Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
As I mentioned before, I'm using the term "socialist economy" to refer to one in which all industry is nationalized (everyone is employed by the government).

Even in such a situation, you don't have to force people manu militari to take a job. Just like any capitalist or employee-owned company, the state-owned company can simply offer jobs, and see who wants it. There is no reason the recruitment in the Uber-State-Monopoly is different than the recruitment in any currently existing State-owned company or administrative staff.

[Kuciwalker]

I know - I'm pointing out that this situation is essentially capitalism with a government-mandated monopoly on all industries. The problem with that is that it's inefficient yet in the end has the same results - because the market forces still exist.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
I know - I'm pointing out that this situation is essentially capitalism with a government-mandated monopoly on all industries.

Except that the profits don't go to the pockets of a select few, and either serve 1) the State (and hopefully thus the general interest) or 2) the employees.

The problem with that is that it's inefficient yet in the end has the same results - because the market forces still exist.

The end result is not the same in terms of power, decision making, and hence in terms of the whole outcome. You're on par with a speech saying democracy and monarchy are the same, although democracy is more inefficient, because human nature hasn't changed.

Besides, don't overestimate the market forces. They do exist, and there will always be a moment when someone will fathom he can get more money because what he offers is rare.
However, they are not mechanical as the economists want you to believe, and they're only a part of the many elements affecting a person's economic behaviour. To reduce the economy to market forces is to fall in the simplistic schemes of economic "science"

[Kuciwalker]

If the laws of supply and demand are in effect, the end result - in terms of wages and prices for various jobs and commodities - will be the same because supply and demand is ultimately what determines those thing! Unless, of course, the majority decides to freeze prices and/or wages, which is really only going to remove the freedom of the consumer to buy what they want.

EDIT: bedtime. school starts tomorrow

[monkspider]

What makes you think that socialists want anything to be nationalized?

[GePap]

On supply and demand- was there a demand for DVD's before DVD's were made?

And advanced Capitalist economy must create new demands from the public in order to feed an even increasing production- the modern economy can only function with endless demand. If some point were reached when everyone said "you know, I have every single convinicence and gadget and labor-saving device I need in life, and I am happy and content" then the modern economy would collapse, unless everything was made to be disposable so everone had to replace their possessions regularly.

In essesnce, the modern eocnomy must create endless desire in order to thrive. From a Buddhist prospective, only suffering makes the modern economy tick ever upward.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, he just figured out how to create a society that would abolish poverty.

No, he just figured out how to create a society that would abolish wealth.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Socialism is about making an economic system in which the property of production means belongs to the workers rather than to an owner caste.

It has strongly to do with the distribution of power rather than rich-poor concerns. However, an obvious consequence is that the riches are much more evely distributed.

I see now that socialism is redefining itself from state ownership to actual worker ownership.

Spiffor, I assume that worker-owned businesses means just that. If a business goes belly-up, the assets are sold and the proceed distributed to the workers.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

And about Ford conforming to regulations: well, wasn't my point "they need regulations to do it, or else they won't"?
It's funny, everytime I talk to someone with business experience about a Corporation's will to profit, they tell me, "no, that's not true". Strangely enough, they all drive BMWs and live in large mansions, and talk about how the unions are being detrimental to their profit. Bizarre.

Nothing bizarre : I did not say that unions were detrimental to the companies profit. during my 5 years at Ford, the company worked extremely hard to make profits, and not always succeed (as during the last 35 years, they posted losses for one third of the years) although there was no asian competition. As for the BMW, I had the loyalty to drive a Ford car (Capri 2600 RS ), company paid .

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The rich are way undertaxed in France!

Switzerland was created to provide a fiscal shelter to the undertaxed French rich.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Socialism is about making an economic system in which the property of production means belongs to the workers rather than to an owner caste.

It has strongly to do with the distribution of power rather than rich-poor concerns. However, an obvious consequence is that the riches are much more evely distributed.

The failure of coops and mutuals raises questions that you left unanswered.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Why not? In every modern democracy, the whole population is assumed to be sovereign. I fail to see why it couldn't work in a company

The companiy is the realm of efficiency, and the hierarchical organization is the only way to get an efficient system. Would you say that a democratic army should not be hierarchically organized ?

[DAVOUT]

The thesis that a selected few plunder the companies and through exploitation of the workers ripe all the profits, is in total contradiction with the last corporate scandals.

The selected few find now so difficult to exploit the workers that they have moved to stoling other capitalists in cheating in their accounts.

Which is still worse ....

These guys have really no principles

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Becuase, as Marx wrote, capitalism is the most productive economic system (do you read posts?).

Hmm...restraining nastiness was not on your list of personal improvements for the new year? I read the post I was responding to, I didn't know I was required to read every post in the thread before responding to the one I decided to address. Care to point it out?

The point of communism is NOT to make countries rich, and in fact, according to Marx (but not Lenin and Mao) it can only come into being after the full development of the capitalist system.

You mean once capitalism creates a rich country for communism to impoverish?

Which is why I asked if you or any of the anti-communist have any arguements against Marx as opposed to Marx modified by Lenin and Mao and others who added a political component beyond Marx's.

The fact he needs a rich country to experiment on says alot right there. If his ideas were so good, they should apply to poor countries as well... But if wealth is not the goal of Marxism, what is the goal? "Equality"? Equal poverty?

Oncle Boris -

Who said I, or Agathon, or GePap, is communist?. Referencing Marx does not make me communist.

Why do you quote my response to Agathon and draw a conclusion about my perception of you? Check Agathon's avatar and the accompanying words, he's a communist and proudly displays the proof.

What you've got to understand, Berzerker

What you've got to understand, O Boris, is how condescending it is for you to repeatedly start off one of your...ahem... arguments with references to how I (or fill in the blank) just don't understand the subject matter and need you for enlightenment.

is that the Corporation is the epithome of oligarchy. As legal entities, they survive humans.

Yes, a business is managed by a few, it isn't a democracy. So what? Do you believe it wise for an intelligent few - intelligent about how businesses should be run - to take a back seat to those who are ignorant? There's a reason businesses are generally more efficient that democratically elected governments and imagine how a war would go if soldiers had to vote on what to attack and when.

Corporations are mini-states whose power is growing, and those of the financial elite are inheriting their control from father to son just like a monarch would.

That rarely happens, if the son is unqualified most business owners hand the reigns to the qualifed.

Yes, there are those exceptional cases of poor persons rising in social class because of talent and valor. But yet upgrading your social class involves the necessary separation between the elite and the masses- and thus the idea that becoming part of the oligarchs is hard or impossible for most.

Again, so what? I don't want to be ruled over by an oligarch or the majority and that is Bastiat's position. You seem intent on picking your overlords rather than limiting their power. That's what this debate is all about, I prefer greater freedom and you want more dictators sharing power.

I'm skipping over the middle of your post since you're in the habit of going off subject and I'm not interested in replying to whatever pops out of your head and onto the keyboard.

Since you have problems with my thesis , let's put it straight.

God that sounds familiar, brb, I have to make sure I haven't already addressed this one. Okay, nope. This is a new one, I thought you already put your thesis "straight". Oh well...

1.The right to found a business is not economic freedom; it is only a legal mean to enforce it (which in its current state is being abused).

I believe in "natural" rights, i.e., you have the moral authority to act by virtue of "gifts" given to you by creation and that these rights are shared by everyone. If the only rights we have exist by virtue of our fellow man agreeing to respect them, then the rights we expect to have can be taken away "legally". This puts you in the position of explaining why the Nazis should be condemned since their victims had no rights under the law.

2. Economic freedom is part of everyone's dignity. Benefitting from your work is sufficient for it to be achieved.

Achieved? You mean dignity? People don't need to work to have dignity, but if you're right, then reducing this benefit of working via taxes reduces dignity, true? And conversely, if everyone was paid equal to their contribution to production, i.e., there was no profit, there would be no expansion of the economic pie. How does a business buy new machinery or land if there is no profit?

There needs to be some restriction on the extent by which you can benefit someone else's work, i.e. how ownership of the means of distribution and their rampant proliferation under corporate law gives undue power to the oligarchy behind it.

Why do you deny being a socialist? Nevermind... Why does there need to be a restriction imposed by you? I don't want your restriction imposed on me, that diminishes my dignity. Treating people like children has that effect...

3. (Know this tale of the king who had two sons when he died? He asked one of them to separate his heritage in two parts, and the the other son would choose which one he gets. So the son decided one would have the political power, while the other would hold the treasury. The eldest took the 'power', so the younger took the money. Guess which one overtook the other in the end?)

The one with the power? "Now that I have the power, I want the money"! "Thanks, you may live now".

Morale: because of the money and the power involved, economic freedom is probably the part of human dignity that can the most easily gobble up the others and enslave them. As in: want to paint? Buy your stuff! Want to eat? Buy your food! A Corporation is what truly holds the means of production; and its goal, in fact, is to generate profit- which has nothing to do with dignity (even economic freedom). Profit is neverending in its nature, and overwhelmingly absurd; dignity is fairly descriptible and more possibly attainable. Human dignity should be and end in itself, while the capitalist logic is denying it to make everyone a tool of a single, inalienable goal (which serves the oligarchy).
That is immoral.

Profit is overwhelmingly absurd? Just how do you think businesses expand? According to Gepap, communism's goal (according to Marx) is not wealth. Sorry, we have real world examples to look at and capitalism has proven itself better than Marxism, not that I really care, I'm a capitalist because I believe in freedom and all this talk about socialistic freedom is a pipe dream. Socialist states only grow more bureaucratic, more rules, more regulations, higher taxes, and less freedom... That too is what history teaches us and we need only look at the USA which went from a capitalist country to a mixed economy on so many levels... Btw, your thesis changed.

In Canada, it took a Supreme Court ruling to determine that certain contracts, when they are blatantly violating one's fundamental rights, can be denied by the Court. I heartily agree with this.

So? You're citing a law as justification for that law. That's like saying slavery should be legal if the Supreme Court says it should be legal.

About the exploited workers, put it the other way: is it acceptable to accept a contract which denies one's freedom? Think Immanuel Kant here.
And about the strip clubs: I have nothing against them. I think using your body as you see fit is part of freedom, as long as no one is forcing you to.

It's impossible to make a contract that denies you your freedom unless you include contracts to do something at a specific time like show up for work regardless of who the employer is - the state or McDonalds. But you had the freedom to make or reject that contract so I don't consider that a deprivation of freedom. If I decide not to go skydiving, that is not a deprivation of my freedom because I made the choice. Now, why do you see strip clubs as a matter of freedom when you've argued that we don't own our bodies? If we don't own them, which is what you claim, then we can't do as we please with them. Furthermore, if "it's my body" then why can't I rent it out at the price I'm willing to accept regardless of what I use my body for, laboring at McDonalds or the stripper at a bar? Btw, would the state own strip clubs?

Mazarin -

Every human being has basic rights that he cannot be deprived of, even if he decides to sell them

Who says so? Where did these rights come from? Is life one of these rights? If so, I can't kill myself?

contracts where somebody sells himself into slavery/ where he sells his organs are violating these rights and are therefore void.

You mean I can donate an organ but not sell it? Or I can't donate it either? Tell me where in the definition of freedom it says you cannot take your own life... And why can't I sell myself into slavery?

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
Using the liberal standards that many of the posters here seem to have...

Good:

- Jesus (a cool dude)
- Friedrich Nietzsche (because I can spell his name)
- Robert A. Wilson
- Malaclypse the Elder

Bad:

- Jesus (I kinda dislike that whole dying-for-your-sins business)
- Kant
- Ron L... OK, yeah, this is a given and he's not a philosopher anyway.

I can´t believe that someone manages to bring Kant and Ron L Hubbard into the same category. What´s so bad with Kant?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
I know - I'm pointing out that this situation is essentially capitalism with a government-mandated monopoly on all industries. The problem with that is that it's inefficient yet in the end has the same results - because the market forces still exist.

Capitalism faces it's own peculiar inefficiencies. The underfunding of public goods being one of them.

But all talk of the efficiencies of the system is secondary. The primary question is what sort of distribution is considered to be a good one (one that does not exploit, one that does not violate natural rights, or one that maximizes welfare).

Things and people being what they are we inevitably have to make practical compromises.

Even a libertarian can accept coercion if he believes that human frailty or other economic snafus will make it impossible for us to achieve the ideal situation. Second best is better than nothing.

But those aren't philosophical questions.

[Berzerker]

Even a libertarian can accept coercion if he believes that human frailty or other economic snafus will make it impossible for us to achieve the ideal situation. Second best is better than nothing.

If murder or rape is a human frailty and theft or fraud is an economic snafu, then yes

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

If murder or rape is a human frailty and theft or fraud is an economic snafu, then yes

Well, you show me an example of any real society that has actually worked on libertarian principles and I'd be prepared to believe you.

I'm thinking in terms of dealing with externalities like pollution that don't lend themselves to a market model. For example, Libertarian societies would find it hard to deal with obnoxious residents who keep farm animals on their residential properties or noise polluters. Christ, we find it hard enough to deal with these people even when the state has mass coercive powers.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by BeBro
I can´t believe that someone manages to bring Kant and Ron L Hubbard into the same category. What´s so bad with Kant?

You're in my least fav list now, too .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, I assume that worker-owned businesses means just that. If a business goes belly-up, the assets are sold and the proceed distributed to the workers.

This depends on the extent of state intervention in the socialist society. Just like current bankrupcy regulations are different depending on state intervention in today's capitalist societies (very different in western Europe than in the US, despite both areas being capitalist).

A socialist economy is open to be different from another one, exactly like a capitalist economy will be different from the neighbour's capitalism. The political institutions underlying socialism can be more or less democratic or police-staty, there can me more or less state intervention between businesses, there can be more or less regulation, there can be more or less planification (yes, planification even exists in capitalist societies, when the government gives a general direction for the economy and creates the conditions for these objectives to be filled by private companies looking for their interests).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The failure of coops and mutuals raises questions that you left unanswered.

Actually, my preference as an ideal system would be a system where the company speaks for itself, and where its long term survival and development is the main objective, as long as it doesn't conflict with good working conditions, respect of the employees, and satisfying wages.

However, it is impossible that a company speaks for itself. There will be always one or several people to speak for it. People with their own interest in mind, not the company's.
The owners of big companies (shareholders) have no involvement in the company they hold shares for, except when it comes to financial benefits. They are about the worst people to be put in charge of running a company, because they'll squeeze the industrial base of the company to get a higher profit margin.
See how Mannesmann has dropped all its activities except phoning when it was bought. See how Danone is dropping so many things to re-center on Yoghurts.

I think it is inherently superior to have the employees in the company's council. Because employees are more involved in their company than the shareholders. Now, I know there are corporatist concerns among the employees, looking for their own interests rather than the company's long term interests. I simply think such behaviour is less frequent from the employee than from the shareholder, in which self-interest ignoring of the company's condition is the absolute rule.

You speak about failures from cooperatives, but you don't explain what happened. Did the employee-owned companies overrule any unpopular decision from the director? Did these companies close, leaving their employees without money? Did these companies lose their clients? Or did simply these companies lose their 40% margin?

We may not weigh "success" in the same way. For me "success" is only a little connected with margin; it has mostly to do with wages, employement, and overall development of the company.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Well, you show me an example of any real society that has actually worked on libertarian principles and I'd be prepared to believe you.

I'm thinking in terms of dealing with externalities like pollution that don't lend themselves to a market model. For example, Libertarian societies would find it hard to deal with obnoxious residents who keep farm animals on their residential properties or noise polluters. Christ, we find it hard enough to deal with these people even when the state has mass coercive powers.

You're changing the issue, you didn't ask if there was a libertarian society, you asserted that libertarians would accept coercion to amend human frailties and economic snafus (some might depending on the nature of these frailties and snafus) and I pointed out the type of frailties and snafus that would require amending if libertarians had their way. Now, when anti-communists point out the communist record we're told these examples cannot be used against the communism advocated by our opponent, so why do libertarians have to provide an example of a libertarian society when communists reject the real world examples of communism rejected by communists?

As for farm animals, if I devalue your property by my behavior, that is for the courts to address if I choose to complain. The same is true for pollution as I've pointed out to you in the past. These "problems" you see are figments of your imagination and you simply ignore the libertarian responses... and I don't care to rehash what we've debated in the recent past...

[Ned]

Spiffor, worker control does not exclude huge salaries and bonuses for executives, right?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, worker control does not exclude huge salaries and bonuses for executives, right?

