Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
As I mentioned before, I'm using the term "socialist economy" to refer to one in which all industry is nationalized (everyone is employed by the government).

Even in such a situation, you don't have to force people manu militari to take a job. Just like any capitalist or employee-owned company, the state-owned company can simply offer jobs, and see who wants it. There is no reason the recruitment in the Uber-State-Monopoly is different than the recruitment in any currently existing State-owned company or administrative staff.

[Kuciwalker]

I know - I'm pointing out that this situation is essentially capitalism with a government-mandated monopoly on all industries. The problem with that is that it's inefficient yet in the end has the same results - because the market forces still exist.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
I know - I'm pointing out that this situation is essentially capitalism with a government-mandated monopoly on all industries.

Except that the profits don't go to the pockets of a select few, and either serve 1) the State (and hopefully thus the general interest) or 2) the employees.

The problem with that is that it's inefficient yet in the end has the same results - because the market forces still exist.

The end result is not the same in terms of power, decision making, and hence in terms of the whole outcome. You're on par with a speech saying democracy and monarchy are the same, although democracy is more inefficient, because human nature hasn't changed.

Besides, don't overestimate the market forces. They do exist, and there will always be a moment when someone will fathom he can get more money because what he offers is rare.
However, they are not mechanical as the economists want you to believe, and they're only a part of the many elements affecting a person's economic behaviour. To reduce the economy to market forces is to fall in the simplistic schemes of economic "science"

[Kuciwalker]

If the laws of supply and demand are in effect, the end result - in terms of wages and prices for various jobs and commodities - will be the same because supply and demand is ultimately what determines those thing! Unless, of course, the majority decides to freeze prices and/or wages, which is really only going to remove the freedom of the consumer to buy what they want.

EDIT: bedtime. school starts tomorrow

[monkspider]

What makes you think that socialists want anything to be nationalized?

[GePap]

On supply and demand- was there a demand for DVD's before DVD's were made?

And advanced Capitalist economy must create new demands from the public in order to feed an even increasing production- the modern economy can only function with endless demand. If some point were reached when everyone said "you know, I have every single convinicence and gadget and labor-saving device I need in life, and I am happy and content" then the modern economy would collapse, unless everything was made to be disposable so everone had to replace their possessions regularly.

In essesnce, the modern eocnomy must create endless desire in order to thrive. From a Buddhist prospective, only suffering makes the modern economy tick ever upward.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, he just figured out how to create a society that would abolish poverty.

No, he just figured out how to create a society that would abolish wealth.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Socialism is about making an economic system in which the property of production means belongs to the workers rather than to an owner caste.

It has strongly to do with the distribution of power rather than rich-poor concerns. However, an obvious consequence is that the riches are much more evely distributed.

I see now that socialism is redefining itself from state ownership to actual worker ownership.

Spiffor, I assume that worker-owned businesses means just that. If a business goes belly-up, the assets are sold and the proceed distributed to the workers.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

And about Ford conforming to regulations: well, wasn't my point "they need regulations to do it, or else they won't"?
It's funny, everytime I talk to someone with business experience about a Corporation's will to profit, they tell me, "no, that's not true". Strangely enough, they all drive BMWs and live in large mansions, and talk about how the unions are being detrimental to their profit. Bizarre.

Nothing bizarre : I did not say that unions were detrimental to the companies profit. during my 5 years at Ford, the company worked extremely hard to make profits, and not always succeed (as during the last 35 years, they posted losses for one third of the years) although there was no asian competition. As for the BMW, I had the loyalty to drive a Ford car (Capri 2600 RS ), company paid .

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The rich are way undertaxed in France!

Switzerland was created to provide a fiscal shelter to the undertaxed French rich.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Socialism is about making an economic system in which the property of production means belongs to the workers rather than to an owner caste.

It has strongly to do with the distribution of power rather than rich-poor concerns. However, an obvious consequence is that the riches are much more evely distributed.

The failure of coops and mutuals raises questions that you left unanswered.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Why not? In every modern democracy, the whole population is assumed to be sovereign. I fail to see why it couldn't work in a company

The companiy is the realm of efficiency, and the hierarchical organization is the only way to get an efficient system. Would you say that a democratic army should not be hierarchically organized ?

[DAVOUT]

The thesis that a selected few plunder the companies and through exploitation of the workers ripe all the profits, is in total contradiction with the last corporate scandals.

The selected few find now so difficult to exploit the workers that they have moved to stoling other capitalists in cheating in their accounts.

Which is still worse ....

These guys have really no principles

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Becuase, as Marx wrote, capitalism is the most productive economic system (do you read posts?).

Hmm...restraining nastiness was not on your list of personal improvements for the new year? I read the post I was responding to, I didn't know I was required to read every post in the thread before responding to the one I decided to address. Care to point it out?

The point of communism is NOT to make countries rich, and in fact, according to Marx (but not Lenin and Mao) it can only come into being after the full development of the capitalist system.

You mean once capitalism creates a rich country for communism to impoverish?

Which is why I asked if you or any of the anti-communist have any arguements against Marx as opposed to Marx modified by Lenin and Mao and others who added a political component beyond Marx's.

The fact he needs a rich country to experiment on says alot right there. If his ideas were so good, they should apply to poor countries as well... But if wealth is not the goal of Marxism, what is the goal? "Equality"? Equal poverty?

Oncle Boris -

Who said I, or Agathon, or GePap, is communist?. Referencing Marx does not make me communist.

Why do you quote my response to Agathon and draw a conclusion about my perception of you? Check Agathon's avatar and the accompanying words, he's a communist and proudly displays the proof.

What you've got to understand, Berzerker

What you've got to understand, O Boris, is how condescending it is for you to repeatedly start off one of your...ahem... arguments with references to how I (or fill in the blank) just don't understand the subject matter and need you for enlightenment.

is that the Corporation is the epithome of oligarchy. As legal entities, they survive humans.

Yes, a business is managed by a few, it isn't a democracy. So what? Do you believe it wise for an intelligent few - intelligent about how businesses should be run - to take a back seat to those who are ignorant? There's a reason businesses are generally more efficient that democratically elected governments and imagine how a war would go if soldiers had to vote on what to attack and when.

Corporations are mini-states whose power is growing, and those of the financial elite are inheriting their control from father to son just like a monarch would.

That rarely happens, if the son is unqualified most business owners hand the reigns to the qualifed.

Yes, there are those exceptional cases of poor persons rising in social class because of talent and valor. But yet upgrading your social class involves the necessary separation between the elite and the masses- and thus the idea that becoming part of the oligarchs is hard or impossible for most.

Again, so what? I don't want to be ruled over by an oligarch or the majority and that is Bastiat's position. You seem intent on picking your overlords rather than limiting their power. That's what this debate is all about, I prefer greater freedom and you want more dictators sharing power.

I'm skipping over the middle of your post since you're in the habit of going off subject and I'm not interested in replying to whatever pops out of your head and onto the keyboard.

Since you have problems with my thesis , let's put it straight.

God that sounds familiar, brb, I have to make sure I haven't already addressed this one. Okay, nope. This is a new one, I thought you already put your thesis "straight". Oh well...

1.The right to found a business is not economic freedom; it is only a legal mean to enforce it (which in its current state is being abused).

I believe in "natural" rights, i.e., you have the moral authority to act by virtue of "gifts" given to you by creation and that these rights are shared by everyone. If the only rights we have exist by virtue of our fellow man agreeing to respect them, then the rights we expect to have can be taken away "legally". This puts you in the position of explaining why the Nazis should be condemned since their victims had no rights under the law.

2. Economic freedom is part of everyone's dignity. Benefitting from your work is sufficient for it to be achieved.

Achieved? You mean dignity? People don't need to work to have dignity, but if you're right, then reducing this benefit of working via taxes reduces dignity, true? And conversely, if everyone was paid equal to their contribution to production, i.e., there was no profit, there would be no expansion of the economic pie. How does a business buy new machinery or land if there is no profit?

