Sen on the future of capitalism

[Oexmelin]

What are those objective laws of reality ?

[I Killed Kenny]

What are those objective laws of reality ?

People want more

[Oexmelin]

Want more what ?

[I Killed Kenny]

Want more what ?

If a person has 1 he will want 1, if he has 2 and his neighbour has 3 he will want 4... etc...

[Evil Spock]

What are those objective laws of reality ?

In a nutshell if you want something you have to work for it. Whether you are an anteater looking for his next meal or a day labourer working towards a down payment on a house you have to exchange effort for your reward. Socialism advocates transfer of wealth from the earned to the non-earned, in effect it is subsidizing a zero. It is in opposition to cause and effect, to reason and thus to reality.

[Oexmelin]

That's a somewhat limited view of the human experience. Mankind has always lived in society (or groupings or polity, whatever you prefer) meaning that you always had people who were taken care of, people who banded together to «earn» their collective living, people who shared things freely, etc. The extent of what «earning a living» meant also varied considerably depending on the type of social structure or polity that existed, just as the nature of what could be considered exchangeable is also under considerable variation. I don't think any of this falls into «objective reality».

[Fate]

Want more what ?

If a person has 1 he will want 1, if he has 2 and his neighbour has 3 he will want 4... etc...

Octo-mom has 14 children. I don't want 15.

[Evil Spock]

I don't advocate the abolition of charity, simply of redistribution of wealth by means of force. That is what socialism denies: volitional choice. It teaches that an individual 'owes' society without ever defining what that really means: everyone except you is entitled to your work. Inferiority becomes a claim on the productive ability of others and the masses vote themselves the content of the treasury which itself was appropriated by force. Force becomes the only arbiter of wealth, innovation and production become vices rather than virtues.

[garbon]

you always had people who were taken care of, people who banded together to «earn» their collective living, people who shared things freely, etc.

Has this been "successful" on a large scale, or was it always on a more micro/local level?

[Fate]

you always had people who were taken care of, people who banded together to «earn» their collective living, people who shared things freely, etc.

Has this been "successful" on a large scale, or was it always on a more micro/local level?

Yes. In America it's called social security.

[Warspite]

What are those objective laws of reality ?

In a nutshell if you want something you have to work for it. Whether you are an anteater looking for his next meal or a day labourer working towards a down payment on a house you have to exchange effort for your reward. Socialism advocates transfer of wealth from the earned to the non-earned, in effect it is subsidizing a zero. It is in opposition to cause and effect, to reason and thus to reality.

Socialism advocated from each according to ability. And it, as a system, did not collapse because of lazy workers. Neither have kibbutzim.

Further, I would be interested to see what your 'objective laws' have to say about those who can live a life of unimaginable luxury without having worked a day in their life.

[Evil Spock]

Socialism advocated from each according to ability. And it, as a system, did not collapse because of lazy workers. Neither have kibbutzim.

Further, I would be interested to see what your 'objective laws' have to say about those who can live a life of unimaginable luxury without having worked a day in their life.

That is the monstrous reality of socialism : each according to his ability, each according to his need

Who defines ability? By what standard?
Who defines need? By what standard?

This creates a situation where those with ability hide it, and those with a 'need' wear it on their sleeves. Witness: our increasingly whiny civilization of entitlement growing today. A system built around 'man is his brother's keeper' will wind up with a lot of Caine and Abels.

As to inheritance, property passing down from one to another is no concern to anyone except the owner and the recipient. Such monies may sustain a life of sedentary pleasure for many years but it will not last forever.

[garbon]

Further, I would be interested to see what your 'objective laws' have to say about those who can live a life of unimaginable luxury without having worked a day in their life.

I thought about that and then realized that there are probably fewer of said people under capitalism than the number of "lazies" under socialism.

[garbon]

Yes. In America it's called social security.

One program that doesn't really provide an adequate amount of money to survive on?

[KRonn]

Never mind that Capitalism isn't at fault for the crisis of the moment. Dodgy mortgages and other bad lending \= Capitalism. The heroes of socialism and mixed economies see their chance at the brass ring and they are going to go for it.

This is true and quite sad.

Agreed.