me robert, i am not really a libertarian, but here is how i see this:
how about making the governement change his behavior with people and help them to be responsable instead of playing the bogeyman?

like i mentionned earlier, with proper incentives, fuck the scare and awareness campaign, lets be straight up, you take care of yourself, you got a reward, you dont, screw you.

i am with you 100% that the governement should stop telling us what to do and what to think, but it should reward those who take care of themselves and reduce the collective burden on our back.

better :D

Or how about we just eliminate the collective burden on our back?

[Lynx]

What's wrong with paying people to maintain a certain level of health? Sounds like the basis of a solution to me. We have the choice of carrot, stick or laisser-faire.

[cappiej]

What's wrong with paying people to maintain a certain level of health? Sounds like the basis of a solution to me. We have the choice of carrot, stick or laisser-faire.

Paying them to? Whose going to pay them?

All these noble social programs rely on dipping into some poor soul, or many poor souls', pockets.

[danyboy27]

Or how about we just eliminate the collective burden on our back?


national health system is not a collective burden, we have it in canada and its far from being a burden, it never stopped nobody to be rich, its efficient and i am pretty sure less costly per month than any american HMO.

more simple.

[Lynx]

Paying them to? Whose going to pay them?

All these noble social programs rely on dipping into some poor soul, or many poor souls', pockets.
When you know the benefits will be greater than the costs, it is logical for society to make an investment.

[danyboy27]

When you know the benefits will be greater than the costs, it is logical for society to make an investment.


yup :D

[cappiej]

national health system is not a collective burden, we have it in canada and its far from being a burden, it never stopped nobody to be rich, its efficient and i am pretty sure less costly per month than any american HMO.

more simple.

We have the NHS here and, I, for one, would much prefer private healthcare for many reasons.

Also, it is a collective burden because it requires those who are healthy to pay for those who are not.

[cappiej]

When you know the benefits will be greater than the costs, it is logical for society to make an investment.

Society? Society isn't making any investments, its people, quite possibly unwilling people, who are going to have to make the investment.

[danyboy27]

We have the NHS here and, I, for one, would much prefer private healthcare for many reasons.

Also, it is a collective burden because it requires those who are healthy to pay for those who are not.


those who are not wealthy pay, everybody pay.

[Lynx]

Society? Society isn't making any investments, its people, quite possibly unwilling people, who are going to have to make the investment.
Society makes investments all the time, ostensibly with the support of a majority of its citizens.

[trivas7]

Society makes investments all the time, ostensibly with the support of a majority of its citizens.
The point is society isn't an agent, only its members act on its behalf.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So do you want to tell people what to eat?
No, I want to tell food companies what not to put in their food. Better yet, I want food companies to be nationalized so that people could democratically decide what they are allowed to put in food.


Isn't it just easier to let them eat what they like and take the consequences?
Sure. But then the advocates of less intervention are responsible for the consequences.


Oh my god.

You cannot be serious. Of course it would. An additional dose? I'm gagging already! There are already compulsory government warnings on cigarette packages, disclosures of calories and nutritional content "per serving" on our fucking candy bars, for god's sake, OSHA agents on our oil rigs, criminal sanctions for failing to wear safety belts in cars, health classes in elementary school, warnings on hair dryers not to use them in the shower, public service announcements regarding car seats, littering, smoking, polluting, speeding, child abuse, and even loving. I'll have the government crawling up my ass before it's over with to be sure I'm eating enough fiber.
So you value capitalism more than you value human health and life.

Fine. You can make that value judgment, but don't try to hide it or pretend that you're not really making a value judgment. You are saying capitalism is more important than health. You are saying you're willing to trade more obesity, more cancer and a shorter lifespan in exchange for less annoyance from that evil government.


The more the government "helps," the worse our health seems to get.
Really? Then how come Americans - the least "helped" people in the Western world - have the worst health in the Western world?

Oh, let me guess, it is the fault of anything and everything except capitalism.


I am flabbergasted that anyone yearning for a stateless society could even think of an "additional dose (where does it end?) of government intervention to 'solve' our lifestyle habits."
I don't actually support this idea, because I don't support the existence of private companies or a market economy in the first place. But if we take private companies as a given, an additional dose of government intervention would be better.

And a stateless society does not mean a society without rules - or without health warnings.

[cappiej]

No, I want to tell food companies what not to put in their food. Better yet, I want food companies to be nationalized so that people could democratically decide what they are allowed to put in food.


Sure. But then the advocates of less intervention are responsible for the consequences.


So you value capitalism more than you value human health and life.

Fine. You can make that value judgment, but don't try to hide it or pretend that you're not really making a value judgment. You are saying capitalism is more important than health. You are saying you're willing to trade more obesity, more cancer and a shorter lifespan in exchange for less annoyance from that evil government.


Really? Then how come Americans - the least "helped" people in the Western world - have the worst health in the Western world?

Oh, let me guess, it is the fault of anything and everything except capitalism.


I don't actually support this idea, because I don't support the existence of private companies or a market economy in the first place. But if we take private companies as a given, an additional dose of government intervention would be better.

And a stateless society does not mean a society without rules - or without health warnings.

No, the people who choose to eat shitty food are responsible for what happens to them.

I eat KFC and Burger King and all the rest of it and if I get a heart attack when I'm old because of it, it will be MY fault, I know what I'm eating is total crap and I do it anyway, its a trade off, enjoyment now often means suffering later.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you know what a person intends to do, and you give him the means to do it, you share responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

So if you know that someone is going to hurt themselves, and you give them the means to hurt themselves, you are just as responsible as they are.

[cappiej]

If you know what a person intends to do, and you give him the means to do it, you share responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

So if you know that someone is going to hurt themselves, and you give them the means to hurt themselves, you are just as responsible as they are.

I'm not giving someone anything, the vast majority of people who eat KFC don't die as a result of it, and its not up to me or anyone else what someone else eats.

People are not little children, they don't need to be told what to eat.

You can hurt yourself with almost anything, are the manufacturers of paracetemol responsible for those who take 100 pills and overdose?

The point is you can abuse anything, including fast food, drugs, alcohol and many other things.

We have speed limits and yet there are still car accidents.

[trivas7]

People are not little children, they don't need to be told what to eat.

For the same reason people are responsible for their economic well-being. People don't need Mommy/Daddy government.

[cappiej]

For the same reason people are responsible for their economic well-being. People don't need Mommy/Daddy government.

Indeed.

[Havet]

I'm not giving someone anything, the vast majority of people who eat KFC don't die as a result of it, and its not up to me or anyone else what someone else eats.

People are not little children, they don't need to be told what to eat.

You can hurt yourself with almost anything, are the manufacturers of paracetemol responsible for those who take 100 pills and overdose?

The point is you can abuse anything, including fast food, drugs, alcohol and many other things.

We have speed limits and yet there are still car accidents.

Just to go a little further on this, by Kwisatz logic, one should forbid people having baseball bats, guns, knifes and pointy sticks because these can be used to murder others

And having a closed fist should be outlawed as well. One doesnt need a closed fist. Its an unnecessary weapon that can only be used to harm.

People don't need to be forcefully protected from themselves.

[spiney norman]

But i suppose you just commented that to escape the necessity of reading it.

