Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[GeneralTacticus]

About that I dont think it was very flawed : he had ideas that included the best of the human nature, and ignored the worst. I think it is better than a system who's only built on the worst of human nature (greed, selfish, individualist, ignorance and totalitalitarian system) : modern capitalism.

You mean American Corporatism. Big difference.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
About that I dont think it was very flawed : he had ideas that included the best of the human nature, and ignored the worst. I think it is better than a system who's only built on the worst of human nature (greed, selfish, individualist, ignorance and totalitalitarian system) : modern capitalism.

So in other words, he ignored the fact that the worst of human nature exists means his highly idealized system could never work. Capitalism at least acknowledges that humans are humans, and twists the worst of their nature so that it actually becomes benificial for society as a whole.

Everyone, sorry about taking so long to get to you, but the unskilled labourer here (Though I'm starting to think he's less the unskilled labourer and more the ivory tower intellectual with no real intellect, or knowledge of how the world really works) needs correction first.

I think you remember this link Pan.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html

I'm going to give you some nice big fat quotes from the essay. I believe they show my contempt for your ignorance rather nicely.

The problem with Marx's grandiose vision of social engineering is that it assumes humans will play by rules which are against their nature, and that a large industrialized economy is simple enough to be centrally managed. Any engineer knows that when faced with an enormously complex piece of machinery, it is much easier to tweak it than it is to replace it. Complex systems such as societies and economies tend to obey the laws of chaos theory; the short and long-term effects of changes are unpredictable by even the most brilliant economists and sociologists, so any attempts at "social engineering" should be performed very carefully, and very slowly. It is a laudable goal to improve society, but it should be done through gradual change, not "revolution".

The funny thing is that communism does follow a twisted sort of logic. If you accept its underlying premises, some of its conclusions actually do make sense. However, you can't accept its underlying premises. Humans won't work as hard without self-interest to motivate them, as anyone familiar with the behaviour of our evolutionary ancestors will quickly realize. The collective self-interest of a nation of millions is much too remote and abstract to have the emotional immediacy necessary to strongly motivate most individuals. An economy of millions or hundreds of millions of people is not simple enough to predict and control from a central bureaucracy. People won't give up the traditional family structure, which has existed (either as monogamy or polygamy) in one form or another since the dawn of recorded history. And absolute power does corrupt absolutely, even in the hands of the benevolent Communist Party.

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells." Here he tries to portray one of the strengths of the free market as a weakness, by complaining that someone should be in "control". But why does someone have to be in "control" of the economy? "Laissez-faire" capitalism is based on the fact that free markets control themselves. The laws of supply and demand and the free-market forces of competition control the economy, without any government bureacracy holding the reins. The strong survive, the weak perish, and the group as a whole becomes stronger (it is an historical irony that Darwin and Marx published within a dozen years of each other, since Darwinian evolution is analogous to the free-market system which eventually triumphed over Marxism). The only role for the government of a true free-market economy is to ensure free competition rather than monopoly (which destroys choice), and to provide security and infrastructure for its citizens. The vast disparity in living conditions between communist states and free-market states is proof that the lack of a central controlling authority is not the glaring weakness that he claimed it to be.

"It is enough to mention the commercial crises [recessions] that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly." Yet again, he describes one of the strengths of a free market as a weakness. How can periodic recessions be a strength, you ask? That's simple: like any self-regulating system, a free market economy corrects itself whenever it gets "out of whack". Sometimes, this correction comes in the form of a recession, and sometimes, it comes in the form of a boom. Either way, it's evidence of the free market's self-regulating mechanism in action. Millions of people subtly and collectively influence the cyclical direction of countless separate industries through their spending and investing choices (every dollar counts as a "vote" of sorts, making the free market more democratic than the government in many ways). Did you ever wonder why central banks often raise interest rates in order to slow down an "overheated" economy? It's because they understand that know that an excessive upswing must be followed by a correspondingly violent downswing, so they try to encourage the masses to invest more and spend less. At all times, it is the masses who are truly in control of the economy, while the government merely tries to nudge them in the right direction. Compare this to the communist system, where the government takes control of the economy away from the masses. It is ironic that an economic system which purports to fight for the masses will actually take away most of their power.

[Explaining recessions] "Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce." This is the third time he describes a strength of capitalism as a weakness. Chronic over-production is not a bad thing! It's actually a good thing, for two reasons:

1. Availability of necessities. When the supply of a product is controlled so that it matches demand, there is always the risk that the government bureaucrats who are doing this "matching" will make a mistake, resulting in a supply shortfall (remember the Soviet bread lines?). However, when there's an over-abundance of product, this cannot happen. Consider the example of the fresh produce section at your local supermarket. They throw out a lot of food, because they chronically stock more than they can sell. Is this bad? Of course not; it ensures that nobody with a job (or even a welfare cheque) will starve, and it also lets us carefully pick only the most ripe and appetizing food.

2. Freedom of consumer choice. When there are too many products out there, all vying for your money, you have the luxury of choosing which one you want. But Karl Marx's communist government would take away your ability to choose what you need and which supplier you'll use. The freedom to choose is not a triviality; it is power. Why does the government care what voters think, even if only during election years? Because our votes give us the power to choose the other party. Why do companies care what customers think? Because our dollars give us the power to choose a competitor. In a free market, the masses have the power to not only punish a company for wrongdoing, but to totally destroy it, driving into bankruptcy and erasing it from the face of the planet.

He describes communists by saying that "they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole." In other words, they're selfless and they have no ambitions for power whatsoever. And if you believe that, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. The reality of communism is that every communist revolution in history has been precipitated by a small group of people who gave themselves enormous power while trampling upon the rights and freedoms of the people. Neo-marxists defend this ugly history by saying that a "true" communist would not commit the sins of Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc., but they fail to realize that communism seeks to take power from the masses by its very nature, by replacing free markets (which are controlled by the masses) and competing corporations (which the masses can punish, reward, or even destroy) with government monopolies, which the public has no power to directly control (to say nothing of punishing or destroying them if they are displeased with their performance).

"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." Ludicrous fantasy. An entire social class cannot seize power. Instead, it can only appoint representatives to take that power. No matter what flowery language Karl Marx chooses to use, the simple reality is that government power will always be in the hands of the few, regardless of whether that government is communist or capitalist. The only question is how much power we want that government to have, and Marx made the mistake of assuming that the more power the government had, the more power the masses would have. This is a very serious "have your cake and eat it too" fallacy; you cannot simultaneously give more power to the masses and to the government! Marx felt that free markets are undemocratic and unfair, but in reality, free markets are actually more democratic than governments, communist or otherwise. They actually respond to the whims of the masses, while governments only make promises. Look at Wal-Mart; its profits dwarf that of every rich person's boutique and specialty store in America. Now look at your federal capital: is there any venue there where your average Wal-Mart customer would be taken seriously?

"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer." In an industrialized world, no one will be paid more than the bare minimum required to keep us alive? In the real industrialized world (as opposed to his sterile imaginary world), if you have a skill which is in demand, then you can command a higher salary for your services. Conversely, if you have a skill which is ridiculously commonplace (eg. if your resume lists "literate in the English language" as your only job skill), then you will get paid a pathetic wage. I can't believe people still think of Karl Marx as some sort of genius when he obviously didn't even understand the principles of supply and demand.

You can read the rest yourself Pan. Your precious Marx was a quack, as is Communism. You cannot simply close your eyes, cover your ears and sing when confronted with the fact that human nature does not support your system. Human nature can be changed (See the influence that over a thousand years of Christanity has had on Western culture for instance), but not at the rate you're talking about, especially when the people would not *WANT* to change in that direction (They'd have to be forced, which gives us a dictatorship, if not a police state.). Not without Thought Control.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
And you dare sign you speak the truth ?

And you mean by this what? Your logic was demolished and this was the best you can come up with? Seriously Pan, even you can try better than this.

Originally posted by Maniac
Well unfortunately I do not know that theory (yet - next year I have one hour economics per week - too little I think - perhaps I'll take some more economy classes myself after I got my main degree). Forgive me if don't believe you on your word and keep my opinion for now.

Only if you go and do the research yourself so you can see the validity of what I've been saying. You understand supply and demand I hope, so you can understand the theories of social cost. Just look them up.

Originally posted by Maniac
You do understand though that state monopolies aren't meant to make as much profit as private monopolies and that their succes mustn't be measured by that method? Their succes needs to be measured by whether or not they perform their public function of (in the case of public transportation) transporting as much people as possible, also those who normally don't have the money for that kind of mobility. Can you really claim private monopolies better achieve that goal??

I'm talking in terms of social cost Maniac. Yes, their success must be measured in terms of if they can provide their services to society effectivly, but you're forgetting that part of them providing that effective service is how much it costs society for that service to be provided to them. If the Public companies have to run at a loss, then that is costing the society (Guess who makes up the difference when those companies make a loss? That's right, the taxpayer!). No matter if public or private, a firm must still respond to the pressures of supply and demand. Both undercharging and overcharging hurt society.

Originally posted by Maniac
So no equal minimum chances (no public education, transportation, medical care etcetera) as you told in the STEP thread?
Q: a corporation is polluting the water and air of a heavily populated region. Do you consider that a market failure which should be corrected by the government? Or do you believe this pollution will correct itself automatically by your "invisible hand" of the market that will eventually and automatically lead us to the ultimate good? (Quite a teleological belief I must say...)

I'll quote from Mike Wong.
"The only role for the government of a true free-market economy is to ensure free competition rather than monopoly (which destroys choice), and to provide security and infrastructure for its citizens."
That's my position. Perhaps I haven't stated it clearly enough.

A: The "invisible hand" is a metaphor for market forces. In this case, if the populace of the region has a problem with it, then it can likely correct the problem on its own. Remember, in a Free Market, the power of the economy is in the people. If the people don't like the business practises of the firm, then invariably, the firm dies. (You can't survive if no one will buy from you, and if other firms refuse to sell to you.)

Originally posted by Maniac
That *theory* is not proven by *facts*. Seven of the eight (not all eight - that's why populist right liberals sometimes claim the gap is decreasing...) parameters to measure poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor show poverty is increasing. So wealth does NOT siffle down to the lower classes. Free market does NOT lead to the general economic wellbeing of all people, but only a certain portion of the population.

If the theory is not proven by facts, then show how these facts refute it. References please. What are these parameters, and how do they show that poverty is increasing?
Wealth can siffle down to the lower classes indirectly, in terms of improved public spending and infrastructure.
Define "General Economic Wellbeing". You've practically stated there that the only people with "General Economic Wellbeing" are the upper class, while everyone else, because they're not earning as much as some others, aren't better off economically then they would be under any other system.

Furthermore, I'll reprint this quote.

"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer." In an industrialized world, no one will be paid more than the bare minimum required to keep us alive? In the real industrialized world (as opposed to his sterile imaginary world), if you have a skill which is in demand, then you can command a higher salary for your services. Conversely, if you have a skill which is ridiculously commonplace (eg. if your resume lists "literate in the English language" as your only job skill), then you will get paid a pathetic wage. I can't believe people still think of Karl Marx as some sort of genius when he obviously didn't even understand the principles of supply and demand.

Originally posted by Maniac
I'm glad you at least support a strong public education, something more than minimum government interference as said before. (You constantly seem to doubt what you consider acceptable for the government to organize. Why?)

Addressed above.

Originally posted by Maniac
Anyway, your idea is idealistic, Mr. Realist. You make the same big fault as Pandemoniak. If you mean what you just said, you believe you can create the perfect rational intelligent self-deciding human who always knows what's best for himself/society by education. As you like to say tell yourself so often: It's against human nature!! Humans are not rational, and short-sighted both in determining the consequences of their actions on the global level and on long term. Nor can they be educated on every subject. So laws are needed to force people to do things they can't/don't know are best for the entire society.

Agreed. IN THE SHORT TERM. In the long term, human nature can be changed, as evidenced by the impact of Christanity on western civilization over the last couple of thousand years. The idea is idealistic, but the method to achieve it is realistic. Education, over a period of many generations. You cannot achieve such things in a lifetime, but you can at least set the ball rolling.

Originally posted by Maniac
You're right. We don't agree on anything after all. Public service companies (let's say public transportation) should get compensation from the government when they allow people with a small income drive along at a smaller price. This to ensure equal chances for all classes, to ensure society can come closer to a meritocracy instead of a society still determined for a big part by birth.

Which causes a social cost. Overall, to do such things costs society more than it gains. People will have equal minimum chances. If people can afford better chances, through accident, birth or design, there's no reason to deny it to them.

Originally posted by Maniac
Tss. How unfair. My heart is bleeding for those poor poor upper classes. Why don't you stop your education then if you don't like to abuse them??

The fact that I'm doing something that I consider actually consider unethical doesn't make my arguements any less valid.

Originally posted by Maniac
The upper classes gain the most of society, so it's only logical they also contribute the most to it... Anyway, it's in their own advantage if the talented people they need to create their wealth can work themselves up due to socialistic programs.

Never said there was anything wrong with socialistic programs, but only so long as society as a whole actually derives a benifit from them. What you describe causes a situation with out of control social cost.

Originally posted by Maniac
Sorry, I couldn't help when I read that.

Appeal to Ridicule

Originally posted by Maniac
Only in countries where the government doesn't have enough money to provide good public education...

If you define "good public education" as education equal to that from a private school, then that would be every nation in earth's history.

Originally posted by Maniac
So you don't call your repititous referral to your holy economics course first year first semester an Appeal to Authority?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

Not in the logical fallacy sense, no.

Originally posted by Maniac
Okay, let's try you... First question: Do you believe in the absolute truth of the Libertarianism religion?

Libertarianism is an ideology, not a religion.

Originally posted by Maniac
I agree. Capitalism nuanced by socialistic points would improve it.

From now on, kindly refer to what you see as "Capitalism" as "Pure Capitalism". Capitalism doesn't and should never exist in its purest form, for the reason you've just mentioned. Lack of socialistic points. However, adding socialistic points to it shouldn't be taken to the extremes you want either. That only causes a greater social cost.

Originally posted by Maniac
So did or did you not read Marx' "Das Kapital"??? Do you have a correct rough idea what you're talking about?
His ideas about human nature may be flawed - at least some of them; together with Max Weber and Emile Durkheim is Karl Marx the name I've heart most often in my studies (especially sociology as several people have pointed out) until now - but I believe he wrote about other things besides that. Didn't he make an analysis of the capitalistic system?

A flawed analysis of his strawman distortion of the capitalistic system. Please see the essay I referenced in my above post.

Originally posted by Maniac
No system is perfect or can last forever. There need to be checks and balances to correct where it fails. Hence laws and regulations.

Never said there shouldn't be laws and regulations. However, laws and regulations should never be the only or the primary way of correcting failures in a system.

Originally posted by Maniac
I agree with the first part of what you're saying, until:

This goes against my goal of meritocracy (=eudaimonia IMHO), which is the most efficient system to use human resources, and which puts everyone at the position they deserve by their talents and effort. The best should be at the top, not the children of the best.

So you believe in the 3rd commandmant of Communism?

3. "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." Taking away the right to bequeath the fruits of your life's work to your beloved children. How charming. It's one thing to tax inheritance, particularly for the wealthy, but to confiscate it entirely? That's simply unconscionable.

Originally posted by Maniac
Good you told me. Now I won't waste my time reading one of her books in some future. Anyway, globalization IS positive, but the danger is when economic globalization doesn't happen paired with political globalization, such as now. Multinationals then become the real rulers of the world, and we end up in a corporate dictatorship. Probably most people won't even realize it if those multinationals also control the media. Classical example I always give is Silvio Berlusconi's Italy, where all the TV broadcasting corporations are under his control. Together with Bush & the USA he represents all I don't stand for.

The rulers of the world aren't the multinationals, but the people who buy their products. Without the consumers, the multinationals cannot survive.

Social Darwinism sucks. It assumes talents are always passed on to children, which is all but true. Hence my plea for meritocracy and equal chances instead of social darwinism.

The more talented you are, the more likely you've earnt more, meaning you've had a better ability to give your children access to education, meaning they're more likely to develop talents in their own right. You've rebutted a strawman distortion of Social Darwinism.

[Drogue]

If that essay is indeed right, it does not say Marx is a quack, just that it wouldn't work in a late 20th Century society. Pande admitted Marx's ideas "included the best of the human nature, and ignored the worst". Indeed, I agree that it is ludicrous to believe that people will work as hard without incentive. However his point still stands, Capitalism ignores the best in human nature. I believe that every action taken by a rational person has their best interests at heard, ie. giving to charity makes a person fel better, like that have made a difference and done a 'good deed', but I missed the crucial point - Humans are not rational, and, as such, do not have only their best interests at heart.

Who we are is defined by our culture, by society. We had, on Old Earth, a society that rewarded greed and ambition, and as such to survive, people participated in 'the rat race'. If you have a culture of good deeds, of giving to other, and of not being rational, then Marxism becomes a possibility. If we can make generousity an attribute that furthers the individual, that makes it in their best interest, then, if Darwin is right (which I believe he is) we will generate a culture whereby what is in the interest of the individual ceases to matter as much, and people are motivated, given an incentive, by what is good for society and what makes them feel happy. In that the reward for doing a good deed is a feeling that overrides the material gain of doing a selfish action. It is often said that money can't by happiness, so if instead of people being rewarded with money and a luxurious lifestyle, they are rewarded in feeling good, in happiness.

Another point that essay makes is that Marxism seemed plausable in 19th Century Earth, with its radical social changes due to the industrial revolution, and that in a Modern (20th-21st Century) society it is not. While our society is not ready for Marxism yet, what stops it from being possible on Chiron. We will evolve past our greed into a society without money, whereby human nature is not to do for himself, but to do for the group as a whole. Darwinism does state that our overriding goal is to spread our own genes, but if as a society we believe that that includes spreading humanities genes, we will end up with a more renewable, long term system.

Instead of ignoring the bad side of human nature (as Marxism does) and the good side (as Capitalism does) why not embrace both, and work to find a system whereby the good side is rewarded, and the bad side not? Where generousity leads to a better, happier and more comfortable life, and greed leads to having less.

[Archaic]

Capitalism doesn't ignore the best of human nature. It simply makes it irrelevant to the workings of the economy as a whole. Someone with market power being generous in a capitalistic society won't cause problems. Someone with market power (Only someone in a government position for a socialistic society) being gready in a socialistic society however *DOES* cause problems for society.

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Archaic


If the theory is not proven by facts, then show how these facts refute it. References please. What are these parameters, and how do they show that poverty is increasing?

Actually, this is the fact faced by every student of sociology. During 19th and 20th centuries in modern Western societies "real wages"* of upper classes have been steadily increasing, wages of middle classes almost haven't changed and wages of lower classes have been decreasing. The changes are not so huge, but they are and this process continues.

*The literal counterpart of "real wages" in Polish means 'how much you can afford with money earned'. Dunno if I have used the English term correctly, so I thought I should explain it.

No, I can't give you a link or another way to find these statistics, just as you can't prove most of your statements. There are no facts which can prove the some ideology is true. You can't prove socialism or liberalism are better than each other. These are only beliefs and views. They tell much more about you than what our world is like. I know I'm repeating myself, but want to be correctly understood: The fact you are liberal tells me more about your social background, opinions, education etc than about economy. The same about socialists, of course.

[Aaron Blackwell]

Someone with market power being generous in a capitalistic society won't cause problems. Someone with market power (Only someone in a government position for a socialistic society) being gready in a socialistic society however *DOES* cause problems for society.

In case you have forgotten, I must remind you these few words of wisdom Archaic

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

Free Market does give liberty to the citizens as a whole, it only gives the freedom to those few who are able to invest a lot in the market.

And the market will not allow every citizen to be successfull, only a selected few.

As for voting laws to prevent this to happen, this would not be free market anymore but more planned economics ...

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
If that essay is indeed right, it does not say Marx is a quack, just that it wouldn't work in a late 20th Century society. Pande admitted Marx's ideas "included the best of the human nature, and ignored the worst". Indeed, I agree that it is ludicrous to believe that people will work as hard without incentive. However his point still stands, Capitalism ignores the best in human nature. I believe that every action taken by a rational person has their best interests at heard, ie. giving to charity makes a person fel better, like that have made a difference and done a 'good deed', but I missed the crucial point - Humans are not rational, and, as such, do not have only their best interests at heart.

Who we are is defined by our culture, by society. We had, on Old Earth, a society that rewarded greed and ambition, and as such to survive, people participated in 'the rat race'. If you have a culture of good deeds, of giving to other, and of not being rational, then Marxism becomes a possibility. If we can make generousity an attribute that furthers the individual, that makes it in their best interest, then, if Darwin is right (which I believe he is) we will generate a culture whereby what is in the interest of the individual ceases to matter as much, and people are motivated, given an incentive, by what is good for society and what makes them feel happy. In that the reward for doing a good deed is a feeling that overrides the material gain of doing a selfish action. It is often said that money can't by happiness, so if instead of people being rewarded with money and a luxurious lifestyle, they are rewarded in feeling good, in happiness.

Another point that essay makes is that Marxism seemed plausable in 19th Century Earth, with its radical social changes due to the industrial revolution, and that in a Modern (20th-21st Century) society it is not. While our society is not ready for Marxism yet, what stops it from being possible on Chiron. We will evolve past our greed into a society without money, whereby human nature is not to do for himself, but to do for the group as a whole. Darwinism does state that our overriding goal is to spread our own genes, but if as a society we believe that that includes spreading humanities genes, we will end up with a more renewable, long term system.

Instead of ignoring the bad side of human nature (as Marxism does) and the good side (as Capitalism does) why not embrace both, and work to find a system whereby the good side is rewarded, and the bad side not? Where generousity leads to a better, happier and more comfortable life, and greed leads to having less.

Here’s where we enter into the realm of semantics; who is to say what is “good” and what is “bad”? Inherently they are rather arbitrary terms. From an evolutionary standpoint competition is unavoidable. Greed, however strongly it might be condemned by society, cannot be defined as “evil”, in fact from an evolutionary standpoint again it can be viewed as an entrenched aspect of human nature (another rather ambiguous term). You state that “greed” leads to having less, but this is not true, it leads to more for the individual who puts their own wellbeing above that of others, and it gives them an advantage over the rest of society in the sense that this individual who exhibits the characteristic of greed has more and society as a whole has less. We may strive towards a social structure in which we wish all to be equal, but this is not only naïve, it is unworkable given that people are not equal.

I believe we are taking the wrong approach to the whole issue of social engineering; we cannot ignore the undesirable social aspects of human nature (such as greed), and nor should we punish this behavior in humans. Capitalism rewards greed, socialism attempts to suppress it. Neither option is valid, for in capitalism society suffers as a whole due to the fact that greed is rewarded, and in socialism the individual has no incentive for improvement. Meritocracy, as myself and other have stated before, balances the two. It rewards individuals with a better standard of living if they improve themselves and contribute to society (allowing for incentive) while at the same time recognizes that though not all people are equal (nor should they be treated as such) that everyone must be given an equal opportunity in a meritocratic system to improve themselves and rise up the social latter.

[Aaron Blackwell]

I agree to what you have said voltaire but .... That sounds like you have described Eudemonia

Which is very desirable by the way

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
I agree to what you have said voltaire but .... That sounds like you have described Eudemonia

Which is very desirable by the way

Perhaps meritocracy is the first step towards Eudemonia; but for now Eudemonia is our of our reach (since it also implies that all citizenry are doing what they wish to be doing to the best of their ability therefore leading to their happiness; meritocracy does not require this, but rather that those who excel should be those who are prosperous).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Here’s where we enter into the realm of semantics; who is to say what is “good” and what is “bad”? Inherently they are rather arbitrary terms. From an evolutionary standpoint competition is unavoidable. Greed, however strongly it might be condemned by society, cannot be defined as “evil”, in fact from an evolutionary standpoint again it can be viewed as an entrenched aspect of human nature (another rather ambiguous term). You state that “greed” leads to having less, but this is not true, it leads to more for the individual who puts their own wellbeing above that of others, and it gives them an advantage over the rest of society in the sense that this individual who exhibits the characteristic of greed has more and society as a whole has less. We may strive towards a social structure in which we wish all to be equal, but this is not only naïve, it is unworkable given that people are not equal.

I believe we are taking the wrong approach to the whole issue of social engineering; we cannot ignore the undesirable social aspects of human nature (such as greed), and nor should we punish this behaviour in humans. Capitalism rewards greed, socialism attempts to suppress it. Neither option is valid, for in capitalism society suffers as a whole due to the fact that greed is rewarded, and in socialism the individual has no incentive for improvement. Meritocracy, as myself and others have stated before, balances the two. It rewards individuals with a better standard of living if they improve themselves and contribute to society (allowing for incentive) while at the same time recognizes that though not all people are equal (nor should they be treated as such) that everyone must be given an equal opportunity in a meritocratic system to improve themselves and rise up the social latter.

I agree, a meritocracy is the way. I posted my ideal economic model in the FM poll thread. However, greed is not necessarily good for the individual. Kropotkin has argued that Darwinism, and natural selection, actually favours co-operation, or 'mutual aid' as he put it. He argues that the individual would not survive without co-operation, and that it is in the best interest of the individual not to be 'greedy'. Indeed, modern game theory also suggests that, over the long run, being a 'short term profit maximiser' (ie. trying to make the most money possible) actually leads to a less profitable long term.
To cut a long story short (and much bad explanation) greed is not necessarily good for the individual, or good for business. It may one day become that a leftist business (ie less FM business), as advocated by Schumacher and others, will be able to compete better in an FM society than a purely FM company.

[Maniac]

Archaic:

Only if you go and do the research yourself so you can see the validity of what I've been saying. You understand supply and demand I hope, so you can understand the theories of social cost. Just look them up.

I am open for new ideas, so I did a Google search on "social+cost+theory" but didn't find anything interesting. Could you please give me some link with a summary or a book recommendation (preferably as short as possible as I don't have the time to take a crash course in economics)?

If the Public companies have to run at a loss, then that is costing the society (Guess who makes up the difference when those companies make a loss? That's right, the taxpayer!). No matter if public or private, a firm must still respond to the pressures of supply and demand. Both undercharging and overcharging hurt society.

Lower classes can't pay sometimes for education/medication/transportation, so for those groups you need to lower the price. It may be against the laws of supply & demand, it mat cost money for the rest of society, but that's simply the price of providing a public service to create as equal chances as reasonably possible. It isn't in the benefit of a part of the taxpaying population, but I reason from the point of view what's best for entire society, not for a few individuals.

A: The "invisible hand" is a metaphor for market forces. In this case, if the populace of the region has a problem with it, then it can likely correct the problem on its own. Remember, in a Free Market, the power of the economy is in the people. If the people don't like the business practises of the firm, then invariably, the firm dies. (You can't survive if no one will buy from you, and if other firms refuse to sell to you.)

I predicted you would give this answer... The mistake in your reasoning is that not all the customers are aware of the fact that this corporation is polluting somewhere; only those who directly face the consequences of that corporation's policies. Your answer would of course be they can bring their problem to the media, and make other customers aware of the problem. My answer would be you can't inform people of everything which corporations are doing wrong all over the world to advice them to no longer buy their products. Much would go unnoticed. It is much more efficient, something which you deem important too I thought from a few of your earlier comments, to skip the process of having to make all customers aware of a problem, and simply decide on a set of laws and regulations for corporations to follow, with the threat of sanctions by a central government.

If the theory is not proven by facts, then show how these facts refute it. References please. What are these parameters, and how do they show that poverty is increasing?

I read it in article, interviewing Noreena Hertz, in De Standaard, assumed the best quality newspaper of Belgium. I'm afraid I don't have the time to look it up again though. But I "Appeal to the Authority" of Kirov, who seems to know quite a lot of sociology and said the same thing. You probably won't take all these Appeals to Authorities I just did as proof I guess.

Define "General Economic Wellbeing".

You used the term first. I only took it over.

Basically, participants in a Free Market economy are motivated by self interest, and that the "invisible hand" of the market place guides this self interest into promoting general economic wellbeing.

Conversely, if you have a skill which is ridiculously commonplace (eg. if your resume lists "literate in the English language" as your only job skill), then you will get paid a pathetic wage.

So if a large group of people have not enough skills and the demand for them is much lower than the supply, you would just let them die or give them a pathetic wage? I won't talk about the ethical implications of your idea. I will just say that that is the perfect recipe for revolution, the end of the system you seek. Examples: Russian Revolution, Fall of the German Kaiserreich, the other West-European bourgeoisies being forced to adopt socialist laws to prevent revolutions in their own countries. And no, World War I was not the cause, just the aanleiding (According to dictionary: occassion?? Let's say the final trigger.) So even though it may not be economically sound, to secure the stability of your system you need to give all people the ability to survive even if they don't have skills which are in high demand.

Agreed. IN THE SHORT TERM. In the long term, human nature can be changed, as evidenced by the impact of Christanity on western civilization over the last couple of thousand years.

I'm amazed. Do you really believe that? Christianity did not change human nature. It created a culture which was succesful in determining people's actions due to the processes of socialization and internalization. So no Archaic, you can't make people über-rational or more aware of the consequences of their actions on a global and longterm level. At the most you might teach them the value to care more about themselves or society as a whole, but that does not mean they will know what's best for themselves or the entire society out of themselves... You have to educate them on the subject, for example the environment. But as said before, they cannot be educated on every subject => laws are needed.

The fact that I'm doing something that I consider actually consider unethical doesn't make my arguements any less valid.

