Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

How do you account for our social war on poverty? Some on the right really do claim to believe in Iron Age morals regarding a work ethic, even without an Iron Age morals test, but maybe a drug test on a for-investment-profit basis

 

Social contracts do that all the time.

 

I believe you only arrive at that conclusion due to a lack of understanding of the implications of truer forms of socialism where "from each according to their ability to each according their need" could be a more practical reality. Timeshares could solve some of that dilemma. Of course, some may want to live on site to maintain the property as well.

 

Why not? You use corporate gun thugs to impose your will over me. I'm not jesus, I don't turn the other cheek to being slapped down.

 

How are natural rights restricted by socialism? How are they restricted by capitalism? Is it any wonder why the right only has a problem with human sexuality.

 

I oppose government monopolies and that is a legitimate complaint but in the overall economy it is rather limited and in most cases, such as public education, it is imposed by State Constitutions where the people have authorized the monopoly because it benefits them and society.

A "voucher" is not a form of socialism because it doesn't impose public ownership of the means of production and distribution which is socialism by definition.

I'm not a fan of welfare assistance because it doesn't address fixing the problem which is poverty. All it does is mitigate the effects of the poverty that is in many respects created by government though state and federal taxation. What I've always looked for are solutions to the problem of "poverty" that eliminates the need to mitigate the effects of poverty. The problem is that politicians are very good at identifying a problem, such as poverty, but then only address the symptoms of the problem (e.g. welfare assistance to provide food and shelter or "Obamacare" to provide health care for those mired in poverty).

Want to end welfare assistance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare? Then address the problem which is poverty. If so many Americans weren't so poor we wouldn't require any of the welfare assistance programs.

 

So what, businesses fail all the time as well. Does that mean capitalism can never work? How many people practice purchasing or buying the interest of their spouse under any form of capitalism? Only socialists don't need to use money.

 

The fundamental problem is with "who" determines "from each according to their ability to each according their need" under socialism? Of course there is also another definition that establishes the compensation under socialism is based upon the contribution of the person to the economy but then again the problem remains related to "who" determines what the individual contribution is worth.

The "Law of Supply and Demand" under capitalism for goods, services, and labor takes the human factor out of the equation in theory because the natural market determines how much a product, service, or the labor of the person is worth under capitalism but the theory is corrupted by government interventionism that results in crony capitalism.

 

How is that much different under capitalism where he who has the most capital makes the most rules?

 

That's only true under crony capitalism.

 

There are thousands of worker owned factories, and it won't be long before the workers own the NFL, NBA and MLB. Where does it say they have to live in a community to be socialist? You're not making a whole lotta sense here.

 

How do you be self-managing while also living in a democratic system? If I was managing myself, I'd surely not give my vote to anyone.

 

Nah, the real goal is to become too big to fail, or collude with others to become too big to fail, or simply corner a market and not have to give a damn about your reputation. Monsanto and Cargill come to mind.

 

False dichotomy. Businesses fail (without Government interference) for individual reasons, and the consequences of such failure borne (without Government interference) by individuals.

:dunce:

Yay socialism. DIAF.

- - - Updated - - -

The ONLY way a business becomes 'too big to fail' is if we have a constructed a Government large enough to ensure it through the indentured servitude of its constituents.

So while you're busy demonizing large Corporations, you continue to support the propagation of the largest Corporation of all. Your Government.

 

Nah, without the government, there would be four GIANT corporations just like in the 1880s. Corporations are like cell division in reverse. It's unnatural.

 

So crazy it is laughable. Go be a socialist then on one of the many communes allowed to freely exist in America. You can volunteer to be a socialist right now. But that isn't what the socialists want. They want to control what the capitalists have built and force everyone into socialism. You are always free to give away what you have under capitalism to make yourself equal, but socialism forces it away from people.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are the worker owned factories non union?

 

Then, what you claim of socialism is only true under crony socialism.

 

Not at all; i subscribe to a line of reasoning that claims socialism is merely an evolution from capitalism and is a simple requirement for States and Statism to exist under a Social contract.

The US political-economy is a de facto duopoly of a public sector and a private sector.

 

Arguably true but purely voluntary socialism in an economic society can't pragmatically exist while Laissez-faire capitalism can pragmatically exist.

There will always be the "capitalist" in any economic society so socialism cannot truly exist except by government fiat that prohibits capitalism (but cannot prevent black market capitalism) while under Laissez-faire capitalism it allows voluntary socialism as there are no prohibitions against it because voluntary socialism does not violate the principles of Laissez-faire capitalism. Only government mandated socialism violates the principles of Laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism is based upon the rules of voluntary contract so a group that chooses, by voluntary contract of those involved, to engage in a socialism is not violating the principles of Laissez-faire capitalism.

 

Why not? Private charity and religious functions occur on a regular basis.

 

Because there is no difference between ownership and labor. Iow, if you're a worker, who do you picket? Yourself?

 

????? We already have that. Individuals are free to collectively form their own businesses and run them any way they like.

Ah, here's where the coercion comes in. Prohibiting business where workers are not the owners. Socialism requires eliminating the Capitalist competition. Otherwise it cant compete.

 

Why not what? Private charity is voluntary. Religious functions are also voluntary (and have nothing to do with the economy).

When it comes to socialism there will never be 100% of the people that will voluntarily agree to living under socialism and anyone forced to live under a Socialistic economy is having their Inalienable Right of Property violated.

 

Which is a fundamental problem of "corporate capitalism" (a form of crony capitalism) that depends upon the enterprise to be self-regulating which history has proven the majority will not do.

 

Whats the problem? And regulation isnt a contradiction of capitalism.