Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=anttooking;32857388]
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)

    I don't think it is simple at all. My point is, who gets to define how much is 'enough'? It seams simple but is actually increadably complex and essentially a matter of opinion.

    Brief examples include:
    1) Is the air I breath mine to use?
    2) Are my fingers mine?
    3) Can I have 2042 kcal a day, 1112? 5023?
    4) Should I have a university education where people in kenya are not taught to read and write? (This one is slightly off-point but is a valid idea).
    5) Who gets more than who? Should scientist and engineers be given more food than farmers ect? (Because there ideas and effort can procude more than a laborer)

    That would be the escense of my question.

    I just dont think socialism is logically consistent, by definition. For that reason why should people jump from one broken idea to another?
    it's why we would have democracy, it would be decided by the people coming together in an area and deciding how to divide resources and such in a way that means everyone has what they need to survive at the very least this would be food, water, shelter, etc.

    as for how many calories, it would more likely be how much food you could have, what food would be up to you.

    Socialism is international, so if you get the chance to go to Uni so would Kenyans under socialism.

    well, that would be decided democratically by all the workers in the place you work, everyone would have what they need to survive at least, beyond that pay would be agreed between all the workers in a particular bussiness

    air is everyones to breathe as they need, nobody is saying your body is not yours either, you are taking it beyond what anyone does.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am trying to ask why people would divide the land ... do you think people do it for the fun of it?
    Why didn't you say that? It was a hyperthetical.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am trying to ask why people would divide the land ... do you think people do it for the fun of it?
    common interest and compassion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=SciFiBoy;32857596]
    (Original post by anttooking)

    it's why we would have democracy, it would be decided by the people coming together in an area and deciding how to divide resources and such in a way that means everyone has what they need to survive at the very least this would be food, water, shelter, etc.

    as for how many calories, it would more likely be how much food you could have, what food would be up to you.

    Socialism is international, so if you get the chance to go to Uni so would Kenyans under socialism.

    well, that would be decided democratically by all the workers in the place you work, everyone would have what they need to survive at least, beyond that pay would be agreed between all the workers in a particular bussiness

    air is everyones to breathe as they need, nobody is saying your body is not yours either, you are taking it beyond what anyone does.

    I think there are a few subtleties you are overlooking. You say socialism is based on democracy but that is is global? What about if a country doesn't want to participate?

    What happens if everyone wants to eat bannanas? Who gets the bannanas? How do you decide who has to eat the apples?

    Does socialism depend on 100% support from the population?

    I would just like to add: these examples seem like that they are me just trying to be crass, but they represent real problems.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by anttooking)
    Why didn't you say that? It was a hyperthetical.
    I asked you why, and you responding by telling me how.

    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    common interest and compassion
    Nope. Private property exists because of scarcity. People begin to divide up things but it is an efficient way of allocating scarce resources.

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Judging by what was written, he/she most likely means private property entitlement, and so his point still stands. Scarcity is not the creation of the State. Neither is private property if we're talking about the ability to exclusively use a resource - these can exist with or without a government, a law or a police force. You're right there, and not many would challenge that point. Yet the rules of property entitlement are artificial. I have no entitlement to your property just because I murder you and steal it because there are laws against that which state plainly that I am not entitled to do that. For animals, or in anarchy, no such law exists.
    There are laws in anarchy (and animal kingdom) as much as there are laws in the UK today. I don't commit crimes (including paying my taxes) because of the threat of force.

    Laws will exist in so far as people take the necessary steps to mitigate the risks and there is an equilibrium of power. You don't need government for that.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by anttooking)

    I don't think it is simple at all. My point is, who gets to define how much is 'enough'? It seams simple but is actually increadably complex and essentially a matter of opinion.

    Brief examples include:
    1) Is the air I breath mine to use?
    2) Are my fingers mine?
    3) Can I have 2042 kcal a day, 1112? 5023?
    4) Should I have a university education where people in kenya are not taught to read and write? (This one is slightly off-point but is a valid idea).
    5) Who gets more than who? Should scientist and engineers be given more food than farmers ect? (Because there ideas and effort can procude more than a laborer)

    That would be the escense of my question.

    I just dont think socialism is logically consistent, by definition. For that reason why should people jump from one broken idea to another?
    My answer is simple - let people decide for themselves what they want, and what they don't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    There are laws in anarchy (and animal kingdom) as much as there are laws in the UK today.
    Well that just nonsense, there is a difference between a law of nature or law of human bahvaviour and the laws enforced by a judge. The judges law are those which the whole of society is subject too. Not a way in which people behave (or should).

    Your next sentance is essentialy fluff.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    My answer is simple - let people decide for themselves what they want, and what they don't.
    What, capitalism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Nope. Private property exists because of scarcity. People begin to divide up things but it is an efficient way of allocating scarce resources.

    This notion is actually a bit of a myth and has been consistently rejected by both historians and archaeologists. The enclosure of the commons was more class conflict than any modern conception of an efficiency drive, stop trying to naturalise liberal economic concepts by giving them an ahistorical 'functional' gloss.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by anttooking)
    Well that just nonsense, there is a difference between a law of nature or law of human bahvaviour and the laws enforced by a judge. The judges law are those which the whole of society is subject too. Not a way in which people behave (or should).

    Your next sentance is essentialy fluff.
    Human action is a cost-and-benefit analysis.

    People don't murder each other because the costs outweigh the benefits.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Human action is a cost-and-benefit analysis.

    People don't murder each other because the costs outweigh the benefits.
    I think a major floor in that analysis is the lack of consideration for the 'coalition'. You should read (or review) 'theory of Games and Economic behaviour' that shows that coalitions are inevitable (mathematicaly) by the ideas (axioms) outlined in that article. So a coalition is enevitable, that coalition could for all extents and purposes be considered a government (of a sort) so I think your argument is flawed.

    I bet you don't answer
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Geraldine)
    This notion is actually a bit of a myth and has been consistently rejected by both historians and archaeologists. The enclosure of the commons was more class conflict than any modern conception of an efficiency drive, stop trying to naturalise liberal economic concepts by giving them an ahistorical 'functional' gloss.
    A myth? Look at the world around you ... the societies were the standards of living are the greatest is where they have embraced laissez-faire capitalism, which entails the existence of private property and a medium of exchange - which then allows for the division of labour.

    The enclosure "of the commons was more class conflict" :toofunny: - No, I think people were tired of living as peasants in a career of subsistence farming.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    A myth? Look at the world around you ... the societies were the standards of living are the greatest is where they have embraced laissez-faire capitalism, which entails the existence of private property and a medium of exchange - which then allows for the division of labour.
    Certainly those are the societies which have been able to mass produce and thus provide goods at a cheaper price. Of course that does not entail a higher quality of life, and it has also led to much of the wealth being concentrated into the narrow ownership of a small minority, an economic aristocracy. Also I have yet to come across any country which can claim to be a bastion of laissez-faire capitalism (and indeed Norway is probably the most successful country in the world in 'standard' terms, not exactly a libertarian haven)? Generally the richest countries are founded on conquest and mass exploitation, empire etc. but these are not neccessarily the happiest or best balanced countries.

    The enclosure "of the commons was more class conflict" :toofunny: - No, I think people were tired of living as peasants in a career of subsistence farming.
    Evidence? Seriously? You have made that decision for them. While I do not suggest that feudalism was a particularly enjoyable system, there was no need - especially in the eyes of the peasants - to throw the communal baby out with the feudal bathwater. It was a pretty truamatic event as you may imagine to have your rights, enjoyed for hundreds of years, to share and cultivate and collectively manage common land suddenly taken away by an act of parliament (i.e., force) or by economic blackmail.

    Do you really think that people had a sudden rational revelation and decided to give away their land to rich individuals and lords to be divided up so that it could be more efficient, some of them able to stay on and work for their new capitalist masters while others are literally forced from their ancestral homes - essentially as refugees - to go find some other way to reach subsistence level?

    (for a good academic introduction to the enclosure of the commons and related information, I suggest Johnson's 'An Archaeology of Capitalism' which has become something of a textbook)
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by anttooking)
    I think a major floor in that analysis is the lack of consideration for the 'coalition'. You should read (or review) 'theory of Games and Economic behaviour' that shows that coalitions are inevitable (mathematicaly) by the ideas (axioms) outlined in that article. So a coalition is enevitable, that coalition could for all extents and purposes be considered a government (of a sort) so I think your argument is flawed.

    I bet you don't answer
    You clearly didn't read what I linked you to. You simply responded, in a condescending tone, about something that is utterly and superbly unrelated to what I posted.

    I am trying to explain why rights are respected ... you're going into a tangent on a mathematical model of human behaviour - which no-one is denying. But underlining ever-single human action is a cost-and-benefit analysis. Name a human action that doesn't encompass that. You refused to answer my previous question I directed at you ... I really don't know why I bother responding to you.

    Coalitions are groups - neither of which is government. Government is an institution that has a monopoly on the use of force.

    I have discussed the Nash Equilibria on this forum, which is much more interesting since economics is a non-zwero sum game (competition in the co-operative sense instead of evil sense) ... There are quite a few problems with game theory, but I think this piece best explains that none of the multiple subvi of game theory tells players how to play except in the simplest case - indeed there are difficulties even with the simplest case (when it is non two-person zero-sum). Game theory can't serve as the mathematical foundation of economic theory. I haven't touched on the epistemical problems ...

    link = http://www.core.ucl.ac.be/services/p.../dp2005_21.pdf
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    My answer is simple - let people decide for themselves what they want, and what they don't.
    This is exactly why Socialism would never work.

    People are greedy. People who would willingly give up to be equal are a minority, otherwise everyone would be doing it. Everyone will try and get what they want and as much as they can - there would be no equality about it.

    I really can't fathom how people actually think as a society, we'd all get along hand-in-hand equally. It will just never work. To me, Communism and Socialism are both the best ways to get about - but it is far too late for them.

    If you can honestly say to yourself you'd rather everyone got the same, by which means you got less than you have today, would you do it? As selfish and harsh as it is - I like what I have and I'm driven to work harder by the opportunity to gain more. It's selfish and greedy, but if everyone got the same I'd say **** it, I've got nothing to gain.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Geraldine)
    Certainly those are the societies which have been able to mass produce and thus provide goods at a cheaper price. Of course that does not entail a higher quality of life, and it has also led to much of the wealth being concentrated into the narrow ownership of a small minority, an economic aristocracy. Also I have yet to come across any country which can claim to be a bastion of laissez-faire capitalism (and indeed Norway is probably the most successful country in the world in 'standard' terms, not exactly a libertarian haven)? Generally the richest countries are founded on conquest and mass exploitation, empire etc. but these are not neccessarily the happiest or best balanced countries.
    "Conquest, mass expolitation and empire" is the language of the state. Pause, and read that again.

    Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system the recognizes each individual as being equal under the law - equal under non-aggression. Naturally, you wouldn't have a state of such affairs for long - least of all by socialists. To whom, freedom is but a hindrance to force everyone in society to comply to a material equality ... or more accurately, the fourier complex

    "Norway is probably the most successful country in the world in 'standard' terms, not exactly a libertarian haven" ...... You mean Sweden, right?

    I am baffled as to what gave you the impression that I would possibly be advancing the state? Baffled and bewildered...

    Evidence? Seriously? You have made that decision for them. While I do not suggest that feudalism was a particularly enjoyable system, there was no need - especially in the eyes of the peasants - to throw the communal baby out with the feudal bathwater. It was a pretty traumatic event as you may imagine to have your rights, enjoyed for hundreds of years, to share and cultivate and collectively manage common land suddenly taken away by an act of parliament (i.e., force) or by economic blackmail.
    Again, I am not sure if you just like babbling, but since when did I advocate or advance imperialism and feudalism? That is known as a strawman argument .

    Do you really think that people had a sudden rational revelation and decided to give away their land to rich individuals and lords to be divided up so that it could be more efficient, some of them able to stay on and work for their new capitalist masters while others are literally forced from their ancestral homes - essentially as refugees - to go find some other way to reach subsistence level?
    No, no, no, no.

    Feudalism is backed by the state. You don't get a feudal state-of-affairs through laissez-faire capitalism.

    Capitalism is the system that tries to rectify the problem - except you can't distinguish between enemy and foe. Capitalism ensures the efficient allocation of scarce resources (Coase theorem). Why do you think during the industrial revolution working classes were able to buy land from the aristocratic landowners? Because they were more efficient ...

    (for a good academic introduction to the enclosure of the commons and related information, I suggest Johnson's 'An Archaeology of Capitalism' which has become something of a textbook)
    If what you've been spewing is from that book, then our education system is in the gutter ...
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Xhotas)
    This is exactly why Socialism would never work.

    People are greedy. People who would willingly give up to be equal are a minority, otherwise everyone would be doing it. Everyone will try and get what they want and as much as they can - there would be no equality about it.

    I really can't fathom how people actually think as a society, we'd all get along hand-in-hand equally. It will just never work. To me, Communism and Socialism are both the best ways to get about - but it is far too late for them.

    If you can honestly say to yourself you'd rather everyone got the same, by which means you got less than you have today, would you do it? As selfish and harsh as it is - I like what I have and I'm driven to work harder by the opportunity to gain more. It's selfish and greedy, but if everyone got the same I'd say **** it, I've got nothing to gain.
    I sometimes feel Ayn Rand understood the connection between socialism and religion. In both systems, the worst thing is for a human being to decide to be a free autonomous human being and act according to his own value system. Socialism and religion demand that man superimpose other value systems above his own.

    The desperation for equality is almost a neurosis. Don't get me wrong. I believe in equality under the law - whereby nobody has a monopoly on the use of force without retaliation. But that is very different from the desire (!) to force people to be equal, and every-so-often bring back the accomplishments of individuals and humanity to the level of subsistence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    "Conquest, mass expolitation and empire" is the language of the state. Pause, and read that again.
    And why do you think the state bothered to do these things? Unless you believe in some juvenile form of the will to power or other nonesense, it is fairly obvious that there must be some kind of driver for this action which is the economic. Empire is pretty much the foreceful expansion of markets, capitalism thrives with state inteference. The USA achieved the power it has today by conquering half of North America, not because of some non-coercive market dream.

    Just to add - I'm not sure why you included the 'Pause, and read that again' comment. At no point have I suggested that I am a statist.

    Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system the recognizes each individual as being equal under the law - equal under non-aggression. Naturally, you wouldn't have a state of such affairs for long - least of all by socialists. To whom, freedom is but a hindrance to force everyone in society to comply to a material equality ... or more accurately, the fourier complex

    "Norway is probably the most successful country in the world in 'standard' terms, not exactly a libertarian haven" ...... You mean Sweden, right?
    Again, find me a single example of a laissez-faire capitalist country? You earlier stated that the most successful nations used this model, and yet as far as I can tell the richest nations were built on conquest and mass exploitation - the US for example.

    And no, I mean Norway. Consistently ranked the best place in the world to live, and the highest level of social equality in the developed world. The rest of Scandinavia is similar however, Norway was simply my chosen example.

    I am baffled as to what gave you the impression that I would possibly be advancing the state? Baffled and bewildered...
    Do not remember saying that.

    Again, I am not sure if you just like babbling, but since when did I advocate or advance imperialism and feudalism? That is known as a strawman argument .
    I did not say that you did? I was discussing the enclosure of the commons as a historical event which you seem to believe emerged out of the peasants' will for efficiency born out of being "tired of living as peasants in a career of subsistence farming". This is an inaccurate view with no evidence. The enclosure of the commons, which was the end of feudalism and the beginings of capitalism, was a forceful and traumatic hisotrical event - as I explained and as countless scholars have also explained (much better than me obviously).


    No, no, no, no.

    Feudalism is backed by the state. You don't get a feudal state-of-affairs through laissez-faire capitalism.

    Capitalism is the system that tries to rectify the problem - except you can't distinguish between enemy and foe. Capitalism ensures the efficient allocation of scarce resources (Coase theorem). Why do you think during the industrial revolution working classes were able to buy land from the aristocratic landowners? Because they were more efficient ...
    Actually feudalism is an economic form which, or at least certainly in western europe, really predates the modern state. It was able to function by armed coercion from a number of different lords who came under the king but held their own sway.. I guess you could say it was a state in a basic sense, but certainly not in the modern sense. Anyway, irrelevant.

    Capitalism and the state largely evolved together, in fraternity. The state assisted in the enclosure of the commons which allowed for commodifcation of agriculture and for a large landless peasantry forced to move to the city - which provided a labour force that capitalists were able to hire for low rates, enabling them to make profit and build more capital and so on and so on.. I'm sure you know how it works.

    As far as I know the industrial working classes didn't buy land from the aristocracy, the emerging capitalist class did. The working classes were too busy crowding themselves into slums and such like.


    If what you've been spewing is from that book, then our education system is in the gutter ...
    You will find that almost every other book on the subject reaches the same conclusion. It is on the reading list for most university courses for that subject and is pretty well reasoned... perhaps try reading it and analysing the evidence for yourself? It was written in the 1990s by a non-Marxist academic if that satisfies you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    There are laws in anarchy (and animal kingdom) as much as there are laws in the UK today. I don't commit crimes (including paying my taxes) because of the threat of force.

    Laws will exist in so far as people take the necessary steps to mitigate the risks and there is an equilibrium of power. You don't need government for that.
    In order for a law to exist I'd have to be satisfied that there are at least three characteristics - that it is universally applied, that it is enforceable and that everyone is viewed equally under it. This is simply not the case in the "laws" that you're describing, because the extent to which you can deter murderers is a function of the extent to which you have friends who care about your murder, to the extent you can apply and call upon brute force as a deterrent (a consequence rather than prevention), and the extent to which you can draw upon public sympathy, to name but a few factors. The same applies for theft and other crimes. Human action is, to some extent, a cost-benefit analysis, and by removing a properly functioning and sophisticated legal system, you damage key disincentives.

    Furthermore, if we go down your line of argument, you can actually be said to be supporting the status quo. If there are no rules, then there's nothing wrong with politicians fostering the sense amongst the majority of the public that government institutions carry a certain form of legitimacy. Therefore people like David Cameron and Ed Miliband can, in your society, legitimately govern, purely because they have access to a huge amount of public support (which, compared to your "anarcho-capitalist" ideal, they do) and have access to a large amount of political (and police) power. People are "free" to disobey their laws in their cost-benefit-analysis, but there's a disincentive not to do so. This would be even worse if we accepted that there can be no constitution (for there are no laws), and so crafty people (say, politicians) who gain a large amount of support can legitimately rule totalitarian states just because they happen to command a lot of loyalty from the police-force. So there's a lot wrong with this view that laws can be defined as some sort of contingent way in which people operate, rather than defined as a list of what ought to be interdictions (or, more onerously, a list of permissions).

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Human action is a cost-and-benefit analysis.

    People don't murder each other because the costs outweigh the benefits.
    Human action is largely a cost-and-benefit analysis (though there are philosophers such as Simon Blackburn who would disagree with this assumption), but your article is flawed, not least with its assumption that the State has an absolute monopoly of control on the use of force. There are many incentives to prevent totalitarianism (the officer's and army's values, the constitution, the press, public response, and so forth - not to mention that the sort of people who enter politics - Bernard Mandeville's politicians - tend to seek public praise, have little incentive to commit atrocities owing to their comfortable careers), whilst the poor and disabled are still, under this universal legal system, guaranteed equal protection under the law and a universal deterrent applied to all criminals, which is far more desirable than leaving them to fend for themselves. Put bluntly, the nightmare of David Cameron somehow getting away with genocide with his alleged "monopoly of force" is only a concern of the detached libertarian political thinker, whilst the plight of the poor under an anarchist's "legal system" is of far greater public concern.

    (As an aside: your definition of power holds an implicit assumption that only negative liberty matters with respect to power. i.e. it is consequent-blind. Power is only about whether you can do something coercive/forceful without retaliation rather than whether you are able to bring about an outcome. This isn't something that many on the Left would wholeheartedly accept).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I sometimes feel Ayn Rand understood the connection between socialism and religion. In both systems, the worst thing is for a human being to decide to be a free autonomous human being and act according to his own value system. Socialism and religion demand that man superimpose other value systems above his own.
    This is a rather odd argument.

    People are socialists because of their value-system. Socialism doesn't deter them from acting as free autonomous human beings that have chosen such a value-system. Likewise, people are religious because of their value-system - they value their obedience to a deity and respect for religious observations more than other things. Likewise, other people value liberty above other things. Likewise, other people value equality. You're presupposing a duality of value-systems that simply doesn't exist. Socialism isn't super-imposed above someone's value-system - it simply is there value-system. Likewise, with religion.

    If you're talking about other people being forced to live under a religious rule, then you're right, but not many liberal theists advocate merging theology with political philosophy. If you're talking about people being forced to live under Socialism, then again, people still have their own value-systems but must live according to the law (or, rather, in his cost-benefit-analysis, his incentive is to do so); but then this applies to any society. A murderer has a certain value system (perhaps where anger, hatred and vengence rules heart) but he must submit to the law of the land, or to socially accepted norms, or to whatever else. People are free insofar as they can choose between competing options, but they are not free to dictate their consequences.

    It strikes me as fishy to single out theism and socialism in that regard.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.