• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sticks and carrots, socialism and capitalism.

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I have to say, your logic is impeccable. I wish for a much better system than what we're experiencing but am afraid it's too late to change the the fact that money/power are so ingrained into our country that our reality will continue down the same unfair road. I have no answers, only questions.
The best we can do right now is to work towards very specific reform. We get rid of Citizens United V. FEC & start actually fixing America's attitude toward education, that'll go a long way towards helping all the other issues sort themselves out. I've got few answers on how to accomplish that, but it's a good place to start focusing questions.
 

AProudLefty

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
3,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Capitalism relies on positive incentives. Create a better or cheaper product or service, and people will voluntarily give you their money in exchange for it. If enough people give you their money in exchange for what you are producing, you might get rich.

Socialism relies on negative incentives. People who work for the state are primarily interested in keeping their jobs. They are paid the same amount regardless of what they produce or how they produce it, because the money for their pay is taken from people coercively, via taxation.



View attachment 67264214
So you're for toll roads?
 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It works when it is via social contract. When it is dictated by the state, not so much.
That's ultimately where the communists get everything wrong, and the anarchists win out; communists believe in a transition state (not a period, a straight up government) to move a society to a classless, stateless society, and the consolidation of power entailed in that process is anathema to their goals.
 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Is Bill Gates a sociopath? How about Warren Buffett?



Right, and they do that via lobbying. But it takes two to tango. The politicians and bureaucrats who run the regulatory state are just as self-interested as any capitalist. They also have a strong economic incentive to help the capitalists you despise.
Bill Gates might not be a sociopath, but there are about three times as many sociopaths in upper management and executive positions as in the general population, so the people actually making business decisions that maintain and expand his wealth are certainly sociopath-heavy. Bill himself profits directly off of child labor in the Microsoft business model, and indirectly profits from child labor in even worse places like the child slave mines of the Congo. His charities might be enough to offset his own personal feelings of guilt for the inhumane practices inherent to his business model, but they don't absolve him of responsibility.

As for the government having a hand in exploitative business practices, you're absolutely right. The nation states get the guillotine too, just like the global economy.
 

AProudLefty

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
3,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm for people paying for what use, and not mooching off of other people. Tolls are one way, but there are better, modern alternatives.
So I guess that means no public roads, public schools, public libraries and such?
 

aociswundumho

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
1,577
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your initial claim was:

That's a nice sentiment and all, but the sociopaths always rise to the top under capitalism,
Now you've weakened the claim to 3% based on one study of just 203 individuals who are not even "at the top".

so the people actually making business decisions that maintain and expand his wealth are certainly sociopath-heavy.
No, they are not. Your evidence does not support that assertion at all.

As for the government having a hand in exploitative business practices, you're absolutely right.
And you want them to have that ability, via the regulatory state, correct?
 

aociswundumho

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
1,577
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So I guess that means no public roads, public schools, public libraries and such?
Yes. If I could pick just one of the three, getting rid of public schools would yield the largest benefit to the American people.
 

AProudLefty

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
3,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes. If I could pick just one of the three, getting rid of public schools would yield the largest benefit to the American people.
So children of poor children are sh!t out of luck?
 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Your initial claim was:



Now you've weakened the claim to 3% based on one study of just 203 individuals who are not even "at the top".



No, they are not. Your evidence does not support that assertion at all.



And you want them to have that ability, via the regulatory state, correct?
No, and the part of my post you deliberately clipped out should tell you that. I'm an anarchist; no gods, no kings, and certainly no computers with the blood of Congolese children dripping out of the circuit boards. And to clarify the usage of "always," I didn't mean that sociopaths make up 100% of the upper echelons of big business, I meant that 100% of the time, they rise to the upper echelons of big business at massively over-represented rates compared to the general population. I know it's unreasonable to expect any sort of integrity or reading comprehension from your posts, seeing as you'll outright remove any parts of a post that interfere with your spin, but this is just stupid, even for you.
 

aociswundumho

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
1,577
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
and certainly no computers with the blood of Congolese children dripping out of the circuit boards.
What is your non-state solution to stop child labor?

