Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#481

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#482

[QUOTE=“ancap_commonsense, post: 436512, member: 7001”]SOURCES:
[URL]https://mises.org/library/property-rights-celtic-irish-law-0[/URL]
[URL]https://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Economists with an agenda are not reliable historians. I invite you to read the works of actual historians.

As we’ve already been over, Ireland was not anarchist, there were kingdoms (e.g the Kingdom of Connacht). Most of what you cite, such as police, bailiffs, and legislature didn’t exist for much of the world, certainly not primitive countries such as Ireland.

We don’t know much about Celtic Ireland and what we do know is largely in fragments. From what the evidence points to us though, Ireland especially when the Normans arrived, was a hierarchical society with a king on top along with various vassals and members of the nobility with a clan-based system that certainly doesn’t go with the individualistic ancap ideology.

This is beside the point that neither capitalism nor anarchism existed back in the day.

[QUOTE=“ancap_commonsense, post: 436512, member: 7001”]“Check yourself before you wreck yourself.” ~ Shrek[/QUOTE]

“Oh look, I copy & pasted some words without considering the credibility of the source. I really wrecked her.”


#483

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 436523, member: 3521”]No reputable Irish historian will say that Celtic Ireland was a libertarian society in full or even in part.

There’s two things you have to think about before talking about ancient ireland, the first being that nobody knows an awful lot about it to begin with. The Celts had a very oral culture, there are only few writings from their time and that few that we even have deal more with myth and legend than something like economics and society. The second thing is that Irish history is already very political, in the sense that a lot of people already use Irish history for their political gains. An early historian usually quoted by libertarians and ancaps, G.H. Orpen, actually intended to show that the Irish were incapable of ruling themselves (he was a racist), so when he described a “land without law”, he meant it as an insult. Likewise, during the Gaelic Revival, writers romanticized the Celts.

We know so little about ancient Ireland. In essence, you’re taking a blank canvas and telling us that there’s something there.

Here’s what is written about this in probably the most prominent rendition of this myth, For A New Liberty.

It’s a terrible idea to impose modern concepts on ancient societies. Everything was different then. The modern state, aiming to protect the welfare of the people, has only really been around for a few hundred years. The basic state in the past, that being a military alliance giving protection to outsiders has existed for a thousand or more years. Just because an ancient society doesn’t resemble a modern society doesn’t make it Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist.

Secondly, I’d like to take a look at your claim regarding tuatha. These myths like to make it sound as if they’re like political parties, where you can freely leave whenever you want. However, this word actually comes from the Old Irish world tuath meaning “people” or “nation”, in modern Irish it means “countryside”. These myths are wrong, the tuatha were literally poor kingdoms or large families utilizing serfs. You can leave a state today, and just because you could leave them before does not make them libertarian. They had standing armies that were supported by taxes.

Tuatha were mini-states. Small, weak and primitive, but they still used coercion just as a state would.

So, basically a modern society. Our president can’t make laws (except for executive orders if you count that) but we arent by any means libertarian or anarcho-capitalist. Again, you’re imposing modern standard on ancient civilization. While the King couldn’t make laws, nobody could. Brehon Law was pretty much just tradition and custom.

To address the issues of government officials, police and prisons:

There were no government officials of anykind anywhere during this time. There were also no police or prisons in these societies during this time pretty much anywhere (exceptions may be ancient Rome). Again, this does not make them libertarian. Brehons are described as “private”, and although they had a bit of independence, they were still dependent on the local chief to enforce rulings. Brehon Law was certainly a monopoly; you could not choose which laws you could or could not follow.

There was also no free market, that is to say, no market really at all. Coinage was extremely rare in the extremely rural lands of Ireland, where cows and livestock were probably closer to currency. Little trade and communities were overall more efficient in the non-developed region of Ireland during this time. The existence of Brehon families indicates that these positions were also not democratic or voluntary, they were handed down through the family.

We don’t know a lot about how this all worked, but it almost for certain did not work as an ideal anarchist paradise, ideas which did not exist during these times. From what we do know, we can say that Ancient Ireland was far from a Libertarian society in the modern sense, much like the modern standards you are trying to impose on it are far from actual ancient standards.

@Vulpes[/QUOTE]

You should have cited the source you took a lot of those paragraphs from.


#484

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#485

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 435465, member: 3622”]Of course I know how socialism works, don’t make presumptions. I’m arguing that capitalism is better because it ensures that resources are allocated to produce a socially optimal outcome, as scarce resources only go towards producing output where each unit’s benefits exceed the costs.[/QUOTE]

In what world? The theoretical world of perfect competition or the actual reality of capitalism?..


(above are the many lines of unsold cars due to overproduction)


#486

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#487

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 436571, member: 579”]In what world? The theoretical world of perfect competition or the actual reality of capitalism?..


(above are the many lines of unsold cars due to overproduction)[/QUOTE]
That is clearly not the sign of a competitive market. I agree that most countries in the world need to undertake structural reforms to make their economies more competitive, but when markets are competitive, they work very effectively.


#488

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 435465, member: 3622”]Of course I know how socialism works, don’t make presumptions. I’m arguing that capitalism is better because it ensures that resources are allocated to produce a socially optimal outcome, as scarce resources only go towards producing output where each unit’s benefits exceed the costs.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Capitalism entails, first of all, production for private benefit to exceed private costs (the profit motive, etc).

Due to the nature of externalities, capitalism will, both actively and passively, prevent the social optimum from being realized. The drive for private benefit leads a factory to externalize the costs of it’s production via pollution (negative externality), thus destroying commons. On the contrary, privatizing the costs of an area, such as education, where benefits are heavily socialized (positive externality), will lead to inefficiency and inadequate provision, as the provider can not monetize it’s full benefit.

In that case, the social optimum is realized by the extent to which we, through common effort, reduce and punish the perverse incentives of capitalism. The radical version of this would be to replace capitalism with a socialist, democratically planned economy, where self-interest conforms with the collective interests of society.


#489

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436765, member: 2288”]Due to the nature of externalities[/QUOTE]
They’re not properly accounted for in total costs, therefore as a result the socially optimal outcome can’t be produced.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436765, member: 2288”]On the contrary, privatizing the costs of an area, such as education, where benefits are heavily socialized (positive externality), will lead to inefficiency and inadequate provision, as the provider can not monetize it’s full benefit.[/QUOTE]Do you have evidence of this? I have evidence that they have worked very well in Sweden.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436765, member: 2288”]Capitalism entails, first of all, production for private benefit to exceed private costs (the profit motive, etc).[/QUOTE]On the contrary, due to Adam Smith’s invisible hand concept, when people work for their own interest, it actually leads to the benefit of everyone as it leads to the most efficient allocation of resources. If you look at the countries with the highest amount of economic freedom, these are also mostly the most developed countries in the world as well. As a result, capitalism boosts human development as well.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436765, member: 2288”]In that case, the social optimum is realized by the extent to which we, through common effort, reduce and punish the perverse incentives of capitalism.[/QUOTE]I never doubted that we should take some form of action to minimise the worst effects of capitalism, but socialism is certainly not the answer to this. Instead, we need to undertake action to counteract market failure, tackle the abuse of monopoly power, and minimise the amount of deadweight loss in order to achieve market equilibrium (and yes, this is a generalisation).


#490

Why pick either?

The corporate state eliminates both.


#491

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 436778, member: 3622”]They’re not properly accounted for in total costs, therefore as a result the socially optimal outcome can’t be produced.[/QUOTE]
[I]Obviously. [/I]Precisely because the costs are externalized, which is the direct result of capitalistic self-interest.

Same thing applies, in reverse, to external benefits. They’re not probably accounted for in profits (which may well be impossible for the market mechanism), leading to less than optimal outcomes.

Do you have evidence of this? I have evidence that they have worked very well in Sweden.

This does not conflict with my statement, you know. Swedish [I]skolepeng[/I] are vouchers paid for by public funds from local municipalities, thus the cost of education has been socialized. They are also subject to government intervention, “strong rules” as your link refers to it, which are intended to prevent discrimination and limit social stratification.

Whether or not vouchers provide an effective service, which is an argument for another day, their costs are still (usually to a large extent, sometimes fully) carried by the community as a whole, under rules dictated by the community as a whole.

Hypothetically, a socialist commonwealth could also allocate resources to schools based on a similar measurement of performance.

On the contrary, due to Adam Smith’s invisible hand concept, when people work for their own interest, it actually leads to the benefit of everyone as it leads to the most efficient allocation of resources.

“But- but Invisible Hand!”

Really? You pull out the invisible hand, perhaps to give reason a big slap in the face, when you yourself have already noted the issue of externalities. It’s like it went in one ear and out the other.

If you look at the countries with the highest amount of economic freedom, these are also mostly the most developed countries in the world as well. As a result, capitalism boosts human development as well.

There are rising standards of living under capitalism. Doubtful that anyone was going to dispute this, but it is a red herring. Improving development, by itself, says nothing about whether the society it occurs under is a just one, or who may benefit disproportionally (for example, the average income increasing by gains in upper class incomes, while median income is stagnating).

The ways by which “economic freedom” is defined and measured are important, which may include things that are not necessarily inherent features of capitalism, and may well be independent of such. The “ease” of any given economic activity is not a goal that is unique to capitalists, and your assumption that economic freedom and capitalism are two sides of the same coin is something I find highly questionable. The “freedom” to subjugate others through ownership of capital, backed by the state and it’s laws, is not freedom in any genuine sense.

Among the most developed countries are also: functional court systems, lack of corruption, income equality, large welfare states and large public spending. And the increase in living standards of the common person certainly isn’t just a function of the “invisible hand” at work. It is enormously affected by the legacy of social democracy, organized labour and the socialistic rebellion against the norms of capitalism from which they originated.


#492

http://patrick.net/content/uploads/2015/09/socialism2.jpgfact.


#493

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 436778, member: 3622”]They’re not properly accounted for in total costs, therefore as a result the socially optimal outcome can’t be produced.
[/QUOTE]

[I]Exactly[/I], the simple fact of the matter is that supply responds to demand, not social benefit. Without intervention, capitalism will never achieve socially optimum levels.

Even with intervention, what is ‘socially optimum’ is defined by the most efficient allocation of goods in light of their cost, rather than personal fulfillment, happiness and general well-being. For me, the latter seems like the basis for an economic system i’d like to live in, even if it means not choosing between 600 kinds of cereal every time I go shopping.


#494

[QUOTE=“Equalist, post: 436978, member: 7015”]http://patrick.net/content/uploads/2015/09/socialism2.jpgfact.[/QUOTE]

This thread is about communism as a socioeconomic system, not wealth redistribution via taxation through a social democratic welfare state, which is what Thatcher means when she says ‘socialism’.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism[/URL]


#495

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436969, member: 2288”][I]Obviously. [/I]Precisely because the costs are externalized, which is the direct result of capitalistic self-interest.

Same thing applies, in reverse, to external benefits. They’re not probably accounted for in profits (which may well be impossible for the market mechanism), leading to less than optimal outcomes.[/QUOTE]Well, take for example pollution, the cost of pollution can easily be accounted for by a carbon tax. It doesn’t need anything radical. Also, this assumes that negative externalities such as pollution wouldn’t occur in socialism either.

Yes, positive externalities are also not accounted for in profits. It’s impossible to account for all externalities, and indeed that is one of the flaws of capitalism. I never stated that capitalism was perfect, I stated that it’s better than socialism.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436969, member: 2288”]This does not conflict with my statement, you know. Swedish [I]skolepeng[/I] are vouchers paid for by public funds from local municipalities, thus the cost of education has been socialized. They are also subject to government intervention, “strong rules” as your link refers to it, which are intended to prevent discrimination and limit social stratification.[/QUOTE] Provision of education under a voucher system is delivered through the means of capitalism though, despite state intervention. If capitalism didn’t involve some degree of state intervention then no country, not even Hong Kong, would be considered capitalist.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436969, member: 2288”]Really? You pull out the invisible hand, perhaps to give reason a big slap in the face, when you yourself have already noted the issue of externalities. It’s like it went in one ear and out the other.[/QUOTE]Again, as I have said, capitalism isn’t perfect, and action needs to be taken to reduce the negative effects in order to ensure that the socially optimal outcome is reached. As mentioned earlier, a carbon tax for example could be a price of pollution.

Indeed, the invisible hand theory is a slight generalisation as to why capitalism is efficient. Economics has since moved on from Adam Smith’s neoclassical school.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436969, member: 2288”]There are rising standards of living under capitalism. Doubtful that anyone was going to dispute this, but it is a red herring. Improving development, by itself, says nothing about whether the society it occurs under is a just one, or who may benefit disproportionally (for example, the average income increasing by gains in upper class incomes, while median income is stagnating).[/QUOTE]Human development takes into account this. The HDI index uses GNI per capita (which is a similar measurement) for example.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436969, member: 2288”]The ways by which “economic freedom” is defined and measured are important, which may include things that are not necessarily inherent features of capitalism, and may well be independent of such. The “ease” of any given economic activity is not a goal that is unique to capitalists, and your assumption that economic freedom and capitalism are two sides of the same coin is something I find highly questionable. The “freedom” to subjugate others through ownership of capital, backed by the state and it’s laws, is not freedom in any genuine sense.[/QUOTE]Economic freedom is defined as pursuing the most free-market policies (low burden of regulation, low taxes, etc…). The exact criteria varies by each study however.

