Fail Quotes

[AnCap Dave]

I always find it funny when people think markets require government in order to even exist, let alone function.

Markets are HEAVILY influenced by government. You can't have one type of market and another type of government. You can have a government that interferes/influences the markets more or less. Even a black market (the most pure form of capitalism) is still influenced by government policy.

[AnCap Dave]

Oh good, another one of these "WE NEED TO COMBINE THE TWO" peons.

In a perfect socialism, everyone works for the betterment of the group, and in doing so everyone benefits. It emerges naturally in small groups, but often breaks apart in larger groups. I've watched it succeed many times in MMOs in small guilds (or whatever the game calls it): the fact that everyone is willing to put everything they have into the guild means the guild has that many more resources, and everyone benefits.

The problem is that it only takes a couple people acting to further their own interests at the cost of the group to bring it down, which means that in most large socialist groups (including all countries), some form of coercion is needed.

In a perfect capitalism, each person acts in their own self interest with full knowledge of their choices, and the benefits and costs thereof. The idea of this is that each person knows what is best for them, and so by having everyone do what is best for them, what emerges is what is best for everyone.

Unfortunately, there is mathematical indications that a perfect capitalism is mathematically impossible: even if a person had perfect knowledge of all of their choices, they can't make sense of all of them. Which means that in any capitalism, there is room for people to hide information from others, and in doing so gain an advantage.

The ideal system is a mix of the two, where people as a group decide what is best for them as a group: what criteria they will use to make decisions, and then provide for experts that make decisions based on those criteria. This isn't quite the system that most developed countries use: we choose people to make decisions rather that criteria by which decisions are made, but it works well enough.

Sorry folks, "compromise" may be a nice sounding word, but that doesn't mean it's always the best or morally right thing to do.

[AnCap Dave]

Oh this just got better.

Apparently, he didn't take too kindly that I don't like the idea of others determining what is best for me.

Really Dave? There is no group you identify with that you would do something for, even at your own expense, and fuck everyone who does?

Fine. Fuck the military, and them risking their lives for others. Fuck the police, and the firefighters, who risk their lives for others. Fuck everyone who was ever kind to you without some ulterior motive. Fuck them all. Fuck every politician who ever was: whether or not you voted for them, because they were making decisions for you. Fuck your parents, and their parents, and every parent, who makes choices for their children.

Sorry, but I can't do that. If each person lived according to what was best for them, and only them, we'd have killed ourselves off a long time ago. And if we each tried to make every decision for ourselves, we'd go crazy. We'd be so busy making decisions we couldn't DO anything.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Am I the only one who would like to see what would happen to this country if for just one or two weeks all of the caucasian, heterosexual men weren't allowed to voice an opinion on anything pertaining to government?

Isn't it funny that those call for tolerance are just as intolerant?

[Travis Retriever]

Isn't it funny that those call for tolerance are just as intolerant?

@OP you quoted:  Classy dude...really classy.

[MrBogosity]

Too many to quote, but there are people all over the Internet calling Steven Moffat sexist (yet again) for the line in the Doctor Who finale, "Surrender your women and intellectuals." For crying out loud, people, this was said by a fucking SONTARAN!!! So, what, a writer is sexist unless he makes Sontarans progressive???

[evensgrey]

Too many to quote, but there are people all over the Internet calling Steven Moffat sexist (yet again) for the line in the Doctor Who finale, "Surrender your women and intellectuals." For crying out loud, people, this was said by a fucking SONTARAN!!! So, what, a writer is sexist unless he makes Sontarans progressive???

Never mind that the character is quite firmly established to be so gender-blind that he invariably calls young women 'boy'.

[tnu]

Good grief man. By the time there is a revolution and socialist government has superseded the Capitalist one there won't be a need for you to employ anyone. The Socialist government will ensure that the worker's needs are met and that's something Capitalists have never given a shit about.

I'm tempted ot ask him HOW Socialism would do this exactly. but i'm not quite sure how to best frame the question.

[evensgrey]

Good grief man. By the time there is a revolution and socialist government has superseded the Capitalist one there won't be a need for you to employ anyone. The Socialist government will ensure that the worker's needs are met and that's something Capitalists have never given a shit about.

I'm tempted ot ask him HOW Socialism would do this exactly. but i'm not quite sure how to best frame the question.

Somewhere in the response needs to be the question of precisely how Capitalists (who, definitionally, do not coerce people into giving them money) convince people to give them money other than in exchange for things that they want.

[Ibrahim90]

Good grief man. By the time there is a revolution and socialist government has superseded the Capitalist one there won't be a need for you to employ anyone.

how is that possible? there will always be a need to employ people to work under other people. society demands it. expediency imposes it. it is inevitable.

sheesh, I sound like a reaper saying this...either way, this is dumb.

The Socialist government will ensure that the worker's needs are met and that's something Capitalists have never given a shit about.

assuming that the second part is even true (it is not--reasons are beyond the scope of the main point), how will you achieve this? you have to consider three things:

1-there are limited resources
2-people naturally align themselves both vertically and horizontally (i.e. competition is inevitable).
3-what would be the ideal standard of living. do you want a house, two cars, and a television for everyone, or a small hut and uniform for everyone?

this in itself creates this set of questions:

1-what do you define is the ideal condition? what is "poor"? "rich"? what is adequate? is adequate $400 a year? 4,000? a million?
2-how will you control the natural desire people have for social and financial domination?
3-how will you control competition?
4-how will you account for comparative advantage? some places it makes sense for people to have one thing, yet people elsewhere will not have it. how can you possibly equalize, if this is there as a problem?
5-how will you create efficient companies that can churn up a profit? you need profits to: a-pay your workers better, and b-employ more workers, and c-most importantly, to perpetuate the survival and growth of the company or industry.
6-how can you predict the ideal levels of a given group of workers in a society? as in the number of doctors, geologists, engineers, etc? and how can you keep track with how technology and social change demand changes in the levels and numbers of these?
7-how will a central agency maintain quality for so many industries?
8-and most importantly: how do you do this without punishing people of merit, and rewarding the lazy? we all know what happened in the great leap forward, and in Stalin's programs--which in effect did the same thing.


you could ask him all that tnu. I'd like to hear an answer.

because from where I'm standing, the free market is clearly the best way to provide the best conditions for everyone. but by definition, it must mean that some will be poor, and other rich. but all will be better off than if no one is rich, and all are poor.

[AnCap Dave]

[tnu]

how is that possible? there will always be a need to employ people to work under other people. society demands it. expediency imposes it. it is inevitable.

sheesh, I sound like a reaper saying this...either way, this is dumb.


assuming that the second part is even true (it is not--reasons are beyond the scope of the main point), how will you achieve this? you have to consider three things:

1-there are limited resources
2-people naturally align themselves both vertically and horizontally (i.e. competition is inevitable).
3-what would be the ideal standard of living. do you want a house, two cars, and a television for everyone, or a small hut and uniform for everyone?

this in itself creates this set of questions:

1-what do you define is the ideal condition? what is "poor"? "rich"? what is adequate? is adequate $400 a year? 4,000? a million?
2-how will you control the natural desire people have for social and financial domination?
3-how will you control competition?
4-how will you account for comparative advantage? some places it makes sense for people to have one thing, yet people elsewhere will not have it. how can you possibly equalize, if this is there as a problem?
5-how will you create efficient companies that can churn up a profit? you need profits to: a-pay your workers better, and b-employ more workers, and c-most importantly, to perpetuate the survival and growth of the company or industry.
6-how can you predict the ideal levels of a given group of workers in a society? as in the number of doctors, geologists, engineers, etc? and how can you keep track with how technology and social change demand changes in the levels and numbers of these?
7-how will a central agency maintain quality for so many industries?
8-and most importantly: how do you do this without punishing people of merit, and rewarding the lazy? we all know what happened in the great leap forward, and in Stalin's programs--which in effect did the same thing.


you could ask him all that tnu. I'd like to hear an answer.

because from where I'm standing, the free market is clearly the best way to provide the best conditions for everyone. but by definition, it must mean that some will be poor, and other rich. but all will be better off than if no one is rich, and all are poor.

I would disagree with you on two points. One the natural human urge to dominate and such. I'm skeptical of any claims of "human nature"  My other bit of disagreement is the whole first part. your not acocunting for the existance of Horizantal firms it seems.

[BlameThe1st]

If each person lived according to what was best for them, and only them, we'd have killed ourselves off a long time ago. And if we each tried to make every decision for ourselves, we'd go crazy. We'd be so busy making decisions we couldn't DO anything.

Sweet Celestia! It's like some people have no problem with the idea of being slaves. Making decisions for yourself is evil. Having other people think for you it's good. These people just want to be controlled, don't they?

[AnCap Dave]

Sweet Celestia! It's like some people have no problem with the idea of being slaves. Making decisions for yourself is evil. Having other people think for you it's good. These people just want to be controlled, don't they?

Thinking for yourself is just too difficult.

[Ibrahim90]

I would disagree with you on two points. One the natural human urge to dominate and such. I'm skeptical of any claims of "human nature"  My other bit of disagreement is the whole first part. your not acocunting for the existance of Horizantal firms it seems.

on the first point I will partly concede, especially about the "claim" here, but I have to say that it is still the case for at least small segment of the population--whether it would be because of their upbringing or experience. I dunno: I lot of my opinions I have to admit are based on what I see--especially considering that people differ on the individual level. I go around and see what I describe, feeling that it can be channeled in a positive way. It's partly why I don't like govco, but I am digressing at this point.

the second part? I'll level with you, I wasn't thinking about that. mea culpa.