How libertarianism started, a look back in its history

[Guy Incognito]

Actually, modern Austro-libertarianism is an outgrowth of anti-Semitism -- albeit not in the traditional sense. The reason Von Mises hated government was because he felt forced to flee his native country, for fear of it being taken over by the Germans.

What you describe is more accurately called a reaction, not an outgrowth.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

2 things ... history is on my side here ...

As far as cutting tarriffs, of coarse US firms are pissed, but they are supper happy when other countries cut tarriffs, and they are the ones fighting FOR things like NAFTA and other free trade deals ... i.e. the big companies.

Also it DOES have a basis in reality since its big Buisiness that are pushing for these free trade deals generally.

You're talking about big business as if it were some kind of faction. There are plenty of businesses that benefit from free trade, but just ask big ag or the steel companies what they thinks about cutting tariffs.

Which can have the same effect.

Well a deduction encourages behavior. A tax discourages it.

A: I'm not a "government solution" guy, almost all of my solutions to economic problems are not government ones, they are changing the framework, such as co-determination laws added in corporate law, having publically accountable non profit enterprises, and so on.

So are you for removing things like corporate privilege and encouraging more worker-owned firms. Could you go into more detail?

Also sure you have problems in the the public areana ... but the incentives are difference, i.e. making sure you get votes, so you have to care about hte public, rather than just making profits.

No, you just have to look good. Also all of the possible choices on public policy are generally aggregated into two choices when we vote. I have more choice when I go to McDonalds. I have much more choice with what I buy than how I impact public policy.

Thats because tax/regulation ARE NOT SOCIALIST ...

We agree here. That's why I put in "supposedly".

The reason people call Sweden and Denmark socialist are because of public enterprise, support of cooperatives, strong labor union force, lots of non-profit public services, and workplace democracy.

They have also recently gone through a long period of deregulation and privatization. They are very friendly toward business

Your fighting against a strawman here ... No socialist argues that more regulation is the answer.

There are many types of socialism. Your's might, but I know plenty of self-described socialists that favor just that.

yeah ... but its way more market based than the socialized healthcare countries.

That doesn't mean anything. Government incentives and regulations still distort prices.

NO one here is arguing for a centrally planned economy ... also when you say "people" you mean people with money ... markets lead to plutocracies, when the market gets into control of resources and capital.

I myself actually think markets are the best way to distribute goods and services (generally), but I'm not one of those that thinks markets belong EVERYWHERE ...

Any type of economic structure that doesn't allow people to make their own decisions will lead to the formation of an elite. Free markets are the most dynamic economic structure out there. Also, I'm not calling for everything to be commoditized. Markets are just one way in which people voluntarily interact.

BTW, you have regulation in the private secter too, except you ahve no say over it ... take union busting for example, not allowing gworkers to form unions, THAT is regulation as well, but it isn't seen as such by libertarians because they believe property is the ultimate justification for power, rather than social contract.

No it's not. Workers can go to a firm that will allow unions or they can create a worker-owned firm. Free markets do offer everyone choices, but each participant isn't allowed to coerce anyone else.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Actually, modern Austro-libertarianism is an outgrowth of anti-Semitism -- albeit not in the traditional sense. The reason Von Mises hated government was because he felt forced to flee his native country, for fear of it being taken over by the Germans.

You could say the same about modern physics.

 

[RGacky3]

No one else threw into the thread...

I didn't propose a single system, and again, we HAVE systems that are publically funded, or restrict political TV adds or spending and guess when, they arn't run by pedephiles and nazis sending people to prison.

Thats a strange cobbling together of statistics. Are you suggesting private prisons are bribing the police & judges in some conspiracy, or are the two facts unrelated & big government just has to many laws that means people are incarcerated for ridiculous offenses that they wouldnt be jailed for under smaller government?

No Private prisons are pushing for stricter laws that send people to prison for longer terms.

Of course they do. Its bussiness, not a cash machine. They have to stay competative. Thats commonsense.

What do you expect to happen, they triple wages & raise prices?

Look at Hostess (or a million other examples), you cant pay more than you have, or you go under.

I don't expect them to do anything else, they are for profit machines ... btw, they also want to keep prices as HIGH as possible. I'm suggesting a whole different system.

No, a statement of fact. Its not even an opinion.

You add more rules, it makes bigger government.

How are you defining government? Does deregulating the health care industry (less rules), but having a single payer healthcare system mean less government?

I mean this whole big/small governemnt thing is totally arbitrary, and meaningleess.

Are you being deliberately dense here?

You keep arguing against strawmen.

How can you compare Norway to USA when Im proposing neither?

The fact is if theres nothing worth bribing its not more succeptable to bribery, & building a strawman, pretending Im advocating the current US is disingenious at best.

You're proposing the US system with simply less "government" whatever tahat means.

Actually yeah ... when you lower the reffs saleries, and make them much more reilant on the teams, guess what ... they are easier to bribe.

Also if there is nothing worth bribing, then where does that power go? IT ends up inevitably directly in the hands of the highest bidder, i.e. the corporations.

If you take away the power of the government to stop pollution, and thus to allow pollution, guess who makes the decision of whether or not to pollute ... THE POLLUTERS!?

So making a profit should be illegal?

Because I can see no other reason for that statement as we were discussing choice, not profit margins.

I provided a myriad of choice, you told me to leave the country.

What sort of an argument is it that you dont like the shop nex door either?

What if I dont like the country next door?

Again Im ignoring the plutocracy fallacy & strawman as its been addressed.

I am not going to play circular games with a strawman so you can stick it in every post if it makes you happy but its a dishonest argument, its been addressed, & I'll ignore it every time from here on in.

I'm a socialist ... so I think we should have a system that doesn't rely on profits to function.

We arn't talking about choice ... Everyone has Choices ... the difference, is I think everyones choice in a matter should count, where as you think you're choice should count only as much as you're pocket book.

If you don't like the coutnry next door, go to another one ... my point was the whole "just go work somewhere else" fallacy is the same type of argument.

Also its not a plutocracy "fallacy," I've explained it, and you've responded to a strawman ... Thos deicions that were once made by the public are now made by the ones with the most money (due to capitalist market mechanisms) ... how is that not plutocracy?

 

[RGacky3]

You're talking about big business as if it were some kind of faction. There are plenty of businesses that benefit from free trade, but just ask big ag or the steel companies what they thinks about cutting tariffs.

I've alswered this nonsense already, they want to cut OTHER people's tariffs, big ag LOVED Nafta ... and big steel love free trade with countries that can't compete with big steel, of caorse its not all black and white .. but when a free deal comes along the stronger competitor, the bigger company, the one with more economy of scale favors it.

