@ Libertarian Student
Maybe i didn’t articulate very well. I’m saying the calculation problem isn’t a problem for communist governments because you can really find out what people want and need. Everyone needs food and water so a communist government can provide that without running into the calculation problem.
In my view, communism and socialism are the same things anyways.
@ Liberty Student
It might be true taht you need to be self interested, but you don’t need to be totally selfish. This is why communism takes care of everyone because it realized that everyone has self interest.
Without self interest you can’t justify providing anything for any person.
Communism supports EVERYONEs self interest instead of just rich people’s like in a free market.
Right, but you can’t magically make the resources appear to provide for those needs. Not to mention, you’re assuming people only need food and water.
Nope.
If something works in theory, then by definition it works in practice. If a theory doesn’t work in practice, then it’s not a good theory!
Communism doesn’t work in theory, therefore it doesn’t work in practice.
The free market supports everyone’s self interest by the right to own your own property and to keep the fruits of your own labour. You have your statement backwards. Communism only supports the group interest, which is ultimately the interest of the leaders, not the interest of every individual.
As long as the selfishness is peaceful and voluntary, I don’t see any issue with it.
@ Liberty Student
I’m not imagining that resource appear out of nowhere. If a capitalist can produce food and water so can a communist government. It’s called a water pump/plow.
I used food and water as obvious examples as to why the calculation problem doesn’t always apply. It might be harder to determine how many t-shirts to produce but it is not impossible for a communist government to approximate this number better than a free market.
And btw, I am trying to be fair and civil in this forum. By saying “maybe i didnt articulate well enough” I’m correcting you but assuming it’s my fault, instead of being a douchebag and just saying you’re wrong.
Of course it can exist, just look at all the hip rich white trust fund kids living in communes. Other than that, this poster scares the shit out of me, he must be from California or NYC. These people are hopeless.
@ Liberty Student
Everyone’s self interest extends infinitely though, and people’s means are not infinite. Therefore, the question is how to distribute goods and services, and the answer is FAIRLY. Just because you are born into a rich family does not mean you should be a millionaire at age 1.
@ Dondolee
heeh. Love it.
I think we agree that things should be distributed fairly, but we have different ideas of what is fair. I believe it is fair that anyone who works or produces be able to keep the fruit of their labor, while you believe that no one should have more of an advantage in the garnering of goods than others. If you have not read it, I recommend Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut as a look at the logical end of your stance on equality.
lol, scarcity.
lol, coerced egalitarianism (aka redistribution of wealth) via the state = not fair at all.
Put in some oligarchies, lobbyists, idiot voters, & I think there’s going to more than one definition of fair floating around in the black hole that is politics.
Define fair & stop leaving it undefined to your argumentative advantage.
It’s a good thing we’re all conscious human beings before we are born so we can object to inheriting millions of dollars. It’s also a wonderful thing that cells in the womb have a concept of money, too.
Why is your goal the “fair” distribution of resources? Shouldn’t your goal be the the improvement of the health and material well-being of the poor?
Are the poor better off now than they were in 1960? If so, why? If not, why not?
Ok, you’ve had your fun trolling. Now it’s time to be serious or GTFO.
You know I wouldn’t even be sure its trolling because that is what many proponents of socialism/communism believe ought to be reality. Communism definitely does achive equality for all- unfortunately everyone is equally poor.
It doesn’t really matter what his exact definition of fairness is. We all agree that it is unfair for one person to be born into massive amounts of wealth. If fairness is a vague concept it just means that the “fair” choice is not always obvious. You can argue that “red” is a vague concept if you want, and it is if you want to get technical, but that doesn’t stop us from talking about red things.
Also, yes fair is not the whole focus, but niether is material wealth. If it is all concentrated in the hands of a few people, that society is not as successful as one that achieves a more equal distribution.
It’s the fact of someone playing that game here–on this board–which makes it trolling.
Yeah the opening post does look like trolling… but some of his/her later responses are a little less numbskull-ish.
The only way it’d be unfair is if the massive amounts of wealth he inherited was gained through extortion or something like that. If I work hard as a farmhand to earn money and give my children the best clothes, foods, and education that I can afford- who am I being unfair to? At what point is it considered “massive amounts of wealth?”
Well what do you count’ as extortion… and why is cette definition of extortion impossible in the free market 
Also, we usually take it as an assumption that it is okay for a father to give his children things. But speaking in an objective sense, his children aren’t really different from other children. So him giving tons of his resources to children ABC and not to children XYZ is unfair. What you’re hitting at is that sometimes its culturally permissible to be unfair. This does not mean that fairness is a flawed political value.
Someone should make a T-Shirt out of that.