Political Orientation?
Posted on: Tue, 2006-09-26 04:25
Offline
Political Orientation?
I'm a left-winger.
Answer the following survey:
Thoughts on...
Gay Marriage: should be recognized
Iraq War: against
Death Penalty: depends
Abortion: support
Fiscal: low taxes, conservative
Israel: does not have the right to exist
Iran: no threat to the slightest sense
There's a similar thread here: [url=http://www.freethinkingteens.com/node/2151]Political leanings[/url]
Gay Marriage, already exists because of freedom of religion. Since the government cannot interfere with what someone believes a gay person and churches sympathetic to gays CAN and do preform same sex cermonies. So simply because the government doesnt achnolage the financial aspects, does not mean gay marriage is outlawed. It cant be ever.
The government cannot send law inforcement into a church and arrest pastors or partisipants of same sex marriages.
Isreal? ........
I am dead set against violence as perpetrated by anyone trying to make a political statement by blowing things up. However, Isreal as a nation has shown no restreint in dealing with the tribalism that they are trying to protect themselves from.
In the 40s Britain and Europe basically displaced the inhabitants of that region to give the land to a sectarian religion dissregarding the people who were living there at the time. Now, in a utopian world it would be nice to think a person can live safely without fear.
However, even though Jews were unjustly and horrifically persicuted in WW2 wich no compassionate person would deny, still doesnt absove them from having known back then, or should have known what moving into that region would have caused.
Nothing is going to change and it is far too late to expect the Jews living there now to leave, Many would say that would be the "coward's way out". No, I'd see them as leaving as practical to their own survival, live to fight another day. The rate they are going they are loosing credibility around the world and ticking off more and more Arabs.
There is no doubt the Jews are not going anywhere. I think if Muslims want to prove anything they should take the high road. Both sides point at each other and shout, "He started it".
I am at the point where neither side has credibility. And the westernized side "Isreal" seems to be lowering itself to a standard of massacar. Only they do it with military.
I am a fical Libertarian and Social democrat. Low taxes, equal rights, expansion for political oportunities for minorities, especially religious minorities. 1/3 of Americans fall outside the Christian label, meaning everything not labeled "Christian". Yet we only have one non-Christian in Congress. Hardly in my estemation a fair reflection of representation.
I am for small government. I am against hate crime laws or attempts at government censorship. I am for gun ownership although I dont own one myself. I am against the death penalty because it favors the prosicution and seems to be lopsided.
I think it is rediculous for the Bush administration to take a pre emtive aproach? Is everyone in our government, CIA and military dipwads? If anyone attacks us, we cant look at a map and figure out where these countries are? BULL AND C...R.....A..
Is Iran a threat? Yea, but so what? You have more chance of dying from domestic things such as desease and car accidents and local crime than you do a terrorist attack. And as I said, if some country attacks us, we know where to find them.
Bush's scare tactics are nothing but political retoric to scare people into maintaining republican control.
Thoughts on...
Gay Marriage: I don't see why government should be involved in mariage at all.
Iraq War: There is so much wrong with this. First and foremost, our country should have free trade with all, and entangling alliances with none.
Death Penalty: Against. The entire prison system needs reworking.
Abortion: Prochoice, anticoncept. I can't stand the thought of it, but I realize there are worse reprocussions to outlawing it.
Fiscal: That government is best which governs least. That means LOW LOW taxes.
Israel: Has a right to be a nation, but ought to respect other's rights to be as well. Frankly though, it's none of my concern.
Iran: Should be left to its own governing.
Same as UltraWill, except I support the death penalty. Break into my house and ask me if I oppose the death penalty. I respond with 12 guage slugs, so do remember to duck and don't shit your pants on the way out.
I don't favor judicial penalties at all, I believe in restitution above retribution. It's more important to solve problems you caused than to be locked in a jail or lethally injected as punishment.
And "LOW LOW" taxes to me means none.
I agree with UltraWill also. But I will add on to the death penalty thing: Rehabilitation! this is the most important! Some people are mentally insane, and they might have to spend their whole life getting better, but they should not be killed. Anyone who can be rehabilitated should be. And about Israel and Iran, they are both kinda uptight and angry seeming. I will give them some time- tested advice from Seinfeld: SERENITY NOW!!! words of wisdom...
Rehabilitation is a load of shit. It's absolutely stupid to force a taxpaying victim of crime to pay for their aggressor's rehabilitation through taxes. It defeats the purpose of justice to capture a theif, then steal from the victim to pay for the theif's rehab. How someone thinks there's any justice in it is beyond me.
You raise an interesting point, but I would like to argue that law, being an essential function of the government, must be enforced. Half of the people who enter a prison go back in when they leave. It is unreasonable to use the taxes to pay for that system, regardless of the validity of my point. I can only think of a few other methods of enforcement, and some of them, like correcting and mistakes they make, are very difficult to gauge in more serious crimes such as murder. From this I deduce you are advocating for no governmental law enforcement. Is this correct?
I contend that law insofar as the written will of the legislature is a crime in and of itself. I advocate more common law type of system, not governmental law. Governmental law is always written to advantage the friends of those in power. A market for courts using private laws, a free market for protection agencies to enforce them in their jurisdiction (made up of the sum of the subscribers' landed properties), and so on, is better than the monopoly government system we have today.
I certainly agree that happens. I just chalk it up to Democracy not going at 100 percent. I think we can get it better. But that is more personal philosophy. I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense, I just prefer a different method to solve similar problems.
Actually the death penalty is very appealing from a taxpayer's point of view. However, I believe a lot of the things that get you into prison in the first place shouldn't be illegal. Not to say murder should be legalized, but I do prefer a state where only criminally minded people are incarcerated at the tax payer's expence rather than taking the huge amount of prisoners we have now and using tax payer's cash to destroy them.
[quote=JoshHickman]I certainly agree that happens. I just chalk it up to Democracy not going at 100 percent.[/quote]
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Make no mistake, what's happening is the rule, not the exception, under democracy.
[b]Gay Marriage:[/b] definitely sould be recognised; no reason why it should've become such a huge issue in the first place
[b]Iraq War[/b]: against
[b]Death Penalty:[/b] riding a fence on that one; although i do see that the entire prison systems should be reworked, i understand that there are people who do very henious things and should be punished for them. i agree on the rehabilition issue that was brought up; we should take notes on other countries' systems (such as finland, for example), understand why they work and apply them to ourselves. but there is also the point that some people just plain cannot be rehabilitated. i had a teacher a few years ago who would stress that there are just some people who are incurably insane and i agree with her.
[b]Abortion: [/b]pro-choice
[b]Fiscal:[/b] its hard to voice my opinion on this one because i've never really paid too much attention to the fiscal side of government; although i hate high taxes as much as the next person, i do know that we have taxes for a reason. our roads, schools, police, etc. are supported by our taxes and i've been told in the past that taxes are more of an investment than a burden. however, i could be wrong and stand to be more educated on the subject. :P
[b]Israel: [/b]its hard to say whether or not i believe israel has a right to exist or not; i mean, we are the ones who put people there, therefore it should be our responsibility to clean up the big mess that we've caused; but also, the people who we put there are people just like any other and deserve a place to live and (dare i say) worship their god. another issue i ride the fence on. :/
[b]Iran:[/b] i think the "threat" of iran has been overexaggerated; fear mongering, yadayada. BUT, i do think that they should be watched, though not quite as extensively as they are currently. i've always kinda of felt like, "why should we be pretty much the only ones allowed a nuclear programme and not them?"; i mean, we are the only ones who have ever used nuclear weapons. :/
but, again.i could stand to be more educated on the topic.
[quote=debaser][b]Gay Marriage:[/b] definitely sould be recognised; no reason why it should've become such a huge issue in the first place[/quote]
The reason marriage is licensed in the first place is in order to make it exclusive. They very idea of licensing anything is to prevent just anyone from doing it. Marriage licensing was originally there to prevent interracial marriages. Now it's there to prevent same-sex marriages. There's no use for licensing except to tell some people "no".
[quote][b]Fiscal:[/b] its hard to voice my opinion on this one because i've never really paid too much attention to the fiscal side of government; although i hate high taxes as much as the next person, i do know that we have taxes for a reason. our roads, schools, police, etc. are supported by our taxes and i've been told in the past that taxes are more of an investment than a burden. however, i could be wrong and stand to be more educated on the subject. :P [/quote]
I say if taxes were such a great investment, why can't we pay them voluntarily? Why do they have to threaten to throw us in jail for not paying them? Whatever taxes are, they're not an investment. Especially when you consider how bad bureaucrats are at spending money economically.
Anything we pay taxes for today could be provided better and cheaper if the government wasn't doing it.
Except natural monopolies and national defense(which could be considered a national monopoly.
"Natural monopolies" are a load of bullshit. If you're talking about things like roads, power, water, telephone, et cetera, natural monopolies are not best provided by government. There is no reason whatsoever you can't have two roads, two sets of power lines, two water pipe systems, two last-mile telecoms, in one area. Whether it is economical to do those things or not is irrelevant to the question of natural monopolies. If a business is willing to put up the infrastructure it's because it thinks the existing infrastructure is bad enough that a second set would result in enough subscription conversions to pay for itself and then some.
And national defense can be provided better on the market as well. The "free rider problem" is irrelevant.
I mean, if the US military wants to get Hussein out of power, what do they do? They bomb the shit out Iraq. What would a private organization with limited funds do? Send in a small team of elite fighters to capture Hussein or kill him and pave the way for a large enough force to hold the ruling body in their control, and have Hussein end any WMD programs. It would be a lot cheaper, a lot less chaotic, and the chances of pre-emptive aggression would decrease as people's interest in funding pre-emption is less than their interest in funding defense of their own area.
Tax-funded militaries are uneconomical.
Having two of each of those is not only a huge inconvenience(imagine having new pipes dug, new power lines put up, new roads built through existing property etc...)'
Whether it is economical is EXACTLY the question of monopolies. Were multiple companies competing for such industries, there would not only be a vast inconvenience to consumers, but also the costs would be too great. Natural monopolies(technically) are companies for which infrastructure is so expensive that only if 50.00000001% of the population uses their product do they come out making money. However, obviously, we do not go by the strict definition, and 'natural monopoly' can be taken to mean any industry which has a high entry cost, and constant marginal costs. This in turn creates a declining average cost for the product, meaning that the more people it serves, the more efficient it is, and thus the more money can be allocating to improving quality. The only problem with the current system of monopolies is the complete government support of them to marginal utility. Were they instead, subsidized only to the point of equilibrium, more money wcould be put to improvement, which would guarantee a greater number of people who would reach the equilibrium level. In this way, a natural monopoly could both turn a profit AND increase the quality of its product. The current system subsidizes the company all the way to the point of marginal utility, meaning that it serves all for whom it is available, which maximizes total gains minus costs, but eliminates(or at least severly slows) progress. Government supported monopolies are not inherently bad, we just overdo them.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Having two of each of those is not only a huge inconvenience(imagine having new pipes dug, new power lines put up, new roads built through existing property etc...)'[/quote]
Inconvenience is factored into the price. How convenient durable infrastructure is can't be calculated strictly on the short-term basis for the simple reason that the infrastructure is built specifically to last.
[quote]Whether it is economical is EXACTLY the question of monopolies.[/quote]
Economics plays no role in government monopolies. Government is a monopoly on legitemate use of force, it doesn't need to worry about money because it can just steal more if it runs out.
[quote]Were multiple companies competing for such industries, there would not only be a vast inconvenience to consumers, but also the costs would be too great.[/quote]
Let the market decide that. You don't know enough to make that decision for everyone nor to delegate that decision to someone else who also cannot know enough to make that decision. I might like unchlorinated unflouridated water to come out of my faucet. If I'm willing to pay $1 PER BOTTLE for such water, I'm pretty damn sure it's "economical" to have a second water pipe delivering pure water.
[quote]Natural monopolies(technically) are companies for which infrastructure is so expensive that only if 50.00000001% of the population uses their product do they come out making money.[/quote]
No they're not. That definition doesn't include all natural monopolies nor exclude any other types of business.
[quote]Government supported monopolies are not inherently bad, we just overdo them.[/quote]
If government supported monopolies are not inherenty bad, why can't they stand on their own two feet without government support?
The ones that can don't need their competition forcefully deprived of ability to compete in order to dominate the area.
The ones that can't are misallocating resources and if they did not forcefully prevent a more efficient allocation of resources from displacing them, they'd be displaced.
The process is at best unnecessary and at worst harmful and destructive.
My point stands: The market is always better and cheaper than the government. It's not just a matter that is resolved on a "pragmatic" market-vs-government type of analysis, it's a fact that is inherent the way the government works.
stop strawman arguing and address the whole thing. I said TECHNICALLY, that is what qualifies as a natural monopoly, but there are certain things which are created as thus which don't technically fit.
I was referring to the inconvenience on the consumer. If pipes were constantly being dug, lines being hung, there would be negative impacts on the communities, on traffic, and on mental sanity.
Remind me when the government steals money? You say taxes, but there are returns for such things, regardless of how inequitous you may see them to be. National Defense, for one, and Politicians(although a strong case can be said that using our money on them is highway robbery).
I did not specifically say government monopolies. There is a difference between a government monopoly and a government supported monopoly. A government monopoly is something like the public services, policemen, firemen etc... In fact, those are perfect examples of natural monopolies. The problem with policemen or firemen as privately owned, it would simply further the rich-poor divide. crimes in such communities would simply become easier and easier, but the ability to have police would simply drop. However, governmented supported monopolies are simply companies which could function in competition, but would serve a lower number of people, at a higher price. The problem with such companies is then that the product would be less obtainable, more expensive, and completely evade the lower class.
The amount of Chlorine in the water is negligible, and serves only to clean. On the other hand, FlUOrine is very important to the human body, and actually good for you. Frankly, I don't care if people want their water unfluorinated because they're paranoid about chemicals. I do know enough to make that decision. People who are paranoid about chemicals are simpmly making a bad decision, and we should not throw aside our economic models for such ignorance. The fact that people are willing to pay 1$ per bottle for water is quite embarrassing, but it generally is not about chemicals, rather it is about the ability to have water to go. The decision is not to be made about what people want, rather what is better, and more efficient. Secondly, a company which made a different type of water would not directly compete with the company, and thus not have the market balancing effect. It would instead create an oligopoly of minorly different products. Oligopolies are far worse than government run monopolies, because of the possibility of cartels.
I know it doesn't. Hence the 'technically' and the explanation following it.
Government supported monopolies CAN stand on their own two feet, for example, electrical companies were originally not government run(before the end of Roosevelt's last term), but they then reach a lower amount of people, because their efficiency value(the value they would operate under competition, reaches a lower quantity, at a higher price. It also creates waste, because while each individual company produces a lower quantity at a higher price, added up, the quantities would be at equilibrium, except for the higher prices, meaning that a lot of the product goes to waste.
The only governmental interference is that which subsides one company to lower its prices, because it is creating a great quantity, but at too high a price for all of their product to be sold.
Natural monopolies are not misusing their resources, in their natural state, they use them at their best profit, but not as efficiently as possible. The government then subsidizes them to make them more efficient, and make their product available to many more, at a lower price, and pays the companies the difference. The government creates the misallocation and then balances it out.
The free market, however, can create inequity on certain goods, and prevent them from being available to a majority of the population.
Then you're defining a word only to completely disreguard the definition. Which makes the definition of the world irrelevant. I suspected you wouldn't be saying things that were irrelevant, so I assumed that was the definition you wanted to use for "natural monopoly". Pardon me for giving you more credit than you wanted.
Inconvenience to the consumer is reflected in prices. If roads were privatized, prices on roads under construction or maintenance would go down to compensate for the inconvenience and make tolerating the inconvenience preferable to paying more for an alternative route.
Taxation is theft because taxation is the involuntary deprival of property belonging to another, and that's how I define "theft." It is no less an act of theft that a robber takes your wallet but leaves you with a bloody knife, and that does not make it a fair trade. Whether or not you preferred your money to the knife, you got the knife. Whether or not that knife has a positive or negative value, you got that knife. And if a robber should follow you around for a time to ensure that nobody else robs you on your way home, you would not consider that to be a service that you justly paid for. If you dare to be consistent, don't change the rules just because you call the robber an IRS agent and the one following you around a cop.
If I wanted national defense, I'd pay for it. I don't want it. I believe defend myself better and cheaper without their help.
[quote]I did not specifically say government monopolies. There is a difference between a government monopoly and a government supported monopoly. A government monopoly is something like the public services, policemen, firemen etc...[/quote]
Which is why there are no private security firms to guard banks, and all that stuff about "subscription" firefighting in more rural areas is all a bunch of bullshit, right? Pfft.
[quote]In fact, those are perfect examples of natural monopolies.[/quote]
They are perfect examples of natural monopolies that simply don't have to be.
[quote]The problem with policemen or firemen as privately owned, it would simply further the rich-poor divide.[/quote]
It hasn't done so with firefighting and I doubt it would do so with police protection.
[quote]crimes in such communities would simply become easier and easier, but the ability to have police would simply drop.[/quote]
This actually isn't that great of a change, seeing as there's two patrol cars in one upscale neighborhood while there's a rare police car patrolling the deep ghettos where the violence really is.
[quote]However, governmented supported monopolies are simply companies which could function in competition, but would serve a lower number of people, at a higher price.[/quote]
Competition has long been known to LOWER prices while serving as MANY people as possible. Not the reverse. If it appears that the reverse is taking place under competition, it's because the government previously disjuncted the service from the payment and when allowed onto the free market it where people were allowed to compare their money and the potential for police protection and make a judgement, and they decided they preferred their money to the service. Taxation hides prices and causes uneconomic consumption of resources. It's wasteful. If you asked me if I preferred a $500 a year tax cut or police protection, I'd take the $500 tax cut, buy a shotgun and some ammo with the money, and know that it would be there the moment I needed it rather than 3 minutes away at the donut shop, by which time anyone I'd need protection from would either have killed me or made off with anything they stole from me. And they wouldn't likely know anything is happening at all until an hour or two later at least, at which point they're no help to me.
When you privatize something let people choose economically. They choose how their money is best spent and if they don't think the police protection is worth the cost, the police won't patrol their neighborhood.
[quote]The problem with such companies is then that the product would be less obtainable, more expensive, and completely evade the lower class.[/quote]
If we assume that this is true, and it's not, but let's assume so for the sake of arguement, you have to understand why it might be so.
The free market is choice. Government is force. If, on the market, something is harder to obtain, it is because few people really want it. If it is more expensive, it is because the cost difference was soaked up by taxation before. If it completely evades the lower class, it's because the lower class don't want it.
