4 ms·

history has shown conclusively that state ownership is terribly wasteful and inefficient. If history is teaching us anything here, it is that ownership by an a

history has shown conclusively that state ownership is terribly wasteful and inefficient. If history is teaching us anything here, it is that ownership by an absentee-lord (whether elected by Communist bureaucrats or stockholders, it matters little) is wasteful and inefficient. And let's not forget that efficiency is a false god. An economy that leaves the masses starving or mired in lawlessness might still be "efficient" from some theoretical standpoint (efficient in feeding those who are fed, in protecting the lives of those who are in the designated protected class, etc.) The USA is dying the death of the USSR: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dtxqwqr_20dc52sm http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dtxqwqr_20dc52sm And it will be remembered in the same way, as a brutal dinosaur of an empire, run by sociopaths, riddled by economic delusions worthy of the wackiest religious cult. Without a switch to private property all those economies would be much, much further down the economic drain On what evidence, on whose word, should we believe this? some of them have recovered quite nicely Financiers, mafiosi, and their lackeys riding yachts is not a "recovery."

Duff 15y ago
The US isn't a paradise, but we do have a system of law that is reasonably just and at least makes an effort to respect the rights of its citizens. As the US has transitioned to an imperial power, some rather obvious warts have developed, but the democratic republican (lowercase is intentional) tradition persists. Human society has shifted dramatically since industrialization, and we haven't perfected the system since then. The US and other Western nations aren't the ideal, but I think we're closer to it than the Soviets were or would have been.
- pbz 15y ago
  True, closer, unfortunately rapidly moving away... at least from my experience.
smokeyj 15y ago
>On what evidence, on whose word, should we believe this? Pure capitalism is barter amongst two consenting and legitimate property owners. Trade makes us rich and allows for specialization and niche markets to exist. Forces that promote trade make us rich, forces that prevent trade make us poor. Forces that promote trade are things like innovation and technology, capital that can be risked in order to try new things, Y-combinator and other incubator funds, savings invested for future use such as start-up companies. Things in this category are what "pure" capitalism is about. It is ideological, but reasonable as well. Forces that prevent trade also prevent innovation, the development of technology, and ultimately our livelihood. These include tariffs, taxation, inflation, regulation, war, theft, murder, basically anything that hinders consenting adults from interacting. You can't trade if you ain't alive, or if you owe all your money to the State, or if trading is illegal. The more you trade, the more prosperous you will become. America is declining because we don't trade, because we can't produce, because we can't invest when we're taxed thru inflation and bubbles. We invest in military and regulation which has yielded nothing but croneyism and bankers. A strong State always inflates and invests in war, it's a textbook maneuver.
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  "Consent" is the favorite weasel-word of market-worshippers. Pray tell, in what sense do I "consent" to turn over a large share of my income just to have a roof over my head and to put distance between my home and criminals? Consent in a bargain between vastly unequal parties (in this case, an ordinary citizen vs. a market of wealthy people peddling almost exactly the same raw deal via emergent, silent price-fixing) is not consent at all. As for "legitimacy" - what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? Fine, he paid for it. And the person he paid? Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. And, not infrequently, a genocide. The legitimacy of a political system is always a collective hallucination. This is not a moral judgment. Collective hallucinations make for fine Nash equilibria and can benefit the people involved. But sometimes they do not.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? .... Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. You touched off this subthread by arguing that > Soviet dairy farms once belonged to the Soviet people [who] were not adequately compensated for their loss. You find corpses in the past of the Soviet people's dairy farms as well. Why, then, is their ownership "legitimate" such that they should be "adequately compensated"?
    - wnight 15y ago
      So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them have any more claim to it than anyone else. If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. Unless you bought my share from me, fairly, why should I recognize your ownership claim? The only answer, of course, is the non-libertarian one: force. If you pay the biggest guy around for something he'll beat up anyone who wants a share of the payment and legitimize your claim because to prevent a run on his now-valuable right to sell everything, he has to crack down on theft. It's a scam no matter how you slice it.

Duff 15y ago

The US isn't a paradise, but we do have a system of law that is reasonably just and at least makes an effort to respect the rights of its citizens. As the US has transitioned to an imperial power, some rather obvious warts have developed, but the democratic republican (lowercase is intentional) tradition persists. Human society has shifted dramatically since industrialization, and we haven't perfected the system since then. The US and other Western nations aren't the ideal, but I think we're closer to it than the Soviets were or would have been.

pbz 15y ago
True, closer, unfortunately rapidly moving away... at least from my experience.

smokeyj 15y ago

>On what evidence, on whose word, should we believe this? Pure capitalism is barter amongst two consenting and legitimate property owners. Trade makes us rich and allows for specialization and niche markets to exist. Forces that promote trade make us rich, forces that prevent trade make us poor. Forces that promote trade are things like innovation and technology, capital that can be risked in order to try new things, Y-combinator and other incubator funds, savings invested for future use such as start-up companies. Things in this category are what "pure" capitalism is about. It is ideological, but reasonable as well. Forces that prevent trade also prevent innovation, the development of technology, and ultimately our livelihood. These include tariffs, taxation, inflation, regulation, war, theft, murder, basically anything that hinders consenting adults from interacting. You can't trade if you ain't alive, or if you owe all your money to the State, or if trading is illegal. The more you trade, the more prosperous you will become. America is declining because we don't trade, because we can't produce, because we can't invest when we're taxed thru inflation and bubbles. We invest in military and regulation which has yielded nothing but croneyism and bankers. A strong State always inflates and invests in war, it's a textbook maneuver.

asciilifeform 15y ago
"Consent" is the favorite weasel-word of market-worshippers. Pray tell, in what sense do I "consent" to turn over a large share of my income just to have a roof over my head and to put distance between my home and criminals? Consent in a bargain between vastly unequal parties (in this case, an ordinary citizen vs. a market of wealthy people peddling almost exactly the same raw deal via emergent, silent price-fixing) is not consent at all. As for "legitimacy" - what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? Fine, he paid for it. And the person he paid? Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. And, not infrequently, a genocide. The legitimacy of a political system is always a collective hallucination. This is not a moral judgment. Collective hallucinations make for fine Nash equilibria and can benefit the people involved. But sometimes they do not.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? .... Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. You touched off this subthread by arguing that > Soviet dairy farms once belonged to the Soviet people [who] were not adequately compensated for their loss. You find corpses in the past of the Soviet people's dairy farms as well. Why, then, is their ownership "legitimate" such that they should be "adequately compensated"?
  - wnight 15y ago
    So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them have any more claim to it than anyone else. If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. Unless you bought my share from me, fairly, why should I recognize your ownership claim? The only answer, of course, is the non-libertarian one: force. If you pay the biggest guy around for something he'll beat up anyone who wants a share of the payment and legitimize your claim because to prevent a run on his now-valuable right to sell everything, he has to crack down on theft. It's a scam no matter how you slice it.