Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Collectivization: it makes sense.

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:12:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Take the "user-fee" for example. As opposed to a collective-fee.

If someone steals something from you and the police stop them and return the property back to you..I guess it's just too bad for you when you're sent the bill for the protection of your property.

It would definitely be in your own interest to be apart of a system which paid for policing via a little bit from everyone instead of a lot from you; a safety net.

This argument extends to all other fields as well.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:15:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:12:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Take the "user-fee" for example. As opposed to a collective-fee.

If someone steals something from you and the police stop them and return the property back to you..I guess it's just too bad for you when you're sent the bill for the protection of your property.

It would definitely be in your own interest to be apart of a system which paid for policing via a little bit from everyone instead of a lot from you; a safety net.

This argument extends to all other fields as well.

Did you pull this from my example?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:16:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:14:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
You mean like, um, taxation, which serves the same exact purpose?

I didn't use the word taxation because I'm not in favor of force. But as either voluntary or non-voluntary, it's still in every individuals best interest.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:17:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:15:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:12:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Take the "user-fee" for example. As opposed to a collective-fee.

If someone steals something from you and the police stop them and return the property back to you..I guess it's just too bad for you when you're sent the bill for the protection of your property.

It would definitely be in your own interest to be apart of a system which paid for policing via a little bit from everyone instead of a lot from you; a safety net.

This argument extends to all other fields as well.

Did you pull this from my example?

No, I don't know what you're referring to.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:17:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:12:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Take the "user-fee" for example. As opposed to a collective-fee.

If someone steals something from you and the police stop them and return the property back to you..I guess it's just too bad for you when you're sent the bill for the protection of your property.

It would definitely be in your own interest to be apart of a system which paid for policing via a little bit from everyone instead of a lot from you; a safety net.

This argument extends to all other fields as well.

You mean like mutual aid? Yeah.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:20:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:17:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:12:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Take the "user-fee" for example. As opposed to a collective-fee.

If someone steals something from you and the police stop them and return the property back to you..I guess it's just too bad for you when you're sent the bill for the protection of your property.

It would definitely be in your own interest to be apart of a system which paid for policing via a little bit from everyone instead of a lot from you; a safety net.

This argument extends to all other fields as well.

You mean like mutual aid? Yeah.

Yayyyy mutual aid societies!
And then licenses happened :(
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:21:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:20:53 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Yayyyy mutual aid societies!
And then licenses happened :(

Someone has been reading his Roderick Long. A+
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:21:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:16:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I didn't use the word taxation because I'm not in favor of force. But as either voluntary or non-voluntary, it's still in every individuals best interest.

Might as well call it what it is.

And yes, for situations like that, "collectivization" is best. It's like paying insurance; when you need it, you have it. Collectivization simply makes a large pool so the costs for the insurance upon each individual are leaner, while maintaining the right amount of funding.

However, there are situations where it isn't useful. Programs which are not universal - meaning they do not cover or apply or are available to all individuals - should not be collectivized, simply because it would amount to a subsidization of a few users.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:23:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:21:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:16:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I didn't use the word taxation because I'm not in favor of force. But as either voluntary or non-voluntary, it's still in every individuals best interest.

Might as well call it what it is.

And yes, for situations like that, "collectivization" is best. It's like paying insurance; when you need it, you have it. Collectivization simply makes a large pool so the costs for the insurance upon each individual are leaner, while maintaining the right amount of funding.

However, there are situations where it isn't useful. Programs which are not universal - meaning they do not cover or apply or are available to all individuals - should not be collectivized, simply because it would amount to a subsidization of a few users.

Some examples?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:30:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:23:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Some examples?

You mean as a provided service?

Psychiatry, chiropractic work, plastic surgery, abortion - medical things of that nature, which are not widely used services, nor are available or covered for everyone.

That's all I can think of right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:34:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:30:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:23:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Some examples?

You mean as a provided service?

Psychiatry, chiropractic work, plastic surgery, abortion - medical things of that nature, which are not widely used services, nor are available or covered for everyone.

That's all I can think of right now.

Oh, right, I completely agree. The things which should be socialized are those things which everyone uses.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 2:08:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Collectivization fails because of individualist human nature. We seek the satisfaction of our goals, and if the satisfaction of our goals do not require labor, we will simply choose to do something else, leisure, which is for the majority of humans valued higher on the priority scale than fruitless labor. The lack of incentive for labor leads to a significantly less productive society. A collectivist society, therefore, would require the use of force, to force the individual to work, in order to function. See every instance in which economic collectivism was tried.

When tolls on society have no private cost, there is no incentive not to do them. This is called market failure, but in reality, it is the result of collectivization.

The solution to the car problem is charity or insurance, both voluntary institutions and safety nets.
Of course, in your OP, you were referring to protection when referring to "safety nets," quite improperly, but on safety, do not obstruct justice to protect it.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 2:51:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 2:08:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Collectivization fails because of individualist human nature. We seek the satisfaction of our goals, and if the satisfaction of our goals do not require labor, we will simply choose to do something else, leisure, which is for the majority of humans valued higher on the priority scale than fruitless labor. The lack of incentive for labor leads to a significantly less productive society. A collectivist society, therefore, would require the use of force, to force the individual to work, in order to function. See every instance in which economic collectivism was tried.

You say that collectivism toils economic efficiency.

But what exactly is the point of economic efficiency? To increase our standard of living.

But a life which is all about work, a rigid, two-dimensional framework, all about duty is just plain drudgery. It attempts to increase our standards by means of reducing them.

We don't have business for the sake of business, it's for the sake of ourselves, for our own happiness.

This is better accomplished by a balance. Not too far to the left, not to far to the right. Decentralize power and let the people decide what amount of collectivization they want, which they will find through experimentation to find the best outcome. If straight-up individualism really is better than they will discover it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 2:56:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 2:08:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
A collectivist society, therefore, would require the use of force, to force the individual to work, in order to function. See every instance in which economic collectivism was tried.

I agree with all you said, but for the sake of argument, what if one wasn't "forced" into labor but rather did not receive the socialized benefits if they did not contribute?
President of DDO
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 2:58:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 2:51:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Nothing defending collectivism or refuting what wjmelements said.

Individualism allows people to choose what values to prioritize. One that values leisure will probably choose not to work 50 hours a week.

You didn't understand a word I said. Libertarian Socialism isn't just inefficient; people die. People starve to death under collectivization because no matter how much more work they do, they receive the same. No one works, and no one eats. This is why violence has ALWAYS been needed to keep it moving.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 2:59:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 2:56:52 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/16/2010 2:08:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
A collectivist society, therefore, would require the use of force, to force the individual to work, in order to function. See every instance in which economic collectivism was tried.

I agree with all you said, but for the sake of argument, what if one wasn't "forced" into labor but rather did not receive the socialized benefits if they did not contribute?

You are describing a contract system, like private insurance, which I would have no problem with.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 3:07:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 2:58:14 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 4/16/2010 2:51:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Nothing defending collectivism or refuting what wjmelements said.

Individualism allows people to choose what values to prioritize. One that values leisure will probably choose not to work 50 hours a week.

You didn't understand a word I said. Libertarian Socialism isn't just inefficient; people die. People starve to death under collectivization because no matter how much more work they do, they receive the same. No one works, and no one eats. This is why violence has ALWAYS been needed to keep it moving.

No, that's Communism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 3:08:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 2:59:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 4/16/2010 2:56:52 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/16/2010 2:08:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
A collectivist society, therefore, would require the use of force, to force the individual to work, in order to function. See every instance in which economic collectivism was tried.

I agree with all you said, but for the sake of argument, what if one wasn't "forced" into labor but rather did not receive the socialized benefits if they did not contribute?

You are describing a contract system, like private insurance, which I would have no problem with.

It's collectivization and it's also the form of collectivization I support.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 5:43:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 2:59:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:

I agree with all you said, but for the sake of argument, what if one wasn't "forced" into labor but rather did not receive the socialized benefits if they did not contribute?

You are describing a contract system, like private insurance, which I would have no problem with.

At 4/16/2010 2:59:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:

You are describing a contract system, like private insurance, which I would have no problem with.

Not necessarily. I never said how much you had to contribute - just that you had to contribute something (as in work). In other words, suppose universal health care was given to people who work - either work as a doctor, or work as a janitor. Whatever. I was going to say that working people would be guaranteed, say, health care and of course those who earn more money would be responsible for paying for more of it (obviously lol how else would it get paid :P). The incentive to work (and earn money) would still be there, because only "important" things like health care would be socialized, and you can still become rich or richer than others.

... However, I already know your answer (egoism, rights, etc.) so there's no point in really asking haha. I guess the point was that these things wouldn't be available to lazy or workless people. Oh well.
President of DDO
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 4:10:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 3:07:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:

You didn't understand a word I said. Libertarian Socialism isn't just inefficient; people die. People starve to death under collectivization because no matter how much more work they do, they receive the same. No one works, and no one eats. This is why violence has ALWAYS been needed to keep it moving.

No, that's Communism.

Before you advocate a position and make a thread about it, perhaps create in the initial post exactly what it is you do advocate. Explicitly. All I tend to see is 'no that's not it' when you argue this recently. Also as for the above, saying it's communism is not a refutation of the argument itself. Since you provide no model where that doesn't occur, nor provide rationale as why it would not occur, the argument still stands - that for this system you propose to function continuously requires some level of force. Whether it does or not depends on your model, which you haven't outlined at all. Simply labelling your idea is largely insufficient.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 8:36:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 12:52:21 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Collectivisation as in communism? Oh...

Economic collectivism is socialism, or communism depending on your definitions.
Political collectivism is democracy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light