6 ms·

>No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely

by 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.
- ancap 11y ago
  >A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a socialist government. I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances. The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands? >For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes. Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates? >Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree. I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless.
  - fnovd 11y ago
    >In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I guess we fundamentally disagree on how historical events should be interpreted. >The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands? Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business practices. This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a government) to negotiate on their behalf. Pristine economic theories work nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one. >Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates? Do I agree with everything that the US government does? No. Would I rather be a US citizen than one of any other country? Yes. Do I think this country has the potential to move itself in the right direction? Yes. >I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless. In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars? Obviously things could be improved. Yes, some regulation is bad, just look at the anti-competitive practices Comcast has lobbied for over the years (and make no mistake, those policies are only in place because of Comcast's lobbying). Regulation is not the same thing as socialism. Socialism can impose regulation to promote certain principles, sure, but that doesn't mean all regulation is created to further social goals.

by ancap 11y ago

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.

ancap 11y ago
>A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a socialist government. I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances. The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands? >For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes. Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates? >Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree. I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless.
- fnovd 11y ago
  >In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I guess we fundamentally disagree on how historical events should be interpreted. >The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands? Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business practices. This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a government) to negotiate on their behalf. Pristine economic theories work nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one. >Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates? Do I agree with everything that the US government does? No. Would I rather be a US citizen than one of any other country? Yes. Do I think this country has the potential to move itself in the right direction? Yes. >I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless. In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars? Obviously things could be improved. Yes, some regulation is bad, just look at the anti-competitive practices Comcast has lobbied for over the years (and make no mistake, those policies are only in place because of Comcast's lobbying). Regulation is not the same thing as socialism. Socialism can impose regulation to promote certain principles, sure, but that doesn't mean all regulation is created to further social goals.