Nevertheless, my point on the most economically free countries also being the ones with the highest amount of human development stands.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436969, member: 2288”]large welfare states and large public spending.[/QUOTE]So is Denmark a socialist country then? That’s news to me!

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 436969, member: 2288”]And the increase in living standards of the common person certainly isn’t just a function of the “invisible hand” at work. It is enormously affected by the legacy of social democracy[/QUOTE]As I said, economics has moved on from the neoclassical school. However, aspects of it still explain why open markets and perfect competition provide the most efficient means of allocating resources. Also, some social democracies score highly for economic freedom anyway. The Nordic countries are renowned for open, competitive markets.

@Duvniask if you’re talking about market socialism though, you can ignore my points, as that uses a market to allocate resources anyway.

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 436988, member: 579”][I]Exactly[/I], the simple fact of the matter is that supply responds to demand, not social benefit.[/QUOTE]Of course responding to demand is for social benefit. Firstly, it means that the only things being produced out of [B]scarce[/B] resources are goods and services which people actually want. In a truly competitive market, it would also mean that producers aren’t producing too much either.

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 436988, member: 579”]Without intervention, capitalism will never achieve socially optimum levels.[/QUOTE]I have mentioned this before.

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 436988, member: 579”]Even with intervention, what is ‘socially optimum’ is defined by the most efficient allocation of goods in light of their cost, rather than personal fulfillment, happiness and general well-being.[/QUOTE]The socially optimal outcome does lead to happiness and general well-being. Producers are happy as they can sell products and generate revenue for their happiness and security, and consumers are happy as they can buy products which may make them happier and/or more secure. If it didn’t lead to happiness, I wouldn’t support capitalism.


#496

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 437033, member: 3622”]Well, take for example pollution, the cost of pollution can easily be accounted for by a carbon tax. It doesn’t need anything radical. Also, this assumes that negative externalities such as pollution wouldn’t occur in socialism either.[/QUOTE]
It’s not an assumption that they wouldn’t occur. In fact, I said nothing of the sort.

However, a socialist society would be geared towards internalizing negative externalities within it’s own totality, since the economy itself is held in common and it’s functions are far more socially integrated. Democratic systems base themselves on the collective, interdependent interests of all, by which they cultivate cooperation and accountability, in contrast to the independent, competing interests that destroy commons for short-term self-enrichment.

Yes, positive externalities are also not accounted for in profits. It’s impossible to account for all externalities, and indeed that is one of the flaws of capitalism. I never stated that capitalism was perfect, I stated that it’s better than socialism.

You’ve tacitly conceded that your original point on how capitalism ensures the social optimum is wrong. It doesn’t, absent collective action, which is a focal point of socialist thought.

Provision of education under a voucher system is delivered through the means of capitalism though, despite state intervention. If capitalism didn’t involve some degree of state intervention then no country, not even Hong Kong, would be considered capitalist.

No need to tell me. Capitalism exists within the framework supplied by the capitalist state, and much of it’s wealth has been built by state action and planning.

Indeed, the invisible hand theory is a slight generalisation as to why capitalism is efficient. Economics has since moved on from Adam Smith’s neoclassical school.

A large generalization, more like.

Human development takes into account this. The HDI index uses GNI per capita (which is a similar measurement) for example.

It does not take it into account. GNI per capita is precisely the measure on which I based my point. It does not account for inequality of distribution. It merely measures the “mean”, which may indeed be driven upwards by large income concentrated in small segments of the population.

To account for inequality, we have the inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI), which interestingly places the US on par with Poland at 27th place (with a shared score of 0.760).

And, as before, the normative objections that can be raised are not addressed. Rising levels of development do not by any necessity justify the conditions under which they occur, and they certainly don’t mean that all human needs are sufficiently being met or that certain people don’t suffer for it.

Economic freedom is defined as pursuing the most free-market policies (low burden of regulation, low taxes, etc…). The exact criteria varies by each study however.

I am aware, which I why I made it a point in the first place.

Nevertheless, my point on the most economically free countries also being the ones with the highest amount of human development stands.

No. It’s largely a red herring.

Denmark and the US score almost exactly the same on the IEF, yet these are clearly distinct societies, which will not be substantively reflected in an index score of highly aggregated (and often fuzzy) components.

Further, as I’ve already noted, the components of these indices don’t necessarily measure things that are solely inherent to capitalism. Often included are: time constraints to economic activity, freedom from corruption, effective law and order, etc.

It also thoroughly ignores how many modern economies underwent industrialization with heavy state intervention, allowing our present level of prosperity. Along with that, the “economic freedom” measured is often absent of things that actually pertain to giving the majority of people [I]real[/I] economic control over their own lives (these being won through movements of collective action).

So is Denmark a socialist country then? That’s news to me!

For goodness’ sake…

Instead of being deliberately obtuse, perhaps you [B]could[/B] try to discern the context and respond to the actual argument at hand, you know, about how countries that score highly on “economic freedom” often incorporate elements that the very proponents of “economic freedom” view negatively and as a great hindrance.

Also, some social democracies score highly for economic freedom anyway

Sigh.


#497

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]However, a socialist society would be geared towards internalizing negative externalities within it’s own totality, since the economy itself is held in common and it’s functions are far more socially integrated.[/QUOTE]Is that really necessary though? As I said, solutions to tackle negative externalities are perfectly possible under a capitalist society.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]Democratic systems base themselves on the collective, interdependent interests of all, by which they cultivate cooperation and accountability, in contrast to the independent, competing interests that destroy commons for short-term self-enrichment.[/QUOTE]I don’t doubt the benefits of cooperatives (if that’s what you’re referring to) however they can exist in a capitalist society you know. Also, you’re implying that working for ‘self-enrichment’ is inherently bad. That’s just not true. Many businesses and rich people undertake philanthropic missions in order to give themselves a good image. For the same reason, many are also pressured to be ethical as well in their business practices. As a result, in these situations, ‘self-enrichment’ is a good thing. If anything, a desire for ‘self-enrichment’ should be encouraged, not discouraged.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]You’ve tacitly conceded that your original point on how capitalism ensures the social optimum is wrong. It doesn’t, absent collective action, which is a focal point of socialist thought.[/QUOTE]As I said, capitalism isn’t perfect and that the invisible hand theory is a generalisation. Also, you wouldn’t be able to account for all externalities under socialism anyway.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]much of it’s wealth has been built by state action and planning.[/QUOTE]That’s irrelevant. They’ve still used a capitalist framework regardless. Even the Soviet Union was capitalist to an extent.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]A large generalization, more like.[/QUOTE]Not really, if you look at the evidence, market-based systems are much more efficient at allocating resources than centralised planning systems. And yes, before you go on to say that true socialism is decentralised (which is what every socialist says), then if that was the case resources would be allocated in a similar fashion to a market-based system anyway.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]It does not account for inequality of distribution.[/QUOTE]You can tackle high levels of inequality in a capitalist society. You don’t need socialism to reduce inequality.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]It also thoroughly ignores how many modern economies underwent industrialization with heavy state intervention[/QUOTE]So on one minute you’re praising heavy state intervention for the success of modern economies, but on the other hand, as a socialist, you would argue that a decentralised system of owning the means of production is better? I think I’ve spotted a fallacy in your argument.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 437886, member: 2288”]Instead of being deliberately obtuse, perhaps you [B]could[/B] try to discern the context and respond to the actual argument at hand, you know, about how countries that score highly on “economic freedom” often incorporate elements that the very proponents of “economic freedom” view negatively and as a great hindrance.[/QUOTE]That doesn’t change my point. They still rank very highly on economic freedom regardless.


#498

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 437968, member: 3622”]Is that really necessary though? As I said, solutions to tackle negative externalities are perfectly possible under a capitalist society.[/QUOTE]
Inasmuch as private interests are subordinated to the public. They have plenty of incentives to not be.

I don’t doubt the benefits of cooperatives (if that’s what you’re referring to) however they can exist in a capitalist society you know.

I’m referring to the system of a socialist society, which incorporates ideals that are, indeed, also shared by cooperatives.

The fact that cooperatives exist under capitalism will not move me in favour of it. On the contrary, it’s an exemplification of more socialistic forms of economics that exists as “islands” in the capitalist system, with ideals whose application I would like to see expanded.

Also, you’re implying that working for ‘self-enrichment’ is inherently bad. That’s just not true.

I implied no such thing. I explicitly said that competing, independent interests are what destroy commons for short-term self-enrichment.

That’s irrelevant. They’ve still used a capitalist framework regardless. Even the Soviet Union was capitalist to an extent.

It’s not irrelevant, because you bring up “economic freedom” like it’s the ultimate source of prosperity under capitalism. It’s not, as I’ve been pointing out.

