[Someone5]

As the Soviet 10 year (and other numbers) plans clearly shows, managed economies do not function effectively or efficiently. To me, the only involvement that the government should have in the economy is the maintenance of a system in which the free market can flourish. That means do not over-regulate and do not socially engineer through the use of the tax codes and certainly do not disencentivize the quest for profit. Yes, stop "cheating" while remembering that turning a profit in and of itself is not "cheating".

The United States in the exact same period operated under a very tightly managed economy as well, and performed far above expectations. It was simply managed by a mixture of large corporate decisionmakers and state planners. There is very little about the US or European economies--both of which function relatively effectively--that is not managed.

Though I would point out that the Soviet policies of forced industrialization worked relatively well. No other society has ever managed industrialization within a single generation; it's not like the Soviet Union started on even remotely the same economic footing that the US was at in 1917. The fact that they were able to make a credible attempt at being a global competitor by 1946--after having been ravaged by two world wars and a long period of civil war--is itself an impressive feat of economic planning.

I mean, the Soviet Union of 1917 was a mostly agrarian country that was undergoing a violent revolution in the midst of a devastating world war--and within 30 years they had industrialized to the point where they were a credible global power that was playing geopolitics with the United States and western Europe. That would be like... well, a bit like Somalia becoming a major world power that was making threats against the US, EU, and China by 2040.

How you can really describe that as a failure of state planning is a mystery. To be sure, the Soviet economy had a lot of problems (like, for example, not producing enough food to feed its people), but that was mainly because the Soviet government at the time (I.E. Stalin) just didn't care about the problem.

[ray188]

Well 5, there is no question but that we have traveled far too far down the Soviet road. But, I dispute that we are quite there yet. For example, when I go out to by a car, I have many, many choices - not so in the old Soviet Union. I will get a better better car due to the fact that car manufacturers develop consider the wants of the consumer in redesigning their products.

"Though I would point out that the Soviet policies of forced industrialization worked relatively well".
I suppose if you can line up all the people and they will do exactly as they are told under threat of death there will be a certain degree of "progress". But there are two problems with that approach. First, the "progress"can only go so far with fear as the sole motivator. Secondly - do you really want to live under such a system? I certainly don't.

As a final thought I would opine that "not producing enough food to feed its people" is a bit of a "show stopper" to me.

Thanks, but no thanks - I'll stick with Adam Smith and the invisible hand as an effective system that creates the most product for the most people and all the quality of life that such an approach provides.

[Someone5]

Well 5, there is no question but that we have traveled far too far down the Soviet road. But, I dispute that we are quite there yet. For example, when I go out to by a car, I have many, many choices - not so in the old Soviet Union. I will get a better better car due to the fact that car manufacturers develop consider the wants of the consumer in redesigning their products.

Though, of course, the Soviet model was far superior to the previous model, where no cars of any sort were being produced. Which ultimately is what one ought to consider when trying to understand their rationale.

I suppose if you can line up all the people and they will do exactly as they are told under threat of death there will be a certain degree of "progress". But there are two problems with that approach. First, the "progress"can only go so far with fear as the sole motivator. Secondly - do you really want to live under such a system? I certainly don't.

... the Soviet system was not appreciably more vicious or cruel than the tsarist system it replaced. Given a choice between a feudal tsarist system and the Soviet Union's state capitalist system, I would take the state capitalist system. At least that produces material benefits to go along with the fear and degradation.

As a final thought I would opine that "not producing enough food to feed its people" is a bit of a "show stopper" to me.

To be fair, they were not producing enough food before the revolution either.

Thanks, but no thanks - I'll stick with Adam Smith and the invisible hand as an effective system that creates the most product for the most people and all the quality of life that such an approach provides.

"Adam Smith's Invisible Hand" has never been the foundation of any economic system anywhere in the world.

[ray188]

O.K. I'll stipulate that life under the Stalinists might be considered better than life under the Tsars. But, isn't there a better model out there? - ours for instance.

The concepts offered by Adam Smith were as an alternative to the existing system of the time which was controlled by the government and the guilds (sound familiar?). In Smith's concept, the markets were to be controlled by a balance between the consumer and the producer. Has that system ever been completely instituted? - probably not. But that does not lessen its potential value, nor does it lessen it's value even when partially instituted.

We talk about "capitalism" and the "free market". I do believe that Adam Smith's basic model can be found in those concepts. And, "yes", neither has been completely realized. But it is the degree to which we approach one extreme or the other that determines our position on the economic continuum. Obviously, my 'druthers would lean towards Brother Adams.

[Someone5]

O.K. I'll stipulate that life under the Stalinists might be considered better than life under the Tsars. But, isn't there a better model out there?

Yes, libertarian socialism--anarchism, if you'd prefer. But that's not really relevant to consideration of the Soviet Union or why Soviet subjects might have considered it a defensible system. Anarchism was no more a likely course for the Soviets after Lenin than it is for the United States today.

ours for instance.

The Soviets never imprisoned as many people as we do today--we really do hold an astounding record on that count. I'm not aware of any other society that has ever kept over 1% of the population in prison at any one time. Perhaps they did kill more in their purges under Stalin, though that is a somewhat debatable point given the rather large body count we've instigated in the "third world" in the process of feeding our own system. I suppose it can be said that the Soviet did directly kill more of their political opponents than we do--we simply have more refined methods of utterly destroying our opponents.

At a very basic level, our state capitalist system isn't too terribly different from the Soviet system. While we do have more respect for the trivial rights--for example, we allow people to engage in futile and meaningless personal dissent through personal speech--we given no greater emphasis to the important aspects of life, like assuring adequate distribution of economic benefits, allowing people to engage in meaningful political dissent through organized opposition parties, or even to allow the general public to live their lives without needless government observation and harassment.

We did have more material possessions than the Soviets did, but that's to be expected from a comparison where one party didn't get destroyed by two world wars and had a hundred year head start on the other when it came to industrial development. From a material standpoint, sure we had them beat... but that's rather like an adult in the middle of his career insulting the fresh young college student for having a smaller bank account and a less expensive house.

You can say that we have a substantially better system when perhaps our jails are not so crowded, or surveillance cameras substantially less common. When perhaps we stop murdering tens or hundreds of thousands of people in the third world and sweeping it up under the rug with a docile and complicit media. You would not be so quick to say that our system is so much better than the Soviets were you to be subjected to a no-knock 3 AM drug raid, or lengthy imprisonment without being provided any form of legal defense.

The American system is perhaps better for the privileged and wealthy; not so for those without. Neither system is an admirable system; but the Soviet system made as much sense for them at the time as ours does for us now. And our own system will no doubt be as indefensible and incomprehensible to the future generation of socialists as the old Soviet system is to you today. Our system is certainly brutal enough to raise questions.

