Topic: "Black Markets Show How Socialists Can't Overturn Economic Laws" (Read 572 times)

No you didn't say it, you described it then claimed it was equality of opportunity. If social welfare programs are not based on Capitalism, how are they paid for? So you just wave your magic sickle over a pile of sand and make a bag of groceries? If the corporation is feeding children, what the fuck is the problem? Isn't that what you claim you want? You keep telling me about how you don't advocate for collectivization and state control, but here you are literally complaining about kids being fed at the expense of state control. "Government based" is meaningless. The government doesn't produce anything, the government can only provide what it has taken from the productive by force or coercion. Your "social democracies" pay for these exceptionally smaller scale entitlement programs with a combination of extremely high taxes and natural resources sold on the world market, both dependent on what is known as Capitalism.

You aren't revealing some secret to me. I know they both can exist at the same time. The problem is you don't have any concept of the fact that Communism (Socialism) requires Capitalism to operate, but Capitalism does not require either Communism or Socialism to operate. Additionally there comes a point where entitlement programs become destructive of the very mechanisms which fund them. You however seem to think we can just keep handing out more and more and more, and because you feel on an emotional level that it is moral, some how magically it will work.

No one said anything about equality of outcome so why are you still strawmanning?  No one claimed any of the goals I listed were communism. In fact, the argument was that modern leftist ideology is nothing like what the article was debunking.

 I'm still not sure you know what capitalism means.  Social welfare programs are not a form capitalism.  Capitalism involves private owners and profit seeking. Capitalism in this context would be a corporation having a program that feeds hungry children and turns a profit off of the tax breaks and free marketing.  A for-profit education system would be an example of capitalism.  Social democracies have government-based safety nets that provide everyone with the essentials to have basic opportunity.      The idea that capitalism and socialism take place simultaneously in a country still alludes you.

You are advocating for equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is not possible. You go ahead and give examples of countries and I will give examples of how much smaller they are, and how those programs are based in Capitalism not Communism.

But it's not about PAYING for all the promises made. That would imply actually doing what you promised.

It's about getting the money from the people for the promises made.

Then you've got a lot of cash.

I talked about children from the start.  Goalposts never moved. Children do not have control over their parents.  Bad parents is something "out of their control".
Ok then we agree these programs should just be made effective enough to reach every child that needs them because tons of kids aren't getting it.  Thats my whole point.   The existence of ineffective programs with the goal of ensuring opportunity does not mean there is universal opportunity. 


If only there were other countries that we could look to and see how these goals are actually accomplished without the things you fear....

This is part of what I mean by having a limited perspective.

I suppose it is not shocking you use kids, they are a topic that is most likely to be effective at emotionally manipulating people to sell your lies. Children have parents, and children are their responsibility. Children without parents able to provide for them already have existing programs to do so. Your goalposts are shifting so much none of what you are saying is making any sense anyway. What you are advocating for is more than that, and more than just for kids, but you keep moving those goal posts every time I hold you to your own words in classic Communist postmodern deconstructivist formless "form".

Uh, no. First of all there is simply no way that a viable tax plan to pay for this could ever be formed. Even if you taxed everyone at 100% (slavery by any definition), you couldn't pay for all of this. In order for you to have the policies you advocate for there would have to be theft of rights and state mandated labor. Leave the roads out of this please, they have been through enough. This isn't about roads or wars, stop trying to muddy the waters to distract from your highly mobile goal posts.

What makes you think I don't know people in poverty? I never told you to "control your emotions", I said you lack logic and operate from a position of Pathos. I do have empathy, but I also have enough logic to know that empathy doesn't fill bellies and keep people safe, logic does. Empathy without logic is worse than useless, it is dangerous.

All of the kids are yeah.   Thats why my goal focused on kids.

Its called taxes.  You want me to "secure" the border for you, fight your wars, and pave your roads but don't call it slavery when you think its something that will benefit you.  You sir, are a hypocrite. 

