Why Individualism is Better than Collectivism
Tags: Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Beliefs, Capital, Change, Collectivism, Competition, Conflict, Democracy, Economy, Education, Finance, Free Market, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Income, individualism, Innovation, Justice, Law, Libertarian, Liberty, Life, Markets, Money, Moral Character, Non-Violence, Rights, Rothbard, Social Welfare, Socialism, Society, Taxes, US, Wealth, Welfare
(5 rating, 1 votes)
Loading ...
Unfortunately I do not see you presenting any argument that I didn't tackle in my dissecting post. You're still claiming that negative freedom is good because the free market is good and running around in circles. Certainly, you have sprinkled other age old favorites like “the society can never be fair”, begged the question of why must a society be based on competition and assaulted the strawman that the that the only alternative is state-enforced egalitarianism.
The original point of the article you linked to basically counters your basic premise.
Great article James, I agree with you completely.
It is very unfortunate that supporters of the free-market have started to abandon their philosophies in favor of government funded corporations.
I for one believe that the ills of society must be cured through social means, and can only be cured through social means. Government force can do nothing more than create moral hazards and further disruption to society.
It is sad that we are losing control of our own destinies to the government.
Actually I believe the crux of his argument was that government is force and that the free market is freedom of choice. This is absolutely true.
Do you believe it good to force individual members of society to support others?
Or would it be better for the government to step aside and let the individual members of society provide for each other out of their own volition?
If the former, would you not be creating a new conflict?
Is it right for you to steal from one group to give to another?
Is it right for the government to do the same?
I don't disagree that government is force. But I do disagree that the free market is freedom of choice. Theoreticaly yes but practically without intervention, the free market concentrates the wealth and creates bottlenecks in the form of monopolies, restricting choice.
The markets started out free and were an abject failure. The only reason a state was created was in order to control them.
Yes. I think it's even better if people are coerced psychologically to cooperate with their fellow man than being coerced economically to make the rich richer.
Can't happen under Capitalism.
The only conflict will be when the 10% of the population which holds the wealth uses their control of the state to hold on to their wealth and power.
Depends. Did that group steal from me first?
You're confusing capitalism and mercantilism. Marx incorrectly labeled the former the latter in his writings and we've all been confused ever since. Mercantilism is the mixing of government and business and was (is) used as a tool of imperialism throughout history.
The free market may concentrate wealth to a certain extent, but government regulations concentrate it more. The largest firms usually push for more regulations because it makes entrance into the marketplace harder and allows them to maintain an oligopoly or monopoly more easily. Monopolies can easily be broken up in the free market through trade or technological advance, which are essentially the same thing. Regulations diminish the benefits of trade and slow technological advance. Kodak may have had a near monopoly in film, but they were slow to switch to digital allowing other firms to enter the market. Just one example, but probably not even the best.
You have obviously not seen what happened in history. Do you remember standard oil? Even in the face of the government trying to stop it monopolizing, it persisted.
Also, not all monopolies can be stopped by technology.
The free market you yearn for is an illusion. It can never be achieved because simply the capitalists have the incentive to create a powerful state to protect their assets and syphon the money of the poor to their subsidies through taxes. They control the wealth, thus they control the power, thus the control the propaganda and can convince people that the state is to their benefit.
From the first moment the state was created, it was to protect the haves, from the have-nots. From the roman state which protected them from the slaves, to the feudal states which protected them from the peasantry, to the current state which protects them from the proletariat. You cannot keep the same system while discarding the state.
Unless of course you speak of the state who shamelessly supports only the bourgeoise minority with protection as they exploit the workers more and more, while not helping at all any of its citizens. Really, the most disgusting state that could ever be.
I agree with most of your points. We don't disagree for the most part, but I'm not sure how government intervention as a solution to government intervention is possible.
Also, your understanding of Standard Oil is a bit off. That's where the government-run schools come in. They teach you what the government wants you to think. Here's an excerpt from A Politically Incorrect Guide to Antitrust Policy:
http://mises.org/story/2694
“Standard Oil of New Jersey (1911)
One of the most famous (and misunderstood) antitrust cases in history is US v. Standard Oil of New Jersey (1911).
The popular explanation of this case is that Standard Oil monopolized the oil industry, destroyed rivals through the use of predatory price-cutting, raised prices to consumers, and was punished by the Supreme Court for these proven transgressions. Nice story but totally false.
First, Standard never even monopolized petroleum refining, let alone the entire oil industry (production, transportation, refining, distribution) which would have been an impossibility. Even in domestic refining, Standard's share of the market declined for decades prior to the antitrust case (64% in 1907) and there were at least 137 competitors (firms like Shell, Gulf, Texaco) in oil refining in 1911.
“A free-market 'monopoly' supplier is theoretically possible but not necessarily harmful and would not rationalize any antitrust regulation.”
Second, although predatory practices were alleged by the government at trial, Standard offered rebuttal on all counts. Neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court ever made any specific finding of guilt on the conflicting charges of predatory practices.
Third, petroleum market outputs increased and prices declined for decades during the alleged period of “monopolization” by Standard Oil. For example, prices for kerosene (the industry's major product) were 30 cents a gallon in 1869 and fell to about 6 cents a gallon at the time of the antitrust trial.
Finally, the Supreme Court broke up the Standard Oil holding company not because of any demonstrable harm to consumers (there was none) but because it discerned some vague “intent” to monopolize through Standard's many mergers, an “intent” that just as clearly never succeeded in producing any monopoly. Yet generations of economic and legal commentators have been misled about monopoly and the alleged efficacy of antitrust policy because of the “facts everybody knows” concerning the Standard Oil antitrust case.”
You see, when the model case for the damage of monopolies and their ability to form and maintain themselves naturally is totally false, we have a false debate around false presumptions of how the market works.
You obviously believe that capitalism is protectionism of capital. So how does the government working in the opposite direction fix the problem? If the government is using force to take from those that produce to give to those that do not what will be the result?