I'd cut off my own balls with a rusty spoon to avoid haning to read Ayn Rand!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

For the same reason people are responsible for their economic well-being. People don't need Mommy/Daddy government.
They do if they vote for it.


Just to go a little further on this, by Kwisatz logic, one should forbid people having baseball bats, guns, knifes and pointy sticks because these can be used to murder others
No, because I did not suggest banning food. I suggested banning certain ingredients. That is the equivalent of banning baseball bats with spikes, guns that have a chance of exploding in your hand, knives without handles, and pointy sticks coated with poison.

In other words, I suggested banning things that are unnecessarily dangerous - things that could be made less dangerous without compromising their function.


People don't need to be forcefully protected from themselves.
Forcefully? No. But if they prefer to have the government ensure that there is no crap in their food because they would rather not have to check every single food item for themselves - that's perfectly reasonable.

[Havet]

I'd cut off my own balls with a rusty spoon to avoid haning to read Ayn Rand!

well give it a try first and make an opinion based on your own judgment. Don't take this folks' opinion on this before you make your own.

Its just a "tiny" quote anyway, it's not like i'm pasting the whole 1,027 pages:lol:

[spiney norman]

Also, and this is intended to demorgon, this same website retains the freedom to choose who can or can't post outside of opposing idelogies, which is a way to enforce private property rights, which goes against basic communist principles.

It pains me to say it but you do have a point there. But in my opinion there should be a distinction between posessions (eg. your home, clothes, items of sentimental value, etc.) and private property (land other than that on which your home is built, means of production, etc.). I would class this site as a kind of collective posession - by denying it to people with opposing ideologies we are not violating their rights to the means of subsistance. By privately "owning" land you deny it to others who may wish or need to use it as there is not an infinite supply. This is not a problem on the internet - anyone can set up their own site for free; to all intents and purposes cyberspace is infinite.

But please bear in mind that this in an argument I have pulled out of my arse to worm my way out of a difficult question;)

[Havet]

No, because I did not suggest banning food. I suggested banning certain ingredients. That is the equivalent of banning baseball bats with spikes, guns that have a chance of exploding in your hand, knives without handles, and pointy sticks coated with poison.

In other words, I suggested banning things that are unnecessarily dangerous - things that could be made less dangerous without compromising their function.

Forcefully? No. But if they prefer to have the government ensure that there is no crap in their food because they would rather not have to check every single food item for themselves - that's perfectly reasonable.Oh well, pardon for the mistake.

Anyway, there is no need for an entity to control every single thing being made at all times.

If you are afraid, as many people are, that there is a risk of dangerous products and that one would have to spend an awful length of time analyzing everything, well i have good news for you. Since this would be a "problem" of the free market, the free market also provides solutions, some of which are already very spread in actually existing capitalism

Well for once you have review sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_site)

then you have consumer reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports)

a huge network of individual experiences on products/services in the internet.

and private institutions that rank these products/services. Such is the case of Underwriters Laboratories. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories)

The only thing that allows UL (underwriters laboratories) being credible and people trusting it is its reputation. This is why many companies battle themselves in order to get UL to analyze their product and to have the UL stamp proudly displayed in their product.

If UL somehow allowed dangerous products to go past their evaluation unnoticed (lets imagine a company pays them lots of mmoney to do this), then as soon as there started appearing problems the reputation of UL would lower, and it would allow any other person or group of persons who wished to compete with UL to make it more profitable to do so. This means that if another product ranking institution appeared, by providing safe products they could take the "customers" away from UL.

Now there is a point i know you're already thinkign about: "Well what about the human sacrifices, the people that die or get sick because of one product that might escape testing?"

Certainly, that's a possibility. This can also happen with governmental agencies. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023013.html)

However, a government agency can mistakingly forbid (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20321830/)(with the use of force) the appearance of new and better drugs that can be beneficial (http://www.naturalnews.com/001573.html). A rating institution would NOT have the power to forbid new drugs, but only to rate them.

Here is a nice video on "Who protects the Consumer?" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3535456672331412636&ei=xVNbStOzIsKu-AbLsqS3Cg&q=free+to+choose+consumer)

[Havet]

It pains me to say it but you do have a point there. But in my opinion there should be a distinction between posessions (eg. your home, clothes, items of sentimental value, etc.) and private property (land other than that on which your home is built, means of production, etc.). I would class this site as a kind of collective posession - by denying it to people with opposing ideologies we are not violating their rights to the means of subsistance. By privately "owning" land you deny it to others who may wish or need to use it as there is not an infinite supply. This is not a problem on the internet - anyone can set up their own site for free; to all intents and purposes cyberspace is infinite.

But please bear in mind that this in an argument I have pulled out of my arse to worm my way out of a difficult question;)

land can also be infinite, if someone is willing to bear the cost of building more houses underground and in space once the whole planet is filled with everyone.

Well you can say the website is a collective possession, but if that were the case then everyone who supposedly possesses it would have a say on the way which it is run, which isn't the case.

I PM NoXion on a way to make everyone allowed to vote on the policies while preventing a sudden flow of new members (like from stormfront) to control the policies:

"What if you'd keep restriction but still allow any member to have a vote (or for starters just allowing non-restricted members who arent in CC to vote)? How about doing voting like some soccer clubs do: older members votes count more (as in more votes) than youngest members to prevent the club from being taken over by others? That actually sounds like a terrific idea to prevent stormfront or others from taking over, and would be fairer to everyone."

His response was:

"It could be worth experimenting to find out, but I doubt it's going to happen on revleft very soon."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you are afraid, as many people are, that there is a risk of dangerous products and that one would have to spend an awful length of time analyzing everything, well i have good news for you. Since this would be a "problem" of the free market, the free market also provides solutions, some of which are already very spread in actually existing capitalism

Well for once you have review sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_site)

then you have consumer reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports)

a huge network of individual experiences on products/services in the internet.
Umm, if I were to look through all those reviews, reports and opinions, I would have to spend an awful length of time analyzing everything.


and private institutions that rank these products/services. Such is the case of Underwriters Laboratories. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories)

The only thing that allows UL (underwriters laboratories) being credible and people trusting it is its reputation. This is why many companies battle themselves in order to get UL to analyze their product and to have the UL stamp proudly displayed in their product.

If UL somehow allowed dangerous products to go past their evaluation unnoticed (lets imagine a company pays them lots of mmoney to do this), then as soon as there started appearing problems the reputation of UL would lower, and it would allow any other person or group of persons who wished to compete with UL to make it more profitable to do so. This means that if another product ranking institution appeared, by providing safe products they could take the "customers" away from UL.
But that is assuming that if UL allowed dangerous products to get past their evaluation process, consumers would notice. And the problem is, many products can be dangerous without consumers noticing, or without consumers noticing for many years.

Food is a great example. Food may contain ingredients that increase your chances of getting cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, or various other life-threatening conditions. But, as long as the effect is long-term and not immediate, there is no way the average consumer would ever notice it. When you do eventually develop a life-threatening condition, you may not be able to trace its cause. It takes a great deal of research to discover the health effects of new substances, and very few people have the expertise to carry out such research. If a company simply bribed these people, it could poison its consumers with impunity.

This is a classic problem of asymmetrical information: You have a trade in which one side (in this case the seller) has more knowledge about the quality of the product than the other side (in this case the buyer). The side with less knowledge gets screwed (in this case, they get screwed by buying a product which they might not have wanted to buy if they had all the relevant information about it).

The more division of labour we have in society, the less people have sufficient expertise to judge the quality of products of a given type. So it becomes increasingly easier to bribe these people or for them to get together for the purpose of misleading the rest of society. And that leads to ever-greater market failures caused by asymmetrical information.

How can socialism fix this problem? Well, first of all, by eliminating the profit motive it will eliminate the incentive for producers to bother bribing the people who evaluate their products. Second, product evaluations will be performed by a public institution whose leadership is elected by the general population, not by private companies created and run by the evaluators themselves. This will ensure there is always some higher authority checking up on the evaluators, making it much more difficult for them to agree among themselves to mislead the public.

[Nwoye]

Also, it is a collective burden because it requires those who are healthy to pay for those who are not.
so does private health insurance.

[Havet]

so does private health insurance.

i think what he means is that one is made at gunpoint (pay or go to jail) and the other is voluntary (trade)

[cappiej]

so does private health insurance.

No it doesn't, its an individual burden, you pay for your own care, or don't pay for it and don't get it, or, according to Michael Moore, pay for it and still don't get it but that's a whole other issue.

[cappiej]

i think what he means is that one is made at gunpoint (pay or go to jail) and the other is voluntary (trade)

Precisely! Socialised medicine constitutes healthcare at gun point, what if you don't want to shell out on healthcare (a stupid decision maybe but one you had ought to be free to make).

[Demogorgon]

Precisely! Socialised medicine constitutes healthcare at gun point, what if you don't want to shell out on healthcare (a stupid decision maybe but one you had ought to be free to make).
Has anyone ever held you at gunpoint demanding you pay for healthcare? No? Me neither.

If you want private healthcare, buy health insurance. You would still be paying less in taxes for other people using the NHS than you would in America for subsidising the private hospitals and insurance companies. Don't ask that the rest of us be denied healthcare because you are going through a phase of believing that nobody has responsibility for anyone else.

[cappiej]

Has anyone ever held you at gunpoint demanding you pay for healthcare? No? Me neither.

If you want private healthcare, buy health insurance. You would still be paying less in taxes for other people using the NHS than you would in America for subsidising the private hospitals and insurance companies. Don't ask that the rest of us be denied healthcare because you are going through a phase of believing that nobody has responsibility for anyone else.

Yes, I haven't been to the Doctor in a year, every time I go into a shop and buy something I pay VAT, that VAT has been paying for other people's healthcare.

You buy your healthcare and I'll buy mine, why is that not fair to you?

No-one is denying you healthcare, you are perfectly welcome to buy it under my system.

Don't ask for me to be denied my money just because other people want healthcare at my expense.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, I haven't been to the Doctor in a year, every time I go into a shop and buy something I pay VAT, that VAT has been paying for other people's healthcare.

You buy your healthcare and I'll buy mine, why is that not fair to you?

No-one is denying you healthcare, you are perfectly welcome to buy it under my system.

Don't ask for me to be denied my money just because other people want healthcare at my expense.
Yes I am sure a large part of your pocket money is being taken from you oh so unfairly in tax. At gunpoint too, you tell us.

But as to your question. It is unfair because many people would not be able to afford healthcare and we would be forcing many people to live in a lottery with their lives on the line when it is within our power to prevent it. Moreover, it is a lot less efficient. Universal healthcare is more efficient than private healthcare. In terms of the return on the amount of resources put into it, you get more in a Universal system than a private one. So if we were to privatise the system, we would end up with a smaller degree of healthcare across the board even if we were to put in the same (or even more!) resources.

Anyway, don't be too fast about being made to "pay for others" (at gunpoint too!). You have had your education paid for you. The Government has given your parents child support to help raise you. Without that you would likely not have the opportunities available to you today. Unless your parents are very well off, the cost of private education to the standard provided by state schools plus the amount they presently get in child support will outstrip what they pay in taxes (and then you factor in the various other services they are getting from the Government). Given all you have gotten and the fact that you owe the opportunities you have to this system, it is not on to try and kick the ladder out from beneath you and claim you have no obligations to society after it has provided for you.

[cappiej]

Yes I am sure a large part of your pocket money is being taken from you oh so unfairly in tax. At gunpoint too, you tell us.

But as to your question. It is unfair because many people would not be able to afford healthcare and we would be forcing many people to live in a lottery with their lives on the line when it is within our power to prevent it. Moreover, it is a lot less efficient. Universal healthcare is more efficient than private healthcare. In terms of the return on the amount of resources put into it, you get more in a Universal system than a private one. So if we were to privatise the system, we would end up with a smaller degree of healthcare across the board even if we were to put in the same (or even more!) resources.

Anyway, don't be too fast about being made to "pay for others" (at gunpoint too!). You have had your education paid for you. The Government has given your parents child support to help raise you. Without that you would likely not have the opportunities available to you today. Unless your parents are very well off, the cost of private education to the standard provided by state schools plus the amount they presently get in child support will outstrip what they pay in taxes (and then you factor in the various other services they are getting from the Government). Given all you have gotten and the fact that you owe the opportunities you have to this system, it is not on to try and kick the ladder out from beneath you and claim you have no obligations to society after it has provided for you.

No, my parents paid for my education! That issue is a real bone of contention, why should they have to pay for other people's kids?

It doesn't matter how much healthcare people get it matters who pays for it.

I've not really gotten anything from this system, except roads and a police force I've never had to call, a fire service I've never had to use and a Doctor I visit about once every two years for a minor check up.

[danyboy27]

my hint: stop arguing with cappiej, its useless.
you are never gona be able to agree with him on the issue, and this discussion will probably end with a bunch of stupid words like kiddy, fuck you, assole, stalin, hitler etc etc.

[cappiej]

my hint: stop arguing with cappiej, its useless.
you are never gona be able to agree with him on the issue, and this discussion will probably end with a bunch of stupid words like kiddy, fuck you, assole, stalin, hitler etc etc.

I didn't come here to find people who agree with me, I came here to find out why people who don't agree with me don't agree with me. :)

[danyboy27]

I didn't come here to find people who agree with me, I came here to find out why people who don't agree with me don't agree with me. :)

talking with people you dont agree with is meaningful if you want to learn from the other side, so far the only thing you done is oppose to everything the other folks are saying, you are not there to argues but to tell to everyone they are wrong and that you are right.

[cappiej]

talking with people you dont agree with is meaningful if you want to learn from the other side, so far the only thing you done is oppose to everything the other folks are saying, you are not there to argues but to tell to everyone they are wrong and that you are right.

Well that's nice to hear.

As I said, I'm here to ask why they think the things they do, and when they ask why I think the things I think I'm happy to tell them.

[Demogorgon]

No, my parents paid for my education! That issue is a real bone of contention, why should they have to pay for other people's kids?

It doesn't matter how much healthcare people get it matters who pays for it.

I've not really gotten anything from this system, except roads and a police force I've never had to call, a fire service I've never had to use and a Doctor I visit about once every two years for a minor check up.
The reason we should pay for other people is twofold. Firstly we help others and in return get helped ourselves. If you help your neighbour when he needs it and he helps you when you need it you have two people who have had their problems solved. If neither helps the other you have two people in difficulty.

