Please provide an unabridged list of everything you believe should be available to everybody. Computers, maybe? Should the poor have computers (for internet access)? And would you let them spend all their time on porn sites, or would you have a list of sites that you think are good for them?
What about cars (since you mentioned roads)? And gas and oil. And insurance and maintenance on the cars. Also, tags, inspections, and licenses. What good are roads without those? Or would you give them only bicycles?
And food. If you give them food, shouldn’t you also give them can-openers, refrigerators, stoves, and dinnerware, or are they expected to eat out of cans with their fingers?
If you think they should get education that they don’t pay for, are there any limits? Is it kindergarten through college, or do you draw the line at high school? If college, should they be entitled to doctorates or just bachelor degrees? And does it matter how many kids? If they have fifteen, should each one qualify for what remains of our taxes after the politicians and bureaucrats take their cuts? (Do you have any idea how much it takes to build, care for, and maintain gigantic edifices?)
Just sorta kinda be a little more specific. Then maybe we can answer your question.
You aren’t answering the question; how do roads get built without taxes? Let’s make some fairly broad assessments:
Roads are good. They get used a lot. We would be a lot worse off without them, since it would screw up commerce fifty ways from Sunday.
Nobody’s building them privately.
So where do we get roads? Before anyone jumps on me about how terrific public transit would be, I assure you we’d be much worse off without roads. Or sewers. Or you could explain how we could have a police force without taxes, a classic example of how taxes can significantly INCREASE people’s income; a society with no policing would be substantially poorer than a society with policing, and you can prove it.
To use a previous poster’s point, the issue is UTILITY, not “income” or “wealth” or “profit.” Tax-and-spend actions can decrease utility, but they can also increase it. Socialism’s flawed at its root not because of “profit” or the obsession with class warfare, but because it ignores the importance of utility.
If you point out anyone who believes this you’re not pointing to a socialist but a simpleton. It does make the arguments easier if you ascribe views to your opponents they do not possess. I can do it too, however it doesn’t make for very good debates.
**
What do you mean by advanced business knowledge and skill? Are you talking about the ability to go have 4 martini lunchs and stumble back into the office, then procede to snort lines of coke off your desk? In that case there would be no need for that skill. Or are you talking about the skills it takes to distribute goods, and run an economy. In that case, again, only a simpleton would believe that. And I’m begining to think that only a simpleton would ascribe views to their oponents.
What exactly do CEO’s add to their companies and the economy? They keep the company running and profitable. But, if the main goal of the economy is to provide for human needs, well those CEO’s become superfulous. I haven’t yet seen a company where the CEO’s job was to ensure the company was providing for humanity.
That wasn’t the question. The question was how to give poor people access to roads.
Yeah, and socialism doesn’t?
Well, some people are, but not on any kind of major scale. But, it’s rather knot-headed to expect private roads to be built when government is already building them, isn’t it?
How many red herrings can you fit on the head of a pin?
If you want to know how private roads (and other stuff) would be built and financed (and I so seriously doubt that you do that I won’t bother looking it up for you), then go here and do a search on privatization.
The issue is freedom. If my freedom is not useful to you, then screw your utility.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing anyway.
Socialism fails because it has no mechanism for setting prices.
The goal of a corporation is to pay its shareholders a return on their investment. The job of a CEO is to achieve that goal. An economy has no goal, any more than natural selection does.
I do not find the two to be mutually exclusive. As for one who believes this:
This was Olentzero implying that without a profit system, poorly run companies would have no problems.
This from someone trying to imply that I believe that the country is ruled by goldfish.
Yes, you certainly are able to. And no, it doesn’t make for good debates.
For a post in which you are accusing me of using a straw man, this seems rather hypocritical.
These are the very skills that talented CEOs possess, and yet you claim that they are superfluous in an economy with the purpose of providing for human needs. So are you calling yourself a simpleton?
Ignoring the fact that there are charities with CEOs… no, it isn’t usualy explicity stated. But the CEO’s job is to make the company profitable, and it’s rather difficult to do this without providing anything for humanity.
“So, what does your company do?”
"We coordinate martini lunches for our executives and distribute cocaine to them.
Does this sound like a successful business model to you?
Well, as you have a tendency to do, you are completely misconstruing Olentzero’s quote. He did not state that the only reason poorly run businesses fail under capitalism is the profit motive. He was arguing against pldennison in a rather flippant manner. He stated that under socialism you don’t have to worry about companies going bankrupt. I’m not sure how you missed that one.
**
You’re missing my argument again. I said that you were arguing that household pets had control over American society. An argument you put forth. Let’s go over it. You claim that the fact workers can quit from they’re jobs means they have control over the workplace. You also state that slaves have control over their masters. And goldfish have control over their owners. If a goldfish has control over me, and I have control over work and society, then the goldfish, by your argument, must also have some small control over society.
**
Just trying to figure out what you were talking about. You didn’t provide any definition. And as you of all people should know, it is very important to understand the exact terms used.
**
CEO’s deal very little with distribution. That is the job of the people in charge of distribution. They deal very little in the day to day operations. Take away the CEO and the company will operate for quite a while, just fine. Take away the rest of the company, and the CEO has nothing to do. I’ve never stated that you don’t need people in positions of authority who make decisions. We just don’t need unelected, unaccountable, largely talentless hacks doing it. The workers of the company should decide who’s in charge. They know how to run the company better than the stockholders.
** In which case it’s the job of the CEO to keep the costs down and keep the charity profitable. Again, not to do any productive ( relating to production) work.
**
Sigh Exactly. The CEO’s job is to make the company profitable. Sometimes they provide usefull services because of that, but that isn’t their job. I never stated that companies provide no usefull function. Again, you seem to be either through shear laziness or through intelectual dishonesty, not understanding a single point people make to you. I’m no longer going to bother trying to argue with you.
You are correct under capitalism. But, if we have a planned economy, then all of a sudden it does have a goal. To have a planned economy with no goal, that makes no sense. There was also a time when there was no government, at that point society had no goal. It simply existed. With the formation of government, society was able to establish goals. We can now speak of societal goals. Something that didn’t exist millenia ago.
How is going from “under socialism you don’t have to worry about companies going bankrupt” to “poorly run businesses only fail… [because of] the profit motive” conpletely miscontruing Olentzero’s statement?
And you’re acting as if that my believing that goldfish have some small control over society means that I’m irrational.
If you’re trying to tell me that that you really didn’t know whether or not I was referring to “four martini lunches” and “snorting coke” as important skills, that’s ridiculous.
Who are chosen how? Randomly plucked out of the air? No, the CEO helps to decide who should be in charge of distribution, and they usually have veto power over these people.
So CEOs are not needed, but everyone one else in the command structure is?
Well, if the charity doesn’t produce anything, then of course the CEO isn’t involved in production. That doesn’t mean the CEO is useless.
Why are you so hung up about what their “job” is? If they provide a useful service, we should keep them, regardless of what their “job” is. A parking officer’s job is not to make sure that people don’t park illegally. But his actions prevent people from doing so anyway.
But you did imply that CEOs don’t.
Hmmm. You seem to be unclear on the concept of what a “debate” is. You see, simply whining about how someone isn’t “understanding a single point” (especially without referencing a single one of these supposed “points” that you have made) is not debating. My hypothesis that socialists are incapable of rational debate stands.
Spooky, but true. And then you have jobs for people to direct the economy. Just as you can have a planned education or a random chaotic unplanned education. You can have a planned or unplanned economy. I personally think that a democraticlly controlled planned economy is better than a chaotic unplanned one. I think that a democratically planned society is better than a chaotic unplanned one.
My problem with democracy as the answer to everything is the huge number of conversations I’ve had along the following lines:
“Who are you going to vote for?”
“Party X”
“Why?”
“I don’t know, I always have”
“Tell me their policies”
“…?”
“OK. But at least you must know what they believe in?”
“Er…”
“Do you even know what the differences are between X and Y?”
“Leave me alone. I’m trying to watch this soap opera”
or…
“I don’t believe in [economic/political/any other policy] X”
“Why not?”
“Well, this (rabid) columnist in this tabloid newspaper says that it would mean [the end of all creation/some jingoistic nonsense]”
Since in my experience more people are as above than not (members of this board excepted, pretty much by definition), democracy ends up meaning idiot-rule.
Now I will freely say that I can see no obvious alternative in regard to choosing a government. Further, I think that a government is a good thing. The arguments for regulation are manyfold - I’ll add another post listing the (economic) arguments in favour that I know about, including:
[ul]
[li]Markets function most efficiently when all have access to perfect information. In the real world there is a power imbalance meaning that not all participants have perfect information. Regulation can redress this balance.[/li]
[li]With no control over markets, parties can act in a fraudulent manner. This also affects the power equation (for example insider dealing) and reduces willingness to participate in the market[/li][/ul]
HOWEVER, to extend the argument for regulation to argument for all out planning by democracy would seem to me to be giving too much power to those too easily swayed by populist rants that ignore the underlying issues.
I once believed that the state should control all. I am increasingly of the opinion that the state’s job should actually be to try to ensure that we all start with the same resources at our disposal. This means:
[ul]
[li]education[/li][li]health (including nutrition)[/li][li]no discrimination on the basis of race/creed/sex/sexuality[/li][/ul]
The above needs to be a level playing field. Currently the rich can buy better education for their kids. They can ensure that their kids are well-fed so that they are able to be attentive in class. They can ensure that their kids are more healthy via private medicine. And since the white protestant hetero male forms a large part of the “ruling” class (and I use the word advisedly) they can ensure their kids retain the status quo. The concept that anyone can reach the top levels falters when you have inequality from age zero in the above fields.
Hmm. This post has turned out less cohesive than I might have liked. What was my point again?
Well you’ve convinced me now. I think I’m going to become a libertarian too. NOT! Thanks for nothing. In the future if I see a post by Libertarain I’ll keep moving. That way I dont waste my time.
