[humanityresurrected]

Sure everyone should have a car as a privilege. As far as pants, as Barry states I'm still not satisfied. http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz ... hoice.html
You can get a transcript if you would like one.

As far as the rest goes, whom knows?
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz ... isdom.html
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=138821

[Demosthenes]

Demostroll are you just too narrow minded to debate with anyone who disagrees with you?

Nope, just him... and its not narrow mindedness, its prior knowledge of what will be posted, how my counterpoints will be ignored, and since I've done that 1000 times on this site already, I have nothing to prove to anyone, least of all a n00b.

Could honestly respect a socialist that actually lived by their ideals like this. I'd still think he was very confused, but at least I could respect the guy. Have yet to meet one though.

Really? You've never met anyone who could afford an expensive car but bought something more practical? That doesn't seem realistic.

I'd ask you to confirm that you don't drive, but you're obviously a hypocrite considering you've bought a computer and are paying for internet whilst there are people in the world that don't have these things.

Why does owning a computer and paying for internet mean a person isn't a good socialist..? (even though this is the Anarchist section, and the OP is about doing away with money? )

The socialist schtick seems to be to create abstract ideals that can be applied to everyone else.

The Capitialist apologist schtick seems to be about inventing strawmen that save Capitalism from having to face itself.

Next you'll be telling us how Utopian Socialist are because some people are always bad and dishonest.

But by all means, feel free to answer the questions I've asked you.

[Rothbardian]

Really? You've never met anyone who could afford an expensive car but bought something more practical? That doesn't seem realistic.

Of course I do. But I've never met a socialist that actually lived by their 'those with less have a right to the property of those with more' ideal that they claim to hold dear.

That doesn't mean there aren't some out there. There may be some people out there making six figures or more and living on the street because they actually believe the principles they claim. I will just never meet one of those non-hypocrite-socialist types on the internet.

[Demosthenes]

Of course I do. But I've never met a socialist that actually lived by their 'those with less have a right to the property of those with more' ideal that they claim to hold dear.

Isn't this just a strawman though? I mean... by this logic all those on the internet who claim to support Capitalism are also equally full of shit if they don't immediately buy a factory and begin producing widgets.

This seems like the same 'ole, same 'ole silly propaganda the mainstream or elements of the right always try to use to scare people away from leftist solutions. "Oh, they just want to take your shit so they don't have to work".

I can't speak for lumpen, but I don't know of any socialists that think they are entitled to a share of anyone else's personal property.

Perhaps you don't understand private versus personal property? It doesn't seem like you do by the way you worded that... bit of fluff.

There may be some people out there making six figures or more and living on the street because they actually believe the principles they claim. I will just never meet one of those non-hypocrite-socialist types on the internet.

So, let me see if I understand you. If you make six figures in the liberal market economy you were born into you aren't a real socialist unless you... what? Piss it away? Burn it? What about survival? Are you allowed to buy food and be a socialist and retain political credibility according to you... or? Where is the line drawn?

I mean, for most people internet is cheap enough. Somewhere between $20 and $80 a month with a computer to access it coming in anywhere between about $200 and well over $3000 for kick ass rigs. What spending level for these items retains e-cred, exactly?

I'd just like to know for my own purposes.

[Ambroise]

With regards to the conversation dealing with socialists using the Internet, although it has not been explicitly stated, I suspect the deeper and implicit line of thought that motives such strawmen is the reasoning that it is somehow contradictory for socialists to have money or wealth, or something of that sort. So I will just address that.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being wealthy in a capitalist society and simultaneously holding socialist views. To suggest that there is a contradiction is so silly that it can be attacked on a number of grounds. Socialists are in favour of structurally sublimating capitalism into socialism, not merely just destroying it or erasing it from history, or targeting individuals within it, or promoting some sort of alternate lifestyle. Socialism is about systemic change. Furthermore, capitalism is a comprehensive economic system, and as such, it is not merely reducible to a lifestyle or certain consumer goods or wealth itself (after all wealth and money have existed long before capitalism). It should also be stressed that the immense gains made under capitalism have been made on the backs of the toiling masses and the tremendous sacrifices that they have made; therefore, there is absolutely no contradiction or overreach at all for socialists and indeed the working class to claim inheritance to the gains made under capitalism - which would not have been possible without the working class. For the working class to enjoy the gains made under capitalism is only for them to claim their birthright. There is also no contradiction whatsoever in working within a system while opposing or striving to change it and using the means that are available within that framework; oftentimes it is the only way to get things done. The only alternative to working within capitalist society to change it is to go live in the woods or something - which is ridiculous and a complete surrender. And finally, if it is contradictory for socialists to enjoy the gains made under capitalism (a system they oppose), then it is equally contradictory for capitalists to make use of, say, fire (since I take it you people don't support a hunter-gatherer system) or any other invention made under some previous system that capitalists oppose.

It is patently obvious to me that those who insist otherwise are either trolling, or haven't done any of the homework necessary to even form a basic understanding of socialism but have insisted on forming strong opinions about it nonetheless. In the case of the latter group of people, their belief in their bogeyman caricature of socialism is religious and impervious to any new information or discussions. There is no need to pay such people much attention aside from the benefit of educating those in the audience who may be more honest and amenable to change.

[Demosthenes]

Well said, and better explained than I would have been able to do.

[Eran]

Isn't this just a strawman though? I mean... by this logic all those on the internet who claim to support Capitalism are also equally full of shit if they don't immediately buy a factory and begin producing widgets.

I don't see why. Socialism is based on the claim that we have a moral duty to help each other. While it is true that political socialists aspire to fulfil this duty through the organs of the state, that moral duty is logically prior to the need to reform government.

Capitalism isn't based on a parallel claim that we have a moral duty to open factories. Rather, capitalism's moral foundation is the duty to respect other people's property rights. An advocate of capitalism who uses aggression (either directly, through fraud or force, or indirectly, by lobbying for government regulations that effectively do the same) would be the hypocritical parallel to an advocate of socialism who fails to live by the socialist egalitarian ideal.

[Demosthenes]

I don't see why. Socialism is based on the claim that we have a moral duty to help each other. While it is true that political socialists aspire to fulfil this duty through the organs of the state, that moral duty is logically prior to the need to reform government.

The entire point of my objection is that opponents of socialism constantly speak for it, what it is, what it *actually* is, and how lazy everyone is who support it. Since you are the furthest thing from a socialist, how is what you've said any different from anything else? Can you source this "moral duty" from some socialist writing out there? I've never seen it written anywhere before in relation to a socialist state.

Furthermore, even if it does exist somewhere, this is certainly not a universal and smacks more of center left liberalism than anything else. Socialism is about class consciousness first and foremost.

the duty to respect other people's property rights.

This is why there is absolutely no sense whatsoever in debating you. If you would so horrendously be this dishonest, we are so completely and utterly at different views of society that attempting to cross the divide is an exercise in complete futility.

Capitalism exists to enrich the monied classes. No more, no less. It does that very well at the expense of all other classes of people. The one thing Capitalism hasn't ever done, historically speaking, is protect property rights, except those rights held by the monied classes.

To pretend this has been any other way is preposterous on the level of UFOs and anal probes. WHere are Native American property rights? Where are the rights of small farmers? Where are the rights of slaves and their 40 acres? Property rights... phugh! What a lark.

[Eran]

Socialism is about class consciousness first and foremost.

Point taken. I am often confusing the various labels associated with left-wing ideologies (and, per below, right wing ones to) such as socialism, Marxism and communism.

The "socialism" you are referring to sounds like the morally-neutral Marxist call for workers to rise up and displace the capitalists as the ruling class, right?

If that is the case, then the hypocritical position isn't so much that of the well-off socialist who declines to share his wealth equally, but that of advocates of socialism (and present company may well be excepted) who pretend that their solution is in any way morally superior to the current alternative.

