Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[Danoff]

What I find annoying is that the US hates socialism. But if you look at the statistics, the countries with the lowest rate of poverty and best living conditions are those which practise some of the socialistic ideas. Not all, I'm not saying communism is the way to go, we've all seen it isn't, but outright capitalism isn't good either.

I note that you didn't address innovation at all.

 

[GTracer98]

They also tend to be ones who have nowhere near the same amount of population, diversity, and industry as the less socialist countries.

It's almost as if the people who generate wealth and industry would rather avoid places where they'd have to carry the burden of other people's livelihoods.

I note that you didn't address innovation at all.

I know, innovation is important. As is cultural diversity; Soviet states should not exist again, they didn't have either of those. However, what I mean is that socialistic ideas aren't all bad, some of them have to be implemented, at least as long as we don't find a better system. And yes, free market capitalism hasn't been tried, it's true, who knows if it could actually work.

 

[VRracingfan]

The wealth inequality that we have in the world is truly shocking. The problem of this inequality and most of the world's problems can be put down to one thing, capitalism. I know that what we have now is corporatism but that's an inevitability of capitalism as well as a hierarchical structure and an uneven distribution of wealth.
Not only does this inequality make the daily lives of many people at the bottom of the hierarchy very difficult, it also leads to widespread social problems like crime, violence and increased drug use.
What we need is an abolition of private property, mass redistribution of wealth and of course the removal of the state.

 

[Famine]

The problem of this inequality and most of the world's problems can be put down to one thing, capitalism.

[Citation needed]

I know that what we have now is corporatism but that's an inevitability of capitalism

[Citation needed]

What we need is an abolition of private property, mass redistribution of wealth

What? Why? How? What would this even achieve?

and of course the removal of the state.

Yes, who needs their rights protecting from criminals anyway?

 

[VRracingfan]

Famine
-Capitalism is a system which leads to wealth being unevenly distributed in society. There are people who have far too much whilst others have far too little in order to survive and in order to live they have to sell their labour. Capitalism is just a race to the bottom with workers having to work for less and less so the people at the top can make more and more. This unequal distribution of wealth also leads to all sorts of social problems.
-Corporatism is an outcome of capitalism because of how capitalism works. The idea of a free market is ridiculous because powerful can become involved with the state and nationalise their losses or change regulations in order to suit their business.
-Worker controlled public enterprises that work for the people rather than trying to exploit them will work far better for everyone than private enterprises whose main interests are profit.
-Yeah, what we really need is a central government voted in by a rigged political system giving people the illusion that they have free choice who are on the side of big business rather than the people. Crime will inevitably go down when wealth is redistributed (see the 'The Spirit Level')
Prove that the state is a necessary form of hierarchy that we need please.

 

[terminator363]

How come those rich families, (Rothschilds, Rockenfellers..) are never on any rich list?

 

[Danoff]

@VRracingfan, you failed to include any citations.

Famine
-Capitalism is a system which leads to wealth being unevenly distributed in society. There are people who have far too much whilst others have far too little in order to survive and in order to live they have to sell their labour. Capitalism is just a race to the bottom with workers having to work for less and less so the people at the top can make more and more.

You have restated your conclusion here without support.

-Corporatism is an outcome of capitalism because of how capitalism works. The idea of a free market is ridiculous because powerful can become involved with the state and nationalise their losses or change regulations in order to suit their business.

Here you pretty much explain that even you don't agree with you. How does capitalism use regulations or subsidies if those regulations or subsidies don't exist? It takes state meddling (ie: not capitalism) for this type of thing to exist.

-Worker controlled public enterprises that work for the people rather than trying to exploit them will work far better for everyone than private enterprises whose main interests are profit.

The profit motive is heavily linked with massive improvements in standard of living and wealth across the board in the last 200 years. I'm afraid you'll need to support this position.

-Yeah, what we really need is a central government voted in by a rigged political system giving people the illusion that they have free choice who are on the side of big business rather than the people.

You are aware that you're not describing capitalism right? You're describing a powerful, manipulative, intrusive government.

 

[zzz_pt]

This is a controversial topic from what I've read.

I'm one of those who find the "85 people = 3.5 billion" simply outrageous.

A homeless man in London or NY lives a 100x better life than millions and millions of people like this:

We, human spicies have the means to avoid this type of thing (or, at least, minimize their effects), but some of us preffer to defend those who have billions than those who have only the air they breathe and the body they carry.

I'm not an hero. I'm not against rich people. I recognize there will always be people with more money. But we should get rid of the poverty. And probably all those billions could do something about it.

I never wanted to be a billionare or a millionare. I think the best society (in the entire planet) would be one where the "poor" would be our high/middle class.

The difference between people "weath" should be a lot smaller.

How many chinese and indian people work for food so a few individuals can increase their wealthy pockets? Is it moral? These are tough questions that can only be answered if we question the fairness of the huge income inequality that reigns in the world.


Another thing: What would be the answer of a 7 or 8yo kid confronted with this question? I bet it would be simple and morally acurate.


How much does a billionare's life woth? 1000000 poor and sick kids? 1000? 10? 1?


edit: I won't touch the issue of capitalism or corporatism.

edit2: before someone asks me: I'm not wealthy nor rich. And I've given to solidarity causes (Banco Alimentar contra a Fome) and when I do not have money to give, I give my blood.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm one of those who find the "85 people = 3.5 billion" simply outrageous.

A homeless man in London or NY lives a 100x better life than millions and millions of people like this:

We, human spicies have the means to avoid this type of thing (or, at least, minimize their effects), but some of us preffer to defend those who have billions than those who have only the air they breathe and the body they carry.

Unless you move them out of an area with few resources and non-corrupt governments we can do very little.

I recognize there will always be people with more money. But we should get rid of the poverty.

It is impossible to end poverty while one group has more than another. Every time minimum wage rises so does the poverty level. The only way to end poverty is to completely get rid of money and give everyone the exact same food rations. It won't take long for progress to stagnate or those who do more work to revolt.

Another thing: What would be the answer of a 7 or 8yo kid confronted with this question? I bet it would be simple and morally acurate.

Just like "it isn't fair" when I don't let my daughter watch her cartoons because I'm watching something? Instead of just asking, take one kid out to do yard work with you on a hot day while the other helps make Kool-Aid inside. Give the kid doing yard work a dollar and tell him to give 50 cents to the kid who made Kool-Aid. What do you think his response will be?

Or let's say you and I work the same job. You put in a lot of work and effort and strike to do the best you can. I take a smoke break every hour and weak around talking a lot. At the end of the year you ask for a raise because you are the best employee in the department. The boss says yes, but that I will get the same raise because that is the "morally accurate" way to do it to prevent income inequality.

I'm not wealthy nor rich.

Neither am I, but I think those who earn it should keep it.

And I've given to solidarity causes (Banco Alimentar contra a Fome) and when I do not have money to give, I give my blood.

I volunteer for the AHA and am accepting donations for an upcoming Heart Walk and am making contacts to begin volunteering for the Kentucky Organ Donor Association.

And since you are so giving, I hope you are a registered organ donor.

 

[Exorcet]

We, human spicies have the means to avoid this type of thing (or, at least, minimize their effects)

I'm sure a lot of them comes from the knowledge and technology gained from progressing as time goes on.

but some of us preffer to defend those who have billions than those who have only the air they breathe and the body they carry.

It's not an either/or thing. Those people with billions are in part responsible for the dozens of nations on Earth where the image you posted is unthinkable by the majority of the population. They're also people with a lot of potential when it comes to donations and philanthropy since they tend to have a lot of money and tend to be pretty smart.

I'm not an hero. I'm not against rich people. I recognize there will always be people with more money. But we should get rid of the poverty. And probably all those billions could do something about it.

Everyone can. People with needless luxuries like a car and two bedroom apartment could give them away and share that wealth with other people. They usually don't though. I don't see a point to sharing if it means that everyone ends up with nothing.

I never wanted to be a billionare or a millionare. I think the best society (in the entire planet) would be one where the "poor" would be our high/middle class.

You could move toward this goal if you like by living at the poverty line by choice. Get people who agree with you to do the same. Thought if you were a billionaire you'd have more money to spread around.

The difference between people "weath" should be a lot smaller.

Whatever people earn is theirs.

How many chinese and indian people work for food so a few individuals can increase their wealthy pockets?

What would they do without the people providing them work?

 

[zzz_pt]

Unless you move them out of an area with few resources and non-corrupt governments we can do very little.

So the only option is yeld to the situation and hope for better days.

It is impossible to end poverty while one group has more than another. Every time minimum wage rises so does the poverty level. The only way to end poverty is to completely get rid of money and give everyone the exact same food rations. It won't take long for progress to stagnate or those who do more work to revolt.

I don't think it is impossible to end the extreme poverty we see in our world. I've said that will always be people with more than others. But the difference between them shouldn't be like Kings and Insects. Shoud be more like "Very sucsessfull and happy" people and "Happy people". I don't think a single extreme poor and sick person is happy or claims is happy.

Just like "it isn't fair" when I don't let my daughter watch her cartoons because I'm watching something? Instead of just asking, take one kid out to do yard work with you on a hot day while the other helps make Kool-Aid inside. Give the kid doing yard work a dollar and tell him to give 50 cents to the kid who made Kool-Aid. What do you think his response will be?

Or let's say you and I work the same job. You put in a lot of work and effort and strike to do the best you can. I take a smoke break every hour and weak around talking a lot. At the end of the year you ask for a raise because you are the best employee in the department. The boss says yes, but that I will get the same raise because that is the "morally accurate" way to do it to prevent income inequality.

I'm saying: Show your dauther a photograph of a starving child or family and a photograph of a men sitting in a pile of golden bars or a woman dressed in diamonds and ask her if she finds anything wrong with it. The fact you wont show her photographs of starving sick children can be a clue to why is there something wrong with it.

Neither am I, but I think those who earn it should keep it.

I'm not against that. I just think the amount of money is obscene when we have people living in dumps and eating garbage (or worse).

I volunteer for the AHA and am accepting donations for an upcoming Heart Walk and am making contacts to begin volunteering for the Kentucky Organ Donor Association.

And since you are so giving, I hope you are a registered organ donor.

I'm not a registerd organ donor because I have heath issues that prevent me to be one. Fortunately I live in one of the top 3 countries in the world for organ donation.

___

I'm sure a lot of them comes from the knowledge and technology gained from progressing as time goes on.

I didn't said a thing about progress and knowledge.

It's not an either/or thing. Those people with billions are in part responsible for the dozens of nations on Earth where the image you posted is unthinkable by the majority of the population. They're also people with a lot of potential when it comes to donations and philanthropy since they tend to have a lot of money and tend to be pretty smart.

I would need examples of this.
If people didn't need donations wouldn't be better? Thyy could improve their own societies instead of relying on "philantropy" or donations.

Everyone can. People with needless luxuries like a car and two bedroom apartment could give them away and share that wealth with other people. They usually don't though. I don't see a point to sharing if it means that everyone ends up with nothing.

You could move toward this goal if you like by living at the poverty line by choice. Get people who agree with you to do the same. Thought if you were a billionaire you'd have more money to spread around.

You missed the point. Looks like you're saying I'm defending poverty. lol. Balance was always a bood thing. Why do you think it's worthless when we talk about this? You're reading thinks that aren't there.

Whatever people earn is theirs.

I never said the opposite. I wrote about inequality.

What would they do without the people providing them work?

What would slaves do without their owners who gave them shelter and food for their work? There's a difference between paying a salary and paying a fair salary.

Why to you thinkg corporations / brands / companys moved to asia? Because they wanted to "Help" and give jobs to other people? C'mon.


______



I'm not pretending to invent a solution for this problem. And I'm aware that this is probably if nor the hardest, 1 of the hardest problems to solve in our planet. But that fact can't and shouldn't prevent us to question and judge the problem.

 

[Exorcet]

I didn't said a thing about progress and knowledge.

I know. But do you agree? Is gaining technology and knowledge good in general? Isn't that what we've gained with the current system? It's not like large corporations and such just suck up money for one or two people. They also have pretty tangible benefits.

I would need examples of this.

You're using a computer in part because someone found a way to profit off of it. And computers got better with time because the manufacturers wanted more profit. This also lead to jobs.

If people didn't need donations wouldn't be better? Thyy could improve their own societies instead of relying on "philantropy" or donations.

People are in need right now. You can ask if it would have been better if, but that's doesn't address the present. The wealthy are capable of doing a lot to help other people even if you don't seem to like them having so much money.

You missed the point. Looks like you're saying I'm defending poverty. lol. Balance was always a bood thing. Why do you think it's worthless when we talk about this? You're reading thinks that aren't there.

You said this:

I think the best society (in the entire planet) would be one where the "poor" would be our high/middle class.

I read it as implying that you think people should only have so much ideally. Or were you saying that the lowest class in society should be the equivalent of upper middle class? If it's the latter what needs to change to get there?

I never said the opposite. I wrote about inequality.

How are you going to close the gaps? What if someone just happens generate 1,000,000 times the value of another person? Does the person making 1/1,000,000th the wealthy person's income just get a huge raise for nothing?

What would slaves do without their owners who gave them shelter and food for their work? There's a difference between paying a salary and paying a fair salary.

The slaves could potentially do a lot as they're being forced into working so there is really no comparison. The people working in sweatshops feel that such a job is their best bet and work their willingly to avoid being unemployed.

Why to you thinkg corporations / brands / companys moved to asia? Because they wanted to "Help" and give jobs to other people? C'mon.

Because it's cheaper to set up shop there. Despite that, it ended up helping other people by providing jobs for them. So these wealthy people, even if they don't mean to, can still provide numerous benefits. Anyone who disagrees with their methods can also choose not to support them and instead provide a pressure for someone else to run a business with a different method.

I'm not pretending to invent a solution for this problem. And I'm aware that this is probably if nor the hardest, 1 of the hardest problems to solve in our planet. But that fact can't and shouldn't prevent us to question and judge the problem.

I don't understand what you're questioning. You don't like poverty, which is something that I would expect to be pretty universal, but you keep mentioning wealthy people like they're a problem.

