Philosophy topic: the global society

[Einherjar86]

Ideally, a true communist system would operate through charity, since people would own the means to production.

Of course, this has never happened on a national scale because political regimes are always reluctant to give up their power.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

You're talking about Marx's communism at that point, which is not exactly socialist, and ironically anti-statism. That is why collectives/communes are compatible with anarchist/minarchist society.

edit: That was a good editorial, Dak.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're talking about Marx's communism at that point, which is not exactly socialist, and ironically anti-statism. That is why collectives/communes are compatible with anarchist/minarchist society.

And, furthermore, why so many people who declare themselves "libertarians" fall extraordinarily close to the definition of Marxist communism.

And you're right, I misspoke in my post and corrected it.

 

[Dak]

And, furthermore, why so many people who declare themselves "libertarians" fall extraordinarily close to the definition of Marxist communism.

Pretty sure I posted it before, but this guy agrees with you, to a degree.

The Statist mindset of Anarchists

Edit: It is disturbing when aug has a better grasp on the financial stituation than most people No offense aug

 

[arg]

haha none taken, the value of my money is important to me, you know!

 

[Dak]

Yeah, and just think of the poor prostitutes who are deprived of an honest living through aug, because of state leeches *like* Onder.....


I am actually being serious.

 

[Vimana]

I think the only time a government should step into industry is when people are worse off without their intervention.

 

[Dak]

I think the only time a government should step into industry is when people are worse off without their intervention.

And who gets to decide what "worse off is" and who gets to determine if government actually makes things better?

When you rob peter to pay paul, paul may be better off, but now peter is worse off. That is all government can do.

 

[Vimana]

Not exactly. I mean things that can be agreed on by people and statistics to be important like health issues, and environmental friendliness. Drugs and prostitution are good examples of government intervention on business making things worse while attempting to solve a problem. It would be fine if everyone followed the law, but obviously people don't, and leaving an industry open for all criminals just lets criminals make money.

 

[arg]

.

 

[Dak]

Not exactly. I mean things that can be agreed on by people and statistics to be important like health issues, and environmental friendliness. Drugs and prostitution are good examples of government intervention on business making things worse while attempting to solve a problem. It would be fine if everyone followed the law, but obviously people don't, and leaving an industry open for all criminals just lets criminals make money.

You mean making an industry illegal creates criminals.

As far as making decisions based on statistics: There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The problem lies in the laws themselves. There need only be a handful. But we have libraries of laws.


Edit: Aug's post is correct.

 

[SentinelSlain]

most of the times the government tries to fix something by influencing the economy, it is the rich people in the stock market who get the benefit, while middle class and poor people are fucked.

if ever the government DOES try to "help" the common citizen by injecting free money into the economy that was not produced by real goods and services (like stimuli/bailouts/unemployment benefits), the temporary and artificial boost in consumer spending is short-lived and soon runs out, and doesn't even spur additional economic activity/investment because it was fake, and people would rather hoard their savings. and then everyone is fucked even more because of inflation.

btw the nature of the business is irrelevant; we are only talking about cold hard money and how its value gets fucked. me buying whores actually helps the economy of the country i bought the whores in, because it was money acquired through real goods and services, buying real goods and services.

buying things in the shadow economy doesn't necessarily help the economy. Some of them might spend all of the money on something that was illegally imported.

 

[Einherjar86]

Pretty sure I posted it before, but this guy agrees with you, to a degree.

The Statist mindset of Anarchists

Edit: It is disturbing when aug has a better grasp on the financial stituation than most people No offense aug

That's an interesting article. I'll always question whether or not an anarchist mentality is truly as ideologically removed as it claims; that is, I don't know for certain if the market is as inherently benevolent as we're leading ourselves to believe. I don't think we can successfully comprehend how a true, entirely autonomous market-driven society would function.

 

[Dak]

I don't know that anyone has claimed that a free market is "benevolent". It just removes the legalized coercion that is anything but.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

It's a valid point. Isn't letting the market dictate everything as opposed to the government just shifting the corruption of absolute power?

 

[Einherjar86]

I understand Dak's position, I think.

With government coercion, legal ramifications operate to prevent people from making certain decisions and force them into making others. With a free market, absent any government coercion, people are free to make the "voluntary" decisions that they choose.

But the way I see it, if people wish to participate in societal transactions and economic progress, they must abide by the parameters established by the market. It actually doesn't provide a kind of utopic free choice system; it establishes a system that will have come about by natural means due to the homogeneity or similarity of interests among a powerful economic majority.

 

[Dak]

I understand Dak's position, I think.

With government coercion, legal ramifications operate to prevent people from making certain decisions and force them into making others. With a free market, absent any government coercion, people are free to make the "voluntary" decisions that they choose.

That's a start. It won't remove corruption, it will just remove it's validity, and any power in the "prestige of office". People should view any sort of attempts at "government" the same way they view all organized crime. It's a violent protection racket for the benefit of the mob bosses and their cronys.

Government doesn't stop corruption, neither will it's abolition. Abolition merely strips away the veneer of morality.

But the way I see it, if people wish to participate in societal transactions and economic progress, they must abide by the parameters established by the market. It actually doesn't provide a kind of utopic free choice system; it establishes a system that will have come about by natural means due to the homogeneity or similarity of interests among a powerful economic majority.

Can you expand on the idea of said system as you perceive it?

 

[arg]

.

 

[Dak]

China isn't gonna maintain it's pace. It's gonna get real old, real fast.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's a valid point. Isn't letting the market dictate everything as opposed to the government just shifting the corruption of absolute power?

I think maybe the difference comes in the size of bureaucracy involved, and level of efficiency. The offices of gov't institutions seem to be often rather stale and inefficient, gradually bloating the tax demands for itself over time, whereas corporate workplaces operate fairly meritocracy-esque,. And, at least for the time being, they still have competitors and market share to gain in many areas, so there's still a strong incentive for them to contribute to the 'community' in the form of products/services.

I'm sure there are some huge flaws in my argument, but it's enough of a theory to throw out there i guess.