So you would be perfectly happy in a society where you didn't have the chance to study due to your parents economic status? And don't tell me: "As long as you try hard enough, you will reach whatever you want." A classical argument of some libertarians. MANY statistics indicate a strong correlation between where you end up and where your parents ended up. Exceptions don't make the rule. With that much proof, to claim otherwise is about the same as claiming the Earth is flat.

Appeal to Ridicule

I said:

and therefore genuine-ly consider libertarianism the best socio-economic system for everyone.

You said:

Libertarianism *IS* the best socio-economic system for everyone.......

How cute, your unbreakable beliefs.

As Kirov said:

I know I'm repeating myself, but want to be correctly understood: The fact you are liberal tells me more about your social background, opinions, education etc than about economy. The same about socialists, of course.

Indeed. Liberals nor socialists have a monopoly on the Absolute Truth, if that even exists... (for my opinion on that matter, see my avatar...) I certainly don't know the truth, nor do you. Statements such as "X *IS* the best..." are simply ridiculous in my opinion.

If you define "good public education" as education equal to that from a private school, then that would be every nation in earth's history.

Right before you said otherwise:

Upper class usually go to Private Schools, which, usually, are higher.

Or what do you mean by "higher"? Higher in "prestige"?

Libertarianism is an ideology, not a religion.

Ideologies are the new religions.
First question: Do you believe in the absolute truth of the Libertarianism religion?

However, adding socialistic points to it shouldn't be taken to the extremes you want either.

I take it to the extreme?? My my... Communism is the extreme. On many fields I am even more right than the statements of the socialist (which is moderate left in European vocabulaire) party in my country...

Never said there shouldn't be laws and regulations. However, laws and regulations should never be the only or the primary way of correcting failures in a system.

Indeed. Human nature modified by cultural determination is best.

So you believe in the 3rd commandmant of Communism?

Yes I do. I do realize though it isn't realistic, despite being important to reach a true meritocratic society.

The rulers of the world aren't the multinationals, but the people who buy their products. Without the consumers, the multinationals cannot survive.

See above. Customers are not always aware of what multinationals are doing on the other side of the world. Certainly not when those corporations are getting a firm grip on the media...

The more talented you are, the more likely you've earnt more, meaning you've had a better ability to give your children access to education, meaning they're more likely to develop talents in their own right.

You do realize there is a difference between inborn talents and taught talents? In a social darwinist system the children of talented parents will indeed have many taught talents due to education. However, many children with inborn talents from untalented parents will not have the chance to develop those inborn talents, leading to an inefficient use of human resources. Instead of the best person with the best inborn talents augmented by education, children of talented parents but with less inborn talents and thus a smaller augmentation by education will be at the top. Where can't you follow this argumentation?

Drogue:

Actually, you could argue that a corporate world is a democratic one. In a sense, you are 'voting' for which companies will become large and powerful, by what you spend your money on.

That only is true when customers have full knowledge of the corporations' policies, which is impossible as mentioned in my answers to Archaic.

[Pandemoniak]

I said : I think it is better than a system who's only built on the worst of human nature (greed, selfish, individualist, ignorance and totalitalitarian system) : modern capitalism.
GT said :
You mean American Corporatism. Big difference.

Duh, you're right, no one else but americans does that. No australaians, no europeans, no canadians, no russians, no asians, and not even africans... Capitalism is indeed not worldwide...

[Pandemoniak]

I think you remember this link Pan.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html

This is still a bunch of shitty considerations with absolute no aknoledgment of marxism... (ie, its the 1846 edition of the manifesto he's analyzing, not even the 1850's one, and he totally ignores all add on made by other. That guy is stupid enough to believ he can analyze 150 years of marxism by analysing a ten pages booklet, even the manifesto is not that rich... )

I'm going to give you some nice big fat quotes from the essay. I believe they show my contempt for your ignorance rather nicely.

I'm fairly too busy to answer it, I gotta meet Deirdre in a holoconference in twenty minutes...

[GeneralTacticus]

Duh, you're right, no one else but americans does that. No australaians, no europeans, no canadians, no russians, no asians, and not even africans... Capitalism is indeed not worldwide...

The 'evils' of xapitalism that you like to decry are either features of the American system (which is not universal in the West, though it is in the US and most of the Third World), or else they aren't evils at all.

[Pandemoniak]

Examples ?

[GeneralTacticus]

Evils of the American system:
Control of government by the corporations.
Exploitation of other countries.

Not evils:
Some are richer than others.
People think of themselves before others.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Evils of the American system:
Control of government by the corporations.
Exploitation of other countries.

Evil from other countries :
European corporations exploiting Africa
(oil, diamonds, gold, arms market, etc...). You probably know that when the IMF gives a loan to a third world country, it is generally not in money, medicine, public infrastructure (such as roads, communications, health service and education, but rather roads from the slums to the mine, from the mine to the factory, from the factory to the airport, example from the Democratic Republic of Congo, ex-Zaïre).
Europe exploits mainly Africa, while USA exploit mainly South America (very simplified).

Control of European institutions by corporations
Today, in European countries, most of the intern affairs (especially economically) are dealt by European institutions rather than by national governments. These institution serve the profit of the european prosperity (limiting budget deficits, etc... -- I dunno all the technic terms for that in english, and the UE stuff are quite obscure to me), thus defavorising public service (see the example of energy, that has to be wholy privatised in 2004, while there are many strikes going on in France against partially privatising EDF (public electricity company).

These examples are only European, cause being European, I know Europe better than I know other countries, and in order to save time and be sure of what I say, I remained on european examples.
To sum up, neither American Capitalism, neither America, neither Capitalism have the monopoly of evilness -- what is evil, by the way ?

Not evils:
Some are richer than others.

Said like that, indeed, it doesnt seem "evil" -- supposing we can agree on a common definition of evilness. But if you consider things on another angle : one can eat only because a hundred starve, the riches built their fortune on the poors, etc... this can appear far more evil. The question is not how the situation is presented, its about what you consider being good and being evil. I personnally consider that if less than 1% of mankind have more than 60% of the wealth (or whichever other statistics, Im sure you get the picture), there is something rotten in the Empire of Capitalism. You cannot even say that "if they are richer, thats because they deserved it, they worked for it, etc...", because I wont let anyone say that Bill Gates worked harder than a child in a south american gold mine. They are richer because they were born at the good place and because they were ready to cause and use the misery of thousands other people, just for their own wealth. I consider evil to have 500 chickens when you can only eat one and throw the 499 others at the garbage to preserve the markets.

People think of themselves before others.

Again, it depends of what you consider good and evil, but believe it or not, humankind is a social specy, and you need the others to live as a human being. People would better think more often of what they need. And in my radicalest moments -- that no one on Poly ever experienced, people who willingly ignore the fact that human are social beings, I consider them as not part of human kind, meaning as animals.

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Control of European institutions by corporations
Today, in European countries, most of the intern affairs (especially economically) are dealt by European institutions rather than by national governments. These institution serve the profit of the european prosperity (limiting budget deficits, etc... -- I dunno all the technic terms for that in english, and the UE stuff are quite obscure to me), thus defavorising public service (see the example of energy, that has to be wholy privatised in 2004, while there are many strikes going on in France against partially privatising EDF (public electricity company).

Pande, I know it's very off-topic, but I'd like to know: what's your personal opinion about European union? It sounds like you loathed it.

[Pandemoniak]

I am totally pro-european, its just that we/they (?) are only building europe to face the USA, so we/they are making the same mistakes as them. I just hope it wont lead to the same results.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm referring to the 'American system' in much the same way as one might refer to the 'Soviet system', which was not at all confined to the USSR.

[Pandemoniak]

and so what ? I dont get your point.

[GeneralTacticus]

The 'American system' isn't the only way to run a capitalist society, just as the Soviet one isn't the only way to run a Planned society.

[Pandemoniak]

[quote]
I said : I think it is better than a system who's only built on the worst of human nature (greed, selfish, individualist, ignorance and totalitalitarian system) : modern capitalism.

GT said :
You mean American Corporatism. Big difference.
The 'evils' of capitalism that you like to decry are either features of the American system (which is not universal in the West, though it is in the US and most of the Third World), or else they aren't evils at all.
[quote]

There is indeed many way to run a capitalist society, but the 'evil I like to decry' are features of capitalism itself, not specific to any particuliar application of capitalism. It would ruin the Planet and let a major part of the population in misery, because theres no application of capitalism that can protect the planet and benefits to the whole society.

[GeneralTacticus]

because theres no application of capitalism that can protect the planet

Sure there is. Emission trading and environmental laws, anyone?

benefits to the whole society

On what do you base that claim?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Sure there is. Emission trading and environmental laws, anyone?

So, there are laws controlling economy... that isnt really free markets... All statistics and studies from experts say that there will be a dramatical increase of ecodamage, whichever law you choose to apply.[/quote]

On what do you base that claim?

The riches get richer, the poor get poorer. Clivage between social classes will become enormous, producing an enormous number of disgruntled citizens.

[GeneralTacticus]

So, there are laws controlling economy... that isnt really free markets... All statistics and studies from experts say that there will be a dramatical increase of ecodamage, whichever law you choose to apply.

If that's your idea of capitalism, it has never before existed and never will. The lack of laws governing the economy is not capitalism, it's anarchy.

The riches get richer, the poor get poorer. Clivage between social classes will become enormous, producing an enormous number of disgruntled citizens.

That's funny, I could have sworn people were better off in 2002 than 1850...

[Archaic]

Maniac, I should reply to you either today or tomorrow. Sorry for how long this is taking, but I've had some IRL distractions.

In the meantime, you might have more success looking up "Deadweight loss" than "Social Cost Theory" (Though checking for just "Social Cost" would probably give you some success too, since there isn't an actual "theory" of Social Cost per se.).

[Maniac]

Maniac, I should reply to you either today or tomorrow. Sorry for how long this is taking, but I've had some IRL distractions.

You need not hurry Archaic. I don't have time for these long debates anyway.

[Archaic]

http://www.swcollege.com/econ/mankiw...h20/links.html

That should be enough to show that Poverty isn't increasing.