Thoughts on Welfare

[Havet]

I can guess what most of you are already thinking just by the title alone: "oh, here he comes again, the screw-up-the-workers guy, probably rambling about how we should abolish welfare, etc"

I've been traditionally opposed to state welfare, but it just struck me that it's not the most important of things.

Liberal welfare-statism is a pretty natural--if misguided--reaction to a society in which the ruling class, through privilege, creates great disparities in income. Privilege creates massive distortions, made cumulative through the process of feedback, that must be dealt with somehow. One way of dealing with the consequences is through a Rube Goldberg device like redistributive welfare policy, another layer of policy to counteract the first layer, to prevent underconsumption from becoming too destabilizing and the underclass from becoming too radicalized. The other way is to eliminate the privilege itself--a lot simpler.

But I don't kid myself now. If the privilege remains, statist "corrective" action will be the inevitable result. That's why I don't get too bent out of shape now about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws--in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It's another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is "kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess", but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels.

Libertarians need to stop admiring the emperor's clothes and pretending that disparities in income reflect the triumph of industrious ants over lazy grasshoppers. Liberals might be a lot easier to talk to then.

"Cut welfare top-down, taxes bottom-up" (just a cute little empty slogan. As you all know, i don't advocate reformism)

[Conquer or Die]

You are the first libertarian that I've ever met which doesn't use "corporate welfare" as the last crutch of an argument in favor of John Galt rape.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

are you saying the privileges of the wealthy can be eliminated by doing away with corporate welfare?

[Demogorgon]

This is an improvement. But there is still a problem to get around. Even if you get rid of the exploitation that makes much welfare necessary, there is the other reason for it-some people are to ill-or otherwise unable-to work. What happens to them?

[Demogorgon]

are you saying the privileges of the wealthy can be eliminated by doing away with corporate welfare?
That brings up another problem. You have to remember that things like corporate welfare exist because the wealthy are privileged. This is something Libertarians seem to have difficulty getting their heads around. The political system exists for the benefit of whomever holds power. Inevitably therefore the political system will carry out policies to the benefit of those with power. Corporate welfare is a symptom, not a cause.

[Havet]

are you saying the privileges of the wealthy can be eliminated by doing away with corporate welfare?

I'm saying the privileges of the wealthy can be eliminated by removing their privilege directly: all welfare, regulations, patents and, more importantly, the illegitimately accumulated resources.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Corporate welfare is a symptom, not a cause.

...exactly

furthermore, many capitalists acquire fortunes with little or no corporate welfare
that doesn't make their capital less evil or more just

[New Tet]

Cut welfare top-down, taxes bottom-up.

How unambitious!

Don't you know that "welfare" is the way "capitalists give back retail what they've stolen wholesale"?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm saying the privileges of the wealthy can be eliminated by removing their privilege directly: all welfare, regulations, patents and, more importantly, the illegitimately accumulated resources.

what are illegitimately-accumulated resources?
"removing" all private capital?
what do you propose replace it?

[Havet]

This is an improvement. But there is still a problem to get around. Even if you get rid of the exploitation that makes much welfare necessary, there is the other reason for it-some people are to ill-or otherwise unable-to work. What happens to them?

"I have nothing against your dividing your product with the weaker man if you desire to do so."

[Havet]

what are illegitimately-accumulated resources?
"removing" all private capital?
what do you propose replace it?

Illegitimately accumulated resources is everything acquired through exploitation.

[Havet]

How unambitious!

Don't you know that "welfare" is the way "capitalists give back retail what they've stolen wholesale"?

That was just an empty slogan, really. I don't really advocate reformism. I prefer revolution :drool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

is surplus value exploitation?

[IcarusAngel]

I agree with what you say but it's the other way around when it comes to "simplifying" the current corporatist system: It's easier to reform than to revolutionize. Slavery was mostly ended by reforms. As Chomsky says, slaves were much better off in the eighteenth century than the seventeenth century. Then the slaves started rebelling and many who could have been part of the elite class started opposing slavery. Then the laws were changed. And so on.