On the market, you could get together with a couple of your neighbors and hire the local neighborhood kids to patrol the neighborhood at night with a pistol and a pair of handcuffs and protect anyone who gets attacked and arrest any thieves. That would be MUCH cheaper than present police protection with their AR-15, MP5, half the gear of your average SWAT officer on his belt, a computer system in their car, a car plus all the engine upgrades that police cars get...they would still be protected. They would just pick a kind of protection that better suits their needs. They would not go without protection, they'd just find a better way to protect themselves.
[quote]The amount of Chlorine in the water is negligible, and serves only to clean. On the other hand, FlUOrine is very important to the human body, and actually good for you.[/quote]
Suppose I couldn't care less and I want pure water and I'm willing to pay big bucks to have it come out of my faucet.
[quote]Frankly, I don't care if people want their water unfluorinated because they're paranoid about chemicals. I do know enough to make that decision.[/quote]
You do not have direct access to their value scales. If they value 1 gallon of pure water at 1200 dollars, and they're willing to pay for it, and someone else is allowed to lay the pipe, SOMEONE will deliver pure water and water pressure to their house. A difference in the amount paid for the pure water only changes how long it'll be until the initial costs are paid for and the profits start rolling in.
[quote]People who are paranoid about chemicals are simpmly making a bad decision, and we should not throw aside our economic models for such ignorance.[/quote]
I agree that they're idiots. But they want something, it doesn't hurt anyone else, and they're willing to pay a lot of money to get it. Just because it destroys YOUR IDEAL ECONOMIC MODEL doesn't mean it's bad. It means YOUR economic model is wrong because it fails to meet people's demands.
[quote]The fact that people are willing to pay 1$ per bottle for water is quite embarrassing, but it generally is not about chemicals, rather it is about the ability to have water to go.[/quote]
I know, but it was the first thing that came to mind. Let's just for the sake of arguement assume they're willing to pay that much for the same volume of water out of a tap.
[quote]The decision is not to be made about what people want, rather what is better, and more efficient.[/quote]
On the free market, something that is miraculously efficient and good that nobody wants is worthless. The free market is where people decide how much money they're willing to pay for what they want, then decide whether or not to buy it.
In bureaucratic governmental bumbling, quality and efficiency are absolutely irrelevant, and what people want is only important if you're in an elected position.
[quote]Secondly, a company which made a different type of water would not directly compete with the company, and thus not have the market balancing effect.[/quote]
Yes it would. If two water pipes are running to your house, and all you have to do to change who you buy your water from is turn off one valve and turn on another, there will be direct competiton.
[quote]It would instead create an oligopoly of minorly different products. Oligopolies are far worse than government run monopolies, because of the possibility of cartels.[/quote]
They are not far worse than government run monopolies. Cartels do not have the power of legitemate theft to pay the difference between cost and selling price. Government run monopolies do. Cartels are unlikely except in absence of force which creates them. Cartels can raise prices, they cannot force people to pay those prices. They must still compete with other wants that people have. Governments can force people to pay those prices.
Conclusion, governments are worse than cartels.
[quote]Government supported monopolies CAN stand on their own two feet, for example, electrical companies were originally not government run(before the end of Roosevelt's last term), but they then reach a lower amount of people, because their efficiency value(the value they would operate under competition, reaches a lower quantity, at a higher price.[/quote]
If they can stand on their own two feet, government is not necessary. There's a post hoc propter hoc fallacy here too. The way technology works is that things are constantly being done to increase quality and decrease prices. Research is done, tools are invented, infrastructure is built, with the intent to increase quality and decrease prices. The government is not what increased the power companies' consumer bases. It's an instance of supply creating it's own demand. After electricity became available at all, people started wiring houses to use electricity as they built them. There was a time lapse between electricity being and being cheap, but this is true of everything. The government did not need to take over the computer industry to bring computers to the masses at lower costs. It happens on it's own.
[quote]It also creates waste, because while each individual company produces a lower quantity at a higher price, added up, the quantities would be at equilibrium, except for the higher prices, meaning that a lot of the product goes to waste.[/quote]
Only if you assume that two companies cannot merge and pool resources to bring out a cheaper product to more people, like they often do.
[quote]The only governmental interference is that which subsides one company to lower its prices, because it is creating a great quantity, but at too high a price for all of their product to be sold.[/quote]
Supply and demand determine prices, not costs of production. If there is great quantity and little demand, the price falls irrelevant of the costs of production. Except in the case of monopolies, which is what government interference does to power grids. If the power company can't make money, then it is wasting resources and deserves to go out of business.
[quote]Natural monopolies are not misusing their resources, in their natural state, they use them at their best profit, but not as efficiently as possible.[/quote]
Natural monopolies brought about by government prohibition of competition are misusing their resources. They are either misusing the resources of prohibiting others, which would in that case be unnecessary, or they are misusing the resources of production, in which case prohibition of competiton is necessary to sustain the natural monopoly.
[quote]The government then subsidizes them to make them more efficient, and make their product available to many more, at a lower price, and pays the companies the difference. The government creates the misallocation and then balances it out.[/quote]
It creates misallocation by force. It balances it out, by force. Force is used to achieve ends which people do not value highly enough to achieve voluntarily. This means more valuable ends were given up, which is wasteful of resources.
[quote]The free market, however, can create inequity on certain goods, and prevent them from being available to a majority of the population.[/quote]
Equity is irrelevant. The market does not prevent goods from being available to the majority of the population. Government does. What the market does is expand operations and lower costs. What government does is set price floors (i.e. milk, sugar, and steel are more expensive than they need to be due to government, lowering amount available to the public), price cielings (restricting the supply per demand and thus creating shortages, lowering the amount available to the public), and things like that. Government does that. The market does no such thing.
I think both of you argue well, but I think that every system has to have a failsafe. A entity should exist to make sure things are peachy keen. Governments are a good failsafe. Natural Monopolies are just one way of expressing how people can set them selves up to redistribute freedom. Monopolies are not automatically bad, but tend to end that way. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[quote=JoshHickman]I think both of you argue well, but I think that every system has to have a failsafe. A entity should exist to make sure things are peachy keen. Governments are a good failsafe. Natural Monopolies are just one way of expressing how people can set them selves up to redistribute freedom. Monopolies are not automatically bad, but tend to end that way. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.[/quote]
Governments are not a good failsafe. Governments frequently go bankrupt and when they do, anything which depended on that government has to be able to stand without it. The only reason we recently have not seen governments going bankrupt is because the US government has bailed other governments out. It's partially why a dollar is worth so little. A dollar today is worth 5 cents 100 years ago because of inflation, and part of the inflated money goes toward bailing out foreign governments or in the cases of Puerto Rico and Indiana, bailing out State governments.
I agree that monopolies are not automatically bad. They are bad when they are created by force. They are not bad when they have simply undercut all their competition to the point that they drive everyone else out of business.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, agreed 100%. Absolute power rests in the hands of the State (literally, they can basically do whatever they want). States will thus always be corrupt and will always be creating monopolies, distorting the economy, and stealing our money. In fact, states are monopolies, geographic monopolies of the harmful, forcefully-created type, which is partially why they're just so damn inefficient and wasteful.
See, the problem with the whole situation is the entrance fees. The entrance fees drive out new businesses, and limit competition. The way I see it, that absolute power would ALSO lie with the monopolies. That is why the government regulation of monopolies is a good thing, because it keeps them from abusing their power. Since the government is ruled(at least partially) by us, we have some control over it.
Monopolies only have that power if they are ENSURED, 100% GUARANTEED, that competition is impossible. No such assurance exists on the free market. Let their quality fall and their prices rise, they invite a competitor into the arena. That's how competition works.
In the cases of things like water and power, what exactly stops me from putting a big generator on my property and selling electricity to my neighbors? The overhead costs are relatively low, and if the dominant electricity company is charging too much or their power is unreliable or prone to brownouts, I'll be competing with the big power company. The same thing with water, if I have a well and a pump, I can deliver water to a few of my neighbors and make a profit off it. That's competition at work. Not all competition has to be on the same order of magnitude as the biggest player for competition to take place.
Roads can work similarly as well. I mean, if the road companies wanna really be pricks and jack up prices, people will just move out of the area and stop using those roads. If it's widespread, it's possible that inexpensive four-seater helicopters will replace cars as a dominant means of transportation. If the road companies want to stay relevant, they'll have to stay inexpensive. The free market responds to things even when you don't think it will. That's just how the market works. People have free will and the ability to choose. They will ensure on their own that even these mythical "natural monopoly" things stay in check.
neighbourhood regulations would stop you from putting a big generator on your property. Except in Oregon.
You're cutting to a bad assumption though. You're saying that the monopoly will automatically go corrupt. But if there are government regulations in place to prevent that, it is a much smaller problem to worry about. I only wish I could draw economic models on this forum :)
neighbourhood regulations would stop you from putting a big generator on your property. Except in Oregon.
You're cutting to a bad assumption though. You're saying that the monopoly will automatically go corrupt. But if there are government regulations in place to prevent that, it is a much smaller problem to worry about. I only wish I could draw economic models on this forum :)
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]neighbourhood regulations would stop you from putting a big generator on your property. Except in Oregon.[/quote]
Assuming I live in a neighborhood, assuming there is a homeowner's association, assuming that HOA has any contractual authority over me, and assuming there is no way I could possibly get an exception or comply with the rules (which I certainly could, especially if I'm in the HOA's leadership or the HOA leadership wants to buy my water or power), then you'd be right. But that's quite an assumption.
