[QatzelOk]

And yet, capitalism has destroyed so many more lives than you have.

[Evilive]

I had to launch a "pre-emptive" meteor on the residential zones because I know the Qatzville government was hiding wmd's.

[Landoflincoln]

I don't think the OP is expressing irrational fear of government. It's a healthy dose of concern about ever increasing government intrusion into people's personal lives through policies that place uniform mandates on the population.

I disagree. I see more emotional argumentation in the OP, as opposed to rational argumentation. For example, the OP uses the word "socialism/socialist" several times, but fails to explain what socialism is, or why this is bad. The OP claims that socialism "usurps the role of parent" but fails to really support this argument. For example, the current firefighting system used in the US is socialist. Firefighters are employees of the government, and the government runs the program. This is in no way a usurpation of the role of parent, but the OP makes no allowances for this.

What the OP has done, in simplified terms, is create a fictitious entity, called it socialism, and attacked it, without really engaging the heart of the philosophy. Socialism is state involvement in economics.

Here is a brief example...

"In a socialist society the government usurps the role of parent and takes the common person to mold into an image they find appealing. Whether it is something as inoccuous as "standing against racism" or "fighting terror," or something so personal as to placing sin taxes on our alcohol and cigarettes and fighting hard for the normalization of every perversion."

Now given the most basic definition, government ownership of economic resources, what economic resources were controlled by the state in "fighting terror"? As far as I know, and I am frequently wrong, the government has not assumed control of any industries in fighting terror. Likewise "standing against racism" is accomplished through legislation, but not government control of industry. Passing a law against discrimination is not socialist.

The OP fails to make an even remotely rational argument.

Of course nothing exists in its pure form, but I'm saying that the free market aspects of society do not foster inequality. It is the non-free market aspects of society that foster inequality: big government, political cronyism, etc, and the right response to these things is not to further move away from free markets with more government interventions, but to eliminate those non-free market policies that are fostering the inequality.

Well we need to draw a line or this will inevitably end in a semantics game. Since what we would define as a "free market" is a philosophical construct, any evidence that the free market is flawed will be credited to be a failure to apply the free market. Unfortunately the free market, even in pure philosophical form, is flawed in many aspects. For example individual wealth, in a purely free market, clearly favors the wealthy. Brilliance, individual brilliance, is incapable of full development without access to education, but in a completely free market, the poor have limited access to education. So someone born extremely intelligent, but poor, will lack the ability to develop their individual gifts, whereas someone who is born with less native intelligence, and wealth, will likely develop their gifts much more.

There are any number of failures of the pure free market, such as a national military. We easily recognize this, but if health care, another failure, is discussed it is not accepted.

Of course it won't happen. My only point is to refute the comment I was responding to:

Obviously meritocratic capitalism couldn't function if everyone treated everyone else as economic equals.

I do not necessarily think this is true. How are you defining "economic equals"? Are you referring to equals in resources? Equals in opportunity? Depending on your definition I would agree or disagree.

Those are government interventions that violate the principles of a free market. Those should be eliminated as much as possible, not patched up with even more government interventions that create their own problems and inequalities.

Can you be more specific? I am fairly liberal in the traditional sense, and oppose some government intervention, but support other intervention, so it really depends on the specific examples.

[Xenonx]

“The egalitarian mania of demagogues is even more dangerous than the brutality of men in gallooned coats… Anyone who has been oppressed can get back on his feet if the oppression did not cost him his life. A man who has been equalized is physically and morally ruined.” - Ernst Jünger

Unless his feet were cut off, or his legs, or his back broken, or put in an indefinite coma, or... all in all equalization doesn't seem that bad to the physical brutality that unrestrained "self evident" superiority inevitably produces.

[Gork]

DDM: You need to get your labels straight. You call me a statist, but I'm a libertarian socialist, which is similar to anarcho-syndicalism. Ideally, we'd get rid of elected officials and run America by direct democracy, but there's also the idea that we could run the state without elected officials until we found one to take the reigns and oust them when they lose consensus. Bush would've been kicked out in 2005, and if Obama doesn't give us a public option like a majority of Americans want, he'd be kicked out, too. This would mean that politicians are beholden to citizens rather than lobbyists. This would be a way to have elected officials and still run this country with direct democracy. Thus, you are actually more of a statist than I am, because you believe in the legitimacy of the state even when it has lost the favor of the majority. The welfare state would exist much as it does today, with a couple more programs, but the main difference would be that corporations would be wholly owned and run by their employees, who would benefit or fail on their own power. Capitalism would still exist. I only support the sstem we currently have for representative democracy because I recognize libertarian leftists are the minority.