The concepts offered by Adam Smith were as an alternative to the existing system of the time which was controlled by the government and the guilds (sound familiar?). In Smith's concept, the markets were to be controlled by a balance between the consumer and the producer. Has that system ever been completely instituted? - probably not. But that does not lessen its potential value, nor does it lessen it's value even when partially instituted.

It's never even been partially instituted. In all cases capitalist states have relied on heavy management and control by states and authoritarian corporate structures. Fundamentally the only real difference between the Soviet system and the post-war American system was that the Soviets preferred state bureaucracies and the US preferred corporate bureaucracies. Both structures are quite authoritarian, though admittedly the US government has less concern over trivial freedoms (like free speech) than the Soviets did. Not that the US system is any less controlling; it is simply a more refined system that uses somewhat less violence (though given our justice system and the war on drugs, this might be a debatable point) and more indirect coercion.

We talk about "capitalism" and the "free market". I do believe that Adam Smith's basic model can be found in those concepts.

Mercantilism is a type of capitalism; it is simply a different perspective on trade between capitalist states. Smith's Wealth of Nations is a critique of mercantilism, not an outline for capitalism. Capitalism is rooted in two basic concepts;

1) Labor is 'free', meaning that each laborer is (theoretically, though not practically) at liberty to rent his labor to the highest bidder. This differs from the previous feudal system, where serfs were only able to work at jobs allowed by their noble elites.
2) Capital is privately held, meaning that individuals can own the means of production. This differs from the previous feudal system, where the nobility was granted charge over land (which was the only sort of capital) by higher authorities (at the top being God, who was said to divest authority to kings, emperors, etc--of course, in reality, this was just a legitimizing myth...).

Notions about markets, supply and demand, etc, are all derivative of these more basic concepts. Indeed, Adam Smith is the source of many of these legitimizing concepts, but that is not the basic origin of capitalism. That's just an origin for how certain aspects of capitalism are described, and are part of the groundwork that Adam Smith lays for his more pressing argument that mercantilism is a suboptimal viewpoint on capitalism.

Note; you can have capitalism without markets. They're not a fundamental requirement for capitalism. The "invisible hand" working within unregulated markets is an ideological goal; not an essential requirement of capitalism.

And, "yes", neither has been completely realized. But it is the degree to which we approach one extreme or the other that determines our position on the economic continuum. Obviously, my 'druthers would lean towards Brother Adams.

I'm not even talking complete realization--I'm saying that no state has ever even bothered to make a token effort in that direction. Because the argument is obviously ludicrous; it is completely naive. It ignores the basic function of capitalism--which is not to increase profits or more efficiently allocate resources, but rather to solidify social and economic control in the hands of a class of business owners (as opposed to nobility). Given that these business owners usually own the governments too, capitalism is served quite well by government intervention. Capitalism is based in class warfare--a very old and long since resolved fight between nobility and common business owners. In the years after the business owners won, they've had to reinvent themselves through other legitimizing ideologies, which is where we get this absurd notion that somehow state capitalism and non-existent "free market capitalism" are two opposing forces.

[ray188]

5 - I can see the appeal of anarchism. Every time I think, "Damn, look what those fools in DC did now" - every time I get upset over the massive new rules and regulation the Administration", I realize trhat I am leaning in your direction. However, there is a concept that says, "nature abhors a vacuum. When there is a political vacuum, you end up, not withthe theorists, you get the tyrants.

Your points about "state capitalism" and mercantillism being similar to capitalsim are vavid, and the basis of my complaint with the direction oou Nation is drifting. The term "crony capitalism" has been used (accurately, I believe) to describe where we are drifting. Sadly, it has removed the basic protections of the free market (the "win/lose" component"and replaced it with - "Go ahead and gamble. If you win, you win. If you lose, the tax payers will bail you out". Therein lies the problem - not the free market, but the government interference with the free market.

Another example - our current economic mess. There is a claim that it was the unbridled free markt that caused it, and it was those greedy Wall street 1%ers that did it. Well - let's look at the basic flaw that brought it about - the failed housing market. Remember, many of those "derivatives" that bounced around in the financial markets were based on the mortgage industry. The failing of that indistry is not based on the free market application of sound business principles in making loans. It is based on government interference in the free market via legislation and intimidation of the free market that gave us the sub-prime fiasco.

Now, back to our friend Adam Smith. No, of course not, he didn't truly invent something brand new. Rather, he looked at all the models out there and codifid a workable one.

"The "invisible hand" working within unregulated markets is an ideological goal; not an essential requirement of capitalism." True - but it is an essential requirement for successful capitalism. Also I would contest your view that markets are not essential to capitalism in that it is markt forces that determine the success or failure of a venture. Without that, where is the motivation to invest (capital or labor)?

I've enjoyed your ideas - they make me think. Thank you.

[Someone5]

5 - I can see the appeal of anarchism. Every time I think, "Damn, look what those fools in DC did now" - every time I get upset over the massive new rules and regulation the Administration", I realize trhat I am leaning in your direction. However, there is a concept that says, "nature abhors a vacuum. When there is a political vacuum, you end up, not withthe theorists, you get the tyrants.

Tyrants can only hold power when there is power to be held; when you have a system designed to allow a small number of people to control everyone else. Without those political structures, there can be no tyrants. Just as you cannot be a property owner without property, you cannot be a tyrant without the tool of hierarchical power. Anarchism does not create a political vacuum--it eliminates even the environmental niche for political power to exist within. It is a rejection of the basic system that allows for top-down power to exist at all, in anyone's hands.

Your points about "state capitalism" and mercantillism being similar to capitalsim are vavid, and the basis of my complaint with the direction oou Nation is drifting.

If you think my point was that "state capitalism" and mercantilism are "similar" to capitalism, you have entirely missed my point. My "point" as it were, was that mercantilism and state capitalism are capitalism. In fact, they are the only types of capitalism that have ever existed--or are likely to ever exist. Capitalism is too rooted in top-down hierarchies and a culture of domination for any alternative type of capitalism to work. It would take a revolution in capitalism to get some other sort of capitalism, and what would be the point? If you're going to break the old system, you might as well make it something fundamentally better--like libertarian socialism.

The term "crony capitalism" has been used (accurately, I believe) to describe where we are drifting. Sadly, it has removed the basic protections of the free market (the "win/lose" component"and replaced it with - "Go ahead and gamble. If you win, you win. If you lose, the tax payers will bail you out". Therein lies the problem - not the free market, but the government interference with the free market.