[quote]You're cutting to a bad assumption though. You're saying that the monopoly will automatically go corrupt. But if there are government regulations in place to prevent that, it is a much smaller problem to worry about. I only wish I could draw economic models on this forum :)[/quote]
I'm saying that:
1. Monopolies can only be harmful (shall we include "corrupt" in that definition) when created by force.
2. Monopolies not created by force cannot be harmful because competition is possible.
3. Government regulation (force) is either unnecessary or wasteful, I demonstrated this in a previous post.
I never said that monopolies automatically go corrupt. If/when I did assume it, it was for a specific hypothetical situation, in which there is no choice but to assume circumstances in order to determine a result, and not assuming renders the hypothetical situation useless. When given absolute assurance that there is no competition, they do tend to, but I never said they would. In fact, I even said that any potentially corrupt monopoly could still be controlled by the people at large without a government.
[quote=A Wise Man]Governments can be a effective failsafe to any system if you limit the power to what they NEED to do, and simply not let them mess with anything else. The failsafe could also be private, but I don't envision that being as effective in this particular situation, considering how corrupt things could get. Agreed, government s corrupt. But government derives its power from the governed, so tell the particular corrupt officials they are rude, or whatever else you do to change the world around you.[/quote]
[quote=A Wise Man]Governments can be a effective failsafe to any system if you limit the power to what they NEED to do, and simply not let them mess with anything else.[/quote]
We tried that with the US Constitution. It didn't work. The Constitution says "You can do THESE THINGS. You cannot do anything else." They did anyways.
[quote]The failsafe could also be private, but I don't envision that being as effective in this particular situation, considering how corrupt things could get.[/quote]
It's more because the government has a monopoly on legitemate use of force and could just screw over any private failsafe if you could even devise one.
[quote]Agreed, government s corrupt. But government derives its power from the governed, so tell the particular corrupt officials they are rude, or whatever else you do to change the world around you.[/quote]
Government derives it's power from the governed?
Which of the governed gave the government the power to steal my money? They had no right to do so in the first place, and so had no right to delegate that power to someone else to exercise for them.
Honestly I dont trust either, government and free market has an inherent tendency for stupidity.
But anyway, monopolies through force? So... let's talk about Wal Mart. Is it force explaining that millions of Wal Mart employees working for minimal wage with no union support working over 40 hours a week for 40 hours a week of money and getting their health insurance and support from government programs costing billions of tax payers money while running small mom and pop shops out of business of people who put all their lives into the store? Oh and then of course when it runs the shops out of business it does not sell the wide quality and variety of stuff anymore.
[quote=Whitecrow]Honestly I dont trust either, government and free market has an inherent tendency for stupidity.[/quote]
The free market has an inherent advantage over the government in terms of resisting stupidity. Human knowledge is limited. Human knowledge of the wants and needs of others is far more limited. When government make decisions, the limits of one human's knowledge are imposed upon a great number of others. When the market makes decisions, it is the sum of each person deciding for themself, and they know what they want far better than any bureaucrat or politician. Even democracy distorts the market.
There are only two choices. The government and the market. There is no third option. Varying degrees of government is still government.
[quote]But anyway, monopolies through force? So... let's talk about Wal Mart.[/quote]
Walmart is not a monopoly. Walmart has to compete with a lot of other stores, partially because Walmart sells so many things it is competing with so many other companies. It's competing at the same time with the grocery store, the gun shop, the furniture store, the clothing stores, and a dozen other stores. It has to compete with Kmart, Target, Publix, Krogers, Sweetbay/Kash'N'Karry, and a hundred other local stores.
[quote]Is it force explaining that millions of Wal Mart employees working for minimal wage with no union support working over 40 hours a week for 40 hours a week of money and getting their health insurance and support from government programs costing billions of tax payers money while running small mom and pop shops out of business of people who put all their lives into the store?[/quote]
No, it's the free market. People that work at Walmart are volunteering to work there.
They are choosing low pay because the alternative is often times zero pay or fewer hours to work (resulting in less pay per week/month/year, they might rather work more hours for less per hour if they have more income).
They are choosing no union support (and good for them, union dues usually cost more than the union gets back the union members).
I've worked in two Walmarts before. The employees are happy.
If small mom and pop businesses are being run out of business, it's because the resources that the M&P shop requires to operate would be better used somewhere else on the market. It's a good thing that the inefficient are going out of business, because it frees up resources to be used more efficiently elsewhere. How much time and energy they put into it is irrelevant to the fact that trying to keep those businesses operating is wasteful.
[quote]Oh and then of course when it runs the shops out of business it does not sell the wide quality and variety of stuff anymore.[/quote]
Because Walmart has lower prices. Prices are the free market's way of telling the consumer how much time, energy, education, and scarce resources had to go into producing that thing. That allows people to choose economically and buy those things which require the least consumption of resources to produce, which frees up resources that would otherwise be used unnecessarily to bring a product to market, and allows those resources to be used someplace where they are needed more.
It's not a bad thing.
Government derives it's power from the governed?
Which of the governed gave the government the power to steal my money? They had no right to do so in the first place, and so had no right to delegate that power to someone else to exercise for them.
Just because it's not specifically enumerated as a right doesn't mean it cannot be later allocated or interpretted. Too weak a federal govt will fail, like the government under the Articles of Confederation
Walmart has a habit of exploiting its workers, and driving out competition, creating a monopoly of sorts. I love the free market in almost all circumstances.
This is one where I feel it didn't quite work out right, and shows the necessity of government regulations
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Just because it's not specifically enumerated as a right doesn't mean it cannot be later allocated or interpretted. Too weak a federal govt will fail, like the government under the Articles of Confederation[/quote]
You didn't answer my question at all.
If government derives it's power from the governed, the governed gave government all it's powers.
If government has the power to steal my money, it was given that power by the governed.
I am a member of the governed, and I know I did not give it that power.
No other member of the governed has any rightful claim to my property to give to government in the first place.
I was trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that government derives it's power from the governed.
Besides, the Constitution doesn't give governments "rights", it gives it "powers". And powers not enumerated are prohibited by the 9th and 10th Amendments. I want the federal government to fail. I want all governments everywhere to fail.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Walmart has a habit of exploiting its workers,[/quote]
Exploitation is not a bad thing. Walmart is exploiting it's workers as much as it's workers are exploiting Walmart. Define exploitation in such a way that might make it somehow bad. In order for it to be bad, you must either disagree with non-initiation of force and voluntary exchange, or prove that the particular instance of exploitation is involuntary servitude (slavery).
[quote]and driving out competition, creating a monopoly of sorts.[/quote]
Walmart does not drive out competition. The competition prices itself out of the market. Higher-priced competitors going out of business is economical. Walmart does not have a monopoly. And if it does, it is a monopoly of the benevolent kind, which became a monopoly by being so much more efficient and cost-effective than everyone else that others simply can't compete.
[quote]I love the free market in almost all circumstances.
This is one where I feel it didn't quite work out right, and shows the necessity of government regulations[/quote]
No it doesn't.
Who is dissatisfied with Walmart?
The employees? No, if they were, they'd quit.
The customers? No, if they were, they'd shop elsewhere.
The socialists? They deliberately take themselves out of the equation and then force their way back in through government.
Are you dissatisfied with Walmart? Is there something inherent in a large, efficient business that you don't like? Are you silly enough to believe that Walmart's prices would not go up if the Walmart employee wages increased? Do you think the workers are more important than the customers? Or are customers more important than workers? Can you somehow demonstrate how either of these groups, workers and consumers, deserves preferential treatment at the expense of the other group? Do workers deserve higher wages that cost the consumers more money, or do consumers deserve low prices that cost the workers wages?
Seriously, complaining about Walmart is absurd. People only do it because they're economically ignorant and because Walmart-bashing is popular among the economically ignorant socialist crowd.
Economics is life. Learn it, live it, love it.
In that case, ending slavery was wrong...? Sometimes, breaking the established rules is a good thing if it creates a better good. Count the utils :)
I agree with your point of exploitation. It's a bit hypocritical of me to talk against exploitation, cuz I've made that argument before. Both are gaining a surpolus of utils in a way. The only qualms I have against the argument are just that, qualms. For example, were a man to be bleeding, dying in the street, miles from help, and I were to charge an exorbitant amount of money to help him, that would be perfectly within the limits, as he would gain greatly from the exchange as well. I just personally happen to feel that both parties should benefit in a more equal manner. However, this point has no logical justification, and has no place in this argument.
But when Walmart has no more competition, then where will its need to be benevolent come from?
Just because working at Walmart is better than any of the alternatives(those which don't require college degrees) doesn't mean it's inherently good.
Secondly, if the jobs are just well paying enough that they can barely survive(i'm referring here to the sweatshops which provide for Walmart) the people who work their are either made to give up their liberty to save their life, or to give up their life to enact their liberty. Providing such a work environment creates a conflict of life.
I love economics, and used to live entirely behind it, but have incorporated slight utilitarianism into my beliefs recently.
Funny how two business majors on my floor just walked in and I told them what I was reading and they while being very neo-liberal still said that Wal Mart is crap.
