ADVERTISEMENT

Electric cars..Honest ?

You have to know better than that. Socialism wouldn't do any of those things. It would exacerbate it at the least.
How so?

Current system a flawed human has:
Carte blanche over the uses and occupation of land.
Incentive and means for corruption due to private property rights.
No democratic accountability.

Under my model a flawed human has:
A legal requirement to lease the land to the highest bidder who is incentivized to use the land productively.
Lower incentives and means for corruption. Since payoffs to corruption are limited by the the elimination of profit and corrupt enrichment is harder to hide since the only source of wealth is labor
Democratic accountability
 
How so?

Current system a flawed human has:
Carte blanche over the uses and occupation of land.
Incentive and means for corruption due to private property rights.
No democratic accountability.

Under my model a flawed human has:
A legal requirement to lease the land to the highest bidder who is incentivized to use the land productively.
Lower incentives and means for corruption. Since payoffs to corruption are limited by the the elimination of profit and corrupt enrichment is harder to hide since the only source of wealth is labor
Democratic accountability
Take some time and think it over. Concentrate on the part about a bureaucrat being a "flawed human." And think about the way our current flawed human bureaucrats skirt around the legal requirements, any incentive to do the right thing, or face accountability. If you think about it honestly you will understand that nothing will change the activities of the flawed human bureaucrats under a socialist system. In fact when you consider the socialist bureaucrat will have even greater authority over non-bureaucrat humans than he currently enjoys he will have every incentive to take greater advantage than he already has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Hitler did that with his night of the long knives. I have to say it was effective, he didn't have a lot people running around being corrupt and not being accountable. Hell, Romel had to kill himself for his failure.
Hitler eh? That a really strained comparison. Try this one. He fetishized the military, favored wars, hated communists, and had a paranoid conspiratorial streak especially late in his life. Sound like someone we know?
 
  • Love
Reactions: davidallen
Take some time and think it over. Concentrate on the part about a bureaucrat being a "flawed human." And think about the way our current flawed human bureaucrats skirt around the legal requirements, any incentive to do the right thing, or face accountability. If you think about it honestly you will understand that nothing will change the activities of the flawed human bureaucrats under a socialist system. In fact when you consider the socialist bureaucrat will have even greater authority over non-bureaucrat humans than he currently enjoys he will have every incentive to take greater advantage than he already has.
Dan, you would concede that the level of ethics and corruption of bureaucrats varies from state to state, and thus some states are better than others at constraining corruption.
Now consider that all the powers and decisions you are concerned about bureaucrats having exist today and are taken by flawed human beings that aren't bureaucrats and aren't in anyway constrained. What you are missing is that corruption is not unique to bureaucrats. It's part of the human condition. We are galled by corrupt bureaucrats because they are supposed to be the least corrupt and most constrained.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: squeak
Dan, you would concede that the level of ethics and corruption of bureaucrats varies from state to state, and thus some states are better than others at constraining corruption.
Now consider that all the powers and decisions you are concerned about bureaucrats having exist today and are taken by flawed human beings that aren't bureaucrats and aren't in anyway constrained. What you are missing is that corruption is not unique to bureaucrats. It's part of the human condition. We are galled by corrupt bureaucrats because they are supposed to be the least corrupt and most constrained.
Yes, I concede all of that, and I would ague socialism would not change a thing unless it made things even worse. You and I are tied at the hip in our agreement that today’s society is deeply flawed. Where we separate is in the “solutions” we think would make things better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Yes, I concede all of that, and I would ague socialism would not change a thing unless it made things even worse. You and I are tied at the hip in our agreement that today’s society is deeply flawed. Where we separate is in the “solutions” we think would make things better.
More bureaucrats, they can be effectively constrained.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: squeak
You already conceded it Dan!
Sorry to be misunderstood. What I concede is the structure of our society as it is today is dysfunctional and in need of reform or replacement. But I don’t concede that socialism is what is needed. Socialism is basically what we already have on steroids.
 
Sorry to be misunderstood. What I concede is the structure of our society as it is today is dysfunctional and in need of reform or replacement. But I don’t concede that socialism is what is needed. Socialism is basically what we already have on steroids.
Where shit britches is stearin our ship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
You already conceded it Dan!
Here’s the thing I don’t understand about you, Pilt. You’re a socialist, a well-intentioned true believer who honestly believes in its superiority over any other structure of society, someone who will quickly dismiss criticism and whisk away any negative historical connection as not *real* socialism. I picture you as the socialist representation of the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” of your hallowed ideology. And I respect you immensely for sticking to your principles no matter how battered they become.

What I don’t understand is why you feel it is so important to use the power of the state to force your socialism on everybody else, especially on someone like me, someone who finds the concept to be antithetical to human nature. The thing is there are millions of Americans - tens, maybe hundreds of millions - who think like you. Why can’t you band together and form a socialist cooperative of willing volunteers, pool all your resources, purchase land, have legally valid signed contracts adhering to your socialist ideals, organize it any way you want, and prove to guys like me that I’ve been wrong all this time, that socialism is a successful and dynamic way of life? Bring me into the fold voluntarily, indeed eager to participate in the society you envisioned and created. Don’t you think that is a superior way to attain your goals over mandated participation by an authoritarian mechanism? Hell, I will fight, literally take up arms and fight before I’ll be forced into such a scheme. But that’s not necessary. Form a volunteer socialist cooperative and prove to me you are right and I am wrong. I’m not trying to force my preferred method on you. So why don’t you quit trying to force your favored method on me. That way we can have our difference of opinions and still be friends.
 
Biden's and the Democrat's move to green energy, under the guise of the climate change, is nothing more than selling out the US to China.

The leftist will scoff at the idea but these are the same deceitful people that refuse to acknowledge the existence of every slippery slope their policies create.
Sleepy's brother Gore is still in the picture?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Here’s the thing I don’t understand about you, Pilt. You’re a socialist, a well-intentioned true believer who honestly believes in its superiority over any other structure of society, someone who will quickly dismiss criticism and whisk away any negative historical connection as not *real* socialism. I picture you as the socialist representation of the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” of your hallowed ideology. And I respect you immensely for sticking to your principles no matter how battered they become.

What I don’t understand is why you feel it is so important to use the power of the state to force your socialism on everybody else,
You are the one annexing Moldova

especially on someone like me, someone who finds the concept to be antithetical to human nature. The thing is there are millions of Americans - tens, maybe hundreds of millions - who think like you.
I think you vastly over estimate the popularity of my program. Even
Why can’t you band together and form a socialist cooperative of willing volunteers, pool all your resources, purchase land, have legally valid signed contracts adhering to your socialist ideals, organize it any way you want, and prove to guys like me that I’ve been wrong all this time, that socialism is a successful and dynamic way of life? Bring me into the fold voluntarily, indeed eager to participate in the society you envisioned and created.
Adverse selection
Don’t you think that is a superior way to attain your goals over mandated participation by an authoritarian mechanism?
How do you think your property rights are mandated?
Hell, I will fight, literally take up arms and fight before I’ll be forced into such a scheme. But that’s not necessary. Form a volunteer socialist cooperative and prove to me you are right and I am wrong. I’m not trying to force my preferred method on you.
Private property requires force. Don't act so innocent
So why don’t you quit trying to force your favored method on me.
Just switching one set of property rules for another.
 
You are the one annexing Moldova


I think you vastly over estimate the popularity of my program. Even

Adverse selection

How do you think your property rights are mandated?

Private property requires force. Don't act so innocent

Just switching one set of property rules for another.
How can I be annexing Moldova? As a part of the collective I own it!

If I over estimate the popularity of your program, if it’s not all that popular, maybe it shouldn’t be forced on people.

I have no idea what you mean by “adverse selection.” Maybe you could explain?

Property rights are mandated? I thought they were guaranteed.

Protection of property, any property, private or public deserves to be defended. Is that what you mean by “force?”

Yes, you are arbitrarily switching one set of property rules for a more sinister set.

The idea of a free society, one in which the sole purpose of the state is to insure each individual lives how he chooses without restraint as long as he is not violating anybody else's lifestyle choice by means of violence, threat of violence or fraud means you and yours can be as socialist as you want while I can be left to my own devices. It’s a win all the way around, and it’s a societal concept everybody should embrace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
How can I be annexing Moldova? As a part of the collective I own it!

If I over estimate the popularity of your program, if it’s not all that popular, maybe it shouldn’t be forced on people.

I have no idea what you mean by “adverse selection.” Maybe you could explain?
The resources needed to make such a voluntary collective successful are controlled by the by the people least likely to sign on.
Property rights are mandated? I thought they were guaranteed.
Either way
Protection of property, any property, private or public deserves to be defended. Is that what you mean by “force?”
Yes the idea of property implies force. The status quo isn't benign it is forced on us all.
Yes, you are arbitrarily switching one set of property rules for a more sinister set.
Well in my mind I am switching from one set of property rules that has been forced on me, to another less sinister one.
The idea of a free society, one in which the sole purpose of the state is to insure each individual lives how he chooses without restraint as long as he is not violating anybody else's lifestyle choice by means of violence, threat of violence or fraud means you and yours can be as socialist as you want while I can be left to my own devices. It’s a win all the way around, and it’s a societal concept everybody should embrace.
Private property is violence. And it is is enforced by state violence.
 
Here’s the thing I don’t understand about you, Pilt. You’re a socialist, a well-intentioned true believer who honestly believes in its superiority over any other structure of society, someone who will quickly dismiss criticism and whisk away any negative historical connection as not *real* socialism. I picture you as the socialist representation of the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” of your hallowed ideology. And I respect you immensely for sticking to your principles no matter how battered they become.

What I don’t understand is why you feel it is so important to use the power of the state to force your socialism on everybody else, especially on someone like me, someone who finds the concept to be antithetical to human nature. The thing is there are millions of Americans - tens, maybe hundreds of millions - who think like you. Why can’t you band together and form a socialist cooperative of willing volunteers, pool all your resources, purchase land, have legally valid signed contracts adhering to your socialist ideals, organize it any way you want, and prove to guys like me that I’ve been wrong all this time, that socialism is a successful and dynamic way of life? Bring me into the fold voluntarily, indeed eager to participate in the society you envisioned and created. Don’t you think that is a superior way to attain your goals over mandated participation by an authoritarian mechanism? Hell, I will fight, literally take up arms and fight before I’ll be forced into such a scheme. But that’s not necessary. Form a volunteer socialist cooperative and prove to me you are right and I am wrong. I’m not trying to force my preferred method on you. So why don’t you quit trying to force your favored method on me. That way we can have our difference of opinions and still be friends.
He’s a communist, not a socialist.
 
The resources needed to make such a voluntary collective successful are controlled by the by the people least likely to sign on.

Either way

Yes the idea of property implies force. The status quo isn't benign it is forced on us all.

Well in my mind I am switching from one set of property rules that has been forced on me, to another less sinister one.

Private property is violence. And it is is enforced by state violence.
"Private property is violence. And it is enforced by state violence."

At least be consistent, Pilt. If private property meets your standard of "violence" then all property also is violence, including state owned property. And surely you would agree the state will inflict any amout of violence it deems necessary to protect its own property. You would create a mine feld of violence if you get your way and allow the state to "own" all property.
 
"Private property is violence. And it is enforced by state violence."

At least be consistent, Pilt. If private property meets your standard of "violence" then all property also is violence, including state owned property. And surely you would agree the state will inflict any amout of violence it deems necessary to protect its own property. You would create a mine feld of violence if you get your way and allow the state to "own" all property.
Yes Dan the point is violence and force are endemic to all forms of property relations.

By asserting property rights you are forcing your model of property upon me.
 
That's like saying the assets of a corporation are owned by the C-suite rather than the shareholders.

Yes the state is operated by a small slice of society, but it is on behalf of all of society who also participate in selecting those that operate it.
I must have missed where all shareholders have equal shares. I also must have missed where all shareholders were just given their shares rather than committing their own capital to get them. Seems a strange analogy for you to use with your promoted socialist policies.
 
I must have missed where all shareholders have equal shares. I also must have missed where all shareholders were just given their shares rather than committing their own capital to get them. Seems a strange analogy for you to use with your promoted socialist policies.
You clearly missed the point
 
You clearly missed the point
world of warcraft legion GIF
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000
Yes Dan the point is violence and force are endemic to all forms of property relations.

By asserting property rights you are forcing your model of property upon me.
You are making an immaterial semantic argument. From a legal standpoint the land owned by a socialist cooperative would be considered private property, but how it is divvied up by the members of the coop is their business to be as socialist as they want it to be. So you could be a volunteer socialist with others who want to live the socialist lifestyle like you and I would be left alone to live my individualist lifestyle of choice, and we wouldn’t need to hate each other or be enemies.
 
You are making an immaterial semantic argument. From a legal standpoint the land owned by a socialist cooperative would be considered private property, but how it is divvied up by the members of the coop is their business to be as socialist as they want it to be. So you could be a volunteer socialist with others who want to live the socialist lifestyle like you and I would be left alone to live my individualist lifestyle of choice, and we wouldn’t need to hate each other or be enemies.
Individual freedom isn't part of the communist equation.
 
You are making an immaterial semantic argument. From a legal standpoint the land owned by a socialist cooperative would be considered private property, but how it is divvied up by the members of the coop is their business to be as socialist as they want it to be. So you could be a volunteer socialist with others who want to live the socialist lifestyle like you and I would be left alone to live my individualist lifestyle of choice, and we wouldn’t need to hate each other or be enemies.
Dan I am tired of you forcing your lifestyle on me. I can't even avoid it even if I have a collective. But again there is the issue of adverse selection.
 
Dan I am tired of you forcing your lifestyle on me. I can't even avoid it even if I have a collective. But again there is the issue of adverse selection.
That’s a weird perspective, telling you a way to live the lifestyle of your dreams without interference is me forcing my lifestyle on you. I don’t know what adverse selection is so I’m unaware of what you think the issue is.
 
That’s a weird perspective, telling you a way to live the lifestyle of your dreams without interference is me forcing my lifestyle on you.
Dan your lifestyle necessarily excludes me from your property by force and threat of violence. Asserting your version of property rights on me is the same force and violence as me asserting my version of property rights on you.
I don’t know what adverse selection is so I’m unaware of what you think the issue is.
Already addressed this, Dan. Above. Additionally, I am almost positive it would be illegal for any corporations to join my cause
 
Dan your lifestyle necessarily excludes me from your property by force and threat of violence. Asserting your version of property rights on me is the same force and violence as me asserting my version of property rights on you.

Already addressed this, Dan. Above. Additionally, I am almost positive it would be illegal for any corporations to join my cause
Your first comment is absurd on the face of it. You know it, you're just being silly.
Your second comment is a figment of your imagination. Banning a corporation from joining your cause would be anathema to a free society. I'm describing a free society. It's kind of shocking to me that you are so resistant to indiviual freedom. Maybe you're more authoritarian than I had thought.

Oh! I just went back and read your comment on adverse selection, and now I see what you mean: if you can't force people who are successful in life to pony up to socialism then socialism has no chance of survival. Well, duh! If it were a free society that's a problem you'd have to work out on your own, no government authoritarianism allowed.
 
Last edited:
Your first comment is absurd on the face of it. You know it, you're just being silly.
How so?
Your second comment is a figment of your imagination. Banning a corporation from joining your cause would be anathema to a free society.
Dan corporations have certain fiduciary obligations and I think joining a socialist collective and giving up control of investment and distribution decisions would violate that.
I'm describing a free society. It's kind of shocking to me that you are so resistant to indiviual freedom. Maybe you're more authoritarian than I had thought.
Dan you describe a a certain set of property rules that have the same power relations and coercion as the property rules I propose. "Free society" is just branding.
Oh! I just went back and read your comment on adverse selection, and now I see what you mean: if you can't force people who are successful in life to pony up to socialism then socialism has no chance of survival.
Yeah Dan it is a successor to capitalism not a replacement.
 
You two should get a room…owned by the state…paid for by the libertarian…poorly cleaned by communist labor…and given a rating of 5/5 stars by pilt on state owned yelp.
 
How so?

Dan corporations have certain fiduciary obligations and I think joining a socialist collective and giving up control of investment and distribution decisions would violate that.

Dan you describe a a certain set of property rules that have the same power relations and coercion as the property rules I propose. "Free society" is just branding.

Yeah Dan it is a successor to capitalism not a replacement.
In your socialist world if I’m the high bidder to lease a plot of land does that not necessarily exclude you from entering my leased plot without my permission? The only difference I can ascertain is agents of the state will have power increased by magnitude over the whole process. To deny that is a betrayal of any logic, it is absurd on its face.

You seem unable to understand how a free society would work. If the corporation is structured to allow it to join a socialist cooperative then it is allowed. Hell a band of coop socialists could form a corporation. There are multiple ways a free society would include all manner of corporstions.

No, a “free society” is exactly that: a society in which all individuals attain property and organize how it will be used without outside interference. The only threat of violence would be directed to those who would violate that organization.

Your successor to capitalism is a myth, a straw man. In a society of individuals who are free to live as they want those who want to live the same way you do could not be hindered, and you couldn’t hinder the lives of those who think differently from you. It’s a win all around. Granted, socialists might have trouble bringing self-motivated individuals on board at first. You may have to start small. But why would you care? You’re personally living the life you have always dreamed of living. Prove your subsection of the society is successful and you’ll grow exponentially, and you’ll do it without having to resort to authoritarian violence. You do want to avoid authoritarian violence, don’t you?

Anyway, I’m all talked out and leave the last word to you. I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion without rancor. That’s one reason I value our online friendship.
 
You two should get a room…owned by the state…paid for by the libertarian…poorly cleaned by communist labor…and given a rating of 5/5 stars by pilt on state owned yelp.
Every few years Dan likes to walk Pilt through his communist ideology. Its usually an exercise in Pilt trying to find some way to wiggle around all the problems with socialism, but it always ends up being a checklist of communist stupidty.
 
In your socialist world if I’m the high bidder to lease a plot of land does that not necessarily exclude you from entering my leased plot without my permission? The only difference I can ascertain is agents of the state will have power increased by magnitude over the whole process. To deny that is a betrayal of any logic, it is absurd on its face.
You are right here Dan. The violence and force is unavoidable in any world with scarcity. Just replacing the violence and force of private property with the violence and force of collective property. But it is all the same force and violence.
You seem unable to understand how a free society would work. If the corporation is structured to allow it to join a socialist cooperative then it is allowed. Hell a band of coop socialists could form a corporation. There are multiple ways a free society would include all manner of corporstions.
Dan I am really only concerned with society as it is. And in society as it is today corporations have a fiduciary duty not join voluntary socialist collectives.
No, a “free society” is exactly that: a society in which all individuals attain property and organize how it will be used without outside interference. The only threat of violence would be directed to those who would violate that organization.
Dan, how is that property attained?

No, a “socialist society” is exactly that: a society in which all individuals attain the fruits of their labor and collectively organize investment in the means of production and how it will be used without outside interference. The only threat of violence would be directed to those who would violate that organization.


Your successor to capitalism is a myth, a straw man.
Dan, that's not what straw man means.
In a society of individuals who are free to live as they want those who want to live the same way you do could not be hindered, and you couldn’t hinder the lives of those who think differently from you.
In this society, who adjudicates property disputes and how are the rulings enforced? What if I think differently than you, that the house you live in is actually mine? Can you hinder that?
It’s a win all around. Granted, socialists might have trouble bringing self-motivated individuals on board at first. You may have to start small. But why would you care? You’re personally living the life you have always dreamed of living. Prove your subsection of the society is successful and you’ll grow exponentially, and you’ll do it without having to resort to authoritarian violence. You do want to avoid authoritarian violence, don’t you?
No authoritarian violence required. You are the only one vowing to take up arms.
 
No, a “socialist society” is exactly that: a society in which all individuals attain the fruits of their labor and collectively organize investment in the means of production and how it will be used without outside interference. The only threat of violence would be directed to those who would violate that organization.
This is how the communist parties in China and North Korea work.
 
Yea I can't type for crap on my phone, but it does keep it easy for you to read so there is that beni.
My Make A Wish Foundation wish is to sit in a class room and observe Tulsaaggieson and Dave engage an intelligence quotient excercise with 07pilt administrator.

Name a month which every 4 years has 29 days. The few of us who provided the Tulsaaggieson answer to this directive received bonus points.

As for the scoring outcome by the principals? I would give huge odds. HUGE!!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT