Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[Ibian]

Meanwhile the thug has broken your teeth and even happens he is a sharp shooter while you can't hit an elephant 1 foot away...

Your ideas aren't Marxism, the method is the same: create an imaginary "perfect world", ignore all its flaws (a thing you keep repeadly doing here) and take disfunctional or delusional shortcuts simulating your idea has achived an impossible goal.

And yes, on many parts of the globe you would have just one water supplier in the region.

This is the 37 ninjas with uzi's fallacy. "But what do I do if I am attacked by 37 ninjas with uzi's?".

Or in more common parlance, it's called moving the goalpost.

[Timetwister]

Im a socialist coz im poor, if i was rich i would be a libertarian and viceversa  

Poor people will stay poor as long as they demand government interventionism (or others do).

Getting rich while paying 50% or more in taxes (depending on where you live) takes much more effort than getting rich paying say 5% (enough for an small government).

[Ibian]

And you intend to defend your property with what exactly? The biggest flaw is that you can't see your system has no application at all, results on nothing but survival of the fittest, might is right or in short "law of the jungle".

" But my property is mine"... Bollocks! Your "property" is just yours for as long as you can defend it.

Survival of the fittest is a much better foundation than survival of everyone regardless of merit.

Ultimately it boils down to this: Capitalism is favored by the capable. Socialism is favored by the average and the useless. There are less capable people than there are average and useless. Capitalism can thus only exist in a world where the useless can not survive, because the moment this changes the people as a whole favor socialism. And here we are.

[BCEmporium]

"Capable" != stronger.
Without law and authority you get a wild west like thing, a place not quite known for its capabilities.

[Ibian]

And here we are.

[Erdogan]

"One day I will create something that will help the society, because my life worth more than of a bum" - said billions of unknown folks that are now 6 feet under while alive...

Answer the question.

You mean this:

Are the contributions to society of all people equal? Yes or No?

No, but you can't measure it. First issue would be "to what society"? Your own country? The World? Then for what end? "Oh, I'm a famous musician" - great but I don't like classical music, so you can shove it, which also means what you do to me worth 0.

You see, the issue about your "solve it all solution" rounds about to be the same about Marx's theories. You just keep ignoring relevant events and take shortcuts to make it sound as if the goal was achieved. But in truth they are but half baked ideas.
Privatize everything, is it? OK... then you would need to stop every 100 yards to pay the toll for pass the next guy's road. And how about the owner of the water asking you 1000 bucks for 1 cubic feet? "I wouldn't pay"; right, but you wouldn't have water and you need it for survive.

Do you even think where your rights come from? Ever wonder that if you have no power to enforce them, a power you now have from the government, you simply have no rights at all? In your dream world of no governments, a deal about bitcoin would go as:

Thug: I want 1 BTC
You: Alright sir, that would be 500 bucks.
Thug: I give you 10 bucks.
You: 490 is the lowest I can go.
Thug: 5 bucks and I let you keep your teeth inside your mouth.
You: You got a deal...

No taxes -> no Government -> no Public infrastructure -> no Rights.

Statist continuation:

You -> police: Help I got robbed!
police -> you: We will se what we can do

police -> thief: I want half of that bitcoin
thief -> police: If you let me go.


Law and order world:

You -> thief : Stop what you are doing
Thief -> you: No! (hitting)
Gun -> thief: You are dead.

[giantdragon]

Examine this statement.

Socialists are right to nationalise everything because it solves the problem of the commons.

The problem of the commons is the problem caused by the private interests over common ownership.

This socialists solve this problem making everything in existence commonly owned.

You see how wrong this is right?

I say PRIVITISE EVERYTHING! And in doing so there are no more commons, and so there are no more tragedy of the commons, that is how it is solved.

The term "nationalization" means putting something under state ownership and control, not declaring it nobody owned.

Ultimately it boils down to this: Capitalism is favored by the capable. Socialism is favored by the average and the useless. There are less capable people than there are average and useless. Capitalism can thus only exist in a world where the useless can not survive, because the moment this changes the people as a whole favor socialism. And here we are.