This is a triviality. It amounts to an argument about the precise dance that angels perform on the head of a pin. Crony capitalism is state capitalism, and that's the type of capitalism that exists in all modern industrial states. Mercantilism has been dead since the early 19th century; state capitalism replaced it. "Free market capitalism" is an ideological fiction that has never existed. I find it odd that you would even propose that free market capitalism is a good idea at all--state capitalism, after all, is the root of every economic success story in the last 200 years. It's certainly been the primary system under which industrialization has taken place. No country has ever industrialized without adopting it. It's been wildly successful at building the conditions under which a transition to socialism is possible.

Another example - our current economic mess. There is a claim that it was the unbridled free markt that caused it, and it was those greedy Wall street 1%ers that did it. Well - let's look at the basic flaw that brought it about - the failed housing market. Remember, many of those "derivatives" that bounced around in the financial markets were based on the mortgage industry. The failing of that indistry is not based on the free market application of sound business principles in making loans. It is based on government interference in the free market via legislation and intimidation of the free market that gave us the sub-prime fiasco.

Yet another debate over the nature of the waltz that angels perform on pin heads. Capitalism has business cycles, so what? These sorts of bubbles come and go under any form of capitalism. It's the nature of such systems. All capitalist economies will have recessions and booms; the precise reasons why a specific recession occur isn't really very important in the long run. "Free market capitalism" would be no better at stopping the business cycle than state capitalism has been; it can't, because that cycle is an intrinsic part of capitalism. The only way to avoid it is a revolutionary transition between economic systems--either back to feudalism or forward to socialism (or technocracy, I guess).

Now, back to our friend Adam Smith. No, of course not, he didn't truly invent something brand new. Rather, he looked at all the models out there and codifid a workable one.

It has never actually worked anywhere. State capitalism, on the other hand, has been wildly successful. State capitalism, after all, is the dominant form of economic organization on Earth--whereas free market capitalism hasn't existed anywhere.

"The "invisible hand" working within unregulated markets is an ideological goal; not an essential requirement of capitalism." True - but it is an essential requirement for successful capitalism.

Funny, capitalists have been extremely successful over the last 200 years without ever having made use of it, or working within the conditions under which it is said to occur. What capitalists have historically made much better use of is the iron fisted authoritarianism of state capitalism and the corporation.

Also I would contest your view that markets are not essential to capitalism in that it is markt forces that determine the success or failure of a venture. Without that, where is the motivation to invest (capital or labor)?

What's the motivation? Money, power, a feeling of security. Markets do not provide these. Markets are a legitimizing fiction designed to convince people that it is somehow morally neutral to have someone else bossing you around and profiting from your own labor; that it is the impersonal force of "markets" that lead to your exploitation, not your boss personally. Capitalism fundamentally makes people feel insecure, and drives them to insane measures to meet their basic need for economic security. That's the motivation under capitalism. The socialist motivation is a more direct sort of desire--you do something because you want to do it, as opposed to being forced to do something by someone else.

I've enjoyed your ideas - they make me think. Thank you.

Thank you.

[ray188]

5 - we seem to come to different conclusions about our world and I believe that the reason is that we start from differne places.

As an example, I do not condemn "greed" any more than I condemn the law of gravity when a hammer falls on my head. Both are natural forces that exist and cannot be legislated out of existence - they must be accepted, understood, ans dealt with. A prime example of the futility of trying to simply outlaw natural behavior is the McCain-Finegold campaign reform law. A few years ago those two gentlemen were lauded as visionaries. Now look at where that took us.

Does that mean that we have to accept "the law of the jungle"? Not at all. But to effectively deal with this natural force we must first accept it and attempt to understand it (much like the force of gravity). This would allow us to establish rational laws that have some chance of working as opposed to the "inside the Beltway" approach which is to attack and condemn, spew rhetoric, and come up with some nice sounding but totally ineffective legislation (and blame the other guy).

Rational law making includes an understanding of natural tendencies and tries to use them rather than simply try to make them illegal. As an example, we could accept "greed" as a natural force and use it to motivate desired behavior as the outcome. To take a simply example, we might establish laws wherein the outcomes or "taking a chance" may be satisfaction of that nasty ol' greed. Or it might be failure. This would encourage rational risk taking lessening the odds of major financial collapses while at the same time creating an environment in which innovation is free to drive the markets to expansion which benefits us all.Compare that to our current "too big to fail" approach.

A quick aside - I can't see how one can establish a structure that doesn't allow for power to be grabbed by a tyrant. History has shown that the anarchism of "power to the people" generally ends up with "power to the person".

I recall back in about '70 or '71 I worked in DC and used to go out to mingle in the demonstrations on the Mall. Possibly I enjoyed those half dressed young ladies, but I also enjoyed hearing the other side of the argument. One day I met a young man from Wisconsin (as I recall) whose ideas sounded a lot like yours. He wanted to get rid of the government. "Fine" sez I - "but then what". He allowed as how our nation should be run like his commune. When a decision was needed, everybody got together and decided - pure democracy. I said, "But what happens if something major comes up while you're here?". "No problem", sez he, it seems that he had left a proxie vote in the hands of someone he trusted back at the commune. When I opined that that was sorta like our system - we give our votes to people that we trust and send to DC, sadly, his eyes spun around and that ended the conversation. So I went over to a nearby pool to watch the aforementioned barely drssed young ladies cavort.

[Someone5]

As an example, I do not condemn "greed" any more than I condemn the law of gravity when a hammer falls on my head. Both are natural forces that exist and cannot be legislated out of existence - they must be accepted, understood, ans dealt with. A prime example of the futility of trying to simply outlaw natural behavior is the McCain-Finegold campaign reform law. A few years ago those two gentlemen were lauded as visionaries. Now look at where that took us.

I do not condemn selfishness; which is nothing more than personal advancement. I condemn greed because it excludes even the possibility of long-term or indirect benefits. Greed is a mindset that destroys the ability to rationally analyze alternatives. It is dangerous; self-interest is not. It is obviously in one's own self-interest not to be exploited--to desire a system where such exploitation is not possible. Greed, on the other hand, could easily lead a person to embrace such systems of exploitation out of the intense desire to be at the top of such a system.

I don't object to people seeking their own benefit; I object to the will to dominate that is so effectively established by capitalism.

Does that mean that we have to accept "the law of the jungle"? Not at all. But to effectively deal with this natural force we must first accept it and attempt to understand it (much like the force of gravity). This would allow us to establish rational laws that have some chance of working as opposed to the "inside the Beltway" approach which is to attack and condemn, spew rhetoric, and come up with some nice sounding but totally ineffective legislation (and blame the other guy).