I can assure you that the result will not be egalitarian. The result will be continuous growth of the non producers at the expense of the producers to the point where the producers are out numbered and can no longer produce enough for the society at large let alone themselves. Besides that, the power that would have to be given to the government in order to do the taking would reinforce any unethical behavior by the officials in charge. So not only would we be left with a society that consumes more than it produces but the production would go only to the politically connected. I fail to see how that could be better than a free market system of trade.
One thing that you fail to see is that capitalism has provided more wealth to more people than any other economic system. The “poor” under a true capitalist system (we do not have true capitalism) have always done better than the poor under a communist or socialist system. Yes capitalism does produce very wealthy people, but who are you to say that they don't deserve it? After all, they did work hard to get where they are, and if they leave their fortunes to their children that is their prerogative. These super wealthy are also the ones taking risk in opening factories and producing goods. There is always the risk that they might fail and they are not asking you to take the hit when they do. The government on the other hand is always making you take the hit.
Jealousy is not a reason to steal from the rich.
“Depends. Did that group steal from me first?”
Did they? Or did you give them your money on your own accord. If not, could you please tell me which companies it was that stole from you? I would like to use my freedom of choice to avoid them.
The government on the other hand, has been stealing from me since my birth, through taxes and inflation.
Here is a perfect example: I would like to avoid all of the unsound banks and credit card companies because I don’t want to give my business to failures. But now the government has stepped in on my behalf and decided that I need to support them. Hmm, who is stealing from whom here?
Another: I have always driven a GM vehicle, my last one I purchased just 3 years ago. I’ve been looking at new models and have decided that I will probably get a Honda or Toyota when my car dies. But here comes the government again, and they are most likely going to give my money to GM and Ford so that they can stay in business. I don’t want to support them anymore, they are not sound companies and their products are inferior. The government will again be removing my freedom of choice. I could still go by a Honda but now I will be competing against my own tax dollars, so maybe I had better just by a GM. The government is supporting them after all.
So is it ok for the government to support non-producing banks and car companies at the expense of the producing ones? Or is it ok because Local bank USA must have stolen from Citi group and BofA, and Toyota stole from GM and Ford? Or is it just that the banks and car companies that are not failures just made better decisions. Perhaps the people that have balanced their budgets and stayed out of debt and worked hard to get where they are made better decisions than those who have not done so. If you don’t agree with it on a corporate level, how does it make anymore sense on a societal level?
I have to apologize for this. I posted this article on James' behalf and linked to your article because the comment debate was interesting and relevant. It's always great to have an intelligent discussion with people that won't question your mental capacity simply because they disagree with you. When the “debunkers” come around that's when the attacks get personal.
Check some of our 9/11 posts to see what I mean.
Your community has a lot of intelligent people with ideas that are different from most of the people in this community. Respectful Dialog = Progress
Well, duh!
Capitalism brings about protectionism of the capital because it is in the best interests of the capitalists.
Who spoke about the government? And anyway, the wealth already goes from those who produce to those who do not as a default of Capitalism. There's no need for the government to do anything.
That's because you think inside the box. You see only the false dichotomy of Government VS Capital
Look outside the first world nations. Hint: Aftrica and the middle east are Capitalist as well. I can also argue that China and the USSR are/were state capitalists not socialists.
Aaaahahahahahahahaaaaahahaha…gasp…aaaahahahahahah
Even after a historic, never seen before bailout you have the gall to claim this?!
Every single one I have and will work for, with the possible exception of cooperatives. It's called exploitation of the working class.
In case you didn't notice, it wasn't exactly as if those companies weren't begging the government to do exactly that. It isn't like those companies didn't put their cronies in the government to convince them to bail them out. As much blame goes to the corporations as to the government for this.
Second. Last time the government did not step to bailout the failing corporations, the Great Depression happened in which everyone but the rich suffered.
Two
You agree that the Free Markets are an illusion? Then why do you defend it?
db0, I'm not sure I understand your rebuttal. By definition, coercion (government or otherwise) is absent in an anarcho-capitalistic free-market. You seem to be arguing against the state, as well as against free-markets.
My argument is based on the premise that any government action violates natural law; as this is not in accordance with my personal belief system, I deem it immoral. I clearly state why I think a free-market epitomizes my belief system.
You either have a different definition of morality, or you have failed to interpret my argument correctly. To be honest, most of what of the communist literature I read makes little sense to me, as it argues against the plain logic of praxeology and human nature in general.
For a more advanced look at the morality of anarcho-capitalistic moral thought, see Murray Rothbard's “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays.”
Only that it is an illusion that we have a free market in America today.
Definitely. The State is an organ of oppression and the “Free” Markets cannot be achieved. Indeed coercion is not absent in a anarcho-capitalist market. Indeed you must have coercion in order to avoid violence and to make contracts binding.
Ah, “natural law” is it? And whence does this law come from?
I definitely have a different definition of morality.
Nope. It argues for human nature. Not against.
The Great Depression was not a depression but a consolidation of wealth. The private Federal Reserve worked with government a (through legal tender laws) and corporations to consolidate wealth. Every government action lengthened the crisis and made it deeper.
You seem to suggest that an inflationary policy can fix depressions. Why not just run the printing presses all day every day and we can have economic growth forever? (Oh wait, that's what we've been doing and it's lead to this)
That's only because it can be no other way.
So wait. Bailout the corporations, and it's the government's fault. Don't bailout the corporations and it's the government's fault. Is there anything that is not the government's fault?
db0, you've failed in your attempt to rebut Ethan's remarks. In fact, your entire argument against capitalism is a non-sequitur. Understand that corporatism is different than capitalism. Corporations act in accordance with the incentives they have to reap gain from their actions. In the case of the government bailouts, of course the corporations were begging to be bailed out; why wouldn't they? The government was essentially offering them a get-out-of-jail-free card. Any advocate of free-markets would have rather had them declare bankruptcy.
Inefficiency is being rewarded when the government bails out corporations with tax-payer money. When Ethan said “There is always the risk that they might fail and they are not asking you to take the hit when they do” he was quite obviously referring to private investors, not the state.
Regarding your second point; I'm not sure how you can justify that the Great Depression was a result of government inaction. In fact, I'd argue just the opposite. See http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf for an academic discussion of the causes of the Great Depression, and a critique of arguments to the contrary. I think if you take some time to read and understand the logic behind Rothbard's arguments, you'll realize how wrong you truly are.
I argue that coercion necessitates the threat of violence. Is that not as bad as violence itself? I would argue that it's even worse.
The fact that we have fundamentally different definitions of morality makes any discussion with you pointless since my argument is based on a premise you can't possibly agree with.
Thank you for your feedback.
No, the threat of bankruptcy is the most potent form of regulation there is. This is precisely the mechanism that is necessary for the free market to work. If we privatize gains but socialize losses then this is the most harmful type of economic policy that can exist.
Good point James. Corporatism can be read as National Socialism (Nazism) or Mercantilism as well. It's certainly not Capitalism.
The private Federal Reserve has also created a situation where money is so cheap that firms don't use capital to invest, they simply borrow to grow. Perhaps this should be called “Debtism'?
The threat of bankruptcy is only a threat to people who don't have money. The ones who do the act are taken care of by golden parachutes. As I also said, regulation and the state was necessitated by the free markets disrupting society. You can't have one without the other and have a viable society. This is plainly obvious by all the consequences following attempts at deregulation.
>If we privatize gains but socialize losses then this is the most harmful type of economic policy that can exist.
I agree. We need to socialize gains and losses.
So if the threat of violence is worse than violence, why do you need the threat of violence to stop violence?
Oh I can. It's just that you probably have convinced yourself that you can't be wrong. I have argued with Objectivists and Theists before.
Declaring your opponent's argument a failure is not a winning debate strategy.
My argument on Capitalism is based on the actions, purposes and history of capitalism itself. It's simply that the Corporation is the exact kind of human that the “Free” Markets require to work. Perfectly rational, calculating and with only one purpose: Profit. Neoclassical economics are based on the assumption that humans act like corporations and of course they fail because humans act nothing like that.
You argument about the corporation can easily be leveled at any private capitalist. Even moreso when the threat of Bankruptcy is so more scary to a single person. Why wouldn't a private person request the government bailout if he could get it? And aren't corporations owned by a group of private investors?
What I have noticed that any advocate of Free Markets does is blame the government no matter what happens.
Capitalism and the “Free Markets” are like the Monotheistic God in the respect. Always to praise when things go well in the economy but when everything hits the fan, it's someone else's fault. The Socialists. The Government. The Weather. Anything but Capitalism.
It does not matter that for the last 20 years the government has deregulated like never before which positively correlates with the scale of the damage we have now. For the Anarcho-Capitalist, the fault is that it didn't deregulate enough or fast enough.
The first comment is the reality of anarcho-capitalism and negative freedom.
The second comment is the logical conclusion of your claim that “coercion is worse than violence”.
There is no different side.
If you say so.
So you're allowed to argue against the state and against the free market, but I can't support James in his arguments against the state but for the free market?
“My argument on Capitalism is based on the actions, purposes and history of capitalism itself. It's simply that the Corporation is the exact kind of human that the “Free” Markets require to work. Perfectly rational, calculating and with only one purpose: Profit. ”
Consider this: The two largest holders of mortgages in this country are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both were created by the government not for the purposes of profit but to provide “affordable housing.” Their failures have now been bailed out by the government, I mean taxpayer. It could be argued that these two corporations created or at least exacerbated the current recession. The two have wreaked havoc on the finances of millions in this country and around the world yet neither of these massive corporations was a creation of free-market economics but rather creations of government intervention.
That example alone proves my point that government intervention is the problem not the solution.
So I know that you are confusing government created monopolistic corporations with free market enterprises. This is what is leading to your confusion about what needs to be done to prevent disaster from happening again. We do not need more government intervention as you suggest, but less. With less government interference in the free-market system we can say goodbye to the giant bloodsucking corporations that we both dislike so much.
In regards to your being robbed by every company you have ever worked for or will work for, stop complaining and get a different job or learn a skill that is in demand. I don’t feel robbed by my company. On the other hand if the government took over and I only had the choice of working for the government or not working at all, I think things might get a little worse. In that scenario, if you don’t like how you’re being treated by your employer (the government) where do you go? Answer, you no longer have a choice, you are stuck.
I didn't say you can't. I say that you're wrong to do so.
It certainly could be a free market if people like you didn't ask for the government to step in and distort the market at every turn.
Really? So it has nothing to do with Wall Street? With private mortage enterprises? With private banks that got in the game? It was all because of these two? AIG had nothing to do with it? Or was it just a poor innocent victim that wanted to help the poor people get homes?
You're just finding a scapegoat with ties to the government to slaughter.
There's no free market enterprise because there's no “free” market. Furthermore, how many of those Enterprises got government subsidies to get started?
Yes, with less government intervention everything will be perfect! Just look at the 19th century! Or the first truly freee markets in Ancient Greece where the state was not even invented. It was an abject failure.
Tell that to the poor indian who never had a chance to learn and has to work in a mine or die. And anyway, as long as I'm a worker in a capitalist system, no matter what I do, I will always be exploited unless I work in a cooperative.
I don;t want the government to take over either
What does that have to do with this discussion. The only way that I could see that applying here is if you have total blind faith in your government and you wanted to show your support for government interference in the market place by equating it to your total trust in the government for other matters.
Don't you think about anything else? Would you like to add to the discussion here or just detract from it?
Right, I should just shut up and work my 16hour shift on subsistence wage like a good worker so that my demands for minimum pay and 8 hours shifts don't distort the market. Of course!
So there's a mass conspiracy among capitalists to exploit every worker in every firm everywhere? Wow, I own a small business with no employees, who am I exploiting?
My parents have a seasonal business and employ about 10 people, which are jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. Our employees love their jobs and many of them left higher paying ones in order to work in the environment my parents' business provides. I guess my parents are exploiting them too?
I wonder where all of my riches are if I'm exploiting people and so are my parents. We must have piles of cash somewhere! If only…
Also, I'm employed part time at Xerox. [Legal: I don't speak on behalf of Xerox Corporation, my opinions are my own] I make about double what my friends make at on campus, federally-subsidized work study jobs. I love my job and I've been there almost 3 years. I'm at the bottom of the pecking order at Xerox as an intern, but am I exploited? Nope.