 

[niky]

How come those rich families, (Rothschilds, Rockenfellers..) are never on any rich list?

See this got bypassed...

Later generations are never quite as rich as the family forefathers and business starters. They're not as entrepreneurial, for one, for another, they're often too used to the good life to have the hunger to succeed.

By the second generation, the pie is split quite a few ways. By the third generation, if the business remains under the complete control of the family, it carries a very high risk of failure.

This is in general. Many wealthy businesspeople are aware of these issues already and set up trust funds to support their heirs and many push their children and grandchildren to get an education and work experience as training for the future. And many of them set up charities with the money they've earned over the decades. Some of them leave almost all of it.

Bill Gates may be a multi-billionaire, but his children won't be... not unless they make those billions themselves.

Hence... no "rich" families on the "richest" lists.

 

[FoolKiller]

So the only option is yeld to the situation and hope for better days.

No. We can help, but it will require far more funding than just sharing the wealth. You must be ready for generations of war in order to fix their situation, essentially killing thousands or millions of those you are trying to help. Their problem has nothing to do with capitalism.

I don't think it is impossible to end the extreme poverty we see in our world. I've said that will always be people with more than others. But the difference between them shouldn't be like Kings and Insects. Shoud be more like "Very sucsessfull and happy" people and "Happy people". I don't think a single extreme poor and sick person is happy or claims is happy.

Let me say this again, but explain it more: The bottom will always be the bottom. The more they have the more things cost. The more things cost the less everyone's money is worth. The best you can do for third-world centuries is get them to the poorest first-world citizens, but that requires a lot more effort than you make it sound. They need agriculture and industry. They need to be able to burn coal and crude oil to create energy until their local economies can support cleaner, more expensive energy sources. They need to be able to spray DDT to kill off insect pest populations that spread disease. They need to be able to do all the things that we have had the luxury of doing in the past but the international community now condemns.

If you just hand them money or food it will be gone in no time, assuming their leaders don't steal it all. It will be a non-stop siphon of resources and little will change.

I'm saying: Show your dauther a photograph of a starving child or family and a photograph of a men sitting in a pile of golden bars or a woman dressed in diamonds and ask her if she finds anything wrong with it. The fact you wont show her photographs of starving sick children can be a clue to why is there something wrong with it.

I know what you are saying. You are saying to shock her and get a emotional gut reaction that lacks logic or rationality. I know, why don't I do that for every problem and we can make all public policy based on the emotional gut reaction of a preschooler. The whole world will be rainbows and unicorns, literally if we could make it happen.

I'm not against that. I just think the amount of money is obscene when we have people living in dumps and eating garbage (or worse).

There is an issue you choose to ignore. Sustainability. In first-world countries the homeless dumpster divers are frequently drug addicts or have mental disease. In third-world countries they lack resources or their culture is sick. You can throw money at them and they need more again later. Until you can address the root of their own problems it is a pointless endeavor.

See, I think you are using the same pure emotional reaction you think I should cause my daughter to have. Do you understand why the countries that have had human societies for longer than Europe and the Americas are still living like it was more than a millennium ago? Without that answer, you can't begin to fix it.

I'm not a registerd organ donor because I have heath issues that prevent me to be one. Fortunately I live in one of the top 3 countries in the world for organ donation.

I should have gotten straight to the point. Why does any of that matter?

 

[Famine]

-Capitalism is a system which leads to wealth being unevenly distributed in society. There are people who have far too much whilst others have far too little in order to survive and in order to live they have to sell their labour. Capitalism is just a race to the bottom with workers having to work for less and less so the people at the top can make more and more. This unequal distribution of wealth also leads to all sorts of social problems.

That's not a citation. That's repeating the same thing, uncited.

-Corporatism is an outcome of capitalism because of how capitalism works. The idea of a free market is ridiculous because powerful can become involved with the state and nationalise their losses or change regulations in order to suit their business.

That's also not a citation - and a contradiction. You can't have a free market (no regulation) if the state can make market regulations.

-Worker controlled public enterprises that work for the people rather than trying to exploit them will work far better for everyone than private enterprises whose main interests are profit.

The former has been tried - and failed. The latter has not.

-Yeah, what we really need is a central government voted in by a rigged political system giving people the illusion that they have free choice who are on the side of big business rather than the people. Crime will inevitably go down when wealth is redistributed (see the 'The Spirit Level')

Crime inevitably goes to zero when there is no state to determine what "crime" actually is. Rights abuses will remain as high as ever.

Prove that the state is a necessary form of hierarchy that we need please.

I'm afraid that's not how it works. You made the claim that we need the state to be abolished, you prove that this is what we need. It's not up to anyone else to disprove your claims.