The other reason I have already alluded to and that is that society makes a net gain. By collectivising resources you can often get a bigger yield for them than if they are used little bit by little bit. Healthcare is a good example. Simply by making the system publicly run, you can get more from the same resources. And you want to throw that away for what exactly? The desire to hurt certain people? It is a poor reflection of your character if you are happy for society as a whole to have less so long as some people are still losing out more than you.

We have heard some vague statements about "men with guns" of course, thrown in to make the system look oppressive. But where exactly are these "men with guns" exactly? I have never seen them. I have had a Government employee point a gun at me exactly once in my life and that was in a situation you would probably support (French border police are lunatics). The violence from the Government is largely done to achieve things you support, not to do things you oppose.

Which also brings us to whether you oppose all taxes. If you still support taxes for things like police then you have no business opposing any tax-funded enterprise simply because it is tax funded, do you? Unless of course, it is as I suspect, and you simply object to anything that helps others. It isn't exactly uncommon at your age to go through a sort of pseudo-sociopathic stage, is it?

[Nwoye]

No it doesn't, its an individual burden, you pay for your own care, or don't pay for it and don't get it, or, according to Michael Moore, pay for it and still don't get it but that's a whole other issue.
Insurance companies do the same thing. When you're paying your monthly insurance bills and not getting sick, you are paying for other peoples trip to the doctor (and for absurdly large profits for company shareholders).

I understand that it's "voluntary" and that you think there's a difference, but it's not that significant.

[cappiej]

The reason we should pay for other people is twofold. Firstly we help others and in return get helped ourselves. If you help your neighbour when he needs it and he helps you when you need it you have two people who have had their problems solved. If neither helps the other you have two people in difficulty.

The other reason I have already alluded to and that is that society makes a net gain. By collectivising resources you can often get a bigger yield for them than if they are used little bit by little bit. Healthcare is a good example. Simply by making the system publicly run, you can get more from the same resources. And you want to throw that away for what exactly? The desire to hurt certain people? It is a poor reflection of your character if you are happy for society as a whole to have less so long as some people are still losing out more than you.

We have heard some vague statements about "men with guns" of course, thrown in to make the system look oppressive. But where exactly are these "men with guns" exactly? I have never seen them. I have had a Government employee point a gun at me exactly once in my life and that was in a situation you would probably support (French border police are lunatics). The violence from the Government is largely done to achieve things you support, not to do things you oppose.

Which also brings us to whether you oppose all taxes. If you still support taxes for things like police then you have no business opposing any tax-funded enterprise simply because it is tax funded, do you? Unless of course, it is as I suspect, and you simply object to anything that helps others. It isn't exactly uncommon at your age to go through a sort of pseudo-sociopathic stage, is it?

I don't know, I was talking to one of my friends, he's quite political, he's turning into a socialist, sort of! And we had a big argument about socialised medicine, he maintained it was a 'central and necessary function of a responsible state' and I told him, you get what you pay for in my world.

Anyway I was relaying this to a somewhat...less intellectual and certainly less political friend of mine, he said to me, "You don't want people to have benefits because you're all political I don't want them to have benefits because it would be funny to see". I assume that attitude is what you speak of when you say pseudo-sociopathic phase?

I don't want things not to help people, as I said I'm a proponent of charity, voluntary, real charity is much better than this enforced charity we have now. What's the difference between getting your healthcare through a charity and through a government?

I would rather not have taxes, possibly we could run it from donations to the state (like in the early days of America where 99% of government revenues came from donations) or tariffs for using the roads.

[cappiej]

Insurance companies do the same thing. When you're paying your monthly insurance bills and not getting sick, you are paying for other peoples trip to the doctor (and for absurdly large profits for company shareholders).

I understand that it's "voluntary" and that you think there's a difference, but it's not that significant.

You make a good point.

We must abolish insurance and you have to pay-as-you-get-sick.

[Nwoye]

You make a good point.

We must abolish insurance and you have to pay-as-you-get-sick.
that would be horrible. most people just don't have the means to pay for large surgeries or medicines by themselves. I would prefer insurance be centralized in a mutual credit union which financed all forms of insurance (home, property, car, health). I just have a problem with people making obscene profits just by taking "risks".

[Demogorgon]

I don't know, I was talking to one of my friends, he's quite political, he's turning into a socialist, sort of! And we had a big argument about socialised medicine, he maintained it was a 'central and necessary function of a responsible state' and I told him, you get what you pay for in my world.

Anyway I was relaying this to a somewhat...less intellectual and certainly less political friend of mine, he said to me, "You don't want people to have benefits because you're all political I don't want them to have benefits because it would be funny to see". I assume that attitude is what you speak of when you say pseudo-sociopathic phase?

I don't want things not to help people, as I said I'm a proponent of charity, voluntary, real charity is much better than this enforced charity we have now. What's the difference between getting your healthcare through a charity and through a government?

I would rather not have taxes, possibly we could run it from donations to the state (like in the early days of America where 99% of government revenues came from donations) or tariffs for using the roads.
If real charity were better than social welfare then out in the real world it would work better. Yet it does not. There has never been an instance of private charity being able to provide a working health system or p=keeping people above starvation level on any kind of wide scale never.

And what on earth are you talking about when you say the American Government relied on donations? It did no such thing. The federal government's largest source of income in the early days was tariffs. It kept its costs low by reserving most matters to the States that often taxed quite heavily. Learn some history please.

And back to the point. Do you deny that it is a net gain for society to get more out of the same resources than would be gained from a different way of managing them and if it is not then who is benefitting from preventing the maximum yield?

[cappiej]

If real charity were better than social welfare then out in the real world it would work better. Yet it does not. There has never been an instance of private charity being able to provide a working health system or p=keeping people above starvation level on any kind of wide scale never.

And what on earth are you talking about when you say the American Government relied on donations? It did no such thing. The federal government's largest source of income in the early days was tariffs. It kept its costs low by reserving most matters to the States that often taxed quite heavily. Learn some history please.

And back to the point. Do you deny that it is a net gain for society to get more out of the same resources than would be gained from a different way of managing them and if it is not then who is benefitting from preventing the maximum yield?

Of course its a net gain for society to get more out of the same resources than would be gained from a different way of managing them, it may be more efficient but its not fair in my eyes.

[Demogorgon]

Of course its a net gain for society to get more out of the same resources than would be gained from a different way of managing them, it may be more efficient but its not fair in my eyes.
So if you would deny the net gain, who exactly is it that benefits from losing this?

[cappiej]

So if you would deny the net gain, who exactly is it that benefits from losing this?

I don't know.

[Havet]

Umm, if I were to look through all those reviews, reports and opinions, I would have to spend an awful length of time analyzing everything. Not really. First of all, there is a certain level of trust, because otherwise one would really have to be reading everything on food before buying it. If you get sick, instantly or later, you can always sue the company for unexplicit harm and for the product they sell not doing exactly what they say (which means is harms, which they dont advertise).



But that is assuming that if UL allowed dangerous products to get past their evaluation process, consumers would notice. And the problem is, many products can be dangerous without consumers noticing, or without consumers noticing for many years.

Food is a great example. Food may contain ingredients that increase your chances of getting cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, or various other life-threatening conditions. But, as long as the effect is long-term and not immediate, there is no way the average consumer would ever notice it. When you do eventually develop a life-threatening condition, you may not be able to trace its cause. It takes a great deal of research to discover the health effects of new substances, and very few people have the expertise to carry out such research. If a company simply bribed these people, it could poison its consumers with impunity.

This is a classic problem of asymmetrical information: You have a trade in which one side (in this case the seller) has more knowledge about the quality of the product than the other side (in this case the buyer). The side with less knowledge gets screwed (in this case, they get screwed by buying a product which they might not have wanted to buy if they had all the relevant information about it).

The consumer will get sick at one point. He will want to heal himself, he will go to a doctor. A doctor, in order to make a living, must be able to treat and heal his patients. This is why any new disease will make doctors and other scientists look for an explanation. And eventually they will find the culprit: the product. After that the consumer, like stated above, can always sue the company.

[Demogorgon]

I don't know.So you want us to get less from our resources for the sake of benefit that you don't even know will come?

[cappiej]

So you want us to get less from our resources for the sake of benefit that you don't even know will come?

It seems we disagree on precisely what YOUR resources are, to me they're what you've bought from someone or been given to you it seems you are entitled to everything.

[Demogorgon]

It seems we disagree on precisely what YOUR resources are, to me they're what you've bought from someone or been given to you it seems you are entitled to everything.
I am not asking you about that. I am asking you who you think it will benefit to use a less optimal allocation of resources.

[GPDP]

I am not asking you about that. I am asking you who you think it will benefit to use a less optimal allocation of resources.

This is just my observation, but it seems to me what matters most to these types is the principle rather than the outcome. That is, "liberty" is more important than an optimal allocation of resources.

I imagine the example would go something like this: the state provides everyone with food, housing, health care, etc., but if in order to make this happen, it doesn't let you accumulate all of these things to your heart's content, or slightly impedes your ability to do so through taxes, it is infringing on your liberty, and thus those policies must be opposed.

The "liberty" these people seem to hold in such high regard appears to be an uncompromisable principle to them. Nothing, not even a fair and efficient allocation of resources, is worth losing that. At least, that is the gist I get from them.

Of course, when you prod them on who actually benefits from such "liberty," they usually say something nonsensical like "the individual." Not the rich, not the capitalists, but the individual. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

[cappiej]

I am not asking you about that. I am asking you who you think it will benefit to use a less optimal allocation of resources.

People with enough intelligence to benefit, or those who have been allowed to benefit through being gifted something.

[cappiej]

This is just my observation, but it seems to me what matters most to these types is the principle rather than the outcome. That is, "liberty" is more important than an optimal allocation of resources.

I imagine the example would go something like this: the state provides everyone with food, housing, health care, etc., but if in order to make this happen, it doesn't let you accumulate all of these things to your heart's content, or slightly impedes your ability to do so through taxes, it is infringing on your liberty, and thus those policies must be opposed.

The "liberty" these people seem to hold in such high regard appears to be an uncompromisable principle to them. Nothing, not even a fair and efficient allocation of resources, is worth losing that. At least, that is the gist I get from them.

Of course, when you prod them on who actually benefits from such "liberty," they usually say something nonsensical like "the individual." Not the rich, not the capitalists, but the individual. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I don't really care who benefits from it, I think you guys lack self-confidence, you want an easy way out.

You're spot on about the liberty thing, well from my perspective anyway liberty trumps anything else. A lot of people have said to me physical needs will overwhelm any metaphysical concept, maybe that's true but if people had a real commitment to freedom welfare and socialised medicine would never have existed.

There's some very intelligent people here, people who could make this present system work for them, but they would rather have a cop out and go to the government for things, or organise society in such a manner as they have a safety net.

[Demogorgon]

This is just my observation, but it seems to me what matters most to these types is the principle rather than the outcome. That is, "liberty" is more important than an optimal allocation of resources.

I imagine the example would go something like this: the state provides everyone with food, housing, health care, etc., but if in order to make this happen, it doesn't let you accumulate all of these things to your heart's content, or slightly impedes your ability to do so through taxes, it is infringing on your liberty, and thus those policies must be opposed.

The "liberty" these people seem to hold in such high regard appears to be an uncompromisable principle to them. Nothing, not even a fair and efficient allocation of resources, is worth losing that. At least, that is the gist I get from them.

Of course, when you prod them on who actually benefits from such "liberty," they usually say something nonsensical like "the individual." Not the rich, not the capitalists, but the individual. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
I know how they think. I am attempting to show the flaw in it, by showing a lack of benefit. He is arguing that it somehow benefits his view of freedom for there to be a less efficient allocation of resources. Indeed take his approach to health care and what you will have is apart from a few very lucky ones will be people either getting less for the same amount of resources or getting less for more resources. Some won't get anything at all.

Desiring such an outcome is in no way rational. The only people who could desire such a thing are those that stand to benefit, but very few do. I wish him to identify them. If he wishes to claim that it benefits freedom, he must identify whose freedom it is benefitting and indeed what definition of freedom he is using to reach it. If his definition of freedom requires a society where everyone is worse off than at present then clearly that definition of freedom is not desirable.

We may get told of course that we will all be better off because "men with guns" won't be taking our stuff from us anymore, but so far I haven;t had any examples of men with guns doing this. The only thing a man with a gun has ever taken from me is my walking stick-certainly not my taxes!

[GPDP]

I don't really care who benefits from it, I think you guys lack self-confidence, you want an easy way out.

You're spot on about the liberty thing, well from my perspective anyway liberty trumps anything else. A lot of people have said to me physical needs will overwhelm any metaphysical concept, maybe that's true but if people had a real commitment to freedom welfare and socialised medicine would never have existed.

There's some very intelligent people here, people who could make this present system work for them, but they would rather have a cop out and go to the government for things, or organise society in such a manner as they have a safety net.

What kind of patronizing bullshit is this?

You're essentially saying only the intelligent will, no, should benefit. This assumes people are rewarded according to their hard work or intelligence or whatever, when it is clearly not the case. And if intelligent people do not get rewarded, it's because we're lazy and want the nanny government to do everything for us.

You are an elitist in every sense of the word, and I find it laughable that you, a 16 year-old "libertarian conservative" that got his ideas from Ron Paul, a sexist, homophobic, racist piece of shit, are preaching to us about our views stemming from a supposed lack of self-confidence, when you have not the slightest clue about our situations.

I, for example, am at a tremendous disadvantage because I am living illegally in the US, and am thus not entitled to anything but a modicum of state aid for my 3rd-rate college education. My family works a computer business, and we have trouble making ends meet despite my father being one of those "brilliant entrepreneurs" so revered in libertarian dogma. Meanwhile, rich white kids from my high school are going to Rice and Princeton and Harvard, and they likely haven't had to break a sweat working to get there, because their parents gave them everything on a silver platter. And chances are they are covered under nice health insurance programs, whereas I'm just lucky my dad is actually a doctor.

Now, if I were telling this to hayenmill, I'm sure he would sympathize and say this is due to government restrictions on illegal immigrants and what they can or cannot do, but I imagine you're one of those conservative anti-immigration blowhards that will tell me I should've thought things through before being born a Mexican and deciding to cross the border and take your jerbs. So I don't even know why I'm bothering telling you all this.

You are a privileged, elitist twat, and you disgust me.

[cappiej]

What kind of patronizing bullshit is this?

You're essentially saying only the intelligent will, no, should benefit. This assumes people are rewarded according to their hard work or intelligence or whatever, when it is clearly not the case. And if intelligent people do not get rewarded, it's because we're lazy and want the nanny government to do everything for us.

You are an elitist in every sense of the word, and I find it laughable that you, a 16 year-old "libertarian conservative" that got his ideas from Ron Paul, a sexist, homophobic, racist piece of shit, are preaching to us about our views stemming from a supposed lack of self-confidence, when you have not the slightest clue about our situations.

I, for example, am at a tremendous disadvantage because I am living illegally in the US, and am thus not entitled to anything but a modicum of state aid for my 3rd-rate college education. My family works a computer business, and we have trouble making ends meet despite my father being one of those "brilliant entrepreneurs" so revered in libertarian dogma. Meanwhile, rich white kids from my high school are going to Rice and Princeton and Harvard, and they likely haven't had to break a sweat working to get there, because their parents gave them everything on a silver platter. And chances are they are covered under nice health insurance programs, whereas I'm just lucky my dad is actually a doctor.

Now, if I were telling this to hayenmill, I'm sure he would sympathize and say this is due to government restrictions on illegal immigrants and what they can or cannot do, but I imagine you're one of those conservative anti-immigration blowhards that will tell me I should've thought things through before being born a Mexican and deciding to cross the border and take your jerbs. So I don't even know why I'm bothering telling you all this.

You are a privileged, elitist twat, and you disgust me.

Okay, you went to the US illegally and expected to get covered?

So would I be correct in saying you want someone else to pay for your healthcare? As far as I can see its either that, or you don't get it or, my personal favourite, you pay for it yourself.

Oh blame Whitey, why have you got to introduce race into this? Oh sorry I forgot its okay to bash Anglo Saxon Protestants isn't it, but God forbid anyone should criticise Jews or Mexicans or Black people.

I see millionaire Asians all the time where I live, I don't bemoan it, its their money and I'm happy for them. And as for those kids at your high school go to a good University why do you hold it against them. Oh wait, do you want someone else to pay for your education?

Its this socialist attitude of, 'if I can't have it no-one can'. Its that bloody sense of entitlement that really irks me about them.

You could have emigrated to the US legally. Or if you couldn't its for a reason. Now I'm not a proponent of ultra-strict immigration policies but I think immigrants need to pay for their own stuff entirely, otherwise they are a net loss to society.

[Demogorgon]

People with enough intelligence to benefit, or those who have been allowed to benefit through being gifted something.
How will they benefit? If healthcare gains a higher opportunity cost, that is to say that they need to sacrifice more in order to get what they get currently, how can they possibly be said to be benefitting?

Also you are telling us that "freedom" trumps all this, but what makes you think your fringe view of freedom is the correct one? Why is freedom, as defined by you, so desirable.

[cappiej]

How will they benefit? If healthcare gains a higher opportunity cost, that is to say that they need to sacrifice more in order to get what they get currently, how can they possibly be said to be benefitting?

Also you are telling us that "freedom" trumps all this, but what makes you think your fringe view of freedom is the correct one? Why is freedom, as defined by you, so desirable.

Honest answer? Well, I'd benefit greatly from not having to pay for the unemployed and those who are ill or for those in state education, I am, after all, out for my own interests, like most other people (to varying degrees).

If things change, if I got injured and could not work I'd probably become a supporter of socialised medicine and the welfare state.

[Havet]

Has anyone ever held you at gunpoint demanding you pay for healthcare? No? Me neither.

I think his point is that if you don't pay taxes, where the money for socialized healthcare is taken from, you get a warning to pay a fee. If you don't pay a fee, the police will go to your house and remove some of your property to collect the fee. If you protect your property, the police will shoot you. If you shoot back, you can end up killed.

This is why many people link tax to theft, because whether you end up using it or not you still have to pay for the services governments provide.

[cappiej]

I think his point is that if you don't pay taxes, where the money for socialized healthcare is taken from, you get a warning to pay a fee. If you don't pay a fee, the police will go to your house and remove some of your property to collect the fee. If you protect your property, the police will shoot you. If you shoot back, you can end up killed.

This is why many people link tax to theft, because whether you end up using it or not you still have to pay for the services governments provide.

Yeah, it may not literally be a man with a gun, but they will use force.

[Demogorgon]

I think his point is that if you don't pay taxes, where the money for socialized healthcare is taken from, you get a warning to pay a fee. If you don't pay a fee, the police will go to your house and remove some of your property to collect the fee. If you protect your property, the police will shoot you. If you shoot back, you can end up killed.

This is why many people link tax to theft, because whether you end up using it or not you still have to pay for the services governments provide.
I know what the argument is, I just get tired of the hyperbole. Even if I manage to avoid paying my taxes, I am not going to be faced with "men with guns", police don't even carry guns in this country and they are not about to call in the armed response units for tax evasion. Use of the phrase is just ludicrous emotivism.

And sure, you do have to pay taxes for Government services, that is a reality. People like cappiej don't object to that fully though. He is happy for the Government to execute people and keep out immigrants and no doubt protect his property, though granted he was under the impression that it can do so through donations :lol: It sticks in my throat somewhat when you have people like that happy to tax us for their pet projects but then upset when they have to pay taxes for what other people support.

For someone like you though who really does oppose all taxes and Government services, it becomes a different question of course. To that I could ask why taxes are theft but rent isn't. Some types libertarians (a minority unfortunately) agree that rent is theft, maybe you are one, so then I could ask why you don't consider profit to be theft, it after all being the product of labour being denied to the labourer. We can fight back and forth about that, but it is going to come down to a simple value judgement as to what is more important. Either way though, this doesn't apply to cappiej, being as he is a supporter of the state. He probably read the "men with guns" phrase on a libertarian blog or wikipedia and thought he would throw it out here not really understanding the implications of it.

[Demogorgon]

Honest answer? Well, I'd benefit greatly from not having to pay for the unemployed and those who are ill or for those in state education, I am, after all, out for my own interests, like most other people (to varying degrees).

If things change, if I got injured and could not work I'd probably become a supporter of socialised medicine and the welfare state.
Well this is a bit of a U-turn isn't it? One minute you are telling us that it is ll about freedom. Now you say you just want public policy to reflect whatever suits you best at the current moment. Which is it?

[Havet]

I know what the argument is, I just get tired of the hyperbole. Even if I manage to avoid paying my taxes, I am not going to be faced with "men with guns", police don't even carry guns in this country and they are not about to call in the armed response units for tax evasion. Use of the phrase is just ludicrous emotivism.

And sure, you do have to pay taxes for Government services, that is a reality. People like cappiej don't object to that fully though. He is happy for the Government to execute people and keep out immigrants and no doubt protect his property, though granted he was under the impression that it can do so through donations :lol: It sticks in my throat somewhat when you have people like that happy to tax us for their pet projects but then upset when they have to pay taxes for what other people support.

