Libertarianism versus Anarchism

WinstonSmith

Ok. Disagree with quite a bit of this.

Akrasia wrote: »

Artists are very very rarely motivated by profit alone (you can keep your damien hurst)

Whilst not all artists are motivated by profit, a lot are. I admit there would still be some creative output, but the standard/amount would be significantly reduced over time.

Akrasia wrote: »

The motivation to work hard is because when the work is done, you can go home, and because you benefit from the output just as much as everyone else.

How is this different from now? At the end of the day I get to go home. It could also be argued pretty easily that I benefit from the output of my labour just as much, if not better, than anyone else (with the exception of a few).

Akrasia wrote: »

I think there is much more incentive to work in this system the capitalist 'do as little as will not get you fired' for the worker drones... as indicated by the number of people who post here during office hours)

This may be the case with some people, but not with everybody. Those who able to post on here would not unanimously categorise themselves as worker drones, I imagine, and in a lot of business sectors, people are motivated not by the need to do just enough so an not to get fired, but the desire to make more money!

Kama

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If libertarianism can't have it's foundational assumptions queried, it's not a tenable socio-economic philosophy. If you will accept neither thought experiments, not empirical data, you're speaking out your ass, quite frankly.

Oh, I have to love the euphemism of "decommodification programs." (Welfare state, cough.) But isn't this much like what we have right now?

Commodify, decommodify - A welfare state decommodifies goods. There's no euphemism, it's the descriptive term in academic literature on welfare states.

Can you show me any socialist regime that outperformed its free-market counterpart on any such indicator.

I already have shown socialist interventionist societies as outperforming liberal ones in market competitiveness, which would not commonly be a socialists indicator of choice, but rather a liberals. The only higher-scoring was the United States, with significantly higher crime levels, world-leading in incarceration per capita. But for the simplest, and most manifestly unfair distribution of liberty, the right to live, lets take infant mortality, which I regard as one of the most primary of stats:



Center for Disease Control

Or if anyone has academic access or interest, perhaps this:

Using new comparative data bases this paper examines whether infant mortality rates in industrialised nations are affected by public policies and income inequality. Particular attention is given to the role of the level of economic development, public policy and the distribution of economic resources. The study shows that the level of economic development has a strong, but decreasing impact on the infant mortality rate. Income inequality and relative poverty rates appear to be of greater importance for the variation in infant mortality rates than the level of economic development between rich countries. Levels of unemployment and of social security benefits seems to affect the infant mortality rate; the combination of high unemployment and low unemployment benefits seems to be associated with particularly high mortality rates. A high level of family benefits is also associated with low infant mortality rates.

Or perhaps this

Life expectancy in richer Western countries is, however, strongly associated with the extent of income disparity within countries: the most favourable rates occur in those countries with the smallest gap between the highest and lowest income groups.Further evidence for a relation between income distribution and life expectancy is provided by an examination of changes in income distribution in 12 European Community countries during 1975-85.21 This showed more rapid improvement in life expectancy following a fall in the prevalence of relative poverty (fig 1). It seems that for countries with a gross national product per head above $5000 a year, there is little systematic relation between average income and life expectancy but that income distribution is an important facto

Longstoryshort: first you need a minimum standard of wealth, which affects outcomes most. This effect then diminishes, and relative equality becomes a more determining factor. The literature is all there, if you care to read it, quite uncontroversial stuff.

Income inequality (per Gini) has been repeatedly found to be strongly associated with infant mortality. The parents you deride for their irresponsibility are unable, due to their structural position in the market, to access satisfactory health and medical care. Consequently, new individuals are born with their freedom significantly impaired. The market-socialist argument is that decommodification of basic medical services to is a necessity for meritocratic reasons, and a necessary component for a stable market-capitalist society that provides opportunity to all it's citizens, not merely those who won a birth-lottery. Your strongest answer given is that 'After the (Libertarian) Revolution', people will behave as you think they should. Substantiate the claim.

What happens if you don't have any surplus? What happens if you don't even have enough to meet "staple needs"?

What happens if other people don't answer your questions, since they are clearly 'silly', or 'absurd' or 'hypothetical', since you appear incapable of answering others?

The proposed distinction between property and possessions is nonsensical, as I and others pointed out at the time.

Again, saying 'nonsense' after ignoring arguments you have been presented with...

Please support your arguments, or retract them as statements.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even if this were the case, it is highly unlikely that the degree of over compensation could come anywhere near like the levels we have in this system, or in your libertarian ideal. No anarchist would ever be renumerated thousands of times more than his peers. If there was a difference, it would be due to the extra hours they are prepared to contribute, or because they choose to do unpopular jobs.

What happens if you don't have any surplus? What happens if you don't even have enough to meet "staple needs"?

The people would need to work harder or re-assess how their resources are put to use.

So people would be awarded "points" that would be "tradable." So it's fair for me to say, "Hey, Akrasia, if you mow my lawn, I'll give you 5 points"?

If you can't imagine a system where something is non transferrable, then its only evidence of your own lack of imagination.

Why not? If you have more points than I do, I'm going to feel oppressed and mistreated.

If the system of allocating the tokens or points or whatever they would be called is unfair, then you could work to have it changed. If it's fair and you're just lazy or greedy, then that's your own problem

The proposed distinction between property and possessions is nonsensical, as I and others pointed out at the time. In your society, it will simply result in people disguising wealth that would otherwise be confiscated as "personal possessions." Everyone will be walking around like Mr. T. with dozens of gold chains around their neck, calling it their "personal" jewellery.

They could do that if they wished, (perhaps) but what use would the gold jewelry be to them if they couldn't buy property and hire workers. They would just be sad pathetic misers

In the same way libertarianism encourages responsibility in other aspects of life. In 1960, 22 percent of black children lived with a single parent. By 2006, that percentage had risen to 56 percent. How do you explain this rise? Was it the increasing libertarianism of American society?

Are you saying America has become more socialist since 1960?

Individual responsibility to oneself and one's child.

Not an answer, not even close. How does Libertarianism ensure that people take responsibility for their children. One specific measure or program please.

The slums have come about because of the very antithesis of libertarianism, so how could I possibly admire them? And your vaunted labour unions want to stop Western corporations from outsourcing employment to the Third World where it is so desperately needed. You think that benefits children? How?

So employment is so desperately needed in these countries that the children need to get jobs to survive. It really does pain me to think about all those poor unemployed children in central america and asia.
What is lacking in these parts of the world is a compassionate economic system, not 'employment'

So, the more you work, the more higher-level goods you have? This is beginning to sound a bit problematic again, from the anarcho-socialist perspective.

Nobody is capable of working twice or 3 times as hard as other people. And they will only be able to accumulate posessions that the syndicate as a whole is able to afford, and only based on their allocated share of the resources.
You are a strange man DF. On one hand you criticise anarchists as forcing everyone to be identical and to have no posessions. We explain that anarchists can have posessions and can get rewareded for work, so you criticise us for this too.

So I can hang a Picasso on my wall and call it a "possession"? Sweet. I can think of lots of ways covertly to accumulate wealth. I anticipate a thriving black market in art, precious metals, and the like.

Bollox. first of all, I think it is very safe to assume that art like picasso and the great artists would be exhibited in public art galleries. But it is instructive of your view that you when you think of art, you immediately are drawn to picassos and da vinci's, which is an extremely elitist view tbh.

If they have no other option then yes, absolutely.

Just for other people, this quote refers to my question about children being forced to work if they have no other choice in a libertarian society.

I find it amazing that DF can still claim that libertarianism is about freedom when he openly admits that children can be forced into labour by virtue of having no other choice.

CatacombKittens

The problem I have with Libertarianism is that it's very naive. The other thing I dislike about Libertarianism, and the right wing of economics in general is the anti-welfare kind of attitude.

The thing is, that capitalism only works because the government exists and protects your property rights and the market and economy in general(though the last two, often somewhat poorly). A system is put in place that is often quite specific and is what allows you to make rakes of money for "Hard work". If the government then decides "Hold on, nobody's going to use this much money, but these dudes could do with a leg up" then I don't think it's fair to say that they somehow have no right. Capitalism isn't the way we've always done things and isn't fully "natural". Using the same system that allows you to make this money to help less fortunate people out isn't a bad idea. Countries with good welfare systems tend to be less filled with slackers(that's just Ireland and maybe some parts of the US, and less face it, our businessmen are worse) but tend to be more productive in other avenues than work.

For example what I detest about right wingers is the notion that because you can't find a job, including if you're disabled, you should somehow have a very low standard of life until you do(as "encouragement", or some kind of moral legislation). Because many countries support people better, you get some interesting things, for example Scandanavia, especially Sweden, is big into the open source software movement, it's lan/demo parties. You wouldn't get people doing this kind of cool **** for free to the same extent if those countries were right wing, anti-welfare.

Because it's not as "necessary" to work, these things get done. When you give people a poor standard of living while they search for a job, not only does it get easier to slouch into the coach potato lifestyle, but you do not have the resources to pursue other avenues, which if pursued may even lead to new businesses and thus stimulate the economy or at the very least cultural enrichment Not everyone has the "Get up and go" to do this without a boost just because some do and none of this "Personal Responsibility" philosophy is going to change that.

I think most right wingers must lead very "Mainstream" lives as they don't realise how much stuff is organised by what basically amounts to, hippies. For example down in cork, a lot of the events in the Unitarian church down in Cork(plays, sales of work, stuff like that) are organised by filthy hippies. Basically, some other countries are full of these "artsy" or nerdy types who are less work motivated and more motivated in getting things done, if that makes any sense. It's not just down to that of course, or else Ireland, with the better welfare system than the UK would have a lot more going on. It's just that unless you have a particular cultural attitude like the UK does to do more in poorer conditions (Really disappointed the reccession hasn't lead to more people turning towards the arts, but this suggests my theory about needed the comfortable standars may be correct), you're not going to get anywhere, and even then, you're never going to get people doing the same amount of cool stuff for free. In colleges, I've found the amount of decent Soc activity is almost always proportionate to the amount of filthy hippies.

The attitude in general seems to be nobody should ever get anything for free, and that people have a sense of entitlement. I think people should absolutely have a sense of entitlement towards a basic standard of living regardless of whether they work or not. I don't understand the right wing attitude that people "should" contribute, yet then people are wrong to expect a contribution in other contexts. If people do have a skill they could easily bring to the table, then I absolutely would expect them to at least try to make use of it. Right wingers seem to hold something different, that you absolutely should be expected to work regardless. This is often what socialists mean by "freeing up resources". We expect people to work, but we don't expect them to contribute what they have. This seems silly. It's very anti-individualistic which is why I dislike most Libertarians, since they proclaim to be very pro-individual.

The ideal of slaving yourself away for the sake of working is a digusting one as far as I'm concerned. There's this rotten hearted assumption that 9 to 5 jobs are the only way someone can contribute to society even when the above proves them wrong.

I personally think we should work towards reducing our working hours in general since it'd be better for our health, more time to excercise and eat properly. We live high stress lifestyles which means only certain kinds of people can avail of their free time.

Right wing economics just aren't good for cultural advancement. The other problem with Libertarians is that they don't understand that it's not just the government that can oppress. For instance, if I want to get a job as an obvious transsexual or someone with funny hair, it's not "The government" stopping me. It's social attitudes making it very unlikely I will get a job without making significant changes that when you come down to it, do violate some basic human rights. Because big business only answers to profit and not the people, a society run by this will generaly be more corrupt. Even a corrupt government, to some extent, is limited by the people moreso than big business. In fact, most of the reason governments ARE corrupt is due to capitalistic interest, feathering their own nests.

Unregulated capitalism is such bunk, really. It's based on similar naive principles that socialists often get accused of holding.

Either way, this is why I think Libertarianism doesn't work. It preaches to be culturally/socially progressive while upholding right wing economics, but as I've suggested, right wing economics only get in the way of this. So I wouldn't think the principles of anarchism that most people uphold are compatible with anarcho-capitalism, either.

,8,1

Libertarianism is not about "unregulated capitalism", it is about anti-Statism, anti-authoritarianism, individualism and anarchism.

It just so happens that promoting an anarchistic market (aka free market) is one of the side-effects of believing in anti-authoritarianism, anti-Statism, etc.

While you might say libertarianism has "right-wing economics" it is certainly not right-wing in a general sense, even though it is often misunderstood as such.

