6 ms·

>But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it

by ancap 11y ago

>But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social" in it?). Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? >There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance. And yet people work for Amazon. Willingly. What's wrong with that? Just because the work environment does not meet your standards of what you expect from a job, why would you want to deprive others of their jobs? That's very anti-social. >Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply. Not only are they not countries but trying to extrapolate such scenarios which happen between free acting, cooperating, social individuals to a generic edict enforced through threat of violence is foolhardy. >Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling. Again, your examples tell us nothing of socialism and are not even applicable.

fnovd 11y ago
>Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.
- ancap 11y ago
  >No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. Socialism may claim that but the results are very anti-social as demonstrated in my previous comment. You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? That's just one of dozens of possible scenarios I could mention which socialism prohibits. >You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance Yes, as that was the idea I was refuting from the parent comment. >but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. We need not compare state to state, as socialist programs are typically applied to individual sectors of an economy. Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. You will find corruption and you will find greater public outrage. Healthcare being a prime example. Ironically progressives blame the short comings in these sectors on capitalism. >The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. I agree. I would like to see more thought, more experiment and more results to see how little of a state might be accomplished.
  - fnovd 11y ago
    >You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? Socialism itself doesn't prevent you from hiring someone for $4 an hour. Current laws (which may be based on socialist principles) do that. You could argue that, in a future with a universal basic income, we wouldn't need a minimum wage, as people could survive on even no wage. Would this be more or less socialist than things as they are today? >Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not. Prove within reasonable heuristics? Depends on your definition of "reasonable". Our definitions are clearly different. >Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a socialist government. Perhaps it is not the socialist regulation that caused the failure, but the failure of the industry to meet public need which drives regulation. You may find this reversal (or un-reversal) of cause and effect ironic, but it really comes down to the classic correlation vs causation question. Without better research, we really cannot know. For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes. Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree.

by ancap 11y ago

fnovd 11y ago

>Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.

ancap 11y ago
>No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. Socialism may claim that but the results are very anti-social as demonstrated in my previous comment. You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? That's just one of dozens of possible scenarios I could mention which socialism prohibits. >You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance Yes, as that was the idea I was refuting from the parent comment. >but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. We need not compare state to state, as socialist programs are typically applied to individual sectors of an economy. Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. You will find corruption and you will find greater public outrage. Healthcare being a prime example. Ironically progressives blame the short comings in these sectors on capitalism. >The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. I agree. I would like to see more thought, more experiment and more results to see how little of a state might be accomplished.
- fnovd 11y ago
  >You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? Socialism itself doesn't prevent you from hiring someone for $4 an hour. Current laws (which may be based on socialist principles) do that. You could argue that, in a future with a universal basic income, we wouldn't need a minimum wage, as people could survive on even no wage. Would this be more or less socialist than things as they are today? >Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not. Prove within reasonable heuristics? Depends on your definition of "reasonable". Our definitions are clearly different. >Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a socialist government. Perhaps it is not the socialist regulation that caused the failure, but the failure of the industry to meet public need which drives regulation. You may find this reversal (or un-reversal) of cause and effect ironic, but it really comes down to the classic correlation vs causation question. Without better research, we really cannot know. For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes. Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree.