Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Taking Socialism Seriously
Topic Started: Feb 23 2012, 09:36 PM (670 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Feb 23 2012, 11:39 PM
What is the relevance of socialism? No one advocates it anymore, except for maybe dying strongmen like Chavez. And, even in the countries that adopted socialism, there never was any equality of economics. It just replaced the economic heirarchy with the socialist government hierarchy.

Now, if you want to start a discussion of the pros and cons of social democracy that would be relevant.
Words. Look at definitions. They carry less emotional weight. Rivers has moved past the words. Discussion might happen!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

So Chris, how do you reconcile things that are essentially socialistic like the military, police, pubic schooling, public highways, sewage treatment, etc?

Seems to me that Socialism is essential for organized human society to function. Unless of course you are an anarchist.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 23 2012, 11:45 PM
Chris
Feb 23 2012, 11:19 PM
Still somewhat hung up on words, but getting past that, you acknowledge the description 1 thru 2b fairly accurate.

You change equal to equitable. Can you explain what you mean?

And (2b) seems to be the only contention between liberals and conservatives: "The conservative position on (2b) is that economics is not a zero sum game; wealth is not shared -- it is created and then voluntarily transferred."
"You change equal to equitable. Can you explain what you mean?"

Equal means equal. equitable means fairness.

Well perhaps you can lump all liberals and conservatives into those little boxes, but we certainly do differ on more than economic matters. I think wealth should be shared, because wealth could not be created without cooperation among the various entities. Management, labor, government all play a part in the success or failure of our system.
Yes, yes, yes, on the lumping, just consider it those who tend toward liberalsim/conservatism, tend towards certain definitions of 1 thru 2b, and there the only really significant difference seems to be 2b.

"Equal means equal. equitable means fairness."

Hmm, OK. Now we're back to yesterday's thread on fairness.

How do you define fairness such that it can be measured? Is that dependent on defining economics as zero-sum where wealth is fixed, or win-win where it is generated in each exchange? Perhaps you can think of an example and apply this fairness to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Feb 23 2012, 11:55 PM
Seems to me that Socialism is essential for organized human society to function. Unless of course you are an anarchist.
Aren't the libertarian views Chris advocates pretty much economic anarchy or Darwanism?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Feb 23 2012, 11:55 PM
So Chris, how do you reconcile things that are essentially socialistic like the military, police, pubic schooling, public highways, sewage treatment, etc?

Seems to me that Socialism is essential for organized human society to function. Unless of course you are an anarchist.
Well, the Constitution empowers government to promote the general welfare in enumerated ways.

"military, police, pubic schooling, public highways, sewage treatment, etc" all benefit the welfare of the people generally. Some are specifically enumerated as powers, but let ignore that for now.

All these actions by government do what? Well, they protect people's liberty, lives, and pursuits of happiness.

These are legitimate actions of government as declared in the Declaration. --Not familiar with these matters in Canada, Germany, etc, so I speak only of the US.

Socialism, or if you prefer, liberal actions toward fairness, as defined by 2b or Rivers, lie outside the scope of legitimate and legal government. They are aimed not at protecting pursuit of happiness, which differs per person, but providing happiness in the form of entitlements funded by redistributions of wealth from one group to another, and therefore do not promote the general welfare, but special interests. The government is not constitutionally, legally, given such power.

All that lies within a conservative minarchist view, not an anarcho-capitalist view.



"Seems to me that Socialism is essential for organized human society to function."

Socialism was invented in the mid 1800s. How did man ever survive for millions of years without it then?

Why is it essential?

How would you fund it?

By what means would your solve the economic calculation problem?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Feb 23 2012, 11:59 PM
telcoman
Feb 23 2012, 11:55 PM
Seems to me that Socialism is essential for organized human society to function. Unless of course you are an anarchist.
Aren't the libertarian views Chris advocates pretty much economic anarchy or Darwanism?
No, most libertarians are minarchists.


You keep raising the notion of economic Darwinism. Can you explain that scientistic notion?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 24 2012, 12:21 AM
You keep raising the notion of economic Darwinism. Can you explain that scientistic notion?
Quote:
 
Social Darwinism. Working in favor of continuing the laissez-faire approach was the concept of Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin's “Origin of the Species,” published in 1859, was a very controversial work. Its impact soon reached beyond the subject of biological evolution (which had put it at odds with many fundamentalist religious beliefs), and it moved into the social arena. The idea of survival of the fittest, an offshoot of Darwin's original thesis, was applied to the human environment. The idea was to let people wade in to the morass of life and either get stuck or crawl out under their own power. Survival of the fittest thus became the social (and international) byword. When combined with Adam Smith's idea of allowing the market to determine success and failure in the business world, it meant that businesses were expected to do whatever was necessary to survive. Only by defeating their competitors could they hope to prosper. Business practice became ruthless and cutthroat, and survival went not only to the fittest, but also to the wiliest, the most crooked, and the most corrupt organizations. Something had to be done.

Businesses quickly realized that in order to continue to operate in the laissez-faire environment that had persisted from revolutionary days they would have to fend off attempts by government to become more involved in an economic policies. Since businesses required political support, and since politics required healthy injections of money, business-political alliances were forged, which did not always serve the public well. Railroads, for example, offered free passage to Congressman and other government officials and their friends and even went so far as to give them complimentary shares of stock in building corporations for railroad expansion. When John D. Rockefeller was developing standard oil, it was said that he “did everything with the Pennsylvania legislature except refine it.” Practices of that sort, which would today violate Government ethics many times over, were considered a normal part of doing business during the Gilded Age.