But anyway, Wal Mart is as close to a monopoly you could get, especially in small towns. A Wal Mart moves in and business shut down. You know why Wal Mart has lower prices? Well for one it drives people out of business because it can sell at a loss because it is so big. Mom and pop shops cant do it because they're very small. And excuse me can you tell me what reasorces it frees up? You mean making downtowns of hundreds of small towns look deserted? Causing unemployment? When mom and pop shops shut down people become unemployed and when they are unemployed do you know where they go to work at? Wal Mart. Not for "volunteering" but for survival. Millions of people do that. And no, they are not allowed a union, Wal Mart has advanced union busting strategies, it sends in special union breakers in corporate jets. Former Wal Mart managers testified to this. Not by some free choice of the workers. Why would the workers not want to unions? Oh yeah, I guess they get enjoyed being payed minimal wage with no benefits and using government programs for support. I mean it's in the numbers, Wal Mart is costing tax payer money. And employees exploining Wal Mart? How? By recieving minimal wage? Or the smashing benefits? I fail to see your evidence for this. Actually I fail to see any evidence for it... at all.
"The employees? No, if they were, they'd quit."
They got nowhere else to go.
"The customers? No, if they were, they'd shop elsewhere."
They got nowhere else to shop, or in some cases, Wal Mart does provide cheaper prices for crappier service and cost to its employers.
"The socialists? They deliberately take themselves out of the equation and then force their way back in through government."
Those evil socialists, always try to destroy big business, yeah, let's blame them for all of this! Get em! Get em!
"Are you dissatisfied with Walmart?"
Yes.
"Is there something inherent in a large, efficient business that you don't like?"
Oh I like big business, it provides jobs and opportunities that's for sure. I dont like when big business acts unethically.
"Are you silly enough to believe that Walmart's prices would not go up if the Walmart employee wages increased?"
No.
"Do you think the workers are more important than the customers?"
Yes.
"Or are customers more important than workers?"
Depends.
"Can you somehow demonstrate how either of these groups, workers and consumers, deserves preferential treatment at the expense of the other group?"
Why would one group be destroyed by the benefit of another? Wal Mart workers in Germany get payed much more and have six weeks of vacation. Are German customers complaining?
"Do workers deserve higher wages that cost the consumers more money, or do consumers deserve low prices that cost the workers wages?"
Workers deserve wages.
"Seriously, complaining about Walmart is absurd. People only do it because they're economically ignorant and because Walmart-bashing is popular among the economically ignorant socialist crowd."
"Socialist"-bashing is popular among the socially ignorant liberatian crowd.
"Economics is life. Learn it, live it, love it."
I did. Got a 5 on the Microeconmics AP test and wont plan to touch it again. I still cant get the fricking graphs out of my head. Not that I want to, I quite enjoyed the subject. And I was taught economics by quite an amusing old doctor who quite, quite despised Wal Mart.
Now to what I was saying- so you claim that one group of people is not all-knowing, like the government. That is true. That is why we got political parties and interest groups to influence the government and get it education. That's in a ideal world and that is wishful thinking. The government still remains pretty dumb. So does the market however because it's also filled with the same stupid people but instead of political power they care about market power, no one cares about the ethics of it or the social repercussions or even the environment... At least certain parts of the government cares about that, big business enjoys placing stars to advertise their products made in third world sweat shops. So... still stupid, still very, very stupid.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]In that case, ending slavery was wrong...? Sometimes, breaking the established rules is a good thing if it creates a better good. Count the utils :)[/quote]
Utils are subjective and as such cannot be counted. Value scales are ordinal (ranked), not cardinal (measured), making it even harder.
[quote]But when Walmart has no more competition, then where will its need to be benevolent come from?[/quote]
Walmart will always have competition. You can't get a monopoly on half the economy. They'll always have to compete with someone somewhere. It doesn't have to be direct competition, it can be indirect or even dollar competition. That said, if we assume Walmart managed to drive anyone selling the same things as it does out of business, it would not be able to take advantage of that to drive up prices or anything, because that would just be inviting competition back onto the market.
[quote]Just because working at Walmart is better than any of the alternatives(those which don't require college degrees) doesn't mean it's inherently good.[/quote]
No. It just means it sucks less than everything else. What's the point?
[quote]Secondly, if the jobs are just well paying enough that they can barely survive(i'm referring here to the sweatshops which provide for Walmart) the people who work their are either made to give up their liberty to save their life, or to give up their life to enact their liberty. Providing such a work environment creates a conflict of life.[/quote]
By that same logic, everyone is a slave, because if they stopped producing, they would die. An unfortunate fact of living in this universe is that we need to consume things. Food, water, et cetera. We are not slaves to ourselves because to stop producing food and water would starve or dehydrate us.
You are not deprived of your liberty when you obey. When my boss tells me to work, I am not a slave, I can choose not to work. Accepting employment is not slavery, it's trade.
[quote]I love economics, and used to live entirely behind it, but have incorporated slight utilitarianism into my beliefs recently.[/quote]
Well I prefer to base my beliefs on science, in this case, economic science. Utilitarianism requires knowledge of what is impossible to know.
[quote=Whitecrow]Funny how two business majors on my floor just walked in and I told them what I was reading and they while being very neo-liberal still said that Wal Mart is crap.[/quote]
Is this supposed to be important?
[quote]But anyway, Wal Mart is as close to a monopoly you could get, especially in small towns. A Wal Mart moves in and business shut down. You know why Wal Mart has lower prices? Well for one it drives people out of business because it can sell at a loss because it is so big.[/quote]
You're ignoring the benefit this has for consumers. (Because it's inconvenient?)
[quote]Mom and pop shops cant do it because they're very small.[/quote]
They're also not very efficient.
[quote]And excuse me can you tell me what reasorces it frees up? [/quote]
The time and energy of the employees, the rent and power and electricity of running the business, these are all freed up to be put to more productive use.
[quote]You mean making downtowns of hundreds of small towns look deserted?[/quote]
What's wrong with that?
[quote]Causing unemployment?[/quote]
Freeing up potential employees for a more useful role in the economy, because the one they were filling before is no longer terribly productive.
[quote]When mom and pop shops shut down people become unemployed and when they are unemployed do you know where they go to work at? Wal Mart.[/quote]
They can go work anywhere they'll be hired. They don't have to go to Walmart. The vast majority don't.
[quote]Not for "volunteering" but for survival. Millions of people do that.[/quote]
Welcome to the real world. If you don't make stuff you don't get stuff, and you need stuff to keep living. If you think it's worth the effort to keep living, you are volunteering. If you think your life is not worth the effort required to preserve it, then don't make stuff. Your choice. You are not forced to choose life.
[quote]And no, they are not allowed a union, Wal Mart has advanced union busting strategies, it sends in special union breakers in corporate jets. Former Wal Mart managers testified to this. Not by some free choice of the workers.[/quote]
I don't give a fuck. You don't have a positive right to have a union. If you want a union, go work for a unionized company. I applaud Walmart for not putting up with the union bullshit.
[quote]Why would the workers not want to unions?[/quote]
Because they want to keep their jobs. Duh. If you want to work for somebody you have to play by their rules in their house.
[quote]Oh yeah, I guess they get enjoyed being payed minimal wage with no benefits and using government programs for support.[/quote]
They don't have to enjoy it. I don't enjoy going to the bathroom. Welcome to life, you have to put up with shit.
[quote]I mean it's in the numbers, Wal Mart is costing tax payer money.[/quote]
Good point. We should abolish taxpaying.
[quote]And employees exploining Wal Mart? How? By recieving minimal wage? Or the smashing benefits? I fail to see your evidence for this. Actually I fail to see any evidence for it... at all.[/quote]
Read the definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploit
Exploitation is taking advantage of something to meet your own ends. Workers want money. They exploit (take advantage of) Walmart (to meet their own end of aquiring money).
But you obviously like the idea that something can be "exploitation" when Walmart does it and not when workers do it.
[quote]They got nowhere else to go.[/quote]
Horseshit. They have everyplace else to go. What's stopping them?
[quote]They got nowhere else to shop, or in some cases, Wal Mart does provide cheaper prices for crappier service and cost to its employers.[/quote]
Horseshit. They have everyplace else to shop. What's stopping them?
[quote]Those evil socialists, always try to destroy big business, yeah, let's blame them for all of this! Get em! Get em![/quote]
Socialism is a joke when it comes to Walmart. "HAY LOL LETS FORGET ABOUT HOW GREAT WALMARTS LOW PRICES ARE FOR TEH POOR PEOPLE THAT WE CARE ABOUT SO MUCH EXCEPT ONLY WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT FOR US".
[quote]"Are you dissatisfied with Walmart?"
Yes.[/quote]
Don't shop there then.
[quote]Oh I like big business, it provides jobs and opportunities that's for sure. I dont like when big business acts unethically.[/quote]
You mean you don't like when big business does things you don't like? And that gives you the right to shove your beliefs down their throat (by government proxy)? If that was the implication it's a nonsequitur, if that wasn't the implication I don't see the relevance of your opinion of their practices.
[quote]"Do you think the workers are more important than the customers?"
Yes.
"Or are customers more important than workers?"
Depends.[/quote]
Those are mutually exclusive.
[quote]Why would one group be destroyed by the benefit of another? Wal Mart workers in Germany get payed much more and have six weeks of vacation. Are German customers complaining?[/quote]
Are German customers getting the same prices we get here?
[quote]Workers deserve wages.[/quote]
They already get wages.
[quote]"Socialist"-bashing is popular among the socially ignorant liberatian crowd.[/quote]
Sorry. Socialism is not a science which one can be ignorant of. Economics is.
[quote]So does the market however because it's also filled with the same stupid people but instead of political power they care about market power[/quote]
But the same stupid people can only hurt themselves with their stupidity on the market. They cannot hurt other people with their stupidity, as they do in government.
