There was talk about renaming the Krugman thread for this purpose, but that seems to be going nowhere. Besides which, I feel the Krugman thread should be left to discuss Krugman while this thread can be used for more general economic discussion.
Discuss:
- The merits of competing theories.
- The role of the government in managing the economy.
- The causes of and solutions to our current economic woes.
- Comparisons between the economic systems of different countries.
- Theoretical and existing alternatives to our current market system.
edited 17th Dec '12 10:58:52 AM by Topazan
Capitalism is cooperation for the purpose of mutual survival.
edited 11th Jul '13 4:35:43 PM by Topazan
![]()
Pick a definition and the concept continues to apply, from the planet and all life on it down to the individual. At the individual level, defiance of coercion ultimately manifests as suicide.
If you don't understand the ways in which capitalism is coercive...
edited 11th Jul '13 4:38:05 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"edited 11th Jul '13 4:39:16 PM by Topazan
Ultimately, the choice is not yours, Topazan. Unless you choose the suicide route.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""I'm hungry, go make me a sandwich."\\
"No, you make me a sandwich."
"You have a social responsibility to feed me!"
"You have a social responsibility to feed me!"
"By not making me a sandwich, you're coercing me with the threat of starvation!"
"By not making me a sandwich, you're coercing me with the threat of starvation!"
I never got to respond to this because, by the time I came back to the thread, it was several pages ago, but I do have a response.
Fundamentally, this is a strawman of my beliefs. First off, not everyone is making sandwiches. Some would be, say, printing books or making laptops. Secondly, we wouldn't be demanding a specific person to make a sandwich, as in this example. Rather, everyone should be able to expect that, when he/she goes into the sandwich shop, he/she can get a sandwich without having to do work. The person making the sandwich would choose to work at the sandwich shop, rather than attempting to get some random person on the street to make you a sandwich. Thirdly, and importantly, what is true for the sandwich shop would NOT be true for the bookstore or laptop store. If someone went into a bookstore or laptop store, that person would have to be someone who works to get a book or a laptop. In that way, there is an incentive to work, but not the same coercive pressure of a choice between life and death. This would, in essence, be a sort of mixed economy between market socialism and communism, which I think would eventually, through the progress of technology, and, specifically, the progress of automation, this would become less and less necessary and we could expand the communist part and shrink the market socialist part until everything can be done in an automated fashion, thus allowing everything to be free.
I feel like you're evading the question.
Furthermore, if a random person doesn't have the responsibility to feed the hungry, who does? Does the very act of choosing a food service career make you a slave?
edited 11th Jul '13 7:09:33 PM by Topazan
No individual has the responsibility to feed the hungry. However, society as a whole has a responsibility to feed the hungry, and individuals have the responsibility to support society.
I'm A.) Not sure why this seems so difficult to grasp (it seems that we're constantly having this position be misrepresented) and B.) How we're off topic and talking about political ideology instead of economics.
Anarchy-specific discussion should be redirected to its own thread; discussion should be emphasized on economics and not spiral into politics or political systems. Though I don't mind discussing whatever economic system deathpigeon is proposing, since such an anarchist economy is still an economy.
If the individuals are supposed to support the society, that needs to be enforced.
Um, then the post wouldn't make sense.
edited 11th Jul '13 7:29:11 PM by Trivialis
Tomu, you're not deathpigeon. Please stop saying "we" when you're expressing your own opinion.
But, since you bring it up, what responsibility do "the poor" have to society?
I'm just saying that Tomu should think and speak for himself rather than constantly leaning on the group. Admittedly, he does it less than some posters, though.
edited 11th Jul '13 7:32:08 PM by Topazan
And you're ignoring the meat of my answer.
Because, if they work, they'll get cool stuff, such as books and laptops, that aren't essentials, so they'll choose to work, though not everyone will. Just because they won't have to work doesn't mean they won't. The goal here is to reward working, not to punish not working.
Then he can take it up with the commune which would probably restrict the sandwich maker's access to non-essentials. Essentially, they're not going to reward someone who won't do their job. However, that sandwich maker will be allowed to have food no matter what. It's only non-essentials like books that would ever be restricted.
As Tomu said, society does.
No, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, food service would be collectively run by all who work in them. He would determine how the sandwich shop is run just as much as anyone else. Secondly, he wouldn't be coerced into it. There wouldn't be a choice between working and dying, just between working and not getting luxuries. Thirdly, he would gain access to cool stuff because of it.
We're speaking of economic systems. That is a part of economics, is it not?
Ok, I don't know if this discussion will remain in this thread or not, but...
Topazan's challenge was this:
- 1. You're saying that no one should be coerced into doing any work.
- 2. But you're also saying that every person should be guaranteed sustenance.
- But if you require that the person gets sustenance, then you need to enforce it, which leads to "coercion".
- But if you can't enforce it, the person would not receive that sustenance.
The only way to resolve this apparent contradiction is if the person would do his/her own work to feed oneself. So it's a free society where anyone is allowed to produce and grow food; basically, anyone is allowed access to the sandwich shop for one's own usage, but nobody else is obligated to help you because you can't impose that obligation.
I apologize if I got 1 or 2 incorrect, but I continue to think that the remaining points are natural conclusions to the two above.
Now, the way you're drawing a distinction between food and laptops implies that you're having two different rules of the economy in mind, depending on the nature of the product. It specifically emphasizes certain goods. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing.
edited 11th Jul '13 8:30:47 PM by Trivialis
I think this discussion is relevant. The basis of economics is the allocation of scarce resources, which is what we're discussing now.
Incoherent... if something is non-essential, then withholding it is negotiation, not coercion.
On the earlier question of responsibilities: responsibilities and rights go hand-in-hand.
If a poor person has the responsibility to work to feed themselves, then justice dictates that they must have the corresponding right to a job capable of doing so.
Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?If you take out the part that makes it the most wrong out of it, then it's not like it at all. In this scenario, it's no longer someone with a gun to your back, and now it's someone offering you candy. No longer is the choice between dying and working, which is what made it coercion in the first place.
Then he could, I guess, and he'd be able to voice that when the commune votes on what to do with the sandwich maker letting someone starve.
Not necessarily. Market socialism is a thing. Such a society would probably have a market, but capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on markets.
edited 11th Jul '13 10:48:49 PM by deathpigeon
The banking system is basically a cartel, from what I understand.
edited 11th Jul '13 11:06:03 PM by Topazan
I guess not. That wouldn't necessarily make it right... Just not coercion. The employment would still be a hierarchical/authoritarian system, but it wouldn't be coercion, no. At least, not as long as the alternative source was independent of money.
...Well, the commune is everyone living in the commune... So the commune would have the power of everyone living in the commune. Anything the commune decides would be dependent upon the people in the commune acting, or not acting, if the case may be, on that decision. So, in this case, after the commune decides to stop rewarding this sandwich maker, people distributing non-essentials would stop giving the sandwich maker stuff.

You could say that the need to provide for the necessities of life is the first and primary coercion of being alive. Even insects recognize the need to cooperate to achieve this goal for the betterment of the species. How is it that we've evolved brains, tools, and complex societies and we still have some members of the tribe insisting that True Freedom is "every man for himself," consequences be damned?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"