Completely agree.
It’s not a stretch at all. Affluence is caused by exchange and specialization, i.e. capitalism. Countries are poor because they attempted socialism more than rich countries. Countries are rich because they attempted socialism less than poor countries. In the 21st century absolute poverty would not exist if it wasn’t for the free lunch schemes of the left. It’s that simple.
I get the sentiment, and there is some truth to it, no doubt. Not the least of which is giving up the revolutionary principle for ill-fated reforms. But either way, it is still a huge jump to say “all poverty” in the western world is because there is welfare and a minimum wage. That’s quite a ludicrous assertion.
It’s not a stretch at all. Affluence is caused by exchange and specialization, i.e. capitalism. Countries are poor because they attempted socialism more than rich countries. Countries are rich because they attempted socialism less than poor countries. In the 21st century absolute poverty would not exist if it wasn’t for the free lunch schemes of the left. It’s that simple.
You could probably leave out the “ie capitalism” part becuase it is inconsequential (and imo wrong, but we won’t get into that here).
Exactly what form of socialism does Brazil practice? Bangladesh? Samoa? Saudi Arabia?
More ridicuous unfounded assertions based merely on their theory from the ancap crowd…
I think the term should be collectivism. Socialism is a form of collectivism.
I think that’s fair to say, but not all forms of collectiivism are socialism either. I would say all socialism is collectivist (as far as I know, even Proudhoun was more of a collective individualist) some interventionist. But in no way can you say all collectivism and interventionism is socialism.
I would prefer if we could get rid of these labels all together. You could call me a wiggleyblag for all I care. It’s really just a complication of language (and off topic, what I think holds us back from “understanding” quantum dynamics) that we even try to identify everything independant of the dynamic systems surrounding it.
I hold to the principle that worker/people power (democracy) is the ethically valid way of approaching things. Simple as that. Call it what you want.
Democracy is mob rule. It has nothing to do with ethics.
Fixed
Democracy is mob rule. It has nothing to do with ethics.
If you want to call mob rule democracy, I can’t stop you. It’s not. But whatever. Simply put democracy is the many various forms that people exercise power over the legal and poltiical structure. Demos (people) kratos (power).
Like I said, call it what you want. Call it rankrankflankocracy. Protecting the individual (all individuals) from tyranny is the most ethically valid way of approaching things, in my humble opinion; that includes from the tyranny of the majority as much as the tyranny of the minority/individual.
Of course- protecting all peoples from tyranny is quite honorable. I just don’t see how democracy promotes that when majority rule by definition forces its decisions on the minority.
Who else would have power besides the people?
See, the word many of us would use is market. Democracy has a very specific connotation, not the very generalized use (which is vague at best) you are offering. The market is people interacting in a voluntary manner. This protects all. Politics necessarily must have winners and losers because conflicts are managed by force, majority or both.
Well that’s why I am a libertarian. Because I know that politics doesn’t lead to protecting every individual. Politics is a zero sum game. The market can be a positive sum game. I am looking for positive sum outcomes.
Who else would have power besides the people?
See, the word many of us would use is market. Democracy has a very specific connotation, not the very generalized use (which is vague at best) you are offering. The market is people interacting in a voluntary manner. This protects all. Politics necessarily must have winners and losers because conflicts are managed by force, majority or both
Small minorities of people, of course.
I would agree with that to an extent. But then you get into the depths of private property and the protection of an individual monopoly over resources, which is very undemocratic.
Well that’s why I am a libertarian. Because I know that politics doesn’t lead to protecting every individual. Politics is a zero sum game. The market can be a positive sum game. I am looking for positive sum outcomes
Ya, but as of right now, possibly indefinitely, there will be politics with very real consequences on people’s lives.
Why not individuals?
Indeed it is undemocratic which is precisely why I like it. The notion of an individual monopoly over resources is a boogeyman in my opinion. No offense, but ideas like that communicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the incentives behind ownership.
That doesn’t change the nature of what politics is whether it is the limitations or consequences of politics.
Sorry to nitpick, LS, but I think it’s actually a negative sum game. Time, administration costs, transaction costs, etc… 
Thanks Joe, you are correct. I was trying to keep it very simple.
Indeed it is undemocratic which is precisely why I like it. The notion of an individual monopoly over resources is a boogeyman in my opinion. No offense, but ideas like that communicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the incentives behind ownership.
I understand the supposed motives quite well. That doesn’t change the nature of private ownership. Don’t get me wrong, it was good we eliminated the family based title to all/most land. Now we just need, imo, to eliminate the individual based title.
That doesn’t change the nature of what politics is whether it is the limitations or consequences of politics.
i Guess I just root for the underdog.
^Epicurus, as for democracy, how is it not forcefull? Imagine if you will that we had the right not choose the laws directly and not just elect “representatives”. Now imagine if the majority of the population decided to ban marijuana (or just keep it illegal), is that not force? How is that libertarian?
We are just applying this to the whole, while you only see the ‘positive’ aspect of democracy, aka at least it’s not fascism.
Democracy is one step forward in the direction of freedom (gives the choice to many people instead of just a few), but then takes another step back (still doesn’t give choice to everyone).
Epicurus,
It’s Laotzu. I’ve moved away from my hedonistic ways.
how is it not forcefull? Imagine if you will that we had the right not choose the laws directly and not just elect “representatives”. Now imagine if the majority of the population decided to ban marijuana (or just keep it illegal), is that not force? How is that libertarian?
Doing drugs exercises no power over another individual. There is nothing democratic about prohibition. That has more to do with republicanism with all its senatorial rules and general statism.
We are just applying this to the whole, while you only see the ‘positive’ aspect of democracy, aka at least it’s not fascism.
Democracy is one step forward in the direction of freedom (gives the choice to many people instead of just a few), but then takes another step back (still doesn’t give choice to everyone)
But yet you would place economic power squarely in the hands of a small minority…
Liberal democracy is good and all, but that’s not what I would advocate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8385069.stm
The swiss ban on minarets shows exactly how effective the implementation of democracy is at preventing the majority from attempting to impose their every whim on individual freedom. (Not very).
You’re so cool.
You’re so cool.
I can’t help but say thank you, my good man.