Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

Exactly. It should not. The only objective of the state is guarding individual freedom.

Well, if the best for society is guarding individual freedom, then you would agree that the state should do what is best for society.

But what I fail to understand is how individual freedom is marred by taxation and government spending.

In order to pay for a military, something typically seen as necessary for guarding individual freedom for people within a given nation, the government must tax and spend. But you say this is socialism.

How can a government operate without taking money from some people and investing those funds in the greater good of society? How could a government maintain a police force, for example?

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

And even if the state should attempt to do what's best for society, that does not imply that the state can just
take the money of some, that it deems not having the right to their own money.

Are you saying that taxation is, in effect, an activity by which the state deprives people the right to "own their own money"?

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

And I defined socialism. I did not express what the state shouldn't attempt.

You argue that socialism is an inappropriate model for a state, and define socialism. By defining socialism, and making it clear that you think a state should not employ socialism, you express to some extent what a state should not do.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

When has capitalism succeeded?it struggles from one disaster to the next.

What disasters? Western capitalism, while far from perfect, has a sterling track record when compared to every other political economy tried.

When any system has greed as a necessity for its survival it can never be right for the majority.

Greed is not necessary to support capitalism or a free market. Greed will be present, however, in any system.

I cant see how you can say that its ok for the rich to use their power for higher wages but not allow the poor not to use their power.

Who has proposed such a thing? I could only imagine maybe certain fascists (the real ideology, not the blanket pejorative term) thinking something like this.

How do you differentiate between a shop worker and a plumber or dentist and a doctor.If society can say one person is worth more than another ,ill ask how.Why is it a professor in university gets so much less than a news reader?

You don't get it. Society doesn't determine that one person is worth more or less than another, it determines whether their product or service is worth more or less. I have already explained this multiple times, but the basic moral principle upon which market systems are founded is that one must provide satisfaction to others in order to achieve ones own satisfaction.

---------- Post added at 09:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Well, if the best for society is guarding individual freedom, then you would agree that the state should do what is best for society.

But what I fail to understand is how individual freedom is marred by taxation and government spending.

In order to pay for a military, something typically seen as necessary for guarding individual freedom for people within a given nation, the government must tax and spend. But you say this is socialism.

How can a government operate without taking money from some people and investing those funds in the greater good of society? How could a government maintain a police force, for example?

Not really answering for myself here, but there are a great many who believe basic property protection by the government to be the proper foundation of capitalism and not a socialistic measure.

I can understand why people think we have a need for police, although I think that sort of thing is best handled by insurance companies and private arbitration. The question I have, though, is if a nation like the US or like the UK did not have a standing army, or at least had a small collection of private police forces, would it have to worry about being attacked? What benefit could be garnered by attacking the US or the UK? After all, I can say with relative certainty that the primary need for a US military is caused by the US military.

[xris]

WESTERN capitalism has no future it is slowly destroying the planet with its constant x amount of growth, year in and year out.It is never constant no matter how governments try to stabilise their economies, it is always boom or bust.It struggles from one depression to the next Utopian existence.
Greed is a necessity, not a requirement a necessity.Look at other cultures who have existed for thousands of years in harmony, as soon as western economy arrives the few get rich and the harmony turns to gluttony.
The poor have only the power of good democracy and if they choose socialism my friend calls them evil..capitalism never serves the poor only uses them.Look at the sweat shops of Asia for the American denim dream.
Why dont you answer my questions instead of ranting we might just get somewhere.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Well, if the best for society is guarding individual freedom, then you would agree that the state should do what is best for society.

(...)

In order to pay for a military, something typically seen as necessary for guarding individual freedom for people within a given nation, the government must tax and spend. But you say this is socialism.

How can a government operate without taking money from some people and investing those funds in the greater good of society? How could a government maintain a police force, for example?

(...)

You argue that socialism is an inappropriate model for a state, and define socialism. By defining socialism, and making it clear that you think a state should not employ socialism, you express to some extent what a state should not do.

