Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
Socialism works great! .........................That is, until you run out of spending other peoples money...Then it ain't so great..

Socialism isn't about spending other peoples' money; socialism is about managing the aggregate resources of a society, as a society.

Of course, a society has limited resources. And so the society should make the best use of those resources that it can, prioritizing the legitimate needs of all constitutents over the privileges of constituents who are relatively skilled at acquiring money.

brody196 wrote:
Here's a question for you Kauf: How much of the money that I earn am I entitled to keep? 75%? 50%? $10? How much should the government be allowed to take?

There is no magic percentage or amount that universally defines a person's proper contribution to society. In a hard year with natural disasters and epidemics and invasions, a person might have to contribute a very large portion of their resources. In a period of peace and wide prosperity, a person might not have to do so.

Furthermore, I don't know what your personal resources are. A person with great resources should make a great contribution; a person with slender resources might make a slender contribution, without shame.

Furthermore, I don't know how you have acquired your resources. A person who has acquired resources through labors of dubious value (say, manufacturing rubber dog vomit) should make a relatively greater contribution than a person whose labors are in themselves a valuable contribution to society.

But a well-managed socialist system depends less on government taking monies from one person and giving it to another, and more upon establishing a healthy economic environment - one where it is required that every decent worker receives decent compensation; one where it is required that profits are shared decently between investors and laborers; one where it is required that all able persons apply themselves decently to productive labors.

SteveF wrote:
I'm curious to know how much you think you should pay?

brody196 wrote:
Not much at all. Less is best.

Good governments are not built by persons with a preponderant desire to contribute as little as possible.

[steve]

But a well-managed socialist system depends less on government taking monies from one person and giving it to another, and more upon establishing a healthy economic environment...

Unless I greatly misjudge human nature, I do not think the creation of the healthy economic climate, such as you envisage, is likely to evolve without one of two factors causing it:

1) "The government taking monies from one person and giving it to another" (that is, governmental coercion of unwilling contributors), or

2) A change in the hearts of people who are naturally unwilling to contribute, so that they now wish to do so without coercion.

Unless you can produce the latter, "socialism" is, in fact, about the former.

The latter was seen in the early Christian communities, due to their hearts being changed by conversion, and the working of the Holy Spirit producing love for the brethren. If there have been other situations in which (sans governmental coercion) a society was brought about where "there was no one among them who lacked," I have not become aware of it (perhaps there have been some of which I am unaware). Of course, on a small scale, such economies exist among caring family members. If the whole country could be made to view every citizen as family, then people would take care of each other as I think you are wishing to see happen. But this attitude generally does not prevail in large societies. The early Christian Community was a notable exception.

If you can find a way to induce all the privileged members of our society to desire to help all the poor voluntarily, you will have reached such goals as Christianity enjoins among its adherents. You, however, do not embrace Christianity, and, as far as I can tell, do not have an alternative mechanism to bring about Christian results. It seems to me that this leaves little else for you to recommend than "The government taking monies from one person and giving it to another."

[thrombomodulin]

[quote="kaufmannphillips""]...we have a capitalist society where 95+% of the citizenry lacks the resources to influence or seriously challenge exploitation by the wealthy elite.[/quote]

I don't see why this would be true under laissez-faire conditions, can you please explain how you could reach this conclusion in a laissez-faire system? I can see many reasons why, in the USA, this is difficult (e.g. product regulations, tariffs, compulsory licensing, central banking, labor law, a complicated tax code, subsidies, patents, etc,.). All these obstacles, which hinder new entrants from starting a business, are creations of the State and thus would not form any valid critique of capitalism.

would be likely to meet the aggregate needs of the poor, absent some manner of coordination and compulsion

How do you define what are or are not "needs" of the poor? One might observe that most everyone considered "poor" today would be vastly wealthy compared to those who lived anything more than 100 years ago. Your former posts, however, give me the impression you would define "needs" in a strictly relative sense. If one person is able to produce vastly more than another, this does not diminish the ability of another with lesser abilities to also engage in production and enjoy the fruits of his own labor. But, if one judges on a merely relative basis, is this not a simple case of envy and covetousness - which is forbidden in the ten commandments?

For example, the late Steve Jobs may have been very wealthy, but he attained his wealth by providing electronic devices which benefit the lives of millions of people (also a great value). In fact, these people judged the money they gave to Mr. Jobs less valuable than that which they obtained from him. One cannot conclude Mr. Job's wealth came at the expense of society or anyone in particular. He benefited society more than most others owing to being vastly more productive. On what basis then could one say that he should not be permitted to keep all of what he earned?

If you think that our society would meet these needs under a laissez-faire paradigm, then try to mount a convincing argument for why that is plausible.

