Doesn't the service industry preclude communist revolt?

[Velociryx]

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=-

[Velociryx]

GePap: Counter-arguments and excuses. Yes, the left is good with those.

"Well, but after a century and countless attempts we KNOW we'll get it right next time!"

"But those guys weren't REALLY communist."

"Space bots on the moon!"

Yeah, fantastic counter arguments amounting to little more than smoke and mirrors.

If I seem to keep repeating myself, it's because I'm aruging from the vantage point of the system that's in place right now and working like gangbusters.

Want proof? Read the news.

Want proof that the big red pony will ride again? Good luck finding a shred of it.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
If you do that then you have basically abandoned the traditional conception of rights. Rights are inalienable. If they can be trumped by utilitarian considerations then what has happened is that we haven't really specified the right claim properly.

You're a ****ing ******, you know that?

Just because criminals can't vote, doesn't mean there is no right to vote. Rights do not have to be inalienable in order to exist.

Then the claim that we have rights as long as utilitarian considerations allow them becomes not much different from saying that "we have markets as long as utilitarian considerations allow them" or "we have child welfare agencies as long as utilitarian considerations allow them". In other words, it's plain old utilitarianism.

No, it ISN'T! The system is NOT designed on the greatest happiness principle! Rather, only in cases of GREAT utility can you be justified in overriding a right. If there would only be a small utility in doing so, you can't.

[GePap]

Vel, I will not deal with you anymore on this issue, becuase you don't listen or add anything new to the discussion.

If you care to sit smmugly and quietly to the side, you help everyone out-you get to think you are right, and you don't use up space in an arguement you do not seem capable of joining in good faith or with an open mind.

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.

Capitalism is more than the right to make contracts. Contracts were around in the Mercatalist system, and given what you said about rights, the fact many people were simply not given the freedom to inntiate contracts in no may takes away fro the fact that contracts existed and were enforced.

[Velociryx]

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=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
Vel, I will not deal with you anymore on this issue, becuase you don't listen or add anything new to the discussion.

If you care to sit smmugly and quietly to the side, you help everyone out-you get to think you are right, and you don't use up space in an arguement you do not seem capable of joining in good faith or with an open mind..

Nicely summed up, G.

He can't hold his own in an argument, so he resorts to sniping.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

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.


-=Vel=-

All the proof I need to show you are NOT in any way open minded on the issue-and hence, debating with you on this issue is useless, since debate can only happen when someone is willing to question their own premises.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich

You're a ****ing ******, you know that?

Just because criminals can't vote, doesn't mean there is no right to vote. Rights do not have to be inalienable in order to exist.

They do if you believe in natural rights. The whole appeal of rights based theories is that the rights are inalienable.

No, it ISN'T! The system is NOT designed on the greatest happiness principle! Rather, only in cases of GREAT utility can you be justified in overriding a right. If there would only be a small utility in doing so, you can't.

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?).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap

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.

Capitalism is more than the right to make contracts. Contracts were around in the Mercatalist system, and given what you said about rights, the fact many people were simply not given the freedom to inntiate contracts in no may takes away fro the fact that contracts existed and were enforced.

There's a point at which you can say the right does not exist. Limited, minimalist restrictions do not mean the right does not exist, but if you go far beyond that it does.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
There's a point at which you can say the right does not exist. Limited, minimalist restrictions do not mean the right does not exist, but if you go far beyond that it does.

Would you claim that the US was not a democracy until restrictions for voters based on landonerships were removed? What about handing suffrage to non-white males? What about suffrage to women?

In 1600 any landowning male could make a contract and the courts would enforce it.

[GePap]

I wouls add that even today the authorities can ban contract to do business with some state, like they did in the mercantalist system.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Would you claim that the US was not a democracy until restrictions for voters based on landonerships were removed? What about handing suffrage to non-white males? What about suffrage to women?

Yup. The US was non-democratic then. It was close to democracy, but not there. It was more democratic than any of the monarchies in Europe, but not a democracy.

In 1600 any landowning male could make a contract and the courts would enforce it.

Thus showing them more capitalist than, say, the Soviet Union, but not capitalist.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
I wouls add that even today the authorities can ban contract to do business with some state, like they did in the mercantalist system.

Which happens to have nothing to do with capitalism, because clearly these freedoms are meaningless outside of the system being claimed as capitalist.