Capitalist Society

[tradeunionsupporter]

It seems that in a Capitalist Society everyone and everybody wants to be or become a Rich/Wealthy Person or a Rich/Wealthy Capitalist or a Rich/Wealthy Singer/Musician Rich/Wealthy Athlete or a Rich/Wealthy Actor/Actress this is why we have Hoarding of Wealth Usury/Interest Gambling and Crime Robbery/Burglary Thieves/Theft/Stealing Money from Banks/Individuals in Society and Greed my question is what would Socialism do about this problem we know that everyone can't be Rich/Wealthy in a Capitalist society but the Media tells us that everyone could if we tried I have this from both Republicans and Democrats that we could all become Millionaires and Billionaires if we all tried this mostly comes from Republicans which proves that they are a political party of the Rich/Wealthy and Capitalism they call getting Rich/Wealthy the American Dream should there be a cap on how much CEO's make I think as long as there are Rich/Wealthy Capitalists in society people will want to be on the Rich/Wealthy Capitalist's Income level we need Income Equality not Income Inequality ?

Published on Thursday, February 4, 2010 by CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/)A Progressive Tax: It's Not Socialism, It's Correctionism


by Paul Buchheit (http://www.commondreams.org/paul-buchheit)

People don't want to talk about taxes. Most of us are afraid that a tax increase will impact ALL of us. The media shies away from such a controversial topic. Certainly the rich don't want to talk about it. And even lower-income people seem to have this sense that they will be wealthy someday, and government shouldn't interfere with their plans.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/04-7
Why Is Bill Clinton Cultivating Envy?

by Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on July 31, 1997

This article appeared on cato.org (http://www.cato.org/) on July 31, 1997.

Republicans shouldn't have wilted so easily. They should have met the class-warfare argument head-on. This is not -- nor has it ever been -- a nation principally motivated by greed and envy. Most Americans don't hate rich people as much as Dick Gephardt apparently does. Americans don't begrudge billionaires like Microsoft's Bill Gates or Federal Express's Fred Smith their fortunes. The vast majority of Americans don't want to tax the rich out of existence; they want to become rich themselves.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6111

Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.

Fact: Researchers have uncovered dozens of social factors that contribute to becoming rich.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

[tradeunionsupporter]

My question is what would Socialism do about this problem we know that everyone can't be Rich/Wealthy in a Capitalist society but the Media tells us that everyone could if we tried I have this from both Republicans and Democrats that we could all become Millionaires and Billionaires ?

[hatzel]

RBHZFYpQ6nc

[tradeunionsupporter]

2. Everyone wants to be rich but one-tenth of one percent will actually be rich...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4789584&mesg_id=4789602

[ZombieRothbard]

I would argue that in a truly free market, wealth would be more evenly distributed. The problem, in my opinion, is that our corporatist economy is comprised of an unholy alliance between corporations and government. Things like limited liability statuses, bailouts, regulations and intellectual property monopolies prevent the market from ever becoming competitive enough for wage rates to naturally rise, and working conditions to naturally improve.

[RGacky3]

I would argue that in a truly free market, wealth would be more evenly distributed. The problem, in my opinion, is that our corporatist economy is comprised of an unholy alliance between corporations and government. Things like limited liability statuses, bailouts, regulations and intellectual property monopolies prevent the market from ever becoming competitive enough for wage rates to naturally rise, and working conditions to naturally improve.

I would argue that a truly free market is impossible and an oxymoron, if a free market, means an economy ruled by purchesing power, those with more purchesing power have more freedom and those who do not have close to none.

Also a market requires property rights to be strictly enforced, requireing a strong state, which is OBVIOUSLY going to be used to enforce other priviliges that those with more market power (purchasing power) want.

If there was no state, and just private "security firms" those would just end up taking the role of the state, with once exception, they are ONLY accountable to purchasing power and not to an electorate.

But go ahead and make the argument that a free market is possible and it would lead to more equality.

[ZombieRothbard]

I would argue that a truly free market is impossible and an oxymoron, if a free market, means an economy ruled by purchesing power, those with more purchesing power have more freedom and those who do not have close to none.