In addition to the already discussed incentive/diminished production problem under socialism (awaiting your reply on the usury thread), there is an also argument made by Ludwig Von Mises in 1922 pertaining to economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth (link in former post). The latter may well be a stronger argument than the former. Thus, one can conclude the structure of production is much better aligned to meeting human needs under capitalism than socialism. One can deduce that "real wages" (wages relative to costs of living) are more favorable under capitalism and the number of those in poverty in an absolute sense will be less. Also, the number of those with ability to give will be increased as well as their capacity for doing so. Consequently, ceretis paribus, it is better to be a poor person under capitalism than under socialism.

Indeed, a decent socialistic system will insist on fair compensation for productivity

What is fair but retaining ownership of the full measure of what one produces? Above you appear to be affirming that there is no number one can specify that is objectively "not fair". Would it be a correct representation of your position to say that there is no lower bound whatsoever to the fraction one is compensated for his labor that can constitute a "fair" wage?

meritocracy is frequently betrayed in capitalism...

Not so. The error here is substituting your values as a third party in place of those involved in the transaction. In capitalism the consumer retains the liberty to dispose of his income as he sees fit. "A" can only attain additional money by providing a good or service that "B" values more highly than the money he gives to "A" for it.

People will have different opinions about where the desirable balance [of centralized power] lies. And so, people may become incensed about centralized power when it comes to policies they don't like, yet push for it when it comes to policies they do like.

The notable exception are those who are consistently and entirely anti-statist, namely the anarcho-capitalist position.

society should make the best use of those resources that it can, prioritizing the legitimate needs of all constitutents over the privileges of constituents who are relatively skilled at acquiring money

Rather, society should not do so as advised. Aside from the receiving of charity, one only obtains money, goods and services from others in so far as one has also provided valued money, goods or services to others. Any interference of the State deviates from fairness, rather than improves upon it.

[jriccitelli]

Socialism is based on the belief that men do not have a sin nature, that all men are generally good and not prone to selfishness.

All the yadda-yadda-yadda in the world does not change the fundamental premise that way too many humans are selfish sinners, and that given a chance they will take and steal from others. Where Communism is the slavery of every able bodied worker, Socialists are the locusts who eat the harvest of everyone's labor.

Socialism is like calling rape comfort sharing.
Socialism is like calling armed robbery Socialism.
What is the difference between prison and Socialism? In prison there is a chance of being released.
Capitalism is an effect of freedom, just like getting run over is an effect of roads. Blaming Capitalism or hating Capitalists is like hating roads. (What's the alternative? Flying?)
Socialism is like a tunnel, a tunnel is just like a road, your money goes down the road but with a tunnel you can't see where it goes.

[jriccitelli]

(Romans 13:5) Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

A note on Romans 13:5, Paul is advocating paying taxes in the same sense that we should obey our slave owners, and the same principle that we should turn the other cheek to someone who wants to hit us, and to do good to those who mistreat us, etc. Of course some taxation is necessary for 'good', after all everyone uses roads and we need schools and police, but these things 'allow' society to 'work and function', welfare systems allow people to 'not' work or function. God allows taxes for good, but not all taxes are good, is the Islamic poll tax (Jizya) a good thing instituted by God, no.

Is there no wonder why the tax-collectors were regarded as the worst kind of sinners. Collecting other peoples monies is a opportunity for corruption, armed corruption that is. Why should I trust the 'Government Corporation' to wisely spend our hard earned cash, and not waste it? Monopolies are the evil of industry, but the government is the biggest monopoly of all! What company can operate on a deficit of 15 Trillion (3 billion more a day!) (http://www.usdebtclock.org ), it is run by idealists and politicians, in other words 'tax collectors'.

[steve7150]

Socialists are the locusts who eat the harvest of everyone's labor.






So this is what Revelation 9 is about!

[Paidion]

Several of you have strongly opposed socialism on the supposition that it steals from people in order to carry out its programs to distribute the wealth, where as capitalism provides equal opportunity for all. Not so. The latter is not capitalism; it's free enterprise. Many confuse the two.

Capitalism is the exact opposite to free enterprise. Under a capitalist system the means for producing and distributing goods are owned by a small minority of people, people who have a monopoly on production and on gaining wealth. The majority do NOT have the same opportunity as the monopolists. The rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. But with free enterprise there is equal opportunity.

Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism. In both systems, those at the top have an advantage over others.

Though we have free enterprise to a limited degree in Canada and United States, we need to develop an economic system which will develop it much further, one in which money comes into existence as a credit, rather than as a debt.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

Would I be correct to say that captialism and free enterprise as you are defining them differ only or mainly because the State does or does not take upon itself the role of enforcing "equality of opportunity"? Are you affirming or denying that the State under a capitialist system, as you have defined it, does nothing more than enforce property rights? If property rights are honored, would it not be the case that the poor and rich are both able to accumulate wealth? If so, it would seem the poor are able to contest the rich and the statement "The rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer" is false.

one in which money comes into existence as a credit, rather than as a debt.

Do you think of the concept of "private coinage" is the solution to this problem? I found Murray N. Rothbard and Jorg Guido Hulsman works very helpful on this topic. They make the argument that legal tender laws are immoral, because those who create new money as fiat currency debase it to their own advantage and thereby make all men debtors. It is not wrong to create money, it is wrong to force people to accept it. They well argue the private market can create currency, and the State and central banking need not be involved.

