Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

That assumes you're a selfish *****. I think we can see from the Open Source movement that there are plenty of people willing to make things that anyone can use for free, simply for the joy of making useful things.

Altrusim does exist that is true but if the hope is to base a society completely on the goodwill of man, good luck with that. Heck if we could count on that, we could eliminate all the expenditures on armies and police and airport security . .. If that money were redirected, we could raise the standard of living around the world an amazing amount

In the real world today, If someone expends thousands of hours developping an amazing invention they hope and expect that they will gain large rewards.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

There are always going to be those who are unwilling to contribute if they don't gain from it, but why should we let them hold back all of humanity?

Are you saying that the majority are willing to work without gain? I will agree that a majority of people will do nice things or acts or charity with no hope of gain from time to time. BUt my view is that for the bulk of their working time, people expect to be directly compensated for their skills and effort.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

How many ideas go unexplored, lives go wasted, simply because someone lacked the financial means or the necessary drive to do something with that life or ideas?

the financial means?? very few-- If you have a good idea, there is always someone out there that will invest in it if you can come up with a plan.

the necessary drive ?? far too many I suspect but if ther prospect of becoming a multi-millionaire from your idea does not furnish the drive and the prospect of benefitting humanity by donating your idea somehow does not, I don't know what you expect to motivate said potential inventor

[lord of the mark]

BTW, if one is deeply troubled by the unequal dis of net wealth, one could argue for policies to redistribute wealth, which would likely do far less harm to the economy, and would be less likely to result in a dictatorial society, than banning private ownership of the means of prod.

OTOH its not clear to me why the distribution of ownership of wealth is more important than the distribution of income. If you redistribute income to insure that no one is poor, and that those with the least have decent lives, why does it matter that a few have large concentrations of wealth, as kong as that is buying society a better econ growth?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How many ideas go unexplored, lives go wasted, simply because someone lacked the financial means or the necessary drive to do something with that life or ideas?

Financial means - one of the most important initiatives in development today is the microloan, which aims to make financing available to those who otherwise wouldnt get it.

Drive? If someone lacks drive, I doubt theyll create an open source idea either. Or really advance things in govt. ANY system relies on those with drive. Entrepreneurialism lives on the Kibbutz, in the trade union, in the coop, in the corporation, in the govt agency, in the small business, and without it ANY of the above will fail.

[lord of the mark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microloan

[Flubber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, if one is deeply troubled by the unequal dis of net wealth, one could argue for policies to redistribute wealth, which would likely do far less harm to the economy, and would be less likely to result in a dictatorial society, than banning private ownership of the means of prod.

OTOH its not clear to me why the distribution of ownership of wealth is more important than the distribution of income. If you redistribute income to insure that no one is poor, and that those with the least have decent lives, why does it matter that a few have large concentrations of wealth, as kong as that is buying society a better econ growth?

While Canada still has a ways to go in caring for our poorest memebers, I believe that a bigger social safety net and socialized medecine actually mean we do it a bit better than the US. But the poorest here are often the addicts and mentally ill, I am uncertain that increasing the incomes of those people really does them much good in the long run

[pchang]

sure it does

they go from ripple to malt liquor

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
ITs your THEORETICAL model. So I am asking . . . if I build a machine using hours and hours and hours of my own labour plus my own resources which I obtained through my own labour, should I be compensated for that on an ongoing basis in return for lettuing others use my machine?

OMFG People wont need to work for you like they do in a capitalist system that depends on people who have no property. Is that really too hard for you to comprehend?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, if one is deeply troubled by the unequal dis of net wealth, one could argue for policies to redistribute wealth, which would likely do far less harm to the economy, and would be less likely to result in a dictatorial society, than banning private ownership of the means of prod.

OTOH its not clear to me why the distribution of ownership of wealth is more important than the distribution of income. If you redistribute income to insure that no one is poor, and that those with the least have decent lives, why does it matter that a few have large concentrations of wealth, as kong as that is buying society a better econ growth?

LoTM, commies define the wealth as a pie. If one has a bigger share, another has a lessor share.

When wealth was almost all concentrated in land owenership and ownership of land was the primary source of income, then they may have had a point. But in modern societies, concentrations of wealth in the form of corporations is absolutely necessary to make products and to provide jobs.

When the state takes over these corporations so that individuals may be economically equal, they create state monopolies that harm the economy in so many ways. It is no wonder that the Cuban economy, for example, collapsed and has remained among the worst economies in Latin America since the commies took over.

It is amazing that the commies will never concede that one can provide a social safety net in modern free market economies. They still operate on the assumption that economics hasn't changed since the middle ages.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
OTOH its not clear to me why the distribution of ownership of wealth is more important than the distribution of income. If you redistribute income to insure that no one is poor, and that those with the least have decent lives, why does it matter that a few have large concentrations of wealth, as kong as that is buying society a better econ growth?

Because that's not the nature of capitalism. Concentrated wealth results in concentrations in income.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I don't understand you answer. There has to be a mechanism by which people are allocated resources like food, housing, cars or lawnmowers. Generally people work to earn some variation of money although is small communal farms that was not the model.

But kid . . . you are the one asking me to make it real. Take a plumber. The house I live in needs one. Is it my house and I have to pay the plumber or is all housing state owned so the state pays the plumber?
Does the plumber get anything extra if he comes out for my midnight emergency? If no, do you take anything away from them if all plumbers refuse to do midnight duty?

There's a lot of ways you can allocate things, but you are missing the point. In order for communism to work the people in the system have to be better off than they were in the capitalist system. So that's why when you come up with these scenerios where people want to work for you and you can afford to pay them its compeletely irrelevent.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
It is amazing that the commies will never concede that one can provide a social safety net in modern free market economies.

We know about safety nets, especially the poorest among us. We want something better.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
In the real world today, If someone expends thousands of hours developping an amazing invention they hope and expect that they will gain large rewards.

If you found a cure for cancer would you hide it from the world because you wouldn't get anything for it?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If you found a cure for cancer would you hide it from the world because you wouldn't get anything for it?

NO I would licence it widely and make money WHILE helping lots of people

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


NO I would licence it widely and make money WHILE helping lots of people

What if you couldn't make any money?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



So that's why when you come up with these scenerios where people want to work for you and you can afford to pay them its compeletely irrelevent.

Fine -- its all irrelevant. leaving aside whether they want to woek for me

But the plumbing is screwed up in the house/apartment/ commune where I live and I do not have either the necessary skills or tools to fix it.

So who fixes it?

My bottom line is that there must be SOMEONE who has as their role to fix plumbing, however you allocate resources.