 

[zzz_pt]

Inequality Is Not Inevitable​

​

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...cmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=2&​

 

[Danoff]

Inequality Is Not Inevitable​

​

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...cmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=2&​

The article acts like capitalism is the problem and then levies all of its arguments against government policies... and then argues that government is the solution. Classic.

 

[Crispy]

-Capitalism is a system which leads to wealth being unevenly distributed in society. There are people who have far too much whilst others have far too little in order to survive and in order to live they have to sell their labour. Capitalism is just a race to the bottom with workers having to work for less and less so the people at the top can make more and more. This unequal distribution of wealth also leads to all sorts of social problems.

If someone works their entire life to get to where they are, they should give up that status because someone wasn't lucky? How is that fair?

-Corporatism is an outcome of capitalism because of how capitalism works. The idea of a free market is ridiculous because powerful can become involved with the state and nationalise their losses or change regulations in order to suit their business.

Yet when capitalism "ran wild" in the 19th century laws were eventually passed to improve the lives of the people, to stop them being so horribly mistreated. The real problem here isn't capitalism, it's people who won't do anything. By the way blaming capitalism isn't doing anything either.

-Worker controlled public enterprises that work for the people rather than trying to exploit them will work far better for everyone than private enterprises whose main interests are profit.

That sounds great when typed up on a computer, but you're forgetting that workers aren't bastions of happiness. They're people. What stops the workers from working for profit instead of the people? After all the mega tycoons that own enterprises were just workers themselves building their empires.

This issue is too complex to just put it down as capitalism. Do you want to hear the truth? Capitalism is a flawed system, just like socialism, communism, or anything else. We're imperfect creatures, in an imperfect world, attempting to find perfect solutions. There are none.

However that doesn't mean we should give up. Healthy balance needs to be struck with any ideology. If we had straight up unregulated capitalism the lives of all but the top would be miserable. If we had straight up socialism the lives of all but the top would be miserable. (I realize that in socialism there is no "top" but in reality, there are always 'haves' and 'have-nots') Socialist ideas, applied to a capitalist system yield good results. After all, things like minimum wage
and child labor laws are socialist ideas.

 

[VRracingfan]

@Famine
Okay, what sort of citation do you want me to give you? It's pretty clear from looking at the world around me that capitalism leads to an unequal distribution of wealth. There is no denial from capitalists that capitalism doesn't lead to an unequal distribution of wealth so I don't see what your point is.
No, my second point was that a completely free market will just lead to another state because you have an unequal distribution of power.
No, worker controlled enterprises have not been attempted. We have had state run industry which has in many cases run better than private industry but 'state run industry' is not the same as 'worker controlled industry'. Private industry has been attempted, most businesses are run privately.
You've missed the point on crime. The spirit level points out that in societies with a more equal distribution of wealth social problems and crime are significantly lower. These countries have rules.
You can still determine what crime is without a state. Anarchists are against rulers, not rules.
I believe that social hierarchies should be removed if they cannot be proven to be just or necessary so if you are to successfully argue against anarchism you need to prove that the state is just and necessary. I have seen no evidence to suggest we need a state.

 

[Danoff]

I believe that social hierarchies should be removed if they cannot be proven to be just or necessary so if you are to successfully argue against anarchism you need to prove that the state is just and necessary. I have seen no evidence to suggest we need a state.

Anarchism is immediately the rule of force - which transition into dictatorship over time. In anarchism there is no protection for human rights for as long as the anarchism remains. However anarchy is inherently unstable.

Since human rights exist, it is proper to create an organization that we call a government - whose responsibility it is to enforce human rights, and who is accountable to those whose rights it enforces (the people).

 

[VRracingfan]

If someone works their entire life to get to where they are, they should give up that status because someone wasn't lucky? How is that fair?

So I take you believe that how hard you work should determine how much money you earn? I just want to clarify this before I go any further.
Why should a poor person not get given an equal chance at the same opportunities of someone who is the son/daughter of a rich person?

Yet when capitalism "ran wild" in the 19th century laws were eventually passed to improve the lives of the people, to stop them being so horribly mistreated. The real problem here isn't capitalism, it's people who won't do anything. By the way blaming capitalism isn't doing anything either.

Eventually is very important here. Why were those laws passed and why did it take so long?
It took so long because we don't live in a representative democracy which can be blamed on the hierarchical capitalist system which gives people with a lot more money a lot more power and influence than most people.
Why don't people do anything about these problems?
Most people don't have much of an influence. Despite overwhelming support for many causes in the country which I live in even the opposition don't support policies which they should favour. Why? The media and party donors who have much more say than you and I ever will manage to limit change what acts against their interests.
Also, there are lot of people who just don't know enough about the change because of what is filtered through mainstream media organisations.

That sounds great when typed up on a computer, but you're forgetting that workers aren't bastions of happiness. They're people. What stops the workers from working for profit instead of the people? After all the mega tycoons that own enterprises were just workers themselves building their empires.

Because the profits will go into reinvestment, not the pockets or shareholders. There will be rules in place to stop this from happening. Also, you'd have to gather the consensus of the workers in the business to make sure that they wanted exploit people for profit.
Also, in the words of Mikhail Bakunin, "Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow man? Then make sure that no-one shall possess any power."

 

[VRracingfan]

Anarchism is immediately the rule of force - which transition into dictatorship over time.

I hear this a lot. Anarchism just allows the biggest and toughest gang will take over. How is that much different to now? We just have a 'badly developed anarchist system' as writer Alan Moore once said.

In anarchism there is no protection for human rights for as long as the anarchism remains. However anarchy is inherently unstable.

How is that any different from now? Where was the government when Japanese Americans were having their rights taken away from them in WW2? What about prisoners of guantanamo bay? Where are there rights? Is the state protecting theirs? The state don't care about your rights.
I don't see how anarchy is unstable. It doesn't mean no rules.

Since human rights exist, it is proper to create an organization that we call a government - whose responsibility it is to enforce human rights, and who is accountable to those whose rights it enforces (the people).

See above.

 

[Danoff]

I hear this a lot. Anarchism just allows the biggest and toughest gang will take over. How is that much different to now?

This is a common response. Just because government hasn't been done perfectly doesn't mean it can't. There are concrete things to point to that have caused problems. Anarchism has been done perfectly and resulted in dictatorship and feudal systems (dictatorship also).

You're right, anarchism doesn't mean no rules. It means might makes right.

 

[VRracingfan]

This is a common response. Just because government hasn't been done perfectly doesn't mean it can't. There are concrete things to point to that have caused problems. Anarchism has been done perfectly and resulted in dictatorship and feudal systems (dictatorship also).

You're right, anarchism doesn't mean no rules. It means might makes right.

It can't be done perfectly. In order for it to be done perfectly we'd need to change human nature. People become more psychopathic the more powerful they become. Governments are influenced by their donors and big business. What makes you think something will change? How would you change things?

You're right, anarchism doesn't mean no rules. It means might makes right.

That is no less true than with a state. The guns are in the hands of the powerful and it's in their every interest to keep it that way.

However that doesn't mean we should give up. Healthy balance needs to be struck with any ideology. If we had straight up unregulated capitalism the lives of all but the top would be miserable. If we had straight up socialism the lives of all but the top would be miserable. (I realize that in socialism there is no "top" but in reality, there are always 'haves' and 'have-nots') Socialist ideas, applied to a capitalist system yield good results. After all, things like minimum wage
and child labor laws are socialist ideas.

Why would the lives of people at the top be worse under socialism? In a socialist society there are no 'haves or have nots' because there is no such thing as private property.
Socialist ideas applied to a capitalist society do yield good result for sure, I won't disagree with that but the problem is that progress is far too slow and these good things can just as easily be taken away.

 

[Famine]

@Famine
Okay, what sort of citation do you want me to give you?

One that supports your claim with evidence.

It's pretty clear from looking at the world around me that capitalism leads to an unequal distribution of wealth. There is no denial from capitalists that capitalism doesn't lead to an unequal distribution of wealth so I don't see what your point is.

Two problems with that. The first is that, yes, capitalism does lead to an unequal distribution of wealth but it depends on what your definition of "unequal" is - wealth is distributed so that those who use their efforts to provide for others get more of it than those who do not.

The second is that observations of the world around you aren't really relevant to that point, because the world around you isn't a capitalist one. If it were there wouldn't be socialised healthcare...

No, my second point was that a completely free market will just lead to another state because you have an unequal distribution of power.

I'm not entirely sure what that means, but a free market has never existed on the planet.

No, worker controlled enterprises have not been attempted.

Except in communist nations, where they have. And failed. Catastrophically.

We have had state run industry which has in many cases run better than private industry

Have you heard of British Leyland at all?

You've missed the point on crime. The spirit level points out that in societies with a more equal distribution of wealth social problems and crime are significantly lower.

Then you should have trouble with that citation.

However, you also missed the point that if you remove law, no crime can occur. Crime is now zero. Is that laudable?

These countries have rules.
You can still determine what crime is without a state. Anarchists are against rulers, not rules.

You're going to need to explain that better.

Let's start with your principle: Anarchists are against rulers, not rules.

Who makes the rules? Who enforces them?

I believe that social hierarchies should be removed if they cannot be proven to be just or necessary so if you are to successfully argue against anarchism you need to prove that the state is just and necessary.

Uhh, no. I'm not required to successfully argue against your beliefs and claims. You have to provide evidence for your claims in order to argue in their favour. See Russell's Teapot (as usual).