The one thing Capitalism hasn't ever done, historically speaking, is protect property rights, except those rights held by the monied classes.

Thank you!!!

So an obvious conclusion is that IF we put in place a system which does respect everybody's property rights, such system will be radically different from Capitalism. And any historic evils associated with Capitalism won't be applicable to such system.

Since I have very little interest in semantic debates, I won't call that system by any name with "capital" in it. Let's call it "voluntaryism" (or give it whatever name you want). I am advocating that system, and not Capitalism.

[SolarCross]

So an obvious conclusion is that IF we put in place a system which does respect everybody's property rights, such system will be radically different from Capitalism. And any historic evils associated with Capitalism won't be applicable to such system.

Since I have very little interest in semantic debates, I won't call that system by any name with "capital" in it. Let's call it "voluntaryism" (or give it whatever name you want). I am advocating that system, and not Capitalism.

I am sure a lot of traditional anarchists' antipathy towards anarcho-"capitalism" just comes down to reaction against that word - "capitalism". For them it means cronyism and corporate welfare by default rather than the dictionary definition:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

By the dictionary definition an-caps are advocates of "capitalism" but by the leftist associations with "capitalism" they are not. Hence why these debates between left and right anarchists invariably ends up being a debate on semantics especially over that particular word. Would leftists prefer an-capism be rebranded as "voluntaryism" or "market anarchism"? Would that help lift the debate out of the semantic trap onto the actual substance of the philosophy?

[ralfy]

The definition is based on the assumption of unlimited resources. Without that assumption, one has to look at many more factors, including the effects of competition, and results such as cronyism, corporate welfare, etc.

[Someone5]

I am sure a lot of traditional anarchists' antipathy towards anarcho-"capitalism" just comes down to reaction against that word - "capitalism". For them it means cronyism and corporate welfare by default rather than the dictionary definition:

No; the traditional anarchists oppose anarcho-capitalism because they oppose capitalism as an economic system. They do not like the system you are peddling, not merely some of the symptoms of it. If someone isn't opposing capitalism, they cannot rightly be called a "traditional" anarchist given the traditional association between anarchists and socialism. As hard as this may be for you to believe, there are plenty of people who consider capitalism itself to be wrong.

By the dictionary definition an-caps are advocates of "capitalism" but by the leftist associations with "capitalism" they are not.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the traditional leftist opposition to capitalism; you are confusing it with liberalism.

Hence why these debates between left and right anarchists invariably ends up being a debate on semantics especially over that particular word. Would leftists prefer an-capism be rebranded as "voluntaryism" or "market anarchism"?

I certainly would not care one whit if "anarcho-capitalists" want to brand their mad ravings under the term "voluntaryism" or "unicorn capitalism" or whatever as long as they stop calling themselves anarchists--it makes it even more difficult for people to understand what "traditional" anarchists are talking about if there's also some other, entirely unrelated, philosophy competing for the term.

You know how you libertarians get upset over the redefinition of the word "liberal"? Well, you're trying to do the same thing with "anarchism."

Would that help lift the debate out of the semantic trap onto the actual substance of the philosophy?

No, because the traditional anarchist objection is to the capitalist system, not just cronyism and corporate welfare.

[SolarCross]

The definition is based on the assumption of unlimited resources. Without that assumption, one has to look at many more factors, including the effects of competition, and results such as cronyism, corporate welfare, etc.

No the definition is not based on the assumption of unlimited resources. Of course the universe is a big place so actually there are practically unlimited resources but capitalism doesn't require it. Why would you think it does? Is it superstition or something more credible?

[Demosthenes]

but that of advocates of socialism (and present company may well be excepted) who pretend that their solution is in any way morally superior to the current alternative.

Moralism is the domain of liberals of all stripes. While I follow a personal moral code, I do not presume to transfer such a code to the realm of competing economic factions. To my knowledge, I rarely make any type of moral arguments except when the discussion concerns personal conduct.