“Really? So it has nothing to do with Wall Street? With private mortage enterprises? With private banks that got in the game? It was all because of these two? AIG had nothing to do with it? Or was it just a poor innocent victim that wanted to help the poor people get homes?”
It absolutely has everything to do with all of them but you have to ask yourself how. The how is government intervention plan and simple. With out Fannie and Freddie buying up mortgages without regard to homeowners ability to pay then the loans would not have been made by the banks in the first place. Wall street never would have begun trading in them and the enormous losses would not have been suffered. The fact is, with out the governments creation their never would have been the demand. This is exactly the kind of manipulation that distorts free market forces.
“Furthermore, how many of those Enterprises got government subsidies to get started?”
That is my point. Get the government out of it.
“Or the first truly freee markets in Ancient Greece where the state was not even invented. It was an abject failure.”
Could you please provide evidence for your claim.
“anyway, as long as I'm a worker in a capitalist system, no matter what I do, I will always be exploited unless I work in a cooperative.”
Or if you work for yourself, or an employer who respects you, our if you take pride in your work and demand better treatment, or learn useful skills. I really have no pity for you. And a cooperative is certainly another choice you may make, provided for you by free-market economics.
“I don;t want the government to take over either”
Without government intervention the nature of economics is laissez-faire, how do you propose to create your utopia where “profits and losses are socialized?” Who would then take on the risk of entrepreneurship and innovation if they receive no personal gain from there work?
There's no need for a mass conspiracy. It's the way Capitalism works. It requires that workers are exploited by not paying them the full value they produce. The capitalist that does provide to the worker his full labour-value, cannot make a profit.
The profit is the surplus value the worker creates but does not earn.
This is the exploitation of the worker.
No-one…yet
Does the slave-holder who treats his slaves humanely and kindly deserve praise?
Sure you are. Do you earn an equal share of the profits Xerox makes? Do you have a democratic say in its business that you help continue? If not, you're being exploited.
Certainly, you're exploited less than other people in poor nations, but that's because you're living in a Bourgeois Nation.
My parents also own a small business, a farm, and employ about 14 people. I worked on it all throughout high school and learned what it meant to work hard, be useful, and appreciate what I could earn for myself. The harder I worked the more money I made. I suppose I too was exploited by my father, except for the fact that he works harder than anyone else on the farm and based on the hours he put in probably doesn't make much more per hour than his employees.
How terrible a free-market economy must be for allowing people to do what they love, earn what they want, and work as hard as they choose to.
Hey, you can't blame the government for trying to improve it's propaganda techniques by helping people achieve the American Dream.
But anyway, at the point of failure, Fannie was a private company anyway. And if we're going to go as far back to find who strarted what and who caused what, we should find what caused the state to exist. Private Property and money, the basis of Capitalism.
Sure
Communism
“Sure you are. Do you earn an equal share of the profits Xerox makes? Do you have a democratic say in its business that you help continue? If not, you're being exploited.”
How can he expect an equal share when he did not contribute the capital or take the risk.
You have conveniently left risk out of your economic equation. Anyone with money can create a business and higher people but it does not guarantee success. The business might not turn a profit and close it's doors. The owner has then lost his capital or may even be in debt. Where do his workers stand? They were paid, they had no risk. Now that the business is closed they can get a job somewhere else and perhaps the owner of the defunct business will be working right along side them.
So in your Utopian society where everyone shares in profits and losses without the government getting involved, do the employees of the business have to pay their share to the starting capital? Do they have to take their share of the loses when the business fails? Does the business owner have to share his possible profits with the rest of the society?
Good luck getting anyone to work for, let alone start a productive enterprise if that is the case.
Without reward there will be no risk taking. Without risk there will be no restraint. A society like this could never survive, e.g. the current United State government subsidized economy.
You experience was only possible because your nation was plundering the wealth of other nations in the meantime.
Try and have the same experience in wonderful Capitalist India
India is no more capitalist than the United States. Their government has imposed restrictions and social safety nets just the same as the United States.
The difference however is in the direction. We at one time had the benefit of being completely free-market and are working our way into total socialism. India on the other hand is working it's way out of socialism into a more free society.
While The United States is slowing down and becoming poorer, India is improving its economic outlook for all its people even with the remnants of the caste system.
ndia is the world's fastest wealth creator
“Fannie was a private company anyway”
Wrong.
From Wikipedia:
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. The corporation's purpose is to purchase and securitize mortgages in order to ensure that funds are consistently available to the institutions that lend money to home buyers.
No truly private enterprise would have ever blindly purchased mortgages like they did. They didn't have to worry though, because they had the implied promise of government back, which the government constantly denied, until that is the bailed them out.
Communism?
How do you create a communist society without the force of government? How do you make people work if they get the benefit of everyone else's work? How do you advance your society if there is no incentive for entrepreneurs to take risk?
I do think communism has its place, but that extends to only to the family unite. In the family you work together for the good of each other because you have a natural concern for one another. However, I could care less about some moron in California who bought too much house for himself. I work for my and my families advancement in life. You will have to put a gun to my head to get me to work for your families. Isn't that almost slavery?
How about I help you with whatever you need for you family and you help me with mine? How about when everyone else does the same because everyone else does the same and this method of cooperation is more fulfilling and productive?
No money need to be involved.
PS: I'm replying with new comments to your posts because the threading here is horrible.
You can find my replies at the end.
A completely agree with free association. Free-markets do not exclude collectives. But you cannot and should not expect everyone to live the way you do.
I apologize, I didn't see Andrews comment when I replied to you. But still why don't you discuss something other than 9/11.
When the workers of the world march and make the exploitation stop by seizing the means of production, then you have no choice.
When no worker agrees to be paid a lower wage than what he produces so that you can make more than him, then your way of life will not be able to continue.
And when your own workers take over your factory that they have paid for 10 times over, then you will discover that you can be either with them, or against them, and bring your friends the police to rough them up a little
Yes, but you haves still neglected RISK. Why should the workers share in all the profits when they have provided non of the risk. Why should they take over the factory that they did not have the initiative to create. Why shouldn't they get jobs somewhere else if they feal that they are being exploited?
