Why Socialism (and Communism) Fails and why our society is being destroyed

[Shredderbeam]

Who are you to know or say how expensive it truly is? What evidence? I've taken a variety of college-level business classes - the price certainly isn't trivial.

The water that I drink is brought to me by a private (and relatively small) corporation. They provide the water for half my city.

Let's try another example. Protection. We have a military - private contracting for such a need would not be profitable.

Well of course it would - haven't you heard of a security firm before?

You can't fight the hand that feeds you, unless you chose not to be fed.

I'm not sure if you understand my point. What I am trying to say is that I shouldn't have to move because I am being oppressed.

Your right. It won't. Your non-funded army would be crushed by any other countries' tax-funded military.

I said nothing about an army. My point was that of course a laissez-faire economy will never arise if people never bother to fight for one.

Once again, that is utopian. The reality is we are NOT in an atomistic market, so both can be manipulated with some independence.

They can be partially manipulated, but not fully, and there is the key. Because total manipulation/control of a resource is impossible, a monopoly cannot form, and the people cannot be oppressed.

Not all negative externalities of business can be seen or touched. Even the ones you can see/touch aren't easy to regulate.

What negative aspects of a business are there that cannot be seen/touched?

I wasn't speaking of regulation, I was speaking of the ease by which an individual may find who is harming them.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Even Milton Friedman disagrees with you people

Look - I think that it's strikingly obvious that under a privatized system, the market would not provide a relatively equal opportunity or quality of education to everyone. Whether education is to be seen as a right or not, the end result of privatization is the same, namely that the poor get sub-par education and the rich get great education. This would create a real prole-like underclass out of most poor people.

Explain to me how the market would allow a single mother, in poverty, to pay for the education of her three six year old sons.

 

I'm sorry but this is just fucking stupid:

Who are you to know or say how expensive it truly is? What evidence? I've taken a variety of college-level business classes - the price certainly isn't trivial.

Let's try another example. Protection. We have a military - private contracting for such a need would not be profitable.

1. Infrastructure existed before government. QED.

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good. No particular good matches this exact definition. It doesn't mean that there aren't products closer to this concept than the private good.

2. Public ownership does not change the physical nature of the thing being owned. All goods are scarce, else they would not be goods.

You can't fight the hand that feeds you, unless you chose not to be fed.

3. The government does not feed you. The government robs you. You are fed by the market. Ask the Russians, they tried abolishing their market and half of them starved to death.

Once again, that is utopian. The reality is we are NOT in an atomistic market, so both can be manipulated with some independence.

4. Demand is the driver of all supply, all investment, and all consumption and the economy as a whole. If you doubt this, try selling air, a commodity for which there is no demand, and see how quickly you fail to make a living.

Not all negative externalities of business can be seen or touched. Even the ones you can see/touch aren't easy to regulate.

We're not interested in regulation, just justice.

For your information, private law is the dominant form of law all over the world in the form of common law. It exists largely outside of time and present politics in the body of the people and their culture. Common law tends to deal with all problems that can and do arise in human affairs through the age old process of "well this is what seemed fair last time". While imperfect, your absurd claim that we need public law in order to have justice is just that, absurd. Not only do we not currently use public law to solve these issues, we find that public law is RESPONSIBLE for these issues. We find that the government ALLOWS companies to pollute where otherwise they would be stopped, ALLOWS airports to be built where otherwise they would not, and ALLOWS toxic levels of toxic chemicals into food and water.

 

Even Milton Friedman disagrees with you people

Look - I think that it's strikingly obvious that under a privatized system, the market would not provide a relatively equal opportunity or quality of education to everyone. Whether education is to be seen as a right or not, the end result of privatization is the same, namely that the poor get sub-par education and the rich get great education. This would create a real prole-like underclass out of most poor people.

Open your bleeding eyes, what you are describing is the system we have now.

Rich people move to rich suburbs where the best schools are and pay for their rich kids to go to rich kid school.

