Quote :

"Ummm, where are the "commons" in capitalism? Capitalists are all about some private property, either individual or cooperative ownership under contract, so what "commons" could/would exist under pure capitalism that would succumb to this tragedy?"

ouch.

capitalism does not equal america
communism does not equal soviet union/china

4/11/2006 5:35:41 PM

Quote :

"As such, the system would not be letting you do truely random things, it would merely be letting you execute your given program."

And unless your programming is mostly the same as everyone elses it's going to be tough to control. For example, if you have economic inequality, that will cause some problems in programming.

Quote :

"all the robots have their own computer and their own programming. In effect, all the robots are just doing whatever they want. Luckily for us, what they want to do (thanks to their programming) is wait for a part to come by and then perform their assigned task."

That's really about the same as the system I've described.

Quote :

"Yes, the finer points in life will be determined by circumstance"

That's going to be exceddingly difficult to program for. Controlling the environment is half of the work in programming them.

Quote :

"You've already admitted that sexuality is pretty instinctual."

No I haven't. You can't directly control when you get an erection, but that doesn't mean it's soley natural. It's simply deeply inbeded into your subconcious.

Quote :

"I see human nature shining through social influences all the time, like when people are constantly given religious messages to help others, but they usually act for themselves instead. You could say they were influenced to be that way too, but it seems to me they act that way because they're inherently more egoistic than society tells them to be."

This is do to the choatic conditioning system.

Quote :

"Remind me your rationale for that?"

It's more productive.

Quote :

"Capitalists are all about some private property, either individual or cooperative ownership under contract, so what "commons" could/would exist under pure capitalism that would succumb to this tragedy?"

Well air is one that comes to mind. The oceans and rivers are another. Then there's the ozone layer, the tragedy of the commons can also apply to global economic stability as well.

Certain things are impossible to privately own, and this causes huge problems in capitalism.

4/11/2006 5:51:11 PM

oh man we don't even want to start with gender and sexuality

or, if we do, someone should make another thread

4/11/2006 6:12:28 PM

Quote :

"For example, if you have economic inequality, that will cause some problems in programming."

Why? People only question the existance of inequality because they are programmed to do so. If people were instead convinced (programmed) to see inequality as a sign of progress, then they'd happily live with unequal conditions.

Hell, with the right frame of mind they could be made to see their disadvantaged economic status as a challenge to be cheerfully overcome. "He may be rich today, but just wait till my company goes IPO, then they'll all see me!"

4/11/2006 6:42:17 PM

isnt that one of the contradictions in american society?
"all men are created equal" matched with the inequalities of our system.

4/11/2006 9:13:31 PM

Quote :

"isnt that one of the contradictions in american society? "all men are created equal" matched with the inequalities of our system."

Hardly, created equal != are now and always will be equal. Created equal was always a more philisophical statement, that all men were entitled to the same basic and inherent rights and so on and so forth.

4/11/2006 11:19:39 PM

^ Exactly. To beat the proverbial dead horse: The thinking goes that we are all have equal rights, one of which is the right to private property (your right to what is yours). The violation of which, some argue, is a human rights violation.

To suggest that people have a right to equal conditions, not just equal rights, is akin to suggesting that people have an inalienable right to violate the rights of others (a very odd system of justice, I would suggest).

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/12/2006 12:29:48 AM

i would counter that by saying that right to property was not included, but right to pursue happiness was. so if the structure of society is such that some can not pursue happiness then that structure has problems.

questions from this
#1 what do we mean by right to pursue happiness? im not sure, but i would guess our definition would be something along the lines of no outside barriers restricting that pursuit. but then you get into an argument of genetics vs enviornment

#2 are there barriers to such a pursuit? i would say yes, there are barriers

#3 could you make the society more equal without violating the rights of others? if we include the right to property then no. if we dont i think so. but if one makes the argument that that property was achieved by violating the rights of others then it is stolen property and can be redistributed without any problems.

4/12/2006 12:46:51 AM

Quote :

"You can't directly control when you get an erection, but that doesn't mean it's soley natural. It's simply deeply inbeded into your subconcious."