Walmart will generally want free trade to compete with mom and pop stores.

Well a deduction encourages behavior. A tax discourages it.

Semantics ... but sure ...

So are you for removing things like corporate privilege and encouraging more worker-owned firms. Could you go into more detail?

There are many ways to do this here are some non revolutionary ways, one is changing the tax law so that it doesn't privilege capital gains, or treates cooperative compensation like capital gains, since cooperatives have a disadvantage since ALL of their money is taxed at income rates where as coroporates have a ton of it taxed at capital gains rates (profits).

One way is to make half of the board of directors voted in by the employees and half by the share holders ... like is done in Germany, that makes way more sense since workers have more of a stake in the companies long term health than shareholders, who are very very liquid and generally have interests in many other companies, and it limits the rate of exploitation (used in the marxian sense), thus limits some of the long term problems internal contradictions and externalities of Capitalism.

You can have instead of umemployment benefits of welfare, state grants for cooperatives, either serving public needs or market needs.

You can have full determination where shareholders have no vote and workeres have all the votes. So the mandate of a corporation is primarily the well being of the workers and serving of the market and secondly profits for the shareholders.

You can actually enforce labor laws (almost never enforced, this is coming from a guy who worked in the US labor movement).

You can public companies that are directly accountable to the electorate, and not for profit.

Some of the solutions I prefer are changing corporate law to make it so that workers get most of the votes. If a company is gonna have staet privileges, like limited liability, dispersement of risk and legal protection, they should follow rules that benefit society as a whole.

But there are many many many different ways to go about this.

No, you just have to look good. Also all of the possible choices on public policy are generally aggregated into two choices when we vote. I have more choice when I go to McDonalds. I have much more choice with what I buy than how I impact public policy.

the 2 choices are a testiment to how crappy the US electoral system is, not democracy.

But that doesn't mean we should just surrender to plutocracy.

We agree here. That's why I put in "supposedly".

Thank ... hopefully I won't have to argue against the tax/welfare/regulation strawman again.

They have also recently gone through a long period of deregulation and privatization. They are very friendly toward business

Well ... Sweden has ... Denmark has remained extremely socialistic. However Sweden has held on to the main things that make their social-democratic system, co-determination, stron unions and so on. But post liberalization in Sweden, Sweden lagged behind the other Scandanavian models that stuck firmly to the left, which is why Swedish workers are coming to Norway and Denmark and so on. But Sweden is still very social-democratic.

Also Sweden is friendly toward some buisiness ...

There are many types of socialism. Your's might, but I know plenty of self-described socialists that favor just that.

Some might argue for regulation ... but no socialist willl argue that regulated capitalism is socialism, or just regulation is the answer ... at least very few of them.

I'm in favor of some regulation ... Enviromental and so on, but the real solution is changing the institutions.

That doesn't mean anything. Government incentives and regulations still distort prices.

Everything distorts prices ... there is no "state of nature" in Capitalism, but it does mean a lot, the US has one of the most market based healthcare systems and it stinks.

Any type of economic structure that doesn't allow people to make their own decisions will lead to the formation of an elite. Free markets are the most dynamic economic structure out there. Also, I'm not calling for everything to be commoditized. Markets are just one way in which people voluntarily interact.

Capitalism allows you to make your own decisions as long as you can afford it, so when you are poor your decisions are extremely limited.

I know your not calling for everything to be commodizised but tahts what Capitalism does.

markets are one way in which people interact voluntarily, as is democracy, as is mutual aid, as are the commons and so on.

The main difference is one dollar one vote vrs one person one vote.

No it's not. Workers can go to a firm that will allow unions or they can create a worker-owned firm. Free markets do offer everyone choices, but each participant isn't allowed to coerce anyone else.

No firm will allow unions unless they are forced to ... workers have to FORCE the firm.

ALso Again, they cannot create their own worker-owned firm without the capital, controlled by the capitalist, and if they get enough they are fighting against economies of scale that have government privileges.

Free markets allow choice based on wealth ... thats not free choice ... its plutocracy.

Free markets will only be free when property is voluntarily accepted and democratically distributed. Property is not a state of nature (property meaning beyond possession).

 

[Paul Austin]

I didn't propose a single system, and again, we HAVE systems that are publically funded, or restrict political TV adds or spending and guess when, they arn't run by pedephiles and nazis sending people to prison.

You are right, we do have examples, but those examples do include giving money to far right parties & there are tax protestors in those countries that have been sent to jail.

The BNP, for example, have done very well out of political funding.

No Private prisons are pushing for stricter laws that send people to prison for longer terms.

& thats bigger government, not smaller.

That demonstrates my point, big government is more corruptable.

I don't expect them to do anything else, they are for profit machines ... btw, they also want to keep prices as HIGH as possible.

Of course they do. It would be strange to expect otherwise.

How are you defining government? Does deregulating the health care industry (less rules), but having a single payer healthcare system mean less government?

A single payer system could be smaller than a government run multipayer system, yes.

I mean this whole big/small governemnt thing is totally arbitrary, and meaningleess.

Not at all. Its actually high on the political agenda, & not just mine.

You're proposing the US system with simply less "government" whatever tahat means.

Ive done nothing of the sort. Nor would I. The current US system imo is extremely bloated and inefficient.

Actually yeah ... when you lower the reffs saleries, and make them much more reilant on the teams, guess what ... they are easier to bribe.

You are still missing the point. No one bribes someone to do something they cant do.

Your head appears stuck in big government & you appear unable to conceptualize the fundemental differences presented by small government.

Also if there is nothing worth bribing, then where does that power go?

To the people.

Again you seem to have very little faith in the ordinary people.

If you don't like the coutnry next door, go to another one ... my point was the whole "just go work somewhere else" fallacy is the same type of argument.

Except there is a huge difference between going next door, & moving to a different country. A huge difference.

 

[RGacky3]

You are right, we do have examples, but those examples do include giving money to far right parties & there are tax protestors in those countries that have been sent to jail.

The BNP, for example, have done very well out of political funding.

Yeah, the BNP has gotten tons of private funding ... you'd have to assume that these parties would do better democratically than they would plutocratically, i.e. they would have a lot more popular support than just support from people with money.

Also the UK has a mainly private campain funding system.

& thats bigger government, not smaller.

That demonstrates my point, big government is more corruptable.

... No .. we privatize prisons (smaller governments) and they push for stricter laws. So by cutting government by privitizing prisons you end up with that major problem.

A single payer system could be smaller than a government run multipayer system, yes.

There is no government run multipayer system ....

