Buffet Says: Tax the Mega Rich

[Scheavo]

Ayn Rand realized, socialism is really about keeping things the same. Somehow socialism never achieves the equality in conditions to which it aspires, but it does cement the powerful class’s status by reducing the innovation and change that constantly seek to elevate newcomers. From that point of view, high taxes on "the rich" are a means of maintaining the elite’s dominance in the face of competition."

First all, I just want to state that you make some good points about taxing income versus taxing wealth. But to say that "socialism is about keeping things the same," is just plain fucking ridiculous, and shows a clear lack of any understanding of what socialism is or is about. And "socialism" is, thanks to Ayn Rand, such a broad, blanket term to designate, well, anything done by society. I think the fact that Ayn Rand was a recluse with few friends should tell us a little bit about the philosophy she spewed, and how inappropriate it is in the large sense. If everyone lived like Ayn Rand, there wouldn't be a society.

Really, Scheavo. Four years and you still, somehow, think Socialism is just a political/economical system with just a "bad rep". Knock it off.

Want me to rectify? Gladly. Saying that somehow one of the consequences of Socialism is not what TV said is ignorant on what this political/economical system does.

Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot. 

You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.

And your dismissive conclusion as to why Ayn Rand "was wrong" is not only pathetical, but fallacious.

That's not why I think Ayn Rand is wrong. All philosophy is autobiographical, and it's not fallacious to point out how such a philosophy performed in the real world. I'll object in the same way to any die-hard skeptic, who think the world doesn't exist, or that only they exist. 

[Orthogonal]

Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot. 

You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.

A couple of things I'd like to address without taking this too far off-topic since it is somewhat related.

One, all countries you listed above are "Capitalist" nations. In fact, there isn't a single one that isn't. True Capitalism is the natural state of economics independent of any political system. Political systems are different methods of controlling capital. The U.S. is a Mercantilist economic system, sometimes called corporatist. The U.S. is certainly not the bastion of "Freedom" many of it's people would like to think it is. Finland and Sweden are a blend of mercantilism with a lot of socialist domestic policies.

Also, just because Finland and Sweden seem to be doing better than the U.S. on certain econometrics, doesn't mean that their brand of political capital control is necessarily "better". They most certainly do have a significant authoritarian control on the economy, which may lead to relatively better gains than what the U.S. has seen, but the entire comparison amounts to squat since it ignores opportunity costs and other sacrifices not seen in the Swedish and Finnish economies.

[Super Dude]

Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot. 

You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.

A couple of things I'd like to address without taking this too far off-topic since it is somewhat related.

One, all countries you listed above are "Capitalist" nations. In fact, there isn't a single one that isn't. True Capitalism is the natural state of economics independent of any political system. Political systems are different methods of controlling capital. The U.S. is a Mercantilist economic system, sometimes called corporatist. The U.S. is certainly not the bastion of "Freedom" many of it's people would like to think it is. Finland and Sweden are a blend of mercantilism with a lot of socialist domestic policies.

Also, just because Finland and Sweden seem to be doing better than the U.S. on certain econometrics, doesn't mean that their brand of political capital control is necessarily "better". They most certainly do have a significant authoritarian control on the economy, which may lead to relatively better gains than what the U.S. has seen, but the entire comparison amounts to squat since it ignores opportunity costs and other sacrifices not seen in the Swedish and Finnish economies.

The countries listed above are social democracies.  Your argument is invalid.

[Riceball]

......econometrics........

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH my head.

But yes, I don't think you quite understand the dichotomy fully, while having capatilist tendencies (ie free enterprise); pretty much every scandanavian nation is a socialist democracy. Contrast this to the US, which would be considered a capitalist democracy. It gets confusing (and, IMO, is a bit redundant now that dem Russians have been defeated).

BTW, econometrics isn't an economic metric; its a scary, evil sub-discipline within economics that turns good economists into monsters...

[Scheavo]

Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot. 

You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.

A couple of things I'd like to address without taking this too far off-topic since it is somewhat related.

One, all countries you listed above are "Capitalist" nations. In fact, there isn't a single one that isn't. True Capitalism is the natural state of economics independent of any political system. Political systems are different methods of controlling capital. The U.S. is a Mercantilist economic system, sometimes called corporatist. The U.S. is certainly not the bastion of "Freedom" many of it's people would like to think it is. Finland and Sweden are a blend of mercantilism with a lot of socialist domestic policies.

All you're doing is more or less proving my point, that capitalism is not incompatible with the social programs we see in Europe. Also, as SD points out, they are certaintly classifiable as socialist.

As a side note, do you know that one working definition of socialism is employee-owned businesses? As in, all of them.

Also, just because Finland and Sweden seem to be doing better than the U.S. on certain econometrics, doesn't mean that their brand of political capital control is necessarily "better". They most certainly do have a significant authoritarian control on the economy, which may lead to relatively better gains than what the U.S. has seen, but the entire comparison amounts to squat since it ignores opportunity costs and other sacrifices not seen in the Swedish and Finnish economies.

Oh, I think the issue is far more complex than simply what system you want to have, or which you espouse. Democracy is great, but it doesn't work everywhere. My use of those examples is to show that "socialism" does not lead to stagnation and freezing of social mobility, as was the claim.

Also, one simple fact: they're happy. Happiness is a pretty good sign that people are not* being oppressed, that people are able to do what they want to do. Say everything else you want, obviously the Fins and Swedes are doing something a hell of a lot better than we are - and what they're doing would be labeled socialism in America, and then ignored.

*edit* well that was certainly a doozy of a word to forget

[Super Dude]

BTW, econometrics isn't an economic metric; its a scary, evil sub-discipline within economics that turns good economists into monsters...

  What is econometrics exactly?

[Riceball]

BTW, econometrics isn't an economic metric; its a scary, evil sub-discipline within economics that turns good economists into monsters...

  What is econometrics exactly?

Its just bad. I try not to think about it. It keeps me up at night.

Basically, its the synthesis of economic theory with hardcore statistical analysis and modelling; so you have to be a math nerd and a social studies nerd to do it well. Seeing as these two things have only occurred in a single human being maybe a dozen times in history, its a very raw and immature form of economic analysis at the moment; but its treated like gospel. Efficient Market Hypothesis? Econometrician. Other bad economic ideas? Econometricians. They are evil, I hate them.

Oh, but you get paid a shittonne if you can do it.

[emindead]

Econometrics is just one of the sad legacies that economists in the 30s left us: you can run the economy on some specific statistical and mathematical models.

And YES!!!! I got Scheavo an elaborate answer (though obviously wrong) that didn't just stay on "Ayn Rand died alone, her Philosophy is invalid."

[Scheavo]

The only objection I raised was that we are not individuals, which is simply a true statement. Just to be clear, I'm not saying there are not aspects of "individualism," which we have - most importantly, we do all have our own perspective, but this does not alone make us an individual. To say that humans are "individuals" completely ignores the massive role society and other people play in our own consciousness. The very words I am using right now testify to this simple fact, as is the way the language shapes my conception of myself and the world around me. I am a member, a member of society, a member of a group, not an "individual."

https://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_brooks_the_social_animal.html

[Orthogonal]

@Riceball, That's actually a really good tongue-in-cheek definition of econometrics.

@Sheavo, All you're doing is more or less proving my point, that capitalism is not incompatible with the social programs we see in Europe. Also, as SD points out, they are certaintly classifiable as socialist.

I think my main point was largely missed. You could have someone from either side of the argument show data that shows one side is comparatively better than the other for a particular issue, but that is not the point. However, these are only relative differences and miss the big picture. It was best stated in Frederic Bastiat's seminal work "That which is seen, and that which is not seen". https://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Most everyone agrees that governments should cut down on waste, or special interests and corruption, but what about social program's the a lot of people deem "good" or "necessary". Generally if you speak ill of a social program that helps the poor, or children etc. you are lambasted as heartless crank or something else undesirable, but this is missing the mark. The problem is that decisions from the top are unilateral and monocentric and results in mis-allocations of capital and increased opportunity costs.

Just as an example. A politician or bureuacrat pushes public project X to help the handicapped or needy. The recipients of this money are helped and better off and a lot of people end up praising the results and pat themselves on the backs for all the good they've done. Lets say it cost tax payer's an average $1000 to achieve. This is what was seen. Now, lets analyze what was not seen. In order to achieve this result, numerous other things had to be sacrificed, namely all the things that would have been purchased by people with their $1000 had it not been taxed away. Numerous business ventures will be compromised, some products and services that would have been viable are now defunct. Jobs may be lost or never created. Of course, some of it may be squandered and lost as well. Everyone has an individual preference scale and different values so it is impossible to say which of these things is more important than the other, but what can be known for certain is that everyone had to give up something that they would have desired in exchange for something that they desire less and may ore may not have wanted. This means that society on the whole is less satisfied or well off regardless of what public project the money was spent on.

Yes, Sweden and Finland may be doing swimmingly in your opinion, but no one will know how much better things could have been had politicians not unilateraly decided what should be done for everyone else.

[Scheavo]

Yes, Sweden and Finland may be doing swimmingly in your opinion, but no one will know how much better things could have been had politicians not unilateraly decided what should be done for everyone else.

And again, as I already mentioned, explain to me why people in Finland and Sweden are happier than in America? As a society, they are more satisfied and better off than us here in America. That's not cherry picking any data, it's not distorting any data, it's pointing to the simple fact that Finland and Sweden have happier populations in every measurable survey, enjoy greater access to education and health care by every measurable means, and are a perfect counter example to everything you just said.

Socialism is not equatable to authoritarianism. Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian! Most of what your argument has done is combated the idea of authoritarianism, which is a red herring when we're discussing socialism. You ignored that I brought up a definition of socialism which means democratization of the private sector. How, exactly, is that a unilateral, mono centric decision? Providing UHC does not mean there has to be a monocentric, unilateral decision, only that there is a central funding for health care, or that there are regulations and changes made to the health care market.

Also, I'd say your example misses a lot of points, and is somewhat unrealistic. For example, regarding health care: here is something we can all agree we desire, yes? Everyone wants quality health care, so the issue isn't "do people want it," it's how to achieve the best possible end-solution to the problem. The market does provide health care, but the market, as is the case with the market, is after profits, and health care is not always profitable! Now, the collective buying and bargaining power of the entire American people is a powerful force, and it's a very powerful tool to control costs. You know that Medicare costs are rising at a lower rate than the rest of the market? Do you know that us Americans spend way more money as a percentage of our GDP than any other country, and we see less bang for the buck (of course, this issue get's complicated)? Realistically, the question is more: how much do you want to pay for health care? Personally, I'd rather have more money in my pocket, which I can then spend on other things I want, which then goes on to have the positive effects you describe of free-market functions. Universal Health Care, in any possible form, is demonstrably feasible, efficient and better than what we have now.

[William Wallace]

democratization of the private sector

...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.

Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!

No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.

[Scheavo]

democratization of the private sector

...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.

When you say "administered," do you mean "enforced"? Because those are not the same, not even close. A legislature wouldn't tell those companies what they do, what they invest in, what they pay their workers, etc. It would just require employee-participation in a business, nothing more. The same thing could be achieved without government, as really it would become a social contract of sorts, between people, agreeing that business are employee-owned. That the government enforces this is almost irrelevant, because it would come down the the people and popular sovereignty in any case. Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?

Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!

No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.

Yes. They. Can. Libertarian also more generally means a decentralized power structure, and the idea of individual liberty. Liberal theory, and I'm talking Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Madison, and democratic theory here, is very much anti-authoritarian.  Like any theory, there's idealistic versions of that theory, and there's realistic versions of that theory. Realistically, government and collective / centered action can lead to greater liberty than individual action. Our Founders we're very liberal, but their position was not no taxes.

Again, you're drawing a false dichotomy, a black and white world, where a society is either completely centralized or completely decentralized. Taxing people a portion of their income to effect positive change those people directly benefit from, and are better off for having, is NOT some violent intrusion upon someone's person hood.

[Orthogonal]

Socialism is not equatable to authoritarianism. Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian! Most of what your argument has done is combated the idea of authoritarianism, which is a red herring when we're discussing socialism.

My main point wasn't about combating socialism in and of itself, but you are right, it does not have to be strictly authoritarian. Voluntary socialist communities are perfectly acceptable to libertarian theory. The smallest social unit of society, the family, is very much a socialist institution.

However, I think you are missing the main point I was trying to convey and it is illustrated in your other comments.

You ignored that I brought up a definition of socialism which means democratization of the private sector. How, exactly, is that a unilateral, mono centric decision? Providing UHC does not mean there has to be a monocentric, unilateral decision, only that there is a central funding for health care, or that there are regulations and changes made to the health care market.