Giving a man a road without giving him a car does increase utility. Yer man needs to eat doesn’t he? How does the food get transported without roads? Similarly an educated populace certainly increases my utility (I don’t really want to speak for others on this one). I like living in an educated society. If some have no desire to learn then that doesn’t change the fact that others do, so they should have the freedom to do so.
The whole is sometimes genuinely greater than the some of the parts.
Oh yeah, I forgot. If socialism were to be implemented again, this time the government would actually let go and return property to wethepeople when its interim stage is finished. All tyrants have died.
So much the better when the majority has acquired a Jerry Springer maturity and intellect, eh? Despite your longing to be a Borg drone, society is an abstraction. It doesn’t live, breathe, and act. Individuals do. Wouldn’t it be great if Human Action: A Treatise on Economics by von Mises and The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism by Hayek would disappear? That way, you wouldn’t have to bother trying to refute them. But ignoring them is easy enough, isn’t it? Fortunately, here at Straight Dope, ignoring is fought against.
[/quote]
Yet constructivists argued that an unplanned society is wasteful and chaotic. With sufficient knowledge, a perfectly efficient society could be engineered. There would be no more surpluses, nor scarcities. Stock markets would not crash and currencies would not fluctuate. Perhaps society could even be designed so that its members walked in unison toward desirable social goals, just as they had marched together toward victory in wartime.
Hayek bluntly stated that the knowledge constructivists sought was unattainable. It was not possible to plan the dynamics of tomorrow based on how people acted yesterday. It was impossible because people were unpredictable. Human beings were fundamentally different from the physical objects examined by the hard sciences. A scientist could learn everything he needed to know about the behavior of an object, and his knowledge would not necessarily change over time. But human beings acted on psychological factors and motivations that were hidden, often even from themselves. Society did not consist of objects that could be neatly categorized and made to obey the laws of science. Society consisted of erratic and unpredictable individuals.
Mises made a similar point in regard to monetary theory. He demonstrated that even the seemingly objective tool of monetary calculation – the sort of calculation people use informally to assess such personal economic factors as whether to ask for a raise – was ineffective for broader social planning. At best, monetary calculation provided an historical record of what the price of bread, for example, had been in the past. This information could create an anticipation of what the price of bread might be tomorrow, but it could predict nothing. A bread shortage might make the price skyrocket. Moreover, using yesterday to engineer tomorrow went against a fundamental tenet of human action: the principle of inevitable change.
[/quote]
Well. Apart from a stunning ignorance of everythign I’ve been talking about for the last 4 months, not bad. If the government is a democratic government controlled by the people, where exactly does the tyran come in? Why would the government let go and return property to the people? It wouldn’t take it in the first place. You seem to be confusing my views with top down stalinism. As I’ve stated before I’m no supporter of those regimes. Ah well, about the best one can expect from libertarians I suppose.
**
And they said the French could never have a democracy. They were too stupid. And third world countries could never govern themselves, they weren’t evolved enough. Any more centuries old elitist arguments you want to throw out? How about the slope of the skulls of most proletarians indicate they lack the capabillities to be in government.
**
And yet there are trend and historical laws for society. Throw those out, and you throw out most of the social sciences. The truth is people have succesfully predicted all sorts of human events. Why? Because people do act in definite manners based on their circumstances.
**
And yet you seem to be able to ignore what I actually talk about quite handily. You just go and make up my points for me. Luckily I’m here to go back and point out that the views you ascribe to me are based on falsehoods. Or did you not state at one point that socialists beieve that coercion is a good thing?
And you’ll be pleased to know that I picked up a copy of The Road to Serfdom at the library, and am planning on getting a copy of The Fatal Conceit in the next week or two. I’ll let you know what I think.
**
And yet no proof is given by you of this statement. An economist makes a sweeping claim about humanity and the social sciences. And you provide no proof. I’m sorry, I don’t buy into the load of crap.
I feel bad for you scratch. Here you are living in one of the best times in the world in one of the best countries with thousands of fantastic advances in technology and medecine, and you are still unhappy with the state of affairs.
In answer to your question… Never. If we succeed in getting a socialist revolution in my life, I’ll still be out there seeing what can be done better and how things can be improved.
As for why I do it? Sorry if I get a bit preachy here.
There are still millions of people dying of starvation. There are people dying needlesssly in wars. There are people who die because they don’t get the medical attention they need. Here in the US 1 in 5 children still grows up below the poverty level (if that’s the best that can be done, I want no part of it). Here in SF we have 14,000 homeless and only 1,400 shelter beds. I feel physically sick when I see 70 or 80 year old women living on the street asking for change. I don’t want to live in a world where that occurs. I feel sick when I see what happens to people in Kashmir. I feel sick when I read about Nazi’s in Germany, in Chile, in Spain, hell even in Denver. I don’t want a chance of that ever happening again. I’m disgusted that wars are fought over money. I’m disgusted with most of the people we have in office. I’m disgusted that millions of innocent Iraqi children die because of our government’s actions.
And I see hope. And I fight for that hope. Why? Because I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t.