I agree with you only from the consideration of convenience, and market friendliness. However, from a more abstract perspective, it would be an opportunity for a second world economy to command economize its way to first world standards.

I would question the US (as a first world superpower) policy of prohibiting free trade with a nearby country, merely for the sake of obsolete ideology.

[quote=danielpalos;868205]
Two points.

One, if the oil industry is the primary source of income for the nation then it is not an isolated instance, it is the center of the national economy, owned by the goverment. THus if the Hoover dam is a socialistic instance in the US, then a nation whose economy is dominated by a state owned industry would be socialist.

Two, I admitt I do not have specific details on much of the third world economies, but I have been under the impression that smaller, lower profile industries tend to be goverment owned also.


But in a democracy, which comes first the chicken or the egg? Or is the state in control or is it the tool of the will of the people?

But socialism is any social activity by your definition, so that means what?

Because the world has not moved beyond it. THe question of the level of goverment control of the economy is a current issue, example the continueing push for socialized medicine in the US.

But you have also said that Capitalism caused the industrial revolution in the first world nations. But I take it that Capitalism is a form of socialism in your mind? What point does that statement serve?


.

Yes they are. There is constant controversy over the struggle of the makeup of the Surpreme Court.

,

BUt we cannot assume that would be the case. If fact considering the level of hatred for the former colonial powers I suspect it would be very unlikely.


A unified world goverment would not lead to more freedom of movement?


What do you base this optimism on?


Well if you don't I probably do.

.

I don't think opening yourself up to investment by outside private interests is generally considered command economics. Not the lack of commanding that would be going on.



If both ideologies are still in use as the basis for governing, as they are in both countries then how are they obsolete?

I suppose we are only quibbling over degrees of socialism. That is why I tend to use socialism in the manner that I do. I was of the opinion, that no first or second world country could attain that level of development without some form of socialism. You are convincing me that even third world countries are advancing beyond truer forms of capitalism by implementing truer forms of socialism.

I view socialism, in the political sense of the word, as merely obsolete ideology fomented by advances in socialism. The political science definition of socialism is too narrow to be very useful, from a socioeconomic perspective.

What you consider socialized medicine, I would consider public sector interference in the market for health care. While I agree that the potential, scale economies of any public sector to artificially create markets, can be useful in the market for health care; it is debatable as to whether that level of public sector interference would be economically optimal for the US consumer base.

I said that truer forms of anarcho-capitalism are what enabled the Industrial Revolution. It is truer forms of 'traditional' socialism and social capitalism that have enabled the second and first world to achieve the standards of living that they have.

Why would a unified world federal government (with a hypothetical bill of rights) lead to less freedoms, in a world without current recourse to that form of statism?

I think any formal mechanism for nullifying the power of a federal interstate, would create a form of arbitrage for the consumers of that form of statism.

Do you also believe that the US would have been better off under the Articles of Confederation, instead of the current shining beacon (atop a metaphorical tower) of democracy?

I only meant our phobia to socialism that was induced by the advances brought about by socialism and the Cold War.

There is, in my opinion, no reason for Cuba to not command economize its way to first world status, by the advantageous use of social capitalism.

They have been socialistic since their liberation from imperalism. The nations that are advancing are doing so because of trade, such as South Korea, Tawain, China.


It is a popular ideology that is argueably dominate in the world today. How is that obsolete?

Bull. It is narrow only in the sense that it actually defines something, instead of being applicable to whatever the subject at hand is, which is what you do.


THat is because you believe any market is socialistic, which is an example of how your terminology is senseless. If you call all markets socialism the only "benifit" from that is the it makes it more difficult to talk about comparing differant markets. Why you do this I don't know.


"Anarcho-capitalism"? Such as in Palestine and Mogadishu? Explain the similarities between these two examples of "anarcho-capitalism" (your examples) and 19th century America, that justify assigning them the same type of economy.

And since the first world has left the second world so far behind we have to conclude that capitalism is superiour to socialism.

YOu have stated that you believe that this goverment would be democratic. Most cultures in the world today have less personal freedoms than the US. THus any world goverment would almost certainly be a compromise between these differing levels. Which would mean the US citizens would be given up freedoms to become members of this state.

Most likely example. I see no reason to believe that the right to keep and bear arms would survive in a socialistic world state.

You are doing it again. The whole restating thing. Where I rasie a question and your "answer" is to just restate what you originally said. Are you trying to trick me into believing that you won the debate while I wasn't looking?

I mean there is nothing in there that addresses the concerns I raised, nothing.


Not a real expert on the Aricles, never really questioned the conventional wisdom that they were to loose to be the basis for an effective goverment. The concept is that a goverment needs a certain amount of power to fullfill it's responsiblities.

THis statement makes no sense. Our phobia to socialism was based on the fact that socialism was an attack on our way of life, and attempted to redine the basis of history and politics in ways detremental to the US. The phobia was alive and well before the Cold War.


Yes, your blind faith in command economics has been noted. I think if you were to talk to Castro back in begining of his revolution he would have totally agreed with you and predicted that that would happen. If you talked to him today about it, I think he would have a lot of excuses, or just have you killed. Command economics has failed in Cuba. Opening up to foriegn investmets and US tourism could work.

Defining themselves as enemies of the US was maddness.

Are you implying that there was no trade under truer forms of socialism? Or, was it simply less efficient trade due to a greater usage of command economics that had insufficient basis in economics?

I mean, the need for the ideology is obsolete. With the benefit of several decades of hindsight, I am not sure there was any need for the former communist bloc to have collaborated with the rhetoric of the West. From my understanding of those regimes, they were only prepared to wage local wars of defense, not several offensive theaters, as was the West.

The reason I use it the way I do, is simply to illustrate the obsolescence of that ideology. Only truer forms of AnCap would not need truer forms of socialism. All second and first world economies would not exist without the use of socialism. Why do you continue to use the political science definition of socialism, if the environment that produced that definition, is no longer adequate? Are you recycling it for your own ideology?

I am not sure how you reached your conclusion about not having different means of describing markets. From one perspective, it is only the ratio of command economics to market economics that separates, truer forms of socialism from truer forms of capitalism. Only a true anarchy would have no basis for command economics; and, even true socialism would require some market economics ((due to the socialism requirement of any (market recognizable) social transaction to occur)).

There is no reason for not having an "Industrial Revolution" in Mogadishu or Palestine, other than a lack of capital. In much the same manner, there is no reason for any command economy to not command economize its way to first world development.

Market economics will always be more efficient at the microeconomic level than command economics.

I don't share your pessimism about an oppressive, world federal government; especially, if it is provided with a Bill of Rights and an amendment based on the theory of nullification (as a form of states' rights.) How can I argue with someone about freedom, if they insist a Bill of Rights means nothing?

I agree with your assessment of obsolete ideology in modern times. The US also collaborates with that ideology for no commercial (market based) purpose.

Number two.

Why?

So you blame the Cold War on the West even through it is communism which is an ideology that calls for world conquest as it's ultimate goal?


Really? Are you sure it is not a way to isolate yourself? Because it seems designed to do that.

When I say socialism people know what I am talking about. THat enables my goal of communicating.

But in this context you would call both of the markets under the "truer form of socialism and the market under the truer form of capitalism" socialistic.


I did not ask for the differances! You are the one who defines Magadishu, Palestine and the 18th century America as "anarcho-capitalist". That means that they must have economic similarities, and I would like for you to explain this to me to demostrate the truth of your view, if it is true.

Except that it never seems to work.



THen why not limit command economics?

You could provide me with information that attacks my view that there is not a worldwide cultural support for constitutional limits on goverment power. If any such information could be found.

Do you blame the former Communist bloc for the West's attempt to spread the ideology of democracy to sovereign states that may not want it?

Not really, I don't think that my view of socialism isolates me. I understand that the current ideological view of socialism is not very helpful in understanding political science issues, from a socioeconomic perspective. That is probably why I provide a context for my usage of that word.

That, I call most second and first world forms of statism socialistic (use socialism), comes from the fact that market recognizable social transactions, are by nature, socialistic.

I am trying to keep our discussion simple. No one, would consider the current non-state of Mogadishu, a socialist economy, in the traditional sense of the word. In the same manner, the Palestinian territories, are an AnCap, due to the technicality of lack of formal statism. From one perspective, there is sufficient anarchy (in the form of a lack of formal statism) in both non-states to enable forms of capitalism that could be considered similar to the US (in that there was a lot less government intervention than there is now); to enable any capitalist, with sufficient capital; to establish a basis for a form of "Industrial Revolution". This may be a bit of a stretch, but considering that all it takes is capital to launch an enterprise in those non-states, why would you believe that any private sector ventures could not achieve some form of "Industrial Revolution", similar to those that occurred in the West, when capitalists were able to spend their capital in more of a manner of their choosing?

Most of the first world, does place limits on their forms of statism, that have the effect, of limiting command economics. From my socioeconomic perspective, optimization of the ratio of market to command economics, is what can enable development beyond our current, first world level.

There was no world wide cultural support for a nascent US, either. It was, primarily, the fact the Great Britain was at war with most of Europe that allowed the US to accomplish its independence from a major world power of the time.

Actually yes. WIthout the threat of spreading communism/socialism after WWII I think that the West would not of had any of the realpolitic reasons for spreading democracy.

You use your terminology as though it is the norm, and only explain it after repeated requests. Context?




Which is not true and has the effect of masking the fact that you are discussing differant forms of markets.

If your view on this were correct, then it should be occurring. But it is not.

THat is because all goverments are not socialist. The goverment of 18th century America was not socialist, but was strong enough to provide a safe investment enviroment with protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts.

Any investments in Palestine or Mogadishu would be subject to having their property taken by one methode or another by those with military or political power. Also any contracts made could be ignored by those with political connections.

Your view of all goverments and markets as socialist creates a false and simplistic spectrum of goverment and anarchy ignoring the importance of the type of goverment and the type of market.



And considering how effective that has been, compared to the second and third worlds, it suggests that the way forward is to lessen the socialistic aspects of the first world economies, while maintaining private property rights and enforcement of contracts.


I suggest that you could try to defend your support of a constitutionally limited world goverment by providing information that attacks my view that consitutional limits on goverment power are not widely supported throughout the various cultures of the world. So you make an analogy between that and
the point that there was not wide spread support for the American Revolution.


THIs does not provide the information I suggested. It does show that things can be accomplished without widespread global support.

However the wide differance between the winning of a war and the generations long safeguarding of a constitution is so great that this does not strike me as a good example. Do you have anything more relevant?

With the benefit of hindsight, I am of the opinion that spreading the ideology of communism or democracy, through the coercive use of statism, is a less effective use of resources. How many "Hoover Dams" could have been built, instead?

I didn't think it would be much of a problem using the socialism in the manner that I do, seeing as the word socialism shares the same root as social, society, sociology, socioeconomics, etc. From my perspective, socialism is merely some form of "social-ness"; and, is required for any form of social transaction to occur.

The only reason there is insufficient "Industrial Revolutionizing" in the non-states we are discussing, is because there is an excessive amount of anarchy. If there were sufficient domestic tranquility, would you still have the same opinion? Consider the example of Mogadishu (as a truer form of AnCap); if there were sufficient domestic tranquility, what would stop any capitalist, with sufficient capital, from establishing any venture they desire?

It depends on what you mean by lessening the socialistic aspects of first world economies. In my opinion, the space race was the result of socialism. From a purely market perspective, there was no basis to undertake a business venture that will not generate a profit. Public sector ventures that produces our Hoover Dam would not exist, if not for the advantageous use of socialistic concepts (probably borrowed from traditional socialist economies.)

There is currently no reason for any private sector entity to not manufacture a UN class public transportation system that spans the globe; except for a profit motive. I am of the opinion, that a better division of labor, would be to let the public sector administer public goods of that scale.

What is your opinion of a Bill of Rights and an amendment based on the theory of nullification? Any state could have recourse to a UN tenth amendment and a formal recourse of nullification of federal authority to intrude in sovereign state matters. It could take several generations to erode that type social contract.

Have you really considered this? Have asked "What is the cost of being conquered?, what is the cost of being oppressed, what is the cost of being exucuted as a counterrevolutionary? what is the cost of the death of freedom?"


I have never in my entire life heard anyone else use words like this. And I talk a lot. And I am not young.


Did you read my post? I dealt with that point.

The answer to that was the primary point of my previous post. Are you just jerking my chain?


THat is because in a non-socialistic goverment the primary source of revenue is taxes, thus market perspective is a small percentage of motivation for goverment programes. THe space programe had military and political motivations.


Ever hear of Rome? THey were big on goverment projects, roads, stadiums, aqueducts, ect. NOt that they invented the idea. I know Athens built a wall that did not make money as a tourist attraction. It was to provide defense.

THat is a pretty good reason.


Is there a need for global public transportation? What are you talking about?



Ha! So you admitt that erosion of a social contract can occurr!

Now explain why you believe it would take generations.

Secondly, generations is not good enough. I want my descendants to live in freedom for millennia.

I thought it was the US who refused the regime in place in Cuba.

Anyway, it is marvelous not to have those thousands of american tourists in such a beautiful place so near of the continent, when, as a Canadian, you can go there and apreciate the cleanliness and quietness of the place.

But it's only an egocentric view....

</