On Socialism in the wake of AOC, Bernie etc.

[realibrad]

I'm going to regret getting into this. Not least because I know full-well I don't have an ultimate answer.

But I do not get the strict division you make between 'private' and 'the state'. How do you justify that dichotomy? What makes a state a state, rather than just a very big private corporation that happens to own all the land and/or all the 'intellectual property'?

In Russia the two seem to have merged. Seems to me that post-Soviet history demonstrates the truth in the critcisms of anarcho-capitalism (ironically, a criticism that Ayn Rand herself, more a minarchist-capitalist, made of those like David Friedman who would outflank her on the right). That you end up with a private monolith that owns the police and justice system, and which becomes indistinguishable from a state.

And, related to that, how do you determine who owns what in the first place? Especially when it comes to land and ideas.

Its fine. You should realize by now that I'm not the type to go after people for having a conversation.

So, what makes the state different than private firms is how they gained their property. Private firms gain their wealth/capital through free exchange with all willing groups. The state gains their wealth/capital through collective action where consent is not required. Those are the fully pure forms though, and you are not likely to find that any exchange is either or.

As for what is ownership and how can it happen, that is a massive question that I wont be able to answer fully tonight. Property rights is super fun to get into though, so lets do it tomorrow.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, that is an issue. Which is why I favor a plan for Basic Income, no strings attached. There is purity in its simplicity, though many would disagree with its expense and share of the economy. Democrats are at least more favorable to such ideas, even if many are not ready to support them.

The Republican Party, OTOH, are delusional and won't even acknowledge the need for such programs. The mythos that each man is an island and can pull themselves up with a pair of mythical bootstraps is so painfully wrong. So long as money is exchanged, then our people are all connected in commerce, and our labor has been devalued across all fields over generations. It is not enough to simply tell people to "go it alone". They do not get paid enough to do that anymore.

And what becomes of those who lose jobs, become ill, or simply need to relocate? They are tied down and weighted by the need for underpaying jobs. Without the true freedom and flexibility to do what is best for them. With the correct programs, we can change all that. I know that you, Conservative leaning, fear the risk of action. But I have seen the risk of inaction, and I believe it is more than we can bear.

I think a basic income, or even a negative income tax could both work. The more I think about them, the more I think that is what will happen as the best option.

 

[realibrad]

Certainly we all have a desire for good government. But there is one necessary precondition for any government at all: the putative state must be able to collect some form of taxes.

Questioning whether a particular manner in which the government spends money is an entirely different thing than questioning the idea of taxation. You're seemingly questioning the idea of it, although oddly you say you support it.

Where do you see me questioning the idea of taxation?

Questioning the very notion of taxation is for "sovereign citizens" who think all taxation is theft and there shouldn't be any of it. We can question how much we're taxed and how the government spends our money, but that's not what you were doing here.

If what you're trying to do is remind us that "taxation is a serious matter" or some such thing and because of that, we should carefully look at what the state is doing with our money, well guess what, everyone argues about how the state should spend or not spend our money, and whether we should be taxed less or more. On a daily basis. Even even right here on P&N.

Still not sure where you're going with this, but that's what happens when you ask questions and critique phrases without stating what you believe in.

Saying taxation is a serious matter is what it turned into, but, my original question was how taxation was not controlling wealth.

Everyone should argue about how the state spends its money, and what money it collects. I just think its most productive to keep in mind that taxation is taking other people's property by force. Building a park might seem like a nice thing to do, but, when you think about how you would have to collect money by force the idea of a park changes. Still might be worth doing, but, it might not either.

 

[realibrad]

Her “philosophy” (read: conjecture at best) and her book of fiction don’t touch anywhere close to the field of economics. Since you’re “more into economics than most” I suggest you actually read and learn from actual experts in their field - like Krugman - rather than who you personally consider experts.

As I said, I have not read her books, but I do know enough about her that what you just said is completely wrong. Her strong position on property rights as well as her defense of Capitalism prove that you are wrong.

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights), and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights. She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship. Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government. Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics. She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.

So before you start spreading your false claims while attacking mine, maybe its you who should educate yourself more here.

 

[realibrad]

All this market stuff sounds great, based on the assumption that everybody has the money to participate. Which isn't true, of course, so there's no point in pretending.

We can keep it that way or we can do it some other way. Many of our first world brethren don't even consider the idea that they might not be able to afford the care they need. It's unthinkable. Of course everybody gets taken care of. They pay taxes & the govt takes care of the details.

Oh, so there are no markets in poor countries where state power is next to zero?

 

[Jhhnn]

Saying taxation is a serious matter is what it turned into, but, my original question was how taxation was not controlling wealth.

Why shouldn't We, the People, do that as a matter of self defense to control limitless greed & hoarding at the top?

 

[greatnoob]

As I said, I have not read her books, but I do know enough about her that what you just said is completely wrong. Her strong position on property rights as well as her defense of Capitalism prove that you are wrong.

Let me get this straight: you haven't read her book of fiction, yet you know for certain that she delves into economics in her book. It wouldn't surprise me to know that you're stupid enough to believe asserting unsubstantiated political opinions somehow counts as "economics" to you.

A good example of it in your post (btw, thank you for making my job easier for me):

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights), and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights. She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.

This is Rand's unsubstantiated opinion - relevance to the field of economics? None (I can see how a simple-minded idiot would think there was a link if they only read the words "laissez-faire capitalism" and instantly thought "this is economics" without reading the rest of the sentence). Pure conjecture as I said.

Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government

Once again, her political views. Relevance to the field of economics? None.

Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism".

Her views once again, relevance to the field of economics? None - unless you're stupid enough to think the word "capitalism" somehow ties it to econ, then again I wouldn't be surprised.

She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics. She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.

And... nope, just as I said more conjecture. Relevance to the field of economics? Zilch.

So before you start spreading your false claims while attacking mine, maybe its you who should educate yourself more here.

This is a good encapsulation of the typical idiocy in your posts. Somehow you took my suggestion to learn from experts in the econ field as an attack. I will definitely be "educating" myself more (considering doing my masters part-time in a few years) but I would think my double degree in economics and computer science would have been more than enough to recgonise that completely irrelevant morons like Rand and her - atleast, according to you - supposedly-economics heavy bible, have absolutely no connection or relevance to my field.

If you're still not getting it: what you think constitutes the field of economics is nowhere close to what actual academics, experts and professionals in the economics field do. Economics is pretty maths and statistics heavy unlike what you seem to think, PPE (philosophy, politics and economics) is just a small subset of the economics field, not the field itself.

 

[greatnoob]

Fun fact. She ended up both on Social Security and Medicare in her final years.

Don't tell @realibrad that, he has yet to finish her fiction novel on economics 101 lol

 

[realibrad]

Let me get this straight: you haven't read her book of fiction, yet you know for certain that she delves into economics in her book. It wouldn't surprise me to know that you're stupid enough to believe asserting unsubstantiated political opinions somehow counts as "economics" to you.

A good example of it in your post (btw, thank you for making my job easier for me):



This is Rand's unsubstantiated opinion - relevance to the field of economics? None (I can see how a simple-minded idiot would think there was a link if they only read the words "laissez-faire capitalism" and instantly thought "this is economics" without reading the rest of the sentence). Pure conjecture as I said.



Once again, her political views. Relevance to the field of economics? None.


Her views once again, relevance to the field of economics? None - unless you're stupid enough to think the word "capitalism" somehow ties it to econ, then again I wouldn't be surprised.



And... nope, just as I said more conjecture. Relevance to the field of economics? Zilch.




This is a good encapsulation of the typical idiocy in your posts. Somehow you took my suggestion to learn from experts in the econ field as an attack. I will definitely be "educating" myself more (considering doing my masters part-time in a few years) but I would think my double degree in economics and computer science would have been more than enough to recgonise that completely irrelevant morons like Rand and her - atleast, according to you - supposedly-economics heavy bible, have absolutely no connection or relevance to my field.

If you're still not getting it: what you think constitutes the field of economics is nowhere close to what actual academics, experts and professionals in the economics field do. Economics is pretty maths and statistics heavy unlike what you seem to think, PPE (philosophy, politics and economics) is just a small subset of the economics field, not the field itself.

Its always weird how people forget something so quickly.

her philosophy is often associated to economics.

Her philosophy is often brought up in economics when it comes to property rights. How you can think that my statement is wrong is strange.

 

[greatnoob]

Its always weird how people forget something so quickly.



Her philosophy is often brought up in economics when it comes to property rights. How you can think that my statement is wrong is strange.

Her "philosophy" is pure conjecture. It's not relevant to my field - economics. Period. Now go ahead and respond to the rest of my post above.

 

[whm1974]

Don't tell @realibrad that, he has yet to finish her fiction novel on economics 101 lol

I should point out that in Nature "Natural Rights" don't actually exist. They are something that Mankind developed and implemented over time because Nations/Societies discovered that allowing all citizens to have Equal Rights greatly benefits everyone. This also includes implementing a properly run Welfare State.

 

[whm1974]

Her "philosophy" is pure conjecture. It's not relevant to my field - economics. Period. Now go ahead and respond to the rest of my post above.

Better yet, actually read her books. There is a good reason why her "philosophy" is called "A Religion for Atheists".

 

[Atreus21]

I should point out that in Nature "Natural Rights" don't actually exist. They are something that Mankind developed and implemented over time because Nations/Societies discovered that allowing all citizens to have Equal Rights greatly benefits everyone. This also includes implementing a properly run Welfare State.

Should we allow injustices to occur if it appears to benefit everyone?

 

[whm1974]

Should we allow injustices to occur if it appears to benefit everyone?

And how does allowing injustices to occur to anyone actually benefit everyone?

 

[realibrad]

Her "philosophy" is pure conjecture. It's not relevant to my field - economics. Period. Now go ahead and respond to the rest of my post above.

You can say that, but, what I said was that she was often associated to economics because of her stance on property rights. That is correct, and yet, you are trying to dismiss that somehow.

 

[whm1974]

You can say that, but, what I said was that she was often associated to economics because of her stance on property rights. That is correct, and yet, you are trying to dismiss that somehow.

Read her books. Do that and you will quickly discover that she actually knew very little to nothing about economics.

 

[realibrad]

Read her books. Do that and you will quickly discover that she actually knew very little to nothing about economics.

I'm not saying she did. What I am saying is that she is brought up in property rights debates that are connected to economics. Thus, you an find things like this.

Economist Walter E. Williams has described the work as "one of the best defenses and explanations of capitalism one is likely to read."

So the idea that she was not often associated with economic debates is absurd. She clearly was. She was not anywhere close to an economist and I'm sure when I do get around to reading one of her books, I will get quite annoyed by the things I read.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ayn Rand was a sociopath whose entire philosophy and world view were built around normalizing this sickness. Her hero worship of one of the most sadistic murderers in American history is pretty solid proof of that.

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html

 

[greatnoob]

I'm not saying she did. What I am saying is that she is brought up in property rights debates that are connected to economics. Thus, you an find things like this.



So the idea that she was not often associated with economic debates is absurd. She clearly was. She was not anywhere close to an economist and I'm sure when I do get around to reading one of her books, I will get quite annoyed by the things I read.

Economic “debates”? You went from “associated with economics” from the first post I quoted and have now moved the goalposts to “economic debates” in this post. Are you dense, intentionally playing stupid or both? I’d like you to actually respond to my post above because you’ve added nothing new save for moving the goalposts and regurgitating the same bullshit I’ve already debunked.

