# The Silk Road as a Libertarian Case Study?



## asher (Feb 27, 2015)

The reluctant king of the hidden internet

I found this extremely interesting - and more or less agree with it. I don't think I've ever heard described a libertarian system that would actually survive contact with reality (to be blunt). I do know we have a good number of people here who approach that end of the spectrum though. What do you all think?


----------



## TheKindred (Feb 27, 2015)

Good article.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 28, 2015)

I thought it was great that the article started to talk about how these anonymous services were always maligned by others who insisted on bringing up how those services were used by criminals... and then the rest of the piece talks about using these things for hiding criminal activities. 

And, as with all discussion about libertarianism's strengths, the lack of protection for the weakest members of society are something which people are happy to gloss over. "Look, these things can be used in authoritarian regimes, so we should ignore the photos and videos of children being raped! Freedom from regulation!" 

One of the commenters has it right: There is nothing preventing those criminals from moving away from the countries whose authority they are trying to evade, other than wanting to be parasites by receiving benefits from living in those societies. They stay put because they like the benefits. If they really wanted freedom from those governments' laws against the illegal activities, they should move out.

Just so you know, when someone argues for this kind of stuff, I always think "child porn" as something they're okay with protecting. Tax evasion is one thing these goobers are doing, of course, but child rape/porn is the biggest example of what they are protecting which I disagree with.


----------



## SHRINEOFTHESERPENT (Mar 18, 2015)

asher said:


> The reluctant king of the hidden internet
> 
> I found this extremely interesting - and more or less agree with it. I don't think I've ever heard described a libertarian system that would actually survive contact with reality (to be blunt). I do know we have a good number of people here who approach that end of the spectrum though. What do you all think?



U don't like libertarians? Good. I don't like liberals.. Lets have a debate.. How do you feel about guns? I think we have more of a grasp of reality, logic and facts than the left.. No hostility btw.. Lets act like adults..


----------



## asher (Mar 18, 2015)

Try reading what I wrote again, which is quite explicitly not what you said.

How about some thoughts about the actual article?


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 18, 2015)

SHRINEOFTHESERPENT said:


> How do you feel about guns?









Yes, our group has discussed that issue.


----------



## asher (Mar 18, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> Yes, our group has discussed that issue.



Not to mention that how I feel about them isn't even a proper debate topic


----------



## bostjan (Mar 18, 2015)

I'd like to give the article a chance, but all I get is a screen that says "Dark Leviathan."

I can't comment on the article until I read it, but from the discussion here, I get the feeling that I am going to probably disagree with it. Maybe I won't. I would like to know one way or the other, but my browser won't let me.


----------



## stevexc (Mar 18, 2015)

bostjan said:


> I'd like to give the article a chance, but all I get is a screen that says "Dark Leviathan."
> 
> I can't comment on the article until I read it, but from the discussion here, I get the feeling that I am going to probably disagree with it. Maybe I won't. I would like to know one way or the other, but my browser won't let me.



Keep scrolling down, you should get to the actual article. Terrible design IMO.


----------



## asher (Mar 18, 2015)

Yeah it's a gigantic header image. Just scroll...


----------



## SHRINEOFTHESERPENT (Mar 18, 2015)

asher said:


> Yeah it's a gigantic header image. Just scroll...



Ahhh.. My apologies.. I have severe dyslexia.. Sorry.. Its been a major issue my whole life..


----------



## bostjan (Mar 19, 2015)

It actually won't load on this old browser, but I read it at home. I'm not really sure why the article seems to pick on Libertarians. Libertarians are not for piracy, criminal activity, etc., but rather for repeal of legislation against victimless crimes. Libertarians also do not think it is okay to break the law. Most Libertarians aren't even interested in buying or selling illegal narcotics.

Anyway


----------



## asher (Mar 19, 2015)

bostjan said:


> It actually won't load on this old browser, but I read it at home. I'm not really sure why the article seems to pick on Libertarians. Libertarians are not for piracy, criminal activity, etc., but rather for repeal of legislation against victimless crimes. Libertarians also do not think it is okay to break the law. Most Libertarians aren't even interested in buying or selling illegal narcotics.
> 
> Anyway



Probably because Ulbricht repeatedly has mentioned libertarian ideals being a driving motivation for his plans 

And because drug laws are almost always cited as one of the instances of victimless crimes (well, as the only harm is to the user, and it's voluntary) by many libertarians - the drug stuff is only criminal because the government says so.

That's also one of the most scaled back definitions of libertarianism that I've heard people use. It's almost always made out to be about personal freedoms and lack of governmental regulation.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 19, 2015)

asher said:


> Probably because Ulbricht repeatedly has mentioned libertarian ideals being a driving motivation for his plans
> 
> And because drug laws are almost always cited as one of the instances of victimless crimes (well, as the only harm is to the user, and it's voluntary) by many libertarians - the drug stuff is only criminal because the government says so.
> 
> That's also one of the most scaled back definitions of libertarianism that I've heard people use. It's almost always made out to be about personal freedoms and lack of governmental regulation.



Agreed, but the article made it seem, to me, at least, as though the ideas within Libertarianism were at fault here, where actually Anarchy is the political idea at play here. There is a big difference between revising the system that orders things and simply ignoring the system because one disagrees with it.

As an analogy, North Korea calls itself a democracy, because they have elections in which voters choose to:
a) Vote for the uncontested candidate OR
b) Cross the uncontested candidate's name off of the non-secret ballot as a public act of defiance toward the government OR
c) Stay home, which is considered a public act of defiance against the government.

(A typical election in NK has 99.8%+ voter turnout with no less than 100% voting for the uncontested candidate.)

"Democracy"

In either case, I think that some people keep using that word, but they don't know what it means.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 19, 2015)

I always considered Libertarians to be socially liberal and economically conservative. Of course, for that type of system to work within the typical societal norms, there would absolutely need to be checks and balances. Then again, as bostjan said, I think Ulbricht was confusing Anarchism with Libertarianism.


----------



## asher (Mar 19, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> I always considered Libertarians to be socially liberal and economically conservative. Of course, for that type of system to work within the typical societal norms, there would absolutely need to be checks and balances. Then again, as bostjan said, I think Ulbricht was confusing Anarchism with Libertarianism.



So are all the offended comments there proclaiming that this was a half assed version too, I suppose?

I'm only somewhat being flippant. There's quite a range of libertarian positions apparently, and you guys seem to be on a very restricted, and much more rational, level than most people I ever hear talk about it


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 19, 2015)

I think that's because this modern, trendy version of Libertarianism is a whitewashed, idyllic farce. Sure, the model works well in a vacuum. I'll concede that point. By the same token, Communism should be the perfect society. These folks don't realize that you would have to have some sort of regulation, regardless. 

I absolutely agree with Explorer when he said "child rape/porn is the biggest example of what they are protecting [in that system]." They (modern Libertarians) wouldn't be able to argue against some form of government regulation if posed with that moral dilemma. If they are staunch, "all or nothing" types, then they deserve to be put out of their misery with sharpened pencils and maglites...or bullets, in my case.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 19, 2015)

Not a bad article. Certainly worth a read, I suppose.

My issue with libertarianism is mostly that its proponents presume that government regulation is the cause of all ills and that ignores that much regulation is an attempt to reduce exploitation.