CatacombKittens

,8,1 wrote: »

Libertarianism is not about "unregulated capitalism", it is about anti-Statism, anti-authoritarianism, individualism and anarchism.

It just so happens that promoting an anarchistic market (aka free market) is one of the side-effects of believing in anti-authoritarianism, anti-Statism, etc.

While you might say libertarianism has "right-wing economics" it is certainly not right-wing in a general sense, even though it is often misunderstood as such.

But it has the identical effect, and if you read my post in detail I outline the ways of thinking Libertarians and Right wingers have in common.

I just dislike the attitude in general. I think everyone should contribute what they have, but that there are many different ways to do this, not just wage slavery. I think we should decouple the idea of profit and contribution a little because it causes people to "horde" skills that aren't relevant to their work, or not be able to utilise them due to lack of free time. It's not appropriate to work several jobs relevant to all your skills and it still encourages a very money hungry attitude. Some people are more monolithic in their skills and thus full time employmet is far more enjoyable and fruitful to them. For someone like me who's sort of good at a few different things, it's a bad idea.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CatacombKittens

Soldie wrote: »

As opposed to 'do whatever the hell you want as you'll still get your fair share'? Okay. You're honestly suggesting that people will have more incentive to work for nothing, than they'd have to work for something?

It would help if the right wing arguments were't dominated by terrible appeals to ridicule and emotion. There's this constant obnoxious sense of Oh Ho Ho you need to GROW UP, and you always have to spin everything in a way that looks like anyone left of centre is a joke, "You're honestly suggesting", "Seriously?", comments usually begin as thus.

I don't think you're interested in a sytem that works so much as a system for aggrivating people that want to make a positive difference.

/Suppresses laughter

There is no need for comments such as this, for example, ever, in an argument. You get them almost exclusively from right wingers as they have no interest in mature debate. Your arguments are worthless **** since you're so decoupled from what actually helps and hurts people and are only fanboys to your ideology, scrounging together whatever fringe studies/articles glue in with your alarmingly popular viewpoint. Personally I don't have a word or rigid motion to my ideology, there are some things I believe in very firmly but I'm constantly reassessing what the best solutions are.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, being snide isn't an argument. It's also not nice, and reflects poorly on boards. Again, please account for the competitiveness of high social-protection economies, given your assumptions.

I notice that your trenchant analysis of infant mortality statistics in the United States has failed to document the fact that one-third of infant deaths in that country happen because of complications related to prematurity. And it's something of an irony that the superior medical care available in the USA has had the side effect of raising the rate of premature births.

I'd appreciate your link for the 3 in 10, my link is 1 in 10, but ok. Nevertheless, account for the disparity between this and other advanced economies with comparable levels of resources. Why are the premmies not dying elsewhere, in comparable economies?

Welfare state birthrates are falling, I agree. but this has no direct relevance to infant mortality; the stats were per 1000 live births. You asked for figures, or any significant indicator, on which a socialist regime surpassed a liberal.

If you cannot repudiate the point, I can only assume you accept it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

so you are refuting the infant mortality indicator by championing America's fertility rate?

genius.
Here are the top 10 countries in the world by fertility rate.
1 Niger 7.45 7.19
2 Guinea-Bissau 7.10 7.07
3 Afghanistan 7.48 7.07
4 Burundi 6.80 6.80
5 Liberia 6.80 6.77
6 Democratic Republic of the Congo 6.70 6.70
7 East Timor 6.96 6.53
8 Mali 6.70 6.52
9 Sierra Leone 6.50 6.47
10 Uganda


There's a list of the worst places in the world to live if i've ever seen one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you asking would I put Einstein in a gold palace and give him a hundred concubines and servants and his own private helicopter just because he was a genius?
Would einstein have been any less of a genius if he was paid the same as everyone else?

I think you have completely failed to imagine the obvious black market that is going to crop up in your society. Points or no points, people have traded stuff ever since the dawn of civilization. Your "points system" is not going to stop that. I will simply go and claim my product from your state store, and then I will use it to barter with my friends and neighbours. Have you ever noted how cigarettes operate as a substitute currency inside prisons, for instance?

Anarchist communities would not be prisons.

Has it ever occurred to you that the absence of measures or programs could itself encourage responsibility? Can you even conceive of a world where people do not spend their entire lives swaddled in government programs and schemes? How exactly do you think humankind survived through the ages?