[quote]no one cares about the ethics of it or the social repercussions or even the environment...[/quote]
Nobody cares about the things you like except you. Boo fucking hoo. No, nobody cares about your "ethics" wherein workers deserve things just for working, nobody cares about yours "social repercussions" because whatever horrible disaster it is in your opinion, they prefer the disaster, and enough people care about the environment, the government just stops people from suing polluters.
[quote]At least certain parts of the government cares about that[/quote]
Unfortunately. It allows jerks like you to force your values of "ethics" and "social good" and "environmentalism" down everyone else's throats. If people cared, the government wouldn't be needed to force shit down people's throats. If people didn't care, it would be detrimental to each person's welfare.
[quote]big business enjoys placing stars to advertise their products made in third world sweat shops. So... still stupid, still very, very stupid.[/quote]
They hire celebrities to get people to buy stuff and they give jobs to people that need them more than Americans, is that bad or something?
And double posts are dumb.
"You're ignoring the benefit this has for consumers. (Because it's inconvenient"
Because it's irrelevant for this conversation, that's one thing. Because there are other benefits to be considered like the quality of service and the amount of choices you can buy (small specialized shops generally do have it). Because people who work at Wal Mart and dont have rich parents to support them generally end up shopping there and putting the money back from where it came from. Because you're ignoring the loss this has for the workers who are no less people and no less important and no less consumers than these consumers of yours.
"They're also not very efficient."
They're as efficient as the limited amount of reasorces can provide.
"Freeing up potential employees for a more useful role in the economy, because the one they were filling before is no longer terribly productive."
AKA unemployment or working at Wal Mart. Can you please provide me with evidence how workers from small shops go off and fill other jobs in small towns? Instead of spitting out neo-liberal jargon.
"They can go work anywhere they'll be hired. They don't have to go to Walmart. The vast majority don't."
Not when the only business in town is Wal Mart... or the only place where they can find work. It's not like work is for everyone in their 30s and 40s.
"Welcome to the real world. If you don't make stuff you don't get stuff, and you need stuff to keep living. If you think it's worth the effort to keep living, you are volunteering. If you think your life is not worth the effort required to preserve it, then don't make stuff. Your choice. You are not forced to choose life."
Except of course Wal Mart isnt providing the people with tools they need for survival.
"They don't have to enjoy it. I don't enjoy going to the bathroom. Welcome to life, you have to put up with shit."
Hence unions, third party representation which Wal Mart denies them.
"Good point. We should abolish taxpaying."
And then people will die... not that the working poor are suffering already working two jobs. Is this the kind of thing you want in a people who are supposed to respect each other's existance. Remember the laissez faire in the 1870s-1900s I'm sure that was a wonderful world for everyone to live in!
"I don't give a fuck. You don't have a positive right to have a union. If you want a union, go work for a unionized company. I applaud Walmart for not putting up with the union bullshit."
And hense it makes people suffer, it destroys lives, it destroys society, and thank you for showing how trully irrelevant lives of human beings are. I think I should pull the Presuppositionalist arguments against you now because certainly you are a hypocrite.
"Exploitation is taking advantage of something to meet your own ends. Workers want money. They exploit (take advantage of) Walmart (to meet their own end of aquiring money).
But you obviously like the idea that something can be "exploitation" when Walmart does it and not when workers do it. "
Walmart exploits its workers to meet its own ends- lots and lots of money. Hense they practice union breaking, provide with inadequate healthcare, pay minimal wage. Oh yes and editing at times the numbers people worked so that it would appear and they would be payed for 40 when they could have worked for 41 or 42 hours. How are workers exploiting Wal Mart? Oh yeah, by latching on to it for their very survival.
"Socialism is a joke when it comes to Walmart. "HAY LOL LETS FORGET ABOUT HOW GREAT WALMARTS LOW PRICES ARE FOR TEH POOR PEOPLE THAT WE CARE ABOUT SO MUCH EXCEPT ONLY WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT FOR US"."
Most of the poor people who shop at Wal Mart DO work at Wal Mart.
"Don't shop there then."
I dont. But then again I live in a Canadian small university town, you know... that land of Canada that has stuff like higher minimal wage and universal healthcare... OMG! There's a ton of small business! Crap, variety...
"You mean you don't like when big business does things you don't like? And that gives you the right to shove your beliefs down their throat (by government proxy)? If that was the implication it's a nonsequitur, if that wasn't the implication I don't see the relevance of your opinion of their practices."
I have the right because I am a concerned human beings and no better or worse a human being than any of the managers or any of the workers. What gives big business the right to make millions of people suffer either through minimal wage, sweat shops, overseas business moves, and the destruction of economies and societies of many of the world's nations?
"Horseshit. They have everyplace else to go. What's stopping them?"
I told you. Jobs are not very easy to come-by when you get older or when you live in a small town. You really dont have evidence for this denial now dont you... oh wait... do you even have any evidence?
"Horseshit. They have everyplace else to shop. What's stopping them?"
What I said above.
"Those are mutually exclusive."
Not really, you could provide higher wages and basic health insurance to people and still keep prices to an affordable level... You seem to have a false dichotomy by saying that it's either or. If workers get just two or three dollars worth of pay and get payed properly for the amount of hours they work that prices will go through the roof. That is certainly not the case.
"Are German customers getting the same prices we get here?"
Probably not. Do I care? Not really. What I do care is that Wal Mart is alive and well in Germany... and so is small business.
"They already get wages."
Unfair wages... sometimes cut short by managers.
"Sorry. Socialism is not a science which one can be ignorant of. Economics is."
Socialism is not a science... wow talk about ignorance. *chuckle* Sociology is. The social sciences people can be very ignorant of, very, very ignorant.
"But the same stupid people can only hurt themselves with their stupidity on the market. They cannot hurt other people with their stupidity, as they do in government."
Let's talk about development of rainforests and how business moves in and forces the indigenous people out, or let's talk about all the minimal wage workers being barely able to afford food, or let's talk about chaining workers to presses or locking them in so that they wont run away and yet... in unsafe working conditions (which a union could work out) fires can break out and guess what? You get 40 crispy workers. Two million people around the world die each year due to unsafe working conditions. That's almost 5500 people a day, if big business was a government it would go down in history as right up there with the great dictator tin-pots of the 20th century.
"Nobody cares about the things you like except you. Boo fucking hoo. No, nobody cares about your "ethics" wherein workers deserve things just for working, nobody cares about yours "social repercussions" because whatever horrible disaster it is in your opinion, they prefer the disaster, and enough people care about the environment, the government just stops people from suing polluters."
Yeah, people do care. People with ethics and people with morals and people who treat people like people. People who understand the dangers that big business does to society. And it doesnt matter if people dont care, because I got such things called facts and logical arguments- you just have a blind faith in the market, like some people have blind faith in God. And you know what? If you were a person in a small town getting paid your minimal wage with two kids to support, I think you would care for me caring for you. But since you choose to remain an ignorant bigot, I can only respect you as a person.
"Unfortunately. It allows jerks like you to force your values of "ethics" and "social good" and "environmentalism" down everyone else's throats. If people cared, the government wouldn't be needed to force shit down people's throats. If people didn't care, it would be detrimental to each person's welfare."
Jerk? I would like you to re-evaluate your definitions of "jerk." I actually have these things called higher standards and... oh I dont know... respect(?) for individual rights and liberaties and freedoms. You are an apathetic simpleton, you've got no facts, no data, just some ideology that is anything but based on logic and ideas on what is best for all- rahter than for a small select few. And you know, it's good that "jerks" like me care because if the government continues "to force shit down people's throats" you're grandkids will thank me, much like we thank the other people centuries ago, the sufferegists, the people who called for the regulation of safety in foods, the early environmentalists, the people who pointed out government corruption, even the union men who, if you're middle class as I'm guessing you are, helped your family way back when. Or, if you dont like that, why dont you move to a country where the government doesnt "force shit down people's throats"... try Mexico, they have a nice low minimal wage and corrupt government there. Or many of the Asian countries that are not ruled by a communist regime, try Malasia. Or perhaps go to Russia, it might need a new course of this enlighened capitalism, why dont you work in a coal mine and enjoy shit that happens and be happy of making Russian a better country through it's new-minted millionears.
"They hire celebrities to get people to buy stuff and they give jobs to people that need them more than Americans, is that bad or something?"
Need them more than Americans? Well first of all, its arguable if people are better off working in factories for two dollars a day in dangerous conditions where over 50% of the sales prices go to the company and less than .5% to the workers. The family farms can be good... if other conditions didnt force them out. But hiring celebrities to sell stuff made by starved third world masses? It's very much an insult to the people who made it.
Name calling FTW! Let's use labels like socialism and ignorance to bash the opponent! Because you win the debate the more you patronize the opponent!
Please, you guys. I know that this can be at least similar to pleasant discourse. Try to bring all your points back to a central idea. Why do you feel the way you do? Is the goal complete freedom? Or is it happiness for the most people? If you have different goals, then debate about this narrow subject will probably not change your world views.
Yeah that's why I stepped out. I see that the underlying warrants we hold are so vastly different.
Some people want the goal of government to be protection of freedom and that's it, others want to help other people, and such differences cannot be resolved well through debate.
As for the monopoly thing. Monopolies are better suited to help when they are at least regulated and subsidized than when they are able to run free.
Sorry for the long time between posts, it's college application season.
Please use the quote button and quote tags. It helps with clarity.