Poor people move to poor suburbs where the shittiest schools are and get paid for their poor kids to go to poor kid school.

Explain to me how the market would allow a single mother, in poverty, to pay for the education of her three six year old sons.

Explain why you expect a single mother living in poverty to have offspring fit for formal education.

Also explain why these children should be deprived of the right to work, when they clearly need the money.

Also explain why these children should be forced to do work without pay toward a skillset they may well be unable to utilize when they could be learning a skillset they will be able to use, both immediately and in the future to make much needed money.

Finally, explain why you think it is that private charity would not pick up the bill? (In either a lump sum, on going support, or a loan payment.) We live in a 'democracy' right? A 'social democracy'. So greater than 50% of the population has already voted consistently to have the government FORCIBLY REMOVE a large portion of their income on an ongoing basis in order to quote "help pay for the poor". So you are telling me that people who have already violently expressed their desire to give to charity, would no longer give to charity, once the institution that they instated to rob them, in order to move their money into charity is abolished? Mindfuck?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Look - I think that it's strikingly obvious that under a privatized system, the market would not provide a relatively equal opportunity or quality of education to everyone. Whether education is to be seen as a right or not, the end result of privatization is the same, namely that the poor get sub-par education and the rich get great education. This would create a real prole-like underclass out of most poor people.

There will never be equal education opportunities as long as humans exist. Even under a fantastic public schooling system, there will always be some school that is just a bit better that caters to the sons of millionaires.

Under the public system, the poor already get a sub-par education: Observe the quality of inner-city schools to

Explain to me how the market would allow a single mother, in poverty, to pay for the education of her three six year old sons.

There is a local private high school nearby with excellent standards - they cost $8,000 per year. Given the vastly increased competition, that single mother would pay but a fraction of that amount.

 

[thequestionmark]

In the US, pre-1800 infrastructure economically and transportation wise was extremely poor. Currency unified, roads constructed - hugely spiked productivity during this time period

I do share some libertarian ideals. I believe the government has grown to big. Bail outs are bullshit. Privatization of certain sectors is necessary. There are plenty of examples, let's take UPS and FEDEX versus USPS - government clearly fails in effiency.

However...
Police, Firefighters, Army, Roads - Examples of things I do not believe money can be made off. The result is subsidization or complete regulation

As for other negative externalities: You are fishing and you fish more than you are supposed to. Your overfishing causes problems for future generations of fishers.

Demand may drive supply, but supply is almost always limited - thus factions can manipulate it. Once again, we ARE NOT an atomistic market, our resources are very well quantifiable.

 

[antchak]

The simple reality is that everyone is not created equal; as much as we would like it to be. You have no choice whether you are born into poverty, or the son of Bill Gates.

Communism is an illusion created to keep the people happy while one figurehead dictates. Socialism is the same. Democracy, by the people for the people, is as close to freedom as anyone is going to get; everyone can't be happy.

Any person can make something of their lives; some people just have the odds stacked in their favor. Discipline and patience will see most people through; I learned this first hand. Some of our member's responses are quite interesting, however, and some are downright amusing in their blessed ignorance.

 

[antchak]

In the US, pre-1800 infrastructure economically and transportation wise was extremely poor. Currency unified, roads constructed - hugely spiked productivity during this time period

Irrelevant, seeing as more than half of the land was undiscovered.

I do share some libertarian ideals. I believe the government has grown to big. Bail outs are bullshit. Privatization of certain sectors is necessary. There are plenty of examples, let's take UPS and FEDEX versus USPS - government clearly fails in effiency.

What the fuck do you expect them to do? I doubt you could do better, and there's the old adage "No one is perfect." Bail Outs are bullshit, but is there any other option? How else do you attempt to stabilize an economy in turmoil?

However...
Police, Firefighters, Army, Roads - Examples of things I do not believe money can be made off. The result is subsidization or complete regulation

I'm sure its possible. You might want to expand on what you believe "subsidization" and "complete regulation", as it can be interpreted several ways, and I don't think you know what either means.

