Socialism

[dominicus]

I think what's missing in the fish story is where the guy takes the day off to sew his net, then asks his neighbor for half a fish. The neighbor refuses and the rest of the island comes over, beats up the neighbor, and gives his fish to the first guy. Thereafter, everyone starts making sure to share their fish, constantly looking over their shoulders to see if their neighbors are watching them to see how much fish they are sharing. When one neighbor only offers a third of a fish instead of a half, another neighbor finks her out and the whole island comes and beats her up. Most of the island begins to live in fear. Meanwhile, a few people start taking days off even when their nets are in good shape. Eventually those people are hanging out, eating the fish the rest of the islanders bring home. Then an islander gets injured and can't go fish anymore, but when that islander asks for fish there isn't any left because so many people took the day off and got in line for the fish first. Those people, who want to keep their free fish coming, point at the people who are fishing and accuse them of not helping the injured islander. They beat up more of the islanders to keep the productive islanders working harder and harder and collect the fish for all the injured islanders who need help. Unfortunately, none of the people collecting the fish on behalf of the injured islander bothers to bring any fish to the injured islander, who starves to death. Now the group of non-fishing fish collectors start recruiting others to help beat up the few islanders that are left actually going out and getting more fish. When meeting to organize, they decide they need a name for the group, so they call themselves "government".

(I call this Albacore Shrugged.)

Sharing is good. Forcing other people to share seems like a good idea, but giving power over people invites corruption and abuse. When that happens, the people who organize the "help" get rich and the people who really need help tend to get the short end of the stick. Or, all too often, the long, heavy end of the stick—and they get it over the head.

Well there will always be inefficiencies and inequalities in groups of people, so wishing for equity from hundreds of thousands is, I think, right there with the unicorns and fairies.
Everyone is fine with capitalists exploiting the inefficiencies and inequalities of others with less capital putting their capital at risk hoping to capture more capital for themselves, as a reward for lending others their money.
However, when it comes to government and charity, we all seem to grow purist expectations.
There will always be inefficiencies and inequalities in every human endeavor.  For every pure dollar in value achieved, an organized society will have to waste some capital to mitigate the real risk of fraud, abuse, and exploitation inherent in our human condition (a.k.a. non-value-added greed and theft control, in government, and regulations).  At the same time we clap for more a productive economy, we must be prepared to invest in better oversight of the social and economic activity.

It is what it is.  Whenever you have doubts about how wasteful government or charity can get, sit down with a military contractor to talk, or better yet, visit the Vatican, it's beautiful!

[tvbcof]

...
Say you have 365 people living on an imaginary island in an imaginary society. Every day all 365 go to the river to catch fish with their hands. ...
obviously i oversimplified and took a lot of things for granted. for example its unlikely that EVERYONE would...

About 5 minutes after the bright idea of a net struck someone, the idea of (what we commercial gill-netter fishermen would call) 'corking off' the entire river would occur.  Fishing would be fantastic for about four years...at least for the guy with the lowest position in the river...then mysteriously dry up completely.

Many years later it would be discovered that salmon return to the river in which they hatched to spawn on a four year cycle and 'society' would devise something called the 'Department of Fish and Game' who would modulate fishing effort such that the commercial and substance harvest would sustain for the lasting benefit of the entire population.

[Zarathustra]

I find it useful to use a definition of socialism based on political theory rather than just the right demonizing the left and vice versa. And the closest thing I've found is that socialism is the ownership by the people of the means of production. In practice that ends up meaning ownership by the government.

No, it doesn't. Think outside this typical US-AynRandian proprietarian filter bubble.

Or, better put, Libertarian Socialists would argue similarly about capitalism: The accumulation of property leads to concentration of power. And if there is no state to take over, it creates a state to protect itself. It's nothing else but the imperialist history of this planet.

If you call an island your property, what else are you than the state of this island, and a dictator even at that? Eventually the inhabitants of the island may start to rebel against you. So you invent religion to pacify them. When that no longer works, you give them "democracy" and laugh your ass off. Then there'll be a "libertarian movement" on this island and you'll laugh even more at all the people, as they seem to want to become just like yourself.

Yes, because Capitalism (and other forms of collectivism) is always a "state bastard" (Paul C. Martin): a complicity between the capitalists and the state terrorists.

[FirstAscent]

thats cool that you want that, i say more power to you. capitalism is about recognizing that some people do want to buy a bunch of crap the make their neighbors jealous and respecting their right to do that so long as are working to earn those things and not stealing them. its about freedom, the freedom to live a minimalist life OR not.

I'm still trying to figure out the diff between capitalism and socialism.  The basic premise (I think; someone correct me on this) of capitalism is to take profit, invest it in some business (your own or someone else's), and then make more profit and repeat.  Is this not allowed in socialism, or is it setup so that it cannot be done as easily or at all?

Well there is a huge range of disagreement on exactly what these terms mean. They mean so many different things to so many different people so as to render them almost meaningless. what i can do is explain what they mean to me.

Capitalism is the physical manifestation of the generally held belief within a society that the individual (individuals) who creates (create) a thing is (are) the one (ones) who has (have) the right to determine whether or how that thing is used. Socialism on the other hand is the physical manifestation of the generally held belief within a society that the members of that society share the right to determine whether or how that thing is used.

Without delving too deeply into the economic arguments in favor of the former, which are myriad and some of which quite complex and nuanced, there is one simple intuitive explanation that is, in my opinion, in and of its self sufficient to make the case.

Say you have 365 people living on an imaginary island in an imaginary society. Every day all 365 go to the river to catch fish with their hands. They eek out a meager living this way with each person catching 1 fish each day. One day someone gets the idea of creating a net. he thinks that if he makes this net he may be able to catch twice as many fish per day. In order to create the net he would have to go a day with out fish, a very large cost indeed for a person who is already on the brink of starvation. Under socialism he would get to use his net 1 day per year. it is very unlikely that he would decide to go a full day with out eating in order to have a net for 1 day per year. In fact everyone who ever thought of the idea would come to the same conclusion and no nets would ever be made and the society would net (no pun intended) 365 fish per day. Under capitalism anyone who made a net would get to use it every day, and so everyone would decide it was worth it, everyone would make a net and the society as a whole would net 720 fish per day. This simple change of allowing the person to keep the products of his labor for himself has made the society as a whole twice as wealthy.

obviously i oversimplified and took a lot of things for granted. for example its unlikely that EVERYONE would make a net even under capitalism but it ought to be sufficient to communicate the general idea of dispersed benefits and concentrated costs (its weird saying that because im used to talking about the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs).

Thank you for the 19th century view on society and the environment. We live in the 21st century now, and we have a good understanding of the dynamics and interplay between our actions and the reactions of the environment. As I've told you many many times, your views demonstrate your ignorance of a lot of things, and that renders you unqualified to speculate like you do in your own vacuum of knowledge.

Have fun throwing out your little ideas. But they're kind of worthless absent any further knowledge. Must I point you once again to this long post I made a long time ago? It seems I need to.

The post in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

[Anon136]

wowowow so many strawmen and herrings guys come on.

Of course things are missing from the example. i could write a 10,000 page book and things would still be missing. the purpose is to demonstrate a problem that exists when individuals are forced to share the products of their labor with people who did not aid in the creation of those products.

wow guys, wow.

anyway i hope my comment helped to answer some of the OP's questions, that was its intent, not to outline a grand universal theorem of the universe.

[tvbcof]

...
Of course things are missing from the example. i could write a 10,000 page book and things would still be missing.
...

Mainly 'readers'.

[Anon136]

...
Of course things are missing from the example. i could write a 10,000 page book and things would still be missing.
...

Mainly 'readers'.

the quotation marks are throwing me off, is that a joke at my expense?

[bitlancr]

Thank you for the 19th century view on society and the environment. We live in the 21st century now, and we have a good understanding of the dynamics and interplay between our actions and the reactions of the environment. As I've told you many many times, your views demonstrate your ignorance of a lot of things, and that renders you unqualified to speculate like you do in your own vacuum of knowledge.

Have fun throwing out your little ideas. But they're kind of worthless absent any further knowledge. Must I point you once again to this long post I made a long time ago? It seems I need to.

The post in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

To come in again: I respect your expertise in environmental issues, but it simply does not follow that a system based on private property rights in place of government regulations and coercions would result in ecosystem destruction. Loggers and poachers are not the only actors in the system - conservationists would be free to 'homestead' the forests and take ownership of protected zones. With people such as yourself making decisions in the private courts, those rights would be respected and protected.

In the system we have now, governments make regulations in the name of environmental protection, while giving exceptions to certain well connected parties.

[dominicus]

...it simply does not follow that a system based on private property rights in place of government regulations and coercions would result in ecosystem destruction.

Yes...yes it does follow.

Your statement only occurs in exceptional small-scale cases where preservation of the ecosystems happens to be vital to the economic activity within the private property.  These two conditions are rarely aligned, and never over any significant land area.  RARELY.

The inevitable scenario is: individual property owners engaged in economic activity will have little incentive to learn or value what aspect of the ecosystem they could potentially impact.  These owners typically figure out the cause-effect of their actions once it's irreversibly impacted...if ever.

This goes on now even under the most intense regulatory regimes and in the face of evidence and enforcement.

Will you please state any example, anywhere in the world, where significant swaths of privately-held, economically-productive land have resulted in long-term preservation of the inherent ecosystems in the absence of intervention from regulatory action?

You know, just anywhere in the world?

[smscotten]

dominicus, in a theoretical perfect world where we could track every molecule we might have success tying ecological health to property rights. "Waitaminnit, that's my water you're poisoning. I'm taking you to court, buddy."

And if someone gets poisonous chemicals into your food at home? Castle doctrine. Time to get your gun.

[Mike Christ]

snip

If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?  If the point is not ultimately, "I don't care because I want to force people to do X instead of doing Y", then I'm not following; PETA could also make this argument; the hooded order could make this argument; anyone with any ideology at all could make this argument.  Yes, we can use government for any purpose we so desire; we could even kill all the Jews because fuck all, if we think it's right, we think everyone should think it's right--am I right?  Is it simply an unfortunate truth that preservation of the environment can only be achieved through force, or are we turning a blind eye to alternative methods of changing people's minds?

Further, isn't privately owned land technically the same as publicly owned land if it is owned by government?  And if the government is merely a collection of people who decide, invariably, what they will do on their private land, then the initial question is presented again: If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?  For, it would seem to me, if we truly wanted to, we would be doing so right now, without need of government intervention, and the business owners who, of course, rely on our business, refuse to help us in our cause, would go swiftly out of business without our help--that is, except if there's still swathes of people who don't believe in your cause, which would be the case if the environment is still in extreme danger.  Therefore, your problem is still there: your problem is to change minds.  Without this, government or not, you can expect to achieve nothing, no matter what you fight for.

dominicus, in a theoretical perfect world where we could track every molecule we might have success tying ecological health to property rights. "Waitaminnit, that's my water you're poisoning. I'm taking you to court, buddy."

And if someone gets poisonous chemicals into your food at home? Castle doctrine. Time to get your gun.

Don't we know where fluoride comes from? 

[FirstAscent]

dominicus, in a theoretical perfect world where we could track every molecule we might have success tying ecological health to property rights. "Waitaminnit, that's my water you're poisoning. I'm taking you to court, buddy."

And if someone gets poisonous chemicals into your food at home? Castle doctrine. Time to get your gun.

You fail to recognize that we already live in a world where you can sue and engage in private arbitration. We already have class action lawsuits. We already have demonstrators. We already have conservation groups.

You need to understand how property owners seek near term profits. Property owners do not seek alignment with neighbors to decrease or eliminate edge effects. Property owners do seek to create fences. Read the long post I made which I provided a link to a few posts back. Argue against it to make your point.

[FirstAscent]

If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?

That's kind of the point. The EPA, among others, can force them. You know, that whole coercion thing you're against? If you don't want to, then tough shit, you do need to be coerced.

[smscotten]

Therefore, your problem is still there: your problem is to change minds.  Without this, government or not, you can expect to achieve nothing, no matter what you fight for.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Apply that to other sorts of things that there are laws against. Do you say, "you can't stop people from killing each other. No, you can't. You have to change people's minds or else there is no purpose passing a law against murder."

Yes, I'm well aware of the straw man I've just built. I think it's a rather nice straw man.

[Mike Christ]

Therefore, your problem is still there: your problem is to change minds.  Without this, government or not, you can expect to achieve nothing, no matter what you fight for.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Apply that to other sorts of things that there are laws against. Do you say, "you can't stop people from killing each other. No, you can't. You have to change people's minds or else there is no purpose passing a law against murder."

Yes, I'm well aware of the straw man I've just built. I think it's a rather nice straw man.

That is somewhat the point I want to make.  There is a law everywhere in this nation against killing, and yet murder rates are all over the place in every city.  It seems to me that a law against killing, despite having much the same consequences, does not stifle murder.  Rather, I don't want to kill you because I have food, and water, and all the things I could ever hope for (chiefly, a computer with Internet access.)  If, however, it was a life and death sort of thing, and you had food and water, or the thing which could get me food and water, that being money, I would kill you if it meant my own survival.  Violent crime, it appears to me, is spawned from necessity, and there is a lot of that going on even in this nation, but violent crime is even more prevalent in places where one's survival is threatened.

Anyhow, if we made a law that said, "If you kill someone, we will kill your entire family," murder rates could still be high or low, depending; I don't think history has shown this has ever stopped crime, which would imply that crime is not affected by law.  But in the case of murder specifically, the solution isn't to change someone's mind; the solution is for them to not have a reason to murder, which is essentially what we're all driving for, I believe, whether we're socialist or not.  This, of course, does not apply to organized crime, but the mafia isn't that much different than government in this respect.  Anyway, for now, until we get this mess sorted out, trying to change a murderer's mind isn't going to help the position he is in.

Comparing murder to ideologies is a bit different, though; murder isn't something we do because we believe in it, except for the tiny amount of sociopaths among us who don't care how they get their way, and I believe it's clear what jobs they prefer and what positions they strive for, but when it comes to global issues, such as saving the animals or killing all the blacks, it's really not something we should force on people, for we would all be saving the animals or killing the blacks if it was something we all believed in.  I'll be honest, I don't give a fuck about the animals, and I'd rather not kill all the blacks, I like some of those fellas, but I don't think I should force people to believe in the same things I do.

[tvbcof]

...
Of course things are missing from the example. i could write a 10,000 page book and things would still be missing.
...

Mainly 'readers'.

the quotation marks are throwing me off, is that a joke at my expense?

[y]es.

[Anon136]

...
Of course things are missing from the example. i could write a 10,000 page book and things would still be missing.
...

Mainly 'readers'.

the quotation marks are throwing me off, is that a joke at my expense?

[y]es.

thanks 'for' the clarification.

[smscotten]

That is somewhat the point I want to make.  There is a law everywhere in this nation against killing, and yet murder rates are all over the place in every city.  It seems to me that a law against killing, despite having much the same consequences, does not stifle murder.  Rather, I don't want to kill you because I have food, and water, and all the things I could ever hope for (chiefly, a computer with Internet access.)  If, however, it was a life and death sort of thing, and you had food and water, or the thing which could get me food and water, that being money, I would kill you if it meant my own survival.  Violent crime, it appears to me, is spawned from necessity, and there is a lot of that going on even in this nation, but violent crime is even more prevalent in places where one's survival is threatened.

I get that, and I agree that the reason most people don't kill has nothing to do with the law but you're overlooking a few very important points. First, that we have a mechanism in place to prevent people from killing again if we catch them. Second, that that mechanism is overseen by everyone who lives under that system, and each of those people has a voice in changing that system. I don't mean to be pollyannaish about government, but we truly do have safeguards in place in many parts of the world. The legal disincentive regarding killing prevents many forms of organized murder, for the simple reason that someone might fink you out. Murder is something you pretty much have to do alone or with very close and trusted conspirators. Even that is a huge gamble.

Finally, here's another correlation that I won't pretend is the whole story. Where (and when) the likelihood of being caught and imprisoned is higher, the murder rate is lower. People do, at least sometimes, consider consequences before engaging in violence.

[Mike Christ]

I get that, and I agree that the reason most people don't kill has nothing to do with the law but you're overlooking a few very important points. First, that we have a mechanism in place to prevent people from killing again if we catch them. Second, that that mechanism is overseen by everyone who lives under that system, and each of those people has a voice in changing that system. I don't mean to be pollyannaish about government, but we truly do have safeguards in place in many parts of the world. The legal disincentive regarding killing prevents many forms of organized murder, for the simple reason that someone might fink you out. Murder is something you pretty much have to do alone or with very close and trusted conspirators. Even that is a huge gamble.

Finally, here's another correlation that I won't pretend is the whole story. Where (and when) the likelihood of being caught and imprisoned is higher, the murder rate is lower. People do, at least sometimes, consider consequences before engaging in violence.

I can surely see this happening; however, I believe this is more an effect of society frowning upon violence and murder, than there being a law; to take this a step further, I would say that people do not frown upon violence because there is a law, but that there is a law because people frown upon violence; it is because the to-be killer is connected with his fellow people that he is less likely to kill, for the same reason why he is less likely to go out in public naked--he feels connected with other people and we generally agree that we can settle our conflicts without violence.  Ergo, society first had to make the decision that they didn't like this, or at least their totalitarian leader decided it was bad (but of course, he's not typically going to stop himself.)  What may be interesting to see is, if a society agreed that killing was always legal, would murders go through the roof?  And would this be because there was no law against it, or because the citizens loved to kill?  If it's the former, it seems, death rates would go no higher; if it's the latter, they would've already been doing it to begin with.

Anyway, we're drifting; my initial point was, if government is the centralization of man's power, could he not make a conscious decision to how he would like himself to devote that power?  Must that power be taken from him for us to get anything done?  My only complain would be that we would be much too disconnected from one another to ever pull such a reality off--this is where centralization is the only way we could coordinate ourselves.  However, we are now so connected, we can freely talk to anyone in the world if we wanted, not to mentioned people in our very countries, states, neighborhoods; we're not at all disconnected anymore.  We can plan and plot by ourselves, now, from our very own homes.  I think we have the ability to reason and agree on the best way of running the general area in which we live, or at least find places we would enjoy better; I don't believe we must be forced, especially when the forcers are a minority of us (like PETA, or the hooded order, or corporations in the case of America), to better ourselves as another sees fit.  I believe, if a method of living is truly exceptional, it will stand out.  I argue that it is only through reason and peace that we will see an improvement in our conditions, as opposed to propaganda and violence; we did not achieve the idea of evolution by allowing the creationists to forever propagandize, ignoring calls of reason to state otherwise, and I do not believe we'll find peace and security through inherently violent governance, with a blind eye to attrocities.  I argue that government does not allow man to function, but man who allows government.

[smscotten]

I fully agree that law should be and to a large degree is a reflection of a society's values. The people who break the law are more likely to be dissuaded by threat of violence and imprisonment than by peer pressure. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that we need to work on consensus about things like environmental impact before making laws about it. I assert that for much of it there is consensus, except for the minority who wishes to continue doing the things that the rest of us have deemed harmful. There are edge cases and points of controversy, of course, but pretty much everyone agrees that toxic sludge shouldn't be poured into the reservoir.

I know that's speaking in horribly general terms but in order to get more specific we'd really have to veer off topic further than we already have.