You can say that, but, what I said was that she was often associated to economics because of her stance on property rights. That is correct, and yet, you are trying to dismiss that somehow.

What part of “It's not relevant to my field - economics. Period” did you not understand? Go ahead and show this association to us if you insist, list as many (or little) economic academic journal articles as you can which reference her work. I would love to see you dig your own hole in this thread.

 

[brycejones]

It's always easy to tell when a certain dishonest poster shows up in thread.​

 

[Bitek]

Those are all useful things that we used socialism for.

That said, are you questioning if things earned are 100% owned because other people contributed?

Do you get to use the work of others and offer nothing in return?

"Socialism", the "State" and the like are just labels for means of organization.

At the end of it are people working and supporting their families, doing useful things that benefit and enable others to do their jobs.

As @pmv asked, what is the difference between a company and a gov being the one that signs their paychecks?

Complaining that compensating them for their work as "forced seizure of private property" sounds like complaining about paying people for the goods and services you use.

How else could we charge for it? Sometimes do more ala carte fees work? Sure, for highways, parks, DMV services, healthcare copays....

How do you pay to ensure the air and water are clean? That burglars or foreign armies aren't terrorizing your neighborhood? Utility lines actually run to your house for reasonable cost? Your food is safe? Etc etc etc.

It's taxes.

Don't pay them, and then the work either doesn't get done, or some private Corp fills in the gap. Sometimes they do a better job, sometimes it's an expensive, inefficient disaster (our private healthcare system.)

This is the mistake of the Republican mindset that immediately assumes as work done by govs is bad, inefficient and danger to freedom.

The answer is sometimes, but Verizon, Phizer, Philip Morris and Exxon ain't no heros either.
It's still all run by people.

 

[pmv]

Come to think of it, property rights are pretty much granted by the State.

Well one can, kind-of, try to justify some of them via basic philosophical principles. As Locke attempted to do. But certainly for a lot of things it comes down to the state saying it's yours, especially land and ideas. Nobody creates their land, and without a state its rather hard to stop someone copying your ideas.

If someone buys some land here, and there are paths across it with traditional rights-of-way, they don't buy the right to block those paths. Nobody can sell you that right, because nobody owns it to sell it to you, because that sort of absolute ownership of land didn't exist to begin with. I think the fact that doesn't seem to work like that in the US may be an example of the historical differences.

With other products of people's labour there's a kind of mixture of 'natural rights' and a practical argument, that you made it, you have it, and it's going to require a fight for someone else to take it from you - the state is there to ameliorate the collective costs of that sort of fighting. I'm not an uncritical believer in that sort of 'natural rights' philosophy, but there is something in there. But it's not something decreed by God, it's an uneasy agreement that requires consent. And if a significant group come to believe it isn't working out for them, they can withdraw that consent.

Its fine. You should realize by now that I'm not the type to go after people for having a conversation.

That's not really the source of my unease (it's more that I know my arguments don't lead to any definitive conclusion, they are purely negative ones, I'm better at arguing against things than for them and I end up just making myself depressed), but I grant that you aren't an abusive poster.

So, what makes the state different than private firms is how they gained their property. Private firms gain their wealth/capital through free exchange with all willing groups. The state gains their wealth/capital through collective action where consent is not required. Those are the fully pure forms though, and you are not likely to find that any exchange is either or.

As for what is ownership and how can it happen, that is a massive question that I wont be able to answer fully tonight. Property rights is super fun to get into though, so lets do it tomorrow.

See, that's just not true. It's simplisic and ahistorical. The emphasis on 'free exchange' completely ignores the real world context and pretends we have some fictional fair starting point. And if you look at somewhere like post-Soviet Russia where the starting point is within living memory it's even more obvious.

The big landowners in this country, for example, did not become so through 'free exchange with all willing groups'. Many did so because their ancestors came over with William the Conquerer, and, er, conquered. Others bought their land from people who only 'owned' it to start with because their ancestors grabbed it through violence. Ever heard of 'the enclosures'?

But even with corporations and non-land property (and ultimately all wealth relates to land) - what did they 'freely exchange'?

 

[pmv]

As I said, I have not read her books, but I do know enough about her that what you just said is completely wrong. Her strong position on property rights as well as her defense of Capitalism prove that you are wrong.



So before you start spreading your false claims while attacking mine, maybe its you who should educate yourself more here.

I read a lot of Ayn Rand because I developed a sort of fascination with her (I am intrigued by cults and people who speak with absolute certainty). She had nothing of any great value to say about economics, and her 'philosophy' just didn't hold together (at least not with the degree of logic she thought it did).

You'd be better off invoking the Austrian School, as being the actual economists most compatible with her attitudes (I think she sometimes spoke approvingly of some of them). It's their, practical, arguments against socialism that for me are by far the strongest argument against it (and it pains me to acknowledge that).

 

[realibrad]

Economic “debates”? You went from “associated with economics” from the first post I quoted and have now moved the goalposts to “economic debates” in this post. Are you dense, intentionally playing stupid or both? I’d like you to actually respond to my post above because you’ve added nothing new save for moving the goalposts and regurgitating the same bullshit I’ve already debunked.




What part of “It's not relevant to my field - economics. Period” did you not understand? Go ahead and show this association to us if you insist, list as many (or little) economic academic journal articles as you can which reference her work. I would love to see you dig your own hole in this thread.

Yes, she is brought up in economic discussions and debates. So saying her philosophy is brought up in economics is correct. I did not defend her, or say she was right, just that she is brought up a lot. You are trying to twist it to make it seem like I said she was an economist which is something I never did.

@woolfe9998

This is why I choose my words carefully. I said that she was brought up, and now we have gone down a rabbit hole that was not of my making.

 

[realibrad]

Do you get to use the work of others and offer nothing in return?

That is a silly question. The answer has to be depends, because your question was so broad. Things exist in the public domain and sometimes people create things and do not expect anything in return.

"Socialism", the "State" and the like are just labels for means of organization.

Yes, they are used to describe the centralization of resources by people that did not necessarily create them.

At the end of it are people working and supporting their families, doing useful things that benefit and enable others to do their jobs.

Yes, and your point?

As @pmv asked, what is the difference between a company and a gov being the one that signs their paychecks?

It was asked by him, and I answered him. Care to explain why you think my answer was not enough?

Complaining that compensating them for their work as "forced seizure of private property" sounds like complaining about paying people for the goods and services you use.

Well good thing I did not do that eh?

How else could we charge for it? Sometimes do more ala carte fees work? Sure, for highways, parks, DMV services, healthcare copays....

You need to explain yourself here, because, there is no context and makes no sense to me.

How do you pay to ensure the air and water are clean? That burglars or foreign armies aren't terrorizing your neighborhood? Utility lines actually run to your house for reasonable cost? Your food is safe? Etc etc etc.

It's taxes.

Do you not know that I have said multiple times now that I am for taxes? I'm not a person that thinks taxes is theft and illegal bla bla bla.

Don't pay them, and then the work either doesn't get done, or some private Corp fills in the gap. Sometimes they do a better job, sometimes it's an expensive, inefficient disaster (our private healthcare system.)

Explain?

This is the mistake of the Republican mindset that immediately assumes as work done by govs is bad, inefficient and danger to freedom.

Well good thing I'm not a Republican and can think of many things I would prefer the state to do. Fire, Police, Education, Food Regulation, Medical Regulation, Finance Regulation...

The answer is sometimes, but Verizon, Phizer, Philip Morris and Exxon ain't no heroes either.
It's still all run by people.

Anyone that thinks corporations are heroes, or even people, are dumb. Corporations are entities to make money and that is it. They can produce things for us, but, should not be seen as anything other than a tool.