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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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?

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.

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.

 

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. 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.

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

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.