Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[wufwugy]

'Do you think taxation is good? And if so, why do you feel this way?'

Let's go with that.

[Poopadoop]

Let's go with that.

Well thank you for letting me clarify the question.

I think it is necessary inasmuch as there are certain things that can be managed centrally that cannot be handled individually.

[BananaStand]

Well thank you for letting me clarify the question.

I think it is necessary inasmuch as there are certain things that can be managed centrally that cannot be handled individually.

By "clarify" you really mean "nullify"

His question is about redistribution. Can you answer the question in that context?

[wufwugy]

His question is about redistribution. Can you answer the question in that context?

Ah. I see you caught that.

That IQ of yours must be at least 12. Up from 8.

[BananaStand]

Ah. I see you caught that.

That IQ of yours must be at least 12. Up from 8.

you only need an IQ of 6 to catch your meaning.

Your meaning was over Poop's head.

You do the math.

[Poopadoop]

you only need an IQ of 6 to catch your meaning.

Your meaning was over Poop's head.

You do the math.

So i give you credit for having a brain and your response is to do the opposite.

Not a value judgment, mind you, just an observation.

[BananaStand]

So i give you credit for having a brain and your response is to do the opposite.

Not a value judgment, mind you, just an observation.

You didn't "give me credit" for anything. You recognize a fact that my IQ is what it is. I'm not sure why that would preclude me from having any particular response with regard to you.

You recognizing my clinically tested IQ does not obligate me to compliment your intelligence.

[wufwugy]

Well thank you for letting me clarify the question.

I think it is necessary inasmuch as there are certain things that can be managed centrally that cannot be handled individually.

Okay cool, that's a type of thing I am quite interested in hearing about. If you would like to expound that would be great.


The reason I asked the question was because you said tax is unequal. I thought that was funny since typically people want taxation to assuage their emotion that doing so results in more equality. So really I just wanted to see what your response was to the question without leading.

[Poopadoop]

Okay cool, that's a type of thing I am quite interested in hearing about. If you would like to expound that would be great.


The reason I asked the question was because you said tax is unequal. I thought that was funny since typically people want taxation to assuage their emotion that doing so results in more equality. So really I just wanted to see what your response was to the question without leading.

I think this ground has been covered repeatedly in this forum, but ok. The advantage of centralized organisation is obvious in many domains. One would be military. The US would be much weaker if every state had to decide for itself who to send to war and with what weapons and for what purpose.

Centralizing the authority requires you centralize the power which in turn requires you find some non-voluntary way of funding that apparatus.

[wufwugy]

I think this ground has been covered repeatedly in this forum, but ok. The advantage of centralized organisation is obvious in many domains. One would be military. The US would be much weaker if every state had to decide for itself who to send to war and with what weapons and for what purpose.

Centralizing the authority requires you centralize the power which in turn requires you find some non-voluntary way of funding that apparatus.

I understand that. I misspoke when I didn't include the mandated monopoly portion of it i.e. that it must be based on tax.

[Poopadoop]

I understand that. I misspoke when I didn't include the mandated monopoly portion of it i.e. that it must be based on tax.

Well, without thinking about it in great detail, I assume it would be hard to have a centralized military command structure without also funding it somehow. And I would guess funding it would involve some sort of centralized tax, be it income tax or tariffs or what have you. Unless you had a Pentagon based on volunteer work, how would you get around that?

[wufwugy]

Well, without thinking about it in great detail, I assume it would be hard to have a centralized military command structure without also funding it somehow. And I would guess funding it would involve some sort of centralized tax, be it income tax or tariffs or what have you. Unless you had a Pentagon based on volunteer work, how would you get around that?

People who value security voluntarily pay for it. The model works in a bunch of other markets and the military system already is voluntary regarding recruitment, so we have good reason to believe it would work. I estimate that if people were left to their own devices about what to pay for, security forces might even get MORE funding than they currently do. Lots of people really value that stuff but don't currently voluntarily pay for much of it since the tax-based monopoly of government crowds it out.

[wufwugy]

We
I think it is necessary inasmuch as there are certain things that can be managed centrally that cannot be handled individually.

I'll add that this is maybe the only conceptual reason that I have come up with for why government can be good. The problem, however, is that I have not been able to figure out any way a centralized monopoly is better than otherwise, on average, over time, across all components, etc..

[BananaStand]

The problem, however, is that I have not been able to figure out any way a centralized monopoly is better than otherwise, on average, over time, across all components, etc..

I think we touched on this a little bit earlier. One of the main reasons people would prefer centralization is simply related to space and/or aesthetics.

No one wants multiple sets of power lines criss-crossing the landscape. No one wants multiple sets of train tracks taking up land. Imagine if there were 5 different water companies all maintaining their own set of underground pipes. That's 5x more instances of closing down streets and digging up pipes for maintenance. Who needs that bullshit in their town?

In some cases, the centralized monopoly best meets consumer's needs. Efficient infrastructure may be one of those needs.

[wufwugy]

I think we touched on this a little bit earlier. One of the main reasons people would prefer centralization is simply related to space and/or aesthetics.

No one wants multiple sets of power lines criss-crossing the landscape. No one wants multiple sets of train tracks taking up land. Imagine if there were 5 different water companies all maintaining their own set of underground pipes. That's 5x more instances of closing down streets and digging up pipes for maintenance. Who needs that bullshit in their town?

In some cases, the centralized monopoly best meets consumer's needs. Efficient infrastructure may be one of those needs.

Okay I meant something else. A tax-based monopoly. A government.

In your example, the market quite easily adjusts for those preferences. The free market naturally gravitates to few producers in some industries.