Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Greed of Socialism

RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union, and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty. I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain. When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them. If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:00:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union

Most of those governments only have "Socialist" in the name. By definition, without democracy socialism is impossible--how can you have the workers control the means of production without them actually getting to decide what to do with it?

Speaking of which, ever been to Sweden? What about Norway?

and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty.

Well, yeah, that's because they're cold-hearted a$$holes.

I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain.

No. Some socialist governments are scams.

When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them.

Oh, please. That is the MO of such leaders, no matter what their ideology. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, Qaddafi, Pinochet... all had the same motivations. Some of them used different objects of fear, but most relied on some sort of fear to stir up public support.

If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

By no means does socialism mean that you have no responsibility for your own life.

It means that if you can't take care of yourself, you don't die on the streets.

It means that if you trip, and can't get up, someone will help you.

It means that you have the chance to learn from your mistakes, and get a fresh start.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:22:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 8:00:34 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union

Most of those governments only have "Socialist" in the name. By definition, without democracy socialism is impossible--how can you have the workers control the means of production without them actually getting to decide what to do with it?

Speaking of which, ever been to Sweden? What about Norway?

Neither of these countries are socialist. A comprehensive welfare system is not indicative of socialism, ownership of the means of production by the public sector would be socialism. Given that "the public sector" is indeed controlled by "the few", the elitism cited by the OP becomes a real concern.

and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty.

Well, yeah, that's because they're cold-hearted a$$holes.

I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain.

No. Some socialist governments are scams.

When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them.

Oh, please. That is the MO of such leaders, no matter what their ideology. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, Qaddafi, Pinochet... all had the same motivations. Some of them used different objects of fear, but most relied on some sort of fear to stir up public support.

If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

By no means does socialism mean that you have no responsibility for your own life.

It means that if you can't take care of yourself, you don't die on the streets.

It means that if you trip, and can't get up, someone will help you.

It means that you have the chance to learn from your mistakes, and get a fresh start.

This is all fine and good, but is not indicative of socialism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:39:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union, and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty. I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain. When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them. If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

I think you're confusing corruption with socialism. Governments can be corrupt and still implement socialist policies. A corrupt socialist government is still better for the average person than a corrupt elitist government. If there was a non-corrupt alternative, it would be the best option, but there usually isn't because in a corrupt society, it's everywhere and at every level.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:57:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 8:22:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2013 8:00:34 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union

Most of those governments only have "Socialist" in the name. By definition, without democracy socialism is impossible--how can you have the workers control the means of production without them actually getting to decide what to do with it?

Speaking of which, ever been to Sweden? What about Norway?

Neither of these countries are socialist. A comprehensive welfare system is not indicative of socialism, ownership of the means of production by the public sector would be socialism. Given that "the public sector" is indeed controlled by "the few", the elitism cited by the OP becomes a real concern.

I'm aware of that. However, they are arguably close to socialism than "political party calling itself socialist for political reasons."

and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty.

Well, yeah, that's because they're cold-hearted a$$holes.

I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain.

No. Some socialist governments are scams.

When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them.

Oh, please. That is the MO of such leaders, no matter what their ideology. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, Qaddafi, Pinochet... all had the same motivations. Some of them used different objects of fear, but most relied on some sort of fear to stir up public support.

If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

By no means does socialism mean that you have no responsibility for your own life.

It means that if you can't take care of yourself, you don't die on the streets.

It means that if you trip, and can't get up, someone will help you.

It means that you have the chance to learn from your mistakes, and get a fresh start.

This is all fine and good, but is not indicative of socialism.

True. In that case I was using it in the colloquial sense.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 9:06:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 8:39:00 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union, and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty. I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain. When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them. If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

I think you're confusing corruption with socialism. Governments can be corrupt and still implement socialist policies. A corrupt socialist government is still better for the average person than a corrupt elitist government. If there was a non-corrupt alternative, it would be the best option, but there usually isn't because in a corrupt society, it's everywhere and at every level.

lol, I must say, as someone who's been inundated with an American high school education, I found your statement to be rather difficult to accept, especially the underlined.

The question becomes "can a socialist government be non-elitist?" I think the answer is firmly no. Then, "Can an elitist government not be corrupt?" That's far more difficult to answer, and would probably hinge upon how you define "elitist".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 5:42:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
lol, I must say, as someone who's been inundated with an American high school education, I found your statement to be rather difficult to accept, especially the underlined.