It does not exclude it stricly. However, it does make huge salaries and insane bonuses very unlikely, except in companies where the executive is very, very convincing

[Ned]

Spiffor, why do you say this? I assume even socialist businesses will pay for value and not overpay for lack of value. Businesses needing top scientists will pay them more. They will pay less for assembly line workers who need just a few minutes training. Etc., etc., etc.

Profits would be reinvested or distributed in the form of wage increases or bonuses, depending. In the end, I see nothing different about the wage structure of a socialist company.

I hope you would agree with this as it is obvious.

[Ned]

Spiffor, how would a socialist company deal with this situation:

Competition from a more efficient corporation will soon put the company out of business unless they cut costs. If they cut wages of the top executives, they will leave. Ditto middle management, engineers and scientists. If they cut wages of the assembly line workers, they will be paid less than the cost of living.

They could move assembly jobs to low cost areas, but that would mean firing assembly line workers who "own" the company.

What do they do?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Profits would be reinvested or distributed in the form of wage increases or bonuses, depending. In the end, I see nothing different about the wage structure of a socialist company.

There are little differences in the wage structure, except that insane wages for the top-dogs are less likely to be accepted by the company council (because as you probably know it, the work of a manager, despite being more worth than a worker's, is not 3000 times more worth).

The main difference will be the distribution of profit, which are likely to go in the employees' pockets, rather than in the shareholder's pockets. The main difference is that those who'll get the benefits of the company will also be the ones who know how it is to work in it, what working conditions allow now cost-cuts, why people should not be fired, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They could move assembly jobs to low cost areas, but that would mean firing assembly line workers who "own" the company.

What do they do?

Simple Ned, they die. This is why worker-owned corporations won't be competitive. They can't be as efficient as those who realize that layoffs may be needed in bad times.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Competition from a more efficient corporation will soon put the company out of business unless they cut costs. If they cut wages of the top executives, they will leave. Ditto middle management, engineers and scientists. If they cut wages of the assembly line workers, they will be paid less than the cost of living.

This is why my preferred form of socialism involves a significant state-intervention, with a non-authoritative, yet present planification which prevents such situations from happening. For instance, the State could offer the weakened company help in changing activities for a new one, or it could give help to better the efficiency, with favored investment loans, technological help and so on.
Also, in my personal opinion, big companies (creating significant externalities) in a socialist country should be nationalized, but with strong commitment to the workers, and to sharing profits with the workers. This is at the cost of the theoretical purety of the model.

But this is my take on a socialist economy. Fundamentally, a socialist economy could offer as good conditions for a libertarian paradise as a capitalist one. State intervention is a variable that further defines how does the socialist economy fare.

When it comes to 'Poly posters, for example, Odin is for a minimal state intervention between worker-owned companies, while Che believes such a not-toned down system is doomed to recreate a form of capitalism in the end.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

You're changing the issue, you didn't ask if there was a libertarian society, you asserted that libertarians would accept coercion to amend human frailties and economic snafus (some might depending on the nature of these frailties and snafus) and I pointed out the type of frailties and snafus that would require amending if libertarians had their way. Now, when anti-communists point out the communist record we're told these examples cannot be used against the communism advocated by our opponent, so why do libertarians have to provide an example of a libertarian society when communists reject the real world examples of communism rejected by communists?

You've missed the connection, which is that the lack of a completely libertarian society is evidence of the compromises which have to be made, as is the lack in history of a perfect socialist society.

As for farm animals, if I devalue your property by my behavior, that is for the courts to address if I choose to complain. The same is true for pollution as I've pointed out to you in the past. These "problems" you see are figments of your imagination and you simply ignore the libertarian responses... and I don't care to rehash what we've debated in the recent past...

You still are under the delusion that markets can effectively deal with such scourges as pollution, when pollution is one of the best pieces of evidence of market failure that we have. The air is a "commons" and is subject to all the same problems that the right harp on about with regard to other "commons". Coercive state laws are the only proven method of preventing these sorts of problems - since as individuals we all have an interest in abusing the commons.

Leaving people to their own devices won't work because of collective action problems. Economists have known this for years, it isn't their fault that Libertarians are slow on the uptake.