Why not a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism?

[Leonard D Neubache]

We're not gonna reach that point. Studies on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) have repeatedly shown that an overwhelming percentage of them receive aid for five years or less, that they have an average of 2 kids per family, and so on. Again, the echo chamber in the manosphere wants to make welfare a big issue. It isn't. Even if it were true, we're talking about the richest country in the history of the world;the US could easily provide for its population 2 lifetimes over if it wanted to. Not to mention that 1/4 of welfare recipients are children.

But we're going beyond the scope of my original question here.

Five years? And that's not a blaring air-raid siren?

Do you have any studies on how many business models are un-viable due to tax burdens? How many of these people would have walked on to a different job day one except for the fact that job never existed because because the taxes required to put that family on welfare dragged that level of the economy below the water line or pushed it overseas?

Complaining about the military or Israeli aid is beside the point. You guys can't afford ANY of that stuff and have been drowning in red ink for decades now.

 

[Matrixdude]

It depends on one's own interpretation of the role of government.

A judicial system? making laws and enforcing them? security/defense? infrastructure (like roads)? all important questions.

Some may go as far as to claim education and healthcare for it's citizens is a default role of government. Try to detach the idea of "socialism" for a moment here.

And again - ask yourself, what is the role of government?

Side note: I hate it when college marxists use arguments like "hurr the US is already socialist bro, havent you ever heard of medicare? the fire department? etc" such a dumb argument.

 

[Khan]

Even without entering discussions about the theoretical fallacies of socialism, a simple look on history shows us that it simply doesn't work. It's a corrupt system that only brings misery to those who practice it.

100% liberal capitalism on the other hand, is a libertarian nerd utopia that cannot exist. What can exists however, is a system with as little elements of socialism as humanly possible.

I have nothing against government monopolies in defense, law enforcement and the judiciary. We can also talk about the extent the government should be involved in healthcare or the elementary education. It can also build roads and park benches.

But government-funded NGOs? Minimal wage? Unequal tax burdens for the rich? Agricultural subsidies? No thank you.

 

[Periphrasis]

I'd rather not get into Ayn Rand, there is already a thread for that. But I will say that we have attempted to implement her philosophy in the form of Alan Greenspan and the results have been disastrous.

Huh? What did Alan Greenspan implement that Ayn Rand wanted?

 

[MrTickle]

Socialists are very good at spending other peoples money until it runs out.

That being said I am not sure a pure capitalist system is going to work. So you need a bit of state to make sure things society ticks off but it needs to be kept to an absolute minimum.

I see people voting for socialist governments as people that want the state to sort out all their problems and any problems they have are the states fault.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

 

[Comte De St. Germain]

I've just learned to simplify politics down to one thing and one thing only. What benefits me and my own. I'll sell what I want to sell. Buy what I want to buy government or no. Same with my vote. I'll vote for what's good for me.


That's what a lot of socialists and free-market capitalists don't seem to realize. I politically align mostly with the forum because the kind of culture that we want and the kind of government we would support is what I'd want to be living with.

So the main question I ask you OP is. What kind of society benefits you? What elements of socialism or capitalism would you think benefits you?

 

[Scrapper]

Politics is just like Game, you must hold your Frame.
You loosen up your Frame and give into a little bit "Socialism"
Thats essentially modern day USA.

You hold your Frame like a boss and go Full-Steam Ahead Capitalism and you have the Ronald Regan era.

Absolutely worthless to compromise.
History has proven time and time again that even a smidgen of accommodation to leftist ideology will spark the beginning of an eventual downfall of a once strong society.

The only way to reverse the tide is
1) Aggressive unrelenting masculinity (think Donald Trump)
2) Start a new society elsewhere (something like Texas seceeding from the union)
3) Join a new society elsewhere (Parts of Russia maybe?)

 

[heavy]

All societies have safety nets for their citizens...because people want to help out their fellow neighbors. It's called charity.

The question is whether you want to institute it. Forced charity is an oxymoron.

"Forced" is a great inspiration for collectivism and hate.

I always point to abortion laws. For or against, when you force it down a very population (and geography and demographic), when you say no state across this entire nation can outlaw abortion. In fact, you can't even vote on it. You can't even vote on the term. It's all legal forever decrees the federal government. Well, don't be surprised when you get a two party, "I hate the other side" system.

Of course, you can substitute abortion for welfare laws, etc. If you force it, you're really gonna piss people off. Especially when it goes against 400 years of philosophy that shaped half the world.

 

[TigerMandingo]

I've just learned to simplify politics down to one thing and one thing only. What benefits me and my own. I'll sell what I want to sell. Buy what I want to buy government or no. Same with my vote. I'll vote for what's good for me.

Good reply. I agree with your approach. In the end, it all comes down to securing your own interests and of those closest to you. That being said, I do think we need more government oversight of infrastructure, healthcare etc.

You hold your Frame like a boss and go Full-Steam Ahead Capitalism and you have the Ronald Regan era.

The Reagan worship is a bit funny. Guys seem to ignore that it was under Reagan that: the middle class shrunk, manufacturing jobs sent overseas, Wall St. deregulation and casino-style speculation went ahead full steam etc. etc. In fact, many of the economic problems we blame on Obummer, Bush, and Clinton were actually conceived during the Reagan era.

Minus the leftie ideology, Reagan was as much of a corporate puppet as the next 4 presidents. Here is the "great communicator" being told by a Wall St. honcho to hurry the fuck up

 

[Scrapper]

Reagan was not perfect, but opportunity was ripe in his era.
Under his administration, If you were a go-getter, you became a millionaire, period.
If you were a lazy passive aggressive pussy, you got what you deserved.
Countries feared and respected us worldwide.
It should be blasphemy to disgrace the man's name on this forum.
I pray everyday Donald Trump will become President and to be atleast HALF the man that Reagan was.

 

[WestIndianArchie]

It's a lovely idea, all of them really.

But

People game the system.
People on the bottom and on the top.

WIA

 

[N°6]

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

 

[TooFineAPoint]

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

By what measure do you claim the state is currently weak?

 

[Meister Eckhart]

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

The State is not weak. The State is an ever-increasing leviathan that has formed an unholy alliance with business interests.

Power is too concentrated in both private and public spheres. Free markets are supposed to be competitive enough to prevent monopolies, and the American government was supposed to be divided to check interests at local, state, and federal levels.

Now Washington rules by edict like an Imperial capital, and medium sized businesses are gobbled up by oligarchs who simultaneously mask their interests as being both good for the economy and "for the people" by destroying competition and created oligopolies and making them immune to the market.

 

[N°6]

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

By what measure do you claim the state is currently weak?

History.

The power that you probably attribute to the state is tax and war.

In the era of democracy (weak state) tax and war are reflections of the state's thralldom to finance. If the state issued currency as opposed to private banks at usury, tax and war would decrease and man would have colonised the moon.

The state in its purest form is "one for all and all for one" and it can permit capitalism as wealth creation for one and all. There is not contradiction to this. It is the materialist era of the false Right - Left divide that holds to this.

The bottom line however is usury. Its only produce is poverty on a planet of plenty. A casual read through Genesis shows the reader that this planet's DNA is "abundance" and a read through Proverbs shows that a man can only live in one house at a time. The usurer however perverts Time, Space and Work.

 

[Dalaran1991]

Doesnt work. Look at France.

 

[DjembaDjemba]

I'm highly libertarian in my leanings, but even I'll admit there needs to be the occasional, and very rare government intervention.

A strong state is ultimately undesirable. Europe and Japan are good examples of this. It's led to statism, and an overbearing bureaucracy that stifles innovation, creates unnecessary barriers for those without the necessary government connections, and it erodes the power of free enterprise in general.

Europe and Japan seldom create new companies. Innovation is slow, and their largest companies have been the largest companies for a hundred years. Most of them were usually created by the government under a top down state based industrialization policy (all the German and Japanese car manufacturers were created this way). The overbearing state in those societies is actually holding back a very highly educated population. Where's the European Google, Amazon, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, SpaceX, etc?

However on the other hand, a completely laissez faire approach while desirable, can lead to problems with monopolization. Eventually the largest companies will concentrate capital to the point where they become monopolies that in themselves act in protective (and unscrupulous) manner, in similarity to an overbearing state. They can create barriers of entry, they can buy out competitors and shut them down (thus stifle innovation), and price discriminate.

This is where the state, or preferably the courts can keep these companies from overgrowing and becoming a problem down the line. Independent courts upholding fair market laws against unscrupulous market players is better than an overzealous and usually potentially vandetta driven government trying to go after individual companies. But the kicker is, it's the government that ultimately writes the laws anyhow. And the less laws they write, the better.

Free market capitalism with these ever so tiny corrections can keep re-inventing itself over and over again and can be generally stable as Britain and the USA have shown. The top down (strong state + strong flavour of the month idealogy whatever it is now - church/party membership/dear leader) eventually run out of steam and need to move into the realm of free market capitalism to re-invigorate themselves and remain stable.

Anti-trust laws can keep companies from becoming so big that they become governments in themselves or they suck all the capital out of the markets and keep competitors out.

But unfortunately, there's no such mechanism to keep governments from over-regulating. Therein lies the biggest problem with the size of government versus the size of corporations. And as already mentioned on this thread, you can ignore corporations for the most part, but you can't ignore an oversized, overbearing government. And since the government and the choices it makes, whether at the municipal, state, or federal level can have a disproportionate effect on your life, it ought to mean it should be restricted as much as possible.

In a scale from 1 to 100, 1 being pure market capitalism with an almost absent form of government (no taxes, no borders, no army, no tariffs, no government religious policy), and 100 being total government intervention (communism under Stalin, Fascism under Hitler, total control on all aspects from state capital allocation, to reproductive rights), being at 50 would not be fair and balanced as the government would grow itself from that mark quickly. We should be aiming at somewhere around 10-15 at most.

 

[Ivanis]

Disagree.

As John Galt already pointed out, we pretty much already have that in the states. Where I see this going wrong is when you entrust the proper regulation of monopolies to the government then there is a danger of bribery. If some business successfully bribes a regulatory staff then we would end up with an outcome similar to that of the ISP(Internet Service Provider) issue that we are currently facing. AT&T, Frontier, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable run the monopoly on the internet. Its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation IMO.

Towns have came together and raised the money to run there own fiber optic cables and start there own ISP's, only to be fought by big ISP's such as Comcast who have political leaders in their pockets.

From our countries history with socialized programs(Welfare, Obamacare, social security, etc) I wouldn't trust the government to have such power over business. Furthermore, I would argue that our government is already too big. It should be in place to keep us safe(ie: Police, Fire department, Military, etc.), Not to implement regulation around every turn(ie: The proposed Carbon Tax, Small business regulation, higher and higher taxes that serve no purpose but to make our lives more complicated, etc). My opinion is that if you bring the government too far to the side of the libertarians; it won't work. In contrast, if you make the government socialist, or make it too big; it too won't work.

 

[Phoenix]

highly educated population. Where's the European Google, Amazon, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, SpaceX, etc?

Note the type of all these companies: tech. America is itself so overbearing that the only industry it's managed to excel in is it's least regulated one -- and not deliberately, but simply because it's harder to regulate.

However on the other hand, a completely laissez faire approach while desirable, can lead to problems with monopolization. Eventually the largest companies will concentrate capital to the point where they become monopolies that in themselves act in protective (and unscrupulous) manner, in similarity to an overbearing state. They can create barriers of entry, they can buy out competitors and shut them down (thus stifle innovation), and price discriminate.

This is where the state, or preferably the courts can keep these companies from overgrowing and becoming a problem down the line.

All the monopoly stuff is overblown, and the origin of the anti-monopoly stuff is the same groups who justify everything else the government does. It's just another false intellectual cover for equally bad behaviour.

Definitely read up about Rockefeller. He's the quintessential example of a monopolist, as he was unapologetic and no-holds-barred in his attempts to make oil monopolies. See just how bad for the consumer (i.e. the majority) it ultimately was.

Basically it isn't an issue. Purely private monopolies simply aren't that strong. It faces pressure to cheat from inside, and constant new-entrant pressure from outside. Rockefeller was having to constantly buy new refiners as they entered the market. This lead to people building refineries just to sell to him; repeat. The only reason Rockefeller could afford to keep doing that was that refineries under his control were so efficient and profitable.

People battling to create, hold, and break monopolies is as much a part of the free market as anything else, and is no problem whatsoever. The entrenchment it creates is very shallow, and can lend stability to markets, as it did under Rockefeller by restraining the producer's price race-to-the-bottom -> go bankrupt -> prices rise -> repeat cycle.

The problem is when the government gets involved. A monopoly backed by a gun is a whole different situation. That is a very deep entrenchment. It changes mere breaks of trust or refusals to cooperate or submit into a criminal act. The only monopoly danger is a government-backed one. And once the interventionist government is there, it becomes a race by private companies to lobby the law in their direction.

It's a terrible, dysfunctional, and destructive system, that should be abolished.