Also a market requires property rights to be strictly enforced, requireing a strong state, which is OBVIOUSLY going to be used to enforce other priviliges that those with more market power (purchasing power) want.

If there was no state, and just private "security firms" those would just end up taking the role of the state, with once exception, they are ONLY accountable to purchasing power and not to an electorate.

But go ahead and make the argument that a free market is possible and it would lead to more equality.

I don't like to argue about the plausibility of private defense, because it is a tough issue that hasn't been fleshed out enough by anarcho-capitalists (I am currently researching all the theories of private defense, from Gustave de Molinari to Bob Murphy). That is one of the reasons I came here, was to ask a question about how leftists tackled the defense question. Another reason I came here, was because after this semester is over, I am going to be reading Socialism by Ludwig von Mises (over the summer). I thought it would be fun to post along on here as I go through it, and see if you guys think that Mises' criticisms were legitimate.

But whenever I am arguing about pure market forces, I tend to take on a temporary minarchist perspective, where the state is effectively enforcing property rights and contracts. That makes it easier, because when I go under the private defense model, they always will fall back on a bandit security firm going rogue and killing competitors.

But if you are going to look simply at the pure market forces, with the assumption that contract and property rights are being adequately protected, it becomes clear to me that wealth would be more evenly distributed. It is true that there would still be SOME disparity of wealth. This is only a concern to those that have made solving this lesser disparity the sole basis of their politics, and the cornerstone of their ethics.

[Thirsty Crow]

But if you are going to look simply at the pure market forces, with the assumption that contract and property rights are being adequately protected, it becomes clear to me that wealth would be more evenly distributed. It is true that there would still be SOME disparity of wealth. This is only a concern to those that have made solving this lesser disparity the sole basis of their politics, and the cornerstone of their ethics.
Well, jolly good that it's clear to you.
How about demonstrating the necessity, or even the possibility of "more even distribution" of income in a hypothetical global capitalist order without state intrusion?

[ZombieRothbard]

Well, jolly good that it's clear to you.
How about demonstrating the necessity, or even the possibility of "more even distribution" of income in a hypothetical global capitalist order without state intrusion?

Whether there is a necessity or not is up to each individual. Personally, I see it as a necessity, because I sympathize with the working poor. I also think large scale warfare would be eliminated in a purely free market, as well as the restrictions on freedom via crimes against the state and victimless crimes that plague our society.

As for the possibility of it, the Austrian School asserts that wage rates would rise, as well as working conditions in a free market, as a result of the increased competition in a market void of state intervention and privilege.

[Thirsty Crow]

Whether there is a necessity or not is up to each individual. Personally, I see it as a necessity, because I sympathize with the working poor. Let me remind you of what you wrote:


But if you are going to look simply at the pure market forces, with the assumption that contract and property rights are being adequately protected, it becomes clear to me that wealth would be more evenly distributed.Here, you are positing a necessity of income equalization (to what extent, you do not tell us) with only one qualification: adequate protection (and enforcement, I assume) of property rights.
You neither demonstrated the alleged neccesity not provided any supportive evidence.
Except this "demonstration" and "evidence":


As for the possibility of it, the Austrian School asserts that wage rates would rise, as well as working conditions in a free market, as a result of the increased competition in a market void of state intervention and privilege.
And the Catholic Church asserts my immortal sould will be condemned for eternal life of suffering in Hell.
Somehow, I just cannot be bothered by such assertions. Part of the reason is that they cannot be effectively demonstrated, in the case of hell scare and in yours by lack of any demonstration or evidence whatsoever.

[ZombieRothbard]

Let me remind you of what you wrote:

Here, you are positing a necessity of income equalization (to what extent, you do not tell us) with only one qualification: adequate protection (and enforcement, I assume) of property rights.
You neither demonstrated the alleged neccesity not provided any supportive evidence.

I personally believe the necessity is to improve the quality of life of the working poor and freedom lover. I cannot "prove" this, because you cannot prove ethics. I cannot prove to you that my ethics are correct.