Sounds at least like a small concession to nature.

Quote :

"This is do to the choatic conditioning system."

C'mon, it's bound to be a little more predictable than that.

Quote :

"It's more productive."

Probably, if you could really make people cooperate (and value each other) perfectly. But I don't think it's possible, and therefore your plans would only make people engage in social loafing, be angry that their work is being stolen and redistributed, not feel an incentive to make improvements, etc.

4/12/2006 1:10:59 AM

Quote :

"i would counter that by saying that right to property was not included, but right to pursue happiness was. so if the structure of society is such that some can not pursue happiness then that structure has problems. "

You would have to show then that society (or the society in question) makes pursuit of happiness impossible. This would be rather difficult as pursue != obtain.

Quote :

"#1 what do we mean by right to pursue happiness? im not sure, but i would guess our definition would be something along the lines of no outside barriers restricting that pursuit. but then you get into an argument of genetics vs enviornment "

As well as what I said before, asking whether barriers make it impossible to persue happiness. Indeed some people find happiness in barriers.

Quote :

"#2 are there barriers to such a pursuit? i would say yes, there are barriers "

Of course. Barriers are a natural part of existance.

Quote :

"#3 could you make the society more equal without violating the rights of others? if we include the right to property then no. if we dont i think so. but if one makes the argument that that property was achieved by violating the rights of others then it is stolen property and can be redistributed without any problems."

You would have to make a very good argument that the property was achieved by violation of others rights. Property rights are sort of an extention of the right to life, the thought process looking something like this:

I have a right to life. In order to fufil that right I must take up space and resources. If everyone has the right to consume space and resources, and an equal right at that, then no one has the right to take those resources away from you once you obtain them, essentialy no one has the right to make you move from the space you currently occupy as a person. If people have an equal right to resources, and once those resources are claimed no one has the right to take them away then any unused resource which is claimed by a person is now that person's resource as no one has a right to take it away.

There's a fine line when you talk about property and rights as rights, especialy the inailiable ones, tend to be rights to non-finite resources.

4/12/2006 1:21:43 AM

Quote :

"You would have to make a very good argument that the property was achieved by violation of others rights."

^slavery and the jim crow laws.

4/12/2006 1:37:04 AM

Quote :

"so people are born smart?"

Yes. Though just like physical ability it requires practice. Point is, you can't prove that person would have been any worse off in a private school. Not that I think private schools are the answer. I love public school. Though, there is a lot that could make them better.

4/12/2006 4:09:06 AM

Quote :

"^slavery and the jim crow laws."

Slavery would be the better of the two as jim crow laws didn't have much to do with gaining property. But even with slavery is it right to reposes property that no longer belongs to the original slave owners and redistribute it to people who's rights have not been violated by slavery just for the sake of correcting past wrongs? If so, most of the property of the world has to be redistributed because for a good portion of early history slavery was a huge part of the cultures.

4/12/2006 8:21:08 AM

Quote :

"^slavery and the jim crow laws."

Theft, just like murder, is a common problem for mankind. Slaves had their property (in this case labor) stolen from them, it was wrong and should be corrected within reason. However, as with all things, there is a stutute of limitations. While it would have been right, in my mind, back in 1880 to sue the slave owners for back-pay, doing so now is beyond reason. The victims have all died, all the perpetrators are dead too. The statute of limitations in every state/nation on this planet expired long ago.

Not to mention the difficulty of separating what was earned by the descendants and what was stollen. In truth, the south was remarkably poor back then, even before the civil-war. The wealth posessed by the average southern individual today is a hundred times that of his great-grandfather. As such, even if we returned all that was stollen it wouldn't be worth the court-costs.

4/12/2006 9:48:39 AM

Quote :

"If so, most of the property of the world has to be redistributed because for a good portion of early history slavery was a huge part of the cultures."

marx would say absolutely.

ill have to go find the exact quote if you want it, but weber redefines slavery as anyone whose existence depends upon the market. the idea being that in a "free market" system you must be able to remove yourself from that system to demand more money or to change how you are making money to be considered free.

4/12/2006 11:27:43 AM

Quote :

"Why? People only question the existance of inequality because they are programmed to do so."

That's not the issue. Economic inequality would create a system of rewards and punishments that would undermine your conditioning system. In essence you would be creating to seperate programming schemes that would work agianst one another.

Quote :

"isnt that one of the contradictions in american society? "all men are created equal" matched with the inequalities of our system."

These people tend to live under the illusion that equality of oppurtunity and equality of outcome are two seperate things. In reality these two are tightly tied together. Given the EXACT same oppurtunity, two people would arrive at a very similar outcome.

Quote :

"The thinking goes that we are all have equal rights, one of which is the right to private property (your right to what is yours). The violation of which, some argue, is a human rights violation."

What gives you the right to more property than another man? If people were born carrying all their property I could believe they could have some claim to it.

Quote :

"Sounds at least like a small concession to nature."

Not really. Human sexuality is conditioned. Notice that no animals have S&M fetishes. It is deeply embedded into our psyche, but it is in there nonetheless. This is why sociopaths and psychopaths tend to have socially deviant sexualities.

If you want me to give some cession to human biology you should point out the physical differences in people, and the mental differences, such as retardation. I don't deny that biology plays some part, but it plays such a small part, and it is so easy to work around, it is only a small problem.

Quote :

"Probably, if you could really make people cooperate (and value each other) perfectly. But I don't think it's possible, and therefore your plans would only make people engage in social loafing, be angry that their work is being stolen and redistributed, not feel an incentive to make improvements, etc."

They would not have to deal with this Diner's delimma if, as i have suggested, the prisoner's delimma was reworked. People would directly see the value of their work.

Quote :

"You would have to show then that society (or the society in question) makes pursuit of happiness impossible. This would be rather difficult as pursue != obtain."

Under that defintion even the most creul dictatorships imaginable would allow for the pursuit of happiness. Even under a very oppresive government you could find at least one way, no matter how the pursuit, that a man could find happiness.

Quote :

"You would have to make a very good argument that the property was achieved by violation of others rights."

Let's say I have a few thousand dollars. I have a right to that money, correct. So let's say I invest it in enron. That money is now gone. Why did my right to property not protect that money? I had it, and now someone else has it. That's a violation of my property rights.

Quote :

"Theft, just like murder, is a common problem for mankind. Slaves had their property (in this case labor) stolen from them, it was wrong and should be corrected within reason."

What if I am forced to work a job which VASTLY undervalues my labor under the consequence of starvation?
How is this any different than slavery at gunpoint? I work for very little of what my labor is actually worth, and if I dont' I die.

4/12/2006 12:14:14 PM

I always thought land was redistributed because it was considered (more so in the past than nowadays) means of production. Land in and of itself isn't so much a means of production (seeing as how you can just live on it, but it could have no intrinsic value as a natural resource). Would land redistribution really be what Marx would agree with if he lived in today's context?

4/12/2006 12:17:35 PM

Quote :

"the idea being that in a "free market" system you must be able to remove yourself from that system to demand more money or to change how you are making money to be considered free."

You are perfectly free to do that today. The problem is, any system requires more than one part, so if you want more money or want to change the way you make money, you need someone else willing to pay more money or support your chosen method.

While I am free to leave the market as it exists and make my living making sculptures out of shit, I still need a customer willing to pay for such sculptures.

Quote :

"That's not the issue. Economic inequality would create a system of rewards and punishments that would undermine your conditioning system. In essence you would be creating to seperate programming schemes that would work agianst one another."

If everyone is just a product of programming, there is no reason why you could not program them to accept rewards/punishments and inequality as "good" and progress. After all, if you can program them that working in a manner which does not directly bennefit them is "good" then it's not too far of a leap from "not benneficial" to "punishment"

Quote :

"These people tend to live under the illusion that equality of oppurtunity and equality of outcome are two seperate things. In reality these two are tightly tied together. Given the EXACT same oppurtunity, two people would arrive at a very similar outcome."

Yes, because then they would be the EXACT same people. However, two different people with the same opportunities do not always reach the same outcome. Observe twins.