In America social welfare is necessary to curb capitalist tyranny because capitalist tyranny is brutal here. Maybe in other countries capitalism is working better that they don't need social health care etc., but most other countries actually do have it.

Social welfare, health care, etc. are necessary for the current prisoners in capitalism (the workers). They will always be needed in some form until capitalism is gone and is replaced by a new system (not necessarily a left system).

[IcarusAngel]

How unambitious!

Don't you know that "welfare" is the way "capitalists give back retail what they've stolen wholesale"?


I agree. This makes a lot of sense to me. Capitalists steal the labor and resources directly from the working class. Even capitalist property is theft.

Of course the workers should just take it back, by force if necessary. But really any way they take back what's theirs is probably justified.

[Havet]

is surplus value exploitation?

You mean profit? Yes, because in the current system, profit is often created due to wage slavery.

[Demogorgon]

"I have nothing against your dividing your product with the weaker man if you desire to do so."
Not good enough. Making people dependent on the charitable whims of the better off will both make them a permanent underclass and ensure they never gain sufficient help.

[Havet]

I agree with what you say but it's the other way around when it comes to "simplifying" the current corporatist system: It's easier to reform than to revolutionize. Slavery was mostly ended by reforms. As Chomsky says, slaves were much better off in the eighteenth century than the seventeenth century. Then the slaves started rebelling and many who could have been part of the elite class started opposing slavery. Then the laws were changed. And so on.

In America social welfare is necessary to curb capitalist tyranny because capitalist tyranny is brutal here. Maybe in other countries capitalism is working better that they don't need social health care etc., but most other countries actually do have it.

Social welfare, health care, etc. are necessary for the current prisoners in capitalism (the workers). They will always be needed in some form until capitalism is gone and is replaced by a new system (not necessarily a left system).

As I explained in the first post, I think the crutches being handed out to workers are not going to achieve any long term goals of dramatically changing the system. They will easy the pain, sure, and that's a positive thing, but the ruling class will still continue to be in charge, and they can change their mind whenever they damn well please.

[Havet]

Not good enough. Making people dependent on the charitable whims of the better off will both make them a permanent underclass and ensure they never gain sufficient help.

I thought we were talking in the context of a post-capitalist society where exploitation had disappeared? Those better off wouldn't have the ability to be that much better off as you are probably imagining.

Anyway, "dividing one's product with the weaker man" need not be dependent on whims. You can make permanent alternative institutions: communes, cooperatives, etc to deal with these kinds of problems.

[Demogorgon]

I thought we were talking in the context of a post-capitalist society where exploitation had disappeared? Those better off wouldn't have the ability to be that much better off as you are probably imagining.

Anyway, "dividing one's product with the weaker man" need not be dependent on whims. You can make permanent alternative institutions: communes, cooperatives, etc to deal with these kinds of problems.
In a post-capitalist society, people will still fall ill, which means there has to be an institutional framework to cope with their needs. Now it could be that non-Governmental sources (if there even is a Government of course) will deal with it-indeed to change the subject slightly, even under capitalism, workers tend to be better off when their rights are guaranteed by Unions for instance than Government-but even at that you still need some sort of society wide mechanism, because without a Universal system, people will always fall through the cracks.

Moreover, I firmly believe that it must be compulsory. There is this strange notion that seems to be almost exclusive to European derived culture that charity is about the virtue of the giver and this creeps through to a lot of political discourse. In fact it is about the need of the receiver. And if even if it is accepted that having to pay for it is a minor restraint on your freedom (though I don't think it is", it removes a major restraint on another person's freedom. A fair compromise. Plus you know that the system will be there to support you should you ever need it.

[Havet]

In a post-capitalist society, people will still fall ill, which means there has to be an institutional framework to cope with their needs. Now it could be that non-Governmental sources (if there even is a Government of course) will deal with it-indeed to change the subject slightly, even under capitalism, workers tend to be better off when their rights are guaranteed by Unions for instance than Government-but even at that you still need some sort of society wide mechanism, because without a Universal system, people will always fall through the cracks.

Well I was hoping a post-capitalist society would not have a government, at least in the sense that we give the word government today. But sure, people can organize and create Unions which agreed on common rights and acted to secure them.

I'm not sure what term you give the word Universal though. From my personal experience, I find that the cooperative healthcare institution (created by an Union!) I go to is far more efficient than the "Universal" national government healthcare system.


Moreover, I firmly believe that it must be compulsory. There is this strange notion that seems to be almost exclusive to European derived culture that charity is about the virtue of the giver and this creeps through to a lot of political discourse. In fact it is about the need of the receiver. And if even if it is accepted that having to pay for it is a minor restraint on your freedom (though I don't think it is", it removes a major restraint on another person's freedom. A fair compromise. Plus you know that the system will be there to support you should you ever need it.

I don't understand what you mean by compulsory. If it means that those who do not contribute to society at any level have to be forced to pay for it, then I oppose it. I don't think any human being has an inalienable obligation to help his fellow man so much that it HAS to be forced upon him.

If you put healthcare or anything else "compulsory" in the sense that I am giving the word, you end up with central planning, centralization of wealth and resources and tyranny due to corruption and lack of equality of opportunity.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You mean profit?

I mean profit from the work of others

[New Tet]

That was just an empty slogan, really. I don't really advocate reformism. I prefer revolution :drool:

Over what?

[Robert]

... you still need some sort of society wide mechanismCorrect. And you may as well call it a "government," because that's what it is.

Especially given this:


I firmly believe that it must be compulsory.Firmly, eh? :lol:

[Demogorgon]

Well I was hoping a post-capitalist society would not have a government, at least in the sense that we give the word government today. But sure, people can organize and create Unions which agreed on common rights and acted to secure them.

I'm not sure what term you give the word Universal though. From my personal experience, I find that the cooperative healthcare institution (created by an Union!) I go to is far more efficient than the "Universal" national government healthcare system.
By Universal I mean everybody is automatically covered. I give no preference to the precise mechanism of achieving that, but the important point is that by one means or another, everybody has access to the help they require.


I don't understand what you mean by compulsory. If it means that those who do not contribute to society at any level have to be forced to pay for it, then I oppose it. I don't think any human being has an inalienable obligation to help his fellow man so much that it HAS to be forced upon him.

If you put healthcare or anything else "compulsory" in the sense that I am giving the word, you end up with central planning, centralization of wealth and resources and tyranny due to corruption and lack of equality of opportunity.It isn't about inalienable obligation, it is about creating a decent society. Like I say if it takes a small check on one persons freedom to remove a major check on another's, then it is an acceptable trade off. You are still suffering from Libertarian-disease in this regard, presuming that any obligation is bad, whereas in fact a system where we all pay in and all benefit is by far the best for social justice and cohesion.

[Havet]

Over what?

Which part of my reply are you asking the "over what" part? You lost me there.

[Havet]

It isn't about inalienable obligation, it is about creating a decent society. Like I say if it takes a small check on one persons freedom to remove a major check on another's, then it is an acceptable trade off. You are still suffering from Libertarian-disease in this regard, presuming that any obligation is bad, whereas in fact a system where we all pay in and all benefit is by far the best for social justice and cohesion.

It is about inalienable obligation. The logical extreme of your argument presupposes that compulsion is justified to achieve a better society, when in fact you can have a better society with voluntary action and spontaneous order.

If I live in a community who is based about my political beliefs, and you are in yours (based on your political beliefs), what is your justification for forcing "my" community (which in no way contributes to yours) to pay for a service of "your" community?

There seems to be an underlining morality of altruism behind your arguments. Now I have nothing wrong with altruism per se, though I do oppose losing the products of my labor just because I exist.

If altruism is what you believe necessary for a better society, let me quote miss Rand if it's not pushing it too much:

Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

[IcarusAngel]

Only a true anti-property society could have 'spontaneous order.' Again you have resorted back to nonsense.

You want everybody to agree with your rules and talk about 'spontaneous order' in the same sentence. Nonsense.

[IcarusAngel]

Basically, all societies have rules, even left-anarchist ones. The rules of left anarchy inlcude egalitarianism, equality, and democratic control over the means of society. This would create the conditions for a free society so it wouldn't be an end, but a means to an end.

People who believe in private property believe in a whole host of regressive rules, such as corporate ownership of property and so on.

[Havet]

Only a true anti-property society could have 'spontaneous order.' Again you have resorted back to nonsense.

You want everybody to agree with your rules and talk about 'spontaneous order' in the same sentence. Nonsense.

Spontaneous order is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of self-interested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interest) individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order


Basically, all societies have rules, even left-anarchist ones. The rules of left anarchy inlcude egalitarianism, equality, and democratic control over the means of society. This would create the conditions for a free society so it wouldn't be an end, but a means to an end.

Good so far


People who believe in private property believe in a whole host of regressive rules, such as corporate ownership of property and so on.

What definition are you giving the word "private property"?

[Skooma Addict]

I don't think welfare is necessary. Although with minimum wage laws, I can sort of understand the need for welfare to help those who cannot get a job through no fault of their own. But if there is going to be welfare, it needs to be massively reformed.



Liberal welfare-statism is a pretty natural--if misguided--reaction to a society in which the ruling class, through privilege, creates great disparities in income. Privilege creates massive distortions, made cumulative through the process of feedback, that must be dealt with somehow. One way of dealing with the consequences is through a Rube Goldberg device like redistributive welfare policy, another layer of policy to counteract the first layer, to prevent underconsumption from becoming too destabilizing and the underclass from becoming too radicalized. The other way is to eliminate the privilege itself--a lot simpler.

Who is in the ruling class in your opinion? What "privilege" needs to be eliminated?


But I don't kid myself now. If the privilege remains, statist "corrective" action will be the inevitable result. That's why I don't get too bent out of shape now about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws--in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It's another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is "kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess", but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels.

Minimum wage laws stop some people from getting jobs. I would rather have my leg broken than be reduced to living off welfare for the rest of my life because the labor market is restricted so a few other workers can make more money.


Libertarians need to stop admiring the emperor's clothes and pretending that disparities in income reflect the triumph of industrious ants over lazy grasshoppers. Liberals might be a lot easier to talk to then.

Disparities in income occur for a reason. It certainly is not because the rich are exploiting the poor. A Supply chain manager who must make sure that the companies supply chain is functioning properly makes a lot of money for a reason. Same goes for accountants, successful stockbrokers, ect.

I have no desire whatsoever to have a serious discussion with the vast majority of liberals.

[Havet]

But if there is going to be welfare, it needs to be massively reformed.

What would you reform?


Who is in the ruling class in your opinion? What "privilege" needs to be eliminated?

I use the term ruling class to describe the group of people who directly restrict the freedom and equality of opportunity of everyone else through law enforcement directives. Typically, this includes politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, corporations and other big business "collusionists".


Minimum wage laws stop some people from getting jobs. I would rather have my leg broken than be reduced to living off welfare for the rest of my life because the labor market is restricted so a few other workers can make more money.

Yes, I agree, it does reduce the supply of jobs available. But by removing the "guy who is breaking your leg" (in other words, the entity which is directly harming you), "he" would also "stop distributing crutches" which (some), to an extent, also harms you.


Disparities in income occur for a reason. It certainly is not because the rich are exploiting the poor. A Supply chain manager who must make sure that the companies supply chain is functioning properly makes a lot of money for a reason. Same goes for accountants, successful stockbrokers, ect.

I disagree. Many rich are exploiting the poor. Under this mixed economy 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 freer environment (which I'm sure you support), the workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, so your "up-libertarian's" view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.


I have no desire whatsoever to have a serious discussion with the vast majority of liberals.

Why not? Why do you have a desire to have a serious discussion with the vast majority of communists here? Is your goal not understanding and persuasion? (if not, i apologize for the preposterous assumption of my part)

[maya]

Minimum wage laws stop some people from getting jobs. I would rather have my leg broken than be reduced to living off welfare for the rest of my life because the labor market is restricted so a few other workers can make more money.

Minimum wage laws stop some people from getting jobs, therefore abolish the minimum wage? If the market says my job is worth less that the minimum wage, that is a problem with the market, not with my worth.

If the market says I am worth less than the food I need to eat, am I supposed to starve?

[Havet]

If the market says I am worth less than the food I need to eat, am I supposed to starve?

Technically you would be expect to increase your ability by increasing your studies and knowledge (possibly from a loan) and start gaining experience. Although, if you had a health condition or just preferred something else, you could always join a cooperative or commune which could be inserted in a community which had abolished market interactions.

[Skooma Addict]

What would you reform?


Almost everything. For starters what you are allowed to spend your money on would be regulated. The incentives for welfare would be reduced and the incentive to work increased. Less people would be on welfare, that's for sure.


I disagree. Many rich are exploiting the poor. Under this mixed economy 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.

Sure, as long as it is understood that "the rich" are not exploiting the poor. Those laws are not the result of rich people colluding to exploit poor people. There are also laws that help the poor at the expense of the rich. But I wouldn't say that the poor are exploiting the rich.


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.

The first problem with this is that your viewing capitalists as a single class. Almost every law that helps some capitalists hurts other capitalists. I also wouldn't be so sure that the supply of wage labor would decrease in a free market as you are implying. That is certainly debatable because there are laws which restrict the supply of wage labor as well.


In a freer environment (which I'm sure you support), the workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, so you "up-libertarian's" view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.

This is correct as long as workers will be scarcer in a free environment.


Why not? Why do you have a desire to have a serious discussion with the vast majority of communists here? Is your goal not understanding and persuasion? (if not, i apologize for the preposterous assumption of my part)

I have discussions with other communists here so I can learn a little bit more about communism other socialist/communist ideologies. I can also refine a few arguments against communism. Communists have also usually given things more thought than liberals.

The vast majority of liberals are either get too emotional or they are so attached to their ideas that they will never change their mind no matter what. They think that if they change their mind, they have "lost." They also view everything as a part of some kind of culture war.

[maya]

Almost everything. For starters what you are allowed to spend your money on would be regulated. The incentives for welfare would be reduced and the incentive to work increased. Less people would be on welfare, that's for sure.

I would recommend you research the 'aboriginal intervention' in Australia to see an example of this policy in action, and how it is enforced.

[Skooma Addict]

I would recommend you research the 'aboriginal intervention' in Australia to see an example of this policy in action, and how it is enforced.

All I said is that what you can spend your money on should be regulated. I didn't say what regulations there should be or how it would be enforced.

[maya]

All I said is that what you can spend your money on should be regulated. I didn't say what regulations there should be or how it would be enforced.

Well, you either regulate what welfare receipients can do with their payments, or you don't.

If you promote a system that creates an underclass of citizens that rely on welfare, and then regulate how that welfare can be used, it is necessary to employ dracionian police and administrative measures to ensure that the welfare isn't spent 'improperly'.

So while the welfare spending of the poor is to be regulated, presumably wall street and the oil industries will be freed from regulation, in the name of unfettered capitalism?

[Skooma Addict]

If you promote a system that creates an underclass of citizens that rely on welfare, and then regulate how that welfare can be used, it is necessary to employ dracionian police and administrative measures to ensure that the welfare isn't spent 'improperly'.

So while the welfare spending of the poor is to be regulated, presumably wall street and the oil industries will be freed from regulation, in the name of unfettered capitalism?

I don't think there would be a need for welfare in a free market. But as long as there is going to be welfare, then yes, I think it should be regulated. Our the same, everyone who supports welfare has some regulations they support.

Everyone has certain "regulations" they need to abide by if we are using the term broadly. For example, you cannot kill people or burn down peoples houses.

[maya]

I don't think there would be a need for welfare in a free market. But as long as there is going to be welfare, then yes, I think it should be regulated. Our the same, everyone who supports welfare has some regulations they support.

Everyone has certain "regulations" they need to abide by if we are using the term broadly. For example, you cannot kill people or burn down peoples houses.

I can see where you are coming from, but arson is a criminal offence, I assume you don't propose criminalizing what welfare receipients do with the money they receive (that would not normally be criminal)?

In the Australian example, the government dictates what receipients can and cannot buy, the magazines and videos they can and cannot read etc. etc. there is even a special government credit card they have to use so the welfare agencies can keep check.

Surely no libertarian can support such measures?

[New Tet]

Which part of my reply are you asking the "over what" part? You lost me there.

Never mind.

[Skooma Addict]

I can see where you are coming from, but arson is a criminal offence, I assume you don't propose criminalizing what welfare receipients do with the money they receive (that would not normally be criminal)?

I propose that we do away with welfare along with many other things. As long as there is welfare, then yes, think it should be regulated. This is because welfare is publicly funded. I don't think we should imprison people who violate the regulations or anything like that.

[Havet]

Sorry to have taken some time to answer


Sure, as long as it is understood that "the rich" are not exploiting the poor. Those laws are not the result of rich people colluding to exploit poor people. There are also laws that help the poor at the expense of the rich. But I wouldn't say that the poor are exploiting the rich.

This is my point exactly. The laws that help the rich at the expense of the poor are far more dangerous (because they are the ones that "break the legs") than the laws the help the poor at the expense of the rich (which is just the flawed system trying to compensate itself to prevent underconsumption and radicalization).


The first problem with this is that your viewing capitalists as a single class. Almost every law that helps some capitalists hurts other capitalists. I also wouldn't be so sure that the supply of wage labor would decrease in a free market as you are implying. That is certainly debatable because there are laws which restrict the supply of wage labor as well.

Ok, this confusion is understandeable. Usually when I talk of the "capitalist class" (more generally I use the term ruling class), I am talking of the capitalists which are already in a privileged position, and therefore have every interest to remain that way. Of course, by the very nature of government, every action it performs has to be at the expense of someone (because it is just a distributive entity, not an entity which creates wealth), but if we agree on my description of capitalist class, I guess its safe to say they generally have a more or less "class consciousness" in staying in their privileged position, even if that is done at the expense of normal business owners (which don't have that much privilege in comparison).

Also, i'm curious, what kind of laws restrict the supply of wage labor? You mean like the minimum-wage?


The vast majority of liberals are either get too emotional or they are so attached to their ideas that they will never change their mind no matter what. They think that if they change their mind, they have "lost." They also view everything as a part of some kind of culture war.

I actually have chat with a liberal once, and he wasn't that kind of liberal. So far he's still trying to come up with counter-arguments that the government should regulate use of drugs. He's pretty open to logic, so I'm still hopeful ^^

[Pogue]

oh, here he comes again, the screw-up-the-workers guy, probably rambling about how we should abolish welfare.

[Skooma Addict]

This is my point exactly. The laws that help the rich at the expense of the poor are far more dangerous (because they are the ones that "break the legs") than the laws the help the poor at the expense of the rich (which is just the flawed system trying to compensate itself to prevent underconsumption and radicalization).

Maybe on average this is true. But this is certainly not a general rule. There are some laws that help certain rich people that aren't so bad. There are also some laws that help certain poor people that are very harmful. But generally, I do not think there are any laws that help the entire rich class at the expense of the entire poor class or vice versa.



Ok, this confusion is understandeable. Usually when I talk of the "capitalist class" (more generally I use the term ruling class), I am talking of the capitalists which are already in a privileged position, and therefore have every interest to remain that way. Of course, by the very nature of government, every action it performs has to be at the expense of someone (because it is just a distributive entity, not an entity which creates wealth), but if we agree on my description of capitalist class, I guess its safe to say they generally have a more or less "class consciousness" in staying in their privileged position, even if that is done at the expense of normal business owners (which don't have that much privilege in comparison).

Well then yes, this group of privileged people benefit at the expense of the poor and the rich alike. Although it would be unfair then not to put many workers who benefit from license and union laws in the "ruling class" as well. They are doing the exact same thing as the capitalists you mentioned. Namely, using the state to benefit at the expense of the rest of society.


Also, i'm curious, what kind of laws restrict the supply of wage labor? You mean like the minimum-wage?

That and the various licenses that the government requires for a person to become a worker in certain professions. There are also many of the unions that exist only due to government intervention. Also when considering whether or not the supply of labor would increase in a free market, we need to remember that many of today's jobs in finance and banking would not exist in a free market.


oh, here he comes again, the screw-up-the-workers guy, probably rambling about how we should abolish welfare.


You can try to paint everyone who opposes welfare as a prick who hates workers if you want. I don't really care. Such tactics are not uncommon for socialists and progressives.

[Havet]

Well then yes, this group of privileged people benefit at the expense of the poor and the rich alike. Although it would be unfair then not to put many workers who benefit from license and union laws in the "ruling class" as well. They are doing the exact same thing as the capitalists you mentioned. Namely, using the state to benefit at the expense of the rest of society.

Oh yes. They are certainly inserted on there as well. But they usually don't have as much power as other members of such ruling class. Actually, this new aristocracy is made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government (see "Liberalism and Social Control", by Carson)


That and the various licenses that the government requires for a person to become a worker in certain professions. There are also many of the unions that exist only due to government intervention. Also when considering whether or not the supply of labor would increase in a free market, we need to remember that many of today's jobs in finance and banking would not exist in a free market.

Well then, we need to find some way to quantify how many people would become entrepreneurial in contrast to wage labor in a genuine free market and how many people have jobs solely because of the current status quo.

If you (like I) don't have an answer to this now, i'm gonna ask around the places where this idea is professed so as to see what they say about it, and then get back to you.

[Die Rote Fahne]

There should be a guaranteed living wage for everyone.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I mean profit from the work of others

hayenmill: is it exploitative to profit from the work of others? i.e. surplus value

[Havet]

hayenmill: is it exploitative to profit from the work of others? i.e. surplus value

Profit is exploitative insofar as the exploited person did not have the ability to choose otherwise, constituting wage slavery (i.e: there was no equality of opportunity for the person to choose something else rather than wage labor).

[RGacky3]

Profit is exploitative insofar as the exploited person did not have the ability to choose otherwise, constituting wage slavery (i.e: there was no equality of opportunity for the person to choose something else rather than wage labor).

So do you believe that wage labor would exist? In a socialist society?

[Havet]

So do you believe that wage labor would exist? In a socialist society?

In a free and voluntary socialist society? Probably not. People would likely organize themselves in cooperatives and other non-hierarchical institutions, given the choice.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

that means they would have to have capital

[Havet]

that means they would have to have capital

Who would have to have capital? It helps if you quote the person you are replying to so I can understand what and whom exactly you are addressing to.

[Robert]

There should be a guaranteed living wage for everyone.

I hope he means "everyone who works at something useful and/or desirable to the rest of society."

[IcarusAngel]

There should perhaps be a 'basic income program' that gives money to all people, including those who do not work.

The basic income program would be enough to support people who did not work in the market place at all. Perhaps they would be lazy, perhaps they would be college educated inventers, etc.

Capitalists claim that this would mean people would be 'lazy' since they aren't forced to work. The thing is, once people get accustomed to a certain lifestyle, like a doctor's lifestyle, they probably wouldn't want to go back to the 'basic income program' just as most people don't want to actually live off of welfare.

You could pay for it by eliminating most of the military and most of the social welfare, thus requiring individuals to be responsible with the money they're given. Some welfare such as food stamps (or food credit cards now) could stay in place.

This could hold people over nicely until capitalism is eliminated.

[Havet]

There should perhaps be a 'basic income program' that gives money to all people, including those who do not work.

The basic income program would be enough to support people who did not work in the market place at all. Perhaps they would be lazy, perhaps they would be college educated inventers, etc.

Capitalists claim that this would mean people would be 'lazy' since they aren't forced to work. The thing is, once people get accustomed to a certain lifestyle, like a doctor's lifestyle, they probably wouldn't want to go back to the 'basic income program' just as most people don't want to actually live off of welfare.

You could pay for it by eliminating most of the military and most of the social welfare, thus requiring individuals to be responsible with the money they're given. Some welfare such as food stamps (or food credit cards now) could stay in place.

This could hold people over nicely until capitalism is eliminated.

I'm just curious (without coming in attacking as usual): Shouldn't some sort of restriction be applied to exclude those who don't contribute? Otherwise, won't the community risk the possibility of too many needy people fleeing there and taking advantage of such "basic income program" (which I assume would be funded by forced taxation), disrupting the flow of wealth from those who contribute?

[Robert]

some sort of restriction be applied to those who contribute?

Ex-squeeze me?

[Mo212]

I'm saying the privileges of the wealthy can be eliminated by removing their privilege directly: all welfare, regulations, patents and, more importantly, the illegitimately accumulated resources.

Naive, the only way to eliminate priviledge is to take over the monetary system itself, i.e. men are not able to set prices without being monitored, preventing them from gaining exhorbitant amounts, i.e. all transactions are monitored.

These people get to power because of what they own and the amount of money they have, the only way to prevent people from taking power is to see these groups and individuals as monopolies of wealth that must be broken up, and have their wealth forcefully reduced if necessary.

There should be a limit on how much wealth anyone can earn or own, this is the fundamental problem with capitalism, there are no limits for how much one individual or institution (in the name of individual or group) can possess.

[Havet]

Naive, the only way to eliminate priviledge is to take over the monetary system itself, i.e. men are not able to set prices without being monitored, preventing them from gaining exhorbitant amounts, i.e. all transactions are monitored.

I don't really understand. Do you suggest we create a 1984 dystopian big brother police state to monitor all transactions? That doesn't seem to adress the issue at its core.


These people get to power because of what they own and the amount of money they have, the only way to prevent people from taking power is to see these groups and individuals as monopolies of wealth that must be broken up, and have their wealth forcefully reduced if necessary.

I think I agree with most of what its here, though i probably come from a different background at arguing for this.


There should be a limit on how much wealth anyone can earn or own, this is the fundamental problem with capitalism, there are no limits for how much one individual or institution (in the name of individual or group) can possess.

The problem is not how much wealth anyone can earn or own, the problem is HOW do them achieve it. Usually this is achieved by exploiting the workers and or government granted privilege. That is the core of the issue, and that is what must be fought against.

[IcarusAngel]

Monitoring how much money people make and how much income they take would definitely be a good thing if we must have a monetary system, one of the features of capitalism, not socialism.

It would be democratic.

However, socialism could function without the need for money.

Academics share resources among one another all the time. Why is it assumed that people are too stupid to share resources without capitalists or others fixing prices for them?

The anti-humanism of Libertarianism and market anarchism is absolutely beneath contempt.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I can guess what most of you are already thinking just by the title alone: "oh, here he comes again, the screw-up-the-workers guy, probably rambling about how we should abolish welfare, etc"

I've been traditionally opposed to state welfare, but it just struck me that it's not the most important of things.

Liberal welfare-statism is a pretty natural--if misguided--reaction to a society in which the ruling class, through privilege, creates great disparities in income. Privilege creates massive distortions, made cumulative through the process of feedback, that must be dealt with somehow. One way of dealing with the consequences is through a Rube Goldberg device like redistributive welfare policy, another layer of policy to counteract the first layer, to prevent underconsumption from becoming too destabilizing and the underclass from becoming too radicalized. The other way is to eliminate the privilege itself--a lot simpler.

But I don't kid myself now. If the privilege remains, statist "corrective" action will be the inevitable result. That's why I don't get too bent out of shape now about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws--in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It's another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is "kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess", but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels.

Libertarians need to stop admiring the emperor's clothes and pretending that disparities in income reflect the triumph of industrious ants over lazy grasshoppers. Liberals might be a lot easier to talk to then.

"Cut welfare top-down, taxes bottom-up" (just a cute little empty slogan. As you all know, i don't advocate reformism)

Glad to hear some sense.

You do realise that this position places you in line with the radical "collectivist" left in some historical circumstances.

E.g. Presumably you would support the Soviet Union, then? And regret that it broke up?

[Havet]

Glad to hear some sense.

You do realise that this position places you in line with the radical "collectivist" left in some historical circumstances.

E.g. Presumably you would support the Soviet Union, then? And regret that it broke up?

Of course, I support all initial revolutions against oppression. I do regret the way it ended, and I think the problem is way deeper at its score than what many revlefters here believe.