As for other negative externalities: You are fishing and you fish more than you are supposed to. Your overfishing causes problems for future generations of fishers.

Demand may drive supply, but supply is almost always limited - thus factions can manipulate it. Once again, we ARE NOT an atomistic market, our resources are very well quantifiable.

Untrue. Its the opposite; demand is rarely enough for supply, and thus (using your example) millions of fish are wasted. Eventually this adds up, and creates the problems which you mention. Without a monopoly, it is nearly impossible to manipulate a market without complete control, as your competitors will often also see a gap as advantageous. Its not as easy as you think.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Police, Firefighters, Army, Roads - Examples of things I do not believe money can be made off. The result is subsidization or complete regulation

I don't see why these things cannot produce profit.

In the US, pre-1800 infrastructure economically and transportation wise was extremely poor.

Prior to the capitalism-driven Industrial Revolution? Yes, it certainly was poor.

As for other negative externalities: You are fishing and you fish more than you are supposed to. Your overfishing causes problems for future generations of fishers.

I'm not morally responsible for ensuring that everybody else makes a nice fat living. Your example is comparable to saturating the market - if you do it, then other people may not be able to sell their product. That's just too bad for them.

Demand may drive supply, but supply is almost always limited - thus factions can manipulate it. Once again, we ARE NOT an atomistic market, our resources are very well quantifiable.

Supply cannot be fully controlled, thus a manipulator of the market will not be successful.

 

[Paul.]

1). What elements of socialism create a better society?
2). Even if elements of socialism did create a better society, you're presuming that individuals are morally responsible for doing everything they can to make society better (even at a cost to themselves) as long as the overall benefit goes up. Why do you presume that? What objective moral code do you have to say that individuals are morally responsible for each other?

Making things fairer by allowing equal amounts of opportunity education from those of all backgrounds. Same with things like healthcare
And if everything in Scotland was based on capitalism there'd be so much of a social class gap that the country wouldnt be fair. The rich wouldnt just rule - theyd get richer and allow the poor to suffer

Im pretty sure youre from the great republic and still stay there. Fianna Fail (I dont have the keyboard to do the accents above letters, sorry!) are a centre party. Centre where you live is different to centre where I live and centrism never brought about an Irish republic, did it? Although I do realise there are many Catholics in the republic who would oppose many "non-conservative" Catholic stances. These stances would typically be for change and increased freedoms that the people do not actually want i.e. the right of abortion.
To some extent it is based on the dominant religion and would not promote republicanism. Where as the same religion does not dominate in my country. For us - being conservative would be to preserve the Union (as I ave previously said). And with this comes a certain amount of "selfishness" - along the lines of increased capitalism. This is beacause one of the main reasns to conseve is to not make things better - it's to keep them and socialism is all about changing constantly to benefit everyone (generally).

I believe that everyone is equal. It should not matter what family you are born into - you should have as much as an opportunity, LEGALY, as everyone else has. Social problems should be ruled out to the extent that everyone lives a good life in a certain amount of wealth. However - I believe that people should earn what they want if that is possible for them to do. You obviously cant sit on your arse all day watching TV and expect other people who are out working to support you. Thats where I think a line should be drawn

Thats basically my viewpoint

 

In the US, pre-1800 infrastructure economically and transportation wise was extremely poor. Currency unified, roads constructed -

Railroads were the main form of bulk transport, and they were privately built.

hugely spiked productivity during this time period

Capital flowing into the new land for private enterprise.

I do share some libertarian ideals. I believe the government has grown to big. Bail outs are bullshit. Privatization of certain sectors is necessary. There are plenty of examples, let's take UPS and FEDEX versus USPS - government clearly fails in effiency.

However...
Police, Firefighters, Army, Roads - Examples of things I do not believe money can be made off. The result is subsidization or complete regulation

If there is demand for a good or service then money can be made from providing it. If there is no demand then there is no need for the service.

As for other negative externalities: You are fishing and you fish more than you are supposed to. Your overfishing causes problems for future generations of fishers.

Read up on overgrazing. Common lands always get over grazed, or over logged, or over farmed. Simple solution: if you don't own the land then you have no incentive to maintain its value. Private property is always treated better than public property. The reason overfishing occurs is because we have no existing structure of property rights in the ocean.

Demand may drive supply, but supply is almost always limited - thus factions can manipulate it. Once again, we ARE NOT an atomistic market, our resources are very well quantifiable.

If you study economics you will quickly learn that in the market the methods of cornering and undercutting commonly espoused by socialists have little more validity than the claim that machines destroy jobs.

'OUR' resources are not a constant. Such a concept is foolish and reveals a lack of understanding of markets. If a resource... say grain... is taken out of the market, or its supply is severely limited, then a replacement commodity will take its place... say soy beans. The same is true of all goods and services. If the preference of the consumer is not currently available then the next best thing is substituted.

Do you really believe that we have a fixed set of required resources that, without which, we will be helpless? Where do you think commodities such as petroleum come from? And further, how do you think they were discovered and brought to market? Do you think government helped or hampered this process. And do you think that we will always need these same resources?

The simple answer to all of this is as follows:
Everyone contributes to the market in order to get stuff back out of the market thus enabling survival, and this system only works when the market isn't warped by large aggressive militant players like governments who use violence or the threat thereof as a means to their ends. When the market is warped by these entities then death, starvation and poverty ensue, because the market is unable to operate and the market is the means of survival of modern man.

 

[thequestionmark]

I don't see why these things cannot produce profit.

Prior to the capitalism-driven Industrial Revolution? Yes, it certainly was poor.

I'm not morally responsible for ensuring that everybody else makes a nice fat living.

A. It's like driving insurance. You don't know when you are going to use such a service, when it does occur, you many incur damages that you cannot afford. You are required to have it for a reason.

B. Industrial Revolution was a century later.

C. Your right. You can do whatever, but regulation occurs when you fuck everyone else over. Sure, there's "fair" ways to win the capitalistic game, but you can also cut corners and create negative externalities.

How else do you attempt to stabilize an economy in turmoil?

Bottom up, not top down. Paying the companies that epically failed in the first place is stupid.

Simply on my terms I'd consider
Regulation = control by a third-party
Subsidization = Compensation
You don't sound more intelligent by complicating matters.

 

[antchak]

Making things fairer by allowing equal amounts of opportunity education from those of all backgrounds. Same with things like healthcare
And if everything in Scotland was based on capitalism there'd be so much of a social class gap that the country wouldnt be fair. The rich wouldnt just rule - theyd get richer and allow the poor to suffer

This is so cliche I thought you might udnerstand by now: THE WORLD ISN'T FAIR. The poor can make opportunities; I came from jack shit in Brisbane and know I run a company. Discipline counts, not wallowing in self-pity.

Im pretty sure youre from the great republic and still stay there. Fianna Fail (I dont have the keyboard to do the accents above letters, sorry!) are a centre party. Centre where you live is different to centre where I live and centrism never brought about an Irish republic, did it? Although I do realise there are many Catholics in the republic who would oppose many "non-conservative" Catholic stances. These stances would typically be for change and increased freedoms that the people do not actually want i.e. the right of abortion.
To some extent it is based on the dominant religion and would not promote republicanism. Where as the same religion does not dominate in my country. For us - being conservative would be to preserve the Union (as I ave previously said). And with this comes a certain amount of "selfishness" - along the lines of increased capitalism. This is beacause one of the main reasns to conseve is to not make things better - it's to keep them and socialism is all about changing constantly to benefit everyone (generally).

Socialism is a disillusioned dictatorship. No one really benefits except for the men in power and the already rich. Let's face it, there is no pefrfect system, so get over it.