As far as egalitarianism, very few people today would advocate a dramatically higher degree of legislation for equality. I personally think homeless shelters are enough for those who don't want to work, and anyone who wants to work and can't find a job should be given a job in the government, a la Keynes. So, not exactly Soul Destroying. But grats on your excellent histrionics skills. Excellent propaganda.

[KPres]

This would mean that politicians are beholden to citizens rather than lobbyists. This would be a way to have elected officials and still run this country with direct democracy.

That's worked so well in California.

The populus is incapable of government, not as a consequence of intelligence, but as a consequence of specialization. A craftsman has his occupation, which doesn't leave time for geopolitical study. Thus, a representative republic is the efficient compromise between Democracy (rule by the people) and Aristocracy (rule by the wise).

[QatzelOk]

That's worked so well in California.

Even though California held a lot of referendums, the lobbyists simply doubled their efforts in spreading disinformation.

The result was that the lobbyists still won. But, as an unfortunate side-effect, the public became even less well informed.

[Gork]

The populus is incapable of government, not as a consequence of intelligence, but as a consequence of specialization. A craftsman has his occupation, which doesn't leave time for geopolitical study. Thus, a representative republic is the efficient compromise between Democracy (rule by the people) and Aristocracy (rule by the wise).

In California it takes a special referendum to oust a poitician and it doesn't happen too often. The process is cumbersome because we are convinced that we need a CEO for our government, but in Europe there are plenty of states that dissolve their governments when they run inefficiently, and Europeans are generally much happier with their governments than Americans.

I'd think you would be happy I'm proposing this. A liberal is saying that if Obama doesn't fight for the bills he was elected to pass (health care, education, repealing gon't ask don't tell, all of which have popular support), and if the Senate doesn't use it's majority to enforce the will of the majority of Americans, we should vote them out and elect people who will. I thought you wanted to be rid of Obama, but perhaps you're happy we've got him instead of someone who honors their campaign platform.

Also, the populACE would be more capable if we increased political education in this country. Someone was running for Vice President last year who had no idea what the job entailed.

[Quercus Robur]

OP was I think a very emotional post and so I'm only going to reflect on the feeling of it and ignore any allusion to reality.

I agree that egalitarianism, if taken literally, would be soul destroying if it implies that there would be no struggle - that people would form some weird peaceful mass. Also I agree that it may be a deceptive concept.

It is our duty to ourselves, to our very souls, that we bow down not to any system which is so empowered to control us all.

I would say it is your capability to see through deception and not to decieve others. If there is a collection of people capable of controlling you (which there is to an extent ) then you deserve to be controlled. The "system" is only people afterall.. are they really so scary?

I don't think this amounts to an attack on socialism, which is not straightforwardly egalitarian and also of considerable practical and theoretical effect

[grassroots1]

^Good post.

f there is a collection of people capable of controlling you (which there is to an extent ) then you deserve to be controlled.

Including people who are born into those situations? I don't agree with this statement. I do agree that we have the capability to notice when ourselves and our friends and family and community is being deceived by another group, and once we have noticed this, it is our moral responsibility to act on changing the situation.

[KPres]

There's nothing wrong with egalitarianism in it's pure sense. Every person experiences a group/individual dynamic within their psyche which demands expression. However, this expression belongs to the institution of religion (whatever religion/ethical philosophy that may be), and religion should mix as little as possible with the institution of force (i.e. government). Egalitarianism is only a problem when it becomes compulsory, with the government holding a gun to your head demanding that you give your money to others, regardless of whether you feel they deserve it or not. There's no grace or compassion in any of that, it's pure tyranny and oppression.

[Gork]

Egalitarianism in opportunity, not in outcome. The only people who want egalitarianism in outcome are Marxists, and as we've seen on this board that is occasionally because they don't like to work.

[RonPaulalways]

For example, the OP uses the word "socialism/socialist" several times, but fails to explain what socialism is, or why this is bad. The OP claims that socialism "usurps the role of parent" but fails to really support this argument. For example, the current firefighting system used in the US is socialist. Firefighters are employees of the government, and the government runs the program. This is in no way a usurpation of the role of parent, but the OP makes no allowances for this.

I disagree that the firefighting system is socialist. It can be considered socialized, but I think 'socialist' is reserved for government run programs that fall outside of those considered necessary in a minarchic state. Local services like police/fire-fighting are often considered appropriate functions of a minarchic government.

What the OP has done, in simplified terms, is create a fictitious entity, called it socialism, and attacked it, without really engaging the heart of the philosophy. Socialism is state involvement in economics.

He's defined socialism as big government aimed at promoting egalitarianism, which while not precise, is not far off from the truth.

Likewise "standing against racism" is accomplished through legislation, but not government control of industry. Passing a law against discrimination is not socialist.

The same justifications used to have the government take control of the economy are also used to instate restrictions on non-coercive conduct that is considered socially unacceptable, so I think the OP's argument is coherent.

Unfortunately the free market, even in pure philosophical form, is flawed in many aspects. For example individual wealth, in a purely free market, clearly favors the wealthy. Brilliance, individual brilliance, is incapable of full development without access to education, but in a completely free market, the poor have limited access to education.

I disagree completely. In a free market the poor have far more access to education and other goods/services, because a free market is far more efficient at producing them.

So someone born extremely intelligent, but poor, will lack the ability to develop their individual gifts, whereas someone who is born with less native intelligence, and wealth, will likely develop their gifts much more.

And socialism will pervert the incentive system that drives production and necessitate wasteful and ineffective bureaucratic organization, leading to less wealth for every one, including that intelligent but poor person.

There are any number of failures of the pure free market, such as a national military. We easily recognize this, but if health care, another failure, is discussed it is not accepted.

Public goods like a national military are generally considered the proper role of government, and it's generally accepted that the free market can't provide them effectively. Health care services, or farming, or construction on the other hand are not considered public goods.

RonPaulalways wrote:
Of course it won't happen. My only point is to refute the comment I was responding to:

Obviously meritocratic capitalism couldn't function if everyone treated everyone else as economic equals.


I do not necessarily think this is true. How are you defining "economic equals"? Are you referring to equals in resources? Equals in opportunity? Depending on your definition I would agree or disagree.

Equal in wealth. My point is that while it's inconceivable that a population would somehow end up where every one has an equal level of wealth, if that somehow came to be, it wouldn't stop meritocratic capitalism from working. I was challenging someone's claim that inequality in wealth is necessary for meritocratic capitalism to work.

RonPaulalways wrote:
Those are government interventions that violate the principles of a free market. Those should be eliminated as much as possible, not patched up with even more government interventions that create their own problems and inequalities.


Can you be more specific? I am fairly liberal in the traditional sense, and oppose some government intervention, but support other intervention, so it really depends on the specific examples.

Medicare, Social Security, HUD, Fannie Mae, the Community Reinvestment Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, the FDA, the SEC, etc etc.

[SpecialOlympian]

Local services like police/fire-fighting are often considered appropriate functions of a minarchic government.

I'm an individual and I disagree with you. Are you saying that coercion is okay just because it's done on a smaller scale? I don't remember voting for the creation of an unnecessary (for me) institution of men dedicated to putting fires out. And I refuse to pay for it.

You aren't a libertarian. You have betrayed Rand's dream of Galt's Gulch; where responsible, upstanding self-motivated individuals measure the exact quantity of everything everyone owes to them, because it is in their duty and self interest to do so. You're nothing but a local communist advocating communism on a smaller and limited scale.

I don't see any reason why I should pay for a fire fighting system if I'm completely OK with the fact that I can rebuild if my house burns down. I don't see why I should contribute a single fucking cent toward such an institution, seeing as my mansion rests on several acres of uncultivated dirt that could never be set on fire anyway. "Fire stations" are just some crazy tradition passed down by a dying generation. And, sadly, you have been caught up in their crazy philosophy.

All I know is, I never consented to the creation of a bureaucracy dedicated toward funding "fighters of fire". And I don't see a single reason I should contribue to their effort when I am both emotionally and financially able to deal with the worst results of any fire that doesn't kill me.