There needs to be some restriction on the extent by which you can benefit someone else's work, i.e. how ownership of the means of distribution and their rampant proliferation under corporate law gives undue power to the oligarchy behind it.

Why do you deny being a socialist? Nevermind... Why does there need to be a restriction imposed by you? I don't want your restriction imposed on me, that diminishes my dignity. Treating people like children has that effect...

3. (Know this tale of the king who had two sons when he died? He asked one of them to separate his heritage in two parts, and the the other son would choose which one he gets. So the son decided one would have the political power, while the other would hold the treasury. The eldest took the 'power', so the younger took the money. Guess which one overtook the other in the end?)

The one with the power? "Now that I have the power, I want the money"! "Thanks, you may live now".

Morale: because of the money and the power involved, economic freedom is probably the part of human dignity that can the most easily gobble up the others and enslave them. As in: want to paint? Buy your stuff! Want to eat? Buy your food! A Corporation is what truly holds the means of production; and its goal, in fact, is to generate profit- which has nothing to do with dignity (even economic freedom). Profit is neverending in its nature, and overwhelmingly absurd; dignity is fairly descriptible and more possibly attainable. Human dignity should be and end in itself, while the capitalist logic is denying it to make everyone a tool of a single, inalienable goal (which serves the oligarchy).
That is immoral.

Profit is overwhelmingly absurd? Just how do you think businesses expand? According to Gepap, communism's goal (according to Marx) is not wealth. Sorry, we have real world examples to look at and capitalism has proven itself better than Marxism, not that I really care, I'm a capitalist because I believe in freedom and all this talk about socialistic freedom is a pipe dream. Socialist states only grow more bureaucratic, more rules, more regulations, higher taxes, and less freedom... That too is what history teaches us and we need only look at the USA which went from a capitalist country to a mixed economy on so many levels... Btw, your thesis changed.

In Canada, it took a Supreme Court ruling to determine that certain contracts, when they are blatantly violating one's fundamental rights, can be denied by the Court. I heartily agree with this.

So? You're citing a law as justification for that law. That's like saying slavery should be legal if the Supreme Court says it should be legal.

About the exploited workers, put it the other way: is it acceptable to accept a contract which denies one's freedom? Think Immanuel Kant here.
And about the strip clubs: I have nothing against them. I think using your body as you see fit is part of freedom, as long as no one is forcing you to.

It's impossible to make a contract that denies you your freedom unless you include contracts to do something at a specific time like show up for work regardless of who the employer is - the state or McDonalds. But you had the freedom to make or reject that contract so I don't consider that a deprivation of freedom. If I decide not to go skydiving, that is not a deprivation of my freedom because I made the choice. Now, why do you see strip clubs as a matter of freedom when you've argued that we don't own our bodies? If we don't own them, which is what you claim, then we can't do as we please with them. Furthermore, if "it's my body" then why can't I rent it out at the price I'm willing to accept regardless of what I use my body for, laboring at McDonalds or the stripper at a bar? Btw, would the state own strip clubs?

Mazarin -

Every human being has basic rights that he cannot be deprived of, even if he decides to sell them

Who says so? Where did these rights come from? Is life one of these rights? If so, I can't kill myself?

contracts where somebody sells himself into slavery/ where he sells his organs are violating these rights and are therefore void.

You mean I can donate an organ but not sell it? Or I can't donate it either? Tell me where in the definition of freedom it says you cannot take your own life... And why can't I sell myself into slavery?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
Using the liberal standards that many of the posters here seem to have...

Good:

- Jesus (a cool dude)
- Friedrich Nietzsche (because I can spell his name)
- Robert A. Wilson
- Malaclypse the Elder

Bad:

- Jesus (I kinda dislike that whole dying-for-your-sins business)
- Kant
- Ron L... OK, yeah, this is a given and he's not a philosopher anyway.

I can´t believe that someone manages to bring Kant and Ron L Hubbard into the same category. What´s so bad with Kant?