Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Liberal Conservative

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:26:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Privately owned property, or privatization of goods and services, is substantially more costly than publicly owned property. I know to most libertarians, if not all, this statement sounds ludicrous. Yet, if given much thought, its truth becomes apparent. Take, for example, the proverbial pie. If I have a pie and agree to share it with you, even though I agree to less, so have you. That which was a resource for one has become a resource for two.

Of course, the libertarian would say, "If I kept my pie, there would be less waste because the pie would need to satisfy one and not two; and, being I would not eat a whole pie, at once, it would satisfy me not, only, for one meal but most assuredly for two meals, if not more."

The problem with this logic is the libertarian has three options from which to choose: he, or she, may over-consume, horde, or waste the pie. In reality, there is only one choice; for, overconsumption and hording are forms of waste. With the pie, the point is very easily made: chronic overconsumption would lead to ill health and hording would only allow it to rot.

However, you may say, if the individual consumer consumes the product within an appropriate amount of time, the pie would still be good. This may be, but the very thought of having more leads to overconsumption. For instance, if I have a limited amount of money, the sacrifice I must make for the purchase of any item has increased. Therefore, I would choose only that value which is less than the degree of sacrifice I must make. Conversely, the opposite would be true. If I had an enormous amount of money, the sacrifice would be very small; and, therefore, my likelihood to spend my money on things which I see as having little value would increase. In other words, one's perception of value changes with the degree of sacrifice he, or she, must make. Spilling a glass of water on the floor to someone who lives in a lush environment has not the same significance as it does to someone who lives in the desert.
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 6:00:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 2:26:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Take, for example, the proverbial pie. If I have a pie and agree to share it with you, even though I agree to less, so have you. That which was a resource for one has become a resource for two.


If I have no pie and you share it with me, then how am I agreeing to less? I have more.
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 6:19:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, basically, because I have a lot of pie, I will tend to over-consume it? How do you know how much I need to consume? I think the ideal solution is for me to eat as much pie as I want, then sell the rest so someone else can eat it, right? Everyone wins!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 5:19:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I have no pie and you share it with me, then how am I agreeing to less? I have more.

The fact you agree to share the pie and not find a means by which to either purchase it or steal it, entirely, for yourself.

The point being made is sharing our resources is ultimately less expensive than overconsumption or hording.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 6:09:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 5:19:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If I have no pie and you share it with me, then how am I agreeing to less? I have more.

The fact you agree to share the pie and not find a means by which to either purchase it or steal it, entirely, for yourself.

The point being made is sharing our resources is ultimately less expensive than overconsumption or hording.

False on 2 instances.

1) Assume both need to each buy another half of pie to survive assuming both must have 1 pie. = More expensive.

2) Assume one does not need pie. = Waste of resource distribution.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 1:33:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, basically, because I have a lot of pie, I will tend to over-consume it? How do you know how much I need to consume? I think the ideal solution is for me to eat as much pie as I want, then sell the rest so someone else can eat it, right? Everyone wins!

Because, value is determined by supply and demand. If supply is greater than demand, the item decreases in value. In other words, the sacrifice needed to acquire it is significantly lessened. If one's sacrifice is lessened significantly, to the point it becomes trivial, the value of the item is also trivialized and, therefore, its waste has little significance. For instance, the spilling of water holds less significance than the spilling of milk; and, the spilling of milk holds less significance than the spilling of cognac.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 2:19:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 5:19:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If I have no pie and you share it with me, then how am I agreeing to less? I have more.

The fact you agree to share the pie and not find a means by which to either purchase it or steal it, entirely, for yourself.

The point being made is sharing our resources is ultimately less expensive than overconsumption or hording.

False on 2 instances.

1) Assume both need to each buy another half of pie to survive assuming both must have 1 pie. = More expensive.

I never said both needed a whole pie, a half a pie, or even a slice of pie to survive. My point was having a whole pie, if the the individual chose not to share it, he, or she, could either consume the entire pie or let it go to waste.

Secondly, having a whole pie to oneself, the individual would more likely consume more than if he, or she, had a half a pie; and, thusly having a half a pie, the individual would more likely consume more than if he, or she, had a single slice of pie.

Either way, if the individual eats more than one's needs, he, or she, has overconsumed, which is a form of waste; if not and the individual had more than he, or she, needed, then, the pie would be wasted.

2) Assume one does not need pie. = Waste of resource distribution.

I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea as to the needs of anyone. All I have said is overconsumption and letting things rot are forms of waste.
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 2:52:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 5:19:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If I have no pie and you share it with me, then how am I agreeing to less? I have more.

The fact you agree to share the pie and not find a means by which to either purchase it or steal it, entirely, for yourself.


The owner of the pie is agreeing to share it. I'm just the recipient, so I am just agreeing to receive what is shared. If I were to agree to less (as you say), then I would not take the pie. If I take the pie, then I am agreeing to more.
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 2:54:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 1:33:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
So, basically, because I have a lot of pie, I will tend to over-consume it? How do you know how much I need to consume? I think the ideal solution is for me to eat as much pie as I want, then sell the rest so someone else can eat it, right? Everyone wins!

Because, value is determined by supply and demand. If supply is greater than demand, the item decreases in value. In other words, the sacrifice needed to acquire it is significantly lessened. If one's sacrifice is lessened significantly, to the point it becomes trivial, the value of the item is also trivialized and, therefore, its waste has little significance. For instance, the spilling of water holds less significance than the spilling of milk; and, the spilling of milk holds less significance than the spilling of cognac.

If someone is just receiving a pie, then where is the sacrifice of the recipient?
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 3:02:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 2:19:30 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/26/2015 5:19:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If I have no pie and you share it with me, then how am I agreeing to less? I have more.

The fact you agree to share the pie and not find a means by which to either purchase it or steal it, entirely, for yourself.

The point being made is sharing our resources is ultimately less expensive than overconsumption or hording.

False on 2 instances.

1) Assume both need to each buy another half of pie to survive assuming both must have 1 pie. = More expensive.

I never said both needed a whole pie, a half a pie, or even a slice of pie to survive. My point was having a whole pie, if the the individual chose not to share it, he, or she, could either consume the entire pie or let it go to waste.

Secondly, having a whole pie to oneself, the individual would more likely consume more than if he, or she, had a half a pie; and, thusly having a half a pie, the individual would more likely consume more than if he, or she, had a single slice of pie.

Either way, if the individual eats more than one's needs, he, or she, has overconsumed, which is a form of waste; if not and the individual had more than he, or she, needed, then, the pie would be wasted.

2) Assume one does not need pie. = Waste of resource distribution.

I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea as to the needs of anyone. All I have said is overconsumption and letting things rot are forms of waste.

Why are you assuming they would consume more just because they have more at one point in time? You go to the store and buy enough food for one week. Someone could slice their pie into 8 pieces and eat one piece per day. They are not overconsuming, nor are they wasting.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 3:44:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The owner of the pie is agreeing to share it. I'm just the recipient, so I am just agreeing to receive what is shared. If I were to agree to less (as you say), then I would not take the pie. If I take the pie, then I am agreeing to more.

The argument is not about having all or having none but about having all or having less.

Of course, to not consume, at all, would be the least expensive act. However, as living creatures, to survive, we must consume.

So, the question remains: Is it more efficient to share or to either consume or horde, entirely?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 3:49:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 1:33:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
So, basically, because I have a lot of pie, I will tend to over-consume it? How do you know how much I need to consume? I think the ideal solution is for me to eat as much pie as I want, then sell the rest so someone else can eat it, right? Everyone wins!

Because, value is determined by supply and demand. If supply is greater than demand, the item decreases in value. In other words, the sacrifice needed to acquire it is significantly lessened. If one's sacrifice is lessened significantly, to the point it becomes trivial, the value of the item is also trivialized and, therefore, its waste has little significance. For instance, the spilling of water holds less significance than the spilling of milk; and, the spilling of milk holds less significance than the spilling of cognac.

Yet an equal redistribution of pie will cause a shortage of pie and a at the same time a waste of pie because it is a known fact that not everyone wants pie. So the pie is both wasted, and increases in price. (see Soviet centralized economy for more clarification)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 4:05:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If someone is just receiving a pie, then where is the sacrifice of the recipient?

The recipient's sacrifice, if any, is lessened, significantly, by the giver's willingness to share. Therefore, the recipient incurs little to no expense.

However, the goal of sharing is mutual. If the two share, meaning both parties share the expense, or sacrifice, then, the expense is even less for both have shared the burden. A mutually beneficial relationship would be the most efficient of all.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 4:05:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think many economic socialists tend to be incredibly narcissistic in that they are completely unable to fathom or perceive how anyone else could be so different as to assign their own individual value for goods or services.

Socialism in practice never actually deals with the reality of the economics of human diversity in an efficient manner.
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 4:30:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 4:05:28 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If someone is just receiving a pie, then where is the sacrifice of the recipient?

The recipient's sacrifice, if any, is lessened, significantly, by the giver's willingness to share. Therefore, the recipient incurs little to no expense.

However, the goal of sharing is mutual. If the two share, meaning both parties share the expense, or sacrifice, then, the expense is even less for both have shared the burden. A mutually beneficial relationship would be the most efficient of all.

You have not demonstrated where the pie recipient has "shared the burden." He is just receiving pie, so there is no expense for him. I also don't see any sacrifice.
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 4:53:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 1:33:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
So, basically, because I have a lot of pie, I will tend to over-consume it? How do you know how much I need to consume? I think the ideal solution is for me to eat as much pie as I want, then sell the rest so someone else can eat it, right? Everyone wins!

Because, value is determined by supply and demand. If supply is greater than demand, the item decreases in value. In other words, the sacrifice needed to acquire it is significantly lessened. If one's sacrifice is lessened significantly, to the point it becomes trivial, the value of the item is also trivialized and, therefore, its waste has little significance. For instance, the spilling of water holds less significance than the spilling of milk; and, the spilling of milk holds less significance than the spilling of cognac.

OK, I accept your premise that if person A has more pie than person B, the same quantity of pie will be worth more to person B. Yet, I fail to understand your notion of overconsumption. Is overconsumption when I eat more pie than I need? Are you saying that I should share my pie with others so that as many people as possible get as much pie as they need?
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 5:09:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 3:44:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The owner of the pie is agreeing to share it. I'm just the recipient, so I am just agreeing to receive what is shared. If I were to agree to less (as you say), then I would not take the pie. If I take the pie, then I am agreeing to more.

The argument is not about having all or having none but about having all or having less.

Of course, to not consume, at all, would be the least expensive act. However, as living creatures, to survive, we must consume.

So, the question remains: Is it more efficient to share or to either consume or horde, entirely?

There is nothing wrong with sharing. It's a good behavior and a good quality. The modern problem is people who use the third party of government to make others share because they think they are entitled to so many things.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 5:13:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 4:53:38 AM, DisKamper wrote:

OK, I accept your premise that if person A has more pie than person B, the same quantity of pie will be worth more to person B.

This is the faulty premise that all socialist economic plans are based on. In fact, more often than not, people will choose not to have certain thing because, quite simply, they do not place a high value (worth) on it.
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 5:54:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 5:13:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/27/2015 4:53:38 AM, DisKamper wrote:

OK, I accept your premise that if person A has more pie than person B, the same quantity of pie will be worth more to person B.

This is the faulty premise that all socialist economic plans are based on. In fact, more often than not, people will choose not to have certain thing because, quite simply, they do not place a high value (worth) on it.

Yes, in reality worth of a product depends on many factors, but for the purposes of the hypothetical scenario with the pie I think we can assume that if you have more of something each piece is worth less.

Also, I don't think socialist economic plans are based on this premise at all (perhaps you're thinking of economic egalitarianism) The premise of socialism is that income earned should be tied to work done. In my view, the flaw with socialism is that socialism must at some point approximate the outcome of efficient, free-market, perfectly competitive capitalism. Indeed, the result of a world with perfect capitalism is the world that socialists want.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 6:26:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 5:54:59 AM, DisKamper wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:13:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/27/2015 4:53:38 AM, DisKamper wrote:

OK, I accept your premise that if person A has more pie than person B, the same quantity of pie will be worth more to person B.

This is the faulty premise that all socialist economic plans are based on. In fact, more often than not, people will choose not to have certain thing because, quite simply, they do not place a high value (worth) on it.

Yes, in reality worth of a product depends on many factors, but for the purposes of the hypothetical scenario with the pie I think we can assume that if you have more of something each piece is worth less.

Also, I don't think socialist economic plans are based on this premise at all (perhaps you're thinking of economic egalitarianism) The premise of socialism is that income earned should be tied to work done. In my view, the flaw with socialism is that socialism must at some point approximate the outcome of efficient, free-market, perfectly competitive capitalism. Indeed, the result of a world with perfect capitalism is the world that socialists want.

Technically you are right, although the actual application of social economics where resources are shared most often is shared equally implicitly when it is too difficult to ascertain individual need.

The example of the implicit assumption of the pie being shared equally mirrors this.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 3:47:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 2:26:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Of course, the libertarian would say, "If I kept my pie, there would be less waste because the pie would need to satisfy one and not two; and, being I would not eat a whole pie, at once, it would satisfy me not, only, for one meal but most assuredly for two meals, if not more."

You've missed the concept of force from the libertarian framework. The primary thing the libertarian would say would be that they might choose to share the pie, but it's a totally different thing to hold a gun up to someone and take their pie just because you think you can put it to better use.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 6:17:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why are you assuming they would consume more just because they have more at one point in time? You go to the store and buy enough food for one week. Someone could slice their pie into 8 pieces and eat one piece per day. They are not overconsuming, nor are they wasting.

You missed my point, entirely. Americans waste forty percent of the food sold in America. You may not waste food, a few others may not waste food but the fact remains the majority of Americans do.

Why do we waste food? Because, we produce and buy more than we need. If we only produced and bought that which we needed, there would be no wastes. We waste food because we have an overabundant supply of it; to us, it is relatively cheap; it requires relatively little sacrifice on our part. In a country in which food is scarce, I can assure you they have no problems with wasting food. You say an overabundance does not promote wastes. That sounds nice, but we are the richest country on Earth and we waste more than any other country.
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 7:29:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 6:17:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Why are you assuming they would consume more just because they have more at one point in time? You go to the store and buy enough food for one week. Someone could slice their pie into 8 pieces and eat one piece per day. They are not overconsuming, nor are they wasting.

You missed my point, entirely. Americans waste forty percent of the food sold in America. You may not waste food, a few others may not waste food but the fact remains the majority of Americans do.

Why do we waste food? Because, we produce and buy more than we need. If we only produced and bought that which we needed, there would be no wastes. We waste food because we have an overabundant supply of it; to us, it is relatively cheap; it requires relatively little sacrifice on our part. In a country in which food is scarce, I can assure you they have no problems with wasting food. You say an overabundance does not promote wastes. That sounds nice, but we are the richest country on Earth and we waste more than any other country.

If I missed your point, then maybe you did not make it. You gave a pie example. I answered those questions, but you chose not to reply.

You jumped from a theoretical economics example that seemed to cite libertarians as the source of a problem to the more concrete issue of food waste. If you're so concerned about food waste, then what are you, personally, doing about it? Are you also citing school cafeterias as the problem? Those are the publicly tax funded institutions which are also a very large contributor to increasing food discarding in America.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 8:31:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 7:29:02 PM, frankabe wrote:
At 8/27/2015 6:17:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Why are you assuming they would consume more just because they have more at one point in time? You go to the store and buy enough food for one week. Someone could slice their pie into 8 pieces and eat one piece per day. They are not overconsuming, nor are they wasting.

You missed my point, entirely. Americans waste forty percent of the food sold in America. You may not waste food, a few others may not waste food but the fact remains the majority of Americans do.

Why do we waste food? Because, we produce and buy more than we need. If we only produced and bought that which we needed, there would be no wastes. We waste food because we have an overabundant supply of it; to us, it is relatively cheap; it requires relatively little sacrifice on our part. In a country in which food is scarce, I can assure you they have no problems with wasting food. You say an overabundance does not promote wastes. That sounds nice, but we are the richest country on Earth and we waste more than any other country.


If I missed your point, then maybe you did not make it. You gave a pie example. I answered those questions, but you chose not to reply.

You jumped from a theoretical economics example that seemed to cite libertarians as the source of a problem to the more concrete issue of food waste. If you're so concerned about food waste, then what are you, personally, doing about it? Are you also citing school cafeterias as the problem? Those are the publicly tax funded institutions which are also a very large contributor to increasing food discarding in America.

Also, don't forget to forget all the food subsidized by the government, like corn, which people don't actually want, but the government thinks you "should" want.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 9:18:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In regard to your point about waste, we should ask what is the alternative system you suggest? should everyone be given the exact amount of food they need? waste is a problem but companies try their best not to waste food, if they did then they would not make as much money. Households try not to waste food because of the cost in buying more food. However despite this you are right, there is still waste. If the cost is too small to the company or household then it will waste stuff. For example, suppose a company has too much food in stock and it is going out of date. It would lower the price but that is still not enough. It now has to throw it away or give it to a homeless shelter (or a household giving waste food to a shelter). It has no incentive to do this but assume the government forces it to do this as it will in france soon. The amount of work and time that will go into transporting waste food from every company and house to a shelter will be immense and will in itself waste time and money.
frankabe
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 10:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with the two posts above this post.

The OP also seemingly lays this problem on the libertarian when he says, "Of course, the libertarian would say,...The problem with this logic is the libertarian..."

The illogical thing here is that the wasteful US is not even a libertarian country. Most Americans are not even liberty minded. If the OP is set on making a spurious connection, then he should re-evaluate. Most Americans are liberal or conservative, not libertarian. These people are two sides of the same coin. If the OP wants to attack a certain political persuasion, then big government people are your target.

I don't even see this as a problem of political persuasion. Abundance often leads to waste, regardless of one's politics. You are often much more careful with your money if you earned it the hard way. Something coming easy often leads to waste. The problem is one more of human nature than anything.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 11:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet an equal redistribution of pie will cause a shortage of pie and a at the same time a waste of pie because it is a known fact that not everyone wants pie. So the pie is both wasted, and increases in price. (see Soviet centralized economy for more clarification)

When did I say everyone would get pie or even that everyone wanted pie? I don't believe in an even redistribution of wealth but an equitable distribution of wealth.

In other words, I do not support the libertarian idea of excessive greed and unnecessary wastes while others' needs are not met. A society which allows individuals to amass large amounts of wealth while the needs of its constituents go unmet is a very wasteful and dysfunctional society. The individualist wants to accumulate wealth without responsibility for or accountability to the collective that has provided the infrastructures that have facilitated his, or her, enterprise. In other words, the individualist wants to use without properly compensating the collective in which he, or she, lives.

Of course, the individual will justify one's actions by saying he, or she, contributes through private capital, meaning through remuneration of services rendered and by the manufacturing of goods and services.

This argument would be more sufficient if the owner were equitable and his, or her, business were the whole of society. However, the owner's business is not the whole of society; and, the owner's business does not in and of itself compensate society for its resources. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism, as an economic engine, does not address the needs of society. It is not an equitable system of economic governance; for, it is no governance, at all.

The business owner does not merely have a contract with individuals in a society but society, itself. Therefore, the business owner must commensurate a mutually beneficial relationship within the societal infrastructures in which he, or she, lives and by which his, or her, business is accommodated. The traditional means by which an individual compensates his, or her, society is in the form of taxes. The mechanism of taxation allows each of its members to share the burden society places on its environment.

The individualist disproportionately puts emphasis on oneself while the collectivist disproportionately puts emphasis on the collective. If the individual is to benefit from society, the individual must also be responsible for and accountable to the society in which he, or she, is a benefactor. If society is to benefit from the individual, the society must also be responsible for and accountable to the individual. The individual and the collective have a relationship built on mutualism.

In saying that, I must say this: I am not a libertarian or a socialist. I believe both systems of thought are beneficial to society as each moderates the other. I believe in private property and equitable taxation in which capital and labor shoulder an equitably proportionate burden. I believe in individual liberties and social constraints.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 11:58:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 11:35:49 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yet an equal redistribution of pie will cause a shortage of pie and a at the same time a waste of pie because it is a known fact that not everyone wants pie. So the pie is both wasted, and increases in price. (see Soviet centralized economy for more clarification)

When did I say everyone would get pie or even that everyone wanted pie? I don't believe in an even redistribution of wealth but an equitable distribution of wealth.

In other words, I do not support the libertarian idea of excessive greed and unnecessary wastes while others' needs are not met. A society which allows individuals to amass large amounts of wealth while the needs of its constituents go unmet is a very wasteful and dysfunctional society. The individualist wants to accumulate wealth without responsibility for or accountability to the collective that has provided the infrastructures that have facilitated his, or her, enterprise. In other words, the individualist wants to use without properly compensating the collective in which he, or she, lives.

Of course, the individual will justify one's actions by saying he, or she, contributes through private capital, meaning through remuneration of services rendered and by the manufacturing of goods and services.

This argument would be more sufficient if the owner were equitable and his, or her, business were the whole of society. However, the owner's business is not the whole of society; and, the owner's business does not in and of itself compensate society for its resources. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism, as an economic engine, does not address the needs of society. It is not an equitable system of economic governance; for, it is no governance, at all.

The business owner does not merely have a contract with individuals in a society but society, itself. Therefore, the business owner must commensurate a mutually beneficial relationship within the societal infrastructures in which he, or she, lives and by which his, or her, business is accommodated. The traditional means by which an individual compensates his, or her, society is in the form of taxes. The mechanism of taxation allows each of its members to share the burden society places on its environment.

The individualist disproportionately puts emphasis on oneself while the collectivist disproportionately puts emphasis on the collective. If the individual is to benefit from society, the individual must also be responsible for and accountable to the society in which he, or she, is a benefactor. If society is to benefit from the individual, the society must also be responsible for and accountable to the individual. The individual and the collective have a relationship built on mutualism.

In saying that, I must say this: I am not a libertarian or a socialist. I believe both systems of thought are beneficial to society as each moderates the other. I believe in private property and equitable taxation in which capital and labor shoulder an equitably proportionate burden. I believe in individual liberties and social constraints.

Fair enough and well said.

2 Questions...

1) Who or what agency defines equitable distribution?
2) What happens if the answer to number 1 can't decipher each individual need for a resource?