are you a socialist
I think capitalism is the most efficient means of producing goods and services. I also think direct democracy is the most efficient means of ensuring it produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
I’m not saying Ron Paul is a pinko, I’m saying that this is a specific example of how pinkos and ]whatever color libertarians are] can cooperate to achieve a mutually desirable goal.
There’s no “mutually desirable goal” here. Ron Paul wants to reduce the tax burden, period. Bernie Saunders wants to incentivize worker co-ops. The fact that this bill is amenable to both is in no way indicative of the feasibility of any kind of “coalition.”
First of all you can’t really have a debate without defining terms. People who try to avoid defining something are usually trying hide the negative aspects of their argument. Instead what ends up happening is that the other person in question ends up projecting meaning into what is left unexplained which is usually something positive and opposite of the reality. In the same way some politicians use the word “change” without defining what that “change” is. There are clear definitions to the word socialism and it is not just “psychopaths” who define it the same way. Socialism is state control of means of production. It is not cooperation for a higher goal. It is force used by government to achieve the government’s goal. Cooperation is voluntary and if you have government forcing it then it is no longer cooperation.
In a free society there is cooperation. There is nothing stopping someone from creating a neighborhood cooperative. Where everyone shares the fruits of their labor. Unlike socialism you can’t force people into this cooperative. This isn’t even the only form of cooperation possible. Businesses in themselves are forms of cooperation. So are charities and other forms of voluntary groups working towards mutual benefit and not the government’s benefit. The difference is that socialism is forced and a free market is voluntary.
What you seem to think is that cooperation should be forced through a bill or law by force. It can be done voluntarily wherever you want whenever you want as long as you have people that also want to work with you. The thing with Socialist is that they never try to do this voluntarily using their own resources and ideas to convince others to join them. They always want the government to force people to do what they will. That is forced labor not cooperation.
Democracy is mob rule and if your goal is cooperation then all you will get is divisiveness and corruption. With democracy all you end up getting is one half of people trying to screw the other in order to benefit themselves using the force of government. The half that benefits does not care about what happens to the other. So not only do you get devisiveness but you start fermenting resentment which sometimes turns into violence or corruption of power with bribes.
If welfare payments were eliminated, the people would have their money back and would be able to spend it how they wished. This could employ the people that were previously on welfare, turning what once was a liability into a an asset that actually produces instead of just consuming. While employed those former welfare recipients could actually be learning skills that would allow them to advance in their companies and eventually earn more money. Not to mention the benefits of teaching them self discipline. Those still unemployed (all unemployment is voluntary in a free market) could go to charities.
Lets for just a second look at the efficiency of the US welfare system. In 2005 taxpayers paid $400 billion into the welfare system and there were 2.2 million recipients. Each welfare recipient should have received $200,000 in benefits, however the real amount of benefits they receive is only about $20,000 (less in most cases). That means only 10% of welfare spending actually went to welfare recipients. Thats an overhead cost of 90%. The average charity’s overhead is 15%. That means if all that money was donated via private charity would could have helped 8.5x the amount of people.
Heres a video by JacobSpinney on the subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTDKt_k9kQ .
us govt spending http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php?year=2005
welfare recipients http://www.govspot.com/know/welfare.htm
charity overhead http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html
So eliminating welfare wouldn’t by itself eliminate poverty. You would need to repeal pro union legislation and the minimum wage as well as have a sound currency before poverty could be eliminated in any real sense.
So eliminating welfare wouldn’t by itself eliminate poverty. You would need to repeal pro union legislation and the minimum wage as well as have a sound currency before poverty could be eliminated in any real sense.
I’d be interested if you could cite an example of this theory in action.
Socialism is state control of means of production
Well, and some people say capitalism is cartels of corporations backed by central banks. But then what do we learn by defining terms like this?
Here’s why many socialists support heavy government regulation of the marketplace;
It’s because many corporations are negative-externality producing machines.
The only price signals such entities are highly sensitive to are;
-
consumer demand
-
stock performance
If the site of production is different from the target market for consumption, this provides a built in incentive to dump dangerous pollution in the local stream or to minimize safety measures to cut costs, for example. Consumer boycotts can sometimes have an effect, but rarely due to complexity and lack of information. Producing negative externalities almost always causes stock prices to increase, not decrease. You might say that companies have to treat workers well in order to retain them, but this is only true in times of a labor shortage or for workers who have a scarce skill set.
Many socialists then support heavy government regulation of the economy as a highly imperfect means to address these externalities. A much better solution, and the solution some socialists who aren’t government employees support, is to ADD price signals to the economy, by making corporations additionally accountable to;
- the people who constitute them
The theory is that OSHA, the EPA, even most of the courts and police would be superfluous if number three were included into the decision making processes of corporations, because employees would set their own levels of risk for themselves and their communities, rather than having them imposed externally or from above.
If you ask me, what the theories of Mises and Hayek point to is that economic efficiency is directly proportionate to the abundance of price signals in the economy and the economy’s responsiveness to them. To limit price signals only to bank-money has one thing in common with the policy of limiting price signals only to the statistics available to a politburo; they’re both less-than optimal limits to price signals which invite ‘unintended consequences,’ which in turn invite a cycle of external intervention to fix perceived problems. I don’t think much of any government is needed at all; I think business can become self-regulating simply by expanding the price signals it responds to.
i’m pretty sure you can’t have direct democratic control over the economy AND private property and free exchange. i’m less sure about what price signals have to do with any of what you’re talking about, though.
it would seem to me that what you’re advocating is–contra your thread title–not at all compatible with capitalism as it is understood by most of the people posting here. perhaps i’m missing something?
“Well, and some people say capitalism is cartels of corporations backed by central banks. But then what do we learn by defining terms like this?”
Those people would just be ignorant. They only know of A and B and completely ignore option C. There is a very specific term for that definition and it is called corporatism. I don’t know what you have against it because that is exactly what you are proposing and what we currently live under in the United States. We have cartels between business and government. This is the result of regulation. Banks and other institutions who lobby for more regulations because they know they are big enough to take the hit. They do it because it will keep out new competition. They then try convincing politicians that they are too big to fail because they are the only guys in town. These regulations just present more hurdles to jump through and bigger barriers to entry for starting businesses.
Companies don’t need to self regulate. It is in their best interest to be efficient. The less energy it takes to produce something the more they earn and as the price of energy increases with demand the more they will seek out more efficient means of production. As for pollution there are still actions to be taken. You can even see them now with current events with the BP oil spill. If a company by accident or intentionally pollutes their neighbors land they will be sued for damages. That cuts into profits.
As long as you have government which is force people will find ways to use it to their advantage. That is why government is inherently corrupt. With government someone is always benefiting at the cost of another. With free market capitalism both parties always benefit.
It is in their best interest to be efficient.
It is in their best interest to be efficient FOR THEMSELVES. A hog farm can be very efficient, but that efficiency in no way benefits the hogs. Businesses out of control on a free market can treat their workers, communities, even consumers just like those hogs; simply means to an end, “human resources” if you will.
The only way to prevent that is DEMOCRATIC input in some form, so that businesses don’t end up maiming people for a quick buck. There really is a market for stolen human organs and the only way to stop it is collectivst social action.
The only way to prevent that is DEMOCRATIC input in some form, so that businesses don’t end up maiming people for a quick buck. There really is a >>market for stolen human organs and the only way to stop it is collectivst social action.
poor diagnosis leads you to poor solution. the problem of ‘stolen human organs’ is down to the monopolization of defence and justice services.
Collectivist social action is the SOURCE of stolen organs as well as many human rights violations. This is seen throughout history where the majority commit atrocities in the name of the greater good. Eugenics anyone? China has special vehicles designed specifically to efficiently kill dissidents and harvest their organs.
The greater good philosophy is responsible for more death in the world than any other philosophy. It is a callous philosophy that ignores individual rights in favor of the many. Justification for genocide against people that are considered blights on society. Based on the whims of a bureaucrat.
You say businesses maim people like it is some kind widespread epidemic. Not one business has done as much proportional damage to people then the government. How many people have been killed, maimed imprisoned due to government action. Businesses can’t steal, maim, kill. imprison, or declare(war doesn’t even need to be declared anymore) war without repercussions if any. Governments do that everyday and many times with no consequence.
Get a little perspective and look at where real evil is perpetrated.
How come thread ratings are only in positive values of stars?