Will you continue with threading here?!
Anyway, I replied to your RISK argument
Exactly. James just look actual government created businesses like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for instance. They are political businesses and what happened to them? They fell hard but got bailed out because why? They were “government” created businesses from the very beginning!
Working on the threading problem. It's a bug with Disqus and they are working on it.
You also didn't seem to acknowledge the above reality of Standard Oil. Doesn't it concern you that the most well-known case for the exploitation theory is just a half-truth?
I've already answered three times below and have no response so why should I continue talking to the wall?
If we do that, why should I bother working? If I create below average value for the community I will be given the average pay. If I create above average value for the community I will have it taken away from me. Any system that destroys economic incentives will collapse under its own weight.
You don't have it taken away from you, you choose to give it away because you don't need it. In exchange you receive other goods you did not create that other give away.
You don't work so that you can get more than everyone else. You work so that everyone in the world lives better. Your incentive to work as hard as possible is the same incentive everyone else has. Hard work makes life better for everyone.
I don't work so that everyone in the world lives better. I work so I can pay the bills, eat, get an education and start a family. If I didn't have to work and could just get a check to sustain my standard of living I probably wouldn't. In this world I work because I want to improve my future as well. In your world if I didn't want to work then I'd just be pulling everyone else down.
I suppose I don't “need” my trombone, so I guess I should just give it away to make someone else's life better. Then again, I'm pretty good at it and I feel I'm providing value to the community by playing it.
I give away what I don't need every day. It's called money. I work for money and I give it to other people who's services I value more than my money. They get to use that money to better their lives as well.
So if you could do whatever work you liked without having to worry about food, bills and costs wouldn't you?
If you like playing with the trombone then keep it up, but if you had two trombones and the guy next door also could play it, why not give it one to him?
The problem with money is that it creates inequality in power, which then breeds exploitation.
If entrepreneurs aren't worrying about cost, who is?
I'm confused. Can you clarify?
The fact of the matter is, if you have a free market society where everyone is free to trade in any manner they see fit, free to associate, free to work for anyone they choose, free to work for themselves, free to sell and buy what they want then your system of collectivism would work just fine.
In a free market society there would be nothing to stop workers from associating (e.g. unions), there would be nothing stopping workers from creating a joint business venture and sharing in the profits (e.g. cooperatives). And there would being nothing stopping them from living life the way they see fit.
You cannot disprove that, it is a fact. You even agree with me…
“Under Capitalism, there's the cooperatives already. Under communism, it's the standard way.”
So if you have proven to me that collectivism can exist under a somewhat free market, then why force people into something that they don't want? Why? That is what I really want to know.
But you want to take the economic system of America and say “see, it doesn't work.” Then you are not truly examining a free-market. Our government has it's hands in everywhere you look. You cannot call America a free-market economy, anymore at least.
So I have shown how you can have a collective society within a free market economy for all of those who CHOOSE to participate in it. Can you tell me how you could have a collectivist society in anything other than a free market economy, without the use of coercive force? No you can't.
Why don't you just agree that if people were free from government interference that they would be able to organize in any manner that they choose, both economic system, capitalism and communism would be able to exist side by side. Unless of course you think that capitalism would have an unfair advantage over communism in a free market. What would create that unfair advantage? If people CHOSE to be capitalist instead of communist, maybe, but I don't think that is unfair. What would be unfair is not giving them the choice in the first place. Or perhaps you might think the a capitalist would be able to suppress the communists. Why? Why wouldn't the combined force of the collective be stronger than the capitalists? Why wouldn't their factory produce more and provide more for it's workers? I know why. Maybe it's because not everyone in the collective would be truly equal. Maybe it's because some of them would actually be doing more work than others and feel slighted that they weren't getting more of their share. Maybe they would have no clear direction since they would all want to be making decisions. Maybe… I could go on and on.
But what it boils down to is that you think that under a free-market system of economics that more people would choose to become capitalist, providing for themselves and being entrepreneurs and being willing to take risks with their own money and lives than would choose to be communists for you to live off of and risk their investments instead of yours. You are afraid to be your own man, you want to blame successful people for your failures, and you want to steal the work of others for your own benefit.
“Of course. Capitalism without exploitation is impossible”
Guess what. A family farm is capitalist, a small business is capitalist, a man making chairs in his garage is capitalist. If you are exploited and not paid what you are worth it is your own fault. I am not exploited and I work for multi-national corporation. In fact I make more now than I did when I worked for my own father. Did my father exploit me or am I being exploited now? No, and if I felt that I was I would be FREE to leave and go somewhere else.
Why can’t you understand that in a free market you can be a capitalist, you can be a communist, you can be a collectivist, you can be anindividualist, you can be a farmer, you can be a businessman, you can be a leader, you can be a follower, you can be a philanthropist, or you can be a beggar. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO BE WHATEVER YOU WANT.
I think your utopia would suck because I would have to do what you or the guy in charge tells me I have to do. Who put him in charge anyway?
I want to be in charge of myself, and have only myself to blaim for my failures and success, that is it. Why would I ever want you to dictate to me what is in my best interest?
Well said, Ethan.
You're kidding me right? In a free market economy, unions are busted in no time. Employees who start them are fired and people who talk about them are punished. Jeebus man, look at the 19th century.
Except having no money becuse they get only enough to live from and no time because they have to work 16 hours a day.
I'm not forcing anyone. Communism can be achieved only because the majority of humans wants it. Because it's a much better system than Capitalism.
So where do you base your impression that free market works better? There has never been one and I've already explained why there can never be one.
Answering for me? That's not really an argument.
You can have Communism when the majority of people decide they do not want to play the Capitalist game, seize the means of production and start it. There is always coercive force. Now we simply have economic coercion from Capitalists which is backed by force coercion by the state.
Because they wouldn't. As is the nature of Capitalism, the Capital would be concentrated in the hands of the few and everyone else would be turned into a wage slave. Communism and Capitalism cannot exist side-by-side because they are incompatible.
The only reason Communism cannot exist with Capitalism is because a small communist community cannot cooperate with a Capitalist community. They have no money. Thus a small Communist community surrounded by Capitalism cannot import anything that is missing.
On the other hand, A Capitalist society surrounded by Communist, cannot survive either, for their money are worthless and they cannot import anything with it.
Capitalist have been attempting to suppress anyone through imperialism for hundreds of years. It does not matter if they are communists or fellow capitalists. As long as there's money to be made…
And the collective force of Communists can be proven stronger, as is what has happened in the past many times. However this Imperialist force allows the Communist to be defeated from within when their army is weakened, as is what happened when Stalin took over.
Then it's not Communism.
Maybe, but you'd be fighting strawmen.
You think that I am going to start it? You give me much more credit that I'm worth. If Communism comes it will be because the 90% of the humans who are sick and tired of being exploited so that people like you can be “man of their own life” by abusing everyone else, will rise up and claim ownership of the things that they've paid many times over already with their labour.
That is simply because you are lucky and priviledged. Not everyone is born in the US or other imperialists countries who can float to the top while exploiting everyone living in China, India, Africa etc. Second, there's simply not enough room at the top. Not everyone can be a CEO. Someone must gather the shit from the sewer, and even if everyone had the perfect education, someone would still have to gather the shit from the sewer.
Not really, Once the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 10%, only those 10% can be whatever they want. The 90% of the rest can only be exploited workers.
There is not guy in charge in my Utopia.
I wouldn't. Communism attempt to provide you with exactly that. To allow you to be in charge of yourself, your successes and failures. The only difference is that you would be certain not to die (or have other life-ending consequences) if you fail in exchange with you not ever being able to be more powerful than anyone else.
“E: In a free market society there would be nothing to stop workers from associating (e.g. unions)
D:You're kidding me right? In a free market economy, unions are busted in no time. Employees who start them are fired and people who talk about them are punished. Jeebus man, look at the 19th century.”
So why can't those unions just go start their own shops? My neighbor is in a union and it hasn't been busted up.
“E: And there would being nothing stopping them from living life the way they see fit.
D: Except having no money becuse they get only enough to live from and no time because they have to work 16 hours a day.”
You completely misunderstand the role of money. Money is a medium of exchange. Money could be cows, chicken, wheat, gold, anything that is in demand. If they don't want to exchange their labor for the money that they receive in return why don't they just form a collective and work for themselves, or not form a collective and work for themselves? Many of the richest Americans came out of poverty so don't try to use not having money as an excuse.
“E: So if you have proven to me that collectivism can exist under a somewhat free market, then why force people into something that they don't want? Why? That is what I really want to know.
D:I'm not forcing anyone. Communism can be achieved only because the majority of humans wants it. Because it's a much better system than Capitalism.”
So if the majority wants it then you are saying they must force the minority into. Isn't that force? In a free market everyone is free to choose their own path.
“E: But you want to take the economic system of America and say “see, it doesn't work.”
D:So where do you base your impression that free market works better? There has never been one and I've already explained why there can never be one.”
Based on the fact that the countries that have had mostly free markets have produced a higher standard of living for all of their citizens than any communist country ever has. And there have been some free markets in the past but after time people become complacent and governments start to intervene. Communism on the other hand has been tried and is based on total government intervention and it has been a complete failure. So where to you base your assumption that communism would actually work if tried again?
“E: Can you tell me how you could have a collectivist society in anything other than a free market economy, without the use of coercive force? No you can't.
D:Answering for me? That's not really an argument.
You can have Communism when the majority of people decide they do not want to play the Capitalist game, seize the means of production and start it. There is always coercive force. Now we simply have economic coercion from Capitalists which is backed by force coercion by the state.”
I answered for you because I knew you couldn't. You proved it too. “Seizing the means of production” is that not force? You still fail to understand free markets. I do not support coercion by force of the state, that is not a free market and it is not capitalism. On the other hand you support the idea of force, workers forcefully taking over the means of production from the owners of that production.
“E: Why don't you just agree that if people were free from government interference that they would be able to organize in any manner that they choose, both economic system, capitalism and communism would be able to exist side by side
D:Because they wouldn't. As is the nature of Capitalism, the Capital would be concentrated in the hands of the few and everyone else would be turned into a wage slave. Communism and Capitalism cannot exist side-by-side because they are incompatible.”
I disagree, if you were correct than you need to explain the existence of unions and cooperatives within the somewhat free market that we have.
“E: Unless of course you think that capitalism would have an unfair advantage over communism in a free market. What would create that unfair advantage? If people CHOSE to be capitalist instead of communist, maybe, but I don't think that is unfair.
“D:The only reason Communism cannot exist with Capitalism is because a small communist community cannot cooperate with a Capitalist community. They have no money. Thus a small Communist community surrounded by Capitalism cannot import anything that is missing.
On the other hand, A Capitalist society surrounded by Communist, cannot survive either, for their money are worthless and they cannot import anything with it.”
Isn't a coop a small communist community. I don't think it would be any problem for me, a capitalist, to have an exchange with a coop.
Again you misunderstand money. If the communist community produced anything of value they could exchange that for the other things they need. Lets say the communists had a vegetable garden and they could then trade their excess vegetables for the clothes made by the capitalist down the street. Or they could exchange their excess food for the dreaded capitalists money and use that money to purchase anything they wanted. Money is just a medium of exchange and there is no reason in fact no way that the communists could exist without exchange even if the entire world was communist. Otherwise how would the garden people ever get anything else they need.
“E: Or perhaps you might think the a capitalist would be able to suppress the communists. Why? Why wouldn't the combined force of the collective be stronger than the capitalists? Why wouldn't their factory produce more and provide more for it's workers?
D:Capitalist have been attempting to suppress anyone through imperialism for hundreds of years. It does not matter if they are communists or fellow capitalists. As long as there's money to be made…
And the collective force of Communists can be proven stronger, as is what has happened in the past many times. However this Imperialist force allows the Communist to be defeated from within when their army is weakened, as is what happened when Stalin took over.”
So you agree that the collective force could be stronger. Then you must ask yourself how can they be defeated? The answer lies in the administration of communism. You do you organize it. If everyone is equal then how do you organize trade and exchange. How do you determine what needs to get done. You would agree that everyone in the communist society has their own need, desires and wants, but then how do you make sure that everyone's needs and wants get fulfilled if they are all different? The only answer is to let them figure that out on their own, i.e. free markets.
“E: I know why. Maybe it's because not everyone in the collective would be truly equal.
D:Then it's not Communism.”
If that is not communism then how do you make everyone equal. Who enforces the laws when someone steals from someone else? Wouldn't the police be more equal than the rest of society? Who writes the laws? Wouldn't the lawmakers be more equal than the people forced to obey them? In the factory, who sews the clothes, who designs the clothes, you determines what designs to make, who determines how many to make, who manages the workers, who sweeps the floor, who distributes the goods, who repairs the machines… Can they all be equals? By definition they cannot be equal no matter how much you try. There must always be someone leading and someone else following. Who gets to be the leader?
“E: Maybe… I could go on and on.
D:Maybe, but you'd be fighting strawmen.”
“E: But what it boils down to is that you think that under a free-market system of economics that more people would choose to become capitalist, providing for themselves and being entrepreneurs and being willing to take risks with their own money and lives than would choose to be communists for you to live off of and risk their investments instead of yours. You are afraid to be your own man, you want to blame successful people for your failures, and you want to steal the work of others for your own benefit.
D:You think that I am going to start it? You give me much more credit that I'm worth. If Communism comes it will be because the 90% of the humans who are sick and tired of being exploited so that people like you can be “man of their own life” by abusing everyone else, will rise up and claim ownership of the things that they've paid many times over already with their labour.”
So again, you do not care what the other 10% want, you will forcefully take from them what they have earned for yourself. You are blaming them for your own failures. I have no desire or need to exploit anyone else in order to get what I want out of life. I wish to treat everyone as equals while knowing full well that we are not all equal. Some people have more desire, more ambition, more knowledge, more energy, more perseverance, and more skill than others. I know where my faults lie and I know what I am capable of doing and I know that I am not equal to everyone else and not better than them either. I am my own man, with my own desires, and I want to fulfill those desires without the need to force other people to shares them with me.
“E: I am not exploited and I work for multi-national corporation. In fact I make more now than I did when I worked for my own father. Did my father exploit me or am I being exploited now? No, and if I felt that I was I would be FREE to leave and go somewhere else.
D:That is simply because you are lucky and privileged. Not everyone is born in the US or other imperialists countries who can float to the top while exploiting everyone living in China, India, Africa etc. Second, there's simply not enough room at the top. Not everyone can be a CEO. Someone must gather the shit from the sewer, and even if everyone had the perfect education, someone would still have to gather the shit from the sewer.”
OF course I was so lucking and privileged to get up in the morning and shovel cow crap all day. Lucky me. Your right not everyone can be a CEO but not because there isn't room at the top but because not everyone has the ability necessary to be a CEO. If you the desire to be a CEO you could be as long as you also possessed the ability. Is Oprah lucky that she was abused as a child? How a Jim Carrey? The majority of billionaires made their wealth from scratch: http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/22/billionaires-g...
Maybe it has nothing to do with luck. Maybe it has more to do with opportunity and desire.
I think it is hilarious that you bring up China and India. I went to RIT (on an academic scholarship, mommy and daddy did not pay for the whole thing because guess what, they couldn't afford to) and had classes filled with foreigners. I had had Indian, Iranian, Korean, and Russian lab partners. I even had Chinese and Ukrainian roommates. Why do you think they came to the US to study? Because the opportunity exists here. Why does it exist? Because of the free-market. Weather you want to believe it or not a free society provides much more opportunity for advancement than any type of closed society including communism.
“E: Why can’t you understand that in a free market you can be a capitalist, you can be a communist, you can be a collectivist, you can be an individualist, you can be a farmer, you can be a businessman, you can be a leader, you can be a follower, you can be a philanthropist, or you can be a beggar. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO BE WHATEVER YOU WANT.
D:Not really, Once the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 10%, only those 10% can be whatever they want. The 90% of the rest can only be exploited workers.”
If you relegate yourself to that then it is all you can be. Maybe you should look at it differently. Instead of seeing exploited workers, I see people being given opportunities to improve their lives. The people who have the most desire and the best ability will improve their lives greatly. No one is holding them down. I've already given examples of that.
“E: I think your utopia would suck because I would have to do what you or the guy in charge tells me I have to do. Who put him in charge anyway?
D:There is not guy in charge in my Utopia.”
Back to an earlier point. If that is the case then who makes the decision? Would we all get to make their won decisions? Well then even you admit that someone has to clean the sewer. It sure as hell isn't going to be me. So why don't you do it? I bet you don't want to either. Why would we if we will all be treated the same no matter what job we do? So if you won't do it and I won't do it who will? I think someone is going to have to be told to do it or else all of our toilets will get backed up.
You want to know something funny. In a free market no one has to be told to clean the sewer. Someone chooses to do it, not because they want to, well maybe someone wants to, but because it needs to be done and they are going to be compensated fairly for it. If you were paid the same for cleaning a sewer as you were for working at McDonald's you'd better believe that your toilet would not be working.
“E: I want to be in charge of myself, and have only myself to blame for my failures and success, that is it. Why would I ever want you to dictate to me what is in my best interest?
D:I wouldn't. Communism attempt to provide you with exactly that. To allow you to be in charge of yourself, your successes and failures. The only difference is that you would be certain not to die (or have other life-ending consequences) if you fail in exchange with you not ever being able to be more powerful than anyone else.”
I've already refuted everything said here but lets think about this. So if I will not be left to die why would I bother to work?
I know that your cognitive dissonance must be quite painful right now but please try to examine my arguments with a degree of openness. I have certainly conceded to you that communist societies can exist without the use of force and yet you still wish that it be forced upon all people without their choosing, this is just the beginning of inequality within your so-called equal society. Please consider the ramifications of the tyranny of the majority that you would be creating. Consider the socialization that is currently taking place in America and the effects it will have on our freedoms. Please consider the historical examples of communist societies and how their implementation was a failure. Also please consider the following from a man much smarter than I:
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N. Rothbard
Just as tasks are unequal, people are unequal as well.
Ethan is right that you do not understand what money is. A famous philosopher once said “Money is no part of the wealth of a country, it is just a medium of exchange.” Having piles of cash does not make you wealthy. You need to exchange that money for things to enrich your life. IF you don't want anything more you can INVEST your money, which allows other people that don't have enough (your EXPLOITED people) to do something productive with it. Guess what, if you're the altruistic type you can even give it all away to others. Very few millionares and billionares just stack their money to the sky. They spend it. If it's unfair that they should be able to make so much, is it also unfair that they should be able to spend so much? They only have the money temporarily, because it is only a medium of exchange.
If you're truly against money then there is no way to enforce people not using it. Throughout time scores of items have been used as a form of exchange, from shells to cigarettes, people will exchange with each other to get things they want.
Also, it's laughable to suggest that a communist country couldn't trade with a capitalist country. The economic inner-workings of a country have little to do with whether they can benefit from trade. If two people can benefit from sharing or exchanging their stuff, then groups can as well. What is a nation but a group of people? Both countries could be better off.
[…] was recently sucked into a conversation with Libertarians which I found after they linked to me. I know I really shouldn’t have done […]
[…] at Rise Up Rochester explains why individualism is better than collectivism (and why there’s nothing wrong with […]
“…if [wealthy capitalists] leave their fortunes to their children that is their prerogative.”
I giggled here, but bitterly.
It most certainly is not their prerogative. In fact it is my prerogative to prevent their forming a royal bloodline that will oppress mine. The hidden premise behind inheritance is that you have the right to give your children a leg up on mine.
Well, you don't. At least not beyond seeking a healthy partner with good genes (and the day is coming when the rich will be able to use neo-eugenics to turn themselves into an advanced species — all the more reason for a strong state with an egalitarian notion of the related rights that will need to be created to prevent such a dystopian nightmare).
Society has a vested interest in preventing, via state apparatus, your creating a new aristocracy upon your death. The state ought to seize 100% of all estates and distribute them among the society that generated that wealth.
The dead have no need of gold.
I find it saddening that you thing that you think government can be used to prevent the rich from establishing bloodlines. It's government that has helped them maintain bloodlines for so long! Besides, all of this class warfare has its rhetoric aimed at the rich but the true target is the middle class. The only threat to elete power comes from the middle class. The size of the middle class is a reflection of our freedoms. By increasing the size, scope and power of government we only enable the super-rich and super-powerful to become more rich and more powerful.
You are apparently starting with the premise that wealth in the hands of its creator or in those the creator of the wealth chooses is dangerous. That couldn't be any more presumptive. There has been much good done with inherited fortunes.
If you are suggesting that I have no right to what is done with my wealth after my death, they what right do any of us have to our wealth while we are alive. Shouldn't I, if I have the power to, do whatever I can to provide the best life for my children? Should I be allowed to buy things for my children or give them gifts? How can I choose to send my children to a private school or home school them if I do not have the right to provide any better than the lowest quality affordable by all others? Why bother working hard if you can nothing from it or cannot provide something for those you care about? You seem to think that the money that someone earns it not rightfully theirs. Well then, whose is it?
Are you suggesting that a person should only spend money on individuals or groups that they are not related to? Are you suggesting that a person does not have the right to provide a quality life for their children just because others are not capable of provide that same quality? Are you suggesting that the state should determine where we spend our money?
The end result of your idea would be total state control. Why are they more knowledgeable about how best to spend the money? Are they not men and women themselves? Are they not able to make mistakes? Are they omnipotent?
If you earned the money or were gifted the money it is your choice what you wish to do with it? I do not personally feel it a good thing for the character of a person to be given great wealth not having done anything to earn it, but I cannot deny another's right to disagree with me and act in that manner.
If you think about it, if a person is gifted a large sum of money and not having earned it in some way, they would not have the knowledge of how it was obtained nor the knowledge to keep it. the fortune would quickly revert to the society at large through the efforts of those able to part the inheritor from his money. If they are smart they will put the money to good use and employ others in a productive enterprise. There is no need for the state to step in.
you are fearful of an aristocracy, however, your plan would simply create an aristocracy of government officials stealing money from possibly productive means, eventually bankrupting the society at large.
You are apparently starting with the premise that wealth in the hands of its creator or in those the creator of the wealth chooses is dangerous. That couldn't be any more presumptive. There has been much good done with inherited fortunes.
If you are suggesting that I have no right to what is done with my wealth after my death, they what right do any of us have to our wealth while we are alive. Shouldn't I, if I have the power to, do whatever I can to provide the best life for my children? Should I be allowed to buy things for my children or give them gifts? How can I choose to send my children to a private school or home school them if I do not have the right to provide any better than the lowest quality affordable by all others? Why bother working hard if you can nothing from it or cannot provide something for those you care about? You seem to think that the money that someone earns it not rightfully theirs. Well then, whose is it?
Are you suggesting that a person should only spend money on individuals or groups that they are not related to? Are you suggesting that a person does not have the right to provide a quality life for their children just because others are not capable of provide that same quality? Are you suggesting that the state should determine where we spend our money?
The end result of your idea would be total state control. Why are they more knowledgeable about how best to spend the money? Are they not men and women themselves? Are they not able to make mistakes? Are they omnipotent?
If you earned the money or were gifted the money it is your choice what you wish to do with it? I do not personally feel it a good thing for the character of a person to be given great wealth not having done anything to earn it, but I cannot deny another's right to disagree with me and act in that manner.
If you think about it, if a person is gifted a large sum of money and not having earned it in some way, they would not have the knowledge of how it was obtained nor the knowledge to keep it. the fortune would quickly revert to the society at large through the efforts of those able to part the inheritor from his money. If they are smart they will put the money to good use and employ others in a productive enterprise. There is no need for the state to step in.
you are fearful of an aristocracy, however, your plan would simply create an aristocracy of government officials stealing money from possibly productive means, eventually bankrupting the society at large.
[polldaddy 1452706 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1452706/ polldaddy]
Leave your response!
This week last year...
Calendar
Interesting Stats
Most Commented
Latest Comments