As technology advances more and more people will become "useless" in capitalism, even those who recently were libertarians and hated socialism!

[Nicolas Dorier]

Privatize the sea?Huh?  LOL.  OK who gets to own the ocean?  First come first serve?  Then I claim I own the Atlantic Ocean.  Haha.  No actually Exxon owns the Atlantic because they have some oil drilling platforms there no fishing says Exxon or you pay us royalty on each fish.   Roll Eyes No, I'm Venezuela and screw Exxon.  I'll just send some warships and blow up their drilling platforms.   Grin Try some critical thinking before you post this nonsense

Too bad for you there is already a govt agency called NOAA that deals with the very issue of overfishing.  You see commercial fisheries don't care about fish stock.  They have no scientific interest to study this kind of stuff.  There job is to catch fish and pay the bills.  That why NOAA exists.  Then NOAA works w commercial fisheries through regulations to replenish fish stock.  There's already been a reduction in overfishing thanks to NOAA.  That's a fact.  Whatever that other guy said about Canada, I don't believe it until he cites a study.  You guys don't even know about the industries you are talking about and you think "privatize everything!" is always the solution.  That is naive

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/05/05_02_13status_of_stocks_2012.html

Also you don't understand game theory.  Game theory says the individual is mostly like make the choice that benefit himself the most  NOT benefit the whole group

Have you asked yourself how piece of land on earth were privatized ? I advocate the same thing for seas.
Government would sell it to the highest bidder. Sea is not different from land.

No actually Exxon owns the Atlantic because they have some oil drilling platforms there no fishing says Exxon or you pay us royalty on each fish.   Roll Eyes No, I'm Venezuela and screw Exxon.  I'll just send some warships and blow up their drilling platforms.

Replace Exxon by the name of the biggest real estate company you know. Fisher by farmers. (Farmers pay rents to nourish cows)
If your american real estate company is invaded by mexican farmers without authorization, your country will consider it an act of war and kick them for violation of property.
Nothing would be different between land and sea.

Game theory says the individual is mostly like make the choice that benefit himself the most  NOT benefit the whole group

The fact that individual chooses the choice that benefit himself the most does not necessarily mean that they should not cooperate, only the prisoner dilemma problem explains such condition.
This type of problem means the creation of an entity apart from individuals (an union) should be created to arbitrate decisions and choose collaboration for better outcome, but both individual should have free will to dissociate.

What has long made this an interesting case to study is the fact that this scenario (ie both maximizing individual outcome) is globally inferior to "both cooperating." That is, both players would be better off if they both chose to "cooperate" instead of both choosing to defect. However, each player could improve his own situation by breaking the mutual cooperation, no matter how the other player possibly (or certainly) changes his decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#Prisoner.27s_dilemma

[deepestfear]

socialism is for mediocre gimps, you gotta create wealth before you can redistribute it
Capitalism with a humane face is what's needed but the balance is tricky to get right

[validium]

Capitalism.

"under capitalism everyone is free to create wealth for themselves and those that are poor remain so as they choose to be poor."

[Erdogan]

Capitalism.

"under capitalism everyone is free to create wealth for themselves and those that are poor remain so as they choose to be poor."

When they create wealth for themselves, they also by definition of the free market, also create wealth for everybody.

[giantdragon]

When they create wealth for themselves, they also by definition of the free market, also create wealth for everybody.

This is true for socialism! In free market benefit will only the creator of this wealth.

[gts476]

When they create wealth for themselves, they also by definition of the free market, also create wealth for everybody.

This is true for socialism! In free market benefit will only the creator of this wealth.

 

New argument vector.

Anything you subsidise you get more of.

Socialism subsidises peasants. (Unemployment benefit)

Socialism subsidises shit schools. (13 years of education/training and you can't get a job?! fucking lololol)

Socialism subsidises single mothers. (Welfare and/or Alimony)

Socialism subsidises fascism. (Bailouts)

Socialism subsidises mercantilism (Licences, for example, 3/4G phone operation licences)

Socialism subsidises retarded life choices. (Such as university courses through the creation of guaranteed loans)

Socialism subsidises fat and unhealthy people. (Socialised medicine)

So socialism grows the number of fat retarded fascistic peasants in a society. Yay!