You are asking a government if I have ever conceived of a world without government programs?? are you serious?

I'm inclined to believe, based on experience, that one person can be much more productive than another, to the tune of many multiples.

a thousand multiples?

I'm simply noting that the more you explain how anarchists can accumulate possessions and earn different wage levels for harder work, the more your "anarcho-socialism" tends towards regular old capitalism.

If capitalism has guaranteed food shelter and clothing for all the citizens, prohibits land ownership, has democratic workers self management of all workplaces, organises in non heirarchical structures and doesn't pursue the individualist profit motive, then, yes, they're exactly the same.

What if I own a Picasso before the Anarcho-Socialist Revolution? Are people's private art collections going to be taken from them and put into the public art gallery? Why doesn't privately owned art have the status of a "possession"?

Because a picasso belongs to the world, and nothing you have done in your life would justify your private ownership of a treasure like that. (it's not like you painted it)

Why is it "elitist"? Aren't Picasso and Da Vinci among the greatest of our artists?

Yes, but art is not all about 'greatness'. Art is about expression, and a thriving artist community (even if most of them will never become famous or collectable) is more valuable than the ownership of a few masterpieces.

I have given you any number of other mechanisms by which children can be protected financially and legally. I imagine the number of children fitting into the "no other choice" category would be small indeed.

You haven't given a single plausible answer to what would happen to abandoned street children in libertarianland.

If it wasn't for the social services, this would be a seruous problem in all developed countries. In places without social services, kids are shot by the police and raped on the streets without anyone to protect them (sue their parents? yeah right)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you're the one who pulled the 'birth rate' trump card and claimed higher is better (twice in two seperate posts)

Soldie

CatacombKittens wrote: »

It would help if the right wing arguments were't dominated by terrible appeals to ridicule and emotion. There's this constant obnoxious sense of Oh Ho Ho you need to GROW UP, and you always have to spin everything in a way that looks like anyone left of centre is a joke, "You're honestly suggesting", "Seriously?", comments usually begin as thus.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely have a hard time taking the anarcho-socialist argument seriously. donegalfella has been grilled repeatedly on everything from contracts to amputee fetishism, yet when he answers a question the answer is ignored, and ten other questions spawn. Meanwhile anarcho-socialists have claimed that people would have more incentive to work if they weren't paid, that we could use points instead of currency, that we could save said points to spend on items, that almost every decision ranging from toothbrushes to what a factory produces would be made at a town-hall-style meeting, that the basic needs (who defines basic needs, by the way?) of people are catered for unconditionally and that, surpluses permitting, people may then apply (apply to who, by the way?) for more. To me this completely ignores human nature, and almost necessitates coercion. Human beings do not function in that way. I see the free-market as organic and decentralised, and the best example I can think of is the following: A friend of mine owns a DIY shop. Recently the owner of one of the neighbouring shops came in to hire a strimmer as he wanted to remove the weeds from outside his shop. He then asked my friend if he could hire the strimmer for free if he also removed the weeds from outside the DIY shop. My friend agreed. To me that is basic human nature. The fact that would not be allowed in an anarcho-socialist world is something I cannot come to terms with.

There are two things that seem apparent to me:

Firstly, in a libertarian world, an anarcho-socialist commune would be perfectly tolerable. The opposite is not true - an anarcho-socialist would not tolerate a libertarian community given the fact that they don't recognise property rights. Secondly, a libertarian world encourages responsbility in that if I decide to take out a loan to buy a car, I aware that it is I who must repay the loan. Much in the same way that if I decide to spend my money on luxuries instead of food or clothing, it is I who will suffer the consequences. An anarcho-socialist world encourages irresponsbility in that, as Akrasia has claimed, me blowing my 'points' on booze and having ten children will not be detrimental to my 'basic needs' being looked after - how is that sustainable?

You get them almost exclusively from right wingers as they have no interest in mature debate. Your arguments are worthless **** since you're so decoupled from what actually helps and hurts people and are only fanboys to your ideology, scrounging together whatever fringe studies/articles glue in with your alarmingly popular viewpoint.

About that mature debate... :rolleyes:

Kama

Another flip answer, and reference to totalitarian projects, in lieu of a response from DF.

I've just finished the article linked, whose conclusion (if I might summarise its conclusions and recommendations) is that social security reduces birthrates and damage 'the family', and that larger families should be made economically necessary as a retirement strategy.

Of course, some individuals cannot have children of their own, or their children may fall ill and die. The natural solution to these risks is to pool them in the informal social insurance market. This is why the norm in traditional societies is not the nuclear family but the extended family.

It then follows to say that this is a complementary, rather than primary motivation, while praising the disciplinary pressures of the economy in maintaining a 'natural' family unit. It's outlook is one of an obligate communitarianism; the family is a natural unit, and individuals are limited in their freedom to leave it.

We might (as good welfarists) say in response that the natural solution to these risks is to pool them in the formal social security institutions?

Essentially, per the article, people should be forced to have children by economic circumstance. In this society, the freedom not to have children is de facto removed. Breed or die young. I cannot square this with political libertarianism, as I understand it. Instead it offers a market-libertarianism coupled with a conservative-communitarian social ethos; economically liberal, socially illiberal.

It is interesting, though, as one of the predominant arguments against the welfare state in popular discourse is that of 'welfare mothers', the Social Darwinism of 'Idiocracy', but the fusion of conservative family-values natalism and economic liberalism in this manner is, to me, illiberal, and severely reduces individual rights rather than enhancing them.

donegalfella wrote:

If you're referring to countries such as Denmark and Sweden, you might be surprised to realise that these were not always hotbeds of lefty socialism. Consider Sweden, one of the freest and wealthiest countries in the world until it went into its sad socialist decline in the mid-twentieth century.

A decline so severe, that they must have fallen out of the top 10...After half a century of socialist 'decline', how have they managed to remain both free and wealthy, and manage to provide these outcomes?

A strong work ethic still prevails culturally in these societies, a remnant of freer times, and it is this—and not socialism—that results in its greater productivity.

Unsubstatiated claim. Please provide evidence for this belief. These countries have strong social protection, and high productivity, with such success as market-socialist economies that it is referred to as the 'Nordic model'. I agree that the social model is reflective of strong values, but these are solidaristic ones, based on mutual support. You are asking me to believe that they achieve these outcomes in spite of their historical sociopolitical regimes? Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence; I look forward to seeing it.

Preemies are dying elsewhere. There are simply more preemies in the United States.

Again, provide an account for the differential between them. Yes, there are more, but the infant death mortality is per 1000 births. Why are more, proportionally dying in the United States?

Which regime is surpassing which?

Is your measure of the health of an economy its growth in population, or the outcomes of the population? Mine is the latter. Population growth presents problems, as does population decline. Population growth is not a monotonic good.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

While I'm at it, can an anarcho-socialist explain how this voluntary subsistence-style society would sustain itself? As I've already pointed out, attempts at pushing through collectivised policies coercively have been met with fierce resistance, so I'm unsure as to why you think people will be willing to forfeit all of their property and work for nothing voluntarily.

Also; suppose I worked on a farm with some others. One fine evening we convene in the barn and decide, democratically, that we're now going to sell our produce instead of simply giving it away. What will happen to us?

Kama

Recently the owner of one of the neighbouring shops came in to hire a strimmer as he wanted to remove the weeds from outside his shop. He then asked my friend if he could hire the strimmer for free if he also removed the weeds from outside the DIY shop. My friend agreed. To me that is basic human nature. The fact that would not be allowed in an anarcho-socialist world is something I cannot come to terms with.

Thank you for demonstrating the basic anarchosocialist principle of mutual aid: solidaristic, mutually-beneficial economic relations. Any anarchosocialism which would prevent you from freely helping another...isn't anarchosocialist.

Soldie

Kama wrote: »

Thank you for demonstrating the basic anarchosocialist principle of mutual aid: solidaristic, mutually-beneficial economic relations. Any anarchosocialism which would prevent you from freely helping another...isn't anarchosocialist.