You can pry my "fire tax" from my cold dead hands, you socialist. Get your fucking hands out of my pocket. I bet Ron and his son Nor would turn over in their graves over the poor sense you showed today.

[RonPaulalways]

I'm an individual and I disagree with you. Are you saying that coercion is okay just because it's done on a smaller scale? I don't remember voting for the creation of an unnecessary (for me) institution of men dedicated to putting fires out. And I refuse to pay for it.

Generally, I would say coercion is unavoidable. You can never eliminate it, but you can try to minimize it. If you create a coercion-free society at the expense of significant amount of efficiency (e.g. an anarchic or near-anarchic state), then more efficient societies will destroy your society, so the net result is a higher degree of coercion in the long run. Given this, policies that aid in economic development at the price of a small amount of coercion are optimal for the purpose of minimizing long-term coercion.

With regards to local services though, beyond the 'minimizing coercion' argument, I would say there is a natural rights argument for socializing services. It can be argued that no one has an absolute natural right to property (as in land) since it was pre-created, rather than created by man, and furthermore, as each property's quality is affected by the property surrounding it (as they say, location is the important factor in the value of real estate), it can be argued that each property owner has some natural right to how the property around his is managed, and vice versa, thereby creating overlapping rights and a need for communal decisions on property management via government.

[Gork]

If you create a coercion-free society at the expense of significant amount of efficiency (e.g. an anarchic or near-anarchic state), then more efficient societies will destroy your society

This is the same logic used by liberals. So we agree. The right side of my face just went numb and I smell almonds.

Other countries are trouncing us because of our terrible labor laws and lack of health care. So I guess you're a socialist.

tada

[Suska]

people need to organize face to face, not by default. That shit is wide open to corruption.

[RonPaulalways]

This is the same logic used by liberals. So we agree. The right side of my face just went numb and I smell almonds.

Other countries are trouncing us because of our terrible labor laws and lack of health care. So I guess you're a socialist.

The facts contradict your belief. East Asian countries have very lax labor laws and much lower public spending on health care as a percentage of GDP.

[Gork]

The facts contradict your belief. East Asian countries have very lax labor laws and much lower public spending on health care as a percentage of GDP.

If you're referring to China and Japan as trouncing us, I have an answer for both.

In China there are no human rights. Comapnies are growing so fast because their workers have to live 20 to a shack. China also doesn't make public education mandatory. So anytime someone tells you their schools are better, that's because they only kids in school belong to stable, supportive, well-to-do families, where they have no distractions and don't have to work after school. But digress. So in China, the kids who should be in school have to work instead because their families can barely eat. Yay capitalism? Is that the America you want? Hand of the free market, right up your ass.

Japan has long had a culture which is slightly Obsessive-Compulsive/Schizophrenic when it comes to hard work. Kids go to school six days a week and are constantly told that if they fail even once they will be left behind their classmates to rot in destitution. This is exactly what my father taught me and it made me a nervous wreck. I do terrible on tests. I have a 155 IQ (not to brag, IQ is genetic, nothing to be proud of) and got a 1230 on my SAT, which if you don't know is only slightly higher than George W. Bush's score. Raising your kids like this screws them up, and everyone in the Japanese workforce was raised this way. That's why 45-year-old men read Naruto like it's god damned Tolstoy. So there's no social net, because if you fall through the cracks you just go splat. If you want America to be like that, that's sad. I mean, how much of a workaholic could you be, posting here all the time? I suspect you were not raised in the Japanese style and if America was as Japan it would scare the shit out of you.

[RonPaulalways]

The standard of living in east Asia in increasing faster than in the West, so what they're doing is working.

So in China, the kids who should be in school have to work instead because their families can barely eat. Yay capitalism? Is that the America you want? Hand of the free market, right up your ass.

You're making the fallacy of blaming their current economic situation on their current policy. The most a good policy can do is increase the rate of development, it can't turn a third world country into an advanced nation overnight. Wages have increased 300% in the last 17 years in China, so it's been a very effective policy for them.

Other countries seeing rapid wage growth are Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea.

Singapore spends 1/5th what Europe and the US spend on public healthcare. S. Korea spends less than any OECD nation on public healthcare or welfare.