Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alastar]

Regarding monopolies etc:

The problem with safeguards against unwholesome trends in a market economy is that the wily buggers you want them against are exactly the people to subvert them. For example, environmental legislation is often enough used to enforce planned obsolescence when using older technology until it breaks would be more environmentally friendly. Monopolists who get slapped in antitrust lawsuits love to settle in a way that lets them expand their business (discounted/free products/infrastructure for a time, for a section of the market that they didn't control before).

Also, freedom is a harsh and chaotic ethos - forgetting this is inviting trouble. Free enterprise only works under the threat of going bust, taking it away creates a culture of delinquency. Take risks that pay off and reap profits, take risks that don't pay off and someone will bail you out? Win/win situation for irresponsible behaviour; not good.
There are many cases where a quick government fix increases welfare in the short run... the problem is, the most aggressive and opportunistic enterprises are the most likely to take advantage of this. And once entire industries become dependent on government participation that should never have happened, the system doesn't go away until the country is near-bankrupt (and often enough, not even then).

Unfortunately, politicians and voters of almost the entire spectrum feed the same monster - just with different rhetorics and (maybe, depending on your level of cynicism) personal ideals. A free market works with rational, independent and well-informed participants; governments should strive to make people this rather than making promises of safety they can't keep.

/soapbox

[Montague]

Certainly firms would generally resist the efforts of unions, but they could never legally use violence to settle a dispute. A government in a pure capitalist society would basically just consist of the military, police, courts and not much else. Its main purpose would be protecting people from violence and protecting property. Capitalism =/= fascism or state-sponsored corporatism. It would protect lives and property and who it belongs to is immaterial.

And what stops corporations hiring enough mercenaries and buying enough weapons to beat the "official" army?
And where does the government get money to maintain own army?

Well I guess it would then be some sort of civil war and the government would be overthrown, like what could happen in any system of government. Generally though, a pure-capitalist government would hold a monopoly on violence and corporations could not quite arm rent-a-cops with tanks and fighter jets. The tools and use of violence would be dictated by government law and enforced, really their main purpose here.

Yeah, nobody can ever agree on how a pure capitalist society would fund its government without "forced" taxation. Lottery tickets, donations... Not bake sales, though, that would be intruding in commerce. Fees for services rendered might work for the courts.

Generally its supposed a national sales tax for non-essential goods could still be considered voluntary, since no government thug is forcing you to buy that gold-plated yacht and thus pay the taxes.

[RedKing]

Montague, no offense...but you sound like someone who's read Atlas Shrugged and loved it, and then read zero history.

Down here in the real world, capitalism is not nearly so mechanical or pure. The fact remains that while the use of violence against labor organizers in the US was illegal, it still occurred. Regularly. With little intervention by the government. In fact, government intervention often consisted of sending the National Guard (or state militias) in to break up strikes. Because, you know, those devious socialists were threatening national security by disrupting the supply of coal.

Money corrupts, and can buy a lot of compliance from government officials. When you have a capitalist system that concentrates the money in the hands of a few, it logically follows that laws (and the enforcement or non-enforcement thereof) will be shaped to suit those with the money.

[anzki4]

Well I guess it would then be some sort of civil war and the government would be overthrown, like what could happen in any system of government.

It wouldn't even require civil war. You just buy the official army and/or police.

[Montague]

Montague, no offense...but you sound like someone who's read Atlas Shrugged and loved it, and then read zero history.

Down here in the real world, capitalism is not nearly so mechanical or pure. The fact remains that while the use of violence against labor organizers in the US was illegal, it still occurred. Regularly. With little intervention by the government. In fact, government intervention often consisted of sending the National Guard (or state militias) in to break up strikes. Because, you know, those devious socialists were threatening national security by disrupting the supply of coal.

Money corrupts, and can buy a lot of compliance from government officials. When you have a capitalist system that concentrates the money in the hands of a few, it logically follows that laws (and the enforcement or non-enforcement thereof) will be shaped to suit those with the money.

hahaha, yeah I'm basically just arguing with some Randian talking points I remembered off the top of my head. Of course utopian societies don't have things like corruption or ineffective institutions. Presumably some vaguely defined system of checks and balances with complete transparency in government would keep the ultra wealthy from having too much unethical influence in the government. With a minimal government having its hands tied in many matters it shouldn't be too corruptible.

[RedKing]

So you're defending capitalism based on imaginary capitalism in a utopian bubble, but you started out by trashing communism based on real-world performance.

That's weaksauce.

[Montague]

So you're defending capitalism based on imaginary capitalism in a utopian bubble, but you started out by trashing communism based on real-world performance.

That's weaksauce.

Same as any Communist apologist. They talk about how "that wasn't real communism, man" and bring up poverty and social injustice in the USA and historical anecdotes where people were treated badly in not-ideal-capitalist societies. Both extremes are utopian because nobody has ever gotten them to work as they supposedly should and they are both rather black and white and rely on a lot of theoretical assumptions being true to believe in their promises.

That said, even Ayn Rand in all her Nietzschean fury still makes a lot more sense then Karl Marx.

[Leafsnail]

The comparison "Communism Vs Capitalism" is a bit unfair.  It's taking an extreme of one side (complete distribution of wealth and labour) against a very wide ranging position of the other side (pretty much any system which involves money).  I mean, it'd be like having "Freedom vs Fascism" in a debate on how much security services should be allowed to intrude on people's privacy.

[USEC_OFFICER]

So you're defending capitalism based on imaginary capitalism in a utopian bubble, but you started out by trashing communism based on real-world performance.

That's weaksauce.

Same as any Communist apologist. They talk about how "that wasn't real communism, man" and bring up poverty and social injustice in the USA and historical anecdotes where people were treated badly in not-ideal-capitalist societies. Both extremes are utopian because nobody has ever gotten them to work as they supposedly should and they are both rather black and white and rely on a lot of theoretical assumptions being true to believe in their promises.

(I made some of the important parts bold.)

So if both extremes are Utopian, rely on a lot of theoretical assumptions and don't work as they are supposed to, then why did you say this following quote:

Of course utopian societies don't have things like corruption or ineffective institutions. Presumably some vaguely defined system of checks and balances with complete transparency in government would keep the ultra wealthy from having too much unethical influence in the government. With a minimal government having its hands tied in many matters it shouldn't be too corruptible.

(Once again, I made some of the important parts bold.)

Montague, if you want to be better than any Communist apologist, then don't fall into the same traps and fallacious arguments that they do. Let's keep the focus away from Utopian societies of either type, and focus on the reality of both systems, which is that pure communism and pure capitalism both are crappy systems of government.

Modern communism is simply an excuse for a totalitarianism government to seize and control businesses and industries. If any of these modern communistic societies actually followed Marx's teachings, the government would eventually give up its power to a collection of peaceful communes. Instead the governments tried to remain in power, even against the people's wishes.

Pure, or laissez-faire capitalism is a terrible form of an economic system because money speaks, and more money speaks loudly. Many politicians need money to run their campaigns for reelection, and not all of them are above taking bribes. And so businesses and the wealthy bribe the politicians to produce and support laws in their favour, laws that allow these businesses and people to earn more money, without concern about other people or the environment, because these people and businesses will never see the harm they've caused, or they simply won't care.

[Phmcw]

Meh, Montague, if all power is in the hand of corporations, what stop them from making up the rules? They have all the money, and in a perfect capitalist society that mean that they control everything save from police, army, and that's pretty much it.
The corporation would control the media, INTERNET, the hospitals, the schools, the whole industry... they could do anything (up to and including overthrowing the government) and you'd have nothing to stop them.

[Umune]

I have to agree with Leafsnail on this one, the comparison is between one extreme and generally everything else. From what I have read, I would sum this thread like so (begin vague arrogance):

1- Communism, yeah no.                                                                     -Most people
2- Capitalism works because people are greedy bastards, such is life        -Johnfalcon99977
3- What if pure capitalism?                                                                   -Montague et pauci alii
4- And then this is directed to Montague

close the stream of shit.

5- Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and friends.

And, to the OP, effect is not the verb you are looking for (I probably have messed at least as badly in this post).

[Zrk2]

Force is the opposite of morality.

If one accepts this then the only truly moral system is capitalism, since no one forces you to work, as the state can in communism, as inherent in any demand of the state is the threat of force in the form of the police/army to back it up.

However in the real world amoral assholes bribe the government to allow them to use force and so pure capitalism cannot work in the real world.

As to communism, it is inherently immoral since the government running everything implies forcing everyone to work, making it immoral, and also it cannot work in the real world for the same reasons; the inherent amorality of people.

So, capitalism-1, communism-0.

In the real world the only workable system is pretty much what we have now, however we can likely cut down on the size of government, to step closer to the morally just laissez-faire society without endangering everyone to the depredations of the amoral and the immoral.

Goes back into libertarian hiding.

[Fenrir]

Goes back into libertarian hiding.

Fenrir scoots his furry form aside to make room for Zrk2.

This thread should be made into an RTD with top hats and plenty of Soviet cliches. In Soviet Russia, 1 rolls YOU!

[Zrk2]

This is brilliant, it makes the prefect way to settle the inevitable flamewar!

Too bad Ièm going to be mostly without interwebs for the summer.

[RedKing]

Force is the opposite of morality.

While this sounds deep, uhh...no. Maybe from the anarcho-liberal pacifist mindset, but not in the real world. And deprived of that initial assertion, the rest of your argument falls apart.