del

[dimaniac]

del

[benjamindees]

Obviously you seem to be advocating this system.  What is the point of this, exactly?  To create make-work?  Actually, nevermind.  Your system doesn't seem to be opposed to automation.  I guess my response to this is that, if you are using fascist Germany and Japan as examples of successful states then LOL.

[herzmeister]

I think some East Asian nations like Singapore already have a system pretty close to that. Very authoritarian capitalism, quite restrictive on social issues too.

[Walter Rothbard]

plonk

[asdf]

Capitalism is just voluntary trade. This is not "unfair". Theft and violence is unfair.

Who cares about income inequality when everyone, even the poorest, are getting richer over time. If you can find a system of social organisation with results in income equality AND sustainable economic growth, I'd like to hear about it. Consider that somehow mandating equal wealth, probably enforced with violence, removes incentives to produce. Collectivising societies wealth this way results in a Tragedy Of The Commons scenario: Why work harder and be more productive when you all get equal wealth anyway. In fact, why work at all?

Machines have be destroying jobs for centuries, yet we don't have %99 unemployment. So, what's your point here? Recognise that removing inefficient labor frees up capital for new industries and lowers prices for consumers. These consumers will then spend their extra funds on whatever new industry comes into existence. Automation create jobs too; more productive jobs, increasing the value of the worker, resulting in higher real income.

Don't equate democratic government (or any form of institutionalised violence for that matter) with capitalism. They are distinct concepts. Democracy is mob rule through violence, capitalism is voluntary exchange.

Capitalism doesn't need regulators. The market regulates itself thought the price system and competition to optimally allocate resources. Hence the rapid economic growth.

[MonadTran]

A fascist government cannot exist on 10% taxes. They need more. They need at least 50%. Otherwise, capitalists won't pay any taxes, and will pay 20% (up to 50%) of their income to hire their own military. Better to spend a bit more money, and not be ordered around.

A fascist government is not going to limit themselves to 10% taxes. They'll take whatever they can.

It is either fascist, or low/no taxes. Can't be both.

[odolvlobo]

I (and everyone else, I suppose) will obviously want to be in the fascist class. Getting paid for doing nothing and risking nothing -- you can't beat that.

[Mike Christ]

Free market + regulation = not free market   And social classes won't help.  We're supposed to be getting rid of social classes, not perpetuating them.  I'm tired of Paul being more valuable as a human being just 'cos he's got the dough, but Jack, the guy who makes Paul's life possible, is supposed to be worthless and easily interchangable.  Fuck Paul!  He should be pulling his own weight

[Lethn]

What people forget about this whole class thing is a lot of the people in 'upper' classes for example couldn't really exist in the way they live because it's the government that gives them special treatment, they get monopolies, they get tax breaks and they get treated differently in courts and so on. I know there are a lot of Ron Paul fanbois on this forum but I give him one thing, he described our economies perfectly, we don't live in a free market, we live in corporatist society and that's where it's different groups getting preferential treatment over anyone else, that doesn't just limit to corporations though but pressure groups and religious groups as well.

Why do you think there are two mainstream parties that are never booted out of the country for the shit they pull? They grant special favours to the groups that support them, my personal favourite examples are here in Britain where you have labour having the support of unions, equality pressure groups and so on and then the conservatives who have the support of the religious and of course the upper classes etc. they just love to divide people and because the normal people who just go about their day don't give a shit it's a never ending cycle of disappointment after disappointment.

In this society if you aren't in a group, no one gives a shit about you and if you disagree with them you're the enemy, even if they don't treat you like that openly.

[stochastic]

I know the word fascism is thrown around a lot but it has a specific political definition.  I think what you are referring here is an oligarchy and not fascism.  Fascism promotes the elimination of all classes from society to form one class.

[Lethn]

Germany aren't successful because the morons in charge there have decided that the EU is a fantastic thing and they must support it even if it means taxing everyone to pay for the damn thing, who do you think paid for the bailouts for Greece, Italy and Spain? The UK and France? HAH! They're one of the only producers in the world right now and they're being leached off by the rest of us like with China.

 Capitalism is private ownership of means of production. It's unfair because initial distribution of wealth is unfair.

You sound like a lot of these equality groups I see around that only want things to be 'fair' or 'equal' for them rather than for everyone else, sorry but your definition of 'unfair' or 'fair' is favouritism and you just seem to be annoyed that the other guys have what you don't.

[Thursday]

Fascism
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Anarcho-Capitalism
Libertarianism
...

These all sound like quite similar flavours of extremism. There's an "appeal to authority", where the authorities are a) the economic theory and b) the leaders promoting the ideas. There's an "appeal to popularity" -- when a certain threshold is reached, the ideas get driven by pre-existing popularity in a positive feedback loop. AKA: hype. There may also be some event like a crisis that encourages panicky crowd behaviour and discourages reasonableness or cool-headed scepticism.

They also contain axioms or dogmas. AKA: doctrine or gospel. Certain ideas and concepts are blindly accepted as truth or 'fact' without a logical basis. Many concepts and words that are thrown around without a second thought are great examples of "things are the way they are. Why? Just because." E.g.:

Property rights

Freedom

Where do those ideas come from?
Past discussions on this forum would have me believe that I was somehow born with an "inalienable right to self-ownership", it just is (because magic), and therefore property rights and all other Capitalist concepts logically and rationally descend from that right. If I ignore ego and greed (because owning stuff normally sounds very appealing to me), someone telling me that I "have an inalienable right to self-ownership" becomes equivalent to a God-botherer telling me that I have a 'soul' or a 'spirit' (and there's nothing I can do about it)!

Similarly, according to US propaganda, I'm supposed to believe in FREEDOM! because... it's not slavery, and slavery is bad and probably painful. Well, suffering can exist without slavery. And what is slavery anyway? Oh. Slavery is a lack of freedom? And freedom is... unslavery? Riiight... So, even though the concepts are really poorly defined, just like 'Heaven' versus 'Hell' where one is supposed to be "really bad" and they're just opposites of each other, I'm supposed to believe in it? Then I'm supposed to believe in some political ideology that is built upon this bullshit?

Before someone screams "Heresy! You utter 'statist'. Recant thy wicked spiel you Communist!" ...I would like to remind people that Communism and Marxism (et al) are simply extremist doctrines that competing from a slightly different angle. Instead of "strong property rights!" and "inalienable self-ownership and individualism!", there are other concepts like "strong community rights!" and "you are part of a greater whole!"


...Which finally leads me to my point where I'm trying to advocate a balanced, non-extremist attitude. Some concepts are obviously incompatible with each other, so it's not possible to apply both without compromising. Just use your brain. Capitalism is great... for some things, not necessarily all things.

Yes property rights and freedom are poorly defined, by you.  Certainly you don't own any bitcoins do you?

[asdf]

Capitalism is just voluntary trade. This is not "unfair".

Capitalism is private ownership of means of production. It's unfair because initial distribution of wealth is unfair.

Yeah, so you own your property and can trade if freely. That's voluntary trade.

What is this "initial distribution" argument? Implying you're going to bootstrap some economy with everyone having the same wealth? What if someone is more productive that others and after the initial distribution he has accumulated more wealth? is this unfair? should force be used to expropriate his wealth and give it to the less productive? is that fair?

Who cares about income inequality

almost everyone. There is cap on income inequality in every democratic society. Workers are jealous of successful capitalists. It's human nature.

Wow! quote me out of context, much?

In fact, why work at all?

Jobs are created artificially.

At the point of a gun? I see... Much better than voluntary trade.

Machines have be destroying jobs for centuries, yet we don't have %99 unemployment.

Jobs are created artificially through monetary and fiscal policy.

Typically inefficient and unproductive jobs are, yes. These policies divert economic activity into highly destructive bubbles. This is a consequence of the state, not capitalism.

Automation create jobs too; more productive jobs, increasing the value of the worker, resulting in higher real income.

Jobs are not more productive. Machines are more productive.

Machines don't get paid. The people operating them do. And those people are vastly more productive. Think of a man using and excavator. He is much more productive that a man using a shovel. According to you philosophy, we should stop using excavators and go back to shovels because it will save jobs.

Capitalism doesn't need regulators.

In free market fascism there will be only safety regulation. You shouldn't have right to build nuclear bomb without proper supervision.

I feel so safe now because the violent socialist state which enslaves me has a safety rule.

[MonadTran]

Fascism
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Anarcho-Capitalism
Libertarianism

Nihilism
...

Which finally leads me to my point where I'm trying to advocate a balanced, non-extremist attitude. Some concepts are obviously incompatible with each other, so it's not possible to apply both without compromising. Just use your brain.

So, you are making an ethical argument that (a) no authority should be trusted, (b) no universal ethical concepts exist, (c) do whatever you think is right?

1. Pardon me, that is extremist.
2. According to your own argument, I should trust no authority, including you. I really took your argument to my heart, and, therefore, rejected it as too narrow and simplistic.
3. Would you mind to share what your brain is telling you? What do you think is right? My brain is telling me that Anarcho-Capitalism is the most beautiful and compelling ethical & social theory in existence. It doesn't explain everything in the world, but I find it works great as a general guideline, and is very eye-opening.

[MonadTran]

You seem to be misinterpreting my comments as a wholesale rejection of concepts like freedom and property, when I was just trying to point out that they have no logical basis.

I might agree here, in some way. Let's just say, freedom and private property are legal and ethical axioms of anarcho-capitalist theory. I don't see how we can reject those axioms without creating something totally nasty and uncompelling (that's, admittedly, personal feelings, not logic). These concepts are foundational to most modern ethical systems - don't kill, don't steal, that kind of thing. If somebody manages to create an elegant social and ethical theory that doesn't have any of these axioms, I might be converted. So far, I haven't seen any, so I am a fanboy of anarcho-capitalist theory. Doesn't mean I will always be, of course.

I was merely calling out some people's fanboi-ism.

As for ethics, I've yet to be compelled by any particular school of ethics.

We need to make clear what we are discussing here.
1. Ethics & social structure. I haven't seen any arguments from you so far. Do you have any? What kind of society would you like to live in? What do you think is right and wrong? What kind of society would be objectively better, based on some criteria like income per household, unemployment, violence - any indicator that comes to your mind, actually?
2. Fanboyism. Sorry, I find the term offensive, so I'd rather not go that route.
3. Your feelings. That might be interesting to discuss, but we need to understand what we are doing. We need to understand that we are not arguing for / against any social structure, we are not discussing people here on the forum, we are just discussing your feelings towards those you call "fanboys".