I will now demonstrate why that is nonsense, in meme:






If you're truly a fan of libertarianism, taken to its extreme, there are two real options: anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism. While I do have a bit of a leftist worldview (if none of you had guessed that already, I suppose it's out in the open) and like the idea of Marxist stateless society in principle, I don't think we'd arrive at syndicalism and a utopic society if government were shrunk or abolished using today's world as a starting point. More likely we'd end up with extreme exploitation and corporations acting as _de facto_ government entities. Sort of like the future in the novel Snow Crash without the humor 

So, yeah, libertarians... far too optimistic about human nature, I think.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 19, 2015)

However, I'll admit that I jumped completely to criticism of libertarianism taken to its extremes. There are some good arguments for decriminalization/deregulation of certain things to be made. Wherein the cost to society is higher for the "solutions" than the problem itself. Marijuana being one such thing. Also, lack of government involvement in some matters is preferable. Such as giving privilege to religion.

So, just like all political ideologies. Find things that work within it, but try not to become an ideologue. (Something I struggle with, myself, when it comes to ideologies that I find philosophically appealing)


----------



## Explorer (Mar 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Libertarians are not for piracy, criminal activity, etc., but rather for repeal of legislation against victimless crimes. Libertarians also do not think it is okay to break the law.



I'll agree that libertarians aren't in favor of breaking the law, but instead argue that those laws shouldn't exist in the first place. 

Typically the laws being argued against are those which help support the infrastructure which protects the weakest members of society. "We shouldn't have to pay taxes which allow investigation and protection for poor rape victims, regardless of whether they are children or not, and shouldn't have to pay for fire/health protection either." 

One can say that certain flavors of libertarians don't agree with removing those societal protections... but is such disagreement actually part of the integral structure of libertarianism, or just an optional opinion outside of libertarianism?

As an example of how something like that can be built into a system, our current form of government in the US, a democratic republic, was designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority which could arise through a simple majority.

Since so many are arguing about what libertarianism is or isn't, I'm genuinely curious as to what parts are non-negotiable... and what things are really excluded.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 20, 2015)

I do not identify myself as aligned with any political party any more. I used to consider myself a libertarian, and still, I think of the well-known minor parties, this one hits closest to home with me; however, it seems like the party has attracted a lot of ding-bats as of late, but whatever.

Oddly, the people I tend to argue with the most at work about politics also consider themselves to be libertarians. Even though we argue about a lot of things, we still seem to agree on just as many things as we disagree on.



Libertarian Party said:


> As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.



That's what the party (should be) all about.

This mantra extends logically toward legalization of drugs, support of same-sex marriage, open immigration, free trade, reduction of federal administration costs, and neutrality in foreign affairs.



Explorer said:


> "We shouldn't have to pay taxes which allow investigation and protection for poor rape victims, regardless of whether they are children or not, and shouldn't have to pay for fire/health protection either."



Seriously, what the actual &#8230;? I don't know what kind of libertarians told you that quote, but I call shenanigans. I think someone else is confusing libertarianism with anarchy (whoever told you that).

Libertarians are supposed to be about liberty, that is, "Don't tell me what to do if it's none of your concern," in a nutshell. No actual libertarians are against funding police and fire departments - that's just plain anarchy. Libertarians are for there being government for the sake of establishing order and enforcing laws.

The sole point of government is to protect people from each other. 

This


US Declaration of Independence said:


> Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.


is often quoted. But obviously there is such a thing as radical libertarianism, which would cite the clause as reason for revolution. Most libertarians just want to see the laws revised to fall in line with the ideas set forth by the US founding fathers that individual liberty should be preserved to the fullest extent, both from social and economic standpoints.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Seriously, what the actual &#8230;? I don't know what kind of libertarians told you that quote, but I call shenanigans. I think someone else is confusing libertarianism with anarchy (whoever told you that).
> 
> Libertarians are supposed to be about liberty, that is, "Don't tell me what to do if it's none of your concern," in a nutshell. No actual libertarians are against funding police and fire departments - that's just plain anarchy. Libertarians are for there being government for the sake of establishing order and enforcing laws.



In the real world, and even in discussions of libertarianism here on SS.org, I've questioned how libertarianism would protect the weakest in a practical way. Many proposed libertarian schemes remove the funding for such protections (normally because they argue against taxation, and therefore the services paid for by those taxes).