The monied classes ruthlessly pursue their own best interests, and I ruthlessly oppose them. That's about it. The only moral implication is simply that my interests correspond to the majority of the population, as most people are working class, even if modern life and the modern middle class has blurred the distinctions somewhat.

I consider my solutions the best options for those of my class. I feel we all get the best deal from the type of economic system I advocate. I don't feel any form of capitalism will ever do accomplish this.

As hard as this may be for you to believe, there are plenty of people who consider capitalism itself to be wrong.

Indeed. Wrong in the sense that its exploitation does not serve the majority of the people.

[ralfy]

No the definition is not based on the assumption of unlimited resources. Of course the universe is a big place so actually there are practically unlimited resources but capitalism doesn't require it. Why would you think it does? Is it superstition or something more credible?

It's based on the assumption of unlimited resources because in order to maintain a capitalist economy on has to acquire more property and continue producing. There is no other purpose for deploying capital except that. If resources are limited, then that can't happen.

The universe "is a big place" but that doesn't mean we can access its resources easily.

That's why conventional oil production has not been able to catch up with demand since 2005, why we're now resorting to non-conventional production, and why oil prices remain high as the energy returns from the latter are much lower. Include the fact of lag time for transitioning to other sources of energy to maintain mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture (requires decades, and the IEA states that governments should have prepared at least a decade ago) and the messy effects of global warming and environmental damage, and a monetary currency will be the least of our problems.

[Eran]

It's based on the assumption of unlimited resources because in order to maintain a capitalist economy on has to acquire more property and continue producing. There is no other purpose for deploying capital except that. If resources are limited, then that can't happen.

Capitalism makes more, not less, resources available. After two centuries of growing western capitalism, resources are more abundant (as measured by their affordability) than they have ever been.

As for growth, capitalism tends to lead to economic growth, but such growth need not consume more resources. After all, a modern iPhone doesn't use more resources than a 1980s "brick" cell phone. On the contrary. But it is much more valuable.

[ralfy]

Capitalism makes more, not less, resources available. After two centuries of growing western capitalism, resources are more abundant (as measured by their affordability) than they have ever been.

As for growth, capitalism tends to lead to economic growth, but such growth need not consume more resources. After all, a modern iPhone doesn't use more resources than a 1980s "brick" cell phone. On the contrary. But it is much more valuable.

It makes more resources available because it needs to consume more.

Resources are "more abundant" because of the use of oil, especially given the Green Revolution. The problem is that oil is not abundant, given the fact that per capita oil production peaked back in 1979.

And more resources are obviously needed, especially given cell phones versus not having cell phones, not to mention more people wanting cell phones.

[Eran]

But cell phones are getting smaller, and require fewer resources to produce.

And it isn't capitalism that needs to consume more resources, it is consumers (i.e. people) who desire products which, in turn, require resources to manufacture.

If oil was so critical, and oil production is declining, why is it that the average standard of living on the planet is still rising quickly? Wouldn't your theory suggest stagnation and even decline?

[Demosthenes]

And it isn't capitalism that needs to consume more resources, it is consumers (i.e. people) who desire products which, in turn, require resources to manufacture.

Wrong in all ways and on all levels, and I'm tired of proponents of Capitalism getting away with saying this kind of thing. Demand for cell phones did not proceed supply. They were produced, were eventually made affordable and then everyone was convinced they *needed* one. They make a shit ton of money because people do enjoy them to an extent, some more than others, but this in no way means we wanted cell phones before they appeared on the market.

In fact, short of food and medical supplies, I'm not sure you can say that very many things at all were ever supplied following demand. Cars, televisions, radios, cell phones, video games... before anyone knew what these things were, there was no demand for these products.

If these products went away forever some people would freak in the short term, but life would go on, and we'd adapt. Laughing later that we were ever so dependent on such silly devices.

But the Capitalist is the one who can't live without his revenue stream. Sure, on some level, the intelligent Capitalist will analyze human wants and needs. In turn he will, based on his ability to produce or acquire the means to manufacture whatever good or service he thinks he can offer for a profit, provide these goods or services, but this hardly means there is a demand for them such that the production and profit of them is somehow the consumer's fault or responsibility or whatever.