In particular, people who depended on railways for business purposes were hurt by the fact that at least on the local level, where railroads had a monopoly on transportation of goods from producer to market. Shipping rates were uneven and often unfair, especially on lines where no competing systems were available. In addition, large corporations such as Carnegie Steel or Standard Oil were able to pressure rail companies not only to give them favorable rates and rebates (refunds under the table), but they also forced shippers to pay drawbacks—payments for goods shipped by the giant companies’ competitors. They pulled no punches in defeating competition through discriminatory rates. Farmers in particular were subject to the will of the railroad operators, especially when the roads owned and operated grain silos and other storage facilities, which farmers had no choice but to use.


http://academicamerican.com/recongildedage/topics/gildedagepolitics.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 24 2012, 12:20 AM
telcoman
Feb 23 2012, 11:55 PM
So Chris, how do you reconcile things that are essentially socialistic like the military, police, pubic schooling, public highways, sewage treatment, etc?

Seems to me that Socialism is essential for organized human society to function. Unless of course you are an anarchist.
Well, the Constitution empowers government to promote the general welfare in enumerated ways.

"military, police, pubic schooling, public highways, sewage treatment, etc" all benefit the welfare of the people generally. Some are specifically enumerated as powers, but let ignore that for now.

All these actions by government do what? Well, they protect people's liberty, lives, and pursuits of happiness.

These are legitimate actions of government as declared in the Declaration. --Not familiar with these matters in Canada, Germany, etc, so I speak only of the US.

Socialism, or if you prefer, liberal actions toward fairness, as defined by 2b or Rivers, lie outside the scope of legitimate and legal government. They are aimed not at protecting pursuit of happiness, which differs per person, but providing happiness in the form of entitlements funded by redistributions of wealth from one group to another, and therefore do not promote the general welfare, but special interests. The government is not constitutionally, legally, given such power.

All that lies within a conservative minarchist view, not an anarcho-capitalist view.



"Seems to me that Socialism is essential for organized human society to function."

Socialism was invented in the mid 1800s. How did man ever survive for millions of years without it then?

Why is it essential?

How would you fund it?

By what means would your solve the economic calculation problem?
"Socialism was invented in the mid 1800s. How did man ever survive for millions of years without it then?

They didn't survive very well, though, did they? When each individual has to provide for his own food, shelter, health care, etc. he doesn't have much time for anything else. Socializing those things has created opportunity for spare time to do other things like invent new products or build highways and bridges. When you say essential, I think that means we couldn't get along without it. We could, but who wants to? Fund it through taxation.
Explain the economic calculation problem, please.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Feb 24 2012, 12:26 AM
Chris
Feb 24 2012, 12:21 AM
You keep raising the notion of economic Darwinism. Can you explain that scientistic notion?
Quote:
 
Social Darwinism. Working in favor of continuing the laissez-faire approach was the concept of Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin's “Origin of the Species,” published in 1859, was a very controversial work. Its impact soon reached beyond the subject of biological evolution (which had put it at odds with many fundamentalist religious beliefs), and it moved into the social arena. The idea of survival of the fittest, an offshoot of Darwin's original thesis, was applied to the human environment. The idea was to let people wade in to the morass of life and either get stuck or crawl out under their own power. Survival of the fittest thus became the social (and international) byword. When combined with Adam Smith's idea of allowing the market to determine success and failure in the business world, it meant that businesses were expected to do whatever was necessary to survive. Only by defeating their competitors could they hope to prosper. Business practice became ruthless and cutthroat, and survival went not only to the fittest, but also to the wiliest, the most crooked, and the most corrupt organizations. Something had to be done.

Businesses quickly realized that in order to continue to operate in the laissez-faire environment that had persisted from revolutionary days they would have to fend off attempts by government to become more involved in an economic policies. Since businesses required political support, and since politics required healthy injections of money, business-political alliances were forged, which did not always serve the public well. Railroads, for example, offered free passage to Congressman and other government officials and their friends and even went so far as to give them complimentary shares of stock in building corporations for railroad expansion. When John D. Rockefeller was developing standard oil, it was said that he “did everything with the Pennsylvania legislature except refine it.” Practices of that sort, which would today violate Government ethics many times over, were considered a normal part of doing business during the Gilded Age.

In particular, people who depended on railways for business purposes were hurt by the fact that at least on the local level, where railroads had a monopoly on transportation of goods from producer to market. Shipping rates were uneven and often unfair, especially on lines where no competing systems were available. In addition, large corporations such as Carnegie Steel or Standard Oil were able to pressure rail companies not only to give them favorable rates and rebates (refunds under the table), but they also forced shippers to pay drawbacks—payments for goods shipped by the giant companies’ competitors. They pulled no punches in defeating competition through discriminatory rates. Farmers in particular were subject to the will of the railroad operators, especially when the roads owned and operated grain silos and other storage facilities, which farmers had no choice but to use.


http://academicamerican.com/recongildedage/topics/gildedagepolitics.html
Yep, scientism--misapplication of science to social phenomena, and bad science at that. I don't subscribe to that, and don't know anyone who does. Only ones I see bringing it up all the time is liberals. It's like talking to a Creationist who misunderstands evolution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"They didn't survive very well, though, did they?"

Right, they wee caught in the Malthusian Trap, until industrialization, capitalism, science, technology etc broke us out.

From A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, Gregory Clarkson, backed by tons and tons of data, and this applies generally not just to income in particular but lifestyle in general:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis