The phrase vulgar libertarian seems to exist to describe her.That just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. She was the opposite of a Statist. She fought against Statists.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The phrase vulgar libertarian seems to exist to describe her.That just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. She was the opposite of a Statist. She fought against Statists.
NuGnostic said:The phrase vulgar libertarian seems to exist to describe her.
Any form of government is a collective decision. Even totalitarianism by violent force is a form of government that exists by collective decision - the decision not to rebel against it. Our "rights" are also the result of a collective decision, as they don't exist unless most of us agree that they should exist, and then agree to grant them to each other by our respecting them. It doesn't matter the form of government or the rights in question, they're all the result of a mutual agreement between the people involved.Victor said:A democracy is designed to give people rights whether it is the collective or not.
You are confused. A pure democracy would obey the "will of the collective". If the majority were poor, then a pure democracy would obey the will of the poor.Victor said:But a socialistic system on the other hand does indeed seek the will of the collective. And since the collective is more then likely to be low income, the results are obvious.
First of all, you seem to be a little stuck on the rich/poor analogy, and there is a lot more to socialism and to taxation than taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people.Victor said:Perhaps the crux of our disagreement (although ideologically we want the same thing) is that I do not wish to take money from someones check through government means if he/she does not wish for that money to go to something like welfare. Albeit his/her greed is wrong, but it is hardly against the law. I only wish those who want to help from their hearts to do so. You seem to be one of those people who would do it from their hearts and bless your heart for it. But I won't take money from the rich to give to the poor if they don't want to. This robinhood style does not fix the problem. People have greed in their hearts and will find a way to do it irregardless of the system in place. I think a socialistic system does more harm in the long run then does a capitalist one.
Capt. Haddock said:Human beings are not that rational and incentives are not always what you think they are.
The idea that a free market is some sort of magical arbiter of human activity that will make people play by the rules and compete fairly and that the best man will win is 100% pure mental masturbation. Markets are simply another form of human social organization and they are just as f-ed up as any other, for exactly the same reasons.
Capt. Haddock said:If you want to see what a society looks like where there is minimal government interference and no official redistribution of wealth, examples are not hard to find. Just look at any underdeveloped country in Africa et voila. Even better, read about what happened in Russia in the 1990's.
Capt. Haddock said:Libertarianism is a fantasy on the same order as Communism. They both look nice in undergraduate textbooks, but are completely impractical in the real world.
Radio Frequency X said:Capitalism doesn't solve social problems, it doesn't solve political ones either, but the markets should nevertheless be freed, in order to protect individual ownership (as opposed to state ownership) and to encourage industry and production. Freedom isn't bliss. But it is better than what we've got now.
Actually, you'll want to look at:
1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Ireland
4. Luxembourg
5. United Kingdom
6. Iceland
7. Estonia
8. Denmark
9. Australia
Capt. Haddock said:Lol! Please tell me in what way these economies are freer than America's.
Radio Frequency X said:
"Denmark applies high standards with regard to environment, health and safety, and labor. Bureaucratic procedures appear streamlined and transparent, and corruption is generally unknown
But Denmark can? How?Social saftey nets are not necessarily anti-capitalism, though they are in the United States, where we simply cannot afford it.
Social saftey nets are always subject to Scale. The United States, China, and India cannot afford the kind of services that smaller nations like Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden can afford.
Capt. Haddock said:Like what? I have no idea what criteria these people use to compare regulation.
Capt. Haddock said:But Denmark can? How?
Capt. Haddock said:What does scale have to do with it? The United States has vastly greater resources at its disposal than Switzerland, Sweden, India or China. If we take Europe as a whole, it is a larger economy with a larger population than the United States, and yet the social safety nets are pretty much universal, despite the fact that those countries have fewer natural resources and greater population densities.
and therefore a smaller tax base, so what?Radio Frequency X said:Because Denmark has a smaller population.
and so do potential tax revenues. It's all relative. The larger countries of Europe all have similar social safety nets. Scale makes no difference.The costs of running a country increases exponentially with regard to population.
and Libertarians don't want to spend money on any of that. I understand it very well, and it's a fantasy that will only ever exist in the framework of academic theories.Republicans want high revenues but claim to want to spend it on areas that conservatives like, i.e. corporate welfare, military, NASA, etc; while Democrats want high revenues but claim to want to spend the majority of it on social services and entitlement programs.
Free markets have nothing to do with what governments spend money on or what it makes as a priority.
Capt. Haddock said:and therefore a smaller tax base, so what?
and so do potential tax revenues. It's all relative. The larger countries of Europe all have similar social safety nets. Scale makes no difference.
Capt. Haddock said:and Libertarians don't want to spend money on any of that. I understand it very well, and it's a fantasy that will only ever exist in the framework of academic theories.
Capt. Haddock said:They have to do with how much a government taxes and regulates the economy, which is certainly tied in to how much money they collect and spend, if not what they choose to spend it on. It also very much ties in to a government's priorities in regards to environmental protection, labor protection, health and hygiene standards, public infrastructure, competition policy, fraud prevention, stable financial markets, etc.
Ive been laid off twice because of the capitalist system, so Im not a big fan of it myself. But Im also not quite convinced that Im a socialist either. I cant help but think of communist and welfare states that seem to be failing in comparison to its more capitalist neighbors. The US has a far better employment percentage then its European counterparts for example. Theoretically and ideologically Im more attracted to socialism, I have no doubts about that. But what it produces is quite another thing. Thats why I kept on mentioning real people. For socialism to truly work one must lose this individualistic mindset, which I agree with but thats just not what happens.PureX said:Any form of government is a collective decision. Even totalitarianism by violent force is a form of government that exists by collective decision - the decision not to rebel against it. Our "rights" are also the result of a collective decision, as they don't exist unless most of us agree that they should exist, and then agree to grant them to each other by our respecting them. It doesn't matter the form of government or the rights in question, they're all the result of a mutual agreement between the people involved.
You are confused. A pure democracy would obey the "will of the collective". If the majority were poor, then a pure democracy would obey the will of the poor.
A limited democracy, or democratic republic, such as in the U.S., however, is not a pure democracy. It is a democracy only up to the point at which the will of the majority would infringe upon the set rights of an individual or minority group. So if the majority of Americans are poor, the will of the poor would be followed only up until doing so would infringe upon the rights of individuals, or minority groups. I believe this is a pretty good system, but for it to work, the rights of the individual need to be very clearly spelled out, and a clear set of determining guidelines needs to be in place to help settle future questions of such rights. This is needed because the majority will constantly be trying to deny these in favor of their own will. Unfortunately, the United States is mankind's first attempt at this form of government, and so the founders were not able to give us clear and articulate definitions of individual rights and freedoms, nor the clear and specific guidelines we would need to determine these later on. So we have since our founding been fighting amongst each other to determine what these specific rights and guidelines will be, and to whom they will apply. And more unfortunately, a lot of wealthy, clever, and greedy people have been taking advantage of the lack of clarity, here, to make themselves rich and powerful at the expense of their fellow citizens. And this self-centered greed has reached epidemic proportions these days, so much that it's actually threatening to destroy the government and the nation all together.
What we need, desperately, here in the U.S., is to clarify and articulate exactly what rights we as a social collective are going to grant each other and to whom, and therefor what rights we will promote, obey, and protect. And in the process of doing so we will need to clarify and articulate a set of social ideals, goals, and guidelines from which we are establishing our rights, and around which we will write and enforce our laws. And it's in this capacity that I would promote and propose a more "socialist" agenda than I believe the United States currently has. The days of the wild west, and of autonomous individualism are behind us. We are now a nation of 350 million people and there is nowhere we can go to get away from each other, and live totally as we please. Those days are past, and we're now in a situation more like the European nations: hemmed in and more densely populated, and we're going to have to become more socialized and less individualist as a result, in order to live and thrive, together.
I still believe that we should protect individualism, and individual rights as best we can, but I also believe it's time for Americans to face the fact of their circumstances, and to begin letting go of the self-centered greed and individualism of the 'olden days' and start working toward the collective health of society as a whole. And our models, like it or not, are going to be the more modern socialist democracies that formed after ours, and so have learned from our mistakes, and who have a history of living in more densely packed conditions.
First of all, you seem to be a little stuck on the rich/poor analogy, and there is a lot more to socialism and to taxation than taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people.
The reason for a government imposing taxes is first and foremost to fund the necessary collective activities that the society needs and desires to function. Taxes pay for the government bureaucracy. They pay for necessary mechanical infrastructure such as roads and sewers and water and power distribution. They pay for law enforcement and emergency response systems and for the nation's defense. Taxes can also be used to fund non-essential, but socially desirable endeavors like cultural expression and archiving, scientific exploration, and charity. The deliberate redistribution of wealth from rich to poor is only one possible function of taxation among a whole list of functions. And keep in mind that whether we like it or not, many of these functions are essential to the health and continuity of the nation and it's society. No one likes to pay taxes, because we're all greedy to some degree. But only an idiot would actually suggest that a modern nation try to function without taxation. It's just not possible.
So the only reasonable arguments going on, here, are those occurring in our defining what endeavors are essential for society to fund, what endeavors are desirable for a society to fund, and what are not. And this will mean that we'll have to begin to define some sort of balance between personal greed, personal needs, individual rights and desires, and collective necessity: social and national health and well-being. This balance was never clearly spelled out in the United States, and the vagueness is destroying us. Even if it had been spelled out more clearly, the times and conditions of this nation have changed, dramatically, And the old independent individualism of the past just isn't an option anymore. There are too many of us competing with each other, and with the rest of the world, to afford letting individual citizens horde wealth and opportunities just to satiate their individual natures. Those days are gone.
Sorry, but it's time for we Americans to grow up. And that means that we're going to have to start letting go of our desire for absolute self-determination and begin seeing ourselves as members of a human collective. Not just as individuals, but as a nation, too. Believe me, I love individualism and self-determination as much and more than most, but I am not here, alone. And my neighbor's welfare is as important as my own. If I don't like that, or choose not to see it that way, my neighbors may rudely remind me of it, as well he can and should. That's just the way it is.
Radio Frequency X said:Scale makes a very real difference. Larger countries have to deal with a lot more domestic problems than do smaller ones.
how so?It isn't relative. Increases in population change the priorities for a nation.
Such as?There isn't a single country in the EU that has to deal with the same kind of complications as the United States, India, and China.
So are the smaller ones. Size has nothing to do with it.Furthermore, if you look at the larger European nations, there are suffering from high unemployment caused by higher taxes.
I know this and I have repeatedly mentioned environmental, labor, and health regulations in this thread. Taxation is also an important way the government intervenes in the economy and so are state subsidies.But taxes aren't the only thing that restricts the free flow of capital. You keep wanting to focus on where government spends revenue and ignoring all the ways in which a government regulates the economy.
Do you really believe that the United States has less regulation than Iceland or Denmark?
We've been over this already.That's only a small part of the relationship between Government and Business.
I have nothing against libertarians and I have never said such a thing, so now you're putting words in my mouth. I far prefer them to neocons, fundamentalists, communists and any number of others. Academically, the idea is appealing. I once believed it myself, and would love to continue doing so, but experience has suggested to me that such ideas are really not realistic or practical.I get that you don't like Libertarians, and that's nice and all, but it has nothing to do with this debate.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism does not eliminate a free market. What it does is place the well-being of the whole society as the guiding factor in determining economic processes, and the limits of commercial interaction, rather than the desires and ambitions of individuals. Free markets are fine for luxury goods and services: anything that the public can reasonably refuse to buy, and reasonably live without.Victor said:Ive been laid off twice because of the capitalist system, so Im not a big fan of it myself. But Im also not quite convinced that Im a socialist either. I cant help but think of communist and welfare states that seem to be failing in comparison to its more capitalist neighbors. The US has a far better employment percentage then its European counterparts for example. Theoretically and ideologically Im more attracted to socialism, I have no doubts about that. But what it produces is quite another thing. Thats why I kept on mentioning real people. For socialism to truly work one must lose this individualistic mindset, which I agree with but thats just not what happens.
Perhaps if everything you noted can truly be applied and followed, then it might work. But until then, I will remain an observer.
PureX said:In your lawless Utopia, how do you propose to deal with those who choose to abuse others?
PureX said:I repeat: COMMERCE SHOULD BE SOCIETY'S SERVANT, NOT IT'S MASTER! And this is why I'm a socialist.
Socialism can't help but be economically limited to public needs. The needs may be reasonable or they may not. Maybe I'm taking the phrase free market hyper-literally but I can't see how socialism can ever truly be a free market. Companies will always be at the whim of the people.PureX said:It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism does not eliminate a free market. What it does is place the well-being of the whole society as the guiding factor in determining economic processes, and the limits of commercial interaction, rather than the desires and ambitions of individuals. Free markets are fine for luxury goods and services: anything that the public can reasonably refuse to buy, and reasonably live without.
All this in the name of Capitalism? I'm not sure if I buy that. It seemed to be working just fine some years back. Why do you think that is?PureX said:Also, keep in mind that the employment rate has little to do with people's quality of life. It's true that the employment rate in the US may be higher than many socialist countries in Europe, and so even is our average income. Yet the quality of life here is really beginning to suck, compared to these other countries. And the reason for this is that our culture has become poisoned by our having to constantly struggle to survive. We have lots of jobs, but many of them are horrible. We're being nickel-and-dimed to death in the U.S. as more and more of the nations wealth is being hoarded and controlled by fewer and fewer people, leaving everyone else to fight all the more intently over what's left. We do not feel secure in America. We do not feel appreciated, or respected, or even listened to by our own government, or by our own neighbors. And in fact we AREN'T. Our employers will drop us the moment we are no longer maximizing his profits. Our politicians will cheat us and rob us every chance they get. Our neighbors will stand idly by and watch us go down the economic tubes, just happy that it's not them, and that they don't have to pay anything to help us. Our business leaders are selling us out constantly for the sake of just a bit more profit. Our CEOs take home huge bonuses for figuring out how to squeeze just a little more money out of the rest of us, or how to eliminate just a few more jobs by making those employees he has work harder and longer for less.
Right, and this is happening with men and women who hold to socialism as well, no? Or is it just right wing capitalist taking the bribe? If not, how will socialism make it any better that high in ranks?PureX said:Our own greed is killing us, and is ruining our quality of life. It's gotten so bad that it's basically destroying our government. Bribery is now a legal and common practice in Washington, and in many of the state's capitols, too. And we all know it.
No doubt such people exist but I'm trying dearly to connect it to capitalism itself.PureX said:And with each bribe paid comes another law that creates yet another monopoly that forces americans to pay some corporation yet more money. The rich just keep on feeding off everyone else, stacking up bigger profits, while they produce nothing in return. It's not commerce, it's legalized exploitation. This is the "free market" that the paid liars for the rich keep telling us must be made even MORE free! This is the free market that the paid liars for the rich keep telling us will solve all our problems if we just let the rich become even MORE rich! This is the free market that so worships "private ownership" as though it were a sacred mandate from God Himself.
What's stopping us from governing a capitalist right now? We can put tariffs and push the government for certain regulations and it would still be a capitalist nation.PureX said:Look around. This is what happens when we don't govern our commerce. This is what happens when we let greed dictate commercial interaction rather than the well-being of the society as a whole. Our country is collapsing under the weight of our own greed, because we have not reigned it in, and forced commerce to serve the well-being of the people ... ALL the people involved, not just the most aggressive and greedy.
No qualms here.PureX said:It's not about jobs and GNP. That's just more BS that the professional liars for the rich keep spewing out to confuse everyone. It's about our quality of life. It's about ALL our citizens being healthy and happy and secure and able to contribute as best they are able to a society to which they feel they belong. It's not about MONEY. It's not about MAXIMUM PROFITS. It's not about how well the stock market is doing. It's about people's quality of life. Commerce should be our SERVANT, not our masters.
I repeat: COMMERCE SHOULD BE SOCIETY'S SERVANT, NOT IT'S MASTER! And this is why I'm a socialist.
You don't seem to understand how much pro-corporatist state interference there is and has always been in the current system or capitalism it is massive and chronic.Radio Frequency X said:I'm still curious as to how you've come around to your position on capitalism being a Statist enterprise. Is it because a free market is protected by law, thus depriving the masses of organizing in some way to interfere with it?
Huh? Since when has socialism done that,you are mixing it with social democracy.It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism does not eliminate a free market. What it does is place the well-being of the whole society as the guiding factor in determining economic processes, and the limits of commercial interaction, rather than the desires and ambitions of individuals.
No offence but you seem very unsure of what socialism is,you seem to be a liberal or social democrat.
I repeat: COMMERCE SHOULD BE SOCIETY'S SERVANT, NOT IT'S MASTER! And this is why I'm a socialist.