Central funding is monocentric and regulations are by definition unilateral decisions.

Taxing people a portion of their income to effect positive change those people directly benefit from, and are better off for having, is NOT some violent intrusion upon someone's person hood.

This is a baseless assertion on many levels. Just because someone may be on the receiving end of a social "benefit" from their taxation does not mean that they are better off. Everyone has individual preferences which cannot be directly compared. You cannot say that some one is better off with whatever "benefit" was provided to them when you don't what they would have purchased themselves with the money that was taxed. They may be much happier or better off making their own decision. Valuation and utility are subjective to every individual, so it is impossible to say that they are better off.

I'd go into taxes "not being a violent intrusion", but that is probably more than we need to get into at this time

[Scheavo]

You ignored that I brought up a definition of socialism which means democratization of the private sector. How, exactly, is that a unilateral, mono centric decision? Providing UHC does not mean there has to be a monocentric, unilateral decision, only that there is a central funding for health care, or that there are regulations and changes made to the health care market.

Central funding is monocentric and regulations are by definition unilateral decisions.

How is it unilateral when it's a group of people making the decision? Forgetting our government (because nothing I say will be true of our government), democracy is rule by the people, which is essentially opposed to authoritarian and mono centrism. What about the unilateral decision made by a company to use a toxic chemical, and keep that fact hidden? I'd say I have a right to clean drinking water, and clean air (luckily, the state I live in, this right is recognized), and other peoples liberties stop at my rights.

Also, so what if they are mono centric and unilateral... Their end means greater liberty and greater quality of life, which what we're all after anyways. If the end result is more liberty, and less authority in our lives, isn't that better? Anarchy does not lead to maximum liberty, some monocentrism, some authority, is necessary to have a free society. At the very least, there needs to be someone to protect our rights from our fellow man.

Taxing people a portion of their income to effect positive change those people directly benefit from, and are better off for having, is NOT some violent intrusion upon someone's person hood.

This is a baseless assertion on many levels. Just because someone may be on the receiving end of a social "benefit" from their taxation does not mean that they are better off. Everyone has individual preferences which cannot be directly compared.

I'd say this is true for a lot of cases, but I don't support collective action for everything, only the things where it makes sense to. Like education, health care, and infrastructure. We can measure these things, we can measure how satisfied people are. "Social" health care is better, in every measurable way, people prefer it, it's cheaper, and more effective. This isn't my opinion, this is verifiable fact, backed up by data and surveys. The same is true for public education, even with the horrible fucking system we have now, kids - on average - are better educated than they would be. And does it really need to be shown that public roads, highways, etc, are better than the alternative?

You're once again assuming those would be gone with public funding, or "socialist" programs. Take a look at Germany, their health care system has tons of choices and options to fit your own desire. But this also ignores the fact that a healthy person is a health person - it is not a matter of subjectivity. If I break my leg, I'm satisfied when it's properly set, and in a cast. There is no "preference" here. It's like saying people prefer clean water, clean air, food, or shelter.

[Orthogonal]

Also, so what if they are mono centric and unilateral... Their end means greater liberty and greater quality of life, which what we're all after anyways. If the end result is more liberty, and less authority in our lives, isn't that better?

Ok, I can see this discussion is going no where. First you say that it doesn't exist. I point out to you that it is mono-centric and unilateral, and you return with a so what. I'm not going to continue to waste my time responding if legitimate points that clearly demonstrate a problem are just dismissed.

I'd say this is true for a lot of cases, but I don't support collective action for everything, only the things where it makes sense to. Like education, health care, and infrastructure.

Again, this only further demonstrates our disconnect. Who decides what makes sense? It is entirely subjective. What about food, clothing, transportation etc... the list can go on and on and on until everything is collectivized.

[William Wallace]

Ok, I can see this discussion is going no where. First you say that it doesn't exist. I point out to you that it is mono-centric and unilateral, and you return with a so what. I'm not going to continue to waste my time responding if legitimate points that clearly demonstrate a problem are just dismissed.

Welcome to scheavo land.

democratization of the private sector

...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.

When you say "administered," do you mean "enforced"? Because those are not the same, not even close. A legislature wouldn't tell those companies what they do, what they invest in, what they pay their workers, etc. It would just require employee-participation in a business, nothing more.

You seem to think that you can allow small, isolated interventions without any significant consequence. But an economy doesn't work that way. Requiring "employee participation" would have a great impact on how a business functions.
 The same thing could be achieved without government[/QUOTE]
Then why mandate the change? Why not just let it happen, quit trying to force the inevitable...unless you don't believe what you're saying.

Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?

Sure. But not other people's liberties. That's the problem with your scheme: it requires at some level that someone be forced to behave a certain way for the good of others.

Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!

No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.

Yes. They. Can. Libertarian also more generally means a decentralized power structure, and the idea of individual liberty. Liberal theory, and I'm talking Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Madison, and democratic theory here, is very much anti-authoritarian.  Like any theory, there's idealistic versions of that theory, and there's realistic versions of that theory. Realistically, government and collective / centered action can lead to greater liberty than individual action. Our Founders we're very liberal, but their position was not no taxes.

I'm kind of at a loss. You conflate so many ideas to make your point that it astounds me. Libertarianism as a political philosophy (originally called classical liberalism) describes a very specific set of principles that contradict most of the things you want to see the government do, fund universal health care and regulate an entire economy.

And quit claiming that "our founders" thought this or that, like they were a coherent group of political allies. They represented fragmented groups with different ideas, the one you  identify most closely with losing in the long run.

[Super Dude]

Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?

Sure. But not other people's liberties. That's the problem with your scheme: it requires at some level that someone be forced to behave a certain way for the good of others.

If everyone is giving up the same liberties, I don't see the problem.  It doesn't work if one person doesn't buy into it.  And it seems stupid to discredit greater liberties for all just for the problems of one individual.

[Orthogonal]

If everyone is giving up the same liberties, I don't see the problem.  It doesn't work if one person doesn't buy into it.  And it seems stupid to discredit greater liberties for all just for the problems of one individual.

Words have meaning, and it seems Liberties and Entitlements keep getting conflated in this topic making it difficult to discuss. If everyone voluntarily gave up a "liberty" then, that is fine, but if someone doesn't buy into it, why are they forced to support others if they don't want to. Your statement would have made more sense if you said:

"it seems stupid to discredit greater liberties entitlements for all just for the problems of one individual."

This statement makes sense now. I would still argue against it, but at least we'd be on the same page.

Think of it this way. Do you support the wars over sea's? If you do, then you probably have no problem with your tax dollars supporting it, but if you don't support the war, what recourse do you have? You must still pay money to kill people in a foreign land despite your reservations. Someone could say "But you are benefited much greater liberty because the military is protecting you from foreign enemies". Yet, many who oppose the war say it is unjustified and fear it only antagonizes further aggression against us making us much less protected and vulnerable to future attacks. Does that make sense? What if instead, people could opt out of supporting the war by getting a tax credit proportional to the amount of taxes that would support the war effort.

[Scheavo]

Also, so what if they are mono centric and unilateral... Their end means greater liberty and greater quality of life, which what we're all after anyways. If the end result is more liberty, and less authority in our lives, isn't that better?

Ok, I can see this discussion is going no where. First you say that it doesn't exist. I point out to you that it is mono-centric and unilateral, and you return with a so what. I'm not going to continue to waste my time responding if legitimate points that clearly demonstrate a problem are just dismissed.

Well if you're going to ignore my arguments, ya, this is going to go nowhere. I didn't just say "so what," I gave a full drawn out argument as to why it's not mono-centric or unilateral. What you quoted is the pragmatic argument at the end, which you also seem to want to ignore.

I'd say this is true for a lot of cases, but I don't support collective action for everything, only the things where it makes sense to. Like education, health care, and infrastructure.

Again, this only further demonstrates our disconnect. Who decides what makes sense? It is entirely subjective. What about food, clothing, transportation etc... the list can go on and on and on until everything is collectivized.

Who decides? We all decide. Again, it's called democracy for a reason, a point you seem to have ignored. I can enumerate them, make them as clear as possible, and then hope for the best. What our Founders did. Additionally, you ignored my arguments as to where it makes sense, and why. My taste in clothing and food is waaay different then your taste, and doubly so our metabolism and what is healthy for us in this regards. Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).

[Scheavo]

democratization of the private sector

...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.

When you say "administered," do you mean "enforced"? Because those are not the same, not even close. A legislature wouldn't tell those companies what they do, what they invest in, what they pay their workers, etc. It would just require employee-participation in a business, nothing more.

You seem to think that you can allow small, isolated interventions without any significant consequence. But an economy doesn't work that way. Requiring "employee participation" would have a great impact on how a business functions.

No, I think they have consequences - what you seem to think is that all consequences are bad, when in fact they are not. And yes, employee participation WOULD ahve a great impact on how a business functions, namely, a massive amount of money wouldn't be unfairly going to an exective. In a lot of cases, it would actually save the consumer money in the end, freeing up resources. There's a macroeconomic effect that is good for everyone, and rising tides raise all boats.

The same thing could be achieved without government

Then why mandate the change? Why not just let it happen, quit trying to force the inevitable...unless you don't believe what you're saying.

Yikes man, you just can't accept that I'm not a commy, huh? I never said we should mandate the change, ever. Just because I know enough about a different position than my own to explain it doesn't mean I support it. I mentioned how we don't need the government, didn't I?

Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?

Sure. But not other people's liberties. That's the problem with your scheme: it requires at some level that someone be forced to behave a certain way for the good of others.

Welcome to to society! You do realize that rights and liberties require someone else to behave in a certain way for the good of others, ya? My right to live means you don't have the liberty to kill me; that is not behavior you are allowed to have, and if you have it, you'll be imprisoned and possibility killed.

It's a social arrangement for a reason, and if there was land, and if people didn't die and have children, maybe this point would be valid - as it is, it's just unrealistic.

Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!

No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.

Yes. They. Can. Libertarian also more generally means a decentralized power structure, and the idea of individual liberty. Liberal theory, and I'm talking Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Madison, and democratic theory here, is very much anti-authoritarian.  Like any theory, there's idealistic versions of that theory, and there's realistic versions of that theory. Realistically, government and collective / centered action can lead to greater liberty than individual action. Our Founders we're very liberal, but their position was not no taxes.

I'm kind of at a loss. You conflate so many ideas to make your point that it astounds me. Libertarianism as a political philosophy (originally called classical liberalism) describes a very specific set of principles that contradict most of the things you want to see the government do, fund universal health care and regulate an entire economy.

I'm quite aware of classical liberalism, did you notice how I pointed to three of the most famous classic liberals? The problem is libertarianism ignores major parts of classic liberal thought, just ignores them. There was also one fundamental aspect of classical liberalism: the social contract. These thinker's were liberal (which also means open to new idea's and change), so they were completely accepting of the fact that times would change, people would come to new conclusions, and that those people were free to do so.

I don't think I have ever said I want to regulate the entire economy, because I don't. If taxation is regulation, then the founders are just as guilty as I. Also, there is the commerce clause, so obviously regulation isn't evil to the founders (or can I not use the constitution as source of what the founders wanted?).
 

[Orthogonal]

Who decides? We all decide. Again, it's called democracy for a reason, a point you seem to have ignored. I can enumerate them, make them as clear as possible, and then hope for the best. What our Founders did. Additionally, you ignored my arguments as to where it makes sense, and why. My taste in clothing and food is waaay different then your taste, and doubly so our metabolism and what is healthy for us in this regards. Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).

We all decide? Really? We don't all decide in a democracy, only a minimum of 51% decide, it is then rounded up to 100% and you must accept it unconditionally. This is what I mean by mono-centric. In a free market, a broad range of products and services are developed to satiate the numerous and varied desires of man. Everything from big-bucket generic services to specialized niche ones. This is a poly-centric solution, one that is graded and diverse to serve all. You get stuck on just the end solution "Health Care" provision, but completely ignore the huge complex structure of production built to provide it. Just saying "everyone now gets health care" to fix a broken leg is woefully deficient and naive. It destroys the dynamic feedback of prices and adjusting of resource allocation making economic calculation impossible.

Again, your choices of publicly provided goods that "make sense" are completely arbitrary.

[Scheavo]

Who decides? We all decide. Again, it's called democracy for a reason, a point you seem to have ignored. I can enumerate them, make them as clear as possible, and then hope for the best. What our Founders did. Additionally, you ignored my arguments as to where it makes sense, and why. My taste in clothing and food is waaay different then your taste, and doubly so our metabolism and what is healthy for us in this regards. Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).

We all decide? Really? We don't all decide in a democracy, only a minimum of 51% decide, it is then rounded up to 100% and you must accept it unconditionally. This is what I mean by mono-centric. In a free market, a broad range of products and services are developed to satiate the numerous and varied desires of man. Everything from big-bucket generic services to specialized niche ones. This is a poly-centric solution, one that is graded and diverse to serve all. You get stuck on just the end solution "Health Care" provision, but completely ignore the huge complex structure of production built to provide it. Just saying "everyone now gets health care" to fix a broken leg is woefully deficient and naive. It destroys the dynamic feedback of prices and adjusting of resource allocation making economic calculation impossible.

Fine, you all have your say, your input, your ability to disagree, and the ability to leave if you so choose. Besides, the problem is the alternative that you suggest is anarchy is everything but name, and anarchy leads to some douche bag taking over, either cornering the monopoly or becoming a monarch. So really, the alternative is live in a world where 51% decide, or live in a world where even a fewer percentage decide.

Besides, that's also ignoring that the percentage of your life where 51% of the people would decide the norm is extremely small, and out of necessity.

Again, your choices of publicly provided goods that "make sense" are completely arbitrary.

They're not arbitrary when I gave you the logic I"m using to make a distinction.

[Orthogonal]

They're not arbitrary when I gave you the logic I"m using to make a distinction.

Ok then, lets pick an easy one to drive home the point.

Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).

Pretty much everyone prefers clean water. Clean potable water is something that all governments have taken upon themselves to provide and most people don't think twice about it. Virtually every person in the first world has water provided by the public works. The quality of the water is sufficient to sustain all basic human needs. Clean potable water is clean potable water is clean potable water, right? Yet, in spite of that fact, billions of dollars are spent every year on after market private water filtration systems, water softeners and pre-packaged filtered water. Please explain this conundrum.

Perhaps clean water doesn't mean the same thing to everyone? Everyone's subjective value of what acceptable clean potable water is different. Hence a graded market in water delivery despite its socialization.

[Super Dude]

No, it's because water treatment doesn't get everything the latest in public health research calls for, and maybe at that scale it can't. Hence further filtration at the home level.

[Orthogonal]

Thanks for making my point. If it isn't possible on that scale, then it's clearly ludicrous to have the government be solely responsible for it. If something as simple as water filtration is this difficult to collectivize, just imagine how much worse it gets with health care. 

[Super Dude]

No, it just means further standardization down the line.  Like how instead of simply relying on a nuclear power plant or a solar power grid to supply all the power for a city, installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings, and other such measures.

[Orthogonal]

No, it just means further standardization down the line.

And if someone is perfectly fine with the current quality and price of water, why should they have to pay more to have it cleaned beyond what they want?

[Scheavo]

Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).

Pretty much everyone prefers clean water. Clean potable water is something that all governments have taken upon themselves to provide and most people don't think twice about it. Virtually every person in the first world has water provided by the public works. The quality of the water is sufficient to sustain all basic human needs. Clean potable water is clean potable water is clean potable water, right? Yet, in spite of that fact, billions of dollars are spent every year on after market private water filtration systems, water softeners and pre-packaged filtered water. Please explain this conundrum.

Perhaps clean water doesn't mean the same thing to everyone? Everyone's subjective value of what acceptable clean potable water is different. Hence a graded market in water delivery despite its socialization.

What conundrum?

Look up what has happened around the world when private companies have taken over water works. It's not good. (I cant remember the documentary, but it shouldn't be too hard to look up).


Also, ask yourself, why is the water polluted in the first place? Private Industry. Proper regulation, occurring at the right location and time, would prevent this, or at least mitigate it. Ya, there may still be problems, but they're less than what private industries and the free-market have proven time and time again to cause.

Also, no one ever said that the government has to regulate every aspect of water, but that it is safe for the general public. This doesn't mean absent of all minerals and impurities which someone may not like as a matter of preference and taste. Perhaps this should be my main point, but you ask why people should have to pay to have water cleaned more than they want... but you're objection was around people filter and cleaning it more.

One last thing, "the government" doesn't mean the federal government, it could mean a locality as much as a state or the full country. Water works are generally local, meaning even more that the regulation / execution of public water isn't centralized or unilateral. Seeing as how water is going to be specific to an area, I think the most local government is going to work best. It depends upon the kind of issue: someone needs to mediate when a company up river is polluting the water for people down river, as well as the ocean. The problem with the environment can be that it's, well, everywhere and connected; and chemicals used in Nigeria will eventually end up over here in America, and so on.