Oh well. I was thinking of democratically elected governments in South America, just this idea that things need to be shaken up after centuries of oppression. I mean, maybe socialism is more a step than an ideal end state. Idk.

The question becomes "can a socialist government be non-elitist?" I think the answer is firmly no. Then, "Can an elitist government not be corrupt?" That's far more difficult to answer, and would probably hinge upon how you define "elitist".

I don't get it. Probably elitist is the wrong word. I mean it in a long-term sense, such as the upperclass and the cities controlling everything for generations. So if power is distributed in a new way, there may be a new elite, but the division is no longer by race or culture.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 5:57:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."

-- Thomas Sowell
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:25:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 5:42:47 AM, rross wrote:
lol, I must say, as someone who's been inundated with an American high school education, I found your statement to be rather difficult to accept, especially the underlined.

Oh well. I was thinking of democratically elected governments in South America, just this idea that things need to be shaken up after centuries of oppression. I mean, maybe socialism is more a step than an ideal end state. Idk.

lol, me neither. =)

I was pointing to the "official line" that most Americans (well, those that pay attention anyway) learn in the official curriculum. We don't learn much of anything about South America, and (at least my recollection is that) we learn about socialism only in the context of the USSR and Maoist China.

There was no "international history" course in my high school, which I thought was rather odd. In fact, I don't even remember taking history in my sophomore year. Maybe others' experiences were different.

The question becomes "can a socialist government be non-elitist?" I think the answer is firmly no. Then, "Can an elitist government not be corrupt?" That's far more difficult to answer, and would probably hinge upon how you define "elitist".

I don't get it. Probably elitist is the wrong word. I mean it in a long-term sense, such as the upperclass and the cities controlling everything for generations. So if power is distributed in a new way, there may be a new elite, but the division is no longer by race or culture.

I'm not sure either. After all, you'd expect that any upper class in any civilization would be the "ruling class", so maybe the better question to ask is whether or not a government can ever NOT be elitist?

Even Mao's peasant revolution installed the communist apparatus as the new "elite" after killing off all the landlords and academics in the country.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:27:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 8:57:20 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/6/2013 8:22:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2013 8:00:34 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union

Most of those governments only have "Socialist" in the name. By definition, without democracy socialism is impossible--how can you have the workers control the means of production without them actually getting to decide what to do with it?

Speaking of which, ever been to Sweden? What about Norway?

Neither of these countries are socialist. A comprehensive welfare system is not indicative of socialism, ownership of the means of production by the public sector would be socialism. Given that "the public sector" is indeed controlled by "the few", the elitism cited by the OP becomes a real concern.

I'm aware of that. However, they are arguably close to socialism than "political party calling itself socialist for political reasons."

and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty.

Well, yeah, that's because they're cold-hearted a$$holes.

I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain.

No. Some socialist governments are scams.

When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them.

Oh, please. That is the MO of such leaders, no matter what their ideology. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, Qaddafi, Pinochet... all had the same motivations. Some of them used different objects of fear, but most relied on some sort of fear to stir up public support.

If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

By no means does socialism mean that you have no responsibility for your own life.

It means that if you can't take care of yourself, you don't die on the streets.

It means that if you trip, and can't get up, someone will help you.

It means that you have the chance to learn from your mistakes, and get a fresh start.

This is all fine and good, but is not indicative of socialism.

True. In that case I was using it in the colloquial sense.

After thinking about and looking into this a bit, I came to the conclusion that you're right. Even though there's private enterprise in Sweden, the high tax rate pretty much means that a large portion of that productivity is indeed commandeered by the state for various purposes, the leading one it seems being welfare provision.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 1:49:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I've done a good deal of personal study and have been to several Socialist countries in Latin America and the former Soviet Union, and it never ceases to amaze me how the government officials almost per se live in mansions with their bodyguards while "The People" starve in their poverty. I think that Socialism is a scam, run by greedy elitists who want to run society for their own selfish gain. When they want to expand their power they simply tell the people they are being attacked by some new threat, whether it's racism, terrorism, illiteracy, disease, homophobia, sexism, gun owners, drugs, pollution, religion, or slow internet-anything that stirs the people's passions and causes them to give more authority over to the planners will do just fine for them. If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

This is an adorable commentary. Some facts may help expand the discussion.

The Soviet Union was never "socialist;" as it lacked almost completely any semblance of worker's rights, or public control of the means of production. Rather, the Socialist Republics were quite Capitalist. The USSR was a textbook of "State Capitalism," and none had any right to second guess Stalin or the Supreme Soviet.

There were those who took the word "Socialist" in the name of the place seriously. These people were educated extensively by the state.
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:25:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is an adorable commentary. Some facts may help expand the discussion.

The Soviet Union was never "socialist;" as it lacked almost completely any semblance of worker's rights, or public control of the means of production. Rather, the Socialist Republics were quite Capitalist. The USSR was a textbook of "State Capitalism," and none had any right to second guess Stalin or the Supreme Soviet.

There were those who took the word "Socialist" in the name of the place seriously. These people were educated extensively by the state.

"State Capitalism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism requires private, not state, ownership of the means of production. But I digress, where has true Socialism been put in place and been able to thrive as it claims to be able to?
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:42:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:25:28 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
This is an adorable commentary. Some facts may help expand the discussion.

The Soviet Union was never "socialist;" as it lacked almost completely any semblance of worker's rights, or public control of the means of production. Rather, the Socialist Republics were quite Capitalist. The USSR was a textbook of "State Capitalism," and none had any right to second guess Stalin or the Supreme Soviet.

There were those who took the word "Socialist" in the name of the place seriously. These people were educated extensively by the state.

"State Capitalism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism requires private, not state, ownership of the means of production. But I digress, where has true Socialism been put in place and been able to thrive as it claims to be able to?

I think that you have simply misdefined Capitalism, confusing the concept of the governing power of wealth control with libertarianism. Capitalism is often defined as monetary control of the state or society. It is described in more flattering terms by those who support the system (more than I do), but cannot be made to agree with your description. Capitalism requires a symbiotic relationship with the governing authorities of a region for implementation, and cannot be opposed to state influence therefore.

You are asking if Socialism in practice has yielded any benefits to society? We in the US have a "socialized" police and law enforcement system, and socialized military protection. Is this what you meant?
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:29:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that you have simply misdefined Capitalism

The system I'm defining is a free-market, where the forces of supply and demand are not regulated or controlled by government.

You are asking if Socialism in practice has yielded any benefits to society? We in the US have a "socialized" police and law enforcement system, and socialized military protection. Is this what you meant?

Socialist police and military protection does more harm than good. They protect the privileges of The Establishment and then enforce intrusive taxes and prohibitions on the rest of society. Just like with healthcare, security should be an enterprise on the free-market.
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 5:29:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 4:29:35 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I think that you have simply misdefined Capitalism

The system I'm defining is a free-market, where the forces of supply and demand are not regulated or controlled by government.

You are asking if Socialism in practice has yielded any benefits to society? We in the US have a "socialized" police and law enforcement system, and socialized military protection. Is this what you meant?

Socialist police and military protection does more harm than good. They protect the privileges of The Establishment and then enforce intrusive taxes and prohibitions on the rest of society. Just like with healthcare, security should be an enterprise on the free-market.

Because private militias work so well. Tell me. Can you afford your own, private police force?
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 6:13:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because private militias work so well. Tell me. Can you afford your own, private police force?

Yes. Private police would be cheaper and much more efficient because they'd be subject to market forces, if they're negligent or abusive they'll lose their customers. When governments raise taxes or fire on their own people there is no alternative for the victims to go to for help.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:13:21 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
Because private militias work so well. Tell me. Can you afford your own, private police force?

Yes. Private police would be cheaper and much more efficient because they'd be subject to market forces, if they're negligent or abusive they'll lose their customers. When governments raise taxes or fire on their own people there is no alternative for the victims to go to for help.

Yes, there are. It is called a revolution.

Also, you have heard of mob "protection," right?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:31:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 8:30:13 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:13:21 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
Because private militias work so well. Tell me. Can you afford your own, private police force?

Yes. Private police would be cheaper and much more efficient because they'd be subject to market forces, if they're negligent or abusive they'll lose their customers. When governments raise taxes or fire on their own people there is no alternative for the victims to go to for help.

Yes, there are. It is called a revolution.

Also, you have heard of mob "protection," right?

Also, what do you plan on doing if the private police refuse to go, and extort money?

And how are the magical market forces going to handwave your system into inexpensiveness? You need more detail.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:13:21 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
Because private militias work so well. Tell me. Can you afford your own, private police force?

Yes. Private police would be cheaper and much more efficient because they'd be subject to market forces, if they're negligent or abusive they'll lose their customers. When governments raise taxes or fire on their own people there is no alternative for the victims to go to for help.

