Devil's advocate : what's wrong with socialism?

[Josh_LA]

If you consider it wrong, then you should resolve not to do it yourself, and not support those who do, by word, deed, or vote. Of course the only basis you have for your actions is your own convictions (based on all evidence of course), and there will always be those who disagree. That doesn't mean you never take any action or defend any position in your life.

You make your decisions, not some imaginary bloke who disagrees with you. It's ridiculous to think you can't support an idea because some person somewhere may disagree.

No, I DO support the idea, but I'll probably shut up when a gun is at my head.

 

[tremendoustie]

No, I DO support the idea, but I'll probably shut up when a gun is at my head.

What's that got to do with anything? If you support the idea that it is wrong to initiate violence, then if you are logically consistent, you support libertarianism, and should work to promote liberty.

Whether you are ultimately beaten by a guy with a gun to your head is irrelevant.

 

[Josh_LA]

What's that got to do with anything? If you support the idea that it is wrong to initiate violence, then if you are logically consistent, you support libertarianism, and should work to promote liberty.

Whether you are ultimately beaten by a guy with a gun to your head is irrelevant.

it's relevant when it happens, that's all I am saying.

 

[tremendoustie]

it's relevant when it happens, that's all I am saying.

Good to have you on board for liberty till death then, Mr. Devil's Advocate . And I don't think anyone's going to ask you to debate the guy that has a gun to your head.

 

[anaconda]

at least a safer and stabler society as there's less crime for the sake of greed.

A thief would still want to take a fellow socialist's stuff for himself.

Socialism consolidates corrupt power and totalitarianism. Our country is a perfect example of how it works. You're seeing the process unfold right before your eyes.

Socialism results in a managed economy which causes gargantuan inefficiencies. There is always either too much of a product or too little of it, and prices are set by guesswork which exacerbates the former. Black markets erupt always as a response to this which brings a little bit of free market behind the scenes but also may criminalize it. Pricing that is not the result of the free market results in what economists identify as social "deadweight loss," which if memory serves is a combination of less product per capita and less consumer and producer "surplus" which simply vanishes into thin air. "Consumer Surplus" is the difference between what a consumer would pay for a product and what they actually have to pay. For example, I might pay $4.70 for a gallon of gasoline but if I only have to pay $1.70 then I have $3 of consumer surplus. A PC producer in a competitive market may be willing to produce and sell at a market price of $579, but if the prevailing market price is $679, she will experience $100 of producer surplus. Price fixing by the government screws this up big time. A great example of this in the U.S. is government price supports for dairy products. In fact, economists know that it would be much better for the country to simply GIVE the dairy people our tax money DIRECTLY than to establish price supports. But the sheeple don't know this and it would be POLITICALLY untenable to get away with this. People would scream bloody murder.

Lastly, socialism retards entrepreneurial incentive. Plus any innovative creations by the government are not necessarily what the consumers of that nation want. Hydrogen fuel cells, anyone?

 

[torchbearer]

Who thugs hurt is their own problem (well... and of the person being hurt). They have to live with what they've done for the rest of their life. You can either be willfully ignorant of others' pain, or you can, at the very least, not intentionally add to it.

Very Objective.
Did Ayn teach you how to think?

 

[Kludge]

Did Ayn teach you how to think?

Naw, the Bible did.

 

[torchbearer]

Naw, the Bible did.

point me to that place.

 

[Josh_LA]

A thief would still want to take a fellow socialist's stuff for himself.


Lastly, socialism retards entrepreneurial incentive. Plus any innovative creations by the government are not necessarily what the consumers of that nation want. Hydrogen fuel cells, anyone?

Why should there be any incentive? Why should anybody want more than he can live to enjoy? Not saying its wrong, but what's so good about incentivizing work and labor?

H+ cells are simply a way to save money, a good thing.
But only as good as cars are still necessary, why not pour money and food like they do in idiocracy, so transportation and communication becomes not a luxury, but a waste of time. what's so inherently good about convineince if you can have happiness & comfort surpass it?

 

[torchbearer]

Why should there be any incentive? Why should anybody want more than he can live to enjoy? Not saying its wrong, but what's so good about incentivizing work and labor?

H+ cells are simply a way to save money, a good thing.
But only as good as cars are still necessary, why not pour money and food like they do in idiocracy, so transportation and communication becomes not a luxury, but a waste of time. what's so inherently good about convineince if you can have happiness & comfort surpass it?

WHy ask why?
Why even be?

 

[anaconda]

Why should there be any incentive? Why should anybody want more than he can live to enjoy? Not saying its wrong, but what's so good about incentivizing work and labor?

Incentive does certainly not guarantee that one can consume enough to enjoy. Many people work hard and live in cockroach infested, crime-riidden conditions with no money for health care, reliable transportation, etc.

H+ cells are simply a way to save money, a good thing.

This was an example of government misallocation of resources resulting in reduction of overall social welfare. (See the DVD Who Killed the Electric Car)

 

[hypnagogue]

Socialism is morally permissible so long as it is voluntarily entered into.

However, socialism will always fail to provide the level of utility that capitalism has to offer, when practiced at any scale beyond a family or a small group of families.

There is no moral objection to socialism. The only objection which can be raised is against the act of coercion. It is just as morally objectionable to force someone to participate in a capitalist system as it is to force them to participate in a socialist one.

 

[tremendoustie]

Socialism is morally permissible so long as it is voluntarily entered into.

However, socialism will always fail to provide the level of utility that capitalism has to offer, when practiced at any scale beyond a family or a small group of families.

There is no moral objection to socialism. The only objection which can be raised is against the act of coercion. It is just as morally objectionable to force someone to participate in a capitalist system as it is to force them to participate in a socialist one.

Very true, and it's a good distinction to make.

 

[Josh_LA]

Socialism is morally permissible so long as it is voluntarily entered into.

However, socialism will always fail to provide the level of utility that capitalism has to offer, when practiced at any scale beyond a family or a small group of families.

There is no moral objection to socialism. The only objection which can be raised is against the act of coercion. It is just as morally objectionable to force someone to participate in a capitalist system as it is to force them to participate in a socialist one.

so if I can convince 99% of the people to rob 1% of the people, is that good enough?

 

[Josh_LA]

Incentive does certainly not guarantee that one can consume enough to enjoy. Many people work hard and live in cockroach infested, crime-riidden conditions with no money for health care, reliable transportation, etc.



This was an example of government misallocation of resources resulting in reduction of overall social welfare. (See the DVD Who Killed the Electric Car)

Yes, so what is so good about incentive?

And the government managed to keep people pacified anyway, the fact oil company owners are still alive means people put up with their BS.

 

[Josh_LA]

WHy ask why?
Why even be?

Because I am devil's advocate so I get to ask why.

Why even be? I agree, we shouldn't.

 

[hypnagogue]

so if I can convince 99% of the people to rob 1% of the people, is that good enough?

No, and you can't extract that position from the one I posited. The moral objection was coercion. Robbery is coercion. If 100% of the population expressly agreed to vote on what would be done with everyone's property, then it would be permissible.

 

[Fox McCloud]

so if I can convince 99% of the people to rob 1% of the people, is that good enough?

no....even if everyone is for a tax and only 1 person in an entire country is against it, that group is still coercively acting against that 1 person.

 

[Josh_LA]

no....even if everyone is for a tax and only 1 person in an entire country is against it, that group is still coercively acting against that 1 person.

what is inherently wrong with oppressing one out of a million people?

don't we do that every day?

 

[anaconda]

Yes, so what is so good about incentive?

Motivates entrepreneurial risk-taking, encourages competition for resources, which requires their usage in cost-effective, efficient, and consumer- desirable ways. Encourages more extensive and efficient work-force participation, which increases percapita GDP. Furthermore, less incentive means worsening of one's economic condition. More rats. More cockroaches.