I support your right to *pursue* health and education. I do NOT support your right to *obtain* health and education, at my expense.
Societies are comprised of individuals. The collective as a whole is a piece of fiction. It is an abstract construct for the purpose of communication. I do not interact with "a society". I interact with individuals. I may walk amongst a "forest", but if I swing an axe, I will hit a tree.
@rmcdaniel423 If you look at it in a universal sense, we're not really individuals, we just think we are. When we look at mold, we don't look at individual mold spores with individual identities, it's just a pile of fucking mold ^_^ We have that sense of individualism so that evolution can work, so that we keep surviving and perpetuating the system. Besides, we're tiny little things, we aren't exactly all powerful...
@sNaYkE15 I don't interact with society in a "universal sense". If you believe in gods, perhaps they see things that way. But I, personally, talk to individuals, have relationships with individuals, do business with individuals, etc. You can be an anonymous part of a giant pile of human mold if you want. I will be me, thank you very much. :)
Society can be usefully defined as those norms, customs, practices, rituals, rules and pieces of knowledge that form the basis for our common experience. As such, every time you talk to an individual, you're shaping, and being shaped by society. Certainly this is what we in the profession of Economics think, and there's great work being done in network theory which shows it in action!
greed and power is wrong... regardless of what you call it. every resource in america belongs to each american equally. we should all benifit from our resources. in america today, becuase of greed power and corruption... our resources are being collected by big business and sold to americans. or reamerican resouces are being sold to other countries for profit. the rich have the profit.... the average americans do not share in the resources equally. socialism is the way to go.
I like this guy, but I am libertarian because I believe the government has showed it's incompetence in public schools and it will soon do so in healthcare. I see the merit in what he has to say, but I trust that through the free market healthcare and schools can become better and cheaper due to the competition.
Well a socialist society is one that's classless and stateless.
"classless and stateless political system: the political system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society."
Granted, this is a very loose definition, and addresses not at all the technical issues that would have to be addressed to achieve a society like this without becoming tyrannical.
In fairness, a fair definition, one that anyone of intellectual integrity has to sympathise with. Unfortunately, problems of path dependency and the reality of exchange make it a big problem.
@SocialistFreedom Now I may be wrong but I'm fairly certain that that is the definition of communism. Socialism would be where the government owns everything.
@socer777 What SocialistFreedom said Is the definition of Communism, the definition of Socialism is where there is little state but the proletariat still control the means of production. It goes Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, then finally Communism, So Socialism is the point between Capitalism and Communism.
@bioshockftw123 Your order is incorrect, it goes tribal communism, socialism, feudalism, capitalism and then fascism. Socialism, in practice, is closer to feudalism. Only very small groups who volunteer into it achieve communism. Capitalism, there is no collective responsibility only individual. And fascism is when the corruption of capitalism occurs and wealth and power is concentrated into the hands of the few, for the subjugation of all. Which is what we are living presently.
@firestrings272 No, Socialism is where the means of production is owned by the workers Feudalism is where everything is owned by lords. Fascism is when there is total state control of everything.
@bioshockftw123 Last time I checked all attempts at socialism have had the concentration of power by the state and all members needed to adhere by what the state says, regardless of the individual need. Just like feudalism. Everything is owned by the state and those that administer it are the lords of that state. The theory that the means of production is owned by the workers in socialism is just that, a hypothetical theory that's been disproved over and over again.
@bioshockftw123 In evolution, every step has its transitional period. There is no way around it. To establish a communist state would take military force and then the establishment of a "temporary" military system. Such a thing would only become another dictatorship in which the communist ideals as interpreted by those leading the force would take precedent, regardless of the feelings, thoughts or voice of the people. Communism, socialism, fascism are all about one thing...centralized Power.
Manifestly that's not true. If a democratic majority voted for a communist system, and for all private enterprises to be compelled by law to donate their assets to the state, there would be no more military force required than to maintain our current social democracy.
In fact, we are all compelled, by military force, to give a portion of our resources to the state.
@JmkLcAeJsm And If they don't? Such a democratic shift would take years to develop in order to ease in the masses into the very concept of communism. That's the Fabian approach, its been happening for the past 100 years. Radical change demands radical action regardless of what the populace wants. And such action has always been a failure.
democratic ownership of the means of production, workers' self-management and co-ops to replace hierarchical bussiness models and decentralized participatory planning to replace the market.
although, i am an individualist at heart. an "egalitarian" individualist (for lack of a better term) as opposed to a predatory individualist.
Honestly I don't know what socialism, capitalism or whatever sort of society-types there are, but what I know, the way it is now is not good, it needs to be a completely new design.
We shouldn't follow old "fashions" (in certain things), but more likely should build an intelligent future.
It's nice to say things like 'build an intelligent future' but in the meantime, we need to fund essential services and decide whether education and healthcare should be provided and if so how. The problems are right now.
Well, now you can't just provide one thing, because how things go is an already closed circle to assure the positions of some and it is unchangeable without changing the whole.
That is why we would need the majority of people, because then it happens on full scale, not only somewhere in some place what is related to other places anyway, so it cannot occur to be independent.
At the start, there would be a big hole while re-orientating things, talking with specialist, work out things, applying what wasn't an opportunity before and so on...
I think first the economy would be important, because it would provide the material to constructions and food, reformed healthcare , you name it, let's call it "basics".
Then of course you need to establish a concept of society, but most importantly a well-working and good for most, if not everyone (actually I'm working on this part).
There would be need for some laws, but I think if people would make this huge change, they would be in a state of consciousness, where they know and can understand why things happen and they happen with reason, for the good of all, so laws would be really just guidelines.
Rebuilding society for means really rebuilding everything, starting a new capital, replacing life where it is worth to sustain it.
Let me explain this a little bit better.
Cities in the desert for example (for example Dubai) are expensive to have, maybe now they are not for the people who live there, but it is for the nature - they are buying water...
What I'm saying is that the surface of Earth is not used properly.
Rebuilding roads plans (I know there are plans now where to build a road but I don't mean like that, but now I can't really explain), making them last longer etc.
Damn, I've lost myself and I know I forgot something - sorry!
I continue with what I remember.
Education would be crucial to provide the future generations knowledge - now education doesn't gives kids what they should get, that is obvious - making a new education is an other subject I'm working on.
Whatever, when I lost myself I really did, maybe later, but please respond, I would be happy to correct my plans if you point out what is off the charts...
Sure it is even more painful to watch people make the same mistake time and time again it look like a game of Russian roulette. I have heard from my grandfather as of his experiences with the reds. It is time to end this 60 + years experiment F.D.R. started. and move back to the tried and true capitalism.
You're against the collective but then you want to collectively force people to become atheists and make a world where Christians need not apply. Not surprising given the last two hundreds of atheist bloodshed starting with the French Revolution and continuing with communist and atheist China and Cuba, that some atheist can be as bigoted and hateful as members of Al Quada.
What a moronic comment. Evidence please that I, or any other atheist, want to use coercion to force people to accept our views. Communist states are the most religious in the world, look at North Korea for goodness sake, the fact that the objects of their worship are men and ideas is immaterial to me.
What evidence you have of the shit you've been saying? You didn't offer any when you talking out of your ass. "Communism is a religion"?!? Utter BS. You atheists hate it when people say atheism is a religion and scream with one face "unbelief is not a religion" but when the dirty little secret gets out that atheists murdered theists by the millions, then you scream 'they're not real atheists...that's a religion" with the other.
First off, nice to see you've abandoned your first INCORRECT assertion. Very decent of you.
Secondly, it may well be true that millions of theists were murdered by atheists under communism and other repressive regimes, so what?
Thirdly, communism itself may not be a religion, but Stalinism, Maoism and North Korean communism definitely is. All worship their leaders as gods or close to, much of the terminology (Father for stalin/mao/il, annointed son for il) is borrowed quite transparently.
First off, I did no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. Secondly, atheists have been beating Christians across the head with the Inquisition and Crusades telling us how evil Christians are but they won't own up to atheism's much larger body count. Thirdly, backpedaling and rewording your tired 'communism=religion' argument and hoping no one notices won't work. Stalin and Mao were both atheists and they promoted atheism and killed Christians that wouldn't conform.
There are millions of dead Christians that lost their lives because those that rejected theism were killing off those that didn't. And what a superficial comparison between religion and communism
Atheists covering their asses: They both have ceremonies and ideology so communism and religion is the same.
747s and bugs fly, so they both must be insects, right?!?
I believe that was true in 1848 ,just as the word Liberal then was a term referring to people opposed to the arbitrary use of goverment power not the recent defination as those advocating greater state intervention into the economy to acheive some social good. Libertarian now defines those who believe that it is wrong to force people to live up to some ideal. Words change, get a dictionary.
Socialism and totalitarianism don't just often go together, socialism is only possible in a police state. Human beings aren't angels, they will always act in their own interests regardless of the benevolence of the Dear Leaders. Thats why we have no socialist states without secret police and concentration camps for those who dissent.
It's true that in communist writings, or those writings that communist states later adopted as 'creed', women and homosexuals were supposed to be treated equally.
The reality of every nominally communist regime is that women have been seen in terms of the number of children they can squeeze out, and homosexuals were 'decadent' and 'indecent'.
Sorry if these seems pedantic, but it's a very different thing to say that "Communists tend to hold regressive views on homosexuals and women" and that in practice "Communist" states treated women and homosexuals badly.
I'd also dispute the claim that it's true of "every nominally communist regime", certainly as far as women go, as women saw freedoms that they'd never experienced under previous regimes and that weren't even fully given to women in the "Western World".
The following comments are taken from a Laotian woman cited in Howard Zinn's essay The Impossible Victory:
"...the Neo Lao said that women should have the same education as men, and they gave us equal privileges and did not allow anyone to make fun of us.... And the old associations were changed into new ones. For example, most of the new teachers and doctors trained were women. And they changed the lives of the very poor... ."
Then I humbly concede the point. I am entirely unfamiliar with South East Asian communism and even with Maoism in general, so my perspective is clearly skewed. Thanks for your insight.
The difference morally between Libertarians and Socialists is the use of state force. If Socialist advocates are willing to use the power to tax to force the implementation of a Universal Health Care, they reduce every freedom the individual has to live as they want.. you cannot have a right that requires someone else to give up their rights or property.
As an aside, neither a state sponsored military or a court system is absolutely necessary. Both could be voluntary in a truly free system. I would wager that a country where everyone is armed and no one has the authority to surrender is uncouquerable. You could kill us but never enslave. The bottom line is that coercian is wrong for any reason except self defense. You can postulate any reason to oppress your fellow man "for the good of society" but it is still the moral stance of a despot.
it has, will and will always fail when put into practice.
You have a very interesting hybrid of ideas, i will give you that. I'll take a thinking totalitarian like yourself over the sheeple (apathy) man i met on average any day twice on Sunday.
I hope you know that socialism is not an idealogy it is an idealogical familiy socialism does not equall marxism-lenimism hell it does not even equall marxism it only means that more or less wealth and land and means of production more or less ownd and by the collective that is it there many branches for an exampel there are hugh diffrences beetwen socialdemocracy and Syndicalism.
I know this subject well friend. So this collective you speak of. WHo is in charge? What keeps them from destroying this Utopian vision like all those who have tried this before?
Socialism is fools gold for men who think we can have heaven on earth. Sadly we can't.
Someone who 'knew the subject well' wouldn't mistake collective ownership for totalitarian control! No one is 'In charge' by necessity. The fact that totalitarianism and socialism have often gone hand in hand does not mean they have to.
All ownership is essentially private. involving the execution of some wills to the exclusion of all others. Ownership necessarily implies that someone or some group of people is in charge.
Mises, who know the subject extremely well enough that without prices to allocate resources the only alternative were command economies. Even seemingly benign interventions create distortions for which greater intervention is called for, broadening government until all are mired in the muck of the bureau.
Yet mises had limited understanding of the theory of competitive equilibria, which clearly shows that if one changes endowments via taxation, one can arrive at a pareto efficient and equitable allocation.
1.Mises never said that particular sectors of a market cannot settle into a equilibrium when taxed.
2. taxes by definition are decided by a command process.
3.You have not shown how to overcome the social calculation problem.
4. You have not provided a plausible explanation how a group with government power would avoid intervention in specific spheres (leading cries for ever widening circles of intervention)
2. Taxation being a coercive process, the rate cannot be decided by market interactions to set a price.
3. The social calculation problem applies whenever prices are removed from the process of resource allocation. The actual rate of redistribution or base income being funded by taxation cannot be set by market process.
4. I'm not aware of a single constitution that has actually prevented a government from expanding it's domain of power.
Political socialism is always a win/lose situation. One or more party wins while one or more party loses. This is because of its coercive nature. There must always be a loser when coercion is involved. Anarchic, or voluntary socialism is void of coercion and many examples exist in present day society.
Since gov represents legalized/moralized initiation of the use of force (illegal and immoral for everyone else) its coercive power is sought by many for their own anti-competitive advantages.
thank you soo much for this vid. I live in a socialist country and I find it very hard to explain to right wing americans that socialism is not communism.
I like the way you think. Although personally, I have no problems with religion so long as it furthers the goal of instilling basic moral sentiments in the populace without arbitrarily prejudicing them against certain groups of individuals based on factors like race, gender and sexual preference. For me, faith is fine so long as you don't continue to believe something which is directly contradicted by empirical evidence. Hence, to many, what I consider faith is not true faith.
An interesting perspective, but one tends to see religion as entirely incidental to what you are talking about, which is essentially good social education.
Religion as a phenomena in itself is, in my opinion, very much a negative one.
Or 'On liberty' or 'The road to serfdom' or 'capitalism and freedom'. I am fully aware of all these great thinkers and their works, so how about responding to the content of my video which may be a little more nuanced than you're expecting...
Well yes, because to have liberty (eg property rights) requires the threat of force. So to save me explaining the scope of my argument in comments, watch the video, and respond to that.
Why do you assume that I didn't watch your video? Isn't it possible that I watched it and disagreed with you?
Government is force. When ever government is not present in life, there is freedom. Socialists need government and the use of force. Libertarians believe in minimal government.
The central theme of both philosophies are contrary to each other.
I know you're going to want to get the last word in because it's your video, so go right ahead. I'm going to go watch some better videos.
Yes, but you disagree about a separate issue. I agree that government of any sort implies force, but libertarians believe in government.
The point I make is that libertarianism and socialism disagree merely about the scope of government and the definition of freedom, and this is a valid and important argument to have.
This is not the last word, I would be interested in a reply, and I wasn't trying to be rude.
I might agree that property rights require the threat of force, but I would disagree that it is necessary for that force to be provided by a monopoly of force (government).
We seem to agree on quite a lot. Although if you've never read any Confucious then might i suggest that he's worth at least a few hours of your time? I wouldn't necessarily bother with the originals, just the evolved versions of the ideas attributed to him. Particularly relevant to this is the stuff on collective responsiblity vs. individual rights. I'm becoming increasingly sure that we in the west are the ones who have it backwards.
You know what, I probably should. I'm a fan of the empiricists, and british philosophy in general, it's rare I recourse to continental, let alone eastern ideas!
Socialism is slavery; if you dont have the right to keep the fruits of your labor, then you are nothing but a slave. Even if you have a benevolent slave master/the State who provides you with a house, food, medicine, etcyou are still a slave.
You're not describing socialism in most of its extant forms. You are describing something like communism. Under most forms of socialism, people get to keep most of the fruits of their labour. Yes, there are progressive taxes, but these do not prevent the entrepreneur from getting rich, because sellers are able to take taxes into account when setting prices.
A little bit of slavery is still a whole lot of evil. If I must pick between slavery and freedom, I will side with freedom every time. Socialism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed to each other.
"Socialism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed to each other."
You're not very familiar with the history of the word "Libertarian" are you? If you were, you'd know that it arose in the late 1800s as a label for Anarchists, all of whom were socialists.
There is too much to explain in a post; but there is a very good video explaining what a free market is in my favorites called, What is the Free Market?
Your talking about communism, a so far abhorrent interpretation of socialism. While communism has some very good precepts, the implementation has been historically dire and manipulative. The choice you speak of is not quite an accurate description of these ideologies.
Socialism is an umbrella term, and it is more accurate to say that communism is a particular branch rather than the 'purest form'. Clearly, the leninism of the 'new economic plan' was not pure was it? Things are not as simple as you think.
Actually it is simple as I stated; socialism is slavery. I am a libertarian and therefore I am opposed to a government telling me what is best for me; that is my choice to make for myself. The governments only legitimate role is to ensure my life, Liberty, and private property are not infringed by others. As a libertarian I believe I have the right to do whatever I want as long as it doesnt infringe on anothers life, Liberty, or private property.
I will admit that socialism does work; for insects like bees, only because they are mindless drones. Socialism will also work on very small scales, like in ones immediate family; I am the benevolent dictator over my children. On a large scale it is in fact slavery. I do not wish to be a slave of the State regardless of the healthcare or any other benefits they may provide me.
What you don't like is authoritarian socialism, and nor do I. Is one a slave for paying taxes? No, one can move to a different state.
However, given that your prosperity is contingent entirely on the society you inhabit, it is not unreasonable to expect you to contribute toward the maintenance of said society.
You should for example have to be taxed to pay for law courts and defense I'm sure you'll agree.
As I previously stated, the only legitimate role of government is to ensure that no one takes my life, Liberty, or private property. Therefore paying for court systems/ law enforcement and defense are legitimate reasons to tax me; anything beyond that is theft.
Floating abstraction. Yes I depend on the thousands of people I interact with to fulfill my need, but when the interaction is on a voluntary basis I also fulfill theirs. Their voluntary interaction with me is praxelogical proof that I have contributed to society in sufficient proportion to my benefit.
No I disagree to social economic calculation of corruption of power apply just as much to these functions as any other.
Your interaction with society is far from voluntary. You are completely dependent on its instutitions to enjoy anything that could be realistically described as freedom.
It is, I repeat, not unreasonable to demand that everyone who is able should contribute to the maintenance and improvement of their societies.
Free rider effects. Such as measure of security from the elements and the wild would be a place to start; also, the ability to learn from your fellows, i.e. the inevitable pooling of knowledge. These are the very reason primitive humans would fare better in groups than as individuals.
Society provide protection from, nature, ignorance, uncertainty and enemies. But society does not provide this except insofar as individuals act towards such goals.
Naturally. Society is merely the aggregate of the individuals it contains and the pattern of their interactions. Nonetheless it may be impossible to reward specific individuals for their inevitable and unintentional contributions to each and every other member of society (except obviously in free trade of goods and services where there is a clear basis for property rights and a clear buyer and seller).
Right there is a free rider problem, to some extent.
But it's opposed to the commons and social calculation problems.
Also democratic theory is based on the assumption,, that people are people are willing to set aside self interest for the common good when considering for whom to vote. The politician or voting class who does not do this benefits to the detriment of the other parties whereas the free rider does not diminish the benefit the other group has created for itself.
You don't think the free rider problem to be related to the commons problem?
In any case, while it is true that democratic theory assumes a measure of self-sacrifice while and the free rider remains regardless, the ability of the free rider to benefit members of society may depend on social conditions (since these also affect interactions between members of society), who in turn require support (which classical market transactions cannot provide).
Now that you mention it, the commons problem really is the most extreme free rider problem possible. That is when none is paying and everyone is trying to benefit.
Health care, unemployment surport, and life insurance were offered once by mutual aide societies for a relatively small fee. Familial and friendly relation is where surport given is the most effective.
Those who find value in them. Courts can find funding in fees to losers, protection services by partnering with insurance, education and health care by partnering service fees and charity. Roads by those who drive, and trains by those who ride.
Have you any idea of the perversity of the incentives you would create having private courts? I shudder to think...
Our contemporary labour market completely undermines private healthcare and education provision, which works fine if people live in one place and work for one firm all their lives, but was never better than universal provision and will not work again.
Perversity of interests? Monopolies that use force against competition inevitable raise prices and reduce the quality of service.
Most international trade today is under the terms such that a private court is used to settle disputes. England once had a thriving system of competing courts.
80 years ago there was a health care crises of another kind. It was too cheap. Doctors lobbied for government regulation (read protectionist laws), and boy did they ever fix that problem.
And besides the U.S. Helthcare system is far from a free market. Health care provided by employer was a way for them to circumvent price controls of WWII, and the current system is set up so there is a tax penalty if one secures insurance outside of employment. By tying health insurance to employment in such a manner, competition is decreased leading to poorer service and higher prices.
Socialist health care system prevent you from knowing how good your doctor is. Publishing a doctors rate of successful treatment as compared to unsuccessful treatments is illegal in Canada. Of course the politicians and people of pull still know which doctors are the best, but you won't.
You personally will have not control over the quality of service given to you.
My point being in all this you would do well to delve into the theory and history of these issues, rather than knee jerk and non contextual replies based on the current zietgiest rather than a familiarity of the history and context of these institutions.
Which is why instead of supporting blanket government provision of these things, I support a citizens income with a compulsory health and education component which can be spent with anyone, and the full privatization of health and education services.
Finland has done pretty well with publicly funded, privately operated competitive schools. However once the superiority of competition is admitted, why not allow competition and voluntarism in the methods by with these services are funded on behalf of the poor.
Wheres the source of your proposed citizen income. Land rents, sales tax, corporate tax, or other?
Of course you would allow voluntarism, the only organizations I would refuse state cash (per child) would be religious ones.
I propose a 3 tax system: Wealth taxes (on money balances, NOT interest payments), a carbon added tax and a land value tax. These three are the most non-distortionary ones I can think of.
Voluntarism except where you disagree is not voluntarism. This is why government will always be corrupted. While I agree with your non-religious value, the low direct cost of getting government to impose values is a beacon for every malcontent to try to change things for their benefit and desire. Even starting from scratch with a basic outline (constitution) it would not be long before a vast web of rules and pork impeded or reversed the good results that may have initially been gained.
I was rather surpised to read this assertion and investigated available CHA, CMPA, and CMA publications, as well as the entire text of the Health Act itself. As far as I can see, no such law exists, nor have I ever heard it suggested before now. Physicians in Canada do not work for the state; they operate private practices just as in the US with the difference being, billing is contracted and fixed by one insurer. Any person can see any doctor they choose, anywhere, anytime.
It's what I've heard from several people in Canada. If it is not illegal for doctors to do so, it is at least uncommon, since having such information would skew demand to the best doctors, and away from the worst without direct prices to balance the demand.
I would recommend reading some books. Karl Marx comes to mind. In fact he argues that capitalism is more like slavery then communism (his interpretation of it), and I would agree.
However his interpretation is purely theoretical and communism is practically impossible.
"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice...socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
You're equating socialism with the state, when state socialism is but one of many branches of socialism.
I'll assume, in the context of this video, that you're referring to Social Democracy, which makes it strange that you'd equate high taxation with slavery but be seemingly OK with capitalist exploitation, which isn't much different.
The USA is the raw model that should be imitated by every country: unregulated capitalistic economy, small government and a secular constitution which separates church and state.
That kind of system has brought misery to many countries, social democracy is much better. Freedoms are very important indeed, how ever, high taxes are also very important
Can you give one example of a country which implemented full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism and as a result its people were miserable? I rather live in that kind of state then to live in a socialist or a communist country.
Even in Europe the western Europeans are beginning to understand that the social-democratic type of state is unsustainable; social-democratic parties throughout Europe are in decline (in France, Germany and Italy those parties lost the elections).
Again, what do you mean by unregulated? Should we, for example, remove patent laws that give you the right to earn income from your enginuity? How about tort laws that give you the right to seek compensation for malpractice? Regulation is neccesary for any kind of capitalist society.
Patent is short for patent of monopoly, and an utilitarian analysis shows that IP law is at best a wash, transferring innovation from smaller to larger firms, and impeding as much innovation as it motivates.
Tort law, and more generally, The English Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code arose in spite of rather than because of government action.
What in the name of Hayek is 'Utilitarian analysis'? All economic analyses are implicitly utilitarian, so you need to specify which if any you're using.
Shane and I largely agree on pretty much everything, except the scope of thunderfoot's error which I would say is far from clear cut, but I agree, and this has been registered as a video response.
awesome video, i agree with almost everything you say :)
i hate bible thumping, gun loving, repressed, homophobic, sexist, republicans.
ec123456789able 10 months ago
Do you not like democratic socialism?
diomedes39 1 year ago
I support your right to *pursue* health and education. I do NOT support your right to *obtain* health and education, at my expense.
Societies are comprised of individuals. The collective as a whole is a piece of fiction. It is an abstract construct for the purpose of communication. I do not interact with "a society". I interact with individuals. I may walk amongst a "forest", but if I swing an axe, I will hit a tree.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 If you look at it in a universal sense, we're not really individuals, we just think we are. When we look at mold, we don't look at individual mold spores with individual identities, it's just a pile of fucking mold ^_^ We have that sense of individualism so that evolution can work, so that we keep surviving and perpetuating the system. Besides, we're tiny little things, we aren't exactly all powerful...
sNaYkE15 1 year ago
@sNaYkE15 I don't interact with society in a "universal sense". If you believe in gods, perhaps they see things that way. But I, personally, talk to individuals, have relationships with individuals, do business with individuals, etc. You can be an anonymous part of a giant pile of human mold if you want. I will be me, thank you very much. :)
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
Society can be usefully defined as those norms, customs, practices, rituals, rules and pieces of knowledge that form the basis for our common experience. As such, every time you talk to an individual, you're shaping, and being shaped by society. Certainly this is what we in the profession of Economics think, and there's great work being done in network theory which shows it in action!
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
greed and power is wrong... regardless of what you call it. every resource in america belongs to each american equally. we should all benifit from our resources. in america today, becuase of greed power and corruption... our resources are being collected by big business and sold to americans. or reamerican resouces are being sold to other countries for profit. the rich have the profit.... the average americans do not share in the resources equally. socialism is the way to go.
mikeandlaurie1979 1 year ago
I like this guy, but I am libertarian because I believe the government has showed it's incompetence in public schools and it will soon do so in healthcare. I see the merit in what he has to say, but I trust that through the free market healthcare and schools can become better and cheaper due to the competition.
Bfisher14 1 year ago
bravo
cakeisgod1 1 year ago
True Socialism will bring a country great prosperity.
SocialistFreedom 2 years ago
True eh, mind defining that?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Well a socialist society is one that's classless and stateless.
"classless and stateless political system: the political system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society."
Granted, this is a very loose definition, and addresses not at all the technical issues that would have to be addressed to achieve a society like this without becoming tyrannical.
SocialistFreedom 2 years ago
Spoken like a true reductionist :p
In fairness, a fair definition, one that anyone of intellectual integrity has to sympathise with. Unfortunately, problems of path dependency and the reality of exchange make it a big problem.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@SocialistFreedom Now I may be wrong but I'm fairly certain that that is the definition of communism. Socialism would be where the government owns everything.
socer777 1 year ago
@socer777 What SocialistFreedom said Is the definition of Communism, the definition of Socialism is where there is little state but the proletariat still control the means of production. It goes Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, then finally Communism, So Socialism is the point between Capitalism and Communism.
bioshockftw123 1 year ago
@bioshockftw123 Your order is incorrect, it goes tribal communism, socialism, feudalism, capitalism and then fascism. Socialism, in practice, is closer to feudalism. Only very small groups who volunteer into it achieve communism. Capitalism, there is no collective responsibility only individual. And fascism is when the corruption of capitalism occurs and wealth and power is concentrated into the hands of the few, for the subjugation of all. Which is what we are living presently.
firestrings272 1 year ago
@firestrings272 No, Socialism is where the means of production is owned by the workers Feudalism is where everything is owned by lords. Fascism is when there is total state control of everything.
bioshockftw123 1 year ago
@bioshockftw123 Last time I checked all attempts at socialism have had the concentration of power by the state and all members needed to adhere by what the state says, regardless of the individual need. Just like feudalism. Everything is owned by the state and those that administer it are the lords of that state. The theory that the means of production is owned by the workers in socialism is just that, a hypothetical theory that's been disproved over and over again.
firestrings272 1 year ago
@firestrings272 That's why I don't support Socialism I support a radical change from Capitalism to Communism with no Socialist state in between.
bioshockftw123 1 year ago
@bioshockftw123 In evolution, every step has its transitional period. There is no way around it. To establish a communist state would take military force and then the establishment of a "temporary" military system. Such a thing would only become another dictatorship in which the communist ideals as interpreted by those leading the force would take precedent, regardless of the feelings, thoughts or voice of the people. Communism, socialism, fascism are all about one thing...centralized Power.
firestrings272 1 year ago
Manifestly that's not true. If a democratic majority voted for a communist system, and for all private enterprises to be compelled by law to donate their assets to the state, there would be no more military force required than to maintain our current social democracy.
In fact, we are all compelled, by military force, to give a portion of our resources to the state.
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm And If they don't? Such a democratic shift would take years to develop in order to ease in the masses into the very concept of communism. That's the Fabian approach, its been happening for the past 100 years. Radical change demands radical action regardless of what the populace wants. And such action has always been a failure.
firestrings272 1 year ago
Socialism SUCKS , leads to Communism. Communism = SLAVERY of the highest degree in the most brutal fashion possible
BelayaArmiyaForever 2 years ago
So, you didn't watch the video and didn't address teh arguments I actually made.
And what's your evidence that Socialism inevitably leads to communism? And what is communism by the way?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Whatever guy. I dont need to prove anything to anyone. You obviously think you know it all already = ) LOL
BelayaArmiyaForever 2 years ago
Apparently not! Well, have fun with that.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Capitalism is great, slaves without the chains, sign me up.
itrainsinoctober 2 years ago
i prefer a non-statist persuasion of socialism.
democratic ownership of the means of production, workers' self-management and co-ops to replace hierarchical bussiness models and decentralized participatory planning to replace the market.
although, i am an individualist at heart. an "egalitarian" individualist (for lack of a better term) as opposed to a predatory individualist.
fede2 2 years ago
Honestly I don't know what socialism, capitalism or whatever sort of society-types there are, but what I know, the way it is now is not good, it needs to be a completely new design.
We shouldn't follow old "fashions" (in certain things), but more likely should build an intelligent future.
Just a thought.
IceHammer58 2 years ago
It's nice to say things like 'build an intelligent future' but in the meantime, we need to fund essential services and decide whether education and healthcare should be provided and if so how. The problems are right now.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Well, now you can't just provide one thing, because how things go is an already closed circle to assure the positions of some and it is unchangeable without changing the whole.
That is why we would need the majority of people, because then it happens on full scale, not only somewhere in some place what is related to other places anyway, so it cannot occur to be independent.
continues in 2nd comment...
IceHammer58 2 years ago
At the start, there would be a big hole while re-orientating things, talking with specialist, work out things, applying what wasn't an opportunity before and so on...
I think first the economy would be important, because it would provide the material to constructions and food, reformed healthcare , you name it, let's call it "basics".
continues...
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Then of course you need to establish a concept of society, but most importantly a well-working and good for most, if not everyone (actually I'm working on this part).
There would be need for some laws, but I think if people would make this huge change, they would be in a state of consciousness, where they know and can understand why things happen and they happen with reason, for the good of all, so laws would be really just guidelines.
continues...
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Rebuilding society for means really rebuilding everything, starting a new capital, replacing life where it is worth to sustain it.
Let me explain this a little bit better.
Cities in the desert for example (for example Dubai) are expensive to have, maybe now they are not for the people who live there, but it is for the nature - they are buying water...
What I'm saying is that the surface of Earth is not used properly.
continues...
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Rebuilding roads plans (I know there are plans now where to build a road but I don't mean like that, but now I can't really explain), making them last longer etc.
Damn, I've lost myself and I know I forgot something - sorry!
I continue with what I remember.
Education would be crucial to provide the future generations knowledge - now education doesn't gives kids what they should get, that is obvious - making a new education is an other subject I'm working on.
continues... maybe
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Whatever, when I lost myself I really did, maybe later, but please respond, I would be happy to correct my plans if you point out what is off the charts...
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Dude, just make a video about it, I'm not really following!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Sorry, I don't have a camera.
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Or microphone to record sound.
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Feeble, defeatist talk! Go and buy one, they're about £15 for a really good one.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Comment removed
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Comment removed
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Comment removed
IceHammer58 2 years ago
Kill Socialism Failed system that every where it has been tried it has failed America will do no better. Revolution time peps.
nightstalkersasslt 2 years ago
It's painfully obvious when folks haven't ever read any books on politics/political economy isn't it...
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Sure it is even more painful to watch people make the same mistake time and time again it look like a game of Russian roulette. I have heard from my grandfather as of his experiences with the reds. It is time to end this 60 + years experiment F.D.R. started. and move back to the tried and true capitalism.
nightstalkersasslt 2 years ago
Comment removed
divingfire 2 years ago
You're against the collective but then you want to collectively force people to become atheists and make a world where Christians need not apply. Not surprising given the last two hundreds of atheist bloodshed starting with the French Revolution and continuing with communist and atheist China and Cuba, that some atheist can be as bigoted and hateful as members of Al Quada.
CrossoverManiac 2 years ago
What a moronic comment. Evidence please that I, or any other atheist, want to use coercion to force people to accept our views. Communist states are the most religious in the world, look at North Korea for goodness sake, the fact that the objects of their worship are men and ideas is immaterial to me.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
What evidence you have of the shit you've been saying? You didn't offer any when you talking out of your ass. "Communism is a religion"?!? Utter BS. You atheists hate it when people say atheism is a religion and scream with one face "unbelief is not a religion" but when the dirty little secret gets out that atheists murdered theists by the millions, then you scream 'they're not real atheists...that's a religion" with the other.
CrossoverManiac 2 years ago
First off, nice to see you've abandoned your first INCORRECT assertion. Very decent of you.
Secondly, it may well be true that millions of theists were murdered by atheists under communism and other repressive regimes, so what?
Thirdly, communism itself may not be a religion, but Stalinism, Maoism and North Korean communism definitely is. All worship their leaders as gods or close to, much of the terminology (Father for stalin/mao/il, annointed son for il) is borrowed quite transparently.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
First off, I did no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. Secondly, atheists have been beating Christians across the head with the Inquisition and Crusades telling us how evil Christians are but they won't own up to atheism's much larger body count. Thirdly, backpedaling and rewording your tired 'communism=religion' argument and hoping no one notices won't work. Stalin and Mao were both atheists and they promoted atheism and killed Christians that wouldn't conform.
CrossoverManiac 2 years ago
You said I wanted to force people to become atheist. Not true.
Atheism doesn't have a body count, it's not a set of ideas. It can't do anything. It's merely a rejection of theism.
And what do you call something where people are worshipped in a ceremonial fashion, with dogmas, belief systems and rituals etc if not 'religion'?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
There are millions of dead Christians that lost their lives because those that rejected theism were killing off those that didn't. And what a superficial comparison between religion and communism
Atheists covering their asses: They both have ceremonies and ideology so communism and religion is the same.
747s and bugs fly, so they both must be insects, right?!?
CrossoverManiac 2 years ago
Do a thought experiment. Replace god with Lenin and Jesus with stalin and find me one meaningful distinction between stalinism and christianity.
Then we'll see who's making the category fallacy.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
I believe that was true in 1848 ,just as the word Liberal then was a term referring to people opposed to the arbitrary use of goverment power not the recent defination as those advocating greater state intervention into the economy to acheive some social good. Libertarian now defines those who believe that it is wrong to force people to live up to some ideal. Words change, get a dictionary.
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
Socialism and totalitarianism don't just often go together, socialism is only possible in a police state. Human beings aren't angels, they will always act in their own interests regardless of the benevolence of the Dear Leaders. Thats why we have no socialist states without secret police and concentration camps for those who dissent.
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
"Communists tend to hold regressive views on homosexuals and women."
What? Even if you're referring to Marxists, hell even Marxist-Leninists - this simply isn't true.
TheHarlequin13 2 years ago
It's true that in communist writings, or those writings that communist states later adopted as 'creed', women and homosexuals were supposed to be treated equally.
The reality of every nominally communist regime is that women have been seen in terms of the number of children they can squeeze out, and homosexuals were 'decadent' and 'indecent'.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Sorry if these seems pedantic, but it's a very different thing to say that "Communists tend to hold regressive views on homosexuals and women" and that in practice "Communist" states treated women and homosexuals badly.
I'd also dispute the claim that it's true of "every nominally communist regime", certainly as far as women go, as women saw freedoms that they'd never experienced under previous regimes and that weren't even fully given to women in the "Western World".
TheHarlequin13 2 years ago
The following comments are taken from a Laotian woman cited in Howard Zinn's essay The Impossible Victory:
"...the Neo Lao said that women should have the same education as men, and they gave us equal privileges and did not allow anyone to make fun of us.... And the old associations were changed into new ones. For example, most of the new teachers and doctors trained were women. And they changed the lives of the very poor... ."
TheHarlequin13 2 years ago
Then I humbly concede the point. I am entirely unfamiliar with South East Asian communism and even with Maoism in general, so my perspective is clearly skewed. Thanks for your insight.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
The difference morally between Libertarians and Socialists is the use of state force. If Socialist advocates are willing to use the power to tax to force the implementation of a Universal Health Care, they reduce every freedom the individual has to live as they want.. you cannot have a right that requires someone else to give up their rights or property.
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
On those grounds you can't have a military or a legal system either. Both require tax funding.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
As an aside, neither a state sponsored military or a court system is absolutely necessary. Both could be voluntary in a truly free system. I would wager that a country where everyone is armed and no one has the authority to surrender is uncouquerable. You could kill us but never enslave. The bottom line is that coercian is wrong for any reason except self defense. You can postulate any reason to oppress your fellow man "for the good of society" but it is still the moral stance of a despot.
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
This is pie in the sky nonsense.
it has, will and will always fail when put into practice.
You have a very interesting hybrid of ideas, i will give you that. I'll take a thinking totalitarian like yourself over the sheeple (apathy) man i met on average any day twice on Sunday.
cheers
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
I hope you know that socialism is not an idealogy it is an idealogical familiy socialism does not equall marxism-lenimism hell it does not even equall marxism it only means that more or less wealth and land and means of production more or less ownd and by the collective that is it there many branches for an exampel there are hugh diffrences beetwen socialdemocracy and Syndicalism.
Eopyk 2 years ago
I know this subject well friend. So this collective you speak of. WHo is in charge? What keeps them from destroying this Utopian vision like all those who have tried this before?
Socialism is fools gold for men who think we can have heaven on earth. Sadly we can't.
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
Someone who 'knew the subject well' wouldn't mistake collective ownership for totalitarian control! No one is 'In charge' by necessity. The fact that totalitarianism and socialism have often gone hand in hand does not mean they have to.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
All ownership is essentially private. involving the execution of some wills to the exclusion of all others. Ownership necessarily implies that someone or some group of people is in charge.
Mises, who know the subject extremely well enough that without prices to allocate resources the only alternative were command economies. Even seemingly benign interventions create distortions for which greater intervention is called for, broadening government until all are mired in the muck of the bureau.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Yet mises had limited understanding of the theory of competitive equilibria, which clearly shows that if one changes endowments via taxation, one can arrive at a pareto efficient and equitable allocation.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You haven't answered mises's objections.
1.Mises never said that particular sectors of a market cannot settle into a equilibrium when taxed.
2. taxes by definition are decided by a command process.
3.You have not shown how to overcome the social calculation problem.
4. You have not provided a plausible explanation how a group with government power would avoid intervention in specific spheres (leading cries for ever widening circles of intervention)
WorBlux 2 years ago
1. Quite so.
2. Conflating taxation with a command economy is really disingenuous.
3. That's also disingenuous, the social calculation problem only applies to command economies, I do not support such a thing.
4. A written constitution should do it.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
2. Taxation being a coercive process, the rate cannot be decided by market interactions to set a price.
3. The social calculation problem applies whenever prices are removed from the process of resource allocation. The actual rate of redistribution or base income being funded by taxation cannot be set by market process.
4. I'm not aware of a single constitution that has actually prevented a government from expanding it's domain of power.
WorBlux 2 years ago
2. Correct, but the market is not the be all and end all. For solving some allocation problems, taxation is neccesary.
3. Prices are not being removed, rather modified.
4. The spirit of constitutionality definitely helps.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Political socialism is always a win/lose situation. One or more party wins while one or more party loses. This is because of its coercive nature. There must always be a loser when coercion is involved. Anarchic, or voluntary socialism is void of coercion and many examples exist in present day society.
Since gov represents legalized/moralized initiation of the use of force (illegal and immoral for everyone else) its coercive power is sought by many for their own anti-competitive advantages.
furyofbongos 2 years ago 2
thank you soo much for this vid. I live in a socialist country and I find it very hard to explain to right wing americans that socialism is not communism.
philateliceun 2 years ago
Feel free to copy, feel free to borrow my arguments and language. You may take this comment as legal advice ;)
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
I like the way you think. Although personally, I have no problems with religion so long as it furthers the goal of instilling basic moral sentiments in the populace without arbitrarily prejudicing them against certain groups of individuals based on factors like race, gender and sexual preference. For me, faith is fine so long as you don't continue to believe something which is directly contradicted by empirical evidence. Hence, to many, what I consider faith is not true faith.
Mishalex 2 years ago
An interesting perspective, but one tends to see religion as entirely incidental to what you are talking about, which is essentially good social education.
Religion as a phenomena in itself is, in my opinion, very much a negative one.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Socialism can't work. Read "Socialism", by Ludwig von Mises.
realrockvince 2 years ago
Or 'On liberty' or 'The road to serfdom' or 'capitalism and freedom'. I am fully aware of all these great thinkers and their works, so how about responding to the content of my video which may be a little more nuanced than you're expecting...
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Socialism is force. Liberty is... liberty. They're the exact opposite of each other. Is there really anything else to say about it?
realrockvince 2 years ago
Well yes, because to have liberty (eg property rights) requires the threat of force. So to save me explaining the scope of my argument in comments, watch the video, and respond to that.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Why do you assume that I didn't watch your video? Isn't it possible that I watched it and disagreed with you?
Government is force. When ever government is not present in life, there is freedom. Socialists need government and the use of force. Libertarians believe in minimal government.
The central theme of both philosophies are contrary to each other.
I know you're going to want to get the last word in because it's your video, so go right ahead. I'm going to go watch some better videos.
realrockvince 2 years ago
Yes, but you disagree about a separate issue. I agree that government of any sort implies force, but libertarians believe in government.
The point I make is that libertarianism and socialism disagree merely about the scope of government and the definition of freedom, and this is a valid and important argument to have.
This is not the last word, I would be interested in a reply, and I wasn't trying to be rude.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
I might agree that property rights require the threat of force, but I would disagree that it is necessary for that force to be provided by a monopoly of force (government).
furyofbongos 2 years ago
Thereby taking a position akin to anarcho-socialism/syndicalism. Statism vs non-statism is a seperate debate entirely.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Another excellent video.
We seem to agree on quite a lot. Although if you've never read any Confucious then might i suggest that he's worth at least a few hours of your time? I wouldn't necessarily bother with the originals, just the evolved versions of the ideas attributed to him. Particularly relevant to this is the stuff on collective responsiblity vs. individual rights. I'm becoming increasingly sure that we in the west are the ones who have it backwards.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
You know what, I probably should. I'm a fan of the empiricists, and british philosophy in general, it's rare I recourse to continental, let alone eastern ideas!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
JmkLcAeJsm,
Agreed and agreed. Two thumbs up.
dasapostate 2 years ago
Whoops! Sorry about that. I meant to hit thumbs-up...and I accidentally did the opposite. Two thumbs up to you as well though. M'bad.
Mishalex 2 years ago
I recognize the music at the start and it drives me mad that I can't remember what it is. Bach?
dbernt 2 years ago
Outtro from the Bourre, luite suite in G-minor (played badly on my classical guitar)
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Thanks!
dbernt 2 years ago
No. 1 top rated for UK educational flicks today, No. 2 most favorited and No. 4 most commented.
It was supposed to be controversial, I'm glad it turned out that way!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Socialism is slavery; if you dont have the right to keep the fruits of your labor, then you are nothing but a slave. Even if you have a benevolent slave master/the State who provides you with a house, food, medicine, etcyou are still a slave.
The choice is between slavery and freedom.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
You're not describing socialism in most of its extant forms. You are describing something like communism. Under most forms of socialism, people get to keep most of the fruits of their labour. Yes, there are progressive taxes, but these do not prevent the entrepreneur from getting rich, because sellers are able to take taxes into account when setting prices.
73elephants 2 years ago
A little bit of slavery is still a whole lot of evil. If I must pick between slavery and freedom, I will side with freedom every time. Socialism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed to each other.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
"Socialism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed to each other."
You're not very familiar with the history of the word "Libertarian" are you? If you were, you'd know that it arose in the late 1800s as a label for Anarchists, all of whom were socialists.
TheHarlequin13 2 years ago
then what is capitalism? what is taxes if not not keeping the fruits of your labour? just asking...
anglaismoyen 2 years ago
anglaismoyen,
There is too much to explain in a post; but there is a very good video explaining what a free market is in my favorites called, What is the Free Market?
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
Your talking about communism, a so far abhorrent interpretation of socialism. While communism has some very good precepts, the implementation has been historically dire and manipulative. The choice you speak of is not quite an accurate description of these ideologies.
stillceaser 2 years ago
Communism is the most purest form of socialism ever implemented and it is slavery.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
retard
mortemdei 2 years ago 3
mortemdei,
Oh my, you clearly have won the debate with such intellectual arguments like calling me a retard.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
i was not debating you, I was just pointing out you're a retard
mortemdei 2 years ago 2
Socialism is an umbrella term, and it is more accurate to say that communism is a particular branch rather than the 'purest form'. Clearly, the leninism of the 'new economic plan' was not pure was it? Things are not as simple as you think.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Actually it is simple as I stated; socialism is slavery. I am a libertarian and therefore I am opposed to a government telling me what is best for me; that is my choice to make for myself. The governments only legitimate role is to ensure my life, Liberty, and private property are not infringed by others. As a libertarian I believe I have the right to do whatever I want as long as it doesnt infringe on anothers life, Liberty, or private property.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
I will admit that socialism does work; for insects like bees, only because they are mindless drones. Socialism will also work on very small scales, like in ones immediate family; I am the benevolent dictator over my children. On a large scale it is in fact slavery. I do not wish to be a slave of the State regardless of the healthcare or any other benefits they may provide me.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
What you don't like is authoritarian socialism, and nor do I. Is one a slave for paying taxes? No, one can move to a different state.
However, given that your prosperity is contingent entirely on the society you inhabit, it is not unreasonable to expect you to contribute toward the maintenance of said society.
You should for example have to be taxed to pay for law courts and defense I'm sure you'll agree.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
As I previously stated, the only legitimate role of government is to ensure that no one takes my life, Liberty, or private property. Therefore paying for court systems/ law enforcement and defense are legitimate reasons to tax me; anything beyond that is theft.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
In addition all socialism on a large scale is by necessity authoritarian; otherwise people would not give up the fruits of their labor.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
Taxation is a coerced payment.
Floating abstraction. Yes I depend on the thousands of people I interact with to fulfill my need, but when the interaction is on a voluntary basis I also fulfill theirs. Their voluntary interaction with me is praxelogical proof that I have contributed to society in sufficient proportion to my benefit.
No I disagree to social economic calculation of corruption of power apply just as much to these functions as any other.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Your interaction with society is far from voluntary. You are completely dependent on its instutitions to enjoy anything that could be realistically described as freedom.
It is, I repeat, not unreasonable to demand that everyone who is able should contribute to the maintenance and improvement of their societies.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
And I repeat that you are again engaging in the fallacy of floating abstraction (a subtype of the fallacy of composition)
Here's the challenge....
Name one thing that "society" has given me.
WorBlux 2 years ago
"Name one thing that "society" has given me."
Living in a civilized environment.
LordZentei 2 years ago
In terms of people doing things, what does that mean?
Empirically what things constitute a civilized environment. I'm asking for the concretion of these abstractions, not more abstractions.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Free rider effects. Such as measure of security from the elements and the wild would be a place to start; also, the ability to learn from your fellows, i.e. the inevitable pooling of knowledge. These are the very reason primitive humans would fare better in groups than as individuals.
LordZentei 2 years ago
Society provide protection from, nature, ignorance, uncertainty and enemies. But society does not provide this except insofar as individuals act towards such goals.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Naturally. Society is merely the aggregate of the individuals it contains and the pattern of their interactions. Nonetheless it may be impossible to reward specific individuals for their inevitable and unintentional contributions to each and every other member of society (except obviously in free trade of goods and services where there is a clear basis for property rights and a clear buyer and seller).
LordZentei 2 years ago
Right there is a free rider problem, to some extent.
But it's opposed to the commons and social calculation problems.
Also democratic theory is based on the assumption,, that people are people are willing to set aside self interest for the common good when considering for whom to vote. The politician or voting class who does not do this benefits to the detriment of the other parties whereas the free rider does not diminish the benefit the other group has created for itself.
WorBlux 2 years ago
You don't think the free rider problem to be related to the commons problem?
In any case, while it is true that democratic theory assumes a measure of self-sacrifice while and the free rider remains regardless, the ability of the free rider to benefit members of society may depend on social conditions (since these also affect interactions between members of society), who in turn require support (which classical market transactions cannot provide).
LordZentei 2 years ago
Now that you mention it, the commons problem really is the most extreme free rider problem possible. That is when none is paying and everyone is trying to benefit.
Health care, unemployment surport, and life insurance were offered once by mutual aide societies for a relatively small fee. Familial and friendly relation is where surport given is the most effective.
WorBlux 2 years ago
I would be if I were claiming that you were objectively obliged to pay for services society has given you.
The scope of my argument is much narrower and more pragmatic. Social institutions require maintenance, they just do. So who pays?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Those who find value in them. Courts can find funding in fees to losers, protection services by partnering with insurance, education and health care by partnering service fees and charity. Roads by those who drive, and trains by those who ride.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Have you any idea of the perversity of the incentives you would create having private courts? I shudder to think...
Our contemporary labour market completely undermines private healthcare and education provision, which works fine if people live in one place and work for one firm all their lives, but was never better than universal provision and will not work again.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Perversity of interests? Monopolies that use force against competition inevitable raise prices and reduce the quality of service.
Most international trade today is under the terms such that a private court is used to settle disputes. England once had a thriving system of competing courts.
80 years ago there was a health care crises of another kind. It was too cheap. Doctors lobbied for government regulation (read protectionist laws), and boy did they ever fix that problem.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Over half of patent disputes occur in a private court which is only because of it's reputation for fast and fair decisions.
WorBlux 2 years ago
And besides the U.S. Helthcare system is far from a free market. Health care provided by employer was a way for them to circumvent price controls of WWII, and the current system is set up so there is a tax penalty if one secures insurance outside of employment. By tying health insurance to employment in such a manner, competition is decreased leading to poorer service and higher prices.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Socialist health care system prevent you from knowing how good your doctor is. Publishing a doctors rate of successful treatment as compared to unsuccessful treatments is illegal in Canada. Of course the politicians and people of pull still know which doctors are the best, but you won't.
You personally will have not control over the quality of service given to you.
WorBlux 2 years ago
My point being in all this you would do well to delve into the theory and history of these issues, rather than knee jerk and non contextual replies based on the current zietgiest rather than a familiarity of the history and context of these institutions.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Which is why instead of supporting blanket government provision of these things, I support a citizens income with a compulsory health and education component which can be spent with anyone, and the full privatization of health and education services.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Finland has done pretty well with publicly funded, privately operated competitive schools. However once the superiority of competition is admitted, why not allow competition and voluntarism in the methods by with these services are funded on behalf of the poor.
Wheres the source of your proposed citizen income. Land rents, sales tax, corporate tax, or other?
WorBlux 2 years ago
Of course you would allow voluntarism, the only organizations I would refuse state cash (per child) would be religious ones.
I propose a 3 tax system: Wealth taxes (on money balances, NOT interest payments), a carbon added tax and a land value tax. These three are the most non-distortionary ones I can think of.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Voluntarism except where you disagree is not voluntarism. This is why government will always be corrupted. While I agree with your non-religious value, the low direct cost of getting government to impose values is a beacon for every malcontent to try to change things for their benefit and desire. Even starting from scratch with a basic outline (constitution) it would not be long before a vast web of rules and pork impeded or reversed the good results that may have initially been gained.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Citation please.
I was rather surpised to read this assertion and investigated available CHA, CMPA, and CMA publications, as well as the entire text of the Health Act itself. As far as I can see, no such law exists, nor have I ever heard it suggested before now. Physicians in Canada do not work for the state; they operate private practices just as in the US with the difference being, billing is contracted and fixed by one insurer. Any person can see any doctor they choose, anywhere, anytime.
dasapostate 2 years ago
It's what I've heard from several people in Canada. If it is not illegal for doctors to do so, it is at least uncommon, since having such information would skew demand to the best doctors, and away from the worst without direct prices to balance the demand.
WorBlux 2 years ago
I would recommend reading some books. Karl Marx comes to mind. In fact he argues that capitalism is more like slavery then communism (his interpretation of it), and I would agree.
However his interpretation is purely theoretical and communism is practically impossible.
Krisgebis 2 years ago
I have read Marx and Engels manifesto and they are fools.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
Don't read the manifesto, try some of Marx's historical writings (which make a lot of sense, and still form the basis for much social history).
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Please read the pm I sent you in its entirety. There is too much to say in a post.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
Alot of intelligent people disagree.
What would your rebutal regarding the freedom of Marxism contra the shackles of Capitalism be?
I hope this isn't just some bandwagon redscare :-S
Krisgebis 2 years ago
"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice...socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
You're equating socialism with the state, when state socialism is but one of many branches of socialism.
I'll assume, in the context of this video, that you're referring to Social Democracy, which makes it strange that you'd equate high taxation with slavery but be seemingly OK with capitalist exploitation, which isn't much different.
TheHarlequin13 2 years ago
The USA is the raw model that should be imitated by every country: unregulated capitalistic economy, small government and a secular constitution which separates church and state.
genji77 2 years ago
Tack on a citizens income with a compulsory health and education component, and I'm with you.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
That kind of system has brought misery to many countries, social democracy is much better. Freedoms are very important indeed, how ever, high taxes are also very important
mortemdei 2 years ago
Can you give one example of a country which implemented full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism and as a result its people were miserable? I rather live in that kind of state then to live in a socialist or a communist country.
Even in Europe the western Europeans are beginning to understand that the social-democratic type of state is unsustainable; social-democratic parties throughout Europe are in decline (in France, Germany and Italy those parties lost the elections).
genji77 2 years ago
Again, what do you mean by unregulated? Should we, for example, remove patent laws that give you the right to earn income from your enginuity? How about tort laws that give you the right to seek compensation for malpractice? Regulation is neccesary for any kind of capitalist society.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Patent is short for patent of monopoly, and an utilitarian analysis shows that IP law is at best a wash, transferring innovation from smaller to larger firms, and impeding as much innovation as it motivates.
Tort law, and more generally, The English Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code arose in spite of rather than because of government action.
Who regulates the regulators?
WorBlux 2 years ago
What in the name of Hayek is 'Utilitarian analysis'? All economic analyses are implicitly utilitarian, so you need to specify which if any you're using.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Google "Against intellectual property"
Michele Boldrine and David Levine
Stephan Kinsella
Brian Martin
Utilitarian analysis implies an analysis of collected data. The basic framework of economics is not derived from data, but from parxecology.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Well said, to often is the word socialism misused or misunderstood.
ec2like 2 years ago
this would be a good vid response to shanedk latest vid
threesheetstadawind 2 years ago
I agree. Shane needs another point of view put to him.
noodles321321 2 years ago
Shane and I largely agree on pretty much everything, except the scope of thunderfoot's error which I would say is far from clear cut, but I agree, and this has been registered as a video response.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
needs reposting to shanedk somehow got removed, gremlins in the system
threesheetstadawind 2 years ago