I believe that everyone is equal. It should not matter what family you are born into - you should have as much as an opportunity, LEGALY, as everyone else has. Social problems should be ruled out to the extent that everyone lives a good life in a certain amount of wealth. However - I believe that people should earn what they want if that is possible for them to do. You obviously cant sit on your arse all day watching TV and expect other people who are out working to support you. Thats where I think a line should be drawn

If you believe everyone is equal than you are also disillusioned. Why shouldn't it matter who you are born into? Someone had to get their hands dirty at one point to make the money, so why shouldn't their offspring benefit from it? The government can't hand out wealth to millions of people, so don;t act like they should. Unfortunately being born is luck of the draw, so if your parents were gamblers etc. then you have to pick up your ass from the poor and work to make yourself a life. Being at a disadvantage from this angle does have some benefits: you have nothing to lose.

 

[antchak]

Bottom up, not top down. Paying the companies that epically failed in the first place is stupid.

Simply on my terms I'd consider
Regulation = control by a third-party
Subsidization = Compensation
You don't sound more intelligent by complicating matters.

Yes, I am surely complicating matters just for the sake of fun, and by doing that I obviously sound much more intelligent. What an astounding point, I do this for fun don't I?

So far your arguments have been poorly supported and equally poorly thought out. There is no need for compensation, and there is even less need for "complete regulation". That is far from the product. Why don't you try doing some research before making a poorly fortified assault; I don't need to be told, incorrectly, by someone who is most likely fifteen, how the system works.

You are ignorant; its easy to complain, but then again you offer no salvation. All you have done is spark conflict; is anyone in this thread on your side? No. So why do you persist in arguing irrational, not to mention incorrect as well as illogical, views when they are clearly wrong. Either contribute, or gtfo. None of us need this.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Making things fairer by allowing equal amounts of opportunity education from those of all backgrounds. Same with things like healthcare
And if everything in Scotland was based on capitalism there'd be so much of a social class gap that the country wouldnt be fair. The rich wouldnt just rule - theyd get richer and allow the poor to suffer

You're implying that the divide is inherently unfair. Unless the rich are directly stealing from the poor, it would not be. People would be where they are by their own efforts.

As a side note, in a laissez-faire style economy, there wouldn't be a huge gap. The poor wouldn't be taxed to death, and they'd have access to cheaper goods.

Im pretty sure youre from the great republic and still stay there. Fianna Fail (I dont have the keyboard to do the accents above letters, sorry!) are a centre party. Centre where you live is different to centre where I live and centrism never brought about an Irish republic, did it? Although I do realise there are many Catholics in the republic who would oppose many "non-conservative" Catholic stances. These stances would typically be for change and increased freedoms that the people do not actually want i.e. the right of abortion.

I'm originally from Ireland, but I live in the U.S. now.

No, Centrism isn't really helping us gain back a quarter of our land.

I believe that everyone is equal. It should not matter what family you are born into - you should have as much as an opportunity, LEGALY, as everyone else has.

If you mean that everybody has the same rights (the right to own property, speak their mind, and to not be a slave), then I agree.

Social problems should be ruled out to the extent that everyone lives a good life in a certain amount of wealth. However - I believe that people should earn what they want if that is possible for them to do. You obviously cant sit on your arse all day watching TV and expect other people who are out working to support you. Thats where I think a line should be drawn

Well the implication here is that people have a right to a certain level of comfort, and that others are obligated to provide this right.

People do not have a right to a certain level of comfort, they have a right not to be prevented from obtaining that level.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Open your bleeding eyes, what you are describing is the system we have now.

Rich people move to rich suburbs where the best schools are and pay for their rich kids to go to rich kid school.

Poor people move to poor suburbs where the shittiest schools are and get paid for their poor kids to go to poor kid school.