We are no more required to accept greed than we are required to accept that something heavier than air cannot fly. Greed is not human nature; it is a mindset embraced by the prevailing culture and economic system. Self-interest might be some sort of built-in human instinct, but greed certainly is not. People naturally develop the capacity to consider long-term consequences, assuming that society does not prevent such development (as capitalism is apt to do--capitalism wants mindless consumers and obedient workers, not self-interested rational actors), and therefore they have the capacity to move beyond greed.

Rational law making includes an understanding of natural tendencies and tries to use them rather than simply try to make them illegal.

This is deep into the ideological worldview of capitalism; the idea that the mindless greed promoted by capitalism is somehow "human nature", despite no one ever having effectively demonstrated such a claim. Greed is no more human nature than selfless compassion is an automatic human response. It exists among humans, but it is not our "nature". The assumption that the mindsets promoted by capitalism are the natural human mindset is part of the depolitization of capitalism; it is part of the effort to legitimize capitalism and freeze one's ability to rationally understand or analyze it. Putting the social engineering aspects of the capitalist revolution out of the realm of history and politics and into the nebulous realm of "human nature" puts it out of the realm of ideas that can be questioned--it turns what was once a self-conscious argument for economic reforms into ideology--or theology, if you'd rather.

To say that the capitalist mindset is "natural" and some sort of essential truth of humanity that must be reckoned with is nothing more than an argument that capitalism ought not be questioned at all. And, frankly, it blatantly ignores history, where other economic systems have prevailed in the past, which were rooted in other mindsets and worldviews. The capitalist mindset of mindless consumption and obedient production is very different from, say, the feudal mindset of duty to one's social betters and recognition of one's "natural" place in society. A person is no more a naturally greedy capitalist than he is a naturally subservient serf; yet in days past many people in power argued that nobility was inborn, and that a person of common birth was "naturally" incapable of ruling either himself or much less others. Your argument that the greedy capitalist mindset is the natural human mindset is a very similar sort of argument in purpose--it is an argument that the status quo is the natural order, and the only sort of order that can make sense of the world. Yet your position is no more the truth than the old feudalists were on the right track.

A quick aside - I can't see how one can establish a structure that doesn't allow for power to be grabbed by a tyrant. History has shown that the anarchism of "power to the people" generally ends up with "power to the person".

History has shown no such thing. Name a single example of an anarchist--an anarchist, mind you, not just nominally democratic--revolution that has succeeded in overthrowing its government and earning its independent, then established a system that built power in the hands of a single person, or even a small group of people. Name just one example and I will agree with you.

I recall back in about '70 or '71 I worked in DC and used to go out to mingle in the demonstrations on the Mall. Possibly I enjoyed those half dressed young ladies, but I also enjoyed hearing the other side of the argument. One day I met a young man from Wisconsin (as I recall) whose ideas sounded a lot like yours. He wanted to get rid of the government. "Fine" sez I - "but then what". He allowed as how our nation should be run like his commune.

Which was, ultimately, his problem. Trying to proscribe the way in which the world around him ought to run. That is not his responsibility. His responsibility is making sure that he lives in a way he finds acceptable--and perhaps to make sure that the communities in which he lives operate in a way that he finds preferable. It is not his responsibility to tell other communities how they ought to work. Perhaps he might suggest a model, but ultimately it is not his business to go about implementing it.

When a decision was needed, everybody got together and decided - pure democracy. I said, "But what happens if something major comes up while you're here?". "No problem", sez he, it seems that he had left a proxie vote in the hands of someone he trusted back at the commune.

Or maybe he should have just accepted that if he's not there to have his say, no say ought to be had. When such structures are weak enough that their edicts have little force, losing such a vote means little.

When I opined that that was sorta like our system - we give our votes to people that we trust and send to DC, sadly, his eyes spun around and that ended the conversation. So I went over to a nearby pool to watch the aforementioned barely drssed young ladies cavort.

If we allow that one person can be the proxy of more than one other person, that might be true. But the system you advocate allows the aggregation of power in the hands of a few--a representative system grants a proxy vote for thousands of people, not just one other person. And it is not merely a temporary affair--a proxy held until the voter himself returns--it is a proxy vote held perpetually by someone other than the voter. It is not analogous at all, and honestly he should have understood that if he really was an anarchist. Your system and his really were not very similar at all, but neither of you apparently recognized that.

[ray188]

5 - I couldn't possibly argue with your disdain for greed. I suppose I wasn't clear enough as to greed vs. vested self interest. None the less, my point is that it has to be accepted as a reality in order to deal effectively with it and, hopefully, channel it into more productive directions. I guess that our difference is in the word "accept". By that I do not mean "approve" but rather "accept" greed as something very real in our world.

I do not believe that any "acceptance" of greed is a basis for capitalism. I believe that the "invisable hand" is based on "vested self interest". I make something - why? Because I can sell it - implied is some one wants it. That is the basis of the free market and, I believe a totally workable system.

That whole section about royalty/serfs, "greedy capitalist mindset", and "status quo" sorta mixes economics with government. To my mind, there is nothing in capitlism that deals in serfs. Yes, if we are to manufacture products sought by the consumer we must have workers. But those workers, in turn, are also consumers. As far as "status que" goes - that is far from the truth because capitalism requires constant change and growth.

Strange to say, but your argument that there has been no successful anarchist revolution makes my point. The anarchists want to bring down the eisting order then, when thet succeed something new, usually tyranical, hops in to fill the void.

"....it is a proxy vote held perpetually by someone other than the voter" - no. not really, only 'til the next election.
Let stipulate - I am not claiming that a republic is idea, just, as someonesaid, better than anything else available. I would honestly like to believe in the anarchist way but I can't. To cite a rather basic reason - I like the organization that causes all cars traveling in the same direction to be one the same side of the road. But, it is when rules and regulation go on and on, regulating every aspect of our lives that I say, "enough".

Can we agree that pure anarchism is impossible as is a totally unregulated market?

[Someone5]

5 - I couldn't possibly argue with your disdain for greed. I suppose I wasn't clear enough as to greed vs. vested self interest. None the less, my point is that it has to be accepted as a reality in order to deal effectively with it and, hopefully, channel it into more productive directions. I guess that our difference is in the word "accept". By that I do not mean "approve" but rather "accept" greed as something very real in our world.

There is no purpose in "channeling it into productive directions"; that is self-defeating in the long run. What you can do is treat it rather like society treats actually existent poisons like radium, or arsenic in the water--by actively avoiding ti if possible, and treating it if not.

I do not believe that any "acceptance" of greed is a basis for capitalism. I believe that the "invisable hand" is based on "vested self interest". I make something - why? Because I can sell it - implied is some one wants it. That is the basis of the free market and, I believe a totally workable system.

Lots of systems are "workable." That doesn't make them worthwhile or admirable. Feudalism lasted for over six hundred years; obviously it was workable enough. That doesn't make it good.

Let me point out that your argument there is basically just another way of stating the definition of alienation; you are not working for yourself, you are working for someone else. The natural state of things has you making something because you want to make it. Capitalism breaks from that and requires that you make things because someone else will buy it from you. This is a rather demeaning sort of relationship where you are simply working for someone else's immediate benefit, in exchange for your own deferred benefit. You sacrifice a portion of yourself for the hope that things might be better on payday; which is very alienating. And unnatural.

And I would point out that unless you are "self-employed" doing contractual labor or something, you're not working because you can sell something, you're working because you have agreed to rent yourself to your employer, and your employer is telling you that you need to make something.

That whole section about royalty/serfs, "greedy capitalist mindset", and "status quo" sorta mixes economics with government. To my mind, there is nothing in capitlism that deals in serfs.

No, explicitly not. Capitalism is the economic system that replaced feudalism. The point I was trying to make is that capitalism makes about as much sense to you as feudalism did to the serfs--that your own arguments in defense of capitalism are a bit like the arguments made in the past in defense of feudalism. That basic argument being something to the effect of "the feudal system is the only way to preserve the natural order and make sure that society produces enough," etc. Granted, capitalism does deal in wage slavery, but that's not the same thing. It's broadly similar (in that it alienates the worker from his labor), but that's a tenuous argument at best. To be sure the wage slave is in an much improved condition compared to a serf.

Though to suggest that one can divorce economics from government is absurd; capitalism is just as deeply intertwined with our systems of government as feudalism was with its kingdoms. You can't talk about economics without also talking about politics; they're too closely linked.

Yes, if we are to manufacture products sought by the consumer we must have workers. But those workers, in turn, are also consumers. As far as "status que" goes - that is far from the truth because capitalism requires constant change and growth.

No it doesn't. It requires new products, but that's not the same as "change and growth." The capitalist system itself changes very little, nor does it really need to change very much to remain functional. "Status quo" is in relation to the economic system, not to the specific products people might be producing.

Strange to say, but your argument that there has been no successful anarchist revolution makes my point. The anarchists want to bring down the eisting order then, when thet succeed something new, usually tyranical, hops in to fill the void.

Anarchist revolutions aren't just about bringing down the government, they're about changing the relationships of production such that no void remains afterward. You are merely asserting that people must be ruled by someone when you suggest that there is a natural void left by the absence of government. In capitalism, that would be correct--because capitalism is dependent on governments. Not so with anarchism.

"....it is a proxy vote held perpetually by someone other than the voter" - no. not really, only 'til the next election.

Have you ever been elected as a house representative? Senator? If not, your vote has always been held by someone else. And I would suggest that the person it is held by is not your peer, but an elite.

Let stipulate - I am not claiming that a republic is idea, just, as someonesaid, better than anything else available.

The only thing I will say about republics is this; "of the few options the ruling class finds tolerable, it is the best for the people."

In the sense that a republic is a better option than, say, oligarchic tyranny, despotic bureaucracy, cults of personality, the brutal dictatorship, etc. The ruling class finds very few decent options acceptable for their needs. Republics are the kindest of these unacceptable options.

That doesn't make it "better than anything else available," because obviously direct democracy distributed to local councils is an improvement.

I would honestly like to believe in the anarchist way but I can't. To cite a rather basic reason - I like the organization that causes all cars traveling in the same direction to be one the same side of the road.

At a basic level, this sort of organization happens on its own; no one would find it preferable to drive on the left if most others opted to drive on the right. That sort of arrangement is trivial enough to work out without a government telling you that you must drive on the right or go to prison.

But, it is when rules and regulation go on and on, regulating every aspect of our lives that I say, "enough".

Yet you defend a system that must do so. You defend a system that does, in fact, regulate every aspect of your life that isn't trivial.

Can we agree that pure anarchism is impossible as is a totally unregulated market?

No, we can't. Totally unregulated markets are impossible because they don't even make theoretical sense; anarchism is certainly theoretically possible.

[ray188]

Possibly a bit of definition of terms is called for. For example - "greed" vs. "vested self interest". Yes, these terms have meanings but in the real world it is not an either or situation. As in most cases, there is a continuum rather than two opposing absolutes. So, I suggest we get away from that element of the discussion.

"The natural state of things has you making something because you want to make it." O.K. - that's a recipe for a happy life. But, is it a recipe for a fically sound situation? Let's consider a guy making widgets because he enjoys making widgets. Every day he makes them and they stack up in the closet. Two questions - what happens when the closet gets full? - and, where does he get the food he needs to sustain life?

I agree that government is deeply entwined in economics - to the detriment of the economy. The current economic woes in out nation being a prime example. As I believe I have mentioned, the economic downfall came not from private sector greed, but from the government interferring with the basic principles of economics giving us the sub-prime mortgage loans.

"The capitalist system itself changes very little, nor does it really need to change very much to remain functional." I think we can agree on that. Once established a useful system changes very little - possibly a tweak here and there. However, my point was that an economic system based on capitalism requires constant growth and change to satisfy the wants and needs of the consumer (the real driver of the system).

Am I correct in thinking that you are defining anarchism as a total removal of all authority whether by government or an economic system?

"You defend a system that does, in fact, regulate every aspect of your life that isn't trivial" - not at all. In fact my views are the exact opposite. Politically, I go alng with the theory of. "He who governs least, governs best". Separate and apart from that, my support of the free market is based on no one telling anyone what they must create or buy, the system self regulates as opposed to the "widget" story above.

[Someone5]

"The natural state of things has you making something because you want to make it." O.K. - that's a recipe for a happy life. But, is it a recipe for a fically sound situation?

Not in a capitalist economy, which is why people living in capitalist economies usually don't work like that. Some people are lucky (or determined) enough to have their desired work line up with job opportunities and skill training, but most people aren't.

Let's consider a guy making widgets because he enjoys making widgets. Every day he makes them and they stack up in the closet. Two questions - what happens when the closet gets full? - and, where does he get the food he needs to sustain life?

Hence why anarchists have adopted mutual aid as the basis for their economic exchanges; you produce something because you want to produce something, this creates a surplus that you can distribute to others. You don't need any payment for this beyond what is needed to continue to do what you want to do--no additional payment is required to coerce you into producing something you don't want to produce.

This, I might point out, will also lead people to do sometimes unpleasant things like, say, helping to maintain the sewers--because they want to be able to flush the toilet while they're at home. If enough people don't care about having working water services that it can't be effectively provided at all, then perhaps we ought to question whether it is worthwhile to provide such service. In other words, if it is really true that a job can only effectively be filled when you have access to slave labor or something like it, then we really ought to question whether that job should be performed at all.

I agree that government is deeply entwined in economics - to the detriment of the economy.

Sure, yes, I agree absolutely. Hence why we need socialism, badly. We have to get the government out of the economy, and that means socialism. Capitalism is not an efficient means of organizing advanced industrial economies. It's a good way to develop advanced industrial economies, but it's not a good way to manage them once they've reached that point.

But I was under the impression that you were promoting capitalism, which is entirely dependent on governments and government protection of the property privilege. You literally can't have capitalism--or feudalism--without governments.

The current economic woes in out nation being a prime example.

Then how do you explain our previous economic booms? Because we also had extensive government involvement in the economy back then too. In fact, we have had such involvement for over two hundred years now. Our government is pervasive at even the most basic levels of our economy--our economy that is built upon the government granted and government protected property privilege.

About the only time the US has had economies that didn't operate within the government context were pre-industrial local economies in very rural areas before the expansion of railroads, where people really did live in an economy based on mutual aid rather than the control of capital.

As I believe I have mentioned, the economic downfall came not from private sector greed, but from the government interferring with the basic principles of economics giving us the sub-prime mortgage loans.

So what? The government is also capitalist.

I think we can agree on that. Once established a useful system changes very little - possibly a tweak here and there.

Buggy whip manufacturers continued to effectively produce buggy whips even after the development of the automobile. Functional does not inherently imply relevant. Capitalists are a bit like those buggy whip manufacturers in the early years of the automobile--continuing to functionally operate despite circumstances quickly advancing towards a point where their operations are irrelevant.

Their own success will lead to their own irrelevancy. They will lay the tracks that will lead to socialism, by creating economic conditions under which capitalism is no longer an acceptable sort of economic arrangement. Capitalism is great for industrializing, not so great at being industrial.

However, my point was that an economic system based on capitalism requires constant growth and change to satisfy the wants and needs of the consumer (the real driver of the system).

The system does not require constant growth and change; the system hardly changes at all, even when products do. You're overemphasizing the importance of products. Technology advances, consumer expectations change... capitalism does not.

Am I correct in thinking that you are defining anarchism as a total removal of all authority whether by government or an economic system?

Anarchism is a goal where the conclusion is that all forms of coercion are removed, including hierarchies. Governments and private businesses alike. Corporations can be just as authoritarian and despotic as governments--are often more-so, in fact.

The government doesn't care what clothes I wear 40 hours a week, for example.

not at all. In fact my views are the exact opposite. Politically, I go alng with the theory of. "He who governs least, governs best".

Yet you defend extremely authoritarian systems; you defend private tyrannies, even if you've come to question public tyrannies. What's the point in dismissing public tyrannies to clear the way for private ones? I would venture a guess and say that you probably oppose even those public measures that advance the cause of human freedom, like the right to unionize, workplace safety laws, minimum wages, environmental safety regulations, etc. All while you support the basis of the private tyrannies; things like the property privilege, tax breaks for investors, the right for emplyoers to discriminate, etc.

Separate and apart from that, my support of the free market is based on no one telling anyone what they must create or buy, the system self regulates as opposed to the "widget" story above.

Except, of course, you support a system whereby the owners of capital tell the providers of labor how and where they must work; or, to be more correct, where they may not work.

[ray188]

5 - I have a bit of a problem grasping your positions. Please help me by getting back to basics - with respect to our economy, something is obviously needed to fire it up. Would you see that as the government's job? If not - what or who?

[Someone5]

5 - I have a bit of a problem grasping your positions.

That would take a very long book to describe in detail. In a very broad sense, I am an anarchist, loosely of the syndicalist variety.

Please help me by getting back to basics - with respect to our economy, something is obviously needed to fire it up. Would you see that as the government's job? If not - what or who?

Why is that obvious at all? It's true that people are struggling under a capitalist system when they're unemployed. I don't think that's a good thing at all. But at the same time I don't think that our present situation is something that needs some artificial measure to "fire it back up." It's a downturn in the economic cycle. So what? They come and go, and will continue to do so as long as we continue to accept capitalism. We can do nothing and the cycle will eventually flip around. We don't need corporations or governments trying to hurry things along--that's really just an excuse to line their pockets. So what would I propose doing about it? Starting down the socialist path--trying to address the core issue, rather than simply providing another short-term shot in the arm to keep us limping along another few decades.

I think what we ought to do is begin to address the actual suffering caused by unemployment as local communities. I think we ought to insist on a divestment of power at all levels; the dissolution of corporations, eventual dismissal of the federal and state governments, movement of local governments to directly democratic forms, and perhaps eventual dissolution of those too. Incidentally, I also think we ought to expand unemployment--there's no particular reason for most people to go to work every day in our society. Most people do not serve an important or meaningful function at work. They don't really do anything that people couldn't just do for themselves. Freeing people from employment would leave them more time to do things they want to do; to produce the things they want to produce, rather than flipping the hamburgers they're forced to flip because otherwise they won't be able to make their rent that month.

But yes, this is a highly radical suggestion.

[ray188]

I sense some basis for agreement. Yes, there are problems in the economy and people are hurting. A "normal cycle" - Well - not necessarily so. There were decades of government interference in the mortgage nusiness that led to the collapse. So, while normal cycles do exist, there was something abnormal about this cycle. Additionally, while a government cannot creat real jobs, it can set up circumstances to either encourage or discourage healthy economic conditions. Sadly, we have seen the negative side of that coin from the current Administration.

You seem to take the position of letting nature take it course. But then in para 2, you jump right into further governmental intereference in that natural course - sound more like "big government" rather than anarchism. I know, you are referring to "we the people" not government. But "we the people" are not able to function in such a way without some organizational structure (government) whether it is a totally centralized government or a dispersed "commune" concept. So, in reality, you are looking for further government involvement.


Your thoughts about the need for more unemployment have a certain merit but it leads us into a very dangerous area. Let's take Harry - Harry decides he doesn't want to work. O.K. - sounds like a plan (as long as Harry also decides he doesn't want to eat. Without that decision, where does his food come from? Oh sure, we have highly productive farmers quite capable of feeding Harry but in that environment it is inevitable that the day comes when Farmer Bill thinks, "Hold on there. I bust my butt in the hot sun every day to feed that slug Harry. What is he doing for me"? That's why in even the most repressive regimes, the need for a degree of privatization is needed.

In all things, I am a believer in a certain structure and "rules". The question is - will that structure, those rules be naturally evolving ones or artificial ones imposed by one person on another.

[Someone5]

I sense some basis for agreement. Yes, there are problems in the economy and people are hurting.

I guess you could say that I think the economy is the problem. I don't think the economy was healthy four years ago, nor eight years ago, nor twelve years ago. I don't think our economic model is ever healthy, even if it may produce more at some times and less at others. All that really changes is the amount of suffering shifted onto workers.

A "normal cycle" - Well - not necessarily so. There were decades of government interference in the mortgage nusiness that led to the collapse. So, while normal cycles do exist, there was something abnormal about this cycle.

There has never been a period of time without substantial government interference in western economies. For that matter, there really isn't any difference between "government interference" and "capitalist interference". It's the same thing. Capitalism and government interference in the economy go hand in hand.

Additionally, while a government cannot creat real jobs, it can set up circumstances to either encourage or discourage healthy economic conditions.

It can set up the circumstances for greater or lesser production I suppose, but that in no way indicates that it is capable of encouraging healthy economic conditions. A healthy economy means that people produce about as much as society requires for its own happiness. Capitalists are good at producing things, not so good at making people happy as a result of that. Capitalist economies don't create healthy economic conditions, they just produce a lot of stuff.

Sadly, we have seen the negative side of that coin from the current Administration.

Obama has been pursuing standard American economic policies. His administration has not performed appreciably differently from past administrations facing similar situations, nor would one expect any other administration to perform appreciably differently were it to be in power rather than Obama. Moreover, our issues are more deeply systemic--the immediate problems are at least thirty years old, and the fundamental structural problems are over one hundred and eighty years old.

You seem to take the position of letting nature take it course.

I take the position that we ought to go let the capitalists hang themselves without any further public support for their lifestyles.

But then in para 2, you jump right into further governmental intereference in that natural course - sound more like "big government" rather than anarchism.

I guess if you think it's "big government" to have communities taking care of themselves. I don't really care how you label it with respect to government size, I care about policy and what governments do, not how we label them. I think it is a good thing to feed everyone; I think it is a good thing for everyone to have a roof over their heads. I think it is a good idea not to require people to work unless they need to do so. I think it is wrong to allow people to engage in the privation of public resources; I think that all public resources are common property and ought to be held as such. If a person wants to use them, they ought to be free to do so, but not to lay a claim of exclusivity over it. Maybe some forms of government would be useful for doing that--certainly there would be a transitional period where some sort of collective management is required--be that through radical governments or through syndicates. We have a sufficiently advanced and technically sophisticated economy that I think we would be entirely capable of eliminating most jobs in this country without sacrificing our standard of living--if we were to turn our technological sophistication away from ever more elaborate methods of creating unnecessary employment and instead turn them towards methods of reducing the need for people to actually work. Anarchism isn't about not having rules or agreements, it's about not having hierarchies--anything that advances that cause is a good one in my opinion. Even if it means that perhaps there will be a time where we are simply moving in that direction without having reached it yet.

The days where we needed hordes of unskilled labor are well behind us; there is no reason to create artificial demand for such positions.

I know, you are referring to "we the people" not government. But "we the people" are not able to function in such a way without some organizational structure (government) whether it is a totally centralized government or a dispersed "commune" concept.

You say that, but it is not at all self-evidently true. People can and do operate without hierarchies and without commands all the time. Most people are entirely capable of managing their own affairs without having anyone else telling them how to do it.

So, in reality, you are looking for further government involvement.

A government synonymous with and transparent with respect to the public will is not objectionable to me. A government that somehow operates in perfect accord with the will of the people is indistinguishable from a government that doesn't exist.

Your thoughts about the need for more unemployment have a certain merit but it leads us into a very dangerous area. Let's take Harry - Harry decides he doesn't want to work. O.K. - sounds like a plan (as long as Harry also decides he doesn't want to eat. Without that decision, where does his food come from?

Let's look at what Harry is doing right now; Harry the Wal-Mart greeter is basically doing nothing worthwhile for Farmer Bill. Sure, you can say "well, he can pay dollars to Farmer Bill," but the only reason he's even got those dollars is that wal-mart was basically taking pity on him and creating a job for him with no useful function whatsoever. Farmer Bill is really no better off for Harry having worked, except that he was able to take a subsidy from Wal-Mart.

Oh sure, we have highly productive farmers quite capable of feeding Harry but in that environment it is inevitable that the day comes when Farmer Bill thinks, "Hold on there. I bust my butt in the hot sun every day to feed that slug Harry. What is he doing for me"?

If Farmer Bill doesn't enjoy farming, then maybe he ought not be farming. Your whole argument is again predicated upon the idea of one group coercing another to do work they don't want to do. Presumably enough people will be interested in eating that sufficient farming will occur to meet the general need for food. Basic subsistence is not hard to achieve except in environments where land is not available due either to overpopulation or capital controls over land.

Questions like "why should I bust my butt for someone else?" only make sense in a broken, unhealthy economy where a person is forced to do things they don't want to do merely to exchange their labor for things they do want. If Harry wants to eat, and Bill isn't producing enough surplus to hand it over by virtue of Bill's own love for farming, then Harry will presumably get out his tools (or borrow the communal tools) and plant a damned garden. Work is not the same thing as employment. I didn't say people shouldn't do work, I said they shouldn't be employed. Who would genuinely do nothing once the novelty of being able to do so wore off? Doing nothing is boring. Everyone has things they enjoy doing; or feel are necessary to perform of their own volition. If no one feels it worthwhile to feed themselves, then presumably they don't really want to eat so much and we really shouldn't worry about arranging things to provide them with more food.

It's pretty much the same thing with any other form of work you can think of; if the work can only be done by compelling people to do it against their will, perhaps it ought not be done. If it's so unimportant that no one is willing to do the work if they have a choice, then it's probably not important enough for society to worry about. If the only way to have it provided is through exploitation, then it is unethical for society to expect it to occur.

That's why in even the most repressive regimes, the need for a degree of privatization is needed.

Privatization is most necessary under repressive regimes. It's under the socialist regimes that privatization is least necessary.

In all things, I am a believer in a certain structure and "rules".

Sure, so what? What gives you the right to impose them on others against their will?

The question is - will that structure, those rules be naturally evolving ones or artificial ones imposed by one person on another.

The only naturally evolving rules are the rules that evolve without property, without coercion, and without hierarchies.

[ray188]

There is so much there that I I can't even begin to answer. It all seems based on the theory of everyone doing what he wants, when he wants and in some mysterious way every need of everyt person will be satisfied. I admit it - I just can't get me head around that one.

However, there is one concept that I am 100% in agreement with - "I take the position that we ought to go let the capitalists hang themselves without any further public support for their lifestyles." If the government would simply leave the private sector to do "it's thing", we'd be in far better economic conditions. We recently were blessed(?) with the marvelous idea of "too big to fail" - there is nothing further from the free market than that. In the free market, you are free to win and, most importantly, you are free to lose. That system makes for the most efficient system providing the post product for the most people.

[Someone5]

There is so much there that I I can't even begin to answer. It all seems based on the theory of everyone doing what he wants, when he wants and in some mysterious way every need of everyt person will be satisfied. I admit it - I just can't get me head around that one.

Sorry this took so long to get back on. Let me put it this way; if you genuinely believe that people are capable of managing their own affairs without oversight, then it should be no great mystery how things would get done without capitalism. If you do not believe that people are capable of managing their own affairs without oversight, you're really just nitpicking about what sort of external tyranny you'd like to be controlled by. In what way is it appreciably better to be controlled by unaccountable, uncontrollable private business owners rather than marginally responsive elected officials? I'd rather make my own decisions, thank you very much. Well, that means that some level of personal responsibility is required, and that does indeed leave the possibility that society will fail to assure its own survival and happiness. I don't consider that possibility very likely, but I am willing to admit that it exists.

I just don't agree with you that the slim possibility that human beings will opt for collective suicide rather than collective survival is worth subjugating myself to some master or another. I do suppose that requires some faith in humanity--that people are indeed capable of managing their own affairs without someone else forcing them to behave in a certain way.

However, there is one concept that I am 100% in agreement with - "I take the position that we ought to go let the capitalists hang themselves without any further public support for their lifestyles." If the government would simply leave the private sector to do "it's thing", we'd be in far better economic conditions.

I think you only agree with me because you misunderstood my statement. I mean all government subsidies--including public protection of the property privilege, and corporate legal protections.

We recently were blessed(?) with the marvelous idea of "too big to fail" - there is nothing further from the free market than that.

I don't support free markets. I think the concept of a free market is nonsense that never has existed and never will exist. It's not even theoretically viable. If you have people owning things, that precludes the existence of a "free market" because it creates fundamental material disparities and informational deficits. How can you have a free market when a small group of people get to have the exclusive right to act as gatekeepers to labor? It's nonsense.

In the free market, you are free to win and, most importantly, you are free to lose. That system makes for the most efficient system providing the post product for the most people.

That system is nonsensical, and certainly doesn't sound very efficient. It sounds like a highly inefficient method of funneling the gains of common activity into the pockets of a few people.

[Huck Mucus]

I'm a liberal. This thread reminds me of the Joe the Plumber deal. Here is what Obama should have said:

"First, Joe, you aren't going to have to worry about it. You might gross $250,000.00 per year, easy, but you won't net $250,000.00 per year; not even close. And you don't pay income tax, any income tax on what you gross. You only pay income tax on what you net. I should tell you to run along now and quit trying to trick me with your Limbaugh talking points that will never apply to a knuckle-dragger like you; however, since the cameras are on me, I guess I should dumb it down for all the people out there who think this will be an issue for them. Let's call this a teachable moment.

So here goes: Let's say you actually might net $251,000.00. First of all the increase on the rate will be marginal and only apply to the $1,000.00, not the whole $251,000.00. But, let's say you are so tight that you don't want to pay my proposed increased rate on that $1,000.00; what should you do? Well, you do what Mitt Romney and Limbaugh and all the puppeteers who laugh at you behind your back do and you take $1,000.01 and invest in your company (i.e. yourself) by buying a new widget for your business or employing another employee. What does this do? It lowers your net to below $250,000.00, it increases your net worth, it employs a widget maker somewhere or your new employee, stimulates the economy and everyone wins, including you and the government which now gets sales tax on the widget, income tax from the employed widget maker, or your new employee and it keeps the money at home. Oh, and you get to depreciate that widget over and over again in another loop hole scam set up by the smart people.

Now, you may want that extra $1,000.00 in your pocket so you can buy that third vacation home, which stimulates the third housing mcmansion market and employs the Mexican nail benders waiting behind Home Depot, but that has not been shown to be the case. In reality, you will invest that $1,000.00 in emerging markets (i.e. support the gargantuan and growing middle class in India and China) over seas and contribute the third worldification of America. Either that or you will buy cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit.

So, really, I don't shed any tears for you if you get stuck paying a higher marginal rate on that additional $1,000.00 over the $250,000.00 you just netted into your pocket after the lower rate was taken out. You see Joe, all these years the government has been forcing employers to withhold and match and otherwise police you because you're too dumb and untrustworthy to do your own taxes. But now that you'll be rich and in the big leagues with your new plumbing business, you get to do your own taxes, with the help of a CPA, and send in what you feel like sending in, and you can screw the rest of the country with all the loop holes designed to protect you while screwing the working poor. Thank you very much, I'll be here all week!"

So, in response to the original post, yes, the liberals are right. I do it all the damn time, every freaking year. In fact, I live below the poverty level and don't pay any income taxes but my business is worth quite a bit. I work, a lot. I invest, a lot, in my business. Some day I will sell it and have to pay some capital gains on all those gains, but I also plow what I can into my Roth IRAs and in the end, I should be good if the Romney types don't deregulate Wall Street and sell America to China to pay for wars like Bush did. In that case, my business won't be worth shit.

As to personal responsibility, well, here's the deal. The largest public subsidy in the U.S., by HUGE orders of magnitude, is the corporation itself. Corporations are creatures of the state; they don't exist without government. And their primary character is limited liability (read "responsibility"). So, you invest $1.00 in a corporation and, as far as returns are concerned, the sky is the limit. There is no cap on profits. However, the only down side is $1.00 potential loss. However, that $1.00 invested can result in externalities and damages to innocent non-parties and again, those externalities are unlimited. So, when you see some so-called captain of industry, a boot-strapping, capitalist, swashbuckling free-marketeer who puts all his personal assets and ass on the line with an investment, then you have a true capitalist and a person who walks the walk. But when some guy spouts all that crap about himself, or lets others spout it about him, or when you hear it from champions of capitalism but the money was really made in a corporation, you know it's crap. All they risked was an amount they were willing to risk, PLUS the health, assets and even lives of others who were not party to the transaction. Don't ever let them counsel you on "personal responsibility." So you see, Capitalism is a GOOD thing, but we don't have it with the corporation. The corporation is a government program (state) specifically designed to limit personal responsibility. In fact, in English Common Law, it is even called the "Limited" for that very reason.

If we are going to support the corporation, then at least lets not whine about government taxing it and using the funds to cover the externalities that have been foisted off on others not party to a given transaction. I could go on for ever but I have to go make some more money.