Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Economic/Political models

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,315
    There was never an idealistic phase of Soviet Communism, apart from the poor deluded souls they referred to as “useful idiots”. From the time the Germans snuck Lenin into Russia as a sort of ideological disease vector, the Soviet state and it’s short-lived empire operated on treachery, murder and lies.

    The people who complain about “unfettered capitalism” should consider how how life might be after the fetters are clamped on.

  2. #12
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    12,809
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    True--I love utopia/dystopia sci-fi books.



    From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
    According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,[4] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state capitalism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[5] Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[6]




    I am also reading more about anarchism in all its different flavors. I'm not opposed to it.
    But catherine, who/what entity distributes the property that everyone has a fundamental right to own? It has to be the state, the gubmnt, right?

    How is taking bae’s forest and vineyards and Commercial buildings away from him to give to Rob not taking from the rich and giving to those without? It is land not money, but not much difference if land is the means of production.
    Last edited by iris lilies; 7-11-18 at 11:37am.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,540
    I think capitalism and representative democracy are just fine in a restricted or more pure form. People have been looking for ways to play the system for so long, maybe centuries, that it has gotten out of control.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,315
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    But catherine, who/what entity distributes the property that everyone has a fundamental right to own? It has to be the state, the gubmnt, right?
    And somebody has to run the government, right? You know, to protect the people too dumb to know their own best interests.

    If you ask most people if they would sacrifice one of their children for the sake of ten other people’s children, you get a better understanding of why the collective model ultimately requires coercion even if it looks good on paper.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    351
    More and more I'm starting to believe that anarchism is the future, but mainly because humanity continues to rush headlong toward the climate cliff with no sign of slowing down. Governments around the world are proving remarkably impotent in dealing with the problem.

    There will be two poles of anarchistic societies, ranging from relatively peaceful communities (who will nonetheless need to protect themselves) to Mad Max-style dystopias ruled by gangster warlords. Likely with many variations in between.

    There are some folks trying to get a head start on the former type of community. They are called Transition Towns.

  6. #16
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,655
    I think the best economic system is no economic system. This may sound funny, but it’s true. Ask yourself this question: “What is the best friendship system?” There is no ‘friendship system’ so we are free to choose who we wish to be friends with, as long as they wish to be our friend.

    Economics deals with the exchange of goods and services. As long as this is done in an informed and voluntarily manner, it is no one else’s business. (As long as this causes no harm to others). This is best called ‘free-market economics’ because this term best expresses this economic philosophy. But it really just means you and someone else can do business as you wish, as long as no one is harmed in the process. Some people use the term ‘capitalism’ to mean free-market economics, but this is really improper usage. ‘Capitalism’ was a term used by Karl Marx, who used it pejoratively, and we know how Marxism turned out.

    Any sustainable government must protect its citizens’ right to be free (as long as they don’t violate the freedom of others). Friendship, religious beliefs, speech, and economics, among many other things, are activities in a free country that all citizens have a right to express or participate in as they see fit.

    I do understand the desire to have government provide certain subsidies to individuals (voters), such as educational vouchers, and medical vouchers, but these don’t stop us from having free economic markets. The only way to change the free market is through force, and that never works out in the long run.

    So let me repeat my first sentence: The best economic system is no economic system.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,853
    the best friendship system is having no friends. maybe ... and in the same way the best economic system is ... that guy who lives in a cave.
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,540
    Alan, in your "no economic system" how do you see businesses or startup enterprise acquiring capital? Would there be banks or a form of lending institutions, corporations, venture capital, or stock markets? Other issues aside, I have thought of the Colorado marijuana system of operation as having some advantage of excluding federally governed financial institutions due to legal issues. I don't expect it to last long, but so far it has encouraged small business entrepreneurs and mom and pop operations, and within some limits excluded big money mega corporations that need the stock market and/or a federal banking network. Whether it is pot or other products, I've seen some positive things about this, just as an alternative business model..
    Last edited by Rogar; 7-10-18 at 6:57pm.

  9. #19
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VT/NJ
    Posts
    8,235
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    But catherine, who/what entity distributes the property that everyone has a fundamental right to own? It has to be the state, the gubmnt, right?

    How is taking bae’s forest and vineyards and. Ommercial buildings away from him to give to Robb not taling from the rich and giving to those without? It is land not money, but not much diff is land is the means of production.
    No, IL, personal property is not handed out like beads off a Mardi Gras float--beads swiped from your neck or Alan's or bae's.

    Private property, from what I understand, would be bought and sold just the way it is today. But rather than getting your mortgage from Chase or Wells Fargo, it would be from a local lender like George Bailey. Distributism seeks to empower people at all levels of society to be creative and free because it's social order from the bottom up. It prioritizes the freedoms of small communities over state-run bureaucracies. In a distributes society, workers would share in the production as well as the capital--so there would be more worker co-ops and private industry.

    the distributists were not advocating the redistribution of “wealth” per se, though they believed that this would be one of the results of distributism. Instead, and the difference is crucial, they were advocating the redistribution of the means of production to as many people as possible. Belloc and the distributists drew the vital connection between the freedom of labor and its relationship with the other factors of production—i.e., land, capital, and the entrepreneurial spirit. The more that labor is divorced from the other factors of production the more it is enslaved to the will of powers beyond its control. In an ideal world every man would own the land on which, and the tools with which, he worked. In an ideal world he would control his own destiny by having control over the means to his livelihood. For Belloc, this was the most important economic freedom, the freedom beside which all other economic freedoms are relatively trivial. If a man has this freedom he will not so easily succumb to encroachments upon his other freedoms.


    Believe me, I'm no expert, but I think it's an interesting alternative.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    5,117
    Catherine, this is so interesting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •