What I have against socialism as a philosphy

Originally posted by richjohnson
As fun as it would be to watch this discussion devolve into the inevitable train wreck it will become, a couple of points:

rwingett: One reason there is "institutional support" for capital-based management of firms is that it is a well known system with a track record for making profits. If you can demonstrate that a labor managed firm will be profi ...[text shortened]... centives to maximize short term personal profit, even at the expense of the company.)

The data suggests that labor managed firms tend to have higher morale, which translates into higher productivity. All else being equal, LMFs should be more profitable than traditional firms.

If Pete makes a lot of money, should he pay the taxes necessary to fund necessary social programs? Sure. But should his profits be confiscated through taxation calculated to re-distribute wealth simply because a political philosophy has determined that he doesn't deserve profits any more than the workers? That thought sickens me.

Because you want to live in a society.
Obviously you don't need to redistribute wealth, you can wait until the poor redistribute it themselves or you get mugged or your castle gets burned down...

Originally posted by shavixmir
If Pete makes a lot of money, should he pay the taxes necessary to fund necessary social programs? Sure. But should his profits be confiscated through taxation calculated to re-distribute wealth simply because a political philosophy has determined that he doesn't deserve profits any more than the workers? That thought sickens me.

Because you wan ...[text shortened]... until the poor redistribute it themselves or you get mugged or your castle gets burned down...

Exactly the problem I have with Communism: it's based on a criminal impulse. "There are more of us than him. Let's go take all his stuff and divide it amongst ourselves. Since we are many and he is one, that makes it OK."

Property is not theft -- taking without consent is theft. The notion of property is embedded in our genes. Lions with their kill or Amazonians making themselves necklaces or spears will object (and violently) to someone explaining they need to 'redistribute their wealth'.

Pete is in the same boat. He made himself a company. No mob has a right to burn it down just because they are numerous or jealous. Let them build their own castles.

Communism is rooted in 'victim' mentality -- "I can't, nobody let's me, nobody helps me, they have more than me, I'm not good enough", etc. If someone feels that way, the problem is internal, not external.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Each one of these has probably had threads spent on them.

Minimum wage: An hour of my time belongs to me you have no right to dictate what I can sell that hour for.

ADL's: Other than a few cases that make the news this still happens and will continue to happen, if a business owner chooses an employee based on how they look rather than their ability, ...[text shortened]... know better than you or I or any of their fellow man how best we should run our own lives.

That's the difference between ideology (what looks good on paper) and reality.

Name ONE country with no laws to protect workers that also has a decent quality of life across the board.

Originally posted by whodey
What is even worse is the incentive to work. Why work when over half your pay check disappears? Then the only people working will be those who "enjoy" their jobs. In other words, there will be few and far between who work and those that do will only work when they want to work. What a productive economy that would be!!

Taxes exist regardless of the system of government. What you state is an emotional argument and not one against or for socialism or any other form of governing.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Exactly the problem I have with Communism: it's based on a criminal impulse. "There are more of us than him. Let's go take all his stuff and divide it amongst ourselves. Since we are many and he is one, that makes it OK."

Property is not theft -- taking without consent is theft. The notion of property is embedded in our genes. Lions with their kill o ood enough", etc. If someone feels that way, the problem is internal, not external.

Don't allow everyone the same education, opportunities and resources, then use the less fortunate
against each other to get them to work at minimum wage for maximum profit, and when they decide
to speak their minds and take what they most certainly has earned, call them thieves and what not.

It's ingenious in its diabolical purity.

Originally posted by sh76
High taxation and extensive welfare services, of course.

"From each according to ability, to each according to needs" is a socialist creed. As I understand it, this is virtually the mission statement of the economic policies of, say, Sweden.

Ok, now I have it clear: we disagree. Thanks for responding.

High taxation is a matter of degree and interpretation, not a policy itself... unless you can present me with a country with no taxation at all. Moreover: what is high?

On the other hand, I guess you should book your next holiday to Northern Europe. I will happily show you around, buy you lunch and some beers, and show you how free and capitalistic we are (and developed, even more than the U.S. can ever dream of), but also humane.

Now, if being humane is being socialist, then so be it. But after your trip (and our meals and beers, lol) you may change your mind and conclude that having some "quasi-socialist" policies may not be that bad after all.

Originally posted by Wajoma

Yes there is a minimum age of consent, young people have not developed enough to understand the concept of rights and so they do not have the right to go to the grocery store and buy a M16.

The age of majority is a social and political construct. It is different in every country, varying between 14 and 25, and determined in each case by government legislation.

Obviously you see yourself as one of the super qualified, can you name some others?

This is a typical libertarian canard: that a belief in government action means an elitist belief that some people are particularly qualified to tell others how to live their lives. In fact, in a democratic system, the decision is made by the majority of citizens, voting for representatives who will determine what kind of society they wish to live in and what kind of regulations they wish to apply. Those who are not happy with the decision of the majority are of course free to migrate to one of the other 200-odd sovereign entities in the world, where different rules may apply.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Exactly the problem I have with Communism: it's based on a criminal impulse. "There are more of us than him. Let's go take all his stuff and divide it amongst ourselves. Since we are many and he is one, that makes it OK."

Property is not theft -- taking without consent is theft. The notion of property is embedded in our genes. Lions with their kill o ...[text shortened]... ood enough", etc. If someone feels that way, the problem is internal, not external.

I do not believe that property is "embedded in our genes." On the contrary, in terms of human evolution, I think it is a very recent phenomenon that didn't come about until the advent of the agricultural revolution (about 10,000 years ago). For the first 95% of our history homo sapiens have been hunter gatherers. These would have been egalitarian, communal, migratory groups of people for whom our modern concept of property rights would not have made any sense. The concept of property rights was developed within only the last 5% of modern human history.

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not believe that property is "embedded in our genes." On the contrary, in terms of human evolution, I think it is a very recent phenomenon that didn't come about until the advent of the agricultural revolution (about 10,000 years ago). For the first 95% of our history homo sapiens have been hunter gatherers. These would have been egalitarian, communal, ...[text shortened]... The concept of property rights was developed within only the last 5% of modern human history.

Yes -- BUT -- what you are forgetting is that hunter-gatherer groups were almost always an extended family! And it is true -- within a family group property rights are not so clearly defined -- sister borrowed my hairbrush, you ate my sandwich, etc. Between family groups, you will find warfare and strife over property rights going back all the way to chimpanzees, as Jane Goodall has documented.

So now we get to my problem with Socialism: Socialism says that you should show perfect strangers the same rights and considerations you would normally show only to close family: share your wealth with them, support them handsomely when they are ill, compensate them for their bad lack or lack of ability, etc.

THAT is the recent assertion which flies in the face of human evolution.

So while Socialism is not criminal at it's base, as I claim Communism is, it does demand that we follow a non-adaptive behavior -- which a lot of us quite naturally rebel at doing.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Property is not theft -- taking without consent is theft. The notion of property is embedded in our genes. Lions with their kill or Amazonians making themselves necklaces or spears will object (and violently) to someone explaining they need to 'redistribute their wealth'..

How come everybody owns land and there's no land left for me to own?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Socialism says that you should show perfect strangers the same rights and considerations you would normally show only to close family: share your wealth with them, support them handsomely when they are ill, compensate them for their bad lack or lack of ability, etc.

THAT is the recent assertion which flies in the face of human evolution.

So while and that we follow a non-adaptive behavior -- which a lot of us quite naturally rebel at doing.

On the contrary, socialism merely demands that we act according to reciprocal altruism, a recognised natural phenomenon. The natural principle involved works along these lines: one animal in the group finds some food; rather than eating it all himself, he shares it with the rest of the pack, so that next time, when another animal in the group finds some food, he can benefit from the same in return.

So in a social democratic society, we accept, if we are employed and prosperous, that we pay our taxes to help those less fortunate than ourselves, because one day the tables might be turned and we might find ourselves at the bottom of the pile.

It doesn't matter whether we happen to be related directly to our compatriots or not; the fact is that we are linked to them by virtue of inhabiting the same space and being members of the same society.

Of course, the one thing that can screw this up massively is an imbalance in wealth. If the rich are really rich, then they may up assuming that there's no need for reciprocal altruism, and try to get out of paying in to the system. Reciprocal altruism may explain why people in more equal societies seem to treat each other better generally - less crime, more trust, more social capital.

Originally posted by richjohnson
Wajoma: I don't think he's talking about "successful capitalist companies" paying for anything, he's talking about investment in a different sort of company. I'm not sure how it would work, but it doesn't necessarily sound bad. (After all, some pretty "shonky" things can go on when large corporations are controlled by a small group of people with incentives to maximize short term personal profit, even at the expense of the company.)

rwingett: "Technically, yes. And some do. But the degree of institutional support behind traditional, capitalist managed firms is overwhelming. My objective would be to raise the level of institutional support for labor managed firms. This would make its availability better known and make the mechanism more accessible.

You're right richjohnson, I kinda jumped to conclusions there. how about breaking out some of the mechanisms rwingett and we'll put them to the freedom test. What "institutional support" are you talking about here.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Thanks to a little something I'd like to call brilliant, and some call union: giving the worker a voice. If
capitalist despots have the possibility to run their companies in true dictator-manners, they will (as
history has shown). After all, in reality, putting all the wealth of the world in the hands of a relative
few capitalists, is no different than ...[text shortened]... e those
benefits has been introduced. Otherwise, you're pretty much screwed from the get go.

And you've skipped right over the brutal dictators use of force and threats of force versus companies do not.

Unions don't provide all those great conditions, they come from prosperity, they come from the productive, unions come along after the fact and make some grand claims about what they created, they're all secondhanders. Some companies prefer to deal with unions some don't, some workers like the union cuddly blanket to suck on, others prefer to stand on their own abilities, that's exactly as it should be.

Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
am not sure about the cement ...

If someone is being a hyper-sensitive cry baby, they need some cement in their coffee so they can harden up.