Not at all. Its actually high on the political agenda, & not just mine.

Yeah ... its nothing more than a political slogan though ... its arbitrary and meaningless.

Ive done nothing of the sort. Nor would I. The current US system imo is extremely bloated and inefficient.

Yeah ... and your solution is just "small goverment," which is just a political slogan .. youd keep in place the private campain finance.

You are still missing the point. No one bribes someone to do something they cant do.

Your head appears stuck in big government & you appear unable to conceptualize the fundemental differences presented by small government.

So you want the government to not be allowed to make laws? If that is the case who does and how?

You seam to not be able to actually explain anything beyond political sloganing.

To the people.

Again you seem to have very little faith in the ordinary people.

Again .. something meaningless and arbitrary ... you say the people, but HOW ... Now you'll say "through the market," and now what that really means is to the rich ... because it goes to the highest bidder.

I have all the faith in ordinary people, which is why I want decisions to be made democratically not plutocratically, I want it to be one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.

Except there is a huge difference between going next door, & moving to a different country. A huge difference.

In scale, not in concept.

 

[Paul Austin]

Yeah, the BNP has gotten tons of private funding ...

& public funding.

I had a choice NOT to give under the first example, a choice you want to remove.

As someone of mixed race heritage I find that offensive (although Im sure its not your intent).

... No .. we privatize prisons (smaller governments) and they push for stricter laws.

Thus big government

Yeah ... its nothing more than a political slogan though ... its arbitrary and meaningless.

Quite wrong

Yeah ... and your solution is just "small goverment," which is just a political slogan .. youd keep in place the private campain finance.

Quite wrong

So you want the government to not be allowed to make laws?

No, that is not, nor ever has been my position

Again .. something meaningless and arbitrary ... you say the people, but HOW ... Now you'll say "through the market," and now what that really means is to the rich ... because it goes to the highest bidder.

Again a strawman.

In scale, not in concept.

& that scale makes all the difference. Especially for ordinary people.

 

[RGacky3]

& public funding.

I had a choice NOT to give under the first example, a choice you want to remove.

As someone of mixed race heritage I find that offensive (although Im sure its not your intent).

You don't actually find that offensive ...

Also, you don't have a choice on how much funding the BNP gets overall, for example if you're not rich, and another guy is rich and supports the BNP, you're **** out of luck.

Thus big government

Not really ... privitized prisons ... i.e. getting rid of a whole section of government, a large one.

Quite wrong

Quite wrong

No argument there, you havn't actually decided on what small government IS ...

No, that is not, nor ever has been my position

Ok ... Then specifically .... concretely, what is you're solution to corruption and I need something more specific and concrete than "the people" or "small government," which are nothing more than arbitrary and meaningless political sloganing, I mean ACTUAL legislation.

Again a strawman.

It's not a strawman .... That is EXACTLY what you argue for, i.e. private funding of elections, you give as much as you can, thus giving power overwhelmingly to the rich, and shutting out the poor.

& that scale makes all the difference. Especially for ordinary people.

Yeah ... but what also makes the difference for ordinary people is having rich people run elections.

 

[Paul Austin]

You don't actually find that offensive ...

Yes I do. Its very offensive to me to be expected to pay for such people.

Also, you don't have a choice on how much funding the BNP gets overall, for example if you're not rich, and another guy is rich and supports the BNP, you're **** out of luck.

I get a choice not to give them any of my money.

Thats actually important to some of us.

Not really ...

Yes really. As explained previously.

No argument there, you havn't actually decided on what small government IS ...

Wrong. I have, but its not relative to this thread.

Ok ... Then specifically .... concretely, what is you're solution to corruption and I need something more specific and concrete than "the people" or "small government," which are nothing more than arbitrary and meaningless political sloganing, I mean ACTUAL legislation.

Again thats not relevant to this thread. If I choose to post extensively on my vision for government it will be in the relevant thread.

& IF its that extensive it probably will be a thread starting post.

The structure, shape & extent of government is a big topic, not coverable by a throw away post on page whatever in a thread on someone elses ideology.

It's not a strawman .... That is EXACTLY what you argue for, i.e. private funding of elections, you give as much as you can, thus giving power overwhelmingly to the rich, and shutting out the poor.

Strawman to defend a strawman.

Ive never once stated what you claim above.

 

[RGacky3]

I get a choice not to give them any of my money.

Thats actually important to some of us.

What is important to some of us is actual democracy ... but sure if you're ok with a couple rich people deciding who gets what electoral funding, then fine ... that is plutocracy by definition.

Yes really. As explained previously.

Jesus Christ ... they PRIVITIZED PRISONS, for the sake of smaller government, and that caused the outcome we see.

Wrong. I have, but its not relative to this thread.

yes it is, since this "small government" is the whole basis for your solution to political corruption, or private corporations making decisions that belong to the public sector.

Again thats not relevant to this thread. If I choose to post extensively on my vision for government it will be in the relevant thread.

& IF its that extensive it probably will be a thread starting post.

The structure, shape & extent of government is a big topic, not coverable by a throw away post on page whatever in a thread on someone elses ideology.

It is relevant, because thats what we were talking about.

You can't just say "small government" and "the people" will get rid of political corrpution, without actually explaining what that means.

Strawman to defend a strawman.

Ive never once stated what you claim above.

So you don't support private funding for elections?

 

[Paul Austin]

What is important to some of us is actual democracy

It is to a lot of people, but there is nothing democratic in forcing me to fund racists.

yes it is.

No its not, as this thread is about the history of libertarianism, not my seperate personal ideology.

You can't just say "small government" and "the people" will get rid of political corrpution, without actually explaining what that means.

See previous responses.

So you don't support private funding for elections?

We've established this one. What I dont support is people dictating to me that I must fund political parties that I personally find repugnant.

Thats just not democracy.

 

[RGacky3]

It is to a lot of people, but there is nothing democratic in forcing me to fund racists.

Well ... You fund churches ... and you fund the military ... its life, deal with it, you're solution just surrenders democracy to the rich, by putting politics up on the market.

No its not, as this thread is about the history of libertarianism, not my seperate personal ideology.

And we started talking about campain finance.

See previous responses.

The only thing you said is "less rules" ... Which isn't really a solution to anything or really a coherant option.

We've established this one. What I dont support is people dictating to me that I must fund political parties that I personally find repugnant.

Thats just not democracy.

Ok ... so why are you not opposed to taxation as a whole?

Also what is not democracy is putting politics up on the Market ... All you've done is these nonsense scare tactics, the same argument's that monarchists gave against democracy ... (They'll vote lunatics in power)!!!!