And to clarify the usage of "always," I didn't mean that sociopaths make up 100% of the upper echelons of big business, I meant that 100% of the time, they rise to the upper echelons of big business at massively over-represented rates compared to the general population.
Based on what evidence? The link you posted does not support this bizarre assertion, and no, your feelings aren't evidence.
 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What is your non-state solution to stop child labor?
Same one that works within states who have a financial incentive to keep child labor going. Democratic labor unions, except without the middle man of detached capital owners and soulless government bureaucrats.
 

aociswundumho

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
1,577
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What do you propose for those children if we have no public schools?
Well, even if I propose nothing, abolishing public schools is an instant and automatic improvement.

The unstated assumption in your question is that unless children are forced, by law, into government buildings where they are again forced to memorize test answers dictated to them by union teachers, then poor kids will never learn anything.

I find that assumption highly implausible.
 

aociswundumho

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
1,577
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Democratic labor unions, except without the middle man of detached capital owners and soulless government bureaucrats.
Unions are a product of the state. Without state violence forcing companies to "negotiate" with unions, the firm would simply fire the union and replace them with non-union employees.

An unusual political position for an "anarchist", don't you think?
 

AProudLefty

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
3,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, even if I propose nothing, abolishing public schools is an instant and automatic improvement.

The unstated assumption in your question is that unless children are forced, by law, into government buildings where they are again forced to memorize test answers dictated to them by union teachers, then poor kids will never learn anything.

I find that assumption highly implausible.
So no proposal?
 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Unions are a product of the state. Without state violence forcing companies to "negotiate" with unions, the firm would simply fire the union and replace them with non-union employees.

An unusual political position for an "anarchist", don't you think?
Not at all; you just have a profound ignorance of history. The very foundation of leftism is labor unions, and they were debilitatingly effective back in the day before the government stepped in to say what labor unions can and cannot do. You can't fire & replace a bunch of workers who refuse to leave their stations to let new people in, and you can't stop luddites from clogging machinery with old shoes. And what I'm talking about is worker ownership of the means of production - there's no need for bosses who aren't directly connected to the management and running of a business, and the nearly 400 worker-owned cooperatives in America alone are a strong testament to that fact.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
That's ultimately where the communists get everything wrong, and the anarchists win out; communists believe in a transition state (not a period, a straight up government) to move a society to a classless, stateless society, and the consolidation of power entailed in that process is anathema to their goals.
But anarchy is as unworkable in a society as is communism because both ignore basic human nature.

Communism, the extreme of socialism, doesn't work because there is no incentive, no reward for work. There are always going to be people who will just go through the motions or do the absolute minimum when the reward for that is just as great as it is for those who work hard and/or are innovative and/or take the initiative. And sooner or later the most industrious get tired of being taken advantage of by the lazy and will also do less. And the result is usually not shared prosperity but shared misery.

In a properly regulated capitalism, there is opportunity to profit from one's labor, ability to change or improve one's situation. And that results in people taking advantage of the opportunity to prosper. And then society prospers.

In anarchy it is the instinct of survival of the fittest that will take over society. Inevitably the strong will prey upon the weak, evil will lord over the good. Everybody fends for himself/herself and there is no liberty, no peace. In order to have justice, peace, and prosperity for all, there must be laws that protect the unalienable rights of all.
 

aociswundumho

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
1,577
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You can't fire & replace a bunch of workers who refuse to leave their stations to let new people in,
So you're going to use violence against the owners and against any other employees who wish to work for the company. Nice to see your true colors showing.

the nearly 400 worker-owned cooperatives in America alone are a strong testament to that fact.
If the workers own a firm and they are competing for profits in a market economy in order to enrich themselves, then they are capitalists. That is how your 400 coops operate, with the usual hierarchy you find in any corporation. Such firms are completely devoid of socialist ideals.
 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
But anarchy is as unworkable in a society as is communism because both ignore basic human nature.

Communism doesn't work because there is no incentive, no reward for work. There are always going to be people who will just go through the motions or do the absolute minimum when the reward for that is just as great as it is for those who work hard and/or are innovative and/or take the initiative. And sooner or later the most industrious get tired of being taken advantage of by the lazy and will also do less. And the result is usually not shared prosperity but shared misery.

In a properly regulated capitalism, there is opportunity to profit from one's labor, ability to change or improve one's situation. And that results in people taking advantage of the opportunity to prosper. And then society prospers.

In anarchy it is the instinct of survival of the fittest that will take over society. Inevitably the strong will prey upon the weak, evil will lord over the good. Everybody fends for himself/herself and there is no liberty, no peace. In order to have justice, peace, and prosperity for all, there must be laws that protect the unalienable rights of all.
The strong prey upon the weak far more in our current system than they would in a decentralized one; the less you trust your fellow man to behave morally, the more reason you have to distrust any system that leaves a small number of people with almost all of the power. As for anarchist societies not having laws, your only error in that assessment is that you left a phrase incomplete: centrally planned laws. An anarchist society's laws would much resemble English Common Law prior to the 19th century, but with the role of punitive punishment largely dropped in favor of restitution and rehabilitation. This is perfectly in line with how nations with very low recidivism rates behave, asides from the decentralized aspect.

As for the lack of rewards argument, that's not actually in line with human behavior at all. It's actually the profit motive that doesn't sit well with human nature, as we're evolved to be social creatures who get significant emotional satisfaction from being part of a meaningful team, having greater autonomy or earning greater status among their peers. We've even found that past the point you can live without worrying about your financial well being, more money does not translate to more happiness.

Finally, there are plenty of working societies throughout the world based off of collective good, instead of profit motive. The Kingdom of Bhutan, for example, has run its economy off of the idea of a "happiness index" instead of GDP for decades, and makes decisions calculated entirely on whether or not they will make the general population of Bhutan healthier and more satisfied with their lives. Bhutan has no homelessness, virtually no crime & is an environmentally sustainable nation with a population of 800,000. The Chiapas Autonomous Region of Mexico is an independent anarchist society, and has been so since they revolted in the wake of NAFTA. They have a population of 5 million. Every hunter-gatherer society that preceded nation-states was effectively anarchist, and voluntary conflict resolution served our ancestors perfectly well for hundreds of thousands of years before the advent of coercive states just a scant few thousand years ago.

Anarchy works, has worked, and will continue to work just fine.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The strong prey upon the weak far more in our current system than they would in a decentralized one. As for anarchist societies not having laws, your only error in that assessment is that you left a phrase incomplete: centrally planned laws. An anarchist society's laws would much resemble English Common Law prior to the 19th century, but with the role of punitive punishment largely dropped in favor of restitution and rehabilitation. This is perfectly in line with how nations with very low recidivism rates behave, asides from the decentralized aspect.

As for the lack of rewards argument, that's not actually in line with human behavior at all. It's actually the profit motive that doesn't sit well with human nature, as we're evolved to be social creatures who get significant emotional satisfaction from being part of a meaningful team, having greater autonomy or earning greater status among their peers. We've even found that past the point you can live without worrying about your financial well being, more money does not translate to more happiness.

Finally, there are plenty of working societies throughout the world based off of collective good, instead of profit motive. The Kingdom of Bhutan, for example, has run its economy off of the idea of a "happiness index" instead of GDP for decades, and makes decisions calculated entirely on whether or not they will make the general population of Bhutan healthier and more satisfied with their lives. Bhutan has no homelessness, virtually no crime & is an environmentally sustainable nation with a population of 800,000. The Chiapas Autonomous Region of Mexico is an independent anarchist society, and has been so since they revolted in the wake of NAFTA. They have a population of 5 million. Every hunter-gatherer society that preceded nation-states was effectively anarchist, and voluntary conflict resolution served our ancestors perfectly well for hundreds of thousands of years before the advent of coercive states just a scant few thousand years ago.

Anarchy works, has worked, and will continue to work just fine.
We will just have to disagree on that.
 
Top Bottom