Why would the lives of people at the top be worse under socialism? In a socialist society there are no 'haves or have nots' because there is no such thing as private property

You've literally just described slavery. Though I'm still wondering who the slavers are supposed to be.

 

[VRracingfan]

One that supports your claim with evidence. Two problems with that. The first is that, yes, capitalism does lead to an unequal distribution of wealth but it depends on what your definition of "unequal" is - wealth is distributed so that those who use their efforts to provide for others get more of it than those who do not.

The first definition. Therefore, I think that the world around us is a perfectly valid citation. Capitalism naturally unequally distributes wealth, do you want an article on this that just states that capitalist system's don't lead to an equal distribution of wealth.
Even with your second definition of wealth inequality capitalism doesn't stack up. Does a Footballer work much harder than a doctor?

The second is that observations of the world around you aren't really relevant to that point, because the world around you isn't a capitalist one. If it were there wouldn't be socialised healthcare...I'm not entirely sure what that means, but a free market has never existed on the planet.Except in communist nations, where they have. And failed. Catastrophically.

1. I know we live in a corporatist system.
2. We've never had a proper communist system in the past. You claiming that is as ridiculous as me claiming that we have a free market system. Ludicrous.
3. I don't think capitalism (corporatism) has done a much better job either. Go to a sweatshop in Thailand, wow great job!

Have you heard of British Leyland at all? Then you should have trouble with that citation.

Yes I have heard of British Leyland. I stated that 'SOME' state run industries had done better and British Leyland is not a worker's run co-operative.
There is no problem with the citation, what is wrong with it in your view? The evidence is very clear, greater wealth inequality, greater social problems.

However, you also missed the point that if you remove law, no crime can occur. Crime is now zero. Is that laudable?You're going to need to explain that better.[/quote]

We are not talking about removing law. I swear I have already said this...

Let's start with your principle: Anarchists are against rulers, not rules.

Who makes the rules? Who enforces them?Uhh, no. I'm not required to successfully argue against your beliefs and claims. You have to provide evidence for your claims in order to argue in their favour. See Russell's Teapot (as usual).You've literally just described slavery. Though I'm still wondering who the slavers are supposed to be.

How have I described slavery? I'd say capitalism is pretty much slavery.
The rules are decided through direct democracy. They are enforced by the people although I am not 100% on this right now. I am claiming that there is no evidence that the state is necessary. See a couple of my other posts and I'll write more tomorrow but I have to go right now.

 

[Famine]

The first definition.

Which is? You haven't given any definitions of "unequal"...

Therefore, I think that the world around us is a perfectly valid citation.

Uhh... not of the results of a capitalist system it's not, since we don't have one. No-one ever has.

Capitalism naturally unequally distributes wealth, do you want an article on this that just states that capitalist system's don't lead to an equal distribution of wealth.

Okay, let's try that again...

Yes, capitalism does lead to an unequal distribution of wealth but it depends on what your definition of "unequal" is - wealth is distributed so that those who use their efforts to provide for others get more of it than those who do not.

Even with your second definition of wealth inequality capitalism doesn't stack up.

Wait, what? What "second definition of wealth inequality"? I didn't give any definitions. All I said was that it depends on what your definition was. No definitions were given, except for a definition of capitalism...

Does a Footballer work much harder than a doctor?

Maybe. I don't know. What's the relevance?

1. I know we live in a corporatist system.

Great. We don't, but perhaps you'll stop pretending that "the world around me" is a valid observation for what happens in free market capitalism then.

2. We've never had a proper communist system in the past. You claiming that is as ridiculous as me claiming that we have a free market system. Ludicrous.

You're going to have to define what you think "proper" communism is then, because the communist countries that tried to implement communism and in which it failed seem to have been pretty communist.

3. I don't think capitalism (corporatism) has done a much better job either.

Why are we interchanging terms?

Go to a sweatshop in Thailand, wow great job!

Thailand is a free market capitalist economy? What?

Yes I have heard of British Leyland. I stated that 'SOME' state run industries had done better and British Leyland is not a worker's run co-operative.

British Leyland isn't anything any more - it collapsed after producing some of the worst automotive products of all time (and one of the best, at considerable loss) and was privatised. These days the Jaguar and Land Rover parts of it are making some of the finest and most profitable vehicles you can buy.

There is no problem with the citation, what is wrong with it in your view?

You... haven't given any citations...

The evidence is very clear, greater wealth inequality, greater social problems

[Citation needed]

A citation is an independent, peer-reviewed work that provides evidence of your claims, by the way.

You're going to need to explain that better.

Make killing people legal. Murder now doesn't exist. We have the lowest murder rate in the world - at zero. Is that a good thing?

We are not talking about removing law. I swear I have already said this...

Actually you are - you just don't realise it yet. More on this at the end...

How have I described slavery?

People work, but they are not allowed any fruits of their labour.

