Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 21.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on August 19, 2014, 12:56:31 PM

Do you have some good reading about anarchist, because I'd like how they think to solve the problem of property without giving away to a central power the monopoly of violence.
If state does not exist, and I consider something to be my property, but you don't agree. What settle the dispute ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Also check out these works from Molyneux: Everyday Anarchy, and Practical Anarchy

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: profitofthegods on August 20, 2014, 10:34:39 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 20, 2014, 08:28:05 AM

Quote from: trader001 on August 19, 2014, 04:59:56 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 19, 2014, 02:56:58 AM

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. We might actually progress toward individualism as the technology progress enough.

No, collectivism is the perversion of the self-sufficient collectiv. Individualism is only possible within collectivism. In the nature (rain forest, arctic tundra) beyond the state you'll find neither collectivism nor individualism. Both are against human nature.

I kind of agree that both extremes are both against human nature and I also think unhealthy. So how would you characterize the middle ground - tribalism?

Yes. Tribalism is anarchy. Collectivism is patriarchy.

profitofthegods

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 20, 2014, 08:28:05 AM

Quote from: trader001 on August 19, 2014, 04:59:56 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 19, 2014, 02:56:58 AM

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. We might actually progress toward individualism as the technology progress enough.

No, collectivism is the perversion of the self-sufficient collectiv. Individualism is only possible within collectivism. In the nature (rain forest, arctic tundra) beyond the state you'll find neither collectivism nor individualism. Both are against human nature.

I kind of agree that both extremes are both against human nature and I also think unhealthy. So how would you characterize the middle ground - tribalism?

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: trader001 on August 19, 2014, 04:59:56 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 19, 2014, 02:56:58 AM

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. We might actually progress toward individualism as the technology progress enough.

No, collectivism is the perversion of the self-sufficient collectiv. Individualism is only possible within collectivism. In the nature (rain forest, arctic tundra) beyond the state you'll find neither collectivism nor individualism. Both are against human nature.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: giveBTCpls on August 20, 2014, 06:36:57 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 19, 2014, 02:56:58 AM

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

This is pretty dumb as an argument. None of the shit we do is "natural" if you start deconstructing stuff with such a mindset. Not even taking an actual shit is natural the way we do it now. For millions of years before civilization taking shits consisted on going on a forest and wiping your ass with a plant. So as you can see, unnatural things can be better than natural things.

No, it's not better. All that stuff leads to more and more suicides.

The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all — is called "life." Thus Spoke Zarathustra

giveBTCpls

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 19, 2014, 02:56:58 AM

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

This is pretty dumb as an argument. None of the shit we do is "natural" if you start deconstructing stuff with such a mindset. Not even taking an actual shit is natural the way we do it now. For millions of years before civilization taking shits consisted on going on a forest and wiping your ass with a plant. So as you can see, unnatural things can be better than natural things.

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 661

Quote from: giantdragon on August 19, 2014, 03:35:28 PM

Quote from: hodap on August 19, 2014, 02:01:24 AM

Quote from: yunkie on August 18, 2014, 05:52:57 AM

The only way to solve this mess is redistribution of wealth, it doesnt take being a rocket scientist.

Why would people who earn it the hard way want to give away their money?

Why a mother would care her children and spend resources on them absolutely for free?!!!

Because I am not your mother Cheesy

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: hodap on August 19, 2014, 02:01:24 AM

Quote from: yunkie on August 18, 2014, 05:52:57 AM

The only way to solve this mess is redistribution of wealth, it doesnt take being a rocket scientist.

Why would people who earn it the hard way want to give away their money?

Why a mother would care her children and spend resources on them absolutely for free?!!!

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 661

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 19, 2014, 02:56:58 AM

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Do you have some good reading about anarchist, because I'd like how they think to solve the problem of property without giving away to a central power the monopoly of violence.
If state does not exist, and I consider something to be my property, but you don't agree. What settle the dispute ?

trader001

full member

Activity: 166

Merit: 100

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 19, 2014, 02:56:58 AM

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. We might actually progress toward individualism as the technology progress enough.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Full Spectrum

member

Activity: 62

Merit: 10

Quote from: twiifm on August 17, 2014, 06:29:53 AM

Quote from: Full Spectrum on August 17, 2014, 02:09:11 AM

Quote from: twiifm on August 17, 2014, 01:07:38 AM

Quote from: xkeyscore89 on August 17, 2014, 12:42:02 AM

Quote from: twiifm on August 16, 2014, 11:12:07 PM

Quote from: Robert Paulson on August 16, 2014, 05:17:38 PM

Quote from: twiifm on August 14, 2014, 04:02:44 PM

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on August 14, 2014, 07:29:08 AM

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.

Not all trade is equal. Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops. People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money. This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

how is a sweatshop exploiting anyone if they agree to work there out of their own free will, without the sweatshop they would be worse off.

Do you believe its ethical to exploit desperate people? Free will is just a red herring

They are not as desperate as you think. These people can try to get better work or collectively bargen for better wages or work environment.

My question was simple...is it ethical to exploit desperate people. Even if these people voluntrarly amd free willungly accets the sweathop jobs. Yes or no?

I wouldn't call it exploitation as they receive capital and jobs that could have been given to a person in the 1st world. But if that's what you call exploitation then sure, that's how the world works, you need a job to obtain wealth. Look at the Japanese, Koreans, and currently the Chinese, they once were "sweatshops" but the foreign capital that was spent on wages and infrastructure has risen salary and living standards for them. So exploitation? No, that would be like calling going to school "exploitation", going to school even if you hate it makes your chances of obtaining more income later in life higher.

But on regards to the original post, I really believe that the unholy hybrid of both Capitalism and Socialism in the form of Cooperatives will solve poverty issues.

So you deny that exploitation exist because you have an example where end justifies the mean Roll Eyes

Exploitation in capitalism exists, it exists in socialism too(Via Cuban-Venezuelan Doctors for Oil trade). But in capitalism it starts to subside when workers have sufficient capital amassed (from foreign investment) to Unionize and bargain for better conditions, etc. Remember you can't have unions without having jobs to unionize. Cheesy

Quote from: yunkie on August 18, 2014, 05:52:57 AM

The only way to solve this mess is redistribution of wealth, it doesnt take being a rocket scientist.

Well how do we redistribute wealth then? Progressive Taxes? Violent Revolution?

hodap

full member

Activity: 306

Merit: 102

Quote from: yunkie on August 18, 2014, 05:52:57 AM

The only way to solve this mess is redistribution of wealth, it doesnt take being a rocket scientist.

Why would people who earn it the hard way want to give away their money?

yunkie

member

Activity: 83

Merit: 10

The only way to solve this mess is redistribution of wealth, it doesnt take being a rocket scientist.

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 661

Quote from: hodap on August 18, 2014, 03:47:03 AM

Quote from: silversurfer1958 on August 18, 2014, 03:27:02 AM

remove the bankers ability to print money.

Bankers do not have the ability to print money. There are merely lending out other people money and putting a mark up on the rate as profit.

Actually, it is maybe literally true, bank does not print money, but they increase the money supply by expanding and contracting credit.
The fluctuation of money supply is the root of the boom and bust cycles.

catlinhappy

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: sana8410 on June 04, 2014, 10:07:53 AM

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

People that this affect most are people in the third world country whereby their government are very corrupt and self-centered. I think the world bank should not only been giving out loan but should ask questions on how the money is spent.

hodap

full member

Activity: 306

Merit: 102

Quote from: silversurfer1958 on August 18, 2014, 03:27:02 AM

remove the bankers ability to print money.

Bankers do not have the ability to print money. There are merely lending out other people money and putting a mark up on the rate as profit.

silversurfer1958

full member

Activity: 474

Merit: 111

remove the bankers ability to print money.

twiifm

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on August 17, 2014, 07:32:56 PM

Quote

I believe that society thrives on education

Yes, more than we can believe.

Quote

If suddenly a large population of children chose work over school we cannot remain competitive in future generations

Why do you think that ? To put things into context the labor demanded in our countries is not manual anymore but intellectual.
Why do you think school educates better than work in today's world ? The failure of schools today makes it hard to believe it can be worse.

Quote

What you are proposing is currently illegal for under 14 in US

That's why I'm debating it. But still I don't see why if the child wants to work and make money he should be prohibited to do it.
Education you said ? work nowadays educate better than school because we need brains, we are in a "knowledge economy" in Peter Drucker terms.

Quote

I dont think minors have ability to consent to matters they have no experience in and it would increase their. chance for exploitation

If the child wants to practice, learn and make money and company need brains, where is the exploitation ? I fail to see.

But I think we are going round, because you think that a "smart third party" can objectively judge that one is exploiting the other.
For children, the parent judges, and for adult, a washington bureaucrat. But as libertarian I say that only concerned parties are the best judges.

Yes under current law under 14 years old parents sign labor contract. But the employment is extremely regulated. Child has to have schooling min hours per week and child cannot work full time. So current law allows parents to decide these matters but parents still cannot overstep regulations like have child work full time

The exploitation occurs when you make contract w minors who dont understand contract law. Theres a reason why we have separate laws for adults and minor. I don't know if every individual child understands contracts but probably most of them don't

I think the issue here is you are debating from an individual perspective. Maybe you were really smart and worldly when you were a minor. Im debating from a policy perspective. When legislators mske policy they can't think of every individual case only a generalized case

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 661

Quote

I believe that society thrives on education

Yes, more than we can believe.

Quote

If suddenly a large population of children chose work over school we cannot remain competitive in future generations

Why do you think that ? To put things into context the labor demanded in our countries is not manual anymore but intellectual.
Why do you think school educates better than work in today's world ? The failure of schools today makes it hard to believe it can be worse.

Quote

What you are proposing is currently illegal for under 14 in US

That's why I'm debating it. But still I don't see why if the child wants to work and make money he should be prohibited to do it.
Education you said ? work nowadays educate better than school because we need brains, we are in a "knowledge economy" in Peter Drucker terms.

Quote

I dont think minors have ability to consent to matters they have no experience in and it would increase their. chance for exploitation

If the child wants to practice, learn and make money and company need brains, where is the exploitation ? I fail to see.

But I think we are going round, because you think that a "smart third party" can objectively judge that one is exploiting the other.
For children, the parent judges, and for adult, a washington bureaucrat. But as libertarian I say that only concerned parties are the best judges.

Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 21. (Read 30782 times)