Why I Say No to Free Markets

[EcoFemSoc]

Free markets are an ideal. They could work if everyone was nice.

Everyone is not nice, so the protection of property costs property itself.

What's needed instead is a system where people don't have to pay property to protect property. The value of socialism is that it dialectically materializes the relations of production. That is it considers how people INTERACT instead of just ACT, and power is distributed in society so nice people aren't exploited by not nice people even before we know who is who.

This is especially important towards the environment in making sure it's not polluted to the point of unsustainability. We need to cooperate from the beginning so natural resources don't deplete faster than they're recycled. Otherwise, we will have a race to oblivion where people consume resources as fast as possible without consideration for the future.

That's ageist and discriminates against our children. We have no right to condemn them like that.

 

[Mycroft]

Free markets are an ideal. They could work if everyone was nice.

Everyone is not nice, so the protection of property costs property itself.

What's needed instead is a system where people don't have to pay property to protect property. The value of socialism is that it dialectically materializes the relations of production. That is it considers how people INTERACT instead of just ACT, and power is distributed in society so nice people aren't exploited by not nice people even before we know who is who.

This is especially important towards the environment in making sure it's not polluted to the point of unsustainability. We need to cooperate from the beginning so natural resources don't deplete faster than they're recycled. Otherwise, we will have a race to oblivion where people consume resources as fast as possible without consideration for the future.

That's ageist and discriminates against our children. We have no right to condemn them like that.

Ummm...

You say we need to cooperate. Are you condoning voluntary cooperation? Or forced cooperation?

 

[RGacky3]

Free markets are an ideal. They could work if everyone was nice.

Everyone is not nice, so the protection of property costs property itself.

What's needed instead is a system where people don't have to pay property to protect property. The value of socialism is that it dialectically materializes the relations of production. That is it considers how people INTERACT instead of just ACT, and power is distributed in society so nice people aren't exploited by not nice people even before we know who is who.

This is especially important towards the environment in making sure it's not polluted to the point of unsustainability. We need to cooperate from the beginning so natural resources don't deplete faster than they're recycled. Otherwise, we will have a race to oblivion where people consume resources as fast as possible without consideration for the future.

That's ageist and discriminates against our children. We have no right to condemn them like that.

There is not such thing as agism.

I am a socialist and it sounds to me like you've read a bunch of stuff, not understood it and now are just typing stuff here, for example dialectically materializes the relations ... dialectical materialism is a philosophy of marx and isn't really that relevant to the economics, and you don't "dielectically materialize" something, its a way of looking at history,

First of all, markets DO work, for some things, just not in the capitalist sense, also it has nothing to do with nice people or non nice people, it has to do with the capitalist mode of production. But you're right that we need to distribute power democratically and look beyond pure profiteering as a model for our economy ....

But for goodness sake ... know what you're talking about before you talk about it, otherwise you'll look silly.

 

[RGacky3]

Ummm...

You say we need to cooperate. Are you condoning voluntary cooperation? Or forced cooperation?

I can't talk for her, but obviously voluntary cooperation, however I'm also condoning voluntary property, i.e. you're "property rights" (beyond possession) are not set in stone, but rather accepted voluntarily by society .... THAT is the major institutional change that needs to happen.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Ummm...

You say we need to cooperate. Are you condoning voluntary cooperation? Or forced cooperation?

People are born. They're already forced.

The only remaining question is how do we fix that?

 

[RGacky3]

People are born. They're already forced.

The only remaining question is how do we fix that?

Please stop .... Or start making serious points.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

There is not such thing as agism.

I am a socialist and it sounds to me like you've read a bunch of stuff, not understood it and now are just typing stuff here, for example dialectically materializes the relations ... dialectical materialism is a philosophy of marx and isn't really that relevant to the economics, and you don't "dielectically materialize" something, its a way of looking at history,

First of all, markets DO work, for some things, just not in the capitalist sense, also it has nothing to do with nice people or non nice people, it has to do with the capitalist mode of production. But you're right that we need to distribute power democratically and look beyond pure profiteering as a model for our economy ....

But for goodness sake ... know what you're talking about before you talk about it, otherwise you'll look silly.

If you don't acknowledge ageism, then I'm not sure how you can criticize capitalism. Surplus labor depends on commodified efficiency where people are alienated over time.

Dialectic materialism overcomes this by synthesizing contradictions over time so surplus labor isn't exploited by "not nice" people. Some people sustain themselves by parasiting off others' labor. If we don't prevent this, then it begs to know why people are important to begin with.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Please stop .... Or start making serious points.

There's nothing more serious than acknowledging how people are forced into the environment.

As social creatures, we have to compensate people for that force.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Free markets are an ideal. They could work if everyone was nice.

Everyone is not nice, so the protection of property costs property itself.

What's needed instead is a system where people don't have to pay property to protect property. The value of socialism is that it dialectically materializes the relations of production. That is it considers how people INTERACT instead of just ACT, and power is distributed in society so nice people aren't exploited by not nice people even before we know who is who.

This is especially important towards the environment in making sure it's not polluted to the point of unsustainability. We need to cooperate from the beginning so natural resources don't deplete faster than they're recycled. Otherwise, we will have a race to oblivion where people consume resources as fast as possible without consideration for the future.

That's ageist and discriminates against our children. We have no right to condemn them like that.

Socialism, to be successful, depends on either an extremely educated society or a society in which "everyone is nice." It can be just as easily exploited as capitalism can be.

 

[RGacky3]

If you don't acknowledge ageism, then I'm not sure how you can criticize capitalism. Surplus labor depends on commodified efficiency where people are alienated over time.

Dialectic materialism overcomes this by synthesizing contradictions over time so surplus labor isn't exploited by "not nice" people. Some people sustain themselves by parasiting off others' labor. If we don't prevent this, then it begs to know why people are important to begin with.

I criticize Capitalism from understanding how capitalism works and understanding that its unsutainable and leads to all sorts of tyrannies and inconsistancies and class structures and sdo on.

Dialectical materialism IS NOT A THING YOU DO, IT'S A WAY OF ANALYZING HISTORY ... For Gods sake, this is a philisophical term.

But I understand that capitalism is exploitative by nature ... and that is why I am an anti-capitalist ... but stop using Marxian languange without knowing what the hell you're talking about.

There's nothing more serious than acknowledging how people are forced into the environment.

As social creatures, we have to compensate people for that force.

Being born? That isn't force, you don't exist before birth ... This is an economics forum, if you want to discuss how being born is forced go to the philisophical forum, but if you want to talk economics.

A: learn what the hell you're trying to talk about.
B: Stick to economics.

I'm sorry for being crass, but you're not making serious economic points here.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Socialism, to be successful, depends on either an extremely educated society or a society in which "everyone is nice." It can be just as easily exploited as capitalism can be.

Why do you believe socialism depends on everyone being nice?

It puts structure before agency so people cooperate by default of not knowing nice from not nice people.

Nice people cooperate in order to bring everyone together.

Not nice people cooperate because they don't want to appear to be the bad guy.

Nice people cooperate because they don't want to be preyed on.

Not nice people cooperate because they don't want to hurt other not nice people.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

I criticize Capitalism from understanding how capitalism works and understanding that its unsutainable and leads to all sorts of tyrannies and inconsistancies and class structures and sdo on.

Dialectical materialism IS NOT A THING YOU DO, IT'S A WAY OF ANALYZING HISTORY ... For Gods sake, this is a philisophical term.

But I understand that capitalism is exploitative by nature ... and that is why I am an anti-capitalist ... but stop using Marxian languange without knowing what the hell you're talking about.



Being born? That isn't force, you don't exist before birth ... This is an economics forum, if you want to discuss how being born is forced go to the philisophical forum, but if you want to talk economics.

A: learn what the hell you're trying to talk about.
B: Stick to economics.

