[quote=danielpalos;865229]I am under the impression that the free market, capitalism and the cultural work ethic and the cultural and legal respect for property rights is what turned America into the economic power it is today.

What do you base this on?



What do you base that on? At some point that seems likely, but it sounds like an extreme case. Furthermore I would say most bankrupties are causeb by finiacial irresponsiblity, not high levels of disorder.

BUt who is to say that in an orderly enviroment that the local state, in the from a warlord or corrupt offical will not interfer in the market (ie take wealth with a gun or some corrupt regulation ) thus preventing the creation of wealth. My understanding is that that is very common throughout Africa and is one of the primary reasons for the poverty of the continent.


I completely disagree, I have much more faith in the US military as a limiting force to protect these rights then in any possible world branch of goverment.


As an example of how this could fail, are you aware of the debate regarding the US Constitution? THere is a move to consider the Constitution a "living document" that needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the changing world. This has caused the US Surpreme Court to weaken in it's role as counter balance to the Congress and/or Executive branch. Judges seem at times vote by party factions, instead of doing their job of judging.



I have discussed many of the steps that goverment can take to encourage wealth creation, ie protection of property rights, enforcement of contracts, ect.) but to say that trade can not take place without this is a statement that could use some form of support. Got any?

I agree with your impression, only to the extent that it was made possible by America's advantageous use of socialistic concepts, in a mixed market economy, that helped the US become the economic power it is today. The less efficient command economics of the former Soviet Union would have had to rely heavily on industrial automation, instead of ideology, to out compete our socialistic, mixed market economy.

It depends on your view of statism. In my opinion, anarchy is the social cost (as an externality) of a state going "bankrupt" .

Excessive anarchy will always lead to suboptimal, market based economic decisions. Any state that can provide sufficient order for markets to flourish, will always be able to generate revenue from its consumer base. In my opinion, states would be better off if they simply used their powers for standardizing weights and measures for the private sector, and ensuring the domestic tranquility.

Why would you disagree with a truer form of (a hypothetical UN) interstate federal government, consistently applying socially contracted justice?

I am of the opinion that any good dictionary will provide sufficient awareness of the language of our, relatively young, constitution. We already have a formal mechanism for updating our social contract via the amendment process.

I did not say that trade cannot take place without government. I simply state that trade, cannot take place without some form of socialism (in the form of a market recognizable social transaction); and that statism cannot exist outside of socialism.

MIxed with what? Capitalism? I agree. IMO This demostrates that capitalism, when combined with respect for private property and fair enforcement of contracts (which you would call socialism) is the best system for creation of wealth developed to date. IMO the socialistic aspects (or what I consider socialistic) such as Social Security and/or public education do not exist for wealth creation but to preform other socially desirable functions.


Are you saying anarchy only occurrs when a state is bankrupt? That makes no sense to me. Consider Lebanon during the 70s. Political unrest led to economic problems, not the other way around.

Or are you saying that states only go bankrupt only during anarchy? THat does not make sense to me either.

I don't understand your desire to link these two concepts.

Hmm. Excessive anarchy implies that the goverment has lost the ablility to enforce its economic decisions, the use of the term suboptimal implies fault for events that may be totally outside of their control.

It takes more than order for markets to flourish. Hell, nations can have their revenue disrupted by events outside of their control,ie. droughts, floods, famine, war, commodity price collapse, commodity price rise (ex.opec oil shock). THese things can occurr to the most orderly society.

Hmm.. If I remember your definiton of domestic tranquility consists of avoiding armed rebellion. This is the descripiton of a rabidly libertarian form of goverment. THis clashes with your generally socialistic posts of the past. Either I am having trouble understanding what you mean or ...

I have converted you YES!!


Because their is no concensus on what constitutes justice.


YOu really need to pay more attention to the attempts to undermine the US constitution. The tactic of trying to undermine the Constitution changing the meaning of words has been in use for years.

And yet those who want to "update" the Constitution do not avail themselves of this mechanism. Why? Because they know that they do not have the support to do it through democratic means, and yet they feel comfortable going for it anyway. If such mechanisms do not protect our rights in the US why should we expect a brand new constitution to do any better.



A basic trade of a good or a service for money is not a form of socialism.

You mentioned dictionaries earlier.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do any of these sound anything like what you are talking about?

Our (US) form of statism allows for a mixed economy of market and command economics. If you, merely, want a simple label; then social capitalism would be sufficient for now.

If we consider that anarcho-capitalism is what enabled current third world standards of living, then the advances brought about by socialism, have enabled social-capitalism to achieve a first world standard of living for those economies that have sufficient infrastructure to enable it. A comparison can be made from the socialistic use of command economics of most 'traditional' socialist countries that were able to advance to second world economy.

I meant "bankruptcy" in the sense that anarchy tends to ensue whenever truer forms of statism cease to have a socially contracted existence, and become insolvent.

If there is no consensus on what justice is, why would you rather have an anarchic form of justice by default. Would you rather that justice be dispensed by one of several states, or the interstate, when dealing with the several states?

Our social contract was promulgated with amendments, and amendments subsequently ratified. I am not sure how you reached your conclusion.

Trade is a market recognizable social transaction. Thus, trade exists to the extent there is sufficient socialism for a market recognizable transaction to occur. Political science definitions of socialism can be ambiguous when trying to clarify socioeconomic concepts.

Simple? It is more understandable, at least.

You keep repeating the third world nations are capitalistic. I keep asking you to back that up. My understanding is that third world nations are generally far more socialistic than the US. I base this on reports of nationalized industries, substidized agriculture and industry, forcible redistrubution of land, and the socialistic rhetoric I tend to read from third world leaders.

And again where do you get information that leads you to believe that the third world is anarcho-capitalistic?

BUt if the "social capitalism" of the US has a first world economy and the more traditional socialistic nations have second world economies can we conclude that a greater proportion of capitalism is what enabled the first world to outproform the second?

Help me out here.
Bankruptcy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI don't see any connection. Please clarify.


I should have said that there is no global consensus. And I am pretty comfortable with the justice "dispensed' by the various Amercian states. At the very least I see nothing currently or in the forseeable future that looks superiour.

Observation. Dan, I was under the impression that you live in the US, how have you missed this? Have you moved here recently?

Judicial activism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.



I have never heard anyone define socialism as such. Furthermore when you expand a term to include nearly everything the term becomes useless to use in defining anything.

.

THey are less ambiguous than your defintion. And thus is a chance that other people may know them so that communication may successfully occur.



And you have not stated how democratic you envision any world goverment to be. Why is that?

Truer forms of 'traditional' capitalism, are found in truer forms of anarcho-capitalism. If we consider that Mogadishu is a form of anarcho-capitalism, then it should be apparent, that the social-capitalism (via socialism) of the US, has enabled our level of development. A true anarchy would have no incentive to use statism for advancements in the standards of living (in the form of infrastructure) of its non-populace.

In my view, ideologies, when in the form capitalism or socialism, are not what define an economic potential. It depends on the amount of command economics (mostly public sector) to market economics (mostly private sector), and forms of implementation.

Perhaps, you can reference my definition as a secular equivalent to moral bankruptcy; at a state level.

What is it about this premise, that you disagree with? "Trade is a market recognizable social transaction. Thus, trade exists to the extent there is sufficient socialism for a market recognizable transaction to occur." I am not defining socialism as anything. Economics, simply recognizes market friendly social transactions. Social transactions are the basis of socialism.

I have been advocating an interstate federal government and a bill of rights that includes an amendment based on the theory of nullification. From this perspective, it would be about as democratic as the US.

The level of anarchy found in Mogadishu is an abberation. I have repeatedly asked what you base your belief that the third world is anarcho-capitalistic on. You continue to ignore my request for information on what you base this belief on.

I have stated what I base my views on.

If you refuse to discuss the basis of your ideas or to address the support I offer for my ideas then this discussion is not a discussion. I guess I can always use more typing pratice. I think my speed is improving.



BUt the ideology of the nation will define that ratio and which forms of implemention will be choosen. Consider the lack of nationalized healthcare in the socialism-phobic US.


Are you defining moral bankruptcy as moral decay? Are you saying that socialism indicates strong moral fiber in a society? I feel we are making progress here. Please clarify.



Social transactions are the basis of human society. Socialism is much smaller than that. It is difficult for me to understand what you are saying when your use of a word conflicts with the standard understanding of that word.



So as I stated the economic decisions of the first world would be made by third world majorities that have no historical undrestanding of them.

So would the greater freedoms enjoyed by the first world be lessened to standard that would be equivelent to the third world?

Or would the global state force additional freedom upon third world societies that don't want it. Such as female equality and freedom in the Muslim world and China?

Would gun control be forced upon the US despite centuries of tradition?

Would gay marriage in Europe be reviewed by a global state dominated by more homo-phobic latin american, arabic, US judges or would it be the other way around?



Hmm... Are responses like these why you ignore so many of my questions?

You are probably correct that any functioning (modern) AnCap, is an aberration, in a world that has advanced to first world development through more socialistic implementations of capitalism. From my perspective, truer forms of capitalism are what enabled the Industrial Revolution.

I agree with you that the environment that enabled our phobia to socialism, no longer exists. That US health care should be nationalized, may not be economically optimal.

I thought you were being facetious about not understanding what I meant by the social cost of a state going bankrupt. From my perspective, private ethics and morals are a subjective externality that would be better considered from a more abstract perspective, if not shared.

I agree with you that my usage of socialism is not the standard usage of the word from a political science perspective. I tend to have a broader view of that word, because it helps in better understanding socioeconomic issues. I tend to view society as a form of socialism; especially, if there are any socially contracted obligations to be met by the various segments of any populace.

Perhaps, you can use a comparison for contrast in my usage of the word, socialism.

"The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement. People chose to use one or the other on the basis of perceived attitude to religion. In Europe, communism was considered to be the more atheistic of the two. In England, however, that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists.[2]"

Source: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am not sure I understand your position. In our (US) federal republic, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;" Are you implying that a global interstate would allow for direct democracy in economic decisions that will impact the public treasury?

I am of the opinion, that a Bill of Rights, can only be secured by the advantageous use statism; and the socialism (collective action of a society) that enables it. A bill of rights similar to that of the US, and an amendment based on the theory of nullification, would allow the several, sovereign states to decide what their public ethics and morals should be.

Which is why I keep requesting your view on the more normal rest of the third world, Why do you believe them to be anarco-capitalist? I am not aware of any information that would lead someone to that conclusion.




The world has not advanced to first world development. Portions of the world have.



We have a problem. THis is the exact opposite of what I thought you have been saying all along.


.

I did not say that. THe phobia has lessened but is still there, or I think health care would have already been socialized.

Again this is the opposite of what I thought you would say.


Not in this context. You are talking to me and I am not understanding you.




Interesting historical info, but I don't see how that leads to calling society socialism.



No, I am saying that the democratically elected world goverment would be dominated by the majority of the world that is not familar with the very important first world economies and would not be equipped to govern them effectively. Furthermore, this goverment would be dominated by people representing populations without the respect for individual freedoms that the I hold dear.

Collective action of a society is not socialism.


Any goverment will push it's boundries. This would be true of your world goverment. Effective control on goverment power is a rare and fragile thing. I do not see enough return here to justify the risk.

From what I have observed, the tourism does more good then evil on the long run, at least in Cuba. We are injecting a lot of money and a lot of Cubans are benefeciating from this. As we are allowed to go where we want, our spending is not controlled, it is not only the government who takes the money.

But more then that, the contact of cubans with the tourists is of great help for the fight for freedom there. They learn a lot from us and talk a lot too.

I truly believe that opening the doors to tourists in Cuba was the first step toward a governement change. Seems inevitable from the people I've talk too there.

Which part of the third world is socialist, in the 'traditional' sense of the word? I thought we already agreed that socialism's use of command economics is what enabled second world development. What about the non-state of Palestine? I could consider it a truer form of anarcho-capitalism, than a truer form of socialist command economy.

I was only referring to the environment that produced our ideological phobia to socialism, not the phobia itself. I am not sure that having socialized medicine is necessarily a phobia. From my perspective, it may not be more economically optimal than market based solutions.

If you simply want to debate my use of the word socialism; then here is my rational for using that word in the context I tend to use it in.

In my opinion, socialism is any public sector's (via statism) modus vivendi. Socialistic (a form of socialism resulting from the collective action of a society, and not just ownership of all means of production) tendencies are what allow a public sector use the collective action required for the coercive use of force, and confiscatory taxation as a means of revenue generation. As a basis for comparison, a true anarchy would have no basis for the level of socialism required for any form of statism to exist.

Are you implying that any form of federal republic can produce the concerns you describe? I am only advocating an interstate federal government. How did you reach your conclusion that such a government would be any worse that the US interstate government; especially, if there is also an amendment based on the theory of nullification?

I am of the opinion, that Cuba can improve the lot of its populace by command economizing its way to first world status; even if that requires more market friendly public policy. With an avowed goal of that type, I think the people would be more willing to cooperate with the public sector.

Mexico's goverment ownership of the oil industry, Venezuela's goverment ownership of the oil industry. For example.


Yes.


Again your pen chance for using states on the verge of collapse or civil war as representative of the third world. And to my understanding is that their economy,sounds more feudalistic than capitalist, with access to foriegn aid in place of protection from taxes or ownership of land.


Using that to justify calling all states socialist makes it very difficult to follow your logic. I am annoyed at the mistakes I have made in understanding your posts. The thinking of a socialist who openly supports world goverment might be interesting. Your personal language is not. No offense meant.

Yes. Are you implying otherwise?