4 ms·

> Have I argued for centralized power? Then what are you arguing for? My understanding is that you say free market cannot be better than having some degree of

by snitko 13y ago

> Have I argued for centralized power? Then what are you arguing for? My understanding is that you say free market cannot be better than having some degree of regulation. Regulation assumes government, doesn't it?

dkuntz2 13y ago
You're equating regulation and centralization. You're also equating refutation of your points as taking a position completely opposite your points. If you take even a tiny look at the rest of what I had to say (which you also neglected to respond to) my argument is collectivization, which is not the same thing as centralization.
- snitko 13y ago
  How can you achieve collectivization without any central entity like government enforcing it? And what exactly do you mean by collectivization in the context of the subject being discussed? (I saw your comment and questions above, in the other thread, but I cannot answer them until I understand this one better).
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    You have government, just not centralized. Collectivize on a local level, and form a confederation of localities, giving localities more power. Additionally, and I've said it before, replace corporations with cooperatives. This is the more important part, you need to get rid of the idea that an individual can exist without society and outside of society. If everyone thought that individual wealth and profit-maximizing were the most important things higher education (and most education) along with a host of other institutions and almost every social institution wouldn't exist. And while I understand that a good deal of people are arguing against social institutions, they forget that wouldn't have received the same education they did. If everyone was wealth-maximizing most professors wouldn't be professors because they're able to make more working in private industry. The same is equally true for a large number of public educators, at least in the hard sciences. Education is considered a great equalizer. Society cannot get better if we privatize education, meaning only the rich can afford high quality education (and this is a problem that America is experiencing today). If only the upper classes can pay for high quality education the education gap widens, and it becomes nigh impossible for someone to be upwardly mobile. And that's where my main problem with the American Libertarian movement, privatizing everything can at best keep society stagnant.

by snitko 13y ago

dkuntz2 13y ago

You're equating regulation and centralization. You're also equating refutation of your points as taking a position completely opposite your points. If you take even a tiny look at the rest of what I had to say (which you also neglected to respond to) my argument is collectivization, which is not the same thing as centralization.

snitko 13y ago
How can you achieve collectivization without any central entity like government enforcing it? And what exactly do you mean by collectivization in the context of the subject being discussed? (I saw your comment and questions above, in the other thread, but I cannot answer them until I understand this one better).
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  You have government, just not centralized. Collectivize on a local level, and form a confederation of localities, giving localities more power. Additionally, and I've said it before, replace corporations with cooperatives. This is the more important part, you need to get rid of the idea that an individual can exist without society and outside of society. If everyone thought that individual wealth and profit-maximizing were the most important things higher education (and most education) along with a host of other institutions and almost every social institution wouldn't exist. And while I understand that a good deal of people are arguing against social institutions, they forget that wouldn't have received the same education they did. If everyone was wealth-maximizing most professors wouldn't be professors because they're able to make more working in private industry. The same is equally true for a large number of public educators, at least in the hard sciences. Education is considered a great equalizer. Society cannot get better if we privatize education, meaning only the rich can afford high quality education (and this is a problem that America is experiencing today). If only the upper classes can pay for high quality education the education gap widens, and it becomes nigh impossible for someone to be upwardly mobile. And that's where my main problem with the American Libertarian movement, privatizing everything can at best keep society stagnant.