I'm sorry for being crass, but you're not making serious economic points here.

I don't think you know what you're talking about from anything you've said here.

It'd be nice if you said something constructive. For example, I said that dialectic materialism deals with synthesizing contradictions over time. You said it has to deal with analyzing history.

What do you think the difference is?

 

[RGacky3]

I don't think you know what you're talking about from anything you've said here.

It'd be nice if you said something constructive. For example, I said that dialectic materialism deals with synthesizing contradictions over time. You said it has to deal with analyzing history.

What do you think the difference is?

Dialectical Materialism is a way of analyzing something, its not what Socialism does, socialism is democratizing the economy. Dialectical materialism is just a framework to analyze things.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Dialectical Materialism is a way of analyzing something, its not what Socialism does, socialism is democratizing the economy. Dialectical materialism is just a framework to analyze things.

Democracy is dialectic materialism. It's a decision making method where various perspectives are brought to consensus while referring to physical reality for objective reference.

 

[RGacky3]

Democracy is dialectic materialism. It's a decision making method where various perspectives are brought to consensus while referring to physical reality for objective reference.

No it isn't ... Thats not what dilectical materialism is ... please read on what dialectical materialism is, and then go post about it in the philosophy section, because this is the economics section.

 

[Mycroft]

People are born. They're already forced.

The only remaining question is how do we fix that?

So...the answer you didn't want to come right out and say is...you condone is...forced cooperation. Do you realize that is a contradiction in terms?

 

[Mycroft]

Why do you believe socialism depends on everyone being nice?

It puts structure before agency so people cooperate by default of not knowing nice from not nice people.

Nice people cooperate in order to bring everyone together.

Not nice people cooperate because they don't want to appear to be the bad guy.

Nice people cooperate because they don't want to be preyed on.

Not nice people cooperate because they don't want to hurt other not nice people.

What on earth makes you think not nice people care about whether they hurt other not nice people?

 

[EcoFemSoc]

So...the answer you didn't want to come right out and say is...you condone is...forced cooperation. Do you realize that is a contradiction in terms?

No. I don't condone unplanned childbearing. The cooperation forced upon children needs to be fixed.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

What on earth makes you think not nice people care about whether they hurt other not nice people?

That's the least important thing on the list, so I'll answer that if you admit to accepting the rest of what I said.

 

[Mycroft]

That's the least important thing on the list, so I'll answer that if you admit to accepting the rest of what I said.

LOL!!!

"The least important"???

Considering your desire for voluntary cooperation (I think), I would think the motivations of the not nice people should be of paramount importance. You DO want these people to change their ways, don't you?

 

[Mycroft]

No. I don't condone unplanned childbearing. The cooperation forced upon children needs to be fixed.

Childbearing???

Who said anything about childbearing? Your thread title mentions free markets and your OP statement talked about capitalism.

Are you serious about having a discussion here?

 

[EcoFemSoc]

LOL!!!

"The least important"???

Considering your desire for voluntary cooperation (I think), I would think the motivations of the not nice people should be of paramount importance. You DO want these people to change their ways, don't you?

Not really. They can remain not nice. They just have to fit in.

Sometimes, what's nice to someone isn't nice to someone else. We shouldn't always try to change people.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Childbearing???

Who said anything about childbearing? Your thread title mentions free markets and your OP statement talked about capitalism.

Are you serious about having a discussion here?

You're a conservative, but don't believe free markets and family planning go hand in hand?

I didn't think I'd have to explain this to you.

 

[Mycroft]

You're a conservative, but don't believe free markets and family planning go hand in hand?

I didn't think I'd have to explain this to you.

While there certainly are relationships between the two, they are hardly interchangeable terms for a discussion.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

While there certainly are relationships between the two, they are hardly interchangeable terms for a discussion.

I thought free markets were built on the non-aggression principle.

You don't see anything aggressive about children being born without being asked, especially to parents who don't necessarily care?