Chime in guys, what other horrors does socialism subsidise?

[gts476]

"Capable" != stronger.
Without law and authority you get a wild west like thing, a place not quite known for its capabilities.

This implies there were no laws and authority in the wild west.

Is this true? Were there no laws or sherrifs in the wild west or are you talking out you arse again?

[Erdogan]

When they create wealth for themselves, they also by definition of the free market, also create wealth for everybody.

This is true for socialism! In free market benefit will only the creator of this wealth.

No, redistribution is a negative sum game.

[BCEmporium]

"Capable" != stronger.
Without law and authority you get a wild west like thing, a place not quite known for its capabilities.

This implies there were no laws and authority in the wild west.

Is this true? Were there no laws or sherrifs in the wild west or are you talking out you arse again?

Law in the old west? What law? You can't fire someone in the back? The sheriff was someone with a good aim/fast trigger and/or low life expectancy.

This is the biggest flaw/ideology shortcut about libertarian ideas:

REQUIREMENT: People need to respect property by their own will
QUESTION: How
YOUR ANSWER: Errrmm... they will just because... is the right thing to do...

And here you've the Communist version:

MAIN OBJECTIVE: State will vanish
QUESTION: How
MARX's ANSWER: Errrmm... it will just because... is the right thing to do...

Like you never met a basic requirement, communists never met their main objective.
You see, for a thing to work all pieces have to work in synchrony. This is basically to create a car without a bunch of pieces in the engine and then expect it to work somehow.

And the "37 ninjas" isn't a fallacy, it's just an inconvenient statement for libertarians.

[gts476]

"Capable" != stronger.
Without law and authority you get a wild west like thing, a place not quite known for its capabilities.

This implies there were no laws and authority in the wild west.

Is this true? Were there no laws or sherrifs in the wild west or are you talking out you arse again?

Law in the old west? What law? You can't fire someone in the back? The sheriff was someone with a good aim/fast trigger and/or low life expectancy.

This is the biggest flaw/ideology shortcut about libertarian ideas:

REQUIREMENT: People need to respect property by their own will
QUESTION: How
YOUR ANSWER: Errrmm... they will just because... is the right thing to do...

And here you've the Communist version:

MAIN OBJECTIVE: State will vanish
QUESTION: How
MARX's ANSWER: Errrmm... it will just because... is the right thing to do...

Like you never met a basic requirement, communists never met their main objective.
You see, for a thing to work all pieces have to work in synchrony. This is basically to create a car without a bunch of pieces in the engine and then expect it to work somehow.

And the "37 ninjas" isn't a fallacy, it's just an inconvenient statement for libertarians.

What law? I'm English, so the law of the colonies ( jk) isn't my strong suit But I'll give it a go.
How about the constitution of the US?
Sheriffs were just private citizens? What about US Marshalls? What about Texas Rangers? What about the court system established by The Judiciary Act of 1789?


I wrote a derivation of property rights from the first principle that I own my self. Are you saying that my derivation is incorrect or are you saying that a person does not own themselves and you believe in slavery?

and here is a correction for you

REQUIREMENT: People need to respect property by their own will
QUESTION: How
YOUR ANSWER: Errrmm... they will just because... is the right thing to do...
Because we will economically ostracize anyone who does not comply with respect for private property. Do you have any idea what this means?!
If you violate anothers private property, you will be forced hide in your home as streets are private and you will be forcibly removed if you try to use them.
In you home you will in short order die, because your water and power will be shut off and you will run out of food and stave.
No one will bring supplies to you because they will suffer the same economic fate.
You could make a run for it into the wild and live like a cave man, but you will invariably contract and illness or bug and no one will treat you medically.
You could try run to another portion of society and start anew but cities will have reciprocal agreements with one another, you will be discovered.
Basically if you violate property rights, you forfeit the ability to economically interact with other free people, and this, is a death sentence.

Elegant solution isn't it?

[Erdogan]

No law?

The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance) Hardcover – May 4, 2004 by Terry L. Anderson (Author), Peter J. Hill (Author)

[BCEmporium]

What law? How about the constitution of the US?
Sheriffs were just private citizens? What about US Marshalls? What about Texas Rangers? What about the court system established by The Judiciary Act of 1789?

Law in the paper != Law in the field. You can't enforce law unless you overcome the outlaws' might.
And sometimes you even have the outlaws to overcome the law and make themselves law, like Muhammad and Islam.

I wrote a derivation of property rights from the first principle that I own my self. Are you saying that my derivation is incorrect or are you saying that a person does not own themselves and you believe in slavery?

Slavery is a good display of what happens when the might meet the weak.

and here is a correction for you

REQUIREMENT: People need to respect property by their own will
QUESTION: How
YOUR ANSWER: Errrmm... they will just because... is the right thing to do...
Because we will economically ostracize anyone who does not comply with respect for private property. Do you have any idea what this means?!
If you violate anothers private property, you will be forced hide in your home as streets are private and you will be forcibly removed if you try to use them.
In you home you will in short order die, because your water and power will be shut off and you will run out of food and stave.
No one will bring supplies to you because they will suffer the same economic fate.
You could make a run for it into the wild and live like a cave man, but you will invariably contract and illness or bug and no one will treat you medically.
You could try run to another portion of society and start anew but cities will have reciprocal agreements with one another, you will be discovered.
Basically if you violate property rights, you forfeit the ability to economically interact with other free people, and this, is a death sentence.

Elegant solution isn't it?

Loooooooooooooooooolllll! You will "ostracize" them for the other World? Karma? I believe there is a very considerable % of the people that will not care for your "ostracization" to takeover what's yours. Stop being childish! This is the REAL world, not Disney's.

To not mention you are assuming an 1-on-1 World.
I could take what's yours, share a bit with a bunch of thugs, who will become my friends (or gang), and it's you who will end up robbed, scared and alone.

[gts476]

What law? How about the constitution of the US?
Sheriffs were just private citizens? What about US Marshalls? What about Texas Rangers? What about the court system established by The Judiciary Act of 1789?

Law in the paper != Law in the field. You can't enforce law unless you overcome the outlaws' might.
And sometimes you even have the outlaws to overcome the law and make themselves law, like Muhammad and Islam.

I wrote a derivation of property rights from the first principle that I own my self. Are you saying that my derivation is incorrect or are you saying that a person does not own themselves and you believe in slavery?

Slavery is a good display of what happens when the might meet the weak.

and here is a correction for you

REQUIREMENT: People need to respect property by their own will
QUESTION: How
YOUR ANSWER: Errrmm... they will just because... is the right thing to do...
Because we will economically ostracize anyone who does not comply with respect for private property. Do you have any idea what this means?!
If you violate anothers private property, you will be forced hide in your home as streets are private and you will be forcibly removed if you try to use them.
In you home you will in short order die, because your water and power will be shut off and you will run out of food and stave.
No one will bring supplies to you because they will suffer the same economic fate.
You could make a run for it into the wild and live like a cave man, but you will invariably contract and illness or bug and no one will treat you medically.
You could try run to another portion of society and start anew but cities will have reciprocal agreements with one another, you will be discovered.
Basically if you violate property rights, you forfeit the ability to economically interact with other free people, and this, is a death sentence.

Elegant solution isn't it?

Loooooooooooooooooolllll! You will "ostracize" them for the other World? Karma? I believe there is a very considerable % of the people that will not care for your "ostracization" to takeover what's yours. Stop being childish! This is the REAL world, not Disney's.

To not mention you are assuming an 1-on-1 World.
I could take what's yours, share a bit with a bunch of thugs, who will become my friends (or gang), and it's you who will end up robbed, scared and alone.

BCEmporium, you never go full retard.