Peter

[kaufmannphillips]

Candlepower wrote:
Here’s a recap of what you said, kaufmannphillips: blah, blah, blah. Claptrap. All hat.

An incisive and illuminating critique. Candlepower indeed.

Candlepower wrote:
I contend that if you were a man of integrity, you would go live (like the masses) for a decade in an openly socialist country, and stand in line to ride their nags. Perhaps then you would return singing a different economic tune. Instead, you sit comfortably under the umbrella of a free market* and gripe.

Well, let's look at the candidates for my sojourn: Norway; Denmark; Finland; Australia; New Zealand; Sweden; Canada; Switzerland; the Netherlands. But hey, you got me - I'm just not brave enough to suffer in those hellholes.

How about you - any countries out there without "virulent socialism" that you'd go live in for a decade? Any candidates that appeal to you?

Candlepower wrote:
History has proven (for those with eyes to see and ears to hear) that the economic system you champion, socialism, has always been a failure. Foolish and naive people argue otherwise.

And yet Forbes (a rag notorious for foolish and naive leftists) tells me: "[The world's most prosperous countries] are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth."

Candlepower wrote:
The only other people who advocate socialism are oligarchic elitists who seek total control over humanity…tyrants. And tyrants just adore all those naive socialists who don't know what they're talking about, but who eagerly help sweep them into power.

Forbes continues: "Yet they don't let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant."

Candlepower wrote:
The correct way to correct flaws in a "free market" is by enforcing laws like, don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie, etc. You know, God’s laws?

Hmmm... The laws in your bible also include giving for the poor {Leviticus 19:9f.; 23:22; Deuteronomy 15:11}. So you should have no problem with enforcing that, right?

Your bible even says something like ""Whoever has two shirts is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise." {Luke 3:11, ESV, alt.} That ought to correct a few flaws.

Candlepower wrote:
Fixing the free market system by replacing it with the oligarchic tyranny of socialism only transfers economic crimes from the free market to the state, and then calls them legal.

I gather from your bifocals that you may be old enough to be hampered by Cold War stereotypes. Socialism does not have to be oligarchic.

Candlepower wrote:
But whereas crimes committed in a free market are sporadic and occasional, Socialism is economic crime institutionalized.

When millions of people can work full-time in our wealthy society, and still not receive a living wage, then the crime is not "sporadic and occasional"; it is institutional.

Candlepower wrote:
Socialism is a crime against humanity. It is a multifaceted violation of God’s law. Fools (and the tyrants who exploit those fools) advocate Socialism. Socialism is economically and morally indefensible, and socialists, whether they intend it or not, are the enemies of God and man.

Dynamite copy, sir. So you used to work for Senator McCarthy's office?

Candlepower wrote:
Here is a short list of some recent infamous socialists: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chávez, and Fidel Castro & his brother, Raul. Their ilk goes back through the centuries. Being responsible for the murders of scores of millions, they are socialism's "Poster Boys."

How can anyone associate with such scum? If I were a socialist, I wouldn’t admit it. By the way, do you know the nickname "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party)? A Nazi is a socialist. So is a communist.

It's a good thing there haven't been hundreds of Christian rulers, going back through the centuries, who were murderous thugs on a grand scale. If there were, I'm sure you wouldn't admit to being a Christian, since that would mean you're associating with such "scum."

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
But a well-managed socialist system depends less on government taking monies from one person and giving it to another, and more upon establishing a healthy economic environment...

steve wrote:
Unless I greatly misjudge human nature, I do not think the creation of the healthy economic climate, such as you envisage, is likely to evolve without one of two factors causing it:

1) "The government taking monies from one person and giving it to another" (that is, governmental coercion of unwilling contributors), or

2) A change in the hearts of people who are naturally unwilling to contribute, so that they now wish to do so without coercion.

...

If you can find a way to induce all the privileged members of our society to desire to help all the poor voluntarily, you will have reached such goals as Christianity enjoins among its adherents. You, however, do not embrace Christianity, and, as far as I can tell, do not have an alternative mechanism to bring about Christian results. It seems to me that this leaves little else for you to recommend than "The government taking monies from one person and giving it to another."

If you think I have no alternate mechanism for transforming people's hearts, then you underestimate Judaism (as you probably do). But centuries of "Christian results" speak well enough for themselves.

As for government policy - "establishing a healthy economic environment" involves legislation that mandates certain business practices: e.g., profit-sharing; employee participation in corporate governance; minimum compensation tied to the Consumer Price Index.

Perhaps you might consider this tantamount to "taking monies from one person and giving it to another." But it is somewhat different. Nobody is being forced to give their money to any other person; but if somebody chooses to hire persons and use the skills and labor of those persons, then that somebody is being required to do so in accordance with paradigms that (hopefully) safeguard fairness. Zero taxation involved; entirely a matter of regulation.