[Super Dude]

No, it just means further standardization down the line.

And if someone is perfectly fine with the current quality and price of water, why should they have to pay more to have it cleaned beyond what they want?

Interesting you mention that, because it actually saves significant sums of money in the long run, because greater public health equals fewer trips to the hospital and whatnot.

[Orthogonal]

Also, ask yourself, why is the water polluted in the first place? Private Industry. Proper regulation, occurring at the right location and time, would prevent this, or at least mitigate it. Ya, there may still be problems, but they're less than what private industries and the free-market have proven time and time again to cause.

The government is typically the largest polluter, but the reason a Private Company can pollute and destroy the environment is not due to a lack of regulation, but usually directly because of regulation. Pollution is only a problem because of a lack of clearly defined property rights. The government muddies this up since the ones controlling in power are lobbied by private companies to grant them exceptions. Special interests and political favors are what allow environmental destruction to occur from private business with little or no consequences. End regulation and clearly define property rights and tort is all you need to ensure clean environments and well behaved private companies.

[Orthogonal]

Interesting you mention that, because it actually saves significant sums of money in the long run, because greater public health equals fewer trips to the hospital and whatnot.

Strawman argument, accepting a lower grade of water doesn't necessarily mean it is disease carrying or a health problem.

Think Denny's vs. Ruth's Chris.

[Super Dude]

I've never been to the former and never even heard of the latter until you mentioned it, so that analogy is totally useless.  And it doesn't necessarily, but what if it does?  I believe in erring on the side of caution in low risk, high cost situations.  As in you could be right, maybe the lower grade won't carry diseases or other undesirables and so there's no reason to have government regulation.  But what if you're wrong?

[Orthogonal]

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that just because government isn't regulating the industry, doesn't mean it is something to fear. People prefer clean, healthy food and water, so if there is no government to take care of it, there is no reason a private rating service wouldn't be created to fill the void.

[Nigerius Rex]

Scheavo, your arguments are bloated and and not supported by fact.

Look up what has happened around the world when private companies have taken over water works. It's not good. (I cant remember the documentary, but it shouldn't be too hard to look up).

England and Wales water is completely privatized
Also:

https://reason.com/archives/2005/08/17/water-is-a-human-right

Segerfeldt shows that even imperfect privatization efforts have already successfully connected millions of poor people to relatively inexpensive water where government-funded efforts have failed. For example, before privatization in 1989, only 20 percent of urban dwellers the African nation of Guinea had access to safe drinking water; by 2001 70 percent did. The price of piped water increased from 15 cents per cubic meter to almost $1, but as Segerfeldt correctly notes, "before privatization the majority of Guineans had no access to mains water at all. They do now. And for these people, the cost of water has fallen drastically. The moral issue, then, is whether it was worth raising the price for the minority of people already connected before privatization in order to reach the 70 percent connected today." In Cartagena, Colombia privatization boosted the number of people receiving piped water by 27 percent. Even the conflicted privatization in Buenos Aires saw the number of households connected to piped water rise by 3 million and 85 percent of the new customers lived in the poor suburbs of the city. Segerfeldt cites other successful privatizations in Gabon, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Morocco.

https://www.ppiaf.org/ppiaf/sites/ppiaf.org/files/FINAL-PPPsforUrbanWaterUtilities-PhMarin.pdf - page 36 under conclusions and trend analysis.

setbacks in Latin America, other regions have been gradually adopting it.
In many countries, water PPPs seem to have withstood the test of time.
By the end of 2007, 44 developing and emerging countries had active urban
water PPP projects. In Armenia, Cameroon, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, the Czech
Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Malaysia, Niger, and Senegal, the majority of the
urban population is now served by private operators. In several other countries, private operators serve close to or more than a third of the urban
population; those countries include Algeria, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador,
Hungary, Morocco, and Mozambique. Even Argentina still has more than
10 water concessions serving 20 percent of the urban population.

https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4462



The little research I did suggested that in under developed countries, public water was poorly maintained, poorly filtered, and the service was intermittent at best and that privatization led to water being available with drastically improved service.