Quote :

"What gives you the right to more property than another man?"

The same right that says no man has the right to property which I occupy. A fat man consumes more space than a skinny man. The fat man's very existance gives him the right to that space that no man can take away.

Quote :

"Human sexuality is conditioned."

Sexuality != sex

Quote :

"Under that defintion even the most creul dictatorships imaginable would allow for the pursuit of happiness. Even under a very oppresive government you could find at least one way, no matter how the pursuit, that a man could find happiness."

Indeed, which is why our inaliable rights are not limited to pursuit of happiness.

Quote :

"Let's say I have a few thousand dollars. I have a right to that money, correct. So let's say I invest it in enron. That money is now gone. Why did my right to property not protect that money? I had it, and now someone else has it. That's a violation of my property rights."

No it's not. At least not in the way you are thinking. When you invest money, you are surrenduring your ownership of that money in exchange for ownership in the company.

Quote :

"What if I am forced to work a job which VASTLY undervalues my labor under the consequence of starvation?"

Then you need to be reprogrammed obviously.

Quote :

"I work for very little of what my labor is actually worth"

Your labor is actualy worth whatever someone is willing to pay for. All markets require two parties.

4/12/2006 12:54:39 PM

they are called starving artists for a reason.
removing yourself from the market place is a lot more difficult than it sounds.

4/12/2006 1:33:56 PM

Quote :

"What if I am forced to work a job which VASTLY undervalues my labor under the consequence of starvation? How is this any different than slavery at gunpoint? I work for very little of what my labor is actually worth, and if I dont' I die."

This is not slavery because no one is telling you what to do. You yourself is telling you what to do. If you are delusional and believe you must work HERE or die, that is your problem. Trust me, that is not reality. The internet is full of wako bloggers who have experimented with living outside the capitalist system (I think they're called dumpster divers). They can do this because freedom throws off so much wealth that individuals can easily survive just off the scraps. The issue is, people don't want scraps, we want the goods, so we make ourselves get jobs so we can buy a TV and electricity.

If you don't want anything to do with our society, go west young man. Go out into the wilderness of Georgia or Wisconsin and file a quick-deed for some unused land. After five years or so of living on it, it will be yours, for free.

Of course, to find such land you will be about 100 miles from the nearest dirt road, but you didn't want to work at Wal-Mart so go live here.

4/12/2006 1:42:29 PM

great plan for the thousand people that can do it.
what about everyone else?

4/12/2006 1:49:18 PM

In my history class we had to memorize the 3 laws of Marx as:
1) Economic Determinism
2) Class Struggle
3) Inevitability of Communism

If 3 is right then the communists have nothing to worry about. Just like Salisburyboy said he’s okay with struggling against tremendous odds since its fated that his side will eventually win.

4/12/2006 1:50:32 PM

Marx wasn't infallible
he's just a guy with a couple of good ideas

4/12/2006 2:32:01 PM

How can I put this so as to make a good hitler reference?
Being German Hitler had a few good ideas on efficiency and government too
Marx is like Hitler in some respects
Marx is Hitler
Communism is Hitler

More seriously I've always heard that no economic theory is completely perfect, and that a moderation or conglomeration of different ones, with some sort of balance is the way to go. I read somewhere, I think Kris said it, that our current capitalism does so well b/c it was patched with either communist or socialists ideas.

Would communism really be better than capitalism on the patch?

4/12/2006 2:38:26 PM

I agree that freedom with a patch is beneficial. In fact, so did our founding fathers.

The problem is when you start applying too many patches that you begin crippling the spontaneous order. High taxes eliminate private investment. Heavy regulation then diverts what investment remains out of the economic system and into the political system because the only way to make money is to get favors, consideration, and protection from the legislature.

Half-hearted socialism just leaves you with carporatism because the only people that can do business are those with political connections, something small companies just don't have (if they did they wouldn't be small companies).

Such a system is very stable because it completely eliminates economic competition in favor of political competition, but at huge costs in innovation and efficiency.

4/12/2006 4:29:10 PM

Quote :

"removing yourself from the market place is a lot more difficult than it sounds."

So is sustaining your self by growing your own food. So is running a business. Living is a rather difficult proposition no one said it was going to be easy but it is possible and there are many people all over the world that prove it.

4/12/2006 6:30:59 PM

the world is not a perfect and happy place, ill give you that.
but its worth the effort to make it a more equal and a better place to live.

4/12/2006 10:07:50 PM

so, i guess we should revolt

now

4/12/2006 10:16:15 PM

^exactly my point.

4/12/2006 10:21:24 PM

well, nah, i'm too tired

plus, southpark's on

4/12/2006 10:24:37 PM

anytime before tuesday so i can avoid writing my paper

4/12/2006 10:26:40 PM

Quote :

"the world is not a perfect and happy place, ill give you that. but its worth the effort to make it a more equal and a better place to live."

I don't know about the more equal part, but if you want to make it a better place to live then find a way to make fussion work right. A new cheap and (relatively) unlimited power source would revolutionize the whole economy. After a decade or two productivity would increase so much to render the poorest among us able to afford a standard of living akin to today's middle class.

That, or find a way to increase productivity in the construction industry (housing takes up more of the average persons budget than the true scarcity of land and resources would support).

4/13/2006 12:11:26 AM

Quote :

"What gives you the right to more property than another man? If people were born carrying all their property I could believe they could have some claim to it."

Thanks for bringing that up. Why don't the socialists/communists chiefly go after inequalities at birth (inheritance) and then let people earn what their talents allow?

Quote :

"I don't deny that biology plays some part, but it plays such a small part, and it is so easy to work around, it is only a small problem."

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this part. I would say that much of nature's influence can't be overturned by any amount of conditioning.

Quote :

"They would not have to deal with this Diner's delimma if, as i have suggested, the prisoner's delimma was reworked. People would directly see the value of their work."

First, the best solution to the diner's dilemma is for people to pay for their own meals. Second, I again say you can't make everyone value how you want.

4/13/2006 12:44:28 AM

Quote :

"If everyone is just a product of programming, there is no reason why you could not program them to accept rewards/punishments and inequality as "good" and progress."

You could, thus why I indicated that the direction of progress was chosen arbitrarily

Quote :

"After all, if you can program them that working in a manner which does not directly bennefit them is "good" then it's not too far of a leap from "not benneficial" to "punishment""

They still work in the same manner as conditioning itself does. The idea here is to make them see the benefit of cooperation more directly.

Quote :

"However, two different people with the same opportunities do not always reach the same outcome."

No. Given the same oppurtunity they would be the same person.

Quote :

"The fat man's very existance gives him the right to that space that no man can take away."

In a capitalist system, both men have to own the land they occupy in order to actually have the right to occupy it.

Quote :

"Sexuality != sex"

Yes it does.

Quote :

"Indeed, which is why our inaliable rights are not limited to pursuit of happiness."

The point was to show that simply because the oppurtunity is theoreticaly possible does not is is feasably possible.

-----------------------------------------

Quote :

"This is not slavery because no one is telling you what to do."

But the options are the same, do this or die.

Quote :

"If you are delusional and believe you must work HERE or die, that is your problem."

Perhaps not in certain situations, maybe not even in most. But some people live out in the woods. They may not be given the wide options of jobs. They may not be able to live off the waste of others as there are fewer to live off. They can't much be expected to walk out to a city that does present more oppurtunities. What is this person supposed to do? Is this person any more than a slave to the few places he is able to work for?

Quote :

"If 3 is right then the communists have nothing to worry about."

We don't. And I wouldn't take marx's word as god's, he lived in a much different time, and much of what he has said is dated and must be changed a bit to fit the current climate.

Quote :

"High taxes eliminate private investment. Heavy regulation then diverts what investment remains out of the economic system and into the political system because the only way to make money is to get favors, consideration, and protection from the legislature."

Oh! oversimplified economics, my favorite!

Quote :

"Why don't the socialists/communists chiefly go after inequalities at birth (inheritance) and then let people earn what their talents allow?"

Because that man has just as much claim to his talents as the man man with the inheritance does to his parent's money.

Quote :

"First, the best solution to the diner's dilemma is for people to pay for their own meals."

I could apply the concept in another metaphor, but it kind of misses the point.

4/19/2006 12:51:58 AM

i kinda believe that the government should like give everyone a healthcare thing, and i wouldnt mind if they made everyone drive honda accords

it sure would be nice to nuke some countries while i'm still alive as well

4/19/2006 1:00:59 AM

Quote :

"Because that man has just as much claim to his talents as the man man with the inheritance does to his parent's money."

What?

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:32 AM. Reason : plz clarify/explain]

4/19/2006 1:29:33 AM

A man can't take credit for the situation he was born into. That determines what the man becomes.

4/19/2006 1:47:33 AM

I know a man can't take credit for the situation he was born into, but he can take credit for who he is. So let's equalize the former and leave the latter alone.

4/19/2006 1:33:50 PM

Who is IS a result of where he came from. So he has as little control over what he turns into as he does what mother births him.

4/19/2006 2:31:53 PM

I assume you won't deny that people are born with different academic and athletic abilities?

4/19/2006 3:23:50 PM

I agree they are, but a man can't really claim that he had anything to do with those either.

4/19/2006 8:25:25 PM

i dont get why the government just doesnt like divide how much money the us has by the number of citizens and give everyone an equal amount

sounds fair to me

4/19/2006 9:43:04 PM

Quote :

"I agree they are, but a man can't really claim that he had anything to do with those either."

Maybe not, but so what? Do people have the right to own their abilities or not?

4/19/2006 11:00:01 PM

Quote :

"i dont get why the government just doesnt like divide how much money the us has by the number of citizens and give everyone an equal amount"

That's not really the same thing.

Quote :

"Maybe not, but so what?"

Be honest here, you value things you believe people earn moreso than what they are given by birth.

Quote :

"Do people have the right to own their abilities or not?"

Of course they do. There's no possible way they can be taken away. You can't tell someone "You must no longer be able to run this fast". It's not possible for someone to not have the abilities they were born with. But what you are arguing is that just because someone is born with more abilities they deserve more of this earth's resources.

4/20/2006 12:15:57 AM

just a clarification.

the ability versus deserving argument comes from a definition of what it means to earn recourses. for free market advocates you earn wealth through the full exercising of your natural abilities. for marx you earn wealth by being born. in addition to this, marx felt that the abilities that people have were being used within a corrupt system that relies upon exploitation to reward ability.

ultimately, these two are very different philosophical starting places.

4/20/2006 12:29:19 AM

Quote :

"for free market advocates you earn wealth through the full exercising of your natural abilities."

"you" have no control on how much of your abilities you exercise.

Quote :

"for marx you earn wealth by being born."

Not neccesarily true, I'd suggest we not really talk about marx, it's a bit irrelevant to the modern world.

Quote :

" in addition to this, marx felt that the abilities that people have were being used within a corrupt system that relies upon exploitation to reward ability."

I don't know about that either, Marx felt labor wasn't properly valued in a market system.

4/20/2006 1:15:05 AM

Quote :

"Be honest here, you value things you believe people earn moreso than what they are given by birth."

I think people deserve what they do more than what they inherit, yes.

Quote :

"But what you are arguing is that just because someone is born with more abilities they deserve more of this earth's resources."

Almost. They are able to use greater ability to deserve more of this Earth's resources.

4/20/2006 1:20:29 PM

thats the catch though. how are they using them? if they are using them in a criminal manner that is bad. i think we can all agree on that. what we probably dont all agree on is what is criminal.

4/20/2006 3:37:40 PM

The point was that people with ability can use it to help themselves. I don't care how, as long as they're not screwing anyone else. Mario Williams is built like a beast. He can go to the NFL and make millions. It's irrelevant that he didn't choose his genetics. His body, his life, his money.

4/20/2006 3:54:59 PM

that screwing other people part is where the marxists come up. IF you define capitalism as an economic system that requires you screw other people to profit that is a problem. If we dont define it that way there is no problem.

4/20/2006 4:08:57 PM