I don't think you are evil I just think you are working with a narrow perspective and a narrow set of information.  I think you honestly don't know about the kids I'm talking about.    You told me to control my emotions which suggests you've found a way to control yours which suggests you actually do have empathy you just suppress it. 

No, most of the world does not accept all of these things as basic human rights. Oh now we are talking about entire nations and not ideology and policies? Convenient goal post shifting. I know more about your own proclaimed ideology than you do, and I have proven this multiple times. History shows every time your ideologies are attempted it leads to disaster, death, and enslavement.

The U.N. can make declarations that everyone is entitled to a unicorn and 5 pounds of unobtanium, but that doesn't magically make it happen. You also ignored very important parts of that quote, notably the part that says "in circumstances beyond his control." Do you argue now that these things are all beyond the control of the world's impoverished? Are they completely helpless without the state to provide for them?

I am pro-human rights, that is why I am anti-Communist, because Communism sells pretty lies in exchange for slavery. No one has inalienable rights to the time or resources of others, that is called slavery. In order to give people a "right" to commodities or the time of others it requires the theft of rights from those people who provide it. You are advocating taking from one hand to give to the other, and the result will be two empty hands instead of one.

Learn to use logic instead of operating only from a flawed and dangerous position of pathos. Just because you imagine really hard that you are the protagonist and I am the antagonist doesn't magically make it so. You are dangerously misguided and it is terrifying that you are "educating" people as a profession. In summary, your reply to my points was "you're wrong and you are evil!" You are going to have to try harder Captain Postmodern.

this whole human rights stuff, is all just acting, american elite isnt even believing in it. democracy and capitalism are destined to split appart.

in truth all is about controlling the financial system

I'm just asking to guarantee what most of the world accepts as basic human rights.  Everytime I point to countries that do just that you say they don't match my ideology.  I think its because you don't know what collectivization or central planning actually mean.   Yes centrally planned and collectivized governments can also guarantee those things but just because they have in the past doesn't automatically mean any society where people are guaranteed basic rights a collectivized, centrally planned economy.  Its a really bad contextualization error on your part.
-Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

You are literally "anti-human rights" and notice I wasn't even asking for these things to go to everyone. You won't even agree with guaranteeing basic human rights to all children.  Disgusting.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights

Great, so here we are. You guarantee these people the time and resources owned by others. How do you pay for all of this? I know you are going to say just print more money because you think "Modern Monetary Theory" is new or something different than inflation, but this still does not make resources magically appear. This is literally exactly all of the things you just got done claiming you don't support.



"dont want a centrally planned economy"

A centrally planned economy is a requirement in order to bypass market forces to provide this guarantee of resources and time of others as a right.


"dont wanna collectivize everything and everyone"

You literally are advocating for the collectivization of homes, education, food, and healthcare for everyone as a right.


"dont want price controls"

There is no way to acheive these goals without price controls altering the true price discovery process of all of these goods and services we all rely on.


You are shitting in your hand and demanding every one take a bite. They say "no I don't eat shit that's disgusting", then you reply "no, its not shit its chocolate" and start rubbing it in people's faces telling yourself you are doing the right thing feeding people. Everything you advocate for is self contradictory. What you are advocating for is the exact polar opposite of a meritocracy.

Children who don't get good education don't have opportunity to develop skills.  Children arrive at school hungry or sick don't have the opportunity to absorb that education even if it is good.  Children who go home to an economically stressed environment don't have the same opportunity to follow through with their education.  You could solve this by guaranteeing every child has a dignified physical home with equal access to good schools, food, health and psychological support. 

At that point, we would have a meritocracy. 

Who said anything about what I know? I asked you a simple question so that you would define your own ideology. Like most Communists and Socialists you can't because it is not based in logic but in emotion, and is a constantly shifting dogma that changes from moment to moment. How about instead of wagging your finger at me like a modern puritanical you define your ideology in simple terms like I have asked instead of this retarded dog and pony show of virtue signaling? I think you know damned well your ideas are self contradictory and not based in logic and this is just a pathetic attempt at not defining anything so that you can not be held to your own words.

I will ask again...

Who doesn't have equal opportunity? How do you suggest this be remedied?

The fact that you don't know there are people who don't have equal opportunity makes it nearly impossible to have this conversation with you.  Until you branch out of your privilege bubble and broaden your horizons to learn the answer to that first question, I won't expect anything more.  The only problem I have with this is that your act unaware of your own, massive, blindspot or the possibility of having a different perspective change your economic belief system.   I was just like you until about the age of 21.

Who doesn't have equal opportunity? How do you suggest this be remedied?

My goal is for a society where everyone has equal opportunity.  None of that equal outcome nonsense or anything else you might want to put into our mouths.  

You're right.  Its not an argument.  No argument was being made.  Literally no one advocated for a centrally planned economy and they all just spent a whole page explaining why centrally planned economies don't work. 

There is a major difference when someone doesn't even have their basic needs met and all those billionaires, that amount of wealth quite frankly is disgusting.

Every system has its flaws and socialist countries (northern europe) are always at the top of the list of the happiness ranking.  I know the study may be kind of skewed but it looks legit.  Even just a system where everyone has their basic needs met will go a long way.

Do you ever have any of your own ideas or is repeating the ideas of other all you are capable of? How about you tell me again about your goals. I am sure none of them will conflict with your previous statement.

Huh? You don't like being confronted with the negative consequences of platforms you advocate?

Also, I agree with Techshare. "Nobody wants" is not an argument, at all.

because you continue to repeat your argument against Soviet Union, Venezuela and Cuba.  I admire those systems but those aren't the type of systems I or any leftist I know are advocating for.  So yeah.  As long as that straw man is repeated,  I will repeat that point.
dont want a centrally planned economy
dont wanna collectivize everything and everyone
dont want price controls


so basically cool story that is not relevant today.   You can do this all day just don't put us in it.  Do you.  Have fun arguing against a nation that doesn't exist anymore.

nope the officials are the left's decentralisation, similar like bitcoin.
etc.

in the end left and right are fundamentally the same, they simply support a different establishment.

in communist countries there is 0 money for jobless, so they are exactly what the right wingers are dreaming about.

in the end powerful sith lords will decide the outcome in the real world

regards.

So your retort is to repeat yourself.  Good show Captain Postmodern. The things that cause the consequences are in fact the things you advocate for.

nope.  no one has the flawed ideology you claim I have.  No one wants the very things you claim cause the consequences.  100% strawman.

You keep repeating this phrase over and over again "no one wants etc". Your intent is completely irrelevant. No one wants to become an addict junkie when they do their first line of cocaine or their first injection of heroin. No one wants to become morbidly obese. No one wants PTSD when they sign up for the military, but it is a fact there are well known circumstances that tend to lead to those negative results. What you want is irrelevant. What is relevant is your ideology is flawed and results in these negative consequences no matter how much you wish them away and imagine it to be something other than what it is, a failure.

I wanted to get into this discussion but everyone in it is mischaracterizing the left and what the left wants so I have no argument here.  No one wants the things you guys are arguing against. 

All I can say is go read the platforms of leftist and socialist parties around the world. 

If you think high taxes is the only thing socialist about Scandinavia, then you need to look more into their policies as well.   

leftist logic:
yeah-yeah, market produces monopolies which is bad cuz it centralizes a lot of power in one hangs. LET'S CENTRALIZE EVERYTHING TO THE OFFICIALS HANDS!

Like they would do that. Most pro-socialist people I've met reeks of a "what's mine is mine and what's your's is mine" mentality. It's similar to people asking their government to open their borders and let foreigners in but wouldn't spend or house those foreigners.

its supposed to achieve 2 tings, first, make poor people available as proletarians to the capitalist rich,

support huge established structures.

it has benefits and negatives.

equity can also be obtained through stocks.

it sucks however to capitalists who want to overthrow the system and controll the currency on their own

yeah, leftism is irrelevant classical leftism is dead, if you are the leftist, who is not gonna get all to the gulags, and give as many taxes as fuck, you should require panarchy for ppl who dont want to live under socialist hell your government would be able to exit your tyrany leadership
note: i mean panarchy(focj, polystate), not anarchy

it can work in that small scale only cuz of voluntary being in that small scale fraction.
if you are the real not retarded socialist, who wants ppl to live good under his leadership(all the people tbh), you should require panarchy, cuz its the only way your socialist goverment would survive

My position is generally very left-wing, I am strongly in favour of equality of opportunity and a much lower level of inequality both within societies and across the world. Equally I find the excesses of capitalism abhorrent, the multi-billionaires who don't pay any tax whilst the poorest often have to work several jobs just to stay alive.

But... I think that Socialism is becoming irrelevant as a concept. The whole thing is based upon the power of the workers. Unionise, strike for better conditions etc. Technology is rapidly superseding that. We hear a lot about automation. The tech revolutions we've had already have meant huge job losses in one sector, but new opportunities somewhere else. Industrialisation meant we needed far fewer farm workers - but more factory workers. The computer revolution meant we need fewer factory workers but more jobs appeared in the service sector. The thing with the current wave of automation (with AI playing an increasing role as well) is that there is nowhere left to go, no new sectors will arise where humans can perform the work better than machines can. This will lead to the complete disempowerment of the working class, and the loss of the big bargaining chip of Socialism.

Not sure what the outcome will be, probably some form of UBI, but the fact is that whether we like it or not, Socialism as a concept is becoming rapidly outdated.

there's a different word for that, it's called: __________

(i.e. US and the west are NOT particularly capitalist at all)



My attitude is that socialism can work; on a VERY small scale. Your house. Because you can trust the people you live with to subsidise each other, the practical reality is you have little choice. And if even that goes awry, the impact is contained and small. As soon as you expand the scope of socialism, the exact same parasites that we have abusing an ostensibly capitalist system will commandeer positions of power, simply look at how that happened everywhere socialism is attempted.

But it sounds like you need to have it proven to you before you abandon the concept. There's already a problem; if you're using Bitcoin, you're already a capitalist, as you own individualistic capital. Why didn't you split all your BTC with your comrades? You could do it like this: open a multi-sig wallet, where a majority of the holders is the spending threshold. Why aren't you doing it? It's because you're not a socialist, however else you're deluding yourself.

trump, remove copyright

America is the worst of both worlds, has all the negatives of capitalism with the side benefit of not even being a totally free market, it is very restrictive to anyone in poverty because everything needs a license, degree, or some type of certification which requires money and keeps people poor.

america is not laissez-faire since 1860s lol

but socialist could dominate whole world economy with their currency, as whole rest of world wouldnt trust each other.

"As per 2019 Happiness Report, Finland is the happiest country in the world,"


Capitalism is working out real great America, maybe you should take a look at the homeless population in USA and the ridiculous healthcare/education costs.

fun fact: if the lake is private, you wont be able to pollute this lake, cuz the owner of this lake would destroy you for that.

do any socialist countries solve the healthcare problem?
- maybe soviet union?
- nah, 30% of the chambers in 1980s in soviet union had no access to water supply
- maybe cuba?
- yeah, cuba's healthcare is that great, that ppl from cuba swim on rafts to florida to get a surgery/stomatology for even american prices
- vietnam, china?
- both countries are not socialist(despite their healthcare is still shit), china has succeed market reforms in 90s, vietnam has succeed market reforms in 00s
- north korea, cambodia?
- lol
- how about sweden/norway/finland?
- the only thing which connects socialism and scandinavian countries are huge taxes


yeah, you've got proofs, you've got historical experience, but u still hold your opinion, very nice, bernie sanders 2020

What about the environmental and health disasters caused by capitalism?  I still hold the opinion that socialism is the superior system for mankind.

black markets also show that the states are not essential for market to work well, extraterritorial jurisdictions are enough

https://mises.org/wire/black-markets-show-how-socialists-cant-overturn-economic-laws

This is a great article that goes over a lot of history of Communist and Socialist theory application, and the failures and disasters that result, as well as the laws of economics that push through these irrational attempts at trying to change the laws of nature and humanity.