[quote=Whitecrow]Because it's irrelevant for this conversation, that's one thing. Because there are other benefits to be considered like the quality of service and the amount of choices you can buy (small specialized shops generally do have it). Because people who work at Wal Mart and dont have rich parents to support them generally end up shopping there and putting the money back from where it came from. Because you're ignoring the loss this has for the workers who are no less people and no less important and no less consumers than these consumers of yours.[/quote]
Exactly. So then why are you ignoring the other consumers if they're equal people?
[quote]They're as efficient as the limited amount of reasorces can provide.[/quote]
This doesn't rebut my point. They're not as efficient. Inefficiency is waste. Excuses do not change that fact.
[quote]AKA unemployment or working at Wal Mart. Can you please provide me with evidence how workers from small shops go off and fill other jobs in small towns? Instead of spitting out neo-liberal jargon.[/quote]
You don't need evidence for this. You need a couple of brain cells to rub together. People want jobs. If they get fired, they'll go find another job. Evidence for this is so abundant that I'm not even going to bother citing any of it.
[quote]Not when the only business in town is Wal Mart... or the only place where they can find work. It's not like work is for everyone in their 30s and 40s.[/quote]
Walmart is never the only business in town. Nor is it the only place where they can find work. If it is, they should probably learn a skill that'll let them get a better job. Welding, mechanic, something like that.
[quote]Except of course Wal Mart isnt providing the people with tools they need for survival.[/quote]
Yes they are (money), and this doesn't rebut my point.
[quote]Hence unions, third party representation which Wal Mart denies them.[/quote]
If they wanted unions so badly, they'd go work somewhere else. If you want my money, you do what I say when I say, and I'll pay you. If you don't, I'm not going to pay you anything, even if you are a part of a union.
[quote]And then people will die... not that the working poor are suffering already working two jobs. Is this the kind of thing you want in a people who are supposed to respect each other's existance.[/quote]
What I want is not relevant. It's what the people that are interacting want that matters. Your assumption that my opinion is relevant reveals your assumption that you somehow believe you know what's best for everyone.
[quote]Remember the laissez faire in the 1870s-1900s I'm sure that was a wonderful world for everyone to live in![/quote]
When you consider what a shithole the whole world was by today's standards 100 years ago, the robber baron capitalism (not free market or lasseiz-faire unless you want to invalidate the definition of those words) was one of the best things to happen to America. It brought the standard of living up massively.
[quote]And hense it makes people suffer, it destroys lives, it destroys society, and thank you for showing how trully irrelevant lives of human beings are.[/quote]
No it doesn't. Unions just shift suffering around, off the labor and onto the business and the customers. It does not make people suffer, if they didn't want to suffer they could quit. It does not destroy lives. I haven't the foggiest clue where you got that idea. It does not destroy society. Unless your idea of society is extremely narrowly defined as your ideal of society. Human beings are not irrelevant. They are freely acting individuals. If they choose to work at Walmart, let them deal with the consequences themselves.
[quote]Walmart exploits its workers to meet its own ends- lots and lots of money.[/quote]
And workers do not exploit Walmart to meet their own ends of earning money? How does this work?
[quote]Hense they practice union breaking, provide with inadequate healthcare, pay minimal wage.[/quote]
There is nothing wrong with stopping unions from forming, not giving people healthcare, and paying minimum wage. I don't get healthcare from my employer, and I don't have a union. Guess what? It doesn't bother me at all. I've never asked for it, about it, and wouldn't bother to.
[quote]Oh yes and editing at times the numbers people worked so that it would appear and they would be payed for 40 when they could have worked for 41 or 42 hours.[/quote]
END OF THE FUCKING WORLD. Seems like just a mistake to me.
[quote]How are workers exploiting Wal Mart? Oh yeah, by latching on to it for their very survival.[/quote]
Read the definition of exploitation and find a way to make it incompatible with the workers exploiting Walmart without changing the definition.
[quote]Most of the poor people who shop at Wal Mart DO work at Wal Mart.[/quote]
Haha! Bullshit! Walmart doesn't hire anywhere near as many people as it gets customers. Certainly not a majority.
[quote]I dont. But then again I live in a Canadian small university town, you know... that land of Canada that has stuff like higher minimal wage and universal healthcare... OMG! There's a ton of small business! Crap, variety...[/quote]
Inefficiency.
[quote]I have the right because I am a concerned human beings and no better or worse a human being than any of the managers or any of the workers.[/quote]
This is contradictory. You have the right to shove your beliefs down their throats because you are equal to them? What the hell? If you have the right to force someone else to do something, you are necessarily implying that you are superior and they are inferior.
[quote]What gives big business the right to make millions of people suffer either through minimal wage, sweat shops, overseas business moves, and the destruction of economies and societies of many of the world's nations?[/quote]
The right of Liberty. They get to choose what they want to pay people, who they want to pay, and where they want to pay them. Because it's their property and they have absolute irresponsible exclusive control over that property. Don't like it? Try to counterbalance it.
[quote]I told you. Jobs are not very easy to come-by when you get older or when you live in a small town. You really dont have evidence for this denial now dont you... oh wait... do you even have any evidence?[/quote]
Jobs are easy to come by. Employment is easy to find. Doing something for someone and getting paid is not hard. If you want to play by stupid thinkbox rules like "I MUST live in a small town" or "I MUST have employment income to have any income" or "I MUST work for a company" then it's no fucking wonder you can't find a job.
[quote]Not really, you could provide higher wages and basic health insurance to people and still keep prices to an affordable level... You seem to have a false dichotomy by saying that it's either or. If workers get just two or three dollars worth of pay and get payed properly for the amount of hours they work that prices will go through the roof. That is certainly not the case.[/quote]
They won't go through the roof, but they will rise to meet the additional expenses, which hurts the consumers.
You spend 8 hours a day producing, 8 hours a day consuming, and 8 hours a day sleeping. Why the hell would you try to help the producers when by doing so you can only harm the consumers? Ultimately you only harm yourself in doing so.
[quote]Probably not. Do I care? Not really. What I do care is that Wal Mart is alive and well in Germany... and so is small business.[/quote]
I don't care about small business. I don't care about big business either, but damn, it's not the end of the world if there's no small business.
If your use of force to compel Walmart to give it's customers healthcare and high wages increases my prices, you, as far as I can tell, are costing me money. That makes me care, because I want my money to go as far as possible.
[quote]Unfair wages... sometimes cut short by managers.[/quote]
"Fair wages" is whatever you choose to accept. There is no objective way to define "fair" and if you think "fairness" should be objectively enforced you're saying that your subjective world supercedes objective reality. Which is absolutely stupid.
[quote]Let's talk about development of rainforests and how business moves in and forces the indigenous people out,[/quote]
It's the initiation of force and I'm against it. Appearantly the governments who claim property right in everything in their territory are corrupt and want the tax base increased. Who is really to blame here? Business or government?
[quote]or let's talk about all the minimal wage workers being barely able to afford food,[/quote]
Then they're eating too much food or spending too much money somewhere else. I mean, shit, ramen is cheap as dirt. I love ramen. If you can barely afford food, you can double your food by walking around town picking up change.
[quote]or let's talk about chaining workers to presses[/quote]
The only one time I'm aware of anyone being chained down at work, it was because they were a bunch of kids playing around fast moving parts, one of them got killed, the kids kept playing, and the manager was trying to keep them from killing themselves.
[quote]or locking them in so that they wont run away[/quote]
That's absolutely stupid bullshit right there. Trying to stop workers from running away? I mean, if the workers go home after they're done working, there's not shit the company can do to make them come back. If the workers keep coming back, they're not going to run away. If the workers are going to run away, locking them in won't stop them from not returning to work. It would take an appallingly stupid businessman to lock his workers in, but I'm inclined to believe it's more aptly an appallingly stupid anti-business nutjob that's misinterpreting something they saw (more likely an anti-theft measure).
[quote]and yet... in unsafe working conditions (which a union could work out) fires can break out and guess what? You get 40 crispy workers.[/quote]
And? The workers shouldn't have been working there.
[quote]Two million people around the world die each year due to unsafe working conditions. That's almost 5500 people a day, if big business was a government it would go down in history as right up there with the great dictator tin-pots of the 20th century.[/quote]
They're usually in collusion.
[quote]Yeah, people do care. People with ethics and people with morals and people who treat people like people.[/quote]
Then people wouldn't be working for Walmart, now would they?
[quote]People who understand the dangers that big business does to society.[/quote]
Producing more, better, and cheaper than everyone else is dangerous?
[quote]And it doesnt matter if people dont care, because I got such things called facts and logical arguments- [/quote]
So do I. You just don't seem to understand that people know what is best for themselves and will choose it if they can. You don't seem to understand that force is used to deprive people of choice, and deprive them of the means to choose what is best for themselves. You don't seem to understand that you advocate destruction as helpful to production. You don't seem to understand that your personal tastes are yours and yours alone, not everyone shares them, nor should they be forced to share them.
[quote]you just have a blind faith in the market, like some people have blind faith in God.[/quote]
You just have a blind faith in the government, like some people have blind faith in God. That was a petty ad hominem.
[quote]And you know what? If you were a person in a small town getting paid your minimal wage with two kids to support, I think you would care for me caring for you. But since you choose to remain an ignorant bigot, I can only respect you as a person.[/quote]
I work in Fort Myers washing dishes in the back of a KFC. I'm still making $7.50 an hour for that menial, unskilled labor because it just so happens that there's a shortage of employees around here (hint: If you want to make more money, find someplace with low supply and high demand and move there). I don't have two kids to support because I'm not stupid enough to have kids before I can support them. People who try to support two kids on minimum wage fucked (literally) themselves over, and your sympathy won't help them.
[quote]Jerk? I would like you to re-evaluate your definitions of "jerk."[/quote]
Jerk - One who metaphorically jerks others around, i.e. forcing their beliefs down others' throats.
[quote]I actually have these things called higher standards and... oh I dont know... respect(?) for individual rights and liberaties and freedoms.[/quote]
HAHAHAH!!!! *facedesk facedesk facedesk*
You don't know what individual rights are! You don't know what the word "liberty" even means! And freedoms? To what, cram your beliefs down other people's thoats? Yeah, that's freedom. You don't undertsand life, liberty, and property, or maybe you do, and you only understand it when it's convenient.
Walmart has property. Because Walmart has property, they get to choose what to do with it (NOT THE GOVERNMENT). Including how much they're willing to spend on an employee. If you want the government to make that choice, you are not advocating rights. You are advocating the violation of rights. In this case, you advocate theft or slavery, depending on your perspective of it.
[quote]You are an apathetic simpleton, you've got no facts, no data,[/quote]
Ad hominem GO.
I'm not apathetic. I just care about different things than you. I could call you apathetic because you don't care about the same things I do, but I'm not silly enough to believe that the things I care about are the only things someone can care about. I just think you're wrong.
I am not a simpleton. Provide evidence.
I have facts and data. I haven't given any to you because the facts and data that I have are either abundantly obvious, have not been questioned, or are better answered somewhere else. Mises.org for teh win?
[quote]just some ideology that is anything but based on logic and ideas on what is best for all- rahter than for a small select few.[/quote]
AGORISM. ANARCHISM. It is based on the astoundingly simple principles of voluntary exchange, individual liberty, and non-aggression. It is based on the logic of "no man is superior to any other because value is not determinable". The idea of anarchism is that it is best for all, and NOT for a select few. In fact, it harms the select few who presently benefit from the theft, murder, and slavery purpetuated by the state.
There is no "best for all" in that there is no "collective good".
There is a "best for all" in that all people want to be left alone, and if everyone just left everyone else alone, everyone would be better off.
I don't love Walmart. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. Corporations are a creation of governments, and being an anarchist, I'm necessarily opposed to all things governmental, including corporations. I don't like corporate statism. I don't like socialism. I don't like fascism. You are advocating a mix of socialism and fascism, and seem to think that I'm a corporate statist.
[quote]And you know, it's good that "jerks" like me care because if the government continues "to force shit down people's throats" you're grandkids will thank me, much like we thank the other people centuries ago, the sufferegists, the people who called for the regulation of safety in foods, the early environmentalists, the people who pointed out government corruption, even the union men who, if you're middle class as I'm guessing you are, helped your family way back when.[/quote]
One man's "good" is another man's "shit", if I wanted your "good" I'd buy it, but I don't want it because I think it's "shit" and you're forcing it down my throat. My grandkids will damn people like you, who advocate aggression, destruction of free will and individual liberty to satisfy the need to commit some "greater good", who would see to it that low prices are abolished and high prices are the norm.
Suffragists advocated increasing the number of wolves and sheep voting on dinner. They did not solve the real problem, which is the wolves eating the sheep.
Those calling for food safety did not need to resort to government.
Environmentalism as far as the environment is concerned has been around for practically forever. Environmentalism as far as anticapitalism is destructive.
People who point out government corruption are just people with eyes.
Low-middle class or high-lower class. Unions are corrupting the government, as you pointed out immediately prior.
[quote]Or, if you dont like that, why dont you move to a country where the government doesnt "force shit down people's throats"... try Mexico, they have a nice low minimal wage and corrupt government there.[/quote]
Anarchist, dimwit, it's in my sig and has been for a while. And I'm moving to New Hampshire, where the minimum wage is the federal minimum and the government is nowhere near as corrupt as most.
[quote]Or many of the Asian countries that are not ruled by a communist regime, try Malasia. Or perhaps go to Russia, it might need a new course of this enlighened capitalism, why dont you work in a coal mine and enjoy shit that happens and be happy of making Russian a better country through it's new-minted millionears.[/quote]
Because I don't want to help any country. I want to help myself, my values, and my customers. Countries are not customers, they're leeches.
[quote]Need them more than Americans? Well first of all, its arguable if people are better off working in factories for two dollars a day in dangerous conditions where over 50% of the sales prices go to the company and less than .5% to the workers.[/quote]
You are massively ignorant if you believe that any significant number of companies are getting anywhere near 50% profits unless they're in the black market.
[quote]The family farms can be good... if other conditions didnt force them out. But hiring celebrities to sell stuff made by starved third world masses? It's very much an insult to the people who made it.[/quote]
Do you have evidence for this? Where are the third world workers who are outraged at their stuff being sold by celebrities on TV?
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Yeah that's why I stepped out. I see that the underlying warrants we hold are so vastly different.[/quote]
I'm keeping it going so I can boil it down the the underlying assumptions and beliefs, so that once I get to those, I can refute them.
[quote]Some people want the goal of government to be protection of freedom and that's it, others want to help other people, and such differences cannot be resolved well through debate.[/quote]
No, but the assumptions required for one or the other idea can be refuted. There is only one true state of the world, it can't exist in two mutually exclusive states simultaneously. One or both of us must be wrong, and I intend to figure out who.
No, because when it comes down to it, we cannot make 'shoulds' we can only make 'is' statements and have them be verifiably true. It comes down to underlying warrants of whether the 'best' outcome is that which helps the most people, or warrants the most freedom, or... etc
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]No, because when it comes down to it, we cannot make 'shoulds' we can only make 'is' statements and have them be verifiably true. It comes down to underlying warrants of whether the 'best' outcome is that which helps the most people, or warrants the most freedom, or... etc[/quote]
I was speaking more of the logic of the "moral wrong" taking place, whether that intent justifies use of force (in violation of rational morality), whether that use of force brings out the desired results, and what the actual results are. I can refute socialistic and fascistic policies on any of these points and others. Moving backward, or boiling things down from results, to intent, to morality, to moral intent, to the logic of it, to the basic assumptions underpinning the whole idea.
For example, a minimum wage could be refuted like this.
Actual results of minimum wage: Unemployment (raises labor prices, reduces demand)
Desired results: Increase in wages for labor, fails ($4 per hour is more than $0)
Force justified?: No, payment of $4 per hour does not constitute aggression, nor does forcing a higher wage constitute self-defense
Moral wrong: Exploitation, underpayment of workers
Basic assumptions:
1. Exploitation
a. is objective, not subjective
b. is inherently wrong
c. is done only by the employer
2. Labor Theory of Value
a. value is objective, not subjective
3. Inequality of Person
a. employer and employee have interests which can be valued and compared (see objective value)
b. customer and employee have interests which can be valued and compared (see objective value)
All of those necessary basic assumptions are plainly absurd.
Exploitation is subjective, not inherently wrong, and is reciporical in employee/employer relations.
Value is subjective, not objective, much less determined by labor.
A person being a subjective mind and an objective body, and subjects not being able to be determined by other minds, much less given value and then compared to those subjects in another subjective mind, it is impossible to compare two people's interests and say that one supercedes the other. It does not matter if it is the employee or the employer or the customer, no two people can be compared, one valued above the other, and prefrence rationally be given to anyone. Thus it is as irrational to say that Walmart owes employees more as it is to say that employees owe Walmart more.
I rather enjoy debate so I like to play at the higher levels of the game, above the basic assumptions. So I do. But I could do something like this for pretty much every other socialist idea. They all rest on the same idiotic ideas.
I wrote a [url=http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2006/11/economic-calculation-in-socialist.html]blog post[/url] on some of the fundamental socialist/collectivist fallacies on my blog. I butchered 2+2=4 as many ways as possible and found socialist logic which demonstrated that 2+2=0, 2+2=2, 2+2=3, 2+2!=4, 2+2=5, 22=4, and 2+2=22.
Honestly, I don't care how wrong something is, you should represent it fairly. That essay was communist bashing. You need to elaborate your points, because on some of them you seemed to hit on a valid point, but on the 2+2/= 4 one it just seemed like you were making it all up. But hey, I may be wrong! Just support and elaborate.
[quote=JoshHickman]Honestly, I don't care how wrong something is, you should represent it fairly. That essay was communist bashing. You need to elaborate your points, because on some of them you seemed to hit on a valid point, but on the 2+2/= 4 one it just seemed like you were making it all up. But hey, I may be wrong! Just support and elaborate.[/quote]
It was just humor. I wasn't trying to act as if it actually refuted socialism. Ludwig von Mises did that in his books "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" which I named that post after, and his book "Socialism". Re-refuting socialism is unnecessary. I was just having a few laughs at socialism's expense.
Sorry. Guess I haven't heard enough real reasons why socialism is bad (aside from producing laziness and starvation) to know what to look for. :)
[quote=JoshHickman]Sorry. Guess I haven't heard enough real reasons why socialism is bad (aside from producing laziness and starvation) to know what to look for. :) [/quote]
Those are two symptoms of it. Socialism distorts the market beyond recognition. That includes making inaction appear superior to action, creating shortages and surpluses, keeping prices high, reducing incentives, and so on.
What do you hink about public goods, such as are involved in the tragedy of the commons?