You're assuming its more likely that racists get popular support than it is for them to get a couple rich people to give them money ... which is unfounded.

 

[Paul Austin]

Well ... You fund churches ... and you fund the military ... its life, deal with it

Im sorry, such an answer isnt good enough for most people, & is certainly undemocratic.

you're solution...

You mean the one I havent given?

And we started talking about campain finance.

I know. I almost didnt respond to that point but my dislike of your anti-democratic suggestion tempted to answer.

Ok ... so why are you not opposed to taxation as a whole?

Very few people are, most people accept that at least some taxation (or alternative collection method) is a necessary evil.

Also what is not democracy is putting politics up on the Market ... All you've done is these nonsense scare tactics, the same argument's that monarchists gave against democracy ... (They'll vote lunatics in power)!!!!

Incorrect & another strawman.

You're assuming its more likely that racists get popular support than it is for them to get a couple rich people to give them money ... which is unfounded.

Another strawman. Ive made no such claims or assumptions.

 

[Wiggen]

The above was a very incomplete, indeed outright deceptive, view of libertarianism's origins.

Except, of course, modern libertariansim has only a tenuous connection to classic libertarianism.

 

[RGacky3]

Paul Austin ...

Here is all I need.

What specifically, legislatively would you do to ensure corruption wouldn't happen, I mean specific legislation ....

Also, if funding is just left to the market, how would you stop it being controlled by the wealthy? If you wouldn't, how is that not plutocracy?

I'm sick of playing these games with you, be specific.

 

[head of joaquin]

Except, of course, modern libertariansim has only a tenuous connection to classic libertarianism.

It's been pretty much corporatized. Consider that the Cato Institute is owned by the Koch Brothers, and we can see how libertarianism is just shilling for the rich.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Sorry, I haven't been able to respond for a few days.

I've alswered this nonsense already, they want to cut OTHER people's tariffs, big ag LOVED Nafta ... and big steel love free trade with countries that can't compete with big steel, of caorse its not all black and white .. but when a free deal comes along the stronger competitor, the bigger company, the one with more economy of scale favors it.

Walmart will generally want free trade to compete with mom and pop stores.

Well I'm not calling for free trade for only a few industries. I'm calling for it across the board. Obviously, some businesses will do better than others, but the original point stands, there is nothing about free trade that inherently favors big business. Anyway, why shouldn't industries in other countries not have to compete with our's? Why is Mexican agriculture or Canadian steel so sacred?


There are many ways to do this here are some non revolutionary ways, one is changing the tax law so that it doesn't privilege capital gains, or treates cooperative compensation like capital gains, since cooperatives have a disadvantage since ALL of their money is taxed at income rates where as coroporates have a ton of it taxed at capital gains rates (profits).[/QUOTE]

Simplify the tax code; we agree here.

One way is to make half of the board of directors voted in by the employees and half by the share holders ... like is done in Germany, that makes way more sense since workers have more of a stake in the companies long term health than shareholders, who are very very liquid and generally have interests in many other companies, and it limits the rate of exploitation (used in the marxian sense), thus limits some of the long term problems internal contradictions and externalities of Capitalism.

You can have instead of umemployment benefits of welfare, state grants for cooperatives, either serving public needs or market needs.

If cooperatives are going to thrive, it should be based upon their own merits. They shouldn't be subsidized. I would prefer welfare payments to have as little distortive effect as possible.

You can have full determination where shareholders have no vote and workeres have all the votes. So the mandate of a corporation is primarily the well being of the workers and serving of the market and secondly profits for the shareholders.

You can actually enforce labor laws (almost never enforced, this is coming from a guy who worked in the US labor movement).

Labor laws tend to make the labor market more inflexible, and prone to higher unemployment.

You can public companies that are directly accountable to the electorate, and not for profit.

More state control will (correct if this isn't what you are referring to here) and removing the profit motive will reduce a lot of incentive that businesses have to innovate and produce better goods and services.

Some of the solutions I prefer are changing corporate law to make it so that workers get most of the votes. If a company is gonna have staet privileges, like limited liability, dispersement of risk and legal protection, they should follow rules that benefit society as a whole.

But there are many many many different ways to go about this.

My answer is to largely eliminate these benefits altogether. If cooperatives can compete on a more even keel, great.

the 2 choices are a testiment to how crappy the US electoral system is, not democracy.

But that doesn't mean we should just surrender to plutocracy.

Even with a couple more parties, your choices are still incredibly limited, and everyone has to abide by the choices of the winner. Markets simply offer more choice. If the Democrats win and I prefer Republicans, I still have to follow the Democrats' laws. If I prefer Pepsi, it doesn't matter if more people like Coke


Well ... Sweden has ... Denmark has remained extremely socialistic. However Sweden has held on to the main things that make their social-democratic system, co-determination, stron unions and so on. But post liberalization in Sweden, Sweden lagged behind the other Scandanavian models that stuck firmly to the left, which is why Swedish workers are coming to Norway and Denmark and so on. But Sweden is still very social-democratic.

Also Sweden is friendly toward some buisiness ...[/QUOTE]

Denmark's economic freedom is still considered almost as high as America's by the Heritage Foundation and Frasier Institute. There are many elements that go into economic success, the most important being strong property rights.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Some might argue for regulation ... but no socialist willl argue that regulated capitalism is socialism, or just regulation is the answer ... at least very few of them.

I'm in favor of some regulation ... Enviromental and so on, but the real solution is changing the institutions.

And many would argue that the Soviet Union was just state capitalist. That might be true, but not all socialists agree with you, just as many self-descried libertarians have many different views from mine.

Everything distorts prices ... there is no "state of nature" in Capitalism, but it does mean a lot, the US has one of the most market based healthcare systems and it stinks.

Our healthcare system is still nowhere near a free market. There are numerous regulations pertaining to healthcare that make it more expensive: tax incentives for employer-based care, certificates of need, licensing requirements, ect. Deregulation would greatly drive down prices.

Capitalism allows you to make your own decisions as long as you can afford it, so when you are poor your decisions are extremely limited.

This is a case for some wealth transfer, but not against capitalism. Competition drives down prices and makes things more available to people.

I know your not calling for everything to be commodizised but tahts what Capitalism does.

markets are one way in which people interact voluntarily, as is democracy, as is mutual aid, as are the commons and so on.

The main difference is one dollar one vote vrs one person one vote.

Capitalism doesn't crowd out everything else. You still have mutual aid, community organizations, and friendly societies. If anything, more of a free market would see much more of these things.

No firm will allow unions unless they are forced to ... workers have to FORCE the firm.

Unions existed before the NLRA. There were less of them sure, but our workforce has become far more diversified since the 19th century. We have much more productivity and human capital to raise the value of and protect workers.

Again, they cannot create their own worker-owned firm without the capital, controlled by the capitalist, and if they get enough they are fighting against economies of scale that have government privileges.

There are more than two classes out there. People can pool their capital together to create worker-owned firms.

Free markets allow choice based on wealth ... thats not free choice ... its plutocracy.

Free markets build wealth as well. They are not perfect, but even the poor have far more choice and comfort in their lives than most people did a hundred years ago.

Free markets will only be free when property is voluntarily accepted and democratically distributed. Property is not a state of nature (property meaning beyond possession).[/QUOTE]

And how is property going to be distributed in a manner that is more equitable than voluntary exchange.

 

[RGacky3]

Well I'm not calling for free trade for only a few industries. I'm calling for it across the board. Obviously, some businesses will do better than others, but the original point stands, there is nothing about free trade that inherently favors big business. Anyway, why shouldn't industries in other countries not have to compete with our's? Why is Mexican agriculture or Canadian steel so sacred?

Yes there is something inherent in what is called free trade that favors big buisiness ... economies of scale.

If cooperatives are going to thrive, it should be based upon their own merits. They shouldn't be subsidized. I would prefer welfare payments to have as little distortive effect as possible.

Every industry that grew in the US and in basically every industrialized country did so through subsidies.

Also cooperatives have a problem with raising capital because they are not for profit and democratic, i.e. not enslaved to the investors.

Labor laws tend to make the labor market more inflexible, and prone to higher unemployment.

Empirically not true, and overal untrue, there are all sorts of internal inconsistancies in the labor market that makes deregulated capitalism end up creating more unemployment, one, you can work people harder for longer, unemployment begets more unemployment, wage suppression begets unemployment and so on.

More state control will (correct if this isn't what you are referring to here) and removing the profit motive will reduce a lot of incentive that businesses have to innovate and produce better goods and services.

Bull****, given that most innovation comes from the non profit sector to begin with.

My answer is to largely eliminate these benefits altogether. If cooperatives can compete on a more even keel, great.

So you are in favor of eliminating limited liability?

Even with a couple more parties, your choices are still incredibly limited, and everyone has to abide by the choices of the winner. Markets simply offer more choice. If the Democrats win and I prefer Republicans, I still have to follow the Democrats' laws. If I prefer Pepsi, it doesn't matter if more people like Coke

They only offer more choice if you can afford it .... Markets choices are based on the amount of money you have.

Denmark's economic freedom is still considered almost as high as America's by the Heritage Foundation and Frasier Institute. There are many elements that go into economic success, the most important being strong property rights.

I don't give a **** about the Heritage Foundation and Frasier institute rankings, I care about actual economic policy ... Swedens economic policy was shaped by socail decmocrats, which ends up creating more economic freedom ... yeah, Strong Unions, a strong public sector and so on ends up being good for the whole economy and euntreprenoirs.

And many would argue that the Soviet Union was just state capitalist. That might be true, but not all socialists agree with you, just as many self-descried libertarians have many different views from mine.

Most would

Our healthcare system is still nowhere near a free market. There are numerous regulations pertaining to healthcare that make it more expensive: tax incentives for employer-based care, certificates of need, licensing requirements, ect. Deregulation would greatly drive down prices.

There is no such thing as a free market, and there never will be, its a contradiction in terms. Either way, the US still has teh most market based system in the world ... And it stinks.

This is a case for some wealth transfer, but not against capitalism. Competition drives down prices and makes things more available to people.

It also drives down wages, often more than it drives down prices.

Also constant driving down of prices is one of the internal contradictiosn of capitalism, that the rate of profit constantly falls, while aggrigate demand either drops and stays the same, thus capital must constantly find new places to grow.

Capitalism doesn't crowd out everything else. You still have mutual aid, community organizations, and friendly societies. If anything, more of a free market would see much more of these things.

Thats just an assertion.

Unions existed before the NLRA. There were less of them sure, but our workforce has become far more diversified since the 19th century. We have much more productivity and human capital to raise the value of and protect workers.

I was'nt talking about the NLRA, I was talking about Unions forcing firms to accept them, with or without the NLRA ... I would argue that the NLRA has actually ended up hurting unions more than helping them, by not enforcing the employer side of the law and only enforcing the union side, this is from some one that has worked in the labor movement.

There are more than two classes out there. People can pool their capital together to create worker-owned firms.

First you gotta have capital, and enough of it, and enough of it to risk.

And how is property going to be distributed in a manner that is more equitable than voluntary exchange.

You're putting the buggy before the horse .... I have no problem with voluntary exchange, infact I promote that, however, property, as an institution, should be voluntary and democratic ... not treated as an axiom.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Yes there is something inherent in what is called free trade that favors big buisiness ... economies of scale.

And while some industries benefit from higher economies of scale, not all do. I'm going to need to see data to support this. Also, this ignores that most international trade is conducted between developed countries. Trade does increase competition, as companies have new competitors.

Every industry that grew in the US and in basically every industrialized country did so through subsidies.

Also cooperatives have a problem with raising capital because they are not for profit and democratic, i.e. not enslaved to the investors.

Well the answer is to cut-back on subsidies on traditional companies. Worker-owned firms can still grow. Look at the Mondragon Corporation. These firms can still grow; most large corporations started off pretty small. Some markets would be better suited to these types of firms than others, but why can't these firms grow on their own?

Empirically not true, and overal untrue, there are all sorts of internal inconsistancies in the labor market that makes deregulated capitalism end up creating more unemployment, one, you can work people harder for longer, unemployment begets more unemployment, wage suppression begets unemployment and so on.

OK, data?

Bull****, given that most innovation comes from the non profit sector to begin with.

That might be true, but how does the profit motive not improve things?

So you are in favor of eliminating limited liability?

Yes

They only offer more choice if you can afford it .... Markets choices are based on the amount of money you have.

They make you more discriminating with your money.

I don't give a **** about the Heritage Foundation and Frasier institute rankings, I care about actual economic policy ... Swedens economic policy was shaped by socail decmocrats, which ends up creating more economic freedom ... yeah, Strong Unions, a strong public sector and so on ends up being good for the whole economy and euntreprenoirs.

Social democrats that understood basic economic fundamentals. Singapore's living standards are pretty similar to Sweden's Most of the stuff that we argue over doesn't really matter. The most important steps for economic development are largely agreed upon.

There is no such thing as a free market, and there never will be, its a contradiction in terms. Either way, the US still has teh most market based system in the world ... And it stinks.

