My name is Lib, and I'm new here

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I don't know what you're getting at...

You blamed "capitalism" for wealth disparities, I merely pointed out that genetics are the cause of wealth disparities. Use your genetic advantage and build a better mousetrap and sell more than your competition. Capitalism is only a vehicle for the manifestation of genetic disparities...

Huh? Wealthy producers do use state power to steal without risk - legally (trade barriers, corporate welfare, etc.).

I didn't mean the wealthy have never used the state to steal (glad you recognise that stealing thru the state is still stealing), certainly there were instances of this in early US history. I meant that state authority grew rapidly when the masses began using the state to steal. Government was still quite small even when stealing for some of the wealthy. And as the state has grown, the theft has exploded with even the wealthy cashing in far more than when the state was smaller.

I'm not "confused about the meaning" of anything. Please re-read what I wrote.

You equated "capitalism" with the abuse of state power to call libertarian capitalism a contradiction. Since when does libertarian capitalism - the marketplace - require or allow for the "abuse of state power"? The whole point of a libertarian system is to enforce contracts and deter non-contracts - theft and fraud.

Wealth disparities lead to a more powerful powerful state

Why?

not capitalism itself.

I agree it's not capitalism that results in a bigger state, but that something else is the driving force - it's called envy. You may call it poverty (the wealthy can also be envious, however, your focus is on poverty), but the reality is that a poor, envious person will likely call upon the state to give them money forcibly taken from others. I was once very poor, even homeless, yet I never called upon the state to give me money taken from others - I was impoverished, not envious.

It was wealth disparities that lead to increase of government power in the US. We saw tariffs, handouts to big business and speculators, institutionalization of monpolies and other institutions that undermine competition, strike breaking, and uncountable other kinds of government supported theft in favor of the rich before the so-called "socialist movement."

These aren't "wealth disparities", they are abuses of state power. I said it was the Civil War (era) that led to government's first massive increase in power. And the socialist movement began in the late 19th century with much of it's agenda enacted into law within 4 to 5 decades. First you blamed capitalism - the marketplace - then you blamed "wealth disparities" and offer up as your proof abuses of state power, not wealth disparities. The state has grown enormously in leaps with periods of relative stasis in between; the first leap was the Civil War followed by a small rollback of the state (in certain areas) by restraining the state power that allowed the abuses. This is when the socialist movement started to kick in using these abuses as a catalyst. These leaps occured under Lincoln and the Republican Civil War Congress, Teddy Roosevelt, alcohol prohibition, FDR, and LBJ. At that point, the state began increasing steadily...

1. I've already explicitly said that in this thread (see my comments about the New Deal and the Great Society).

Then why blame "capitalism" when it was the non-rich - the New Deal and the Great Society - who abused government thereby increasing it's reach far beyond anything in the past?

2. I need not "admit" any such thing.

Your two points contradict each other. You say the poor and the government programs designed to help them was responsible for the massive increase in government but refuse to admit it was not the rich who were responsible.

Government supported theft isn't only one way.

Never said otherwise. But the state remained small when only a relative few were using it for that purpose; it exploded when virtually everyone tried to get their hands in the cookie jar. Do we agree with that? If so, it wasn't the wealthy who grew government so fast and so large.

And before the modern era, there were few instances of the poor abusing state power

EXACTLY! But not just the poor, but the mid-range classes as well. It was the "modern" era when government took off. Government remained quite small back when only a few wealthy people were using it to fatten their wallets. Government grew enormously and did so quickly when the masses saw it as a ticket to enrich themselves at the expense of others. But it wasn't "capitalism", it was the envy of the have nots (or not enoughs).

Parts of early US, for instance, made a transition between tyranny to liberty

But that was a new, non-socialist government just starting out! I asked if there was an example of a socialist government "withering away".

Counter examples exist everywhere. Feudal systems, for instance, have large amounts of farmers, yet have huge wealth disparities.

But we were discussing the USA and it's small government. Those feudal systems also had small governments, albeit extremely unjust ones.

On the other hand, industrialized Barcelona had essentially no government before the communists crushed the revolution.

I know nothing about Barcelona (sources?). But if it was a crushed revolution, it was a very new system. This can hardly compare with the decades of socialist governments that we can look to as examples of the state growing or declining. Was it even a socialist system?

Nonetheless, I was merely pointing out the coorelation between an egalitarian economy and lack of government, which is very strong throughout history.

I thought you were claiming socialism was the way to get to a minimal state? The only egalitarian system you've pointed to (aside from Barcelona?) is the early N USA, and that was a system based on capitalism - the marketplace and the freedom inherent to the marketplace, a system that had wealthy poeple too. I hope you realize that...

Absolutely - the state bureaucrats.

C'mon! Red China and Stalinist Russia were not plagued by rich people. The money a bureaucrat made compared to the regular Joe was much, much closer than the wealth disparities that can be produced under capitalism.

A situation where the state owns everything is about as far from a socialist system that you can get.

Ever hear of libertarianism? I thought socialism is a system in which "the people"
own everything - the state is just the people's machine for "distributing" the wealth in a supposedly "egalitarian" division.

Although I do support land reform in certain semi-feudal places in the third-world, I advocate voluntary, non-coercive actions.

Then you're a libertarian, hate to break that bad news It is not a contradiction for a libertarian to join a worker's "co-op" when the association is voluntary.

Yep.

Why? When even the wealthy (some obviously) are using government to add even further to their wealth and power, why would they, and the less wealthy and powerful, cease using government for the purpose of gaining wealth and power?

Huh? What are you trying to say?

You are claiming people will stop trying to use government to gain wealth and power at the expense of others if everyone makes roughly the same amount of money. If this is true, why are people who are already wealthy and powerful using government to get more at the expense of others?

Nope (except in certain third-world situations). That's where the socialism comes in. Workers need to buy up their businesses

And what if you guys buy up your business and I start a new business to compete with yours and I put you out of business with a better product or better services, etc? And what if I, the owner of a business, don't want to sell it to my employees (assuming they could but it)?

But it's not. The state was ejected out of Catalonia, for instance

The fact a tyrannical government can be tossed out and replaced with a small government for a couple years is not proof of a socialist government withering away. I'd consider a socialist government remaining small after a few decades as sufficient proof. So far, all we have are socialist governments that have been around that long remaining large or getting even larger. Were Barcelona and Catalonia "socialist" systems? Did the workers buy the businesses from their owners or did they use other "means" to acquire them?

[Ramo]

You blamed "capitalism" for wealth disparities, I merely pointed out that genetics are the cause of wealth disparities. Use your genetic advantage and build a better mousetrap and sell more than your competition. Capitalism is only a vehicle for the manifestation of genetic disparities...

No, wealth is manifested in the conditions of the market, not genetic advantage.

I meant that state authority grew rapidly when the masses began using the state to steal. Government was still quite small even when stealing for some of the wealthy.

Absolutely not. Feudal governments, for example, were much larger than current quasi-mercantilist governments, albeit more de-centralized.

You equated "capitalism" with the abuse of state power

No, I was saying that capitalism leads to wealth disparities, which leads to increases in state power. I've never tried to equate these concepts.

Why?

Because with wealth disparities, the rich use the state to maintain or increase the disparity and/or the poor use the state to demand redress.

the wealthy can also be envious, however, your focus is on poverty

My focus was on poverty? I would say yours is: "I meant that state authority grew rapidly when the masses began using the state to steal. Government was still quite small even when stealing for some of the wealthy. "

These aren't "wealth disparities", they are abuses of state power.

Again, I'm not equating the two concepts. I'm saying one leads to another. These were examples of ways in which the wealthy took advantage of the disparity.

Then why blame "capitalism" when it was the non-rich - the New Deal and the Great Society - who abused government thereby increasing it's reach far beyond anything in the past?

Because capitalism creates very wealthy people, as well as very poor, people.

You say the poor and the government programs designed to help them was responsible for the massive increase in government but refuse to admit it was not the rich who were responsible.

I'm saying that both the rich and the poor were responsible. Not one or the other. No contradiction.

But the state remained small when only a relative few were using it for that purpose

That's absurd. Slavery, for instance, wasn't indicative of a "small" government. A minor fraction of whites used the state to steal the life and liberty of millions of blacks.

Those feudal systems also had small governments, albeit extremely unjust ones.

That is not true. Feudalism was as much of a tyranny as the worst of Stalinism, but only more of a localized tyranny.

But that was a new, non-socialist government just starting out! I asked if there was an example of a socialist government "withering away".

What do you mean by "withering away?" A socialist state where the state, insted of the workers, own and control the means of production is an contradiction.

And if I believed that statism could lead to socialism, I would be a communist, not an anarchist.

I know nothing about Barcelona (sources?).

I would recommend Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell.

This can hardly compare with the decades of socialist governments that we can look to as examples of the state growing or declining.

What "decades of socialist governments?"

Was it even a socialist system?

Of course.

The only egalitarian system you've pointed to (aside from Barcelona?) is the early N USA

I also pointed to hunter-gatherer communities in this thread. Other examples include Midieval Iceland to a certain extent and the Paris Commune.

early N USA, and that was a system based on capitalism - the marketplace and the freedom inherent to the marketplace, a system that had wealthy poeple too. I hope you realize that...

The people also owned and controlled the means of production. That is what makes an economy socialist, not big brother looking over it.

C'mon! Red China and Stalinist Russia were not plagued by rich people. The money a bureaucrat made compared to the regular Joe was much, much closer than the wealth disparities that can be produced under capitalism.

But the state controlled everything, and the workers nothing. It wasn't socialist by any means (unless you use a bastardized definition of socialism ).

I thought socialism is a system in which "the people"
own everything - the state is just the people's machine for "distributing" the wealth in a supposedly "egalitarian" division.

Nope. That would be "social democracy" or "communism."

Then you're a libertarian, hate to break that bad news

Yes, if you use the definition of libertarianism accepted by the rest of the world. It's only in the US that libertarian capitalists are called libertarian (and calling myself libertarian would imply I'm a capitalist). Anarchism is much more of an apt description than American libertarianism for me.

Why? When even the wealthy (some obviously) are using government to add even further to their wealth and power, why would they, and the less wealthy and powerful, cease using government for the purpose of gaining wealth and power?

Because sharp political advantages likely wouldn't exist under a roughly egalitarian economy.

If everyone wants to cede their liberty, no the state won't be libertarian. A socialist state, like socialist economy, requires the consent of the people.

If this is true, why are people who are already wealthy and powerful using government to get more at the expense of others?

Because they are powerful and wealthy.

And what if I, the owner of a business, don't want to sell it to my employees (assuming they could but it)?

Then, more power to you. I'm not going to coerce you into selling your business.

The fact a tyrannical government can be tossed out and replaced with a small government for a couple years is not proof of a socialist government withering away.

Addressed above.

I'd consider a socialist government remaining small after a few decades as sufficient proof.

No such luck. Tyrants always have eventually crushed socialist revolutions.

So far, all we have are socialist governments that have been around that long remaining large or getting even larger.

Like what? Mind you, for the reasons stated above, the PRC, USSR, etc. weren't socialist governments.

Were Barcelona and Catalonia "socialist" systems? Did the workers buy the businesses from their owners or did they use other "means" to acquire them?

1. Barcelona is the administrative and industrial capitol of Catalonia (during the revolution, it was the industrial capitol of Spain, as well).
2. Yes, there was some coercion, but I don't find that too unacceptable in a feudal situation like much of Spain.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If the man who invented the "quote" feature is still alive I'd like to put a price on his head.

[TCO]

Bugs, there was a very blithe comment by a smart guy in the Civ3 forums regarding the quotes. he said he didn't like talking to people who cut and paste and address the points one by one. He foloowed that up with 2-3 very well written paragraphs that gave his point in the discussion and also moved the discussion to a higher level.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's a shame no bugger paid any attention to him, isn't it?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
It's a shame no bugger paid any attention to him, isn't it?

Yeah...well...he got some kudos. But the riffraff kept on with their normal practice.

[Solly]

Originally posted by GP


Yeah...well...he got some kudos. But the riffraff kept on with their normal practice.

Great subtlety.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Infatuation


Great subtlety.

Hello, fellow shark...

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

No, wealth is manifested in the conditions of the market, not genetic advantage.

But genetic advantage is the primary factor in how a person produces wealth. You won't see too many "dummies" producing wealth through the marketplace.

Absolutely not. Feudal governments, for example, were much larger than current quasi-mercantilist governments, albeit more de-centralized

Would you like to compare the legal code of a "feudal" government from the past with the current US legal code?

No, I was saying that capitalism leads to wealth disparities, which leads to increases in state power. I've never tried to equate these concepts

I didn't say you equated capitalism with wealth disparities, I said you equated capitalism with abuses of state power when claiming libertarianism capitalism is a contradiction.

Because with wealth disparities, the rich use the state to maintain or increase the disparity and/or the poor use the state to demand redress.

First, this "redress" is a rollback of the state which is being used by the rich, not an increase in the state. It is not an increase in government to demand it stop imposing tariffs, regulations, and handouts to favor some at the expense of others. Furthermore, capitalism is not about using the state to play favorites. You'll have to be specific about what you mean by "maintain or increase the disparity" because before you were complaining about the wealthy using the state to limit or eliminate competition and gain advantages not afforded competitors - tariffs and handouts (and we can add to those a variety of other ploys used by some big businesses to get the upper hand). As for these "wealth disparities" leading to an increase in government control, aren't you really saying the envy of the have nots has led to this increase in government? If I am a poor person who believes in freedom and could care less if you earn 20 times what I earn, why would I ask for government to increase it's authority over our live's just to give me some of what you have? In other words, the "wealth disparity" between what we earn didn't cause me to ask for an increase in government, envy and a desire to "legally" steal your money without risk is the cause.
You keep speaking of these wealth disparities as the cause when the cause is a desire to get money taken from others.

My focus was on poverty?

Yes, your position is that the poor are angry that the rich have alot of money, so they ask government to "re-distribute" (as if it fell from the sky and was "distributed" in the first place by an evil entity) wealth - hence, wealth disparities causing the growth of government.

I would say yours is: "I meant that state authority grew rapidly when the masses began using the state to steal. Government was still quite small even when stealing for some of the wealthy. "

I'm just responding to your arguments so it's a bit amusing for you to claim I'm the one who introduced the poor as a cause of government growth. You said the New Deal and Great Society were examples of wealth disparities leading to the growth of government. These were programs to increase wealth among the less wealthy/poor. I thought your whole point was that the poor not having enough was the cause for increased government.

Again, I'm not equating the two concepts. I'm saying one leads to another. These were examples of ways in which the wealthy took advantage of the disparity

Claiming cause and effect is equating the two. Neither capitalism or libertarian capitalism (no difference in my mind) caused the growth of government or abuses of state power. A desire of some using the marketplace to gain advantages over consumers and competitors along with a desire of have nots to "legally" take from others are causes of increased government.

Because capitalism creates very wealthy people, as well as very poor, people

And the existence of rich and poor caused government to grow so fast and large? Or was it the desire of some rich and poor people to use state power to get what they wanted from others without the risk of stealing it themselves? This growth occured the most when the masses started using government to "reduce" wealth disparities. I doubt you will agree, but your position seems to require punishing rich people regardless of whether or not they are using government to steal because there are poorer people who want to use government to steal. Is your solution to these poorer people growing government to lessen wealth disparities - legalised stealing - to dis-allow people from getting rich?

I'm saying that both the rich and the poor were responsible. Not one or the other. No contradiction

Then why bother pointing to the New Deal and the Great Society as leaps in the size of government? When only a relative handful of the rich were using government to steal, goverment was able to remain quite small. It wasn't until the number of people trying to mimic that behavior grew large that government grew accordingly.

That's absurd. Slavery, for instance, wasn't indicative of a "small" government. A minor fraction of whites used the state to steal the life and liberty of millions of blacks.

You're forgetting the context of this discussion. We were talking about the "egalitarian" north where slavery was virtually non-existent or abolished. And you're still wrong anyway, slaveholders had there own policing mechanisms for restraining slaves. Government (and I'm talking federal, sheesh) had very little to do with slavery even after Dred Scott. You're welcome to try and refute my point again with a valid argument

That is not true. Feudalism was as much of a tyranny as the worst of Stalinism, but only more of a localized tyranny.

It is true! I said it was unjust already, but it was very limited in scope. People were much more free to live their live's as long as they handed over a portion of their crops. People in a modern state like the USA have to jump thru hoops to comply with literally millions of laws.

What do you mean by "withering away?" A socialist state where the state, insted of the workers, own and control the means of production is an contradiction.

"Withering away" was/is the term small "s" socialists have used to described their alleged goal of a small government. I just heard Christopher Hitchens on C-SPAN the other day use that exact phrase. Your comment about the role of the state in a socialist system runs counter to just about every socialist system that has existed.

And if I believed that statism could lead to socialism, I would be a communist, not an anarchist

Didn't you say statism - the rich using the state to create advantages - led to attempts to decrease disparities in wealth (the apparent goal of your brand of socialism)?

I would recommend Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell.

Thanks, does he also deal with Barcelona? Is this a book or essay?

What "decades of socialist governments?"

USSR and the soviet bloc, Red China, N Korea, Cuba, Sweden and some European countries.

Of course.

One that lasted how long?

I also pointed to hunter-gatherer communities in this thread. Other examples include Midieval Iceland to a certain extent and the Paris Commune.

I also pointed to hunter-gatherer communities in this thread. Other examples include Midieval Iceland to a certain extent and the Paris Commune.

Like I said, the only egalitarian system/society you pointed to in this thread was the N USA prior to the Civil War. "Pointed" conveys specifity, not "hunter-gatherers" which is quite vague without more information.

The people also owned and controlled the means of production. That is what makes an economy socialist, not big brother looking over it.

But the larger farmers hired people to help and it all existed within a "capitalist" or free market system where people were not required to sell their businesses or prohibited from hiring help.

But the state controlled everything, and the workers nothing.

The state represented the workers just as any large business with numerous workers would have to employ representatives and managers to "control" how the business is run.

It wasn't socialist by any means (unless you use a bastardized definition of socialism ).

That bastardized definition is the one I and millions/billions of people identify with socialism. It seems "socialism" is quite a broad term. The dictionary says collective OR government ownership/control of the means of production. Perhaps that is why we have differing views of what socialism entails.

Nope. That would be "social democracy" or "communism."

Not according to the dictionary. It might help if "socialists" of your ilk come up with a different term for your ideology.

Yes, if you use the definition of libertarianism accepted by the rest of the world. It's only in the US that libertarian capitalists are called libertarian (and calling myself libertarian would imply I'm a capitalist). Anarchism is much more of an apt description than American libertarianism for me.

The word "libertarianism" was a US invention, true? Isn't anarchism a rejection of government? I thought I was an anarchist but I believe there is a role for government - securing the freedom of the marketplace/contracts.

Because sharp political advantages likely wouldn't exist under a roughly egalitarian economy

But we had a "roughly egalitarian economy" in the pre-Civil War north and it did lead to some of the abuses you've already identified.

If everyone wants to cede their liberty, no the state won't be libertarian. A socialist state, like socialist economy, requires the consent of the people

Unfortunately, while many people object to ceding their own liberty, they often have no problem ceding the liberty of others. Apparently they cannot see that once they've empowered a "state" to take the liberty of others, their liberty can become a target. But I still have my doubts about this "consent of the people"
for the following reason:

2. Yes, there was some coercion, but I don't find that too unacceptable in a feudal situation like much of Spain.

Just labeling a system as "feudal" cannot justify this coercion. We'd need specifics on a case by case basis to determine if business owners acquired their businesses morally or if they were stolen. This is very important to knowing if the system you point to exemplifies your ideology. And whether or not it was just or unjust to overthrow said system. If Catalonians were robbing business owners then I would have been in favor of overthrowing them and their system. If the business owners were the robbers, then I would have supported the Catalonians. If it was a mixture of the two, and the innocent owners were robbed, I would have supported overthrowing the Catalonians and their system of "socialism".

