 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Kibbutzim, open-source software, syndicalist communes, some Buddhist communities, not to mention the innumerable communist elements within a supposedly capitalist society. It is not a clear cut thing.
I agree with this too.
Yep, these things exist, and have been, to some degree, successful, or at least self sustaining.
The problem is that these things are not economic systems, and it shows quite clearly that while the communist ideal works at the micro level, it is not scalable or sustainable.
Good little. Bad big.
That's been demonstrated time and time again, and I'm sorry Reds, I'm not buying into the excuse-driven arguments.
Until and unless you get a success under your belts at the national level, why on EARTH should we who espouse a currently thriving, working system, chuck it all to chase your globalized communistic utopia that has NEVER BEEN PROVED to be anything other than a train wreck?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Let's summarize. You assert that a fundamental of capitalism is freedom of contract. But you also say that freedom of contract can be ignored in capitalism on utilitarian grounds. But then, just about everyone believes in freedom of contract, to be ignored on utilitarian grounds (excluding some libertarians). Thus, acccording to your idea, a fundamental of almost every ideology is freedom of contract. |
No, the idea is that freedom of contract can only be ignored given a compelling public interest. Even when freedom of contract is detrimental, you have to demonstrate that there is a large utility in order to violate. In utilitarianism, you would simply have to demonstrate more utility.
Just like democracy is about the people voting, even though voting is not an inalienable right under a democracy, capitalism is about freedom of contract, even though that freedom is not inalienable.
quote:
We just went over this discussion. If you're going to ignore what I've said and repeat the same things, there's no point in continuing. |
You're the one who is ignoring things.
quote:
Again:
"Well, that's a crappy theory. If you can appeal to an "implicit contract" for this, why not every other social relation (thus rendering freedom of contract meaningless)?" |
Because in this case there is a law stating that it is an implicit contract. There are plenty of these. This isn't a violation of freedom of contract, because the contract is there. You just don't have to physically sign a document to be part of it - but you do have to agree to it, by buying the product.
Similarly, when you have a child, you are implicitly obligated to raise and support that child.
quote:
Common good, compelling public interest, same thing. The only difference is semantic nonsense. |
No, because a compelling public interest means that, not only does it have to be harmful to the public, but it has to be harmful to such a large degree that interference is necessary. Just like the draft - in peacetime, the draft isn't OK, even if it would be beneficial.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
GePap, I'll gladly enter the argument with an open mind just as soon as the first Red shows me something new.
Right now, it's the same old song and dance, and forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but IT DIDN"T WORK.
Gee, there's a shocker, I know.
There is no "agrument" here. Just some dreamers wishing to the high heavens that the capitalist crowd would drop what they're doing and embrace a utopian society that has never been and will never be.
Good for them, for their skepticism, I say.
So...as soon as there's a bit of evidence on your side of the table, THAT's the point at which a real discussion can begin.
Until then, it's preach from the left side of the mouth, and distance yourself from your Comrades of past revolutions with the right.
Good show!
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
They do if you believe in natural rights. The whole appeal of rights based theories is that the rights are inalienable. |
Obviously it's not, because I'm proposing a rights-based theory in which the rights are not inalienable.
quote:
Why not?
In answering this question, you need to give an answer that appeals to rights or to utility (see what a pickle you are in?). |
No, I'm not. The theory is clearly not utilitarian, because the goal is not to maximize happiness. No matter how much you say it, it isn't utilitarianism, because it doesn't meet the frigging definition of utilitarianism. Involving utility does not make it utilitarianism. The goal is to preserve the rights within the limits that are necessary, or nearly so, for the use of those rights. A moderated form of libertarianism could admit that the draft was acceptable in cases in which the survival of the nation is at risk, because if everyone is dead they can't really exercise any of their liberties. A common currency facilitates greatly the ability to exercise freedom of property and contract, despite the fact that it limits a specific exercise of those freedoms.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Obtuse - Meaning lacking quickness of perception or intellect |
Dictionary on hand, eh?
quote:
quote:
Yes and when there isn't and the opposite is true, they have shown an equal propensity to pollute. Why do you think companies pollute so much when it isn't really in their long term interest to do so. Pollution is a way of externalizing the costs of production on third parties. Companies aren't stupid, they don't pollute for no reason. |
You admit this is a driver. So far so good and yes I agree left to their own companies will do what ever allows best returns. |
You are missing the point here. I'm not arguing that this in fact is a best return. If everyone externalizes then we end up with a less than optimal state of affairs overall. If you want to avoid such collective action problems. the state is the only solution.
quote:
quote:
Except that this isn't all the time. Companies pollute for exactly the same reason that they lower prices to compete with each other - self interest. I can't believe I have to point this out to anyone, it's so obvious after all. |
More of the same, so what? |
In other words, the same reasons that markets produce collectively beneficial results mean that they also produce collectively malignant results.
quote:
This reasoning applies with just as much force to markets. They are destructive of the "commons" because there is a rational incentive not to - after all, if no one is going to punish you for reducing air quality you have no incentive to do so. The economic result is that we overuse commodities like gasoline because it's artificially cheap (because part of the cost has been externalized).
Thats demand you talk to. Which was the point of the original posit. For the stateless utopia to work their is an implicit understanding that demand is not impacted instead productivty nears infinite level in order to provide things that are near worthless. Ring any bells with artifically cheap. |
But you don't have to believe in a stateless utopia to believe in communism, at least not my peculiar brand. Whatever the original post said does not matter. You, or one of your lot, were complaining about a Stalinist state. My point is that only a state can curb pollution effectively. A free market cannot, because no one has an incentive to do so.
quote:
quote:
Everyone would be better off if companies voluntarily reduced their polluting activities. But they aren't going to do that any more than they will voluntarily price their goods higher than their competitors. The incentive to pollute (higher profits) is still there and since all companies have the same incentive, all will pollute. |
If demand would support a higher cost product to allow companies to reduce polluting activities then yes, i.e organically grown foods etc. |
That's not the point I am making. It's a plain fact that, collectively, it can make sense to pollute, if the pollution increases overall efficiency. In other words we trade off some pollution for productivity gains. That is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about cases in which companies pollute because it is in their individual interest, even though it's not in everyone's collective interest that they do so.
The same goes for things like overpumping aquifers. If you have a bunch of farmers with no restrictions on their access to a commons (in this case an aquifer), all of them have good reason to overpump even though it will destroy their farms in the end. Even if they know it will, they have no reason to stop - that's why it is a perverse outcome.
Take the following scenario where each individual farmer can choose whether to overpump or not. The results pan out as follows:
1) I overpump, no one else does. (result - this is best for me since my overpumping on its own will not reduce the aquifer to a degree that will destroy all our farms and I will have a competitive advantage).
2) I don't overpump, no one else does. (result - this is best for everyone, but not for me individually - since #1 is better in that respect)
3) Everyone overpumps. (result - agriculture is destroyed)
4) Everyone else overpumps, I don't (this is clearly worse than #3 for me because everyone else gains the benefit from overpumping and I lose both my farm and am at a competitive disadvantage before the water runs out).
Because (from the point of view of self interest) #1 is better than #2 and #3 is better than #4 it is always in my interest to overpump, no matter what anyone else does (even if I know they won't, because #1 is better than #2). But every rational person will do that: hence we will end up with #3 (which is worse than #2)
What we need in this case is some entity that has the power to force people not to overpump - only the state can do this. Voluntary regulation won't work because it is in everyone's self interest to overpump no matter what.
quote:
quote:
This can only be stopped by coercion, by some entity with power enough to enforce pollution controls or pollution taxes (which boil down to the same thing). The entity which has such a monopoly of force is the state. As I said, only the state can effectively correct for such self defeating collective action problems. This does not mean that it always will (bad and incompetent states exist) but that only the state can. |
So you again confirm my original post that a stateless communistic society can not enforce enviro action. At least in capitalistic societies sans state intervention there is the one driver you and I both alluded to above. |
I was alluding to something other than what you were - namely, collective action problems. A market without state intervention in these respects will quickly lead to disaster.
The only possibility for a stateless society would be one in which those people involved in economic activity naturally inclined themselves to the second best situations (like the one in the water example). There are two ways this might come about, one if people just lost faith in the market system (possible since we already do act this way quite a lot of the time) or if human beings were not involved in making things (which is probably what will end up happening with advances in AI or GE).
So while I don't endorse the prospect of a stateless society, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily impossible since human nature is malleable (culturally and genetically) and machines even more so.
But that's besides the point, it simply wouldn't follow from the fact that a stateless utopia is impossible that we should be committed to some form of Stalinist horror. Moreover it doesn't follow that lassez-faire capitalism is a reasonable option.
quote:
quote:
Eh? It's worked fantastically well. That's what states do. Even in countries like the US. Why did the government impose car safety regulations on automakers if not for the greater good? |
Still has nothing to do with my initial post regarding a stateless communistic society. |
But it addresses the problems that a stateless capitalist society will encounter, which was my main point in bringing it up. The only possibility for a stateless society which did not encounter collective action problems would be a society in which economic actors acted for the overall good instead of a private good. The other option is the state enforcing sanctions on economic actors to prevent them from choosing option #1's over option #2's.
If we aren't to suffer from collective action problems we either need state intervention or economic actors will have to be such as to act naturally for the collective good. Either way the communists win.
quote:
quote:
You are assuming that the Soviet Union was really a "Marxist" society. It did have Marxist features but I don't think, after reading Marx, that it was particularly Marxist. In any case if you actually read Marx you would know that the communist society develops from wealthy industrialized countries, not from semi-feudal largely agrarian societies. |
I believe I already alluded to the fact that USSR was not communistic. But since the claims exist that there never was a truely communistic modern society, one has to look at closest example, just as you love to poke at the US being capitalistic. But how many times has this issue gone round the wringer? |
This is besides the point. A central idea of Marxism is that the economic substructure of society changes, bringing with it cultural changes (differences in people's expectations). One might as well object that failed attempts to institute a market system on a people who find it alien show that capitalism can do no good.
quote:
quote:
On the other hand you could point to countries with effective state enforced pollution controls. |
Such as? |
Pretty much any developed country you can think of.
quote:
quote:
You obviously have me painted as somebody else. I happen to believe that some form of communism is probably inevitable. But I don't think we should enact it right now - as of now a mixed economy is the only sensible solution. It works for the moment - why break it (as the radical right is attempting to do)? |
I don't believe I painted you in any light wrt this point. And for the record I believe in a mixed society as well. Why break it (as the radical left is attempting to do)? |
It's not the radical left that is trying to break the welfare state. The right have attacked it mercilessly since the late 70s.
If there is anything the radical left is doing, it is trying to extend the social contract which underpins the welfare state internationally, since international movement of capital undermines domestic sovereignty over welfare legislation. Similarly, as long as there is no global institution to deal with environmental problems, countries will attempt to externalize the costs of their environmental policies on others. That is the key to the internationalist tendencies of the left. In fact they are on solid ground here since the same arguments that apply to individual nations regarding the role of the state in correcting the economy, apply with even greater force to international relations.
Of course, the usual right-wing response to this is to say that nothing can be done and that international relations will always be based on power rather than consent. But relations within nations used to be based on power rather than consent, so that is not much of an argument.
quote:
Stick and stones but please come back when you have something meaningful to say. |
Whenever one of us does, we have to spend hours explaining it to you lot. 
quote:
Why in God's green earth did you bother to raise a defense of state, when the orginal post asked those who think the communist utopia is a stateless society? |
Because you lot were invoking the old "statist, Stalinist horror" arguments.
quote:
What's pitiful is that the lefties on Apolyton run rings around you, to which you can only respond with the same cookie cutter arguments.
Whats pitiful is that you actually believe this tripe. |
No, what is pitiful is that you don't even realize it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
rinciple.
For example, say I wanted to know when I was allowed to hang on to my property and when I wasn't. To know that I have to answer the question of what maximizes utility, respecting the right, or not. But as soon as I've done that, I end up with property rights that are defined solely in utilitarian terms (specifically, "rule-utilitarian" terms), since the principle of utility determines when I have the right to keep my stuff and when I don't.
quote:
quote:
Why not?
In answering this question, you need to give an answer that appeals to rights or to utility (see what a pickle you are in?). |
No, I'm not. The theory is clearly not utilitarian, because the goal is not to maximize happiness. No matter how much you say it, it isn't utilitarianism, because it doesn't meet the frigging definition of utilitarianism. |
That particular definition of utilitarianism (preference satisfaction utilitarians would disagree with it, for a start).
The core of utilitarianism is its consequentialism, that means that actions and policies are evaluated according to their consequences, whether or not they increase overall benefit or not. Rights based theories are non-consequentialist. You could learn this from any introductory philosophy class.
You say that rights can be trumped for reasons of utility (or benefit, or call it what you want). That means that you think that respecting rights absolutely can lead to bad consequences and that the bad consequences matter more than the (absolute) rights. By doing this you have given utility conceptual priority over rights and once you do that utilitarian considerations eat up the idea of a right that has any independent justification other than utility (because a right that leads to bad consequences must never be respected).
quote:
Involving utility does not make it utilitarianism. The goal is to preserve the rights within the limits that are necessary, or nearly so, for the use of those rights. A moderated form of libertarianism could admit that the draft was acceptable in cases in which the survival of the nation is at risk, because if everyone is dead they can't really exercise any of their liberties. |
I knew you would try this one.
Presumably your answer is that we must violate some rights in order to make sure that the number of overall rights violations are minimized (I've used this argument myself for tactical purposes against David Floyd numerous times). In this case you are a kind of utilitarian, but one that makes avoiding rights violations the goal rather than welfare or preference satisfaction.
But that immediately raises the question: what makes ten rights violations worse than one? Unless you can say what it is in non-question begging terms, you don't have a theory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
I agree with this too.
Yep, these things exist, and have been, to some degree, successful, or at least self sustaining.
The problem is that these things are not economic systems, and it shows quite clearly that while the communist ideal works at the micro level, it is not scalable or sustainable.
Good little. Bad big.
That's been demonstrated time and time again, and I'm sorry Reds, I'm not buying into the excuse-driven arguments.
Until and unless you get a success under your belts at the national level, why on EARTH should we who espouse a currently thriving, working system, chuck it all to chase your globalized communistic utopia that has NEVER BEEN PROVED to be anything other than a train wreck?
|
Vel, this is bull. How much Marx have you read? What I see is that there are communist elements in any society, there is no such thing as capitalism free from communism and I dare say communism free from capitalism (to some degree). This of course begs mention of the myriad interpretations of communism, from accross the political spectrum. Do you honestly think that a large company operating in a free-market, libertarian (  ) society does not possess communist elements?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-04-2004 20:54
|