And the Catholic Church asserts my immortal sould will be condemned for eternal life of suffering in Hell.
Somehow, I just cannot be bothered by such assertions. Part of the reason is that they cannot be effectively demonstrated, in the case of hell scare and in yours by lack of any demonstration or evidence whatsoever.I don't feel that it is a reasonable demand for me to try to somehow condense the entire Austrian School down to a single forum post.

[RedSunRising]

I personally believe the necessity to to improve the quality of life of the working poor and freedom lover. I cannot "prove" this, because you cannot prove ethics. I cannot prove to you that my ethics are correct.


And how do you purpose to do that?

Also how do you purpose to guarntee full employment for the unworking poor?

What about the unworking rich? Well I know what I would do with them....

[Thirsty Crow]

I personally believe the necessity is to improve the quality of life of the working poor and freedom lover. I cannot "prove" this, because you cannot prove ethics. I cannot prove to you that my ethics are correct.My fucking god. See what you've done, you made me invoke him/her/it in vain :tt2:

Let's go over this again: you said that by sheer workings of market forces, in combination with proper enforcement and protection of property rights, there will occur, within the confines of your proposed "system", an equalization of income.
By saying that, you positied a necessity of such equalization arising from one factor alone: the interplay of market forces (alongside the supportive institutions of property rights).
This has nothing to do with ethics.


I don't feel that it is a reasonable demand for me to try to somehow condense the entire Austrian School down to a single forum post.
Well, then all we're left with is throwing around unsupported claims. That's hardly a model for healthy debate, and communication in general for that matter.

[ZombieRothbard]

And how do you purpose to do that?

Also how do you purpose to guarntee full employment for the unworking poor?

What about the unworking rich? Well I know what I would do with them....

I propose to do that, by removing government intervention from the market. Competitive market forces in an unrestrained market will bid up wage rates.

Full employment for the unworking poor is easy. It would be necessary to remove the minimum wage. The only reason there is unemployment in the first place, is because the minimum wage prevents employers from being able to hire more workers. I am sure you will object, but I will remind you that the way our fascist economy is structured, there needs to be MORE than the abolition of the minimum wage. There needs to be other policy changes as well. But on the SOLE issue of unemployment, it is a direct result of minimum wage law.

The unworking rich are of no concern to me. If they are not working, they would likely be purely consumers anyways, and their money would eventually end up back in the market.

[ZombieRothbard]

Let's go over this again: you said that by sheer workings of market forces, in combination with proper enforcement and protection of property rights, there will occur, within the confines of your proposed "system", an equalization of income.
By saying that, you positied a necessity of such equalization arising from one factor alone: the interplay of market forces (alongside the supportive institutions of property rights).
This has nothing to do with ethics.

Firstly, I do not believe there would be an equalization of income. There would still be rich and poor, however the gap would be thinner than it is now. I would base that on the Austrian School's perspective.


Well, then all we're left with is throwing around unsupported claims. That's hardly a model for healthy debate, and communication in general for that matter.If you have a specific question or scenario in which you believe a purely free market would not close the gap between the rich and poor, I would entertain such a question. But I cannot summarize the entire Austrian School in one post.

[RedSunRising]

I propose to do that, by removing government intervention from the market. Competitive market forces in an unrestrained market will bid up wage rates..

Without violent class struggle no it wouldnt. Thats madness.

[ZombieRothbard]

Without violent class struggle no it wouldnt. Thats madness.

The reason why wage rates aren't bid up now, is because the market is not as competitive as it could be. The reason it isn't as competitive as it could be, is because of government interventions, such as intellectual property. I will use intellectual property as an example, but there are many other forms of intervention in the market that prevent a natural rise in wage rates.

Intellectual property allows corporations to obtain monopolies on idea's, and subsequently, monopolies on markets. This is of course antithetical to what I would consider a free market. Since the corporation has a monopoly on the distribution of their product, it prevents competitors from entering the market. The corporation can raise the cost of their products, because they have no competition to engage in price warfare with. The workers at the company would also suffer lower pay, since that particular field of work has been monopolized. There is less competition in hiring than there would be without intellectual property, which gives employers more power and leverage which is used to lower wage rates.

Given a market without intellectual property monopolies, competitors could enter the market and engage in price wars. These price wars would result in a bidding up of wage rates, as employers compete for employees, as well as a lowering of the cost of goods and services (which is a result of competitive market forces).

[Revolution starts with U]

I propose to do that, by removing government intervention from the market. Competitive market forces in an unrestrained market will bid up wage rates.
This will bid up wage rates "in the margins." You've fallen for that old trap. Guess who's wages that means will actually go up, and who's will get bidden down?
The proletariat is also a seller. I'm not sure if you knew that. He is selling the only thing he has to offer: his labor. The bourg, as a buyer, wants to buy that as cheap as he can get it. If there's not full employment, the wages of the proles will go down. That's the whole reason many workers have problems with immigration; it supplies the capitalists with a fresh supply of cheap labor (of course I personally have no problem with immigration, they deserve a standard of living as well).


Full employment for the unworking poor is easy. It would be necessary to remove the minimum wage. The only reason there is unemployment in the first place, is because the minimum wage prevents employers from being able to hire more workers.
Why? This is why I say you've fallen for the "in the margins" trap. The min. wage prevents the capitalist from hiring more workers because it artificially drives up wages. Not that he would necessarily hire more workers anyway. This is a mere baseless assertion by the free market crowd. In reality he will keep his labor force as low and cheap as possible so he can bank more profits.


I am sure you will object, but I will remind you that the way our fascist economy is structured, there needs to be MORE than the abolition of the minimum wage. There needs to be other policy changes as well. But on the SOLE issue of unemployment, it is a direct result of minimum wage law.
So what caused the unemployment rates in our laissez faire economy?


Firstly, I do not believe there would be an equalization of income. There would still be rich and poor, however the gap would be thinner than it is now. I would base that on the Austrian School's perspective.
You keep asserting this, but you don't say why. Not only do you not say why... you want US to pick apart the Austrian school and ask you questions on it.


If you have a specific question or scenario in which you believe a purely free market would not close the gap between the rich and poor, I would entertain such a question. But I cannot summarize the entire Austrian School in one post.
The austrian school is a broad swath of economists who share a belief in the subjective theory of value, the ABCT, and at are at least somewhat suspect of empiricism in the social sciences. Not all austrians are dogmatic praxeologists, some basically reject it. But all of them, as far as I know, are at least a little bit suspect of empiricism in the social sciences.
That was pretty easy

[Revolution starts with U]

The reason why wage rates aren't bid up now, is because the market is not as competitive as it could be.
As you can see in my last post, that's backwards. The reason wages are as high as they are is because of tireless class struggle. As you can see in my last post, the capitalist as a buyer is looking for labor the cheapest he can get it. And being the only one in the deal with real power, he WILL get it.


The reason it isn't as competitive as it could be, is because of government interventions, such as intellectual property. I will use intellectual property as an example, but there are many other forms of intervention in the market that prevent a natural rise in wage rates.
Just to let you know, we basically feel about all property how you do about IP. :thumbup1:


Intellectual property allows corporations to obtain monopolies on idea's, and subsequently, monopolies on markets.
Private property allows capitalists (whether independant or incorporated) to obtain a monopoly on land, and resource, and subsequently markets.
T
his is of course antithetical to what I would consider a free market. Since the corporation has a monopoly on the distribution of their product, it prevents competitors from entering the market. The corporation can raise the cost of their products, because they have no competition to engage in price warfare with. The workers at the company would also suffer lower pay, since that particular field of work has been monopolized. There is less competition in hiring than there would be without intellectual property, which gives employers more power and leverage which is used to lower wage rates.
See above on "competition for labor." Competition for labor, unskilled labor especially, drives wages down, not up. Some forms of skilled labor, particularly those that help to maintain the position of the ruling class (CEO's, lobbyists, politicians, etc), will see wages driven up in competition. For most, they have nothing to offer but their labor, labor anyone else can provide. As such, they will see their wages go down.