It's just as practical a consideration as what the limits of free speech are, and whether one can yell fire in a crowded theater. 

Although you might feel that such argumentation against tax-supported services shouldn't be made under libertarian reasoning, that hasn't stopped others from making those arguments.

That's why I'm curious if there is some mechanism or philosophical underpinning which prevents, say, Silk Road from being identified as libertarian, as its creators made clear it is.

I mean, besides you saying it isn't, the same way some claim ISIS isn't Islamic.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 22, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Most libertarians just want to see the laws revised to fall in line with the ideas set forth by the US founding fathers that individual liberty should be preserved to the fullest extent, both from social and economic standpoints.



While you do offer a practical view of libertarianism as most adherents in the US claim to follow it, really it's about wanting their particular interpretation of the constitution enforced. 

Besides, who cares what the "founding fathers" thought. Government should keep pace with the times. That's my view on that, as I've said many other times in different threads.

Once again, my problem with libertarianism is that it's too optimistic about human nature. Maximize liberty, ok. Does that mean taking anti-discrimination laws off the books? What happens when you're discriminated against due to your skin color, religion, or political ideas? Do you just have to take your business elsewhere? What if your differences are benign, you should need to acquiesce to a bigot's opinion even if you aren't hurting anyone? Or, to go back to my earlier example, take away rights to unionize. What happens when your boss threatens you with termination if you don't accept lower wages? How about minimum wage laws? What happens if those are taken off the books to let "the market pay you your fair value?" Then it just turns out that you don't get paid enough to avoid being out of the street, or you make just enough for rent and food, that's all. How about the welfare state? Get rid of that and what happens if you're hurt and can't work? How about completely privatizing education (hey, if you don't want to pay taxes for someone else to go to school)? What if most schools make plenty of money to stay afloat only accepting people who can afford high tuition, and they are able to hire far superior faculty? Should the amount of money you have entirely determine your education (already kind of a problem).

Obviously most people that call themselves libertarians don't want to get rid of ALL of those things. However, it's a slippery slope. I just see a lot of problems due to how misanthropic I am, I guess.

Keep in mind that behind the scenes you'd still have people like the Kochs funnelling their cash to political candidates, and they're pretty much anarcho-capitalists. That's where I start to worry about massive amounts of exploitation.

I'm just rambling along though 

You're perfectly entitled to have your particular political leanings though! There are some good philosophical arguments for libertarianism on both the right and the left.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 22, 2015)

When it comes to protecting the children and passing good laws to help do so, no group has done so little as the liberals.

Liberal judges order ICE to release 2,837 convicted alien sex offenders. Do liberals love rape?


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 23, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> When it comes to protecting the children and passing good laws to help do so, no group has done so little as the liberals.
> 
> Liberal judges order ICE to release 2,837 convicted alien sex offenders. Do liberals love rape?



I'm going to assume that by "liberals" you mean people on the left. Child labor laws are an extension of organized labor, something traditionally associated with the left.

Also, that source seems rather right-wing biased. There is a poll on that site, before following it back to its original source. It doesn't exactly contain unbiased wording . Plus, there were judges that were appointed by conservative administrations in on that ruling. Following it to its original source shows that it's from cnsnews.com. Their about section really rails about the "liberal media." It looks pretty suspect to me.

My point in all that is just that it's good to consider your sources.

There are people on both the left and the right that could be classified as libertarians.

Ex. Noam Chomsky is a pretty well-known philosopher and anarcho-syndicalist (leftist, communistic , anti-statist, libertarianism), and the aforemention Kochs that funnel tons of money into Republican candidates for office at every level have been called by many anarcho-capitalists (no regulations, corporations are people, profit, profit, profit!). Those are two examples at the extreme ends of the left-right spectrum and both are considered libertarian (also taken to its extremes).

Edit: Yeah, that kind of reads pretty dickish in hindsight. Not my intent. I think I tidied it up a bit.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 23, 2015)

In hindsight that response of mine was a bit unnecessary lengthy . I think it was past my bedtime. I may be spending too much time around these parts! Haha


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

[ 

The job of the government is to preserve order in society, not to make additional opportunities for the weakest members of society.

/  ]

The general idea, as I stated before, is that each person should have the right to do as that person pleases, as long as it does not infringe upon the personal rights of other people.

If someone hires a killer to knock somebody off, then claims that doing so has something to do with being libertarian, that person is just full of bunk.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 24, 2015)

You know, when our nation actually followed libertarian-ism a bit more (compared to today), do you know which demographic made up the majority of the poor? The elderly. I'd rather we as a society contribute more to the 'weaker' parts of society so that I don't have to worry about being thrown in a hole once I've outlived my usefulness (whether that means disabled, elderly, orphaned, etc.). That peace of mind is probably worth most of my income.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 25, 2015)

Do you have statistics on that?

Also, is it better now that most people in poverty in the USA are children under the age of 18?


----------



## zappatton2 (Mar 25, 2015)

bostjan said:


> [
> 
> The job of the government is to preserve order in society, not to make additional opportunities for the weakest members of society.
> 
> /  ]


 
It does seem to me however that high-tax nations that invest a good deal in assuring a baseline standard of living among its poorest and most vulnerable, tend to exhibit a good deal more order and stability (I'm thinking primarily about my sister's experience living in Norway, but most of the Scandanavian nations do very well in this regard).

While preserving what could be regarded as among the highest living standards in the world, they also boast some of the lowest crime rates (Norway in particular has a rock-bottom recidivism rate), greatest health and educational outcomes, and highest civic participation. It's not everyone's cup o' tea, but I'd gladly hand over half my wages to live in a country that took social investment seriously (with Canada very much heading the opposite way).


----------



## asher (Mar 25, 2015)

zappatton2 said:


> It does seem to me however that high-tax nations that invest a good deal in assuring a baseline standard of living among its poorest and most vulnerable, tend to exhibit a good deal more order and stability (I'm thinking primarily about my sister's experience living in Norway, but most of the Scandanavian nations do very well in this regard).
> 
> While preserving what could be regarded as among the highest living standards in the world, they also boast some of the lowest crime rates (Norway in particular has a rock-bottom recidivism rate), greatest health and educational outcomes, and highest civic participation. It's not everyone's cup o' tea, but I'd gladly hand over half my wages to live in a country that took social investment seriously (with Canada very much heading the opposite way).



The data also shows that upwards social mobility in stronger social safety net states is considerably higher than here, despite all the emphasis we have on that.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 25, 2015)

But it's sooooo "un-American" to give up money to help out other people 

Obviously everyone that isn't a multimillionaire just isn't working hard enough! Clearly that top 1% of earners didn't inherit money, they worked hard! Perfect meritocracy!

We would all probably laugh at naive statements like that, but that sort of attitude is pretty prevalent (especially in small towns like the one I grew up in). The ironic thing is that plenty of people that hold that view also disagree with implementing policies that would improve their own or their kids' social mobility, especially higher taxes (even if those increases were progressive enough not to affect their tax bracket). I think it has a lot to do with the myth that gets beaten into people heads that "anything is possible if you work hard enough" etc. Obviously that helps, but it's not quite that simple. Everyone always thinks that they're just not rich... yet!

Or at least it seems that way.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 25, 2015)

They just don't want their past selves to punish their future selves.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 25, 2015)

zappatton2 said:


> It does seem to me however that high-tax nations that invest a good deal in assuring a baseline standard of living among its poorest and most vulnerable, tend to exhibit a good deal more order and stability (I'm thinking primarily about my sister's experience living in Norway, but most of the Scandanavian nations do very well in this regard).
> 
> While preserving what could be regarded as among the highest living standards in the world, they also boast some of the lowest crime rates (Norway in particular has a rock-bottom recidivism rate), greatest health and educational outcomes, and highest civic participation. It's not everyone's cup o' tea, but I'd gladly hand over half my wages to live in a country that took social investment seriously (with Canada very much heading the opposite way).



Sure you can find a good example of this, and you can find bad examples as well - Soviet Union, or China, or North Korea. What does it mean? Does it mean that one governmental philosophy is better than others?

Here in the USA, Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest people, is also one of the biggest contributors to charity.


----------



## asher (Mar 25, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Sure you can find a good example of this, and you can find bad examples as well - Soviet Union, or China, or North Korea. What does it mean? Does it mean that one governmental philosophy is better than others?
> 
> Here in the USA, Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest people, is also one of the biggest contributors to charity.



Yep, state-run industries, state controlled media, and domineering authoritarian policies designed expressly to keep their population down and in check are *totally* the same thing.

Don't be daft.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 25, 2015)

asher said:


> Yep, state-run industries, state controlled media, and domineering authoritarian policies designed expressly to keep their population down and in check are *totally* the same thing.
> 
> Don't be daft.



Daft, huh? Did you know that Gorbachev tried to institute a nordic model into the USSR? And how did that work out for him?

Also, within the USA, Vermont is the closest state to a Nordic model, with Bernie Sanders pushing to make VT an actual nordic model state. How does that affect the Vermont economy?

What about the fact that Sweden long had the highest suicide rate in the first world (during a time when the nordic model was in effect)? If the model was perfect, it should make people happy, not sad.

The nordic model looks impressive to outsiders, but it is not without problems.

The capitalist model has it's strengths and weaknesses itself. I don't claim that it is perfect, either.


----------



## ferret (Mar 25, 2015)

bostjan said:


> What about the fact that Sweden long had the highest suicide rate in the first world (during a time when the nordic model was in effect)? If the model was perfect, it should make people happy, not sad.



Sweden's suicide rates dropped below "#1" over 4 decades ago, and have continually plummeted since. There is a trend however that a lot of far north countries have higher suicide rates, somewhat attributable to the dark winters.

By current figures, Sweden's average is only 0.02% above the UK.

The US is 0.5% above Sweden. So....


----------



## bostjan (Mar 25, 2015)

ferret said:


> Sweden's suicide rates dropped below "#1" over 4 decades ago, and have continually plummeted since. There is a trend however that a lot of far north countries have higher suicide rates, somewhat attributable to the dark winters.
> 
> By current figures, Sweden's average is only 0.02% above the UK.
> 
> The US is 0.5% above Sweden. So....



Greenland, another state on the Nordic model, is currently #1, though.

Dark winters may have something to do with it, however, many of the countries in the top ten do not have dark winters.

Again, though, my point is that the nordic socio-economic model is not perfect, and neither is capitalism, if we go by example. If we stick to a logical model, that's a good start, but certainly not the means to determine the best actual model.

The flaws in socialist models is the weaker incentive. The nordic model adds a tiny bit of the incentive back into the game, but it's still not a libertarian model, which is based on economic freedoms.

You could offer someone a life that is fully structured by the government, and that person might be happy, and not at all free. If you offer the person freedom, that person could still choose to do the same thing, but not infringe upon others' freedom, so everybody wins in a way, see?


----------



## asher (Mar 25, 2015)

Daft, yes. Because we're talking about strong social safety net countries (they're really not all that socialist), and you pull out totalitarian Communist regimes. They're really barely on the same spectrum and have completely different intentions.


----------



## ferret (Mar 25, 2015)

Greenland is a horrible place to live, and no economic system will ever fix that. (Hint: Very little actual green)


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 26, 2015)

High suicide rates in places that are cold and dark in the winter, I would bet, have more to do with how cold and dark they are for a large portion of the year.

Alaska has the highest suicide rate per capita of any US state, for example. I'm not sure how it compares to say... Greenland/Iceland, Scandanavian countries, etc.

It probably has little to do with her tax system and free education.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 26, 2015)

A person's opinion on this really just boils down to how much value is placed on freedom.

Whether or not it demotivates people or how well it works versus other systems is perhaps too complex a topic, because it can bend either way depending on which variables are set aside.


----------



## asher (Mar 26, 2015)

How are you actually defining "motivates" people?


----------



## bostjan (Mar 26, 2015)

One of the big arguments against socialism is that it demotivates the population by removing the incentive for innovation and hard work.

Demotivate: (verb) to make less eager to work or to study


----------



## ferret (Mar 26, 2015)

One could also argue that a social safety net encourages some to take extra risks to innovate and go further, because failing in the endeavor doesn't result in crushing poverty when you lose everything.

That's why I don't look for another job that pays closer to what my skill set is worth,, versus the relatively high job security I currently enjoy. The risk to my family if it doesn't work out is too high by far, so I don't push ahead. Your priorities may differ.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 26, 2015)

Good point.

Innovation certainly comes with a financial risk, but not all financial risks involve innovation.

Conventional wisdom is that entrepreneurship is an artifact of capitalism. Although, in some socialist countries, the government acts as an entrepreneur.


----------



## asher (Mar 26, 2015)

bostjan said:


> One of the big arguments against socialism is that it demotivates the population by removing the incentive for innovation and hard work.
> 
> Demotivate: (verb) to make less eager to work or to study



I don't have statistics on hand but this is pretty (empirically) proven false. You don't have time for innovation when you live paycheck to paycheck, and there's a good chance you're working your ass off in a minimum wage job as it is.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 26, 2015)

Hmm. The first assumption of that statement is that the form of economy has a specific bearing on standard of living. 

The second thing is that standard of living correlates somehow to innovation.

I argue that the causation is reversed - higher level of innovation leads to higher standard of living, and not the other way around.

As far as empirical data, the standard of living in the US was highest after new innovations came about and in the geographical areas where these new innovations were produced. These things all happened during a time of capitalistic economic governing. The pace of innovation slowed significantly in the USA in the 1970's. Incidentally this was also a time when the economic model shifted away from pure capitalism toward socio-capitalism.

Empirically, the economic model has some bearing on innovation level, and innovation level has some bearing on the standard of living.

I'd be open to check out any sources you have, if you come across them, since you said you do not currently have access to support your position.

Here is an article about the differences between capitalism and socialism and what bearning the economic system has on levels of motivation (stated as a matter of fact, really): Capitalism vs. Socialism

Also, to quote a scholarly article ( JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie )



> I do not deny that capitalism has been effective in some parts of the world, and that in some limited instances - limited both in space and time - capitalism may have been even more effective than socialism. But the empirical evidence presented in this article shows that, contrary to what is widely claimed today, the socialist experience (both in its Leninist and its social democratic traditions) has been more frequently than not more efficient in responding to human needs than the capitalist experience. Unfortunately, the socialist experience has also included very negative developments that have negated important components of the socialist project and forced a much needed re-evaluation of the socialist project and the best road to reach it. The distance between socialist theory and practice has too frequently resembled the distance between the Sermon on the Mount and Christianity in the 2,000 years of its existence. Still, the historical experience of socialism is quite short. Capitalism has existed for over three centuries. Socialism, on the other hand, has just begun.



So empirical evidence does somewhat suggest the that neither is better, at least according to that source.


----------



## asher (Mar 26, 2015)

As a quick off-the-cuff reply, I'm going to note that you're citing the period with the (ed: *one of the. I'm not positive it was the absolute.) highest marginal tax rates in US history and much stronger organized labor.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 26, 2015)

Yeah, if you keep moving forward over the years, especially the last decade, we've fallen significantly behind on nearly all front compared to the rest of the world. We're by no means at the bottom, but we fall squarely in the middle where we used to be closer to the top. 

If you look at financial statistics it's painfully clear this country only offers the 'best' standard of living to those who are in the top 10%. As an example, it costs, even with grants, around 84% of their income of someone who falls in the bottom quartile to go to school. That basically means you either eat or go to school (or don't pay rent and never go to the doctor). That didn't used to be the case. In fact, even accounting for inflation, the cost of education has literally doubled while federal money has stayed relatively stagnant. We fall squarely in the middle when it comes to quality of healthcare, yet we are #1 in costs. This means people from other nations are getting more for their money. The middle class is actually wealthier in many other countries as well. This is what bringing capitalism to the extreme it is today has done for the US. 

'Socialism' does not make people lazy.  If this were true none of these things I listed above would be true either. Socialized societies with democracy's and a market based economy do very well and there is still a tier system based on individual effort. The 'failures' you describe are from totalitarian states which is hardly the same thing at all. That is the failing of dictatorships over democracy, not the failing of socialism.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 27, 2015)

I finally read it.

Got no idea what to make of it. Scary though.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 27, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Sure you can find a good example of this, and you can find bad examples as well - Soviet Union, or China, or North Korea. What does it mean? Does it mean that one governmental philosophy is better than others?
> 
> Here in the USA, Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest people, is also one of the biggest contributors to charity.



Whoa. Why are we comparing the Nordic countries to Communist countries? I'm pretty sure the Nordic model is based on Social Democracy - a system designed to strike a balance between the economy and society to greater serve democratic purposes, using the government as a medium to achieve this goal. That's an almost defining role of most governments, Social Democracy just takes it up a few notches. It really sits between Socialism and systems that contribute heavily to social safety nets. Speaking of which...



ferret said:


> One could also argue that a social safety net encourages some to take extra risks to innovate and go further, because failing in the endeavor doesn't result in crushing poverty when you lose everything.



This is exactly the reason I was able to quit my jobs at 28 and enter university to try to become a teacher. Australia offers the following incentives:

1) Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS): A system whereby the government pays for my university course upfront, and I pay them back at no interest (note - they index the balance yearly, so the figure might shift to reflect inflation, etc) once I am earning enough money to support myself (I believe the threshold is an income above ~$53,000 annually). 

2) Austudy: A pension scheme that provides students 25 and older with a small income (as little as $10,000 a year in my case) that allows them to supplement their income and therefore devote more time to their studies. There are conditions for eligibility, and I had to report any and all external money I earned on a fortnightly basis, so in weeks that I worked a lot of hours at my jobs, I received no Austudy support, which is in my opinion as it should be.

3) FEE-HELP: A system similar to HECS, though it is geared more towards postgraduate courses. I've just received this benefit to pay for my Masters in Education, and like HECS, I'll have to pay the debt back once I am fully employed. 

These are just the three benefits I've taken advantage of over the last five years, although I've also used our Medicare system a couple of times, including a couple of consultations where I didn't pay a cent. There are obviously dozens of other schemes, systems, and support networks in Australia that count as 'social safety nets', all of them paid for through taxes, and all of them designed, as far as I'm aware, to increase the possibilities that every Australian citizen has equal access to the systems that allow them to be the next generation of leaders, innovators, and inventors. 

In order for these systems to work, I have to be willing to contribute to them once I'm earning money again. I was more than happy to pay taxes (pretty high taxes on my second / third income) for a decade before I became a student because I knew that I had access to these programs if I ever chose to make a big change in my life. I'll be more than happy to pay high taxes again if I land a job in education because I want everybody else to have the same opportunities I've had. 



bostjan said:


> Hmm. The first assumption of that statement is that the form of economy has a specific bearing on standard of living.
> 
> The second thing is that standard of living correlates somehow to innovation.
> 
> I argue that the causation is reversed - higher level of innovation leads to higher standard of living, and not the