I guess you'd better tell Akrasia that. For starters, private property isn't allowed in an anarcho-socialist world, so not only would my friend be without a shop, but he'd be without all of its contents - not to mention the staff who'd regret to hear they're out of a job. Also, I'm sure a tenuous link between the aforementioned agreement and exploitation/selling units of labour/otherwise can be drawn. My friend obviously thought that getting the neighbour to strim the weeds was worth more than the cost of hiring out the strimmer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CatacombKittens

"Artist communities" churn out nothing but worthless tripe. No artist has ever produced great work in such an environment.

Oh really? Care to back this up? Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but that's not objective fact.

Oh, the hilarity of these claims.

I'll make another. You are completely and unfathomably unable to debate maturely. You cannot debate without sinking to the level of pretending to laugh at your opponent, or otherwise mocking them.

If this along with the other claims are so ridiculous, debunk them. It's very convenient when your opponent is "so ridiculous" you don't have to prove your case. Do you not realise what a childish and lazy tactic this is? Even if I'm insulting someone's intelligence, I'll still explain WHY I'm doing so. If you don't want to deal with someone's issues, then at least ignore them rather than heckling them.

Sweden is not in any state of "decline" due to socialism. This just shows how delusional you are. Sweden has enjoys excellent healthcare, public services, scientific research among other things and since it actually has it's own industries(Nokia, Ikea etc.) it's managed to do quite well. There is no part of reality that agrees with you. The Scandanavian countries have consistantly been excellent to live in.

You know, I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of a right wing country working to some extent under the right culutral mentality. You don't even consider the world outside your little socioeconomic bubble. I am not interested in just "proving" left wing economics work, I am interested in finding out what it best for everyone. Debates like this could be used to this end wonderfully, but you only seem to care about putting people down. You seem unphased at the idea of kids dying in the street despite yourself using much worse emotional goads at people.

The entire method of debate for the right/libertarians in this thread is just bothersome and you come off as number crunching sociopaths. I wouldn't mind your views so much if you didn't feel the need to incessantly put down your opponents and to show a complete lack of regard for human wellbeing. If your argument is so strong, it should speak for itself.

Valmont

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats your opinion, but the anthropological evidence is clear that we are a cooperative tribal species, and not an isolationist competitive species. A human by himself is a very vulnerable creature (rambo and chuck norris aside). But when we gather togeher, we can dominate the planet.

That doesn't prove that humans are naturally altruistic. We most definitely are not, if you read up on a few of the many social psychology experiments that have looked at this topic you will see that most people act in an altruistic manner in order to make themselves look good or desirable i.e. they get something back in return.

This isn't a matter of opinion, these sorts of experiments have been conducted since the 70's in some form or another. I can link you a few if you want.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You mean the compromise between a free but firmly regulated market and strong unions, under the hegemony of the SDP, with a large public sector, active labour market policies, and high redistribution, including high public investment in education, I assume? A model which emerged out of de facto Keynesian intervention spurred on by the Great Depression? To claim this as a repudiation of socialism, and a ringing endorsement of laissez-faire liberalism, especially given the SDP's union base and ideology of democratic control of the economy would be tendentious to say the least. It's generally called 'social democracy', or 'corporatism', or 'market socialism'.

Great. So you're perfectly happy to see enormous shrinkages in European populations, so long as those who are born have good "outcomes"? That's hardly sustainable. At some point, the "outcomes" must include extinction.

I have no problem whatever with people choosing to limit their family size, frankly I regard whether to have children or not as a choice, rather than something I should be compelled to by economic necessity as a form of old-age insurance, as your linked article advises, effectively enforcing a 'family values' agenda, and severely limiting individual freedom; economic liberalism coupled with social conservatism.

Sunn

Valmont wrote: »

That doesn't prove that humans are naturally altruistic. We most definitely are not, if you read up on a few of the many social psychology experiments that have looked at this topic you will see that most people act in an altruistic manner in order to make themselves look good or desirable i.e. they get something back in return.

This isn't a matter of opinion, these sorts of experiments have been conducted since the 70's in some form or another. I can link you a few if you want.

Can I see these links? Its important to remember that alot of these experiments took place during the cold war, a time of great suspicion and of course the emergence of the psychiatric field. John Nash conducted a few experiments based on the cold war, "game theory". The problem was these experiments only saw people as one dimensional, self serving, self driven and self interested. Of course this wasn't the case and isn't.

Adam curtis's "the trap" explains this in great detail.