EDIT: Man, I would like to see Dean engage this. He/she (?) is 20x the economist I am :lol:

[ZombieRothbard]

This will bid up wage rates "in the margins." You've fallen for that old trap. Guess who's wages that means will actually go up, and who's will get bidden down?
The proletariat is also a seller. I'm not sure if you knew that. He is selling the only thing he has to offer: his labor. The bourg, as a buyer, wants to buy that as cheap as he can get it. If there's not full employment, the wages of the proles will go down. That's the whole reason many workers have problems with immigration; it supplies the capitalists with a fresh supply of cheap labor (of course I personally have no problem with immigration, they deserve a standard of living as well).

I have no problem with immigration either. Borders are an unjustified intervention in the market, that serve as political weapons to exploit developing nations.

I understand that the so called bourgeois wants to buy his labor as cheap as possible (if we assume that the employer is a cold heartless bastard), but employees wish to sell their labor for as much as possible. I am not against unionizing, as long as it is not coercive in nature. Workers demanding higher pay is an important aspect of the employer/employee give and take.

As stated before, more employers would also equal more employment opportunities, and more employment opportunities would force employers to make their business more attractive. They would do this by raising wages, and by providing more relaxed and enjoyable work environments.


Why? This is why I say you've fallen for the "in the margins" trap. The min. wage prevents the capitalist from hiring more workers because it artificially drives up wages. Not that he would necessarily hire more workers anyway. This is a mere baseless assertion by the free market crowd. In reality he will keep his labor force as low and cheap as possible so he can bank more profits.

Artificially driving up wages is precisely the problem. Employers WOULD hire more employees, because most businesses intend to expand their operations.



So what caused the unemployment rates in our laissez faire economy?

We live in a corporatist economy, not a laissez-faire one. You are unfairly blaming capitalism and free markets. Your critique is actually of corporatism.


You keep asserting this, but you don't say why. Not only do you not say why... you want US to pick apart the Austrian school and ask you questions on it.


The austrian school is a broad swath of economists who share a belief in the subjective theory of value, the ABCT, and at are at least somewhat suspect of empiricism in the social sciences. Not all austrians are dogmatic praxeologists, some basically reject it. But all of them, as far as I know, are at least a little bit suspect of empiricism in the social sciences.
That was pretty easy

Is that meant to be a refutation of the Austrian School?

[ZombieRothbard]

Just to let you know, we basically feel about all property how you do about IP. :thumbup1:

I have heard the property is theft argument. I believe some types of property, as dictated by the state, are not legitimate property rights (like thought property). Nobody should own ideas. I do believe in Lockean Homesteading though, and the ethics behind self ownership (as according to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard).


Private property allows capitalists (whether independant or incorporated) to obtain a monopoly on land, and resource, and subsequently markets.

I actually cede that the left's point on private property being a monopoly on land is an accurate one. However I do not believe a monopoly on a small swathe of land and the resources on and below that land will result in a monopolization of markets.


See above on "competition for labor." Competition for labor, unskilled labor especially, drives wages down, not up. Some forms of skilled labor, particularly those that help to maintain the position of the ruling class (CEO's, lobbyists, politicians, etc), will see wages driven up in competition. For most, they have nothing to offer but their labor, labor anyone else can provide. As such, they will see their wages go down.

Perhaps American workers wages will decline. But as I said before, I don't advocate borders. With the elimination of borders, an international wage rate would emerge, which would actually benefit foreign workers (at the expense of American ones). I don't care for America though, so I have no problem with it.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have no problem with immigration either. Borders are an unjustified intervention in the market, that serve as political weapons to exploit developing nations.
:thumbup1:
Now, when you realize land claims are merely micro-borders... then you'll be on to something.


I understand that the so called bourgeois wants to buy his labor as cheap as possible (if we assume that the employer is a cold heartless bastard),
We don't have to assume that at all. He can be as generous as he likes. All we have to assume is he is a buyer, and buyers want things cheap.

but employees wish to sell their labor for as much as possible
Yep, but there are plenty of other workers out there who will go $1 cheaper. The capitalist is the only one in this situation with any real bargaining power. That is why, and you allude to this next, workers need collective bargaining.

. I am not against unionizing, as long as it is not coercive in nature. Workers demanding higher pay is an important aspect of the employer/employee give and take.
If a bunch of slaves revolt and cut their master's head off... is that coercive?


As stated before, more employers would also equal more employment opportunities, and more employment opportunities would force employers to make their business more attractive. They would do this by raising wages, and by providing more relaxed and enjoyable work environments.
Set aside the fact that this never played out in our laissez faire economy (the 1800s and early 1900s). What you are saying will happen will only happen for a select few skilled laborers. Time and again we have seen that competition for labor drives down wages.


Artificially driving up wages is precisely the problem. Employers WOULD hire more employees, because most businesses intend to expand their operations.
They only desire to expand their operations if there is a profit to be made in doing so. To make that profit they will have to drive down wages.



We live in a corporatist economy, not a laissez-faire one. You are unfairly blaming capitalism and free markets. Your critique is actually of corporatism.
I was speaking of the early american economy. You can re-read the post in that context.




Is that meant to be a refutation of the Austrian School?
No, it's a summary made in just one post. You said you couldn't do it. I did.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have heard the property is theft argument. I believe some types of property, as dictated by the state, are not legitimate property rights (like thought property).
Cool. We're on the same page so far.

Nobody should own ideas. I do believe in Lockean Homesteading though,
Ok.. I have some disagreements, but that's a whole nother thread.

and the ethics behind self ownership (as according to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard).
I reject self-ownership outright. Self-ownership is slavery, by definition. It is a person, in this case the mind, owning a person, the body. Or, if the mind and body are the same thing, it is using a false definition of the term ownership. It also allows for slavery, in the form of indentured servitude, as ownership is nothing without the ability to sell.


I actually cede that the left's point on private property being a monopoly on land is an accurate one. However I do not believe a monopoly on a small swathe of land and the resources on and below that land will result in a monopolization of markets.
We can believe all we want. But "facts are stubborn things." :lol:




Perhaps American workers wages will decline. But as I said before, I don't advocate borders. With the elimination of borders, an international wage rate would emerge, which would actually benefit foreign workers (at the expense of American ones). I don't care for America though, so I have no problem with it.
Well, I sort of agree on this. It's a complex issue. I think free trade is merely a way for large companies to get cheap labor from people living under the weight of utterly oppressive governments. But, protectionism is merely the favoring of one set of workers over another. So I tend not to take any absolute stances on free trade. Rather, I tend to take each case in its' circumstance.

[ZombieRothbard]

:thumbup1:
Now, when you realize land claims are merely micro-borders... then you'll be on to something.

I agree that property is actually a micro-border. But the kind of borders I am against are political borders.


We don't have to assume that at all. He can be as generous as he likes. All we have to assume is he is a buyer, and buyers want things cheap.

Yep, but there are plenty of other workers out there who will go $1 cheaper. The capitalist is the only one in this situation with any real bargaining power. That is why, and you allude to this next, workers need collective bargaining.

It is also important to note, that even as wage rates decrease in our elimination of the minimum wage scenario, it is better than having unemployed poor and homeless. I understand that you will point to welfare, being the humanitarian redistribution from the rich to the poor. I would actually say that the majority of taxes are paid by the middle and lower class. The rich use tax loopholes. They also build the price they pay in taxes into the products they are selling, or they lower their employees wages to make up for the difference. In either case, it is the middle and lower classes that pay the majority of taxes. Given that, the removal of the minimum wage would raise the standard of living for the lower and middle class.


If a bunch of slaves revolt and cut their master's head off... is that coercive?

That would be a clear case of self defense.


Set aside the fact that this never played out in our laissez faire economy (the 1800s and early 1900s). What you are saying will happen will only happen for a select few skilled laborers. Time and again we have seen that competition for labor drives down wages.

The 1800's and 1900's was not laissez-faire.



They only desire to expand their operations if there is a profit to be made in doing so. To make that profit they will have to drive down wages.
Simply because a company wants to make profit, does not mean that they can. A company that lowers wage rates, lowers the quality of their goods and raises their prices would clearly go out of business. There are things that business has to compromise on, and these things eat at profits.

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree that property is actually a micro-border. But the kind of borders I am against are political borders.
Eh, to each his own :blink:


It is also important to note, that even as wage rates decrease in our elimination of the minimum wage scenario, it is better than having unemployed poor and homeless.
That's a strange justification... I mean... I can't really disagree with it.... having a substandard wage IS better than starving.... I'm just utterly flabbergasted.

I understand that you will point to welfare, being the humanitarian redistribution from the rich to the poor.
:laugh: No.
Welfare is only humanitarian in that it stops the working class from cutting off the heads of the ruling class. Welfare is a reform of capitalism. It's not socialism in any way.

I would actually say that the majority of taxes are paid by the middle and lower class. The rich use tax loopholes. They also build the price they pay in taxes into the products they are selling, or they lower their employees wages to make up for the difference. In either case, it is the middle and lower classes that pay the majority of taxes.
I'm in full agreement here. Not that you could disagree... you would have to deny reality to do so.

Given that, the removal of the minimum wage would raise the standard of living for the lower and middle class.
Unless you can show how one logically deduces from another, I'm going to have to call that a non-sequiter.


That would be a clear case of self defense.
And so a violent strike is not so clear?


The 1800's and 1900's was not laissez-faire.
They were not a free market, but it would be ludicrous to say they were not laissez faire. Any time you see reference to laissez faire, that's basically what people are referring to.


Simply because a company wants to make profit, does not mean that they can. A company that lowers wage rates, lowers the quality of their goods and raises their prices would clearly go out of business. There are things that business has to compromise on, and these things eat at profits.
Sure. But a company that lowers wages, maintains or raises the quality of their goods, and maintains or raises prices won't, per se.

[hatzel]

Okay, Zombie, Zombie...I'll just point out that I'm not one of those socialists who instantly recoils in horror at the mere mention of money or the market, so I'm definitely not just knee-jerking on you for that. If I remember rightly, it's already been suggested that you read the relevant section (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html) from the Anarchist FAQ to understand where we identify problems in anarcho-capitalism. It might be useful for you to know where we object, so that you might be able to reconsider some issues that we've identified. That's just the tip of the iceberg, though, there are countless problems throughout the ideology...these problems are not just in the existence of money and the market.

I feel that people on both sides make this false connection between money and capitalism, in claiming that they necessarily coexist. These are the leftists who instantly argue that the only way to get rid of capitalism is to abolish money, assuming that this will make capitalism impossible; they do not consider the possibility of modifying the monetary system. On the other hand, I feel that many anarcho-capitalists realise that there is potential good in money as a means of exchange, if the monetary system can be modified (which is a perfectly fair conclusion to draw), but fail to realise that the capitalist system must be (or even can be, as long as money still exists) overcome for that money to operate as a fair and just means of exchange. You may, for instance, be interested in Proudhon's mutualism (you've already been sent a link to a few things, I think, and one of Kevin Carson's books. If not, tell me, and I can link you to them :)), or perhaps Gesell's The Natural Economic Order (http://wikilivres.info/wiki/The_Natural_Economic_Order) (ignore the Social Darwinism in the preface!), which was proposed as a non-capitalistic monetary system.

[RGacky3]

see if you guys think that Mises' criticisms were legitimate.


I'll tell you now, no :P, but go ahead.


to ask a question about how leftists tackled the defense question.

Thats never been a question really, democratic institutions.


But whenever I am arguing about pure market forces, I tend to take on a temporary minarchist perspective, where the state is effectively enforcing property rights and contracts.

Ok, so whats an argument that it would lead to a more equitable society? Also how do you stop the state from becoming corporatist??? Its impossible to keep it free from monitary influence.


it becomes clear to me that wealth would be more evenly distributed. It is true that there would still be SOME disparity of wealth. This is only a concern to those that have made solving this lesser disparity the sole basis of their politics, and the cornerstone of their ethics.

Its not clear at all, its easier to make money, the more money you have, and the less money you have the harder it is, it necessarily leads to oligarchy, you have to ACTUALLY make an argument, because its not clear.

[ZombieRothbard]

Okay, Zombie, Zombie...I'll just point out that I'm not one of those socialists who instantly recoils in horror at the mere mention of money or the market, so I'm definitely not just knee-jerking on you for that. If I remember rightly, it's already been suggested that you read the relevant section from the Anarchist FAQ to understand where we identify problems in anarcho-capitalism. It might be useful for you to know where we object, so that you might be able to reconsider some issues that we've identified. That's just the tip of the iceberg, though, there are countless problems throughout the ideology...these problems are not just in the existence of money and the market.

I feel that people on both sides make this false connection between money and capitalism, in claiming that they necessarily coexist. These are the leftists who instantly argue that the only way to get rid of capitalism is to abolish money, assuming that this will make capitalism impossible; they do not consider the possibility of modifying the monetary system. On the other hand, I feel that many anarcho-capitalists realise that there is potential good in money as a means of exchange, if the monetary system can be modified (which is a perfectly fair conclusion to draw), but fail to realise that the capitalist system must be (or even can be, as long as money still exists) overcome for that money to operate as a fair and just means of exchange. You may, for instance, be interested in Proudhon's mutualism (you've already been sent a link to a few things, I think, and one of Kevin Carson's books. If not, tell me, and I can link you to them :)), or perhaps Gesell's The Natural Economic Order (ignore the Social Darwinism in the preface!), which was proposed as a non-capitalistic monetary system.

I skimmed the anarchist FAQ link. Virtually none of that is anything I haven't heard before. I think a lot of the criticisms are purely semantic. I appreciate you linking that though. I will read into it further when I have more time.

[robbo203]

I don't like to argue about the plausibility of private defense, because it is a tough issue that hasn't been fleshed out enough by anarcho-capitalists (I am currently researching all the theories of private defense, from Gustave de Molinari to Bob Murphy). That is one of the reasons I came here, was to ask a question about how leftists tackled the defense question. Another reason I came here, was because after this semester is over, I am going to be reading Socialism by Ludwig von Mises (over the summer). I thought it would be fun to post along on here as I go through it, and see if you guys think that Mises' criticisms were legitimate.
.


They aren't. Mises model of socialism was that of a completely central planned economy - what is called society wide planning. Quite apart from this running into the informational problem that Hayek refers to, such a model conspicuously lacks the very thing that gets round and ultimately demolishes Mises' entire economic calculation argument - a feedback mechanism in the form of a self regulating system of stock control. Once you get your head around that the whole Misesian paradigm becomes frankly unsustainable


http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

[Lanky Wanker]

It seems that in a Capitalist Society everyone and everybody wants to be or become a Rich/Wealthy Person or a Rich/Wealthy Capitalist or a Rich/Wealthy Singer/Musician Rich/Wealthy Athlete or a Rich/Wealthy Actor/Actress this is why we have Hoarding of Wealth Usury/Interest Gambling and Crime Robbery/Burglary Thieves/Theft/Stealing Money from Banks/Individuals in Society and Greed my question is what would Socialism do about this problem we know that everyone can't be Rich/Wealthy in a Capitalist society but the Media tells us that everyone could if we tried I have this from both Republicans and Democrats that we could all become Millionaires and Billionaires if we all tried this mostly comes from Republicans which proves that they are a political party of the Rich/Wealthy and Capitalism they call getting Rich/Wealthy the American Dream should there be a cap on how much CEO's make I think as long as there are Rich/Wealthy Capitalists in society people will want to be on the Rich/Wealthy Capitalist's Income level we need Income Equality not Income Inequality ?


Sorry to not answer your question again, but it's very hard for me (and I'm sure others) to understand what you're asking if you don't let us know where a sentence ends and a new one starts.