The STEP High Garden

[Drogue]

I like those ideas, but why not have public services, running in competition (2 public bus companies for example), but both owned by seperate parts of the Government? Therefore you have the fairness of Planned, state control economics, with the efficiency and competition of FM?

Archaic: Are you saying that in having as little Government interference as possible, you would still have a welfare state? If so that changes the whole thing! Because in a completely FM there is no welfare state, and that is what I want to avoid at all costs. If so that changes the whole thing!

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
I like those ideas, but why not have public services, running in competition (2 public bus companies for example), but both owned by seperate parts of the Government? Therefore you have the fairness of Planned, state control economics, with the efficiency and competition of FM?

Public services can never truly work in competition without creating inefficiencies in the system.
Furthermore, the "Invisible Hand" of the marketplace guarentees fairness better than state controlled economics, even under the best case scenario of an all knowledgeable benevolent dictator. I can quote some textbook references for you if you need them. It's rather basic 1st Year (1st Semester even) University Level Economics. If you're familiar with at least supply and demand it's easy to understand.

Archaic: Are you saying that in having as little Government interference as possible, you would still have a welfare state? If so that changes the whole thing! Because in a completely FM there is no welfare state, and that is what I want to avoid at all costs. If so that changes the whole thing!

It's not welfare exactly. They are expected to work, and learn, if they want to earn the money. They're just given the guarentee that the opportunity to do both will always be there for them. If they choose to not take up that opportunity, well, society I think would have little pity for someone who wanted to leech off the system.

EDIT: Remember......"As possible". While eventually through a strong campaign of social education, with requirements in both the public and private schooling systems for education about the necessity of saving, etc, the need for welfare can be significantly reduced, perhaps even to nil, you can't expect people to adapt to a change as significant as "Full welfare" to "No welfare" over a short period of time. It could indeed take generations for the full effects of such social engineering to be realised, simply because of that lag in getting the populace adapted to the new conditions.

Best example in the 20th and 21st century world.....Old Age/Retired Persons pensions and their eventual replacement by Superannuation.

[Maniac]

Key word mostly Maniac. The freedom of choice is a social right, and you haven't rebutted that.

No indeed. I guess it's just a matter of what you find most important. Besides freedom, people and corporations also need stability, and sometimes need to be protected against themselves. To ensure this, you have to take away part of their freedom. For example, eco-taxes to disencourage production and consumption of environmentally damaging products, to make sure common people in their ignorance don't destroy their own environment. Or disallowing people to use drugs, not only for their own good, but also because they form a burden on the society as a whole, thus reducing the freedom of the rest of the society. In other words, to ensure an acceptable level of freedom for all, you sometimes need to do the apparent opposite and limit it.

Even with the minimum of governmental interferance, the government will still run various public services for its own profit and for the interests of the public (Both from the providing of the service and the reinvestment of profits into the community).

Good. Very good! I already see your social-democratic party in sight in the near future. What can I say. I agree with most you say. From a libertarian I would have expected he wanted to privatize all public service companies and scrap all equal chances programs.

Protected by the discrimination laws against unfair dismissal any democracy should have

You mean every free market with socialist tendencies should have?

And about your edit, my lessons of Social & Political History of Belgium, Sociology, Methodology and Statistics (rather basic 1st Year political and social sciences - 1st Semester even ) affirmed my opinion about the determination of people by their environment. Since you are a libertarian, I statistically assumed you belonged to the richer part of the society, which draw no benefit from social programs and therefore genuine-ly consider libertarianism the best socio-economic system for everyone.

It may suprise you to know that I went to Public Schools

Err... no actually. What's so wrong with Public schools all over the world? Here in Flanders the public Community schools are better than the free Catholic ones... Better paid, not better education I believe of course, as I, just like the majority of children, went to a catholic school...

Also, I was firmly leaning towards socialism until about 3 years ago, when I actually started getting a proper firm grounding in economics and politics.

Ah, there's the big cause of your beliefs. Do you never question or doubt what your teachers tell you??? At least I find it overobvious to tell the political beliefs of the professors and take certain things they say with a little scepsis... I presume, backed up by statistics , that most students and professors in the Economics department are of the rightwing economic side. Naturally then, in their courses they will tend to teach material which supports their own view of economics, and as a consequence the students, you for instance, get affected by those one-sided ideas as well... Just wondering, have you been asked to read Marx' "Das Kapital" or a book of Noreena Hertz? Not that I've read any of those myself, but hey, I'm not supposed to be an economics expert.

It's not welfare exactly. They are expected to work, and learn, if they want to earn the money. They're just given the guarentee that the opportunity to do both will always be there for them. If they choose to not take up that opportunity, well, society I think would have little pity for someone who wanted to leech off the system.