This has nothing to do with the fact that healthcare has far more regulation than many other markets. Are you saying that it is impossible to further regulate or privatize it. Healthcare in this country is most certainly not as free market as it could be. It's not like it's a sliding scale. Things are more complicated than that

It also drives down wages, often more than it drives down prices.

If you can get a job in these fields. Productivity is a far more important determinant of wages

Also constant driving down of prices is one of the internal contradictiosn of capitalism, that the rate of profit constantly falls, while aggrigate demand either drops and stays the same, thus capital must constantly find new places to grow.

Even perfect competition doesn't mean 0 profit, but no economic profit. Meaning that firms can't use their resources more efficiently and there is no deadweight loss.

just an assertion.

They existed long before the creation of the welfare state.

I was'nt talking about the NLRA, I was talking about Unions forcing firms to accept them, with or without the NLRA ... I would argue that the NLRA has actually ended up hurting unions more than helping them, by not enforcing the employer side of the law and only enforcing the union side, this is from some one that has worked in the labor movement.

What kind of labor regulations do you favor? I'm not against labor unions per se, as long as they and their employers don't get state support.

First you gotta have capital, and enough of it, and enough of it to risk.

And millions of people do this. It's very difficult and very risky. Obviously, having more money makes it easier, but business ownership is not the sole domain of the rich.

You're putting the buggy before the horse .... I have no problem with voluntary exchange, infact I promote that, however, property, as an institution, should be voluntary and democratic ... not treated as an axiom.

What does this entail?

 

[RGacky3]

And while some industries benefit from higher economies of scale, not all do. I'm going to need to see data to support this. Also, this ignores that most international trade is conducted between developed countries. Trade does increase competition, as companies have new competitors.

Almost all industries benefit from economies of scale ... give me an example of one that doesn't.

The evidence is simply the falling of small buisinesses to large buisiness.

Also trade increases competition giving more power to economies of scale.

Well the answer is to cut-back on subsidies on traditional companies. Worker-owned firms can still grow. Look at the Mondragon Corporation. These firms can still grow; most large corporations started off pretty small. Some markets would be better suited to these types of firms than others, but why can't these firms grow on their own?

Sure, and most large corporations that started off small benefited egnormasely from government subsidies and tarriffs.

Also cooperatives have a disadvantage in getting investment due to the lack of focus on profit ... That the difference, and that is why you need institutional changes.

OK, data?

The last 5 years.

That might be true, but how does the profit motive not improve things?

It neither here nor there ... the profit motive profits from innovations ... but they would be there without the profit motive.

Yes

Good, lets fight for that then, but get rid of limited liability and say goodbye to Capitalism .

They make you more discriminating with your money.

Nothing to do with my point.

Social democrats that understood basic economic fundamentals. Singapore's living standards are pretty similar to Sweden's Most of the stuff that we argue over doesn't really matter. The most important steps for economic development are largely agreed upon.

Singapore's state controls 60% of the economic activity ... Thats hardly free market.

Also Social democraits understood the basic economic fundementals, i.e. that Capitalism doesn't work, and it needs democratization and public oversight.

This has nothing to do with the fact that healthcare has far more regulation than many other markets. Are you saying that it is impossible to further regulate or privatize it. Healthcare in this country is most certainly not as free market as it could be. It's not like it's a sliding scale. Things are more complicated than that

Its fully privitized ... and it IS possible to deregulate it, but we allready know the outcome ... we already ahve a solution, its single payer, and it works.

If you can get a job in these fields. Productivity is a far more important determinant of wages

Nonsense, productivity has gone up for American workers while wages are stagnent and actually fell. Wages have nothing to do with productivity, they have to do with the lowest the employer can get away with paying within the institutional framework.

Even perfect competition doesn't mean 0 profit, but no economic profit. Meaning that firms can't use their resources more efficiently and there is no deadweight loss.

You're gonna have to exapand on that.

They existed long before the creation of the welfare state.

yeah ... and they wern't enough.

What kind of labor regulations do you favor? I'm not against labor unions per se, as long as they and their employers don't get state support.

Co-Determination, first and formost, and whatever benefits Comapnies get should be also availiable to unions.

And millions of people do this. It's very difficult and very risky. Obviously, having more money makes it easier, but business ownership is not the sole domain of the rich.

You're right, but we are talking the macro picture here, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

What does this entail?

The community having a say over the resources and the economic activity in the community and the workers having a say over the workplaces. i.e. the land belongs to the community before it does a company, as do the resources, private ownership over land or capital is not primary but rather allowed given social benefit, or lack of social harm.

So for example I don't get to own a lake, just because I say I do, I have to convince the other people invovled that its the best way to arrange things.

Its basically the whole idea of democracy.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Almost all industries benefit from economies of scale ... give me an example of one that doesn't.

The evidence is simply the falling of small buisinesses to large buisiness.

Service industries, many types of agriculture. Big business can have problems with coordination and diminishing returns.

Also trade increases competition giving more power to economies of scale.

The point about being pro-business is moot. If big business might be favored over small business in some cases, then these corporations will still be reigned in by greater competition. That isn't pro-business.

Sure, and most large corporations that started off small benefited egnormasely from government subsidies and tarriffs.

Which should be eliminated.

Also cooperatives have a disadvantage in getting investment due to the lack of focus on profit ... That the difference, and that is why you need institutional changes.

That's why employees can serve as shareholders

The last 5 years.

What about the last five years? What does this have to do with unions?

It neither here nor there ... the profit motive profits from innovations ... but they would be there without the profit motive.

It's an extra incentive. I fail to see why it does not at least help.

Good, lets fight for that then, but get rid of limited liability and say goodbye to Capitalism .

There are alternatives to limited liability, such as making the owners responsible for their company.

Nothing to do with my point.

Markets force down prices and output up. This is the result of people using their money to its best value.

Singapore's state controls 60% of the economic activity ... Thats hardly free market.

I don't know where you got that number, but Singapore's government does not spend that much money.

Also Social democraits understood the basic economic fundementals, i.e. that Capitalism doesn't work, and it needs democratization and public oversight.

They realize that property rights are important.

Its fully privitized ...

Half of all expenditures on healthcare are done through government. Most healthcare providers are private, but the state has a massive role.

and it IS possible to deregulate it, but we allready know the outcome ... we already ahve a solution, its single payer, and it works.

Yes, lower prices, fewer distortions, and more medical providers.

Nonsense, productivity has gone up for American workers while wages are stagnent and actually fell. Wages have nothing to do with productivity, they have to do with the lowest the employer can get away with paying within the institutional framework.

They've gone up for some workers and have remained stagnant for others.

You're gonna have to exapand on that.

There are two types of profit, accounting and economic. Accounting profit is what we normally think of as profit, revenue minus explicit costs. Economic profit, which is driven to zero in perfect competition, is accounting profit minus the additional opportunity cost. Perfect competition still allows firms to make money, but they just can't use their resources more efficiently.

yeah ... and they wern't enough.

Some state intervention is needed to help those that fall through the cracks, but overall how did these groups not do the job?

Co-Determination, first and formost, and whatever benefits Comapnies get should be also availiable to unions.

I agree, which is nothing.

You're right, but we are talking the macro picture here, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Millions of people start their own businesses. You don't have to be incredibly rich to do so.

The community having a say over the resources and the economic activity in the community and the workers having a say over the workplaces. i.e. the land belongs to the community before it does a company, as do the resources, private ownership over land or capital is not primary but rather allowed given social benefit, or lack of social harm.

Why does the community have to have a say? Who in the community is actually making the calls of what to do?

So for example I don't get to own a lake, just because I say I do, I have to convince the other people invovled that its the best way to arrange things.

Its basically the whole idea of democracy.

You have to convince people in capitalism that is based upon voluntary exchange.

 

[RGacky3]

Service industries, many types of agriculture. Big business can have problems with coordination and diminishing returns.

Almost universally not though, most service industries benefit from economies of scale by streamlining and ability to take short temr losses, I can't think of any agriculture that has serious problems with economies of scle.

As far as coordination, thats why you have layers of management.

As far as diminishing returns, that doesn't change the competative advantage of the economies of scale.

The point about being pro-business is moot. If big business might be favored over small business in some cases, then these corporations will still be reigned in by greater competition. That isn't pro-business.

except it IS pro buisiness, because competition DOES NOT reign in big buisiness in the real world.

Which should be eliminated.

I'm making a historical argument.

That's why employees can serve as shareholders

That isn't a cooperative, nor does it change the capital/labor dynamic, btw, when I'm talking about capital and labor I'm talking about relations, not necessarily people, but either way, you havn't actually answered what the problem was ... i.e. investment, employees serving as shareholders doesn't answer anything.

What about the last five years? What does this have to do with unions?

rising unemployment and flatining wages ...

It's an extra incentive. I fail to see why it does not at least help.

Because it just doesn't, the profit motive generally comes AFTER the actual innovation after the innovation is in the market, it has nothing to do with the actual innovation, again, my arguments are historical and empirical.

There are alternatives to limited liability, such as making the owners responsible for their company.

Ok ... Still ... it would end up being the end of Capitalism, given the GIANT freeze of capital it would produce.

Markets force down prices and output up. This is the result of people using their money to its best value.

Ignoring all externalities.

I don't know where you got that number, but Singapore's government does not spend that much money.

no it OWNS that much, it owns stake in companies that account for about 60% of the countries GDP, basically giant national investment and state ownership.

They realize that property rights are important.

But not more important than the welbeing of individuals.

Half of all expenditures on healthcare are done through government. Most healthcare providers are private, but the state has a massive role.

Yeah .... the expenditures that cost the most, i.e. old people and very poor people ... so technically the private healthcare system should be doing much much better .... but it isn't.

Yes, lower prices, fewer distortions, and more medical providers.

Thats not a solution, that's just a wished for outcome, that like saying the cure to unemployment is more jobs ....

They've gone up for some workers and have remained stagnant for others.

I've posted data, we're talking economics here, I can say that about every single country at every single time.

There are two types of profit, accounting and economic. Accounting profit is what we normally think of as profit, revenue minus explicit costs. Economic profit, which is driven to zero in perfect competition, is accounting profit minus the additional opportunity cost. Perfect competition still allows firms to make money, but they just can't use their resources more efficiently.

Ok ... doesn't change anything I said.

Some state intervention is needed to help those that fall through the cracks, but overall how did these groups not do the job?

Because people actually starved to death in the United States and died from easily curable sickensses.

Millions of people start their own businesses. You don't have to be incredibly rich to do so.

And 90% of them fail, one reason why micro credit is a failed idea, just telling peopel to start buisinesses isn't a solution to the economic problems, its as rediculous as telling a person with cancer "just get better".

Why does the community have to have a say? Who in the community is actually making the calls of what to do?

Because teh community has to live with the effect of the decision, any one who is effected by the decision.

You have to convince people in capitalism that is based upon voluntary exchange.

If you're fighting for capitalism where property laws are voluntary? then I'm all for it, but that would basically mean no more capitalism, either way, you're dodging almost all my points.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Almost universally not though, most service industries benefit from economies of scale by streamlining and ability to take short temr losses, I can't think of any agriculture that has serious problems with economies of scle.

As far as coordination, thats why you have layers of management.

As far as diminishing returns, that doesn't change the competative advantage of the economies of scale.

These layers of management can be the problem. As businesses grow, it can become harder to manage resources. Most value in the economy is created through small business. To say that big business dominates everything is to ignore the facts.

except it IS pro buisiness, because competition DOES NOT reign in big buisiness in the real world.

Increased competition does a much better job at reigning in big business than less competition. It becomes harder for companies to collude and prices are driven down. That is not "pro-business". It's pro-consumer.

I'm making a historical argument.

Companies should thrive based upon their own merit, not through subsidies.

That isn't a cooperative, nor does it change the capital/labor dynamic, btw, when I'm talking about capital and labor I'm talking about relations, not necessarily people, but either way, you havn't actually answered what the problem was ... i.e. investment, employees serving as shareholders doesn't answer anything.

They can be the ones to invest capital or investors who make an agreement with the employees of the corporation. There are examples of large worker-owned firms operating successfully. It can be done.

rising unemployment and flatining wages ...

What does this have to do with unionization and not a massive financial crisis? Productivity started to outgrow wages around the 1970's, but unionization has been declining since the 1950's.

Because it just doesn't, the profit motive generally comes AFTER the actual innovation after the innovation is in the market, it has nothing to do with the actual innovation, again, my arguments are historical and empirical.

There are many examples of inventors and companies developing technology with the express purpose of making money off of it.

... Still ... it would end up being the end of Capitalism, given the GIANT freeze of capital it would produce.

Making it easier for people to enter into contracts and own companies.

Ignoring all externalities.

Your system will have plenty of those too.

no it OWNS that much, it owns stake in companies that account for about 60% of the countries GDP, basically giant national investment and state ownership.

Owning stakes in a company is far different than controlling that sector of the economy. How big are these stakes? How much influence does the state have?

But not more important than the welbeing of individuals.

The two are interconnected.

Yeah .... the expenditures that cost the most, i.e. old people and very poor people ... so technically the private healthcare system should be doing much much better .... but it isn't.

And no shopping around, not focusing insurance on big ticket items that you might need instead of minor things that would be easy to shop around for. There are almost no price constraints in healthcare today compared to other industries.

Thats not a solution, that's just a wished for outcome, that like saying the cure to unemployment is more jobs ....

No it's based upon sound economic theory based upon what happens when you give consumers more options and more incentives to control cost. You said that markets can be useful for distributing goods. Why is the healthcare market different.

I've posted data, we're talking economics here, I can say that about every single country at every single time.

Wages are not completely stagnant

... doesn't change anything I said.

Yes it does. You claimed that profits are driven down to zero by capitalism and the system is "contradictory". That isn't true.

Because people actually starved to death in the United States and died from easily curable sickensses.

Which is a case for a minimal level of state support to make sure that people don't die. That doesn't mean that civil society cannot take on many of the functions of the welfare state.

And 90% of them fail, one reason why micro credit is a failed idea, just telling peopel to start buisinesses isn't a solution to the economic problems, its as rediculous as telling a person with cancer "just get better".

That's with or without huge amounts of capital. Creating a business will always be a risk, and it should be. This allows the most efficient businesses to take over. Not everyone needs to start a business, but they can create wealth

Because teh community has to live with the effect of the decision, any one who is effected by the decision.

Externalities can be internalized, either with transactions or some regulation. Private property can affect others in ways they don't like. Collective ownership will always affect people in ways they don't like. Externalities are a reason to partially regulate capitalism or take away existing privillege, not scrap the whole system.

If you're fighting for capitalism where property laws are voluntary? then I'm all for it, but that would basically mean no more capitalism, either way, you're dodging almost all my points.

Capitalism is voluntary when people are allowed to trade voluntarily.

 

[RGacky3]

These layers of management can be the problem. As businesses grow, it can become harder to manage resources. Most value in the economy is created through small business. To say that big business dominates everything is to ignore the facts.

Nonsense, historically you have constant consolidation of power, there is no evidence that diseconomies of scale outweigh economies of scale ... its like arguing that having more muscles are harder to maintain thus in a fight the bigger guy will loose.

Increased competition does a much better job at reigning in big business than less competition. It becomes harder for companies to collude and prices are driven down. That is not "pro-business". It's pro-consumer.

No it doesn't, becasue free market policies don't mean increased competition, it means more markets to exploit and take away from smaller weaker companies by larger stronger ones, and large companies have much more financial leeway than smaller ones (walmart model).

Companies should thrive based upon their own merit, not through subsidies.

Ok ... Doesn't change anything I said.

They can be the ones to invest capital or investors who make an agreement with the employees of the corporation. There are examples of large worker-owned firms operating successfully. It can be done.

Yes ... but doesn't change anything I said.

What does this have to do with unionization and not a massive financial crisis? Productivity started to outgrow wages around the 1970's, but unionization has been declining since the 1950's.

Unionization was strongest in the 50s, it started REALLY declining in the late 70s, which is when wages stagnated, which partially lead to the financial crisis since it made the economy rely more on finance than productive consumer based economic activity.

There are many examples of inventors and companies developing technology with the express purpose of making money off of it.

And a broken clock is right twice a day.

Making it easier for people to enter into contracts and own companies.

No it would'nt, becasue you need to have a market for that, and people with capital willing to invest it.

Your system will have plenty of those too.

Except much less since in a democratic system the community would take into account much more externalities, because they have to live with them.

Owning stakes in a company is far different than controlling that sector of the economy. How big are these stakes? How much influence does the state have?

its 60% of the economy, which is basically a 60% subsidy, and how much do they control? 60% of the economy, as well as a state insurance program, and tons of other state interventions.

The two are interconnected.

No they arn't ... because property is about the welbeing of the property owner, not most of the people, infact over 90% of them don't own enough property or capital to actually benefit, most people have to work FOR those with property creating profits FOR THEM to survive.

And no shopping around, not focusing insurance on big ticket items that you might need instead of minor things that would be easy to shop around for. There are almost no price constraints in healthcare today compared to other industries.

The no shopping around was put in by George Bush, something almost all progressives opposed, but private individuals can shop around, so it really only effect the public sector. But yeah, the government should be allowed to negotiate ... but you're right there are no price constraints, and the outcome is what we see, which is why healthcare should be treated as a public utility not a for profit industry.

No it's based upon sound economic theory based upon what happens when you give consumers more options and more incentives to control cost. You said that markets can be useful for distributing goods. Why is the healthcare market different.

There are many reasons, first of all its useful for distributing goods and services, but the healthinsurance industry is not that, they control finance (i.e. capital), NOT goods and services ... also its different than normal commodities because everyone needs them, its not something you choose or you decide on based on benefit cost ... you NEED them, no matter what you're financial status.

Wages are not completely stagnant

You're right ... they dropped.

Yes it does. You claimed that profits are driven down to zero by capitalism and the system is "contradictory". That isn't true.

I claimed that the rate of profit falls overtime in productive industry, and the system si contradictory in various ways, like evergrowing externalities, Capitalism is like going to loud concerts every day, you're gonna loose your hearing overtime and need to go to louder and louder concerts, Capitalism leads to externalities, that grow, which requires capitalism to continue growing and growing (3% compound growth per year), its unsustainable.

Which is a case for a minimal level of state support to make sure that people don't die. That doesn't mean that civil society cannot take on many of the functions of the welfare state.

I agree, but I'm not arguing for a welfare state, I'm arguing for economic democracy.

That's with or without huge amounts of capital. Creating a business will always be a risk, and it should be. This allows the most efficient businesses to take over. Not everyone needs to start a business, but they can create wealth

No ... its without a huge amount of capital ... with a huge amount of capital you can try over until you succede (trump), and you can put more into it to MAKE SURE it succedes, and you can use economies of scale to defeat others.

I love how libertarians love to pretend that having capital doesn't make a different, and Capitalism is somehow a meritocracy.

Externalities can be internalized, either with transactions or some regulation. Private property can affect others in ways they don't like. Collective ownership will always affect people in ways they don't like. Externalities are a reason to partially regulate capitalism or take away existing privillege, not scrap the whole system.

They are not internalized by transactions by definition ... also regulation almost never works. I'm not arguing for collective ownership perse, I'm arguing that somethings should be collectively controlled, somethings privately, somethings should be the commons, and these things should be subject to a democratic process if necessary and those who live with the results of decisiosn should have a say over them.

Capitalism is voluntary when people are allowed to trade voluntarily.

Thats step 2, step 1 is capitalist property.