508 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

I still cannot fathom why so many people are enamored with socialism.

As a libertarian I have continued to examine the nature of power and to look for ways to limit it. I excoriate government as a “hostile power” but I do not hold out much hope for changing that. I fear that humanitarian impulses exercised through inappropriate means could lead even good people to wield power in dangerous ways. I take a radical view among libertarian scholars: that all coercive government is an illegitimate infringement on natural liberty and that all goods and services could be better supplied through voluntary processes than through government.

Constraining power is the great challenge for any political system. I have always put that challenge at the center of my political and social analysis.

[SouL RippeR]

But as I've said in the past, I would rather have a mind open by wonder, rather than closed by belief.

I totally agree with you on this! :D


Okay, here it goes! My own interpretation of several authors (Marx, Nietzche, Fromm, Freud, Durkheim, Mill) put together to create a perfect society (one who LOVES = CREATES).
It is composed of 4 stages, why??
Well first you need capitalism so that you are able to have benefits to share. In this capitalism you can reach the extreme point of NEOLIBERALISM which is the end of capitalism. But this capitalism is necessary (philosophically speaking, which means that it cannot be in any other way) for the perfect society. I must say that this perfect society for me goes beyond what most people would call "Socialism". By the end of this stage people will be tired of fucking everybody else and hating everyone and only seeing for themselves.
The second stage is introducing Socialism as people know it, where there is a government, but in this stage happens what Nietzche would call "The lion". We become a Nihilistic society, with this we "break" with the system but are still controlled by it. In this socialism, the state divides the populum into working areas (which is what Durkheim proposed) because the state controlles everything and everything is for everyone, but nothing is from nobody. Understand so far??? [wacko] It's kind of confusing.
Ok, with this division you can make more efficient the production and lower the working hours, divide the income and everybody in the same factory (as an example) gets paid the same, from the janitor to the president, why???? Because they had all worked the same, if somebody doesn't he gets kicked out. But this is very primitive because you still have a state who "provides" for our needs. But the end of this stage is the formation of a culture of LOVE, CULTURE itself, hunger for knowledge (which of course the state is going to forbid) and last of all RESPECT for other cultures.
The next stage would be communism which would be a primitive stage or status to what Nietzche would call "the child or the super-human" why?? Because in this stage we will learn to be creative and in this creativity we will love one another and economically, socially and politically speaking we would all be the same because we would respect one another, etc etc etc but remember that this is only a primitive stage it, this won't be full filled to it's maximum. In this communism, people will already be divided in working groups and they won't have the need for the state to be controlling them or satisfying their necessities. Here is were we get the introduction into the next level which would start with the Utilitarism of John Stuart Mill, because after communism, we will have a society which loves and creates and can cope in harmony with one another. In this society is what Nietzche calles being "reborn" or "super human" or what Freud calles "Super Me" which comes from the sintesis of the thesis and antithesis put togheter (Hegel).
This society won't need the state or anything it will be kind of a "primitive" society as maybe many of us call it were there will be no money (as we know it), it will only be trading and pure love, pure respect of the richness of everyone's culture. There will be no robbers, or oppression because there is no way to bring down this system, I wouldn't even call it a system. Why??? Because even though it may seem like Anarchy it's not, why? Because people will have the power to create, and also there won't be a church because by then as Nietzche describes his "Super Human", he will have realized that GOD (as the church teaches is dead), because everyone will have their own god and some of us will have a Pantheistic vision of GOD.
I don't know this is my dream and the way I see it is many many many years away from this day but still I rejoice in thinking of a society like this.
One thing I had never considered and started considering after I had a some meeting with Lazarus Long is the possibilities of alien intelligence (computers). Computers if programmed correctly will not have the same human nature of destruction and maybe by this, we humans will learn more about creating rather than destroying.
I hope I didn't forget anything, by the way please criticize this because it makes me think more about it and thus perfectionate it more.
Thanks for your time.

[thefirstimmortal]

Okay, here it goes! My own interpretation of several authors (Marx, Nietzche, Fromm, Freud, Durkheim, Mill)

The question of the relationship of individuals to one another and to the state has been debated for as long as we have records of human debates.

Today, as the inefficacy, indignity, and brutality of coercion become increasingly apparent to me, I am embracing the philosophy of individual rights, civil society, and free markets.

Because of my growing disdain for government, I hold a libertarian philosophy.

[thefirstimmortal]

As I reread your post, I just can't see the nuts and bolts of this plan.

[thefirstimmortal]

Your post seems to support collectivism against individualism

What kind of state can be justified if individuals have rights.

[thefirstimmortal]

My own interpretation of several authors (Marx, Nietzche, Fromm, Freud, Durkheim, Mill) put together to create a perfect society (one who LOVES = CREATES).

Today, having witnessed fascism,communism, apartheid, military dictatorship, and the inexorable growth of democratic states, have you no appreciation for Lord Acton’s warning that power corrupts?

[thefirstimmortal]

because the state controlles everything and everything is for everyone, but nothing is from nobody. Understand so far???

Well, not really. Maybe I'm alone in this, but this seems like nonsense.

Because humans must cooperate to achieve most purposes, don't we need free markets?

[thefirstimmortal]

The first principle of libertarian social analysis is a concern about the concentration of power. One of the mantras of libertarianism is Lord Acton’s dictum, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That concern has a long history. God’s warning to the people of Israel about “the ways of the king that will reign over you” reminded Jews and Christians for centuries that the state was at best a necessary evil.

Rev. William Constitution O'Rights

[thefirstimmortal]

Thomas Paine : Government itself is at best “a necessary evil.” The first king was no doubt just “the principal ruffian of some restless gang,”

Once the American Revolution was successful, James Madison and other Americans set out on a task: creating a government on liberal principles, one that would secure the benefits of civil society and not extend itself beyond that vital but minimal task. His solution was the United States Constitution, which he defended, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, in a series of newspaper essays that came to be known as The Federalist Papers, the most important American contribution to political philosophy. In the famous Federalist no. 10, he explained how the limited government of a large territory could avoid falling prey to factional influence and majoritarian excesses. If Madison and his colleagues might be viewed as conservative libertarians, many of the Anti-Federalists were more radical libertarians, who feared that the Constitution would not adequately limit the federal government and whose efforts resulted in the addition of a Bill of Rights.

How would you reconcile the Constitution with your form of government?

[SouL RippeR]

What I wanted to say with that is: In that specific stage and from that stage on.. Their isn't going to be any private "market" if you want to call it that way or better private investors. Everything is going to be from everyone but at the same time nothing is yours. For example: You can work a shoe factory along with the other shoe makers, a manager, a janitor, a shoe promoter, etc. This factory is for your benefit, what you get from producing, managing, selling, etc will be divided among the ones who work there in exactly equal shares. This is not your factory but you can work it, it's not my factory it's our factory if I want I can work there as long as there is space and availability there. So this is what I mean by "everything is for everyone, but nothing is from nobody".
Regarding your question, well constitution would be totally different from what we know as a constitution. This constitution as we know it is kind of a "social contract" as written by Hobbes.
It's a good question, let me think about it and I'll post back about this tomorrow.
Thanks
So what do you think about my perception of Socialism? What is your perspective on Socialism?
B)

[thefirstimmortal]

What I wanted to say with that is: In that specific stage and from that stage on.. Their isn't going to be any private "market" if you want to call it that way or better private investors.

And what happens to private ownership? And how will you take over all the existing businesses? You will have to use force to do it, correct.

Everything is going to be from everyone but at the same time nothing is yours. For example: You can work a shoe factory along with the other shoe makers, a manager, a janitor, a shoe promoter, etc. This factory is for your benefit, what you get from producing, managing, selling, etc will be divided among the ones who work there in exactly equal shares. This is not your factory but you can work it, it's not my factory it's our factory if I want I can work there as long as there is space and availability there. So this is what I mean by "everything is for everyone, but nothing is from nobody".

And what if I want more benefits. How can anyone be free under this system.?

Regarding your question, well constitution would be totally different from what we know as a constitution. This constitution as we know it is kind of a "social contract"

I beg to differ, the Constitution is a document intended to limit government power.

So what do you think about my perception of Socialism? What is your perspective on Socialism?

My ideas on socialism are well defined in previous post.

[thefirstimmortal]

So what do you think about my perception of Socialism? What is your perspective on Socialism?

There are many problems that socialist nations confront. I would be concerned about conflicts between liberty and majoritarian tyranny. I would warn of the dangers from a nurturing government "extending its arm over the whole community."

[thefirstimmortal]

I assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

[thefirstimmortal]

Regarding your question, well constitution would be totally different from what we know as a constitution. This constitution as we know it is kind of a "social contract" as written by Hobbes.

My misunderstanding, you were reffering to a new constitution being a "social contract".


The choice of a constitution rests in large measure upon our conception of human nature. The relation between human nature and human government was well understood by the political writers who influenced the Framers of our own Constitution, but it is often lost sight of today. What I hope to do in this post is to resurrect a lost tradition and to show why we as a nation have gone astray because we have failed to keep a close tab on certain critical fundamentals of political theory.

To the question What is the driving force of human nature with which constitutions must contend?, I give one answer and one answer only: the Hobbesian answer of self-interest. All people are not equally driven, but when it comes to the use of power, those who have excessive amounts of self-interest are apt to be the most influential-and most dangerous. Hence, it is to curb them, not to accommodate benign altruists, that government should be designed.

Of course, we must not over-simplify, for it is surely true that, even among the self-interested, all individuals have different natural talents and endowments. Thus, we should not expect that self-interest will manifest itself in the same way in all people. Some people gain more from cooperation; others gain more from competition- hence the organization of firms and the existence of competition (or collusion) between them. But self-interest can express itself in ways other than competition. Sometimes it works through the use of force and violence or the use of deceit. Politics is not immune from these variations that characterize private behavior. If anything, politics brings out the extremes, of both good and evil. Accordingly, we should expect coalitions, competition, confiscation, and violence to be part of the political process, as they are of private affairs. And it is just that array of behaviors and outcomes that we have observed over time.

[thefirstimmortal]

Violence produces very different social effects than does competition, because one individual’s gain is necessarily another’s loss. Violence yields no mutual benefits. Further, the third-party effect of violence is to spread fear throughout the general population. There is no reason to think that the total level of wealth or happiness in society will remain constant when incursions on liberty and property are routinely tolerated. Vast resources will be spent on attack and defense, so that the total level of wealth (the social pie) will shrink through the process of coerced redistribution. The negative social consequences of violence stand in sharp opposition to the positive consequences of competition.

There is, then, a functional explanation for the durability of the basic distinction between force and persuasion both in constitutional law and political theory. One obvious way to think of a constitution follows. A constitution should vest in “the sovereign” the task of controlling violence and of facilitating voluntary transactions.

[thefirstimmortal]

Libertarian social analysis begins with the individual. Although man, unlike other animals, can achieve very little without combining with others, still it is individuals who enter into association. Each individual is responsible for his or her own survival and flourishing. Only individuals can assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Adam Smith argued that the real wealth of a nation is not the gold and silver held by the crown but the consumable goods available to any random individual, and that wealth would be increased by giving free rein to individuals to pursue their own interest.

[thefirstimmortal]

Everything is going to be from everyone but at the same time nothing is yours. For example: You can work a shoe factory along with the other shoe makers, a manager, a janitor, a shoe promoter, etc. This factory is for your benefit, what you get from producing, managing, selling, etc will be divided among the ones who work there in exactly equal shares. This is not your factory but you can work it, it's not my factory it's our factory if I want I can work there as long as there is space and availability there. So this is what I mean by "everything is for everyone, but nothing is from nobody".

I think it would be useful to distinguish between equal rights and the alluring but fanciful notion of equal abilities and equal outcomes.

The Doctrine of natural law that inspired the eighteenth century declarations of the rights of man did not imply the obviously fallacious proposition that all men are biologically equal. It proclaimed that all men are born equal in rights and that this equality cannot be abrogated by any man-made law, that it is inalienable or, more precisely, imprescriptible. Only the deadly foes of individual liberty and self-determination, the champions of totalitarianism, interpreted the principle of equality before the law as derived from an alleged psychical and physiological equality of all men.

However, the fact that men are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capacities cannot be argued away. Some surpass their fellow men in health and vigor, in brain and aptitudes, in energy and resolution and are therefore better fitted for the pursuit of earthly affairs than the rest of mankind-a fact that has also been admitted by Marx. He spoke of “the inequality of individual endowment and therefore productive capacity.

[thefirstimmortal]

The idea of individual rights runs throughout the history of liberal and libertarian thought. Some philosophers have thought that rights came from God; thus the Declaration of Independence says that men are “endowed by their Creator” with inalienable rights. Others have found the source of rights in the nature of human beings-thus “natural” rights-or in the need for social co-operation. But all have agreed that rights are imprescriptible, that is, not granted by government.

Much libertarian thought, especially the study of spontaneous order and the market process, is a positive analysis of the consequences of actions. The theory of individual rights provides a normative component to libertarianism, a theory of justice: It is unjust to deprive others of their life, liberty, or property. A distinguishing characteristic of libertarianism within the broader liberal tradition is its. emphasis on self-ownership or self-propriety as the origin of rights.

John Locke produced the great modern defense of individual rights. He claimed that people have rights before the existence of government-thus we call them natural rights, because they exist in nature. People form a government to protect their rights. They could do that without government, but a well ordered government is an efficient system for protecting rights. And if government exceeds that role, people are justified in revolting.

Echoing a long philosophical tradition, he wrote, “A Government is not free to do as it pleases.... The law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others.” Although they have been much debated by liberals and others, Locke’s ideas are the foundation on which modern Western society rests: individualism, rights to liberty and property, and representative government to protect those rights.

[thefirstimmortal]

"everything is for everyone, but nothing is from nobody".

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and mind, and the work of his hands and thoughts are properly his.

[thefirstimmortal]

What is your perspective on Socialism?

Full-blown socialism cannot work because only freely chosen prices in a system of private property can encapsulate all the information that is scattered throughout society and communicate it to economic actors.

[thefirstimmortal]

As a liberal, I take freedom of the individual as my ultimate goal in judging social arrangements. Indeed, a major aim of the liberal is to leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with. The “really” important ethical problems are those that face an individual in a free society-what he should do with his freedom.

The liberal conceives of men as imperfect beings. He regards the problem of social organization to be as much a negative problem of preventing “bad” people from doing harm as of enabling “good” people to do good; and, of course, “bad” and “good” people may be the same people, depending on who is judging them.

The basic problem of social organization is how to co-ordinate the economic activities of large numbers of people. Even in relatively backward societies, extensive division of labor and specialization of function is required to make effective use of available resources. In advanced societies, the scale on which co-ordination is needed, to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by modern science and technology, is enormously greater. Literally millions of people are involved in providing one another with their daily bread, let alone with their yearly automobiles. The challenge to the believer in liberty is to reconcile this widespread interdependence with individual freedom.

Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion, the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals, the technique of the market place.

The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary, yet frequently denied, proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed. Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy, what we have been calling competitive capitalism.

In its simplest form, such a society consists of a number of independent beings. Each one uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services that it exchanges for goods and services produced by other beings, on terms mutually acceptable to the two parties to the bargain. It is thereby enabled to satisfy its wants indirectly by producing goods and services for others, rather than directly by producing goods for its own immediate use. The incentive for adopting this indirect route is, of course, the increased product made possible by division of labor and specialization of function. Since the individual always has the alternative of producing directly for himself he need not enter into any exchange unless he benefits from it. Hence, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is thereby achieved without coercion.

Specialization of function and division of labor would not go far if the ultimate productive unit were the individual. In a modern society, we have gone much farther. We have introduced enterprises which are intermediaries between individuals in their capacities as suppliers of service and as purchasers of goods. And similarly, specialization of function and division of labor could not go very far if we had to continue to rely on the barter of product for product. In consequence, money has been introduced as a means of facilitating exchange, and of enabling the acts of purchase and of sale to be separated into two parts.
Despite the important role of enterprises and of money in our actual economy, and despite the numerous and complex problems they raise, the central characteristic of the market technique of achieving co-ordination is fully displayed in the simple exchange economy that contains neither enterprises nor money. As in that simple model, so in the complex enterprise and money-exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and voluntary provided (a) that enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are individuals and (B) that indviduals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary.

It is far easier to state these provisos in general terms than to spell them out in detail, or to specify precisely the institutional arrangements most conducive to their maintenance. Indeed, much of technical economic literature is concerned with precisely these questions. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to “private.” Aside from this, perhaps the most difficult problems arise from monopoly-which inhibits effective freedom by denying individuals alternatives to the particular exchange, and from “neighborhood effects”-effects on third parties for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them.

So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.

Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

[thefirstimmortal]

So what do you think about my perception of Socialism? What is your perspective on Socialism?

One feature of a free society is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical change in the structure of the society, so long as the advocacy is restricted to persuasion and does not include force or other forms of coercion. It is a mark of the political freedom of a capitalist society that men can openly advocate and work for socialism. Equally, political freedom in a socialist society would require that men be free to advocate the introduction of capitalism. How could the freedom to advocate capitalism be preserved and protected in a socialist society?

In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of “security” among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.

But let us suppose this act of self-denial to be achieved. For advocacy of capitalism to mean anything, the proponents must be able to finance their cause, to hold public meetings, publish pamphlets, buy radio time, issue newspapers and magazines, and so on. How could they raise the funds? There might and probably would be men in the socialist society with large incomes, perhaps even large capital sums in the form of government bonds and the like, but these would of necessity be high public officials. It is possible to conceive of a minor socialist official retaining his job although openly advocating capitalism. It strains credulity to imagine the socialist top brass financing such “subversive” activities.

The only recourse for funds would be to raise small amounts from a large number of minor officials. But this is no real answer. To tap these sources, many people would already have to be persuaded, and our whole problem is how to initiate and finance a campaign to do so. Radical movements in capitalist societies have never been financed this way.

[thefirstimmortal]

One may believe, as I do, that Socialism would destroy all of our freedoms, one may be opposed to it as firmly and as strongly as possible, and yet, at the same time, also believe that in a free society it is intolerable for a man to be prevented from making voluntary arrangements with others that are mutually attractive because he believes in or is trying to promote Socialism. His freedom includes his freedom to promote Socialism. Freedom also, of course, includes the freedom of others not to deal with him under those circumstances.


So, Soul Ripper, what do you think about my perception of Liberty? What is your perspective on Liberty? B)

[SouL RippeR]

How could the freedom to advocate capitalism be preserved and protected in a socialist society?

To this I say that the axis on this society would be RESPECT, nothing would be forced.
Maybe I have the words wrong, because if I talk about Socialism you understand and perceive Socialism as what most people do. Maybe it's bad word usage.
But let me tell you that I perceive Liberty in the same way that you do and actually I agree with you on most of the points you talk about.
My vision of liberty is that of RESPECT, there is a phrase from Voltaire that goes like this: "I may not agree on what you do, I may not agree on what you say, But I would give my life to protect that liberty". And this is what I'm talking about, is breaking with the molds that society has made and which by all of us are measured. For example: I have long hair and people criticize me because they say that only women have long hair, that only tramps have long hair, etc etc And it's true if I go into a store dressed up in a suite I will have a better service that if I go dressed up in bell bottom jeans and a tie dye shirt. So once again this is liberty, breaking up with the system. It's the hunger for knowledge, it's respect for my culture, for other cultures, it's acceptance of different point of views. As kant would say they're only relative thruts also Aristotele would say "There is nothing good or bad per se". This is what people don't conceive, that why criticize a gay man, accept him you don't have to be gay or do gay stuff if you accept it, better yet ¿Who the hell are you (or me) to not accept someone else?? [!] It's all this decadence in music, fashion, arts, politics, etc that make people blind. Nobody ever reads a book until Hollywood produces the movie (HARRY POTTER, LORD OF THE RINGS) and this is what I go against. On TV there's only OPRAH, BIG BROTHER, LA ACADEMIA (Reality show in Mexico) and Talk Shows, why is there never a cultural program that will teach universal values?? As we know the application of this values is what changes from town to town but still respect is respect wherever you go. But now people don't respect! They don't have culture or LOVE ? It's all bussiness and material impulses, nobody ever stops to see the sunrise anymore or hear a bird sing or anything. In mexico every friday it's all about getting drunk or getting laid. It's like animals in human bodies, why???? Because we have lost our liberty, we are machines with animal (material) impulses. The worst thing is as a Pink Floyd song would say: "Strangers passing in the street, By chance two separate glances meet, And I am you and what I see is me." (Echoes, Pink Floyd). Pink Floyd, Echoes (It's the last lyric)
That we think that we're apart from them, but we're not, first we have to concientize that they are a reflexion of US. It's like the popular saying: "What make a big man different than a little man? That the big man realizes he is little".
It's just this.
I would love to keep on going, maybe later I'll post somethign else.
I'd love to hear what you think about this perception of mine.
Thanks
[ph34r]

[thefirstimmortal]

What I take from this post, is that you are well read and intelligent. I still can't see the nuts and bolts of Socialism working. At least not Socialism as I understand the term.

[thefirstimmortal]

A capitalist economy is not, of course, an equal society. But it is a powerful agent for disrupting existing class barriers and official hierarchies. Indeed, commercial societies notorious, among those who dislike this aspect, for bringing new people and families to the fore and undermining traditional status barriers.

[SouL RippeR]

What I take from this post, is that you are well read and intelligent.

Thanks very much! I can see the same about you from what I've read from your posts.

[SouL RippeR]

A capitalist economy is not, of course, an equal society. But it is a powerful agent for disrupting existing class barriers and official hierarchies.

YES absolutely, but then, HOW can we talk a non-existent freedom and a unreachable liberty?? Because we are not equal! And worst of all, the system is making that liberty seem evident when the real thing is that every day that we play their game, liberty is farther and farther away! This is what I'm against! I don't really care about economics because I don't know about economics, but what I know is that these "economics" also affect socially, which is what I care and what I know. And maybe socialism is not a great economic system but it's a hell of a great social system (at least in theory and in my head lol ).
I would like to hear more about what you propose.

[Mangala]

Full-blown socialism cannot work because only freely chosen prices in a system of private property can encapsulate all the information that is scattered throughout society and communicate it to economic actors.

Prices can be set for goods that reflect a market atmosphere given by vendors. There is no question that in a socialist system the market can still exist. You see socialism with a narrow view.

In its simplest form, such a society consists of a number of independent beings. Each one uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services that it exchanges for goods and services produced by other beings, on terms mutually acceptable to the two parties to the bargain.

That's trade. Capitalism introduces capital into the equation, which makes the oversimplified society a whole lot more complex.

The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to “private.”

But some goods and services are too vital to just auction off to the highest bidder, such as medical care, education and legal representation. I mean by your definition Mr. O'Rights, the children of Bill Gates should end up the most intelligent people in the world, not because their cognitive functions are above normal, or they have some defining characteristic that makes them special, but just because they have the most to get the best services. Should the presidency go to the person with the most in order to trade for the service of being president? Of course not.

So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities.

most...like that save Mr. O'Rights. So who draws the line when that most becomes some?

How could the freedom to advocate capitalism be preserved and protected in a socialist society?

Are you serious? Could you please explain to me how socialism automatically means no freedom of speech? Frankly, your understanding of socialism is limited to John Lennon and Stalin.

I don't really care about economics because I don't know about economics, but what I know is that these "economics" also affect socially, which is what I care and what I know. And maybe socialism is not a great economic system but it's a hell of a great social system

Well Soul Ripper you got my hopes up for a second there but now I realize you're just as socialist as Mr. O'Rights, Lazarus, or I. Sure we all want the Karl Marx happy fun-loving communist perfect world. But if you do not understand the economics of the dream its just a flight of fancy.

Mr. O'Rights beleives in freedom but believes I don't. Socially, both capitalism and Socialism were made to please the most amount of people the most amount of time, but both are flawed in that the path to these perfect planes of existence are hard to see. Now, Mr. O'Rights may believe capitalism is the path to this perfect world, but it does not work the same way with me and socialism. Socialism is what I believe the American society is moving towards.

It's only a world where people are each given an equal starting line, where education and life are not given to the person with the richest parents, but to everyone who needs it. Now of course this world needs money to come from somewhere but I've explained that in other posts.

I know I should be writing my final post instead of continuing this thing, but whatever.

In capitalism the piority is profit, in socialism the priority is people.

[SouL RippeR]

Well Soul Ripper you got my hopes up for a second there but now I realize you're just as socialist as Mr. O'Rights, Lazarus, or I.  Sure we all want the Karl Marx happy fun-loving communist perfect world.  But if you do not understand the economics of the dream its just a flight of fancy.

I do understand them up to a certain point, but I cannot argue with them because it's not my forte, capicce? I think we are mostly on the same line of thought, but we have our diferences which we can discuss. [huh]

Socialism is what I believe the American society is moving towards.

ME TOO!!   [!]

It's only a world where people are each given an equal starting line, where education and life are not given to the person with the richest parents, but to everyone who needs it. Now of course this world needs money to come from somewhere but I've explained that in other posts.

Yes, but how??? Through what? What do you need to get them to hold that position??? The answer is: That if we are talking utopically (up to a point). Then we must think that in "our" society people won't be lazy right? This way we could achieve our goals both economically and socially dont you agree?

In capitalism the piority is profit, in socialism the priority is people.

So after all, I was right about not having to worry mostly about economics, because the priority is PEOPLE! It's just diferences in word usage, etc etc. But from this first encounter, I would say that we have similar ideals, so as the others, we just don't agree on the words and some of the ideas. [B)]