Not really, if you look at the evidence, market-based systems are much more efficient at allocating resources than centralised planning systems.

Depends. Central planning is useful for mobilizing all of society, perhaps towards industrialization or to war, and also for influencing the economy to provide outcomes that are deemed more desirable.

And yes, before you go on to say that true socialism is decentralised (which is what every socialist says), then if that was the case resources would be allocated in a similar fashion to a market-based system anyway.

Just as 1 = 2.

No, what you’re saying is nonsense. Planning is planning, and markets are markets. Having a system of decentralized planning does not a market make.

You can tackle high levels of inequality in a capitalist society. You don’t need socialism to reduce inequality.

You can tackle income inequality by redistributing it or by otherwise compelling through law, collective bargaining, etc., thus intruding on the [I]holy[/I] domain of the free market.

But prior to income inequality are inequalities that cannot be solved by capitalism, [I]for they exist because of capitalism[/I].

So on one minute you’re praising heavy state intervention for the success of modern economies, but on the other hand, as a socialist, you would argue that a decentralised system of owning the means of production is better? I think I’ve spotted a fallacy in your argument.

Statements of fact are not praise, and you’re desperately looking for fallacy [I]where none exists[/I]. I mean, seriously, me stating the our present society wasn’t built solely by the free-market ™ in no way conflicts with the fact that I advocate socialism.

Additionally, it is not a “decentralized system of owning”. It is a system of decentralized planning.

That doesn’t change my point. They still rank very highly on economic freedom regardless.

“Economic freedom = high development, therefore capitalism is good”

“But the thing is, the definitions of “economic freedom” are limiting, advancement doesn’t justify everything, and all that wealth was made possible by state planning and interventio-”

“Irrelevant!”

You brought it up, dear sir. I’m merely doing the work of refutation. It’s conveniently irrelevant whenever you so desire, even though you yourself make a point out of it.


#499

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]Inasmuch as private interests are subordinated to the public. They have plenty of incentives to not be.[/QUOTE]Not if the costs are not accounted for. Also, if it’s not possible to account for negative externalities in monetary costs then I would argue that it doesn’t need to be tackled anyway.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]I implied no such thing. I explicitly said that competing, independent interests are what destroy commons for short-term self-enrichment.[/QUOTE]And what I’m saying is that competition is better than working together in ‘commons’. It’s only through competition where everyone has an incentive to lower costs and outdo one another to survive in the market and to innovate.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]It’s not irrelevant, because you bring up “economic freedom” like it’s the ultimate source of prosperity under capitalism. It’s not, as I’ve been pointing out.[/QUOTE]I’m not saying that it’s the ultimate source of prosperity, but what I am saying is that it proves that the more capitalist nations are the more successful nations. There is a strong correlation between standards of living and economic freedom from what I have pointed out. As a result, it is very important to society.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]Central planning is useful for mobilizing all of society[/QUOTE]If anything, central planning gets in the way of mobilising society. Many developing nations could become pretty developed if they lowered barriers to trade and if the government didn’t interfere as much.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]Having a system of decentralized planning does not a market make.[/QUOTE]Yes, but as I have proven, markets are by far the most efficient method of allocating the means of production.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]You can tackle income inequality by redistributing it[/QUOTE]We do that under capitalism. There’s something called a welfare state you know.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]But prior to income inequality are inequalities that cannot be solved by capitalism, [I]for they exist because of capitalism[/I].[/QUOTE]Yes, you will always have inequality under capitalism. Inequality is a good thing, as it gives people an incentive to work hard and move up in society, and it means that only the smartest, most innovate ideas and people succeed. Besides, there’s no way you can achieve full equality under a scarcity of resources unless you drastically harm wealth-creation.

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 438383, member: 2288”]Economic freedom = high development, therefore capitalism is good"

“But the thing is, the definitions of “economic freedom” are limiting, advancement doesn’t justify everything, and all that wealth was made possible by state planning and interventio-”[/QUOTE]As I said before, there is a strong correlation between economic freedom and standards of living. I also said before that state planning is a hindrance, not an asset.


#500

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 438449, member: 3622”]We do that under capitalism. There’s something called a welfare state you know.[/QUOTE]
Whilst I support capitalism, that was his point. He was saying that income inequality can be tackled within capitalism. He’s referring to different forms of inequalities, specifically those concerning the relations of production. His point is that this inequality breeds alienation and exploitation through the resultant class conflict.

It’s not the type of inequality you’re arguing against.