Of course I'm not sure what they're working to do. They can't make anything because no-one can buy them and even if they could they wouldn't because they don't own what they buy - and since no-one has to work in order to get the same benefits that the rest of society gets they won't work because why bother?

I'd say capitalism is pretty much slavery.

Great. How?

The rules are decided through direct democracy.

Okay. How does that work? How are the votes cast? How do you ensure only one vote goes to each person? How are the results counted? By whom? Who codifies the rules? Where? How?

They are enforced by the people although I am not 100% on this right now.

Ah, mob rule. Sounds delightful.

I am claiming that there is no evidence that the state is necessary.

Wrong:

What we need is an abolition of private property, mass redistribution of wealth and of course the removal of the state.

See the bolded part. You claim we need the removal of the state. Where is the evidence for this position? You must have some, surely?

 

[VRracingfan]

@Famine
Let's get back to square one because there's some things that you are saying that don't make an awful lot of sense, your argument is a bit all over the place to me as some things aren't clear so just go with me on this.
So you are a capitalist and not a corporatist. You support an absolute free market which has never been attempted before? Why are you so keen to prove to me that we need a state when you support an absolute free market? From what I have read of your posts earlier on you seem to be an An-Cap or at the very least a Neo-Liberal so I have to wonder why you are so keen on the idea of the state. One of the reasons we live under this Corporatist system right now is because we have a state which intervenes and nationalises losses in the private sector which doesn't allow a free market to develop. How do you think it is possible to have a free market with a state and why is the state necessary to support that free market? If anything, from reading your posts on capitalism I would have thought that that would be the one thing that you would agree with me on.

Also, what is the point in me using any peer reviewed work when the one time I have done you have just dismissed it because it doesn't fit within your world view? The Spirit Level has been peer reviewed.

 

[Danoff]

It can't be done perfectly. In order for it to be done perfectly we'd need to change human nature. People become more psychopathic the more powerful they become. Governments are influenced by their donors and big business. What makes you think something will change? How would you change things?

There is no influence if the government doesn't overstep its charter - which is the protection of human rights. The reason lobbyists bother trying to influence is because our government involves itself in matters that would be profitable to lobbyists. If our FDA didn't regulate pharmaceuticals, their lobbyists wouldn't have anything to gain by bribing politicians or FDA workers.

The key is to remove power from government to do all but the essential - protect human rights. Voting would then be almost pointless, holding office would be almost pointless... there are no changes to be made, very little legislation to be passed. Should murder still be illegal? Yes. Ok Bob, nice day's work, see you tomorrow.

 

[Famine]

@Famine
Let's get back to square one because there's some things that you are saying that don't make an awful lot of sense , your argument is a bit all over the place to me as some things aren't clear so just go with me on this.

That won't really help. I've been very, very clear...

So you are a capitalist and not a corporatist.

No.

You support an absolute free market which has never been attempted before?

Actually, yes.

Why are you so keen to prove to me that we need a state when you support an absolute free market?

I'm not. I'm keen for you to prove your claim that we don't. That's how things work - make a claim, support claim, not make a claim, demand others disprove it.

From what I have read of your posts earlier on you seem to be an An-Cap or at the very least a Neo-Liberal

Nope.

so I have to wonder why you are so keen on the idea of the state.

I'm not. I'm keen for you to prove your claim that we don't. That's how things work - make a claim, support claim, not make a claim, demand others disprove it.

One of the reasons we live under this Corporatist system right now is because we have a state which intervenes and nationalises losses in the private sector which doesn't allow a free market to develop.

That's not really true but I'll let it slide because it's not really relevant either.

How do you think it is possible to have a free market with a state

It's incredibly easy if the state is constitutionally limited from having that power.

and why is the state necessary to support that free market?

If there is no state there is no law, and if there is no law it's a matter of time until an overwhelming body of force creates law (by force) which is not necessarily constitutionally limited from interfering in the free market. Anarchy may seem like democracy at first, but really it's just a precursor to stratocracy (or autocracy).

If anything, from reading your posts on capitalism I would have thought that that would be the one thing that you would agree with me on.

Not at all. Capitalism is emergent from the rights of people to bear the fruits of their own labour - it's merely a facet of a fair and just society. Rights need protecting from those who would remove them and this needs a constitutionally limited state to provide a body of force domestically (law and the police) and internationally (armed forces).

Also, what is the point in me using any peer reviewed work when the one time I have done you have just dismissed it because it doesn't fit within your world view?

I haven't dismissed anything. You've not provided me with anything to dismiss.

The Spirit Level has been peer reviewed.

And that's what you call a citation is it? Not exactly the Harvard System is it?

I'll now assume "The Spirit Level" is a paper rather than an album by Pink Floyd or a film starring Jennifer Aniston. In what journal was "The Spirit Level" published and peer-reviewed so I can look it up?