Lose their customers, lol. I don't think so. I've seen this in operation in Peru. There are private security guards to protect certain areas and if the customers don't pay up they get robbed. It's not the security guards' fault, of course, just bad luck. And if the district wants them to leave and the guards prefer to stay, what then?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 9:00:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 8:31:54 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/7/2013 8:30:13 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:13:21 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
Yes. Private police would be cheaper and much more efficient because they'd be subject to market forces...

It's not just the protection stuff. It's also that justice can't work in a private system. I have this friend whose second cousin died in a remote area in suspicious circumstances and they had to decide whether or not to pay the police to investigate. And different outcomes had different prices, but probably the biggest problem was that if the paid enough to get someone caught, charged and convicted, there's no guarantee that it would be the real culprit. If local, powerful gangs were responsible, it almost certainly wouldn't be the real culprit.
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 9:56:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:13:21 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
Because private militias work so well. Tell me. Can you afford your own, private police force?

Yes. Private police would be cheaper and much more efficient because they'd be subject to market forces, if they're negligent or abusive they'll lose their customers. When governments raise taxes or fire on their own people there is no alternative for the victims to go to for help.

I am impressed that you have the wealth needed to purchase a private police force. I myself, sadly, lack this ability. I could perhaps employ one or two police officers, no more. Even these officers would be ill-trained, poorly equipped, and probably very stupid. I doubt that I would be able to outfit even a small, embarrassing excuse for a crime lab. Rest assured, it will be your police forces and not mine, that respond to school shootings and the like.
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 7:59:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, you have heard of mob "protection," right?

The argument of private protection turning into organized crime is common but what is forgotten are two things 1. Governments already operate as naked protection rackets that "whack" those who do not pay up when demanded 2. The mob specializes in black market activities like drugs, gambling, loan sharking, etc., markets that governments have either heavily regulated or totally prohibited. In short, we already have government's mob "protection" its just that everyone has come to see it as legitimate, and also the life of the illegitimate Mafia depends on this existence of government police and prohibitions.

Private individuals are unlikely to give their hired police businesses the necessary funds for them to wage the grossly expensive campaigns of total war, police brutality, and vice squads since the customer would perceive little personal benefit from doing so.
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 8:30:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, what do you plan on doing if the private police refuse to go, and extort money?

And how are the magical market forces going to handwave your system into inexpensiveness? You need more detail.

I partially explained this in my other response. Here I'll focus on why free-markets decrease costs and increase efficiency.
A free-market is a system where individuals privately own the means of production. They are free to do whatever they wish with their private property. In this system, people exchange goods for more desired goods. Person A has two rocks, person B has two sticks, A gives B a rock in exchange for a stick and they are then both able to make hammers. If either party felt they were not getting a good deal, they would simply refuse the trade.
In a free-market society, millions of people would be involved in labor and trade to receive more desired goods. Since different individuals have different perspectives and tastes a wide variety of demand would be created, that businesses would then move to fill. It is the voluntary nature of this system that forces entrepreneurs to attract customers and workers via higher wages, lower prices, better products, and increased safety-if they don't do this the customer/worker will leave and seek greener pastures.

When governments regulate the market they're really regulating the voluntary choices of adults. If someone agrees to a very low wage who is the government to come in and say he is wrong and must take a higher wage? If the employer cannot afford to pay that higher wage this worker will stay unemployed thanks to the minimum wage law.

Rothbard explaines this more fully:
http://mises.org...
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 8:57:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lose their customers, lol. I don't think so. I've seen this in operation in Peru. There are private security guards to protect certain areas and if the customers don't pay up they get robbed. It's not the security guards' fault, of course, just bad luck. And if the district wants them to leave and the guards prefer to stay, what then?

I'm not sure I understand, is it the government district or private individuals hiring these guards? And why is the guard not at fault if he robs someone?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 8:58:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 4:29:35 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
I think that you have simply misdefined Capitalism

The system I'm defining is a free-market, where the forces of supply and demand are not regulated or controlled by government.

No such system exists anywhere in the world, unless you can name a country that does not have an official currency.

You are asking if Socialism in practice has yielded any benefits to society? We in the US have a "socialized" police and law enforcement system, and socialized military protection. Is this what you meant?

Socialist police and military protection does more harm than good. They protect the privileges of The Establishment and then enforce intrusive taxes and prohibitions on the rest of society. Just like with healthcare, security should be an enterprise on the free-market.

"The Establishment" tends to be synonymous with "the propertied" or "the well-endowed". Given that police are supposed to protect property rights, it follows that any police force is going to be preoccupied with protecting assets, and given a meritorious system that allows for inequality, the police will become preoccupied with protecting the property of a "gifted" few.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 8:59:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:13:21 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
Because private militias work so well. Tell me. Can you afford your own, private police force?

Yes. Private police would be cheaper and much more efficient because they'd be subject to market forces, if they're negligent or abusive they'll lose their customers. When governments raise taxes or fire on their own people there is no alternative for the victims to go to for help.

This is absolutely ludicrous. Competition and market forces when applied to the realm of security mean that people will die. Why? Because the best way to discredit your competitor in this realm is to kill their staff and kill their clients. This is more commonly known as anarchy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:56:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 8:00:34 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/6/2013 7:51:27 PM, RenoAlexander wrote:
If someone opposes them they simply denounce him as being "Against The People" or as a "Hater of the poor and needy". And-as I've seen with my own eyes-the longer this ruse goes on the further the society sinks into moral and economic poverty as individuals abandon responsibility for their own lives in pursuit of getting their "fair share" from the state.

By no means does socialism mean that you have no responsibility for your own life.

It means that if you can't take care of yourself, you don't die on the streets.

It means that if you trip, and can't get up, someone will help you.

It means that you have the chance to learn from your mistakes, and get a fresh start.

Well, that's what conservatives are for. As a conservative, I believe that you earn what you get in life, but there's always a chance to save yourself if you're down on your luck. I believe that everybody mistakes, and that many people are just really unlucky. That's what welfare is for. It's a tool to help you get back on your feet so you can do better in life.

The problem is--and this is definitely a problem mainly under socialist regimes, democratic or not--the government's giving too many handouts, and spending too much on welfare. There are so many people in the US abusing the welfare system. Look at our economy. How many people are on food stamps? And that number is only going up. That's because too many people are depending on the system, taking advantage of the system without at least trying to take advantage of their golden opportunity. I know people who do this. People that get knocked up in high school and then find multiple ways to receive welfare, and then refuse to look for a job.

It's exactly like that saying "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." If people would simply use the welfare like they're supposed to and attempt to find a job or get an education, things would be so much better. But instead they want to depend on it, and as a result, they only sink more into poverty. And guess what the left's solution is...more welfare!!

Anybody say what you will about conservatives, I know most people hate conservatives. But this is what we, at least true conservatives, believe in.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 11:00:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 5:57:44 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."

-- Thomas Sowell


Thumbs up.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 11:07:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am impressed that you have the wealth needed to purchase a private police force. I myself, sadly, lack this ability. I could perhaps employ one or two police officers, no more. Even these officers would be ill-trained, poorly equipped, and probably very stupid. I doubt that I would be able to outfit even a small, embarrassing excuse for a crime lab. Rest assured, it will be your police forces and not mine, that respond to school shootings and the like.

It's hard to imagine that any but a few people would hire round-the-clock bodyguards like you seem to be describing.
This is the standard argument for private protection: Lacking a state to provide protection, individuals would take out insurance on themselves and their property, with the companies promising repayment for any damage or theft committed by an outside party. Since these companies would have a huge vested interest in making sure their customers were kept safe, they would hire security forces to patrol property and protect customers from aggressors. In addition to this hired security, insurance companies would offer discounts to customers who purchase locks, safes, firearms, and take self-defense courses-because these customers would be at a lower risk of being victimized by crime.

If the security forces were ill-trained and incompetent their frustrated contractors will shop for more reputable protectors. The force of competition-the threat of losing contracts and customers-will keep the private police reliable.
RenoAlexander
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 11:25:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No such system exists anywhere in the world, unless you can name a country that does not have an official currency.

Just because no one is doing it now doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

"The Establishment" tends to be synonymous with "the propertied" or "the well-endowed". Given that police are supposed to protect property rights, it follows that any police force is going to be preoccupied with protecting assets, and given a meritorious system that allows for inequality, the police will become preoccupied with protecting the property of a "gifted" few.

"The Establishment" is the US is a fascistic alliance between big government and big business. America's Corporate corruption has stemmed from government's regulation of the free-market economy which has destroyed competition and encouraged the behavior typical of monopolies. The best way to close the income gap is to deregulate the economy and ensure maximum competition.