Damn, I was hoping you didn't know about that . Yes, it is a fact that at least in America, what you say is true. Is this an argument for privatization of schools? No - because you haven't even tried to establish how privatization would improve this situation.

Explain why you expect a single mother living in poverty to have offspring fit for formal education.

I was fit for a formal education. Several other people I know were. Why not?

Also explain why these children should be deprived of the right to work, when they clearly need the money.

Then why should these children be denied an education, when they clearly need the education, so that they don't end up like their uneducated parents?

Also explain why these children should be forced to do work without pay toward a skillset they may well be unable to utilize when they could be learning a skillset they will be able to use, both immediately and in the future to make much needed money.

Apprenticeship and home schooling should be options. I'm not defending the status quo. What I am defending is the existence of a public school system which makes an education free and accessible to everyone.

A private education system would cause a libertarian society to have an underclass, due to the huge difference in quality and accessibility of education between the rich and poor.

Finally, explain why you think it is that private charity would not pick up the bill? (In either a lump sum, on going support, or a loan payment.) We live in a 'democracy' right? A 'social democracy'. So greater than 50% of the population has already voted consistently to have the government FORCIBLY REMOVE a large portion of their income on an ongoing basis in order to quote "help pay for the poor". So you are telling me that people who have already violently expressed their desire to give to charity, would no longer give to charity, once the institution that they instated to rob them, in order to move their money into charity is abolished? Mindfuck?

With education costing as much as it does, I don't see private charity footing the bill for education, or all of the other services the poorest would be missing out on.

No, we don't live in much of a democracy. And no - I don't think people would give much more than they do now to charity.

Humans, however, do actually care about each other. So, I do care if people have a road, even if I don't use it. I do care if people are starving. The difference is that if I don't know about it, if I'm not harassed about it, if it isn't in my face, I will turn a blind eye. Most people would turn a blind eye. So not forcibly taxing people for charitable causes is undermining the solutions to these problems.

 

[thequestionmark]

So far your arguments have been poorly supported and equally poorly thought out. There is no need for compensation, and there is even less need for "complete regulation". That is far from the product. Why don't you try doing some research before making a poorly fortified assault; I don't need to be told, incorrectly, by someone who is most likely fifteen, how the system works.

You are ignorant; its easy to complain, but then again you offer no salvation. All you have done is spark conflict; is anyone in this thread on your side? No. So why do you persist in arguing irrational, not to mention incorrect as well as illogical, views when they are clearly wrong. Either contribute, or gtfo. None of us need this.

You guys are the ones trying to change what I believe already works - albeit not ideally. Thus, it's the burden of proof of you guys to show healthy more functional alternatives - not just broadly suggest.... for example that your hypothetical "military" can profit from private contribution.

I offer no salvation? Salvation from? I see three people - Shredder, Sythe, and you that believe our society is inevitably fucked. Such an argument is certainly stronger in the period of economic downturn we are experiencing, but I am not convinced that there is a singular root cause that needs radical change.

I have done plenty of research. I am not 15 - though there are plenty of 15 year olds capable of making a sound argument. Then again there's plenty of 30 year old's who are not. Who's to say?

 

Damn, I was hoping you didn't know about that . Yes, it is a fact that at least in America, what you say is true. Is this an argument for privatization of schools? No - because you haven't even tried to establish how privatization would improve this situation.

Well opening up markets never makes a lack of competition worse. It never leads to price increases. This comment by you borders on the insane. "Well if we open a closed market up to competition what guarantee is there that there will be increased competition?" -- What the fuck does it fucking matter? It can only get better!

I was fit for a formal education. Several other people I know were. Why not?

And I bet you weren't living in absolute poverty either. If your parents can feed you then they can school you, in a free market at least.

Then why should these children be denied an education, when they clearly need the education, so that they don't end up like their uneducated parents?

If your parents can feed you then they can school you, in a free market at least. Else, send to private charity for education.

Apprenticeship and home schooling should be options. I'm not defending the status quo. What I am defending is the existence of a public school system which makes an education free and accessible to everyone.

And in your intention to provide that what you will get is the existence of a public school system which makes 'a public school education' worthless and accessible to anyone who doesn't have something better to do. Which you will ultimately conclude is someone else's fault and just force everyone to go.

A private education system would cause a libertarian society to have an underclass, due to the huge difference in quality and accessibility of education between the rich and poor.

1. There is no desire by anyone with a brain and a sense of reality to eliminate 'the underclass'. There are stupid people with stupid genetics in this stupid society, and no amount of chalk and blackboards is going to change that, ever. These people will continue to work minimum wage jobs generation after generation because that is all they are good at. Don't like it? Tough.

2. As I have already illustrated, in this current 'Ideal' socialized education utopia we live in, this divide between rich and poor education is still fucking HUGE. Its huge where you live, its huge where I live. So your solution to the problem EMPIRICALLY DOES NOT WORK. At this point in an experiment we chuck the hypothesis in the bin!

With education costing as much as it does, I don't see private charity footing the bill for education, or all of the other services the poorest would be missing out on.

1. People already 'foot the bill'. If you are claiming people would be unwilling to pay the current amount without coercion then you are unashamedly admitting that taxes are stolen funds.

2. Like everything that is socialized, education has become stupidly expensive. This is a natural result of the LACK OF COMPETITION brought about by the protected government controlled market. If you knew anything about economics you would not even bother to bring this point up. It only serves to further discredit your own case.

No, we don't live in much of a democracy. And no - I don't think people would give much more than they do now to charity.

Humans, however, do actually care about each other. So, I do care if people have a road, even if I don't use it. I do care if people are starving. The difference is that if I don't know about it, if I'm not harassed about it, if it isn't in my face, I will turn a blind eye. Most people would turn a blind eye. So not forcibly taxing people for charitable causes is undermining the solutions to these problems.

That's bullshit. People donate to charity in Africa... freaking Africa man... every day. It is up to the charities to advertise their causes to the consumer (you) and compete for your donations. And they do this to great effect. Again you completely fail to grasp the essence of market capitalism and only manage to further humiliate yourself by your blatant lack of understanding of your opposition's ideas.

Further, I find your continued support of theft and slavery as means to 'higher' ends abhorrent. You should not support any behavior you would not be willing to carry out yourself, face to face.

 

[thequestionmark]

Directed at Sythe, fundamentally, do you believe given total freedom... that people will do what's in their best self-interest or do you think they will help the collective? Because both cannot happen. My personal opinion is that self-interest reigns over any morality.

If there is demand for a good or service then money can be made from providing it. If there is no demand then there is no need for the service.

I disagree - you can't force people to always pay for public goods without taxation. IE: most people want protection from another country invading - yet if you were to collect money do you think you would profit? Public goods will inevitably be underproduced.

Read up on overgrazing. Common lands always get over grazed, or over logged, or over farmed. Simple solution: if you don't own the land then you have no incentive to maintain its value. Private property is always treated better than public property. The reason overfishing occurs is because we have no existing structure of property rights in the ocean.

If you study economics you will quickly learn that in the market the methods of cornering and undercutting commonly espoused by socialists have little more validity than the claim that machines destroy jobs.

1. Agreed about private property = better maintained
2. Disagree that public property = unnecessary

+ If every man is for himself with no mediation - the rich would quickly takeover by force. You don't think someone should enforce your property rights? Or do you think keeping a shotgun in your bedroom is enough? Thus another reason why we have a government - enforcement.

I have studied economics - as far as I'm concerned, business will undercut and do whatever shit they want as long as they have no consequences. I cannot see a pure capitalistic world where each externality is compensated for. Oftentimes, your better off screwing other people to make money than not.

 

[antchak]

This is not a conspiracy. The rich have no need to "take over" the country. They already own a share of it indirectly. The only way to get rich is to screw people over; one way or another.