We agree completely!!! Just not on the means to achieve this goal... But this is logical taking into consideration our different studies. We focus on different parts of what makes a society run.

[Voltaire]

I’ve heard so many of these Free Market vs. let’s all save Planet debates that it’s getting tedious. I will admit that I’m opposed to a free market economy, but not out of any desire to save the environment, rather because the social conditions brought about by a capitalist society are undesirable (i.e. uneven distribution of wealth, etc.). When it comes down to it this debate is people vs. Planet, and if the choice was given to myself, or to most of us here I would sincerely hope that we would chose people. Humanities survival, in my mind, takes precedence over preservation of Planets native environment.

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, not even 80,000 tonnes a day of polluting materials released in New Apolytonian Wild Forest. Planet probably wont even notice.

Did the fact that it recently dropped from that level (under MY administration, mark you) actually register on your brain?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
No indeed. I guess it's just a matter of what you find most important. Besides freedom, people and corporations also need stability, and sometimes need to be protected against themselves. To ensure this, you have to take away part of their freedom. For example, eco-taxes to disencourage production and consumption of environmentally damaging products, to make sure common people in their ignorance don't destroy their own environment. Or disallowing people to use drugs, not only for their own good, but also because they form a burden on the society as a whole, thus reducing the freedom of the rest of the society. In other words, to ensure an acceptable level of freedom for all, you sometimes need to do the apparent opposite and limit it.

The key to preventing people from doing something out of ignorance is to prevent such ignorance being a factor, through strong public education. Goals should be achieved by giving the people the intelligence to make decisions for themselves rather then through putting a law in place that's just begging people who like to bend the rules to break it. The people can never be truly free until their mind is free. That's what I intend to create.

Originally posted by Maniac
Good. Very good! I already see your social-democratic party in sight in the near future. What can I say. I agree with most you say. From a libertarian I would have expected he wanted to privatize all public service companies and scrap all equal chances programs.

You've interpreted my position rather differently to how it should be. Remember, I'm a realist, not an idealist. There is no way to achieve what I want as a Libertarian in my own lifetime. People simply cannot adapt that quickly to change. However, the wheels of change can be set in motion so that people will be prepared for what needs to be done in future.

Public Services would be publically owned companies that would be run as any normal corperation. They wouldn't be funded by the government whatsoever. They would be expected to turn a profit, or at the very least break even, while remaining competitive with other private sector firms.
There's also the possibility that such public services could be sub-contracted out to private sector firms on a time limited basis with the proviso that the government could revoke the contract at any point if the firm wasn't doing a satisfactory job.

I don't plan for people to have equal chances either. Just equal minimum chances, through the public schooling system and through the "Work for the Dole".

Originally posted by Maniac
You mean every free market with socialist tendencies should have?

No. Like every Free Market should have. The circumstances you describe are what is called a failure in the market. Failures in the market should always be prevented, and always can be prevented. There is nothing socialistic about it.

Originally posted by Maniac
And about your edit, my lessons of Social & Political History of Belgium, Sociology, Methodology and Statistics (rather basic 1st Year political and social sciences - 1st Semester even ) affirmed my opinion about the determination of people by their environment. Since you are a libertarian, I statistically assumed you belonged to the richer part of the society, which draw no benefit from social programs and therefore genuine-ly consider libertarianism the best socio-economic system for everyone.

I leech off the system, getting a youth pension for doing absolutly nothing, while still living at home. That pension is being paid for me by mainly the upper classes taxes. The money they have earned through their hard work is going to me when I've done nothing to deserve it. Is this fair? No.
The problem with socialistic programs is that the lower classes derive a benifit from them, while the upper classes are the ones essentially paying for them. Libertarianism *IS* the best socio-economic system for everyone.......besides the slack jawed yokels who refuse to work, refuse to undergo training even when it's provided by the government for free under its goals.

Originally posted by Maniac
Err... no actually. What's so wrong with Public schools all over the world? Here in Flanders the public Community schools are better than the free Catholic ones... Better paid, not better education I believe of course, as I, just like the majority of children, went to a catholic school...

You assumed I was upper class. Upper class usually go to Private Schools, which, usually, are higher.

Originally posted by Maniac
Ah, there's the big cause of your beliefs. Do you never question or doubt what your teachers tell you??? At least I find it overobvious to tell the political beliefs of the professors and take certain things they say with a little scepsis... I presume, backed up by statistics , that most students and professors in the Economics department are of the rightwing economic side. Naturally then, in their courses they will tend to teach material which supports their own view of economics, and as a consequence the students, you for instance, get affected by those one-sided ideas as well... Just wondering, have you been asked to read Marx' "Das Kapital" or a book of Noreena Hertz? Not that I've read any of those myself, but hey, I'm not supposed to be an economics expert.

Don't accuse me of an Appeal to Authority. I question and doubt anything unless it comes backed by hard evidence, as you'd find if you ever tried me on a topic like religion. (The last Jehova's Witless (Misspelling intended) who challenged me to a debate is now an Athiest.) My teachers until this year were genuinly socialistic actually. I, as the nerd I am, went far further in the research than was required of the courses. I concluded that capitalism was a better system than socialism on my own (And got into many many fights with my teacher over it I'll tell you. I think I only got the A because she knew I'd kick up a stink about having been marked down because my world view no longer agreed with hers). Capitalism still has its faults, but it is by far a better system than any other we have at this point.

Oh, BTW, Marx was a philospoher, who dabbled in politics, of which Economics was a subset Social Science at the time. His ideas are *VERY* flawed, partly because he simply just doesn't understand human nature. Indeed, his whole system, if it were to succeed, would require humanity to completly supress its nature. Along with all the other flaws in his system, it's foolish to consider it anything but unworkable.

Originally posted by Maniac
We agree completely!!! Just not on the means to achieve this goal... But this is logical taking into consideration our different studies. We focus on different parts of what makes a society run.

Perhaps. Though it's be a logical fallacy to assume that somewhere between our two methods would be the best to reach that goal. I believe mine reaches it quicker and more efficiently, and can stay at that goal easier, because the people aren't being forced into it by law and regulation, but through their own self interests, the strongest determining factor behind any human's decisions.

Originally posted by Voltaire
I’ve heard so many of these Free Market vs. let’s all save Planet debates that it’s getting tedious. I will admit that I’m opposed to a free market economy, but not out of any desire to save the environment, rather because the social conditions brought about by a capitalist society are undesirable (i.e. uneven distribution of wealth, etc.). When it comes down to it this debate is people vs. Planet, and if the choice was given to myself, or to most of us here I would sincerely hope that we would chose people. Humanities survival, in my mind, takes precedence over preservation of Planets native environment.

How is uneven distribution of wealth undesirable? Uneven distribution of wealth is rather Eudamonic afterall. People are not made equal, and one cannot truly become equal to another through training. Uneven distribution of wealth rewards those who make the effort to improve themselves, and those who have those special talents we all look for. It also rewards their decendants. It might be a slow process to work your family up from the lowest social rank to the highest, but with determination and effort, given an equal mimimum chance to everyone else, it's possible within 1 generation.

[GeneralTacticus]

Just one point at which I must disagree with Archaic; uneven distribution of wealth IS a bad thing when those who possess the most wealth have not done anything to earn, if, e.g., they have acquired through corruption or other illegal activites.

[Archaic]

Actually, I agree with you there GT. I should've been more clear on that point in retrospect.

[Pandemoniak]

You really have to pollute every thread, you cant have all your endless and useless discussion in just one, and you want them all ?

[Archaic]

It's not as if it's an off topic discussion, unlike your post there.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
No indeed. I guess it's just a matter of what you find most important. Besides freedom, people and corporations also need stability, and sometimes need to be protected against themselves. To ensure this, you have to take away part of their freedom. For example, eco-taxes to disencourage production and consumption of environmentally damaging products, to make sure common people in their ignorance don't destroy their own environment. Or disallowing people to use drugs, not only for their own good, but also because they form a burden on the society as a whole, thus reducing the freedom of the rest of the society. In other words, to ensure an acceptable level of freedom for all, you sometimes need to do the apparent opposite and limit it.

I agree completely! We have to keep some goods illegal, or with heavy disincentives, to reduce their burden on society. And Tradable pollution permits give a Free Market way to reduce eco-damage, that allows the invisible hand to allocate values to pollution.

Originally posted by Maniac
Ah, there's the big cause of your beliefs. Do you never question or doubt what your teachers tell you??? At least I find it overobvious to tell the political beliefs of the professors and take certain things they say with a little scepsis... I presume, backed up by statistics , that most students and professors in the Economics department are of the rightwing economic side. Naturally then, in their courses they will tend to teach material which supports their own view of economics, and as a consequence the students, you for instance, get affected by those one-sided ideas as well... Just wondering, have you been asked to read Marx' "Das Kapital" or a book of Noreena Hertz? Not that I've read any of those myself, but hey, I'm not supposed to be an economics expert.

I have to agree with Archaic about Marx, he is a philosopher, that dabbled in economics, although Das Kapital is very coherant in it's economic arguements, especially for the time. Though his theories were against all human nature on old Earth, perhaps we are ready for them now? Has human nature evolved enough to make Marxism a feasable prospect? Even though, being a Libertarian, I am against this, you could have a Government that enforces co-operation (co-operation as opposed to every man for himself, meaning people do what is best for society rather than for the self) may create an ethos and environment that Marxism can thrive in, which will mean both as a whole, and each individual is better off. The end may justify the means, so to speak. If you want a more up to date model that doesn't require strong government interferenmce, try 'Small is Beautiful' by Schumacher. On a small scale, even on old Earth, successful companies, in a Free Market environment, managed to thrive and compete, while still giving more to society. It has been said before that it takes Smith's invisible hand and applies it to Marxist and co-operation theories.

However Archaic: there is often (in fact, in economics, almost always) much evidence for both sides. It is possible to find hard evidence, for example, both for and against the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement of old Earth. Moreover there are factual and statistical pros and cons for all sides in virtually every interest or tax rate decision. What I'm trying to say, is just because something is backed up with evidence, does not mean that it is correct, and vice versa. The fact you are taught something, and given evidence that it is correct, does not mean that it is. We are still taught in this country about dis-economies of scale, even though there is mounting evidence that with modern management techniques, they do not exist.

IMO, Noreena Hertz gives a very one sided view in most of her books I've read. She argues one side, and either tries to crush the other side with rebuttals (mostly very far fetched) or ignores it completely. I myself was convinced that Globalisation was the worst thing imaginable, until I read a few articles by the head of the World Bank at the time (can't remember his name) and realised there are many pros to it too.

Archaic: I could recommend reading 'Mutual Aid : A Factor of Evolution' by Peter Kropotkin. He is a libertarian, and uses Darwinism to argue for a lax Government and more freedom, but argues for leftist co-operation aswell. Or more on topic for a STEP thread, anything by George Monbiot, who is more anti-capiltalist and pro environment, but nethertheless has some interesting and (at least to my way of thinking) coherent economic ideas.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
Oh, BTW, Marx was a philospoher, who dabbled in politics, of which Economics was a subset Social Science at the time. His ideas are *VERY* flawed, partly because he simply just doesn't understand human nature. Indeed, his whole system, if it were to succeed, would require humanity to completly supress its nature. Along with all the other flaws in his system, it's foolish to consider it anything but unworkable.

I would normally agree with that, but many modern economists have successfully argued that it is possible to have a such a society whereby it is in the nature of the individual to act as a Marxist. Moreover, most people are not rational. Economic theory falls down because human nature decrees that people are rational in their desire for individual gain. As studies in the New Scientist and other journals have shown, people do not act rationally when it comes to economics. Sometimes to the extent that people do actions that not only reduce their personal gain, but also the gain on society, because it gives other people (even peopel they have never met) more.

Originally posted by Archaic
Perhaps. Though it's be a logical fallacy to assume that somewhere between our two methods would be the best to reach that goal. I believe mine reaches it quicker and more efficiently, and can stay at that goal easier, because the people aren't being forced into it by law and regulation, but through their own self interests, the strongest determining factor behind any human's decisions.

Why not, sometimes the compromise works better than either option. Their self interests, though are good for society, are by no means the best thing. This has been shown by Game Theorists since John Nash and Von Neumann in the early 20th Century.

Originally posted by Archaic
It's not as if it's an off topic discussion, unlike your post there.

Actually, since it is an argument not based in SMAC at all anymore (or so it seems) and since it is in a STEP party thread, an argument about non-ecological issues between two non-STEP members is off topic. However, since some good ideas have come out, there is no reason IMHO to stop it, even though Pande is perfectly entitled to voice his opinion, which I would have thought a Libertarian would agree with. Even though you disagree with him, I would not have thought you would deny his right to voice his opinion?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Archaic
How is uneven distribution of wealth undesirable? Uneven distribution of wealth is rather Eudamonic afterall. People are not made equal, and one cannot truly become equal to another through training. Uneven distribution of wealth rewards those who make the effort to improve themselves, and those who have those special talents we all look for. It also rewards their decendants. It might be a slow process to work your family up from the lowest social rank to the highest, but with determination and effort, given an equal mimimum chance to everyone else, it's possible within 1 generation.

This would all be true if you were speaking of a meritocratic system, but we do not have a meritocracy, and capitalism is not a meritocracy. Merit as defined by meritocracy is essentially IQ+effort; if we were to adopt such a system it would be research scientists who should be wealthiest in society given that they through their research better society as a whole. Uneven distribution of wealth is not a bad thing, on the contrary I agree with you complete in this regard, we need a means of rewarding those who better themselves and contribute to society, but capitalism is not the means by which this can be achieved. In the case of capitalism you have extremes in the distribution of wealth where a few elite (who more often than not inherited their wealth rather than worked for it themselves) control the majority of the money, while the general public is left with relatively little under their control.

People are not made equal, does this also mean that they are not entitled to some basic standard of living as all those around them. Those who are unwilling to work, but are able to, deserve nothing from society; and capitalism does indeed more often than not work this way (with the exception of those who have inherited their wealth). Those who are unable to work should receive support from society, and last I recall this is not the case in a capitalist system where if one cannot work (and is not fortunate enough to have been born rich) they receive nothing. We need at least some level of basic welfare to provide for people, and then reward those who wish to move up the social scale with a greater standard of living.

Are the descendants of those who become rich deserving of this wealth a few generations down the line? For someone to posses wealth which was not earned goes against meritocracy, which you seem to claim capitalism to be.

So it is possible to work up the social latter and bring ones family to the top of it; fine capitalism does allow for this, but once a ruling elite has been established and all the room at the top taken it becomes more and more difficult with each passing generation to achieve the same level of wealth as the upper echelons of society. Wealth should be determined not by so called right of birth, but by the individuals own effort, for there are many who have been born into wealth that are undeserving of it (or if not undeserving of it, there are other who are more deserving of the wealth).

[Kirov]

I'd like to add my two cents

1) If marxist ideology is flawed, it's certainly not because Marx didn't understand human nature. In fact, his insight in social process is appreciated and continued by many sociologists to this day not because of his political views. Theory of conflict, a sociological paradigm assuming that there's a constant struggle between higher and lower classes, is still one of the most important paradigms in sociology (opposted mainly by functionalism, saying that everything goes smooth and by the numbers in the modern societies). Marxism is indeed somewhat flawed, esp in methodology field (trying to explain everything by economic terms), but one cannot overestimate the impact of marxism on modern sociology.

2) IIRC, Theory of Games has proved 'Invisible Hand of Market' to be a sheer lie. In general, when everyone tries to optimize their benefits, everyone loses. That situation is called 'social trap'. To avoid social traps is almost impossible without state interference.

I don't like to join the 'FM vs. Planned' discussion, I'm just willing to talk about politics and sociology. I don't want to offense anybody or attacking them personally. It's just interesting to observe your debate and sometimes I can't refrain from saying sth.


I'm too weak at English to write sophisticated posts correctly, please forgive me that and don't hesitate to point out all of my mistakes, I will do my best to make my posts clear and understandable.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kirov
I'd like to add my two cents

1) If marxist ideology is flawed, it's certainly not because Marx didn't understand human nature. In fact, his insight in social process is appreciated and continued by many sociologists to this day not because of his political views. Theory of conflict, a sociological paradigm assuming that there's a constant struggle between higher and lower classes, is still one of the most important paradigms in sociology (opposted mainly by functionalism, saying that everything goes smooth and by the numbers in the modern societies). Marxism is indeed somewhat flawed, esp in methodology field (trying to explain everything by economic terms), but one cannot overestimate the impact of marxism on modern sociology.

Very true (and much better put than mine ) Marx was very eminent sociologist however still think, though he had much impact, human nature is such that Marxism would not flourish on Old Earth. Human nature was the reason, IMHO, that it would not have flourished at the end of the 20th Century.

Originally posted by Kirov
2) IIRC, Theory of Games has proved 'Invisible Hand of Market' to be a sheer lie. In general, when everyone tries to increase their benefits, everyone loses. That situation is called 'social trap'. To avoid social traps is almost impossible without state interference.

Actually not quite. I thought that when i discovered the prisoners dilemma, but there are ways of overcoming it. And everyone doesn't necessarily lose, but everyone could do better off if they co-operate. There is also a theory about Free Market co-operation, using the invisible hand and game theory. If true, it could do wonders, but so far little progress has (to my knowledge) been made.

Originally posted by Kirov
I don't like to join the 'FM vs. Planned' discussion, I'm just willing to talk about politics and sociology. I don't want to offense anybody or attacking them personally. It's just interesting to observe your debate and sometimes I can't refrain from saying sth.

Do not worry, you won't offend anyone (at least not me) by whatever views you have. Your input is very much appriciated.

Originally posted by Kirov
I'm too weak at English to write sophisticated posts correctly, please forgive me that and don't hesitate to point out all of my mistakes, I will do my best to make my posts clear and understandable.

I can understand how hard it is to argue in another language, I tried (and failed miserably) while I stayed in Germany. IMO your english is fine, I've seen much worse form native speakers.