For someone like you though who really does oppose all taxes and Government services, it becomes a different question of course. To that I could ask why taxes are theft but rent isn't. Some types libertarians (a minority unfortunately) agree that rent is theft, maybe you are one, so then I could ask why you don't consider profit to be theft, it after all being the product of labour being denied to the labourer. We can fight back and forth about that, but it is going to come down to a simple value judgement as to what is more important. Either way though, this doesn't apply to cappiej, being as he is a supporter of the state. He probably read the "men with guns" phrase on a libertarian blog or wikipedia and thought he would throw it out here not really understanding the implications of it.

rent is only theft when the person who is renting out the house hasn't obtained it according to the general prevalent criteria of ownership that society holds.

In history, most landlords didnt get the land like most people did. Most people worked the land to some extent for it to be recognized as their land. the landlords just came and claimed the land as theirs and demanded a tax for the threat of force.

If the prevalent criteria for ownership right now in a certain society is working/building the house/land then i don't see what is wrong with doing that and then renting it to someone else who wishes to live there. I had all the work and i pay the bills in the house, so if the person wishes to take benefit of it then it should contribute with some money as well while she is staying.

[Demogorgon]

rent is only theft when the person who is renting out the house hasn't obtained it according to the general prevalent criteria of ownership that society holds.

In history, most landlords didnt get the land like most people did. Most people worked the land to some extent for it to be recognized as their land. the landlords just came and claimed the land as theirs and demanded a tax for the threat of force.

If the prevalent criteria for ownership right now in a certain society is working/building the house/land then i don't see what is wrong with doing that and then renting it to someone else who wishes to live there. I had all the work and i pay the bills in the house, so if the person wishes to take benefit of it then it should contribute with some money as well while she is staying.
Ah come on, ownership never comes from mixing labour. There isn't any unclaimed land left to mix labour with. At any rate though, that is interesting: "[it] is only theft when the person who is renting out the house hasn't obtained it according to the general prevalent criteria of ownership that society holds". Seems to me you are saying that societies standards regarding ownership play an important part here. Society also holds ownership to have conditions attached. Including tax obligations, part of the privilege of having the property protected. It would follow form that that taxation is not theft.

[Havet]

Ah come on, ownership never comes from mixing labour. There isn't any unclaimed land left to mix labour with. At any rate though, that is interesting: "[it] is only theft when the person who is renting out the house hasn't obtained it according to the general prevalent criteria of ownership that society holds". Seems to me you are saying that societies standards regarding ownership play an important part here. Society also holds ownership to have conditions attached. Including tax obligations, part of the privilege of having the property protected. It would follow form that that taxation is not theft.

i'm talking in the context of an anarchic society without a state.

For example, if there was a society where ownership was held in common, and it was not recognized if anyone wished to "privatize" something, then rent would be theft from the community, because the community initially placed resources and built (the community) collectively.

But if there is a society where people can own land privately then as a logical extension they can rent it out if someone wants to buy it.

-----------

and there is unclaimed land to mix labor with (developing countries), but that depends on their views of ownership there.

[Demogorgon]

i'm talking in the context of an anarchic society without a state.

For example, if there was a society where ownership was held in common, and it was not recognized if anyone wished to "privatize" something, then rent would be theft from the community, because the community initially placed resources and built (the community) collectively.

But if there is a society where people can own land privately then as a logical extension they can rent it out if someone wants to buy it.

-----------

and there is unclaimed land to mix labor with (developing countries), but that depends on their views of ownership there.
There isn't simply unowned land in developing countries. All land is accounted for, even if it is under public ownership. The only land nobody owns in the world is land nobody can do anything with and even that will still be covered by certain laws meaning it is essentially in the public domain. There are all sorts of problems this could lead to as well is this land should have labour mixed. Nobody has any use for empty desert (with no oil or the like) right now, but as I suggested in another thread, deserts could very well end up playing host to enormous solar power plants. Should that happen and private corporations produce them, should they then simply own that land without paying for it?

As for the rest of the post, there is a presumption that ownership is legitimate in perpetuity and one can do as they lease with their property. Is it really just that one can continuously profit from something even after they are no longer using it? Such a system is precisely what leads to the sort of build up of a wealthy elite you claim to object to, as after all, they can use the money to buy more land or property and do the same with it, making themselves very wealthy and controlling a lot of land. Such people are also in position to then create a new Government, undermining your anarchist society. That's something anarcho-capitalists forget or ignore; the political structure of society reflects the wishes and needs of the most powerful people. Allow an elite class to develop like that and you will soon have a government again.

But we have drifted somewhat from the topic here. We were discussing the welfare state and the legitimacy of funding it through taxation. The objections seem to focus on the belief that wealthier people's right to keep what they have trumps the needs of everyone else. Do you feel that line of argument defensible?

[Havet]

But we have drifted somewhat from the topic here. We were discussing the welfare state and the legitimacy of funding it through taxation. The objections seem to focus on the belief that wealthier people's right to keep what they have trumps the needs of everyone else. Do you feel that line of argument defensible?

My only objection is that anyone, whether they are wealthy or not, should not have to pay for services they are not using. And taxation relies on taxing everyone, even if they never benefit, which is why i oppose it.

And if a service is to be created, but those who'll take advantage of it (homeless, poor people, disadvantaged) will never be able to contribute to maintain the service, then it should be maintained by the good will of those who are able and willing to support it, and not by forcing others not willing and/or not able, at gunpoint, to support it.

thats how i see it anyway

[Demogorgon]

My only objection is that anyone, whether they are wealthy or not, should not have to pay for services they are not using. And taxation relies on taxing everyone, even if they never benefit, which is why i oppose it.

And if a service is to be created, but those who'll take advantage of it (homeless, poor people, disadvantaged) will never be able to contribute to maintain the service, then it should be maintained by the good will of those who are able and willing to support it, and not by forcing others not willing and/or not able, at gunpoint, to support it.

thats how i see it anywayThat isn't possible though. There has never been adequate social service provisions provided through charity. There is a place for it certainly, but it can only ever supplement a more comprehensive system. The choice is between taxation and no provisions for those who need it.

People not currently using social welfare are hardly being ripped off of course. It provides a form of insurance and allows them to take certain risks they would otherwise not be able to. It is a lot safer socially speaking to live in a society where you have something to fall back on.

[Havet]

That isn't possible though. There has never been adequate social service provisions provided through charity. There is a place for it certainly, but it can only ever supplement a more comprehensive system. The choice is between taxation and no provisions for those who need it.

People not currently using social welfare are hardly being ripped off of course. It provides a form of insurance and allows them to take certain risks they would otherwise not be able to. It is a lot safer socially speaking to live in a society where you have something to fall back on.

i think it will be possible, but definitely not in the current system. Perhaps there was never been adequate social service because of current existing capitalism. The choice is between taxation, voluntary community provision plus private charity or no provisions.

[cappiej]

i think it will be possible, but definitely not in the current system. Perhaps there was never been adequate social service because of current existing capitalism. The choice is between taxation, voluntary community provision plus private charity or no provisions.

I agree, I think people would be less resentful about giving to charity if they didn't feel robbed of their wealth by the tax system.

Either way its not one's duty to support other people, therefore all charity needs to be voluntary.

This is basically what it boils down to, people like me (and, from what I've gathered, you too hayenmill) don't believe people should be forced to dip into their own pocket to support others, proponents of the welfare state do.

And there's even a group of people who don't just believe we should be forced to dip into our own pockets they don't believe we should be allowed our own pockets and should give everything over to the state or state like organism.

[Havet]

And there's even a group of people who don't just believe we should be forced to dip into our own pockets they don't believe we should be allowed our own pockets and should give everything over to the state or state like organism.

i assume this is your criticism of communism?

the thing with communes and collectives is that they wouldn't really be a "state"-like organism, at least how you see a state today.

The thing is current states exist because people believe in contradictions.

A state is a person or group of persons who acquire ownership by NOT using the prevalent criteria for ownership in a society.

Early states were feudal lords and kings who claimed property by simply saying so out loud, whereas people only recognized property communally or if one worked it individually.

The state now engages in the same thing, it acquires property without going by the prevalent criteria for ownership. The thing is, people believe it because they believe in a contradiction without realizing it, called archoexceptionalism. (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/01/archoexceptionalism.html)


Archo - from greek "archon", meaning ruler, often meaning government.
exceptional - excluding, excepting, not counting
ism - idea or belief.

In plain english, it's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government.

Which as I've said before, what's government but a group of people?

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
Government is a group of people. It is wrong for government to do X.

This means, no war, no law, no taxes. This is not compatible with government. So statists must be archoexceptionalists in order to rationalize it.

"No you cannot rob Peter, that's wrong. But Peter isn't paying his taxes, now Paul won't be getting a Social Security check."

"No you cannot force Peter to let you look around his house. But the police can get a search warrant and that's okay."

"No you cannot kill Peter, that's murder. But if he resists the IRS agents we're sending to his house we'll kill him."

"No you cannot print money, that would be bad. The Federal Reserve has to print all the money."

"Nobody but the government can build roads."

"Nobody but the government can school the children."

"Nobody but the government can stop the terrorists."

"Nobody but the government can offer police protection."

You can see the clear archoexceptionalism present in these statements.

Another great example is the definition of violence in the public mind.

When a man shoots a cop, even in self-defense, that's considered crime.
When a cop shoots a man, defensively or not, that's considered justice.

How does he do it? Archoexceptionalism. He's not just a man with a badge and a uniform, he's the government. He's excepted from the normal rules.

I'll reiterate, the government is a group of people. Anything one group of people can do, any group of people can do. There is nothing inherent in any one group of people that makes them superior to all others by the very title which they give themselves.

Statism requires archoexceptionalism.

Archoexceptionalism is irrational.

Statism is irrational.


In a commune however, this wouldn't happen, unless people end up tricked into thinking the same contradiction that is. A commune would simply be a peaceful gathering of same-objective minded people in order to achieve a common goal. No strings attached, you can leave at any time without any cost (except like now in the USA where they tax you abroad if you leave). And you would only be able to take advantage of the benefits of the community if you worked your share to help.

Also i'm guessing they (commune) would have some sort of service to provide for the disabled. Again its all voluntary action, so i have nothing against it, and neither should you.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'll reiterate, the government is a group of people. Anything one group of people can do, any group of people can do.
Really? So if one group of people (otherwise known as "your family") can live in your house, any group of people can live in your house? If one group of people can decide what a factory shall produce, any group of people can decide what that factory shall produce?

It is simply not true that our society - or any society in history - operates under the principle "anything one group of people can do, any group of people can do." It's not just the state that violates this principle. Private property (and any kind of property, for that matter) violates it too.

If it is wrong for me to do X, that does not always mean that it's also wrong for you to do it. Especially if our circumstances are different.

[Havet]

Really? So if one group of people (otherwise known as "your family") can live in your house, any group of people can live in your house? If one group of people can decide what a factory shall produce, any group of people can decide what that factory shall produce?

if one group of people can live in a house, well so does another group of people can live in another house. The question is not in whose house, but the ability to be free to live in A house.


If it is wrong for me to do X, that does not always mean that it's also wrong for you to do it. Especially if our circumstances are different.

so you might be able to kill but i wont? you might be able to claim property by declaring you are a king, but i may not do so?

I think its important we make clear what is the level of scenario we are arguing here, like i said above.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

if one group of people can live in a house, well so does another group of people can live in another house. The question is not in whose house, but the ability to be free to live in A house.
By that logic, I must point out that you are free to do whatever the state does - just as long as you do it somewhere else. You could go to some unclaimed land and set up your own state.


so you might be able to kill but i wont?
If I'm in a situation where I can save a hundred people by killing one, and you are not in that situation, then I should kill and you should not.


you might be able to claim property by declaring you are a king, but i may not do so?
Well, actually, no one can claim property just by declaring to be a king. People have claimed property by declaring to be kings and enforcing that claim - the enforcement was much more important than the declaration.

But no, I don't think kings are ever justified or acceptable. However, a democratic state may be justified and acceptable. The people living in a society can decide to run their society however they wish. If one of their decisions is to hold elections for a certain job, and if I win those elections and you do not, then I may perform that job and you may not.

[Havet]

By that logic, I must point out that you are free to do whatever the state does - just as long as you do it somewhere else. You could go to some unclaimed land and set up your own state.


If I'm in a situation where I can save a hundred people by killing one, and you are not in that situation, then I should kill and you should not.


Well, actually, no one can claim property just by declaring to be a king. People have claimed property by declaring to be kings and enforcing that claim - the enforcement was much more important than the declaration.

But no, I don't think kings are ever justified or acceptable. However, a democratic state may be justified and acceptable. The people living in a society can decide to run their society however they wish. If one of their decisions is to hold elections for a certain job, and if I win those elections and you do not, then I may perform that job and you may not.

the only logic there is to the initial sentence you quoted is that no person or group of persons has any magical powers that make them different from anybody else by simply stating that fact out loud (and then enforcing it like you correctly pointed out) like the government does.

[Octobox]

In case this isn't clear, we believe the ones taking the fruits of our labor are the capitalists. That is, they profit by remunerating us less than what our labor is actually worth. In other words, they exploit us.

The welfare state historically came about in order to mitigate this exploitation, and only after many a struggle by the working class. But it is not enough. We seek to completely supersede the gains of the welfare state by overthrowing the capitalist system altogether, and end exploitation in all its totality.

Do we accomplish this by shooting the laser bolt into the little whole thingy and fly off just in time to watch the death star explode?

Creating absolute monsters vs absolute purists is probably why every socialist attempt is hijacked.

Economic-Fascism (call it Capitalism) has nothing to do with the definition of a "free-market" -- the individual-anarchist / minarchist tried to hijack Marx's word (Capitalism) and the socialist tried to hijack the I-A's phrase (free-market).

It's the perpetual shell game of "who's the most rotten brother," hahahaha.

I think I-A's are wrong because they put property as the greatist Individualist goal and Voluntary-Communists (V-C's) are wrong because they put "labor" value as the greatist Individualist goal.

Workers -- Consume (all day)
Owners -- Consume (all day)
Investors -- Consume (all day)
The Bum -- Consumes (all day)

Thus the "true" Individual is the Consumer -- It's the Consumer that needs protecting. I'm not referring to a simplistic definition of "consumer" (as simply a purchase of products).

A true revolution is simple -- create a society where there are no hidden costs on the consumer (100% "free-market") -and- where there is 100% competition in currency.

I-A's and V-C's both need to work out the land-tied property-asset-rights issues -- both leave it in an un-workable position.

Octobox