You do agree that socialism is a matter of degree. We have total anarchism on the one extreme - no government - and collectivism at the other - a giant welfare nanny state.
If I make a case against the death penalty, I don't have to be against persecuting all crime. It's not all or nothing. In the same way, I'm not against military, police or a fire department, and other limited aspects that could be seen as socialism. I want to limit the government, not abolish it. And I don't think the negatives of one extreme are a good argument for the other extreme, when the question is finding the right middle ground.
The state has the objective to guard individual freedom, and thereby also to make society better. That is the social contract we employ the government for. The obbjective is maximising individual freedom. To have no government al all would just result in lawlessness.
I admit that is speculation, maybe we would be better of with anarchism, I don't think so. The most unscrupulous warlord would just take the whole thing over. I don't see a lot of individual freedom in that scenario.
I think there is a clear distinction between the government offering security, order and equality of opportunity, and taking one persons money and giving it to another person for the only reason that the first person is the minority and cant do anything about it.
I also think publicly paid higher education, like we see it in europe, is a good idea. That benefits equality of opportunity, I reject attempting equality of outcome.
And I think all that can be done with a flat tax rate. Or even the FairTax.
As I calculate it, a flat tax would eliminate the loop holes for the rich. (Please correct me Mr. Power.)

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

But what I fail to understand is how individual freedom is marred by taxation and government spending.

Money flowing through the government means that it has power. The more the government does, the more money it takes and redistributes, the more objectives it tries to fulfil, the more power it has.

Note that a strong military is something that most socialists reject.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Are you saying that taxation is, in effect, an activity by which the state deprives people the right to "own their own money"?

Yes, taking someones money by force is depriving them to own their own money.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I can understand why people think we have a need for police, although I think that sort of thing is best handled by insurance companies and private arbitration. The question I have, though, is if a nation like the US or like the UK did not have a standing army, or at least had a small collection of private police forces, would it have to worry about being attacked? What benefit could be garnered by attacking the US or the UK? After all, I can say with relative certainty that the primary need for a US military is caused by the US military.

I believe that without a military we would be quickly attacked, and the reason that that european nations can afford to barely have any military, because they - and the enemies - know that the US would step in.

Adjusted for purchasing power parity, the US spends as much on military as the rest of the world combined. That is including the bad guys. Wiki
Of course all those nations don't have no military. It's that they don't have to have one to actually defend themselves,
because the US would step in when attacked, and they know that.
To not repeat WW-I and WW-II, after WW-II the notion was to organise the western world in a way, that would make another european arms race unlikely.
So european nations should just not have enough military, for that to be an issue again.
Instead, the US would pledge to watch over them, so the european nations wouldn't have to have much military themselves.
Canada could conveniently join in, such as places like Australia and Japan.
Some say that money not spent on military was spent on the socialist welfare states, we see in europe today.
It's an overall explanation that makes sense to me, if you have a good argument against it, go ahead.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

xris, you aren't asking questions, at least questions that aren't rhetorical. You are also not continuing discussion by responding to my posts, at least in any way that has not been simple gainsaying. I have repeatedly gone through your posts, trimmed of the chaff and offered arguments countering your incorrect points and in the one instance possible, answering your questions. A brief perusal of this thread would show that I am trying to engage in legitimate discussion, and that you apparently went to the MJA School of Debate.

I am under the persuasion that if discussion does not at least challenge my beliefs or those of my counterpart, then we have little need for discussion, therefore I am not inclined to continue along this path.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I am under the persuasion that if discussion does not at least challenge my beliefs or those of my counterpart, then we have little need for discussion, therefore I am not inclined to continue along this path.

Since you seem knowledgeable on the topic, would you be willing to clear up some of my misconceptions?
Let's start talking about externalities.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...html#post58808

[xris]

Military is what most socialist reject?I served in HMS army and ive never heard such nonsense.The more i hear the more i realise how much propaganda has been absorbed by certain American folk.I bet you don't even realise that a lot of socialists are royalists as well, we may be in the minority but we exist.His royal highness the young prince of Wales wanted to join the labour party till an advisor told him it was unconstitutional.Its 2009...

---------- Post added at 09:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

xris, you aren't asking questions, at least questions that aren't rhetorical. You are also not continuing discussion by responding to my posts, at least in any way that has not been simple gainsaying. I have repeatedly gone through your posts, trimmed of the chaff and offered arguments countering your incorrect points and in the one instance possible, answering your questions. A brief perusal of this thread would show that I am trying to engage in legitimate discussion, and that you apparently went to the MJA School of Debate.

I am under the persuasion that if discussion does not at least challenge my beliefs or those of my counterpart, then we have little need for discussion, therefore I am not inclined to continue along this path.

Suit yourself you are obviously at and end of being open minded about any subject.Im so sorry i dont live up to your high ideals on debate. The royal we is enough to tell me you have not sufficient argument to continue and abuse is your only recourse.

[EmperorNero]

xris, please don't be offended, stay constructive, how would your ideal society look politically?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

Since you seem knowledgeable on the topic, would you be willing to clear up some of my misconceptions?
Let's start talking about externalities.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...html#post58808

Ok, this can actually be a pretty simple explanation, I think.

The basic benefit of a market economy is in cost accounting.

The market, when efficient, operates on a pricing mechanism that leads to the most efficient use of resources and the least waste. Simply, when some good begins to be overconsumed or overproduced in relation to all other goods, the cost of production of this good will rise in relation to the selling price, and this will provide incentive to producers to shift production to some other good with more utility.

Suppose we have an economy consisting of shoes and hats. These basically use the same materials and appeal to the same consumer base. As the production of shoes increases the price of shoes will decrease, and the production of hats will suffer causing their price to increase. This leads to greater production of hats and a lessened production of shoes. Because of this, the market always approximates a state called the Pareto Optimum, where one cannot achieve more value without being detrimental to the other. Basically, they achieve the highest value as a combination, and the resources used within their production cannot be allocated in any better way in relation to the overall satisfaction of consumer desires.

This, again, is only possible within a market system because the market system allows for accurate accounting of the costs of production. Under any controlled economy, we cannot know whether we are foregoing some production with greater utility to society because society cannot apply values to the production through prices.

What an externality does, however, is cause the cost of any production or transaction to be shifted from the parties of involved onto some other party. This shifts clearing prices away from the most efficient state of resource consumption, and basically causes wasteful overproduction of one of the goods.

To use our example from before, suppose our hatters begin disposing their mercury in the local lake. This renders the fish impossible to eat, and everyone must bear increased cost on food. This should be accounted as a cost on the production of hats, but because it is shared by all, hat producers and wearers or not, it is not appropriately accounted as such. This leads to an overproduction of hats, mainly that the resource distribution has now become detrimental to the economy as a whole.

A good example today is in the insurance of deposits at banks. Due to the riskiness of bank lending and the near failure of many, deposit insurance has at least tripled in cost, creating a burden upon sound financial institutions through no act of their own.

Now, I recognize the validity of the economic principle. My question, however, is just how does an organization that necessarily controls the economy and cannot derive any information from the economy, in other words cannot account for costs, fix a problem that is caused by a failure in cost accounting.

Externalities may exist, but they are exascerbated by government and almost always solved by free collective action by those affected.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

You do agree that socialism is a matter of degree. We have total anarchism on the one extreme - no government - and collectivism at the other - a giant welfare nanny state.
If I make a case against the death penalty, I don't have to be against persecuting all crime. It's not all or nothing. In the same way, I'm not against military, police or a fire department, and other limited aspects that could be seen as socialism. I want to limit the government, not abolish it. And I don't think the negatives of one extreme are a good argument for the other extreme, when the question is finding the right middle ground.
The state has the objective to guard individual freedom, and thereby also to make society better. That is the social contract we employ the government for. The obbjective is maximising individual freedom. To have no government al all would just result in lawlessness.
I admit that is speculation, maybe we would be better of with anarchism, I don't think so. The most unscrupulous warlord would just take the whole thing over. I don't see a lot of individual freedom in that scenario.
I think there is a clear distinction between the government offering security, order and equality of opportunity, and taking one persons money and giving it to another person for the only reason that the first person is the minority and cant do anything about it.
I also think publicly paid higher education, like we see it in europe, is a good idea. That benefits equality of opportunity, I reject attempting equality of outcome.
And I think all that can be done with a flat tax rate. Or even the FairTax.
As I calculate it, a flat tax would eliminate the loop holes for the rich. (Please correct me Mr. Power.)

So you are not completely against socialism (socialism as you defined it earlier), and you do think that the government should tax in order to do what is best for society, like maintain a police force and higher education.

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

Note that a strong military is something that most socialists reject.

Where do you draw this generalization from?

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

Yes, taking someones money by force is depriving them to own their own money.

You mention the social contract: is there no room in the social contract for the government to tax citizens for the good of society?