Grandpa; Your Sig Line

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This quote is equivalent to the following quote: Says who? Having a lot of money doesn't make you jack squat. Even people who have a lot of money and consider themselves elite aren't elite.

This quote is equivalent to the following quote:

No... its not. It is totally different. A collective is not a state and is not run by from a central government.

Says who?

What? Everybody, its obvious common sense. If you have a lot of money then you are in an elite. The cream of society, you are seperated from the common person by your wealth.

Having a lot of money doesn't make you jack squat.

You are wrong, it makes you part of societies elite.

Even people who have a lot of money and consider themselves elite aren't elite.

They are in an elite because they are in a top 5% of society, in terms of assets.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees A collective is not a state and is not run by from a central government.

Not a useful definition.

Communist = collective with no state control.

Socialist = collective with full state control.

Much better.

They are in an elite because they are in a top 5% of society, in terms of assets.

Ok fine, call them whatever you want.

Call them broccoli for all I care.


It implies nothing.

It obligates nothing.

Got that?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Not a useful definition. Communist = collective with no state control. Socialist = collective with full state control. Much better. Ok fine, call them whatever you want. Call them broccoli for all I care. It implies nothing. It obligates nothing. Got that?

Communist = collective with no state control. Socialist = collective with full state control.

No.

I have explained this to you before, and you still fail to understand it. Socialism is not an individual ideology. It is a set of principals, which anumber of ideologies are based upon. Some of these ideologies advocate massive state control others advocate the absolute destruction of the the state. Take a look at the collective of the Spanish civil war, how they operated, etc. Then read the views of Marxist Leninists, then you may be capable of seeing the vast difefrences between different ideologies within the basic socialist idea. I suggest you read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.

Ok fine, call them whatever you want. Call them broccoli for all I care.

No, because calling them an elite is accurate, calling them broccoli is not.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa Sorry, I did have areply but it must have been accidentally deleted. What I meant to put was how the very right to have food, water and shelter is bought.

No problem. Now, you mention rights to food, water, and shelter. Presuming that such rights exist, I would agree that, in a market society, those rights are bought. If you're arguing that such rights should not be bought, on the basis that they are "human rights", then I cannot agree with you. From what I see, no one deserves anything, let alone by virtue of simply being human. Therefore, I do not see anything inherently (i.e. prima facie) wrong with one having to buy "rights" to food, water, and shelter. These things come at a cost, like everything else. When one provides these things for himself, without others' help, then the only cost is his opportunity cost. But when others provide these things for him, then those others' opportunity costs are taken into account. By and large (if not always), people are not willing to give away something for nothing. They give so that they may receive something else in return -- something that they would rather have than the thing they're giving away. That is the basis of trade, which is the basis of much of human society.

Quote by: grandpa Pointing out that people have to choose between following orders or potentially starving is hardly a "propagandistic platitude." It's a fact.

I submit that you are presenting not only a "propagandistic platitude", but also a false one, for it presents a false dichotomy. In 99% of situations, more than two choices are available to choose from. Therefore, it is inaccurate (at best) to claim that people have to choose between following orders and potentially starving. As well, you betray your own claim by using the word "potentially", as if to admit that, while the possibility does exist, it is hardly guaranteed. Thus, it is fallacious to equate choosing not to "follow orders" with starvation.

Quote by: grandpa As far as I know, no wage system has ever existed without some form of political agitation behind it. So, when I hear terms like "free trade" or "free world" I suspect they are synonymous with political agitation.

You suspect, but you present no factual evidence to support your suspicion. However, for the record, I oppose the political enforcement of "wage systems".

Quote by: grandpa Personally, no. If someone attacks me there is a good chance I'll defend myself.

Well and good. Now, if someone attacks something you own, something that you value, would you also use defensive force?

Quote by: grandpa Profit is not mutually beneficial in capitalism, as it thrives off of class distinction. Hence, one person typically benefits more from the exchange.

Do you believe that there is an objective basis to any "class distinction" in capitalism? I argue that there is not; any such distinction is, by nature, subjective.

What is your definition of "profit"? I'll give you mine -- when a business (or even an individual) simply has more stuff (including, but not limited to, money) now than it did before. To understand how profit is mutually beneficial, we again need to look at how trade is mutually beneficial, for profit has its origins in trade. A trade occurs when, for two people, each wants what the other has more than what he himself has. All other things being equal, they will exchange what they have, and each one will then perceive that he is better off than before, because his preference has been satisfied. It cannot be determined whether one person benefits "more" from the exchange, because benefit cannot be quantified (same as value or utility). Now, when you buy something from a business, you're doing the same thing. You prefer what the business is offering for sale more than the money you currently have that business is asking for in exchange. So the idea is that successful businesses are those that provide things that people want (i.e. are willing to give up something in exchange). In so doing, they may make a profit (if their revenues are greater than their expenses). Assuming that they do make a profit, then those in the business are satisfied (for they have more money than before) and those who bought from the business are also satisfied (for they have something they wanted more than the money it took to buy it). Hence, all other things being equal, profit implies mutual benefit.

I apologize for the pedagogical attitude, but I feel that you are missing certain fundamentals about human behavior. Also note the caveat I gave above: all other things being equal. Of course, things are usually not equal, and it is those circumstances that we can and should investigate. For example, some people may end up unsatisfied with what they purchased from a business; the product may be defective or it may simply not live up to the customer's expectations. It seems to ring true that the more complicated a product is, the more likely that a customer may become unsatisfied with it. While there are ways to deal with such incidents, keep in mind that, at the time of purchase, the customer and the business entered into a transaction each of their own free will. Without this freedom of action and association, the transaction could not have happened.

Quote by: grandpa If you want, you can say tht to jutify anything and I think people do. But in my experience you obey private interests or you risk being thrown out in the street and starving.

Perhaps you should enlighten us more about what your experience has been. However, with all due resepect, I would advise to not rely entirely upon personal, anecdotal knowledge for philosophical claims.

Quote by: grandpa So what is presented is a false choice, really. Obviously people are going to choose to obey and have an available supply of food. That makes more sense than enjoying the negative liberty of expulsion, damaged credit, etc. If you want to see capitalim stripped of it facade, just go to a city and look at the mn or woman with a sign saying "will work for food." Chances are good that these people even obeyed the system, but didn't make enough money for it.

Interesting. "Chances are good", you say? Can you prove that? Can you cite any statistical or other studies that offer corroborating evidence?

Quote by: grandpa "They choose to do these things" or face a real risk of starvation and homlessness. Some choice there. Ever hear of Bechtel Corporation? Well, they were largely responsible for a battle over water rights in Bolivia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia...282000-2005.29 How is this sort of scenario avoidable under privatization? The logical end of capitalism is to expand and accumulate more cheap labor and profit.

Perhaps I need to remind you that I am no fan of big business, especially when it's in partnership with big government (which it almost always is). The term "privatization" is a misnomer these days. What happens is that the government contracts its services out to a big business. Almost always, as in the case of Cochabamba, the company in question is given monopoly privileges. How can that be called a free market? It cannot. A better term would be corporatism, or just plain old corruption.

Quote by: grandpa All businesses that have a poltical economy and a means of distribution and deprivation have governing funcions. Again, the logical end of capitalism is to expand and accumulate more cheap labor and profit.

"Political economy" is, strictly speaking, a contradiction in terms. Politics employs the means of force, while economics employs the means of voluntary exchange. When the dictates of a business over that which it does not own is backed by the heavy hand of government, there can be no free market.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No... its not. It is totally different. A collective is not a state and is not run by from a central government.

Just out of curiosity, does that mean that one is free to leave a collective?

Quote by: Chris the Chees What? Everybody, its obvious common sense. If you have a lot of money then you are in an elite. The cream of society, you are seperated from the common person by your wealth. You are wrong, it makes you part of societies elite. They are in an elite because they are in a top 5% of society, in terms of assets.

Who decides what "a lot of money" is and is not? Why 5% and not some other number? What makes you right here and anyone who disagrees with you wrong?

And who is "the common person"?

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Chris and Grandpa are idealists that think there CAN be a society free of ANY classes.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Socialism is not an individual ideology.

NO KIDDING!

I JUST said that in the post above. ****collective****

No, because calling them an elite is accurate, calling them broccoli is not.

According to what standard?

Your's, of course.

Not an objective one.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Autolykos "Political economy" is, strictly speaking, a contradiction in terms.

Actually, "political economy" is a major offered at most universities. It refers to the study of the interplay between politics and the economy.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quote by: Autolykos "Political economy" is, strictly speaking, a contradiction in terms. Actually, "political economy" is a major offered at most universities. It refers to the study of the interplay between politics and the economy.

Fair enough. However, you have to admit that the political means and the economic means are mutually exclusive.

- Rob

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Autolykos Fair enough. However, you have to admit that the political means and the economic means are mutually exclusive.

They are seperate things, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "mutually exclusive".

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Autolykos Just out of curiosity, does that mean that one is free to leave a collective? Who decides what "a lot of money" is and is not? Why 5% and not some other number? What makes you right here and anyone who disagrees with you wrong? And who is "the common person"? - Rob

Just out of curiosity, does that mean that one is free to leave a collective?

Why should they not be allowed to? More to the point is why should they want to? During the Spanish Civil war the collectives were actually far more productive than the land management prior to the implementation of the collectives.

Who decides what "a lot of money" is and is not? Why 5% and not some other number? What makes you right here and anyone who disagrees with you wrong?

The vast majority of societies wealth is held by a tiny percent of the population’s people; the elite. I have no source to hand, but I read it was around 5% of the population which made up this elite. These people are grossly wealthy, while thousands starve or die of curable diseases daily. So that is the five percent, but I doubt the other 95% earn enough to make a massive discrepancy.

NO KIDDING! I JUST said that in the post above. ****collective****

Then why do you continue to insist that they are all examples of big government, when this is clearly not the case?

According to what standard?

Reality.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quote by: Autolykos Fair enough. However, you have to admit that the political means and the economic means are mutually exclusive. They are seperate things, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "mutually exclusive".

It was Franz Oppenheimer who first theorized about the "political means" vs. the "economic means". Here the former means the use of force, while the latter means voluntary exchange. Obviously the two are mutually exclusive.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Just out of curiosity, does that mean that one is free to leave a collective? Why should they not be allowed to? More to the point is why should they want to? During the Spanish Civil war the collectives were actually far more productive than the land management prior to the implementation of the collectives.

Any reasons why they would want to are immaterial to the question at hand. However, it seems that you would agree with allow people to freely leave a collective. Am I right?

Quote by: Chris the Chees Who decides what "a lot of money" is and is not? Why 5% and not some other number? What makes you right here and anyone who disagrees with you wrong? The vast majority of societies wealth is held by a tiny percent of the population’s people; the elite. I have no source to hand, but I read it was around 5% of the population which made up this elite. These people are grossly wealthy, while thousands starve or die of curable diseases daily. So that is the five percent, but I doubt the other 95% earn enough to make a massive discrepancy.

I understand, but you did not answer my questions. To put it another way, where is the line drawn between "the people" and "the elite", and who decides that? How is it decided (i.e. what criteria are used)? The point that I'm making here is that any such distinctions are, by necessity, arbitrary.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Great points Rob, and it also shows that no matter how hard you try, ALL socieites WILL HAVE CLASSES.

Whether it is working and non-working class.
Upper income, lower income class.
Haves vs the have-nots.
Educated vs non-educated.
Able vs disabled or unable.
Old vs young.
Relgious vs non-religious.

There is no such thing as a CLASSLESS society, unless all people are equally miserable, because there surely is not enough resources on this planet to elevate EVERYONE to the exact same wealth and luxuries of the current, as Chris and Grandpa would call it, "the elite".

They are pipe dreaming, fantasizing, and detaching from reality and human behaviour to get there, as well as removing any workable form of economics.

Libertarian Socialists revolve around wealth/property redistribution, so you might as well call them what they are......Democrats. :rolleyes:

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Autolykos It was Franz Oppenheimer who first theorized about the "political means" vs. the "economic means". Here the former means the use of force, while the latter means voluntary exchange. Obviously the two are mutually exclusive.

I think you're misusing the phrase "mutually exclusive". That's like saying coffee and wine are mutually exclusive.

The distinction is important. If I have a certain goal in mind, I could use a combination of both political and economic means to obtain it. They certainly aren't exclusive in that sense.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Then why do you continue to insist that they are all examples of big government

What do you call a society where all property is owned by the government?

Small government?

Reality.

Your reality.

Not an objective reality.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What do you call a society where all property is owned by the government? Small government? Your reality. Not an objective reality.

Its not necessarily owned by the government, so what do you call that? Some socialists advocate the absolute elimination of the state machine. You are simply trying to stereotype a view you fear and do not understand.

Great points Rob, and it also shows that no matter how hard you try, ALL socieites WILL HAVE CLASSES.

Of course, and you are 100% correct. However the point is it should not be money and even if it is, then the class discrepancy should not be as vast as it is at the moment.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Its not necessarily owned by the government, so what do you call that?

A society where some property is privately owned and some is owned by the government?

A mixed society, I guess.

Some socialists advocate the absolute elimination of the state machine.

Then they aren't socialists.

Socialists advocate that the state own as much property as possible.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 A society where some property is privately owned and some is owned by the government? A mixed society, I guess. Then they aren't socialists. Socialists advocate that the state own as much property as possible.

Then they aren't socialists.

Yes, they are. Read what is stated to you.

I am going to say it again, socialism is a set of principals which state that wealth should be allocated fairly. This does not have to be via the government, a lot of socialists think that the state should not exist, but they are socialists.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I am going to say it again, socialism is a set of principals which state that wealth should be allocated fairly.

Really? I guess that means that capitalists are socialists too...