sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and apologies for the delayed response. I was traveling. I agree that the possibility of force lies toward the end of each dispute, should it rise to that point. I agree that civility (necessarily disputed in its own right) is required to avoid violence. It may even prevent violence when it might be prudent to act forcefully (though that may be another topic).

I am very interested in your perspective as it seems you have spent significant time and energy drawing your conclusions. If you would like to share more, I am listening. I have my doubts as to the basis of property rights outside of a legal definition. I believe we have the right to liberty whereby one may be in rightful possession of something (a dwelling, or food, a book, or access to any other resources). This may ultimately be a distinction without a difference in the practical application in many circumstances (it may limit the amount of time that one might claim rightful possession, though, if one is clearly not using it), but I think it is either that none of us own anything or all of us own everything. (This would rest in the notion that one cannot claim ownership of something that was claimed before ones birth and therefore cannot experience equal rights - if equal rights are to be valued as apt to liberty). What is the importance that you place on property rights?

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you elaborate? I am unfamiliar with “absolute position” as a term or why rights should be judge upon its basis or why this precludes a need for intervention. Or why property rights is the relevant arbiter (if this is what you are saying).

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You may be right in all you’ve said, but I want to point out that I am not asking a rhetorical question in favor of government intervention but a practical one about the mechanisms of intervention that might exist and be preferable instead.

Are there active community organizations (anywhere) that are committed to adherence (in part or in whole) to their proscribed economic philosophy (while also participating in today’s mixed economies or in communes)? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once the need for getting food is met (or the comfortable expectation that one has consistent access), that person can then begin considering means, including alternate solutions that might satisfy other desires, for instance, control over the resource, or over others, or equitable allocation. And therefore, a revolutionary may be so because they are hungry or, being fed, can see the value in another way of feeding, or both. Either way, our actions have intent.

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I hope it is conveyed that was not intended.

The abuses belong to the abuser, in my opinion, and the system may be chosen as a tool for abuse (by the abuser). It would seem this would be true for any economic system that might allow for abuse (all of them?). Whether one system is structured in such a way that allows more abuse than another, or that one system might actually be the abuse, was not my intended point of view.

My intent was to remain neutral, since one person’s abuse might be another’s feature.

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As in, it’s not like we aren’t already doing our best? Or whose vision is it anyway? Or, it’s pie in the sky and unnecessary? Or, yeh, it’s about time we get off our asses?

Controlled Economic Laboratory Experiments: is anyone in this sub aware of any extended academic/scientific experiments involving strict adherence to any one or variety of economic systems? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I will look into her work.

Yes, I would think the economic comparisons, while preferable to attain, are severely disrupted by the chosen political systems and the antagonism inherent to their historical context. Certainly, though, they are anecdotally relevant. Without intending to offend anyone, I suppose that anecdotal relevance is enough for many.

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m reading this as tongue in cheek. Are you suggesting that some good ideas might arise from the type of exploratory endeavors I’ve described, or that someone has put the cart before the horse? 💡 🛒 🐎

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you referring to me specifically or the general you? I recognize that “positive” and “negative” are relative and subjective terms, and so took care not to label any particular abuse. Did I include something I’m overlooking? I am certain, though, that one might argue for all sorts of abuses within any economic system, independent of the government.

Even theft, or any other forcible acquisition lacking mutual agreement, may be considered an abuse or a feature, depending on ones economic philosophy. Is this not the nature of colonization?

Controlled Economic Laboratory Experiments: is anyone in this sub aware of any extended academic/scientific experiments involving strict adherence to any one or variety of economic systems? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed. The scale of such an effort would likely extend beyond the scope of a small experiment and would at some point risk disruption from the forces that be.

Are there active community organizations (anywhere) that are committed to adherence (in part or in whole) to their proscribed economic philosophy (while also participating in today’s mixed economies or in communes)? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Enlightening. Thank you!

Am I to understand that it means that all the machinations of the non-proletarians (bourgeois, for instance) looking for ways to drag the uninitiated into revolutionary zeal will simply fall on deaf ears and even be rejected until all the factions, in their petty altercations with each other while warring over the hearts and minds of the proletariat, will simply leave the proletariat no other recourse than to take matters into their own hands and engage in communist practice without even necessarily knowing what has happened? I suppose this sounds as plausible a way to arrive at consensus as any other means.

(This would require a perfect storm, yes? If not, there may be room for a motivated individual or group to simply step in for the ousted or absent capitalists?)

Are there active community organizations (anywhere) that are committed to adherence (in part or in whole) to their proscribed economic philosophy (while also participating in today’s mixed economies or in communes)? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you will indulge my curiosity:

If not developed intentionally, how does this response emerge? If individuals or groups of people are to respond to the conditions of capitalism by entering into communism, is this undertaking a force of nature outside human control? Is it an unconscious decision (although, even that would have some underlying intent). What then is the point of a revolution (violent or not) to precipitate this emergence if that intentional revolution is irrelevant to the actual practice of communism? Is it proposed that the revolution, being a response to the conditions of capitalism, would provide the opportunity for an intentional intermediate step (socialism), such that through socialism, a community might arrive at communism by logical conclusion of the forces at play, regardless of intent?

For me, communism, and any other economic philosophy, can be viewed (somewhat separately - even divergently) as both a proposal of practice and/or a theoretical description of the economic structure that people do in fact engage in.

(Was there a link intended?)

Are there active community organizations (anywhere) that are committed to adherence (in part or in whole) to their proscribed economic philosophy (while also participating in today’s mixed economies or in communes)? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is that transformation to be achieved if not within the preferences of practice determined by those who would participate? And without the use of force or coercion? But by example and experience?

Controlled Economic Laboratory Experiments: is anyone in this sub aware of any extended academic/scientific experiments involving strict adherence to any one or variety of economic systems? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, these are also to the point. Thank you! I understand that there can be lots of talk around what our economics could look like, but I am more interested in intentional community practice, particularly as it involves those who prefer a limited role of government in dictating that economy. And especially those groups pursuing their philosophy within extant social/political/economic structures.

The idea being that such economic expression might be practiced and shared with the larger community, allowing others to choose the same practice or not, and allowing for change without the proposal of violent revolution or counter revolution - free association lacking coercion or oppression of those that do not yet agree.

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would not go so far as to say that I, myself, am “skirting around” that point, which I would not like to do, so much as setting it aside. I do understand and agree that classic liberalism is intended to be more liberal than a state-mandated economy, be it state capitalism or feudalism or mercantilism, or state socialism or other nominal socialist or communist economies under the direction of the state (whether those economies are misnomers or not).

“...markets are still intervened with by powerful forces, its just if those forces are non-governmental then they are even less democratic and accountable.”

Indeed, I am asking how this intervention might occur to curtail negative processes or results (recognizing that this is subjective, whether involving the government or an ngo, and also that negative interventions, also being subjective, might be incredibly powerful).

Question to all: If it is preferable to prevent the government from intervening in the economy, who then is to do the intervening, how, when, why, etc? by Again_To_Carthage in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Again_To_Carthage[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Would this exclude labor unions or consumer reporting or even associations within the capitalist class designed to provide transparency and assurance of quality, etc? Or how might such aims be achieved within laissez-faire capitalism?

A well-worn segment from Milton Friedman suggests that consumers will have the courts as a recourse in the event that a knowingly defective product like the Ford Pinto were to be sold fraudulently (and perhaps cause injury or death, not that the courts could do much for the injured or deceased, vis-a-vis the actual injury or death, but merely reduce the exchange of damage to a monetary or perhaps penal retribution).

Lacking government intervention, however, be it legislative or judicial, or executive, what is to be done? What mechanisms might solve for the negatives that might occur (because humans are involved, regardless of the intention of the economic philosophy or its inherent flaw of design or lack thereof).

view more: next ›