I am either, nuts, or...

[classical_hero]

It needs smart government. Not that ideological insanity based on ignoring the real world that we get from the right wing.

YOu should specify that it is the American right. Many conservatives here were wondering about the mess of the debt ceiling fiasco and wondering what on earth was going on. Do not Republicans know basic economics? Obviously not, so they give conservatives a bad name.

 

[warpus]

Has true libertarianism even been tried anywhere? Do we have examples of it working.. or not working?

 

[classical_hero]

I would say it has been partially tried in America, to disastrous results.

 

[Ayn Rand]

You don't know what any of those words mean, do you?

I suppose you have a point, I just look at it from a different perspective. Is that so wrong?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Has true libertarianism even been tried anywhere? Do we have examples of it working.. or not working?

In the "lack of government regulations on business practices and protection for workers" sense, yes, it was called the 19th Century, but there were still significantly protectionist policies, as well as government moralizing about non-economic aspects of life. In the "lack of trade barriers" sense, yes, it's called the 20th Century, but there was significant labor protections and regulation of business by then, as well as moralizing by the government (though somewhat less so). In the "public sector of the economy is extremely small" sense, the 1870s-1910s more or less characterized this, and they are appropriately known as the Gilded Age, the time of economic chaos, "Soviet-style" famines across the American plains, heavy-handed violence towards workers, and the most extensive political corruption you've ever seen.

 

[Traitorfish]

I suppose you have a point, I just look at it from a different perspective. Is that so wrong?

That's some "Objectivism" you've got there, lemme tell ye.

 

[amadeus]

Once sentence jabs. Hardly worth the effort of replying to.

In all sincerity, do you believe wealth is more concentrated today than it was in 1880?

 

[Traitorfish]

In all sincerity, do you believe wealth is more concentrated today than it was in 1880?

"Wealth"? I said "capital". That's not at all the same thing.

 

[warpus]

In the "lack of government regulations on business practices and protection for workers" sense, yes, it was called the 19th Century, but there were still significantly protectionist policies, as well as government moralizing about non-economic aspects of life. In the "lack of trade barriers" sense, yes, it's called the 20th Century, but there was significant labor protections and regulation of business by then, as well as moralizing by the government (though somewhat less so). In the "public sector of the economy is extremely small" sense, the 1870s-1910s more or less characterized this, and they are appropriately known as the Gilded Age, the time of economic chaos, "Soviet-style" famines across the American plains, heavy-handed violence towards workers, and the most extensive political corruption you've ever seen.

Communism and libertarianism seem so idealistic to me that they'd both be doomed to failure, should you try to implement them in the real world.

But that's just me

 

[amadeus]

"Wealth"? I said "capital". That's not at all the same thing.

Better yet! Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In all sincerity, do you believe wealth is more concentrated today than it was in 1880?

Aside from this being a misquote of Traitorfish, yes I do. I don't see how you can not. It's a truism. 400 people control more wealth than the next 150 million in our country alone. And it is even worse in other countries. You know where it isn't? Places where socialist policies have taken root in various forms.

But don't act like you're for the equitable distribution of wealth. If you were then you wouldn't support such exploitative parasitism as you do.

Communism and libertarianism seem so idealistic to me that they'd both be doomed to failure, should you try to implement them in the real world.

But that's just me

While implementing the latter would very quickly lead to the implementation of the former, a lot of people would get hurt in the process.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Has true libertarianism even been tried anywhere? Do we have examples of it working.. or not working?

Somalia?

And I suppose one can see that as either working or not working, depends on how hardcore a libertarian a person is.

 

[Cutlass]

For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for the Marxist concepts of social and economic justice. I just don't happen to believe that Marxism offers a road to pursue to achieve those goals.

YOu should specify that it is the American right. Many conservatives here were wondering about the mess of the debt ceiling fiasco and wondering what on earth was going on. Do not Republicans know basic economics? Obviously not, so they give conservatives a bad name.

That's a fair criticism, up to a point. The American conservatives have gone so far overboard that they are hardly recognizable as conservatives compared to much of the rest of the world.

That said, there are certain matters that at their fundamentals that cross borders. Hostility to labor. Concentration of wealth. Concentration of political power. Hostility to the poor and poor relief. Controlling labor and the poor while letting the rich do whatever they want.

Has true libertarianism even been tried anywhere? Do we have examples of it working.. or not working?

Really no. Cheezy bring up some good points. But the 19th century in American was not nearly as libertarian as many people believe. The US government and economy were always intertwined. The protective tariffs and internal improvements of the day were a major influence on the economy as a whole. Canals, roads, railroads, the telegraph, these wouldn't have been built without the government/private partnership. And there were regulatory structures in place from time to time.

Now there wasn't the levels of regulation that came later. And that is why the Gilded age was so chaotic. And why we had such frequent major booms and busts. But what the government didn't do shouldn't blind people to what it did do.

Those 19th century Americans that argued the "libertarian" line really weren't, even adjusting for the change in what that meant between 19th and 21st century usages. In the 19th century they didn't want the federal government involved in a lot of things that they were perfectly fine with the state governments being involved in.

And even those few that wanted no government to take any actions at all held those views because they wanted to prevent threats to their own positions.

Mainly slavery.

The 19th century American "libertarians" were slavers. And feared that a government that could act at all would eventually act to end slavery. So better a government that did nothing at all to a government that might someday actually, you know, grant liberty.

Communism and libertarianism seem so idealistic to me that they'd both be doomed to failure, should you try to implement them in the real world.

But that's just me

That's really very much my own view. Both are hopelessly utopian. And neither can work, because people just won't conform to the world view needed for them to work.

 

[Antilogic]

You don't know what any of those words mean, do you?

It's hopeless, d00d. You dared to look at the historical record in context, you had it coming.

 

[Traitorfish]

For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for the Marxist concepts of social and economic justice. I just don't happen to believe that Marxism offers a road to pursue to achieve those goals.

Actually, my point was to suggest that the state is apparently quite capable of going bad of its own accord, as examples like dear old Uncle Joe evidence, so attributing to either the public or the private domain a unique capacity for injustice seems to me over-simplistic.

That's really very much my own view. Both are hopelessly utopian. And neither can work, because people just won't conform to the world view needed for them to work.

What "world view" is necessary for communism to work, exactly? And why are people incapable of conforming to it? These things are not, if we can get past the Cold War-era obscurifications (from both sides), self-evident.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually, my point was to suggest that the state is apparently quite capable of going bad of its own accord, as examples like dear old Uncle Joe evidence, so attributing to either the public or the private domain a unique capacity for injustice seems to me over-simplistic.

Fair enough But I was really thinking corruption at the time. And mainly the American context at that.

What "world view" is necessary for communism to work, exactly? And why are people incapable of conforming to it? These things are not, if we can get past the Cold War-era obscurifications (from both sides), self-evident.

When the Pilgrims first settled in the area that would become Massachusetts, most of the people were a small and cohesive community with values aimed at the good of the community. They had collective farming. They starved. Later on the farms were divided into separately owned plots. The labor effort that went into the farming was hugely increased.

Even though they risked death by starvation, even though they had watched friends and family die of starvation, people did not work nearly as hard for the community than they worked for themselves.

That's a pretty powerful lesson.

When you have community rewards for effort instead of individual rewards for effort, you get a lot less effort. Quite possibly so little effort that survival itself is at stake. You need a way to motivate the slackers.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

When the Pilgrims first settled in the area that would become Massachusetts, most of the people were a small and cohesive community with values aimed at the good of the community. They had collective farming. They starved. Later on the farms were divided into separately owned plots. The labor effort that went into the farming was hugely increased.

Even though they risked death by starvation, even though they had watched friends and family die of starvation, people did not work nearly as hard for the community than they worked for themselves.

That's a pretty powerful lesson.

When you have community rewards for effort instead of individual rewards for effort, you get a lot less effort. Quite possibly so little effort that survival itself is at stake. You need a way to motivate the slackers.

So why do corporations work?

Also, you realize that family farms are compatible with socialism, right?

 

[Cutlass]

So why do corporations work?

Also, you realize that family farms are compatible with socialism, right?

Corporate employees see the return for their work in a paycheck. But you'll note that employees who see themselves as really badly paid don't work very hard or very well.

Family farms are a good point. However, all the food you raise ends up on your table, even if you aren't the only one eating it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Corporate employees see the return for their work in a paycheck.

And kolkhozniki saw their return in a food allotment directly correspondent to their efforts, plus a cash return on that production.

Also, explain the success of the kibbutzim.

But you'll note that employees who see themselves as really badly paid don't work very hard or very well.

So then why do corporations so systematically pay people so poorly, if that monetary requirement is what makes us work at our top game?

Also, depending on the kind of work, workers who are paid well enough that they don't have to worry about the money they're making do much better.


Link to video.

So here's an idea: let's take money off the table as much as we can. Let's guarantee people all of the things that we need in life and have to have money to get. Health care. Education. Retirement. Rent. Food. Electricity. Then you can get away with giving people such a small disposable income, and they'll work just as hard, if not harder than before, because they can concentrate on their work and take pride in it. It's kind of like having a ruthless boss breathing down the back of your neck while you work: what are you more worried about, the job or the fact that screwing up will hurt you? Rigor is what makes people work harder and better, not terror. This structured hierarchy of rich, unproductive people making the poor, needy people work for them upon pain of death is not utilizing our human potential at all, and in fact makes things worse. So let's get rid of the rich managers breathing down our necks!

 

[Cutlass]

And kolkhozniki saw their return in a food allotment directly correspondent to their efforts, plus a cash return on that production.

Also, explain the success of the kibbutzim.

The kibbutzim are dying out. People don't choose to live in them any longer. The other, you say they have to have individual rewards instead of community rewards. I don't see a refutation of my point here.

So then why do corporations so systematically pay people so poorly?

Because they can. They get the work they pay for. And if their workers are desperate enough, maybe a little more.

Also, depending on the kind of work, workers who are paid well enough that they don't have to worry about the money they're making do much better.

Many employees do make enough. But it depends on the skills and the demand for the skills.

So here's an idea: let's take money off the table as much as we can. Let's guarantee people all of the things that we need in life and have to have money to get. Health care. Education. Retirement. Rent. Food. Electricity. Then you can get away with giving people such a small disposable income, and they'll work just as hard, if not harder than before, because they can concentrate on their work and take pride in it. It's kind of like having a ruthless boss breathing down the back of your neck while you work: what are you more worried about, the job or the fact that screwing up will hurt you? Rigor is what makes people work harder and better, not terror. This structured hierarchy of rich, unproductive people making the poor, needy people work for them upon pain of death is not utilizing our human potential at all, and in fact makes things worse. So let's get rid of the rich managers breathing down our necks!

I'm not debating the morality or justice of your cause. Only whether or not it will actually work. You have to show me it working. Because I just don't believe it.