No, these things are mass produced solely for the profit of the producer. If sneezing on people and selling it made millions, Capitalists would be doing it. If they don't make a profit they aren't produced. Meaning, demand drives profit NOT creation.

A subtle, but completely relevant and meaningful difference.

[Rothbardian]

Isn't this just a strawman though? I mean... by this logic all those on the internet who claim to support Capitalism are also equally full of shit if they don't immediately buy a factory and begin producing widgets.

This seems like the same 'ole, same 'ole silly propaganda the mainstream or elements of the right always try to use to scare people away from leftist solutions. "Oh, they just want to take your shit so they don't have to work".

I can't speak for lumpen, but I don't know of any socialists that think they are entitled to a share of anyone else's personal property.

Perhaps you don't understand private versus personal property? It doesn't seem like you do by the way you worded that... bit of fluff.

Private property vs public property is false distinction. All public property originates from the 'private' sector. The socialist justification for taking from the private sector to support public works like social security and a welfare state is that those with more are obligated to support those with less.

Unfortunately no socialists, at least none I've met here on the interwebs, actually believe this. It seems all you really believe in is the force of the state and it's right to do as it wishes, you don't have any actual principles you hold yourselves to at all.

And that is why I have trouble respecting these arguments. If you actually believed these ideals you spout, I'm more than happy to entertain them. But you don't seem to actually believe them, which makes your arguments dubious to say the least.

So, let me see if I understand you. If you make six figures in the liberal market economy you were born into you aren't a real socialist unless you... what? Piss it away? Burn it? What about survival? Are you allowed to buy food and be a socialist and retain political credibility according to you... or? Where is the line drawn?

I mean, for most people internet is cheap enough. Somewhere between $20 and $80 a month with a computer to access it coming in anywhere between about $200 and well over $3000 for kick ass rigs. What spending level for these items retains e-cred, exactly?

I'd just like to know for my own purposes.

If you believe that those with less are entitled to those with more (which is again the justification for taking from the 'private' sector and putting it into the 'public' sector) then the only way you could ever make six figures and keep it would be if everyone else also made six figures. Which might be reasonable, in Zimbabwe.

Now, would you care to explain why you spent your money on a computer instead of giving it to someone poorer than yourself? Why is it that the money you spend every month on internet service doesn't go to someone that doesn't even have a home to live in?

Feel free to continue deflection rather than give a coherent response.

Wrong in all ways and on all levels, and I'm tired of proponents of Capitalism getting away with saying this kind of thing. Demand for cell phones did not proceed supply. They were produced, were eventually made affordable and then everyone was convinced they *needed* one. They make a shit ton of money because people do enjoy them to an extent, some more than others, but this in no way means we wanted cell phones before they appeared on the market.

In fact, short of food and medical supplies, I'm not sure you can say that very many things at all were ever supplied following demand. Cars, televisions, radios, cell phones, video games... before anyone knew what these things were, there was no demand for these products.

If these products went away forever some people would freak in the short term, but life would go on, and we'd adapt. Laughing later that we were ever so dependent on such silly devices.

But the Capitalist is the one who can't live without his revenue stream. Sure, on some level, the intelligent Capitalist will analyze human wants and needs. In turn he will, based on his ability to produce or acquire the means to manufacture whatever good or service he thinks he can offer for a profit, provide these goods or services, but this hardly means there is a demand for them such that the production and profit of them is somehow the consumer's fault or responsibility or whatever.

No, these things are mass produced solely for the profit of the producer. If sneezing on people and selling it made millions, Capitalists would be doing it. If they don't make a profit they aren't produced. Meaning, demand drives profit NOT creation.

A subtle, but completely relevant and meaningful difference.

So basically, evil capitalists trick people into buying things that you don't think are necessary, deviating the use of resources from where you think they should be allocated. Does that just about sum it up?