Then, more power to you. I'm not going to coerce you into selling your business

Then what you are describing as your ideology, "socialism" (your definition), is libertarianism unless I'm still missing something here. I'm not trying to convince you that you're a libertarian, I just don't see any difference between what we advocate. I have no problem with employees buying out their owner if the owner is willing to sell. But your system would not prevent wealthy people nor will it reduce much less prevent poverty unless you also want an extensive government to run poverty fighting programs - programs that may not be prohibited in a capitalist system, but are certainly incompatable with a libertarian system for the same reason other forms of theft (tariffs, corporate welfare, etc) are incompatable.

[Ramo]

There are a few points that keep getting rehashed, so forgive me if my post isn't as "complete" as it should seem to be.

But genetic advantage is the primary factor in how a person produces wealth.

I wouldn't say primary...

Would you like to compare the legal code of a "feudal" government from the past with the current US legal code?

That's a moot point. There may have been fewer laws, but that only meant the state had more discretion.

I said you equated capitalism with abuses of state power when claiming libertarianism capitalism is a contradiction.

You're missing the difference between implication and equivalence.

First, this "redress" is a rollback of the state which is being used by the rich, not an increase in the state.

That's a semantic point. AFAIK, it could mean either.

You'll have to be specific about what you mean by "maintain or increase the disparity" because before you were complaining about the wealthy using the state to limit or eliminate competition and gain advantages not afforded competitors - tariffs and handouts

You're telling me that I'm not specific, yet you point you a couple of the examples I've made, in the very same sentence...

As for these "wealth disparities" leading to an increase in government control, aren't you really saying the envy of the have nots has led to this increase in government?

The wealth disparities lead to envy. And both ways. Egads, you say I only mention the poor?!

I'm just responding to your arguments so it's a bit amusing for you to claim I'm the one who introduced the poor as a cause of government growth.

Just a few posts posts ago, you were trying to get me to admit "it was not wealthy people who were responsible for the larger government." Surely, you see why I find it ludicrous that you tell me that I only mention the poor abusing the state when you just accused me of only mentioning the rich abusing the state.

Claiming cause and effect is equating the two.

Under what logic system would implication mean equivalence? Under what language would "leads to" mean "is?"

And the existence of rich and poor caused government to grow so fast and large? Or was it the desire of some rich and poor people to use state power to get what they wanted from others without the risk of stealing it themselves?

The existence of extremities of rich and poor lead to such a desire.

I doubt you will agree, but your position seems to require punishing rich people regardless of whether or not they are using government to steal because there are poorer people who want to use government to steal.

How am I "punishing" anyone by opposing coercion?

Is your solution to these poorer people growing government to lessen wealth disparities - legalised stealing - to dis-allow people from getting rich?

Of course not. What would make you think that?

Then why bother pointing to the New Deal and the Great Society as leaps in the size of government?

Because they were leaps in the size of the federal government. What I object to are statements like these:

When only a relative handful of the rich were using government to steal, goverment was able to remain quite small. It wasn't until the number of people trying to mimic that behavior grew large that government grew accordingly.

Government growth isn't instantaneous. Almost all of the first leaps in the power of the government came from rich's desire to steal (remember, that's what the whole Civil War was all about). Later growths corresponded with demands by the poor and rich.

You're forgetting the context of this discussion.

I was under the impression that our discussion was in general terms (with specifics used as examples), not exclusively the US federal government.

And you're still wrong anyway, slaveholders had there own policing mechanisms for restraining slaves.

You're saying that the slave-owners didn't rely on the state to suppress slave rebellions and escapes? To not prosecute this wanton theft?

Government (and I'm talking federal, sheesh) had very little to do with slavery even after Dred Scott.

The Fugitive Slave Law?

You're welcome to try and refute my point again with a valid argument

I'm afraid it has already been done.

It is true! I said it was unjust already, but it was very limited in scope. People were much more free to live their live's as long as they handed over a portion of their crops. People in a modern state like the USA have to jump thru hoops to comply with literally millions of laws.

Just like slaves were "free to live thier lives?" I see only a negligible distinction between the institutions of slavery and feudalism.

Your comment about the role of the state in a socialist system runs counter to just about every socialist system that has existed.

That's because what you think are "socialist" systems are in reality statist systems. Read about the history of socialism before Marx perverted the definition (Bakunin is a good starting point), and you'll understand.

Didn't you say statism - the rich using the state to create advantages

I say statism is any system where the state has a large amount of power.

- led to attempts to decrease disparities in wealth?

No, they (sometimes) led to compensation for the disparities in wealth.

(the apparent goal of your brand of socialism)

The goal of my "brand of socialism" is for the workers to own and control the means of production.

Thanks, does he also deal with Barcelona? Is this a book or essay?

As mentioned earlier, Barcelona is the provincial capitol of Catalonia. It's a book. Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists, and described his experiences.

USSR and the soviet bloc, Red China, N Korea, Cuba, Sweden and some European countries.

None of these states were socialist.

One that lasted how long?

Approximately a year.

Like I said, the only egalitarian system/society you pointed to in this thread was the N USA prior to the Civil War.

I also pointed to revolutionary Spain and mideival Iceland.

"Pointed" conveys specifity, not "hunter-gatherers" which is quite vague without more information.

Look at basically any hunter-gatherer community, and you'll find that it's remarkably egalitarian. There is generally no real person/group of authority.

But the larger farmers hired people to help

I meant generally.

and it all existed within a "capitalist" or free market system where people were not required to sell their businesses or prohibited from hiring help.

Again, socialism has nothing against free enterprise.

The state represented the workers just as any large business with numerous workers would have to employ representatives and managers to "control" how the business is run.

A state is a mechanism to give some people authority over other people. The situation is not analagous.

The word "libertarianism" was a US invention, true?

I seriously doubt it was, but I may be wrong. Bakunin et al. called themselves libertarians.

Isn't anarchism a rejection of government?

No, anarchism is a rejction of authority. Must of us accept the need for minimal governments.

But we had a "roughly egalitarian economy" in the pre-Civil War north and it did lead to some of the abuses you've already identified.

No, there were wealth disparities in certain places in the US, particularly large cities.

Just labeling a system as "feudal" cannot justify this coercion.

Like I said, I don't totally justify this coercion. But I don't find it, when it happened (for the most part, the revolution was voluntary), totally outrageous.

I'd recommend further looking into the issue before you condemn these Catalonians.

Then what you are describing as your ideology, "socialism" (your definition), is libertarianism unless I'm still missing something here.

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is generally not the level of the government, but the social system. Libertarians are capitalists, while anarchists are socialists.

But your system would not prevent wealthy people nor will it reduce much less prevent poverty

What "system?" The best way to prevent extremeties in wealth would be voluntary action in bringing about socialism.

[Ramo]

Since Poly doesn't won't let me edit my post unless I cut down on the number of tags, I'll have to add this on antoher post...

Referring to egalitarian communities, I also mentioned the Paris Commune.

[TCO]

If you 2 (Ramo and Berzie) would use less of that long cut and paste format, others might enjoy/participate in the discussion. Right now, it's a real turn-off.

[Saras]

Amen brother GP!

[Berzerker]

Sorry GP, but if I just typed in paragraphs, I would only make it harder for my "opponent" to follow which of my points are rebuttals (and the target of those rebuttals) and new points.

Ramo -

I wouldn't say primary...

I'd love to hear what other factors - primary - contribute to a producer of wealth. If you don't have the intelligence (genetic) to know what you're doing when inventing, making and/or selling a product, then aren't you at quite a disadvantage to someone who does.

That's a moot point. There may have been fewer laws, but that only meant the state had more discretion.

Whatever discretion a feudal state had was very limited by the lack and parity of technology. The King and his cronies can only be in so many places at once. Aside from what we might see in the movies, the peasantry was largely left alone as long as they came up with the "taxes". This just isn't true in the modern state and today's government officials have a wide array of weapons to use in keeping track of us. And with a legal code consisting of millions of laws, the state still has just as much, if not more, discretion.

You're missing the difference between implication and equivalence

There is a difference between the abuse of state power and the marketplace. To "imply" that the marketplace generates abuse of state powers ignores the real cause - a cause still in effect under any system. Even the Catalonian example you provided for your desired system came into being after some "coercion". That's abuse of "state" power (the new state created by the Catalonians).

That's a semantic point. AFAIK, it could mean either

If business "A" gets Congress to impose tariffs on business "B" in Canada thereby stealing from the consumers of business "b"'s products, successfully rescinding that tariff is not an increase in government, it's a decrease. The same is true for corporate welfare and regulations supported by business "A" because it hurts smaller businesses who can't afford compliance as easily as business "A". Which of the abuses of state power you cited required more government to stop?

You're telling me that I'm not specific, yet you point you a couple of the examples I've made, in the very same sentence...

I asked for specifics relating how capitalism created growth in government via wealth disparities and you cited some examples of statist behavior - tariffs and handouts. I was asking for examples of capitalistic behavior causing growth in government.

The wealth disparities lead to envy. And both ways. Egads, you say I only mention the poor?!

I've already mentioned that rich people can be envious. Claiming that envious rich people caused government to balloon is historically inaccurate. Why else would you point to the New Deal and Great Society - programs created on behalf of envious have nots. I didn't say you only mentioned the poor, I said your argument about the rich is invalid leaving only your argument about the poor as a valid argument.

Just a few posts posts ago, you were trying to get me to admit "it was not wealthy people who were responsible for the larger government."

They weren't.

Surely, you see why I find it ludicrous that you tell me that I only mention the poor abusing the state when you just accused me of only mentioning the rich abusing the state.

Where did I say you mentioned abuses of state power only by the "poor"? We agree (I think) of the poor's complicity in the growth of government, but we disagree as to how much the rich are to blame. When you say "wealth disparities" led to the growth of government, I read that as an explanation as to why the have nots increased the government - a desire for more of the "pie". That to me means your argument focuses on the poor even if you want to blame the rich too.

Under what logic system would implication mean equivalence? Under what language would "leads to" mean "is?"

You said libertarian capitalism was a contradiction. You started out making cause and effect claims about libertarianism, capitalism, and the growth of government. "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C", therefore "A" led to (caused) "C". I pointed out it was not capitalism or libertarianism that caused government to grow but the desire of millions of people to use government to take what belonged to others - the antithesis of libertarianism and capitalism.

The existence of extremities of rich and poor lead to such a desire

Then why didn't I have this desire when I was homeless and there were millionaires within a few miles of me? Regardless of anyone's wealth level, there has always been some people who want to steal from others. Making the theft safer by having the state as the weapon only convinces more people to steal. It doesn't help when a "cottage industry" of leftists are out there telling poor people they shouldn't be blamed for committing crimes because "da man" has his foot on their throats.

How am I "punishing" anyone by opposing coercion?

You're not if you are true to your words further on in that post. But you've already condoned the "coercion" used by Catalonians to create their socialist system because they lived in a feudal state. But maybe we should just assume they did not use coercion against innocent business owners since that possibility does exist.

Of course not. What would make you think that?

Your concern was wealth disparities. These disparities will continue to exist unless we limit what people can earn and ensure everyone makes a generous minimum not too far below the maximum.
I don't know how far you are willing to go to get rid of these disparities.

Because they were leaps in the size of the federal government.

Not just the feds, the Great Society was accompanied by increases in state power.

What I object to are statements like these:

Objectionable statement edited out.

Government growth isn't instantaneous. Almost all of the first leaps in the power of the government came from rich's desire to steal (remember, that's what the whole Civil War was all about). Later growths corresponded with demands by the poor and rich.

As I have pointed out before, restraining the state from handing out money stolen from taxpayers is not an increase in government power, it's a decrease. But that's a good point about the Civil War, it was the government's first leap and it was caused largely by the rich, well, Lincoln's insistence that the South not secede. But all of the succeeding leaps were caused by the masses joining in on the looting of the treasury. Well, I'll concede (I thought I did) the rich have to share some of the blame since they were a major factor in starting the Civil War.

You're saying that the slave-owners didn't rely on the state to suppress slave rebellions and escapes? To not prosecute this wanton theft?

Rebellions? How many of those were there? But escapes did not become federal or state matters, slaveowners had their own "bounty" hunters for such chores. And a slaveowner didn't need the state or local government to prosecute his "property" for "wanton theft". Slaveowners were the law when it came to their slaves...

The Fugitive Slave Law?

How many people were ever prosecuted by the feds for violating that law? How many times did the feds raid the "Underground Railroad"? Just having the law on the books didn't mean much if the feds didn't view it as a priority.

I say statism is any system where the state has a large amount of power

In the dictionary, socialism is defined as collective or state control of the means of production. I'll look into this Bakunin guy nonetheless, I'm not too thrilled with the dictionary's definition of anarchism either.

The goal of my "brand of socialism" is for the workers to own and control the means of production

And this can be achieved without "coercing" business and land owners? I thought you didn't care if individual people owned their own means of production and hiring others to help run their business.

A state is a mechanism to give some people authority over other people. The situation is not analagous

How do decisions get made in one of these worker owned businesses?

I seriously doubt it was, but I may be wrong. Bakunin et al. called themselves libertarians.

If they preceded Marx, then they might have used the term before any Americans.
But as long as the socialist doesn't care if people own businesses and hire people willing to work, I cant see any difference between the two systems.

No, there were wealth disparities in certain places in the US, particularly large cities.

But if this is an indictment of capitalism, and socialists still allow people the freedom to make what the market will bear running their own businesses, won't the same thing eventually happen in both systems?

I'd recommend further looking into the issue before you condemn these Catalonians.

I'm not, all I know about them so far is what you've mentioned. I'll look for Orwell's book though.

What "system?" The best way to prevent extremeties in wealth would be voluntary action in bringing about socialism.

The system you prefer. But the socialism you've described won't limit what people can make, won't stop people from becoming billionaires, and won't stop poverty without government programs that steal from those who have to raise the income of those who don't. Or can you avoid poverty on a voluntary basis?

If you don't want to respond to everything, thats no biggie, I'm trying to reduce these posts myself.

[Ramo]

I'd love to hear what other factors - primary - contribute to a producer of wealth. If you don't have the intelligence (genetic) to know what you're doing when inventing, making and/or selling a product, then aren't you at quite a disadvantage to someone who does.

Supply and demand, for instance. Undoubtedly, some of the smartest people in the country are grad students and post-docs in the "hard sciences" today, for instance. Yet, because there are so many of them, they make rather small amounts of money compared to, say, lawyers or doctors (which I consider significant steps down in the intellectual ladder).

Aside from what we might see in the movies, the peasantry was largely left alone as long as they came up with the "taxes".

Well, there are things like tying the peasants to the land and sending them off to get killed to increase their power...

And with a legal code consisting of millions of laws, the state still has just as much, if not more, discretion.

Except we have the Bill of Rights, for instance, to prevent the state from abusing its power too significantly. For instance, it wouldn't have been easy for a serf to openly say "feudalism sucks."

Which of the abuses of state power you cited required more government to stop?

None. By both ways, I was referring to definitions of "redress," which could also mean the state trying to financially compensate the poor for the wealth disparity.

a cause still in effect under any system

I pointed to various systems where this is not true. The Catalonian system I referred to ended its coercion after land reform.

Even the Catalonian example you provided for your desired system came into being after some "coercion".

There are certain aspects that I don't mind at all; for instance, land reform with respect to the aristocracy (or others who have used the state to significantly to steal from the people). And much of the land reform was voluntary.

I asked for specifics relating how capitalism created growth in government via wealth disparities

What specifics are you looking for? I pointed out the coorelation between the size of the gov't and the level of wealth disparity. What more are you looking for?

Claiming that envious rich people caused government to balloon is historically inaccurate.

On the contrary it's extremely accurate. The state arose during the transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural society. It became a mechanism for the powerful to increase and maintain their power. Even today, we have a military budget (most of which I consider corporate welfare) eclipsing federal social welfare programs.

Why else would you point to the New Deal and Great Society

Because DF pointed to the New Deal and Great Society. When asked for legislation in favor of the rich, that's exactly what I provided.

When you say "wealth disparities" led to the growth of government, I read that as an explanation as to why the have nots increased the government - a desire for more of the "pie".

Not at all; they're two sides of the same coin. If you have a significant portion of the "pie," the natural tendency is to prevent anyone else from taking a "bite" (through non-coercive means; i.e. competition) out of your piece.

I pointed out it was not capitalism or libertarianism that caused government to grow but the desire of millions of people to use government to take what belonged to others - the antithesis of libertarianism and capitalism.

But capitalism leads to such a desire through wealth disparities.

Regardless of anyone's wealth level, there has always been some people who want to steal from others.

Yes, and the desire is amplified at the extremes. And these extreme disparities lead to "interests" banding together to steal.

But you've already condoned the "coercion" used by Catalonians to create their socialist system because they lived in a feudal state.

I condone some of it (see earlier). Then again, coercion is ambiguous in the extreme in such situations (you get into mess of a situation concerning property rights). But I certainly do not condone coercion in stealing small land owners' and businesses' property, which, unfortunately, did happen.

These disparities will continue to exist unless we limit what people can earn and ensure everyone makes a generous minimum not too far below the maximum.

My concern isn't necessarily wealth disparities, but significant wealth disparities. And these kind of disparities should not exist where the workers own the means of production.

Not just the feds, the Great Society was accompanied by increases in state power.

Yep, that too.

well, Lincoln's insistence that the South not secede.

Which was due to the need to steal from farmers, Northern and Southern.

But all of the succeeding leaps were caused by the masses joining in on the looting of the treasury.

Absolutely not. The federal gov't spends hundreds of billions annually on hand-outs to big business. Then you get into trade barriers, or looting the pockets of foreigners, and state and local corporate welfare...

Rebellions? How many of those were there? But escapes did not become federal or state matters, slaveowners had their own "bounty" hunters for such chores.

How many people were ever prosecuted by the feds for violating that law?

True, they didn't use the state that often, but they did definitely use the state.

And a slaveowner didn't need the state or local government to prosecute his "property" for "wanton theft". Slaveowners were the law when it came to their slaves...

Actually, I wrote the slave owner need the state "[t]o not prosecute this wanton theft." In other words, the slave owners needed the state to selectively prosecute theft; making white theft from blacks exclusively legal.

In the dictionary, socialism is defined as collective or state control of the means of production. I'll look into this Bakunin guy nonetheless, I'm not too thrilled with the dictionary's definition of anarchism either.

Well, if you want to look for accurate definitions of political philosophy, you don't go to the dictionary. Seriously, the whacked defintion of anarchism is largely due to the political slander anarchism has taken over the years (It's very interesting how language changes to suit political repression, but that's for another thread...). It was a serious political force during the turn of the century (an anarchist assassinated McKinley, for instance), but was destroyed due to gov't repression.

How do decisions get made in one of these worker owned businesses?

By vote. You're missing the important distinction that these workers have authority only on what they produce. They don't have authority over what others' produce, as if the state were involved.

But as long as the socialist doesn't care if people own businesses and hire people willing to work, I cant see any difference between the two systems.

Again, the connotation of libertarianism in the US is being a capitalist. So I choose not to call myself a libertarian.

And this can be achieved without "coercing" business and land owners?

Absolutely.

I thought you didn't care if individual people owned their own means of production and hiring others to help run their business.

There's a difference between wanting something and stealing it. I do care, but I won't force you into doing it...

But if this is an indictment of capitalism, and socialists still allow people the freedom to make what the market will bear running their own businesses, won't the same thing eventually happen in both systems?

Not at all. The financial supremacy of the capitalists on the East coast came about through government theft; by condoning anti-competitive behavior, it killed socialism.

Or can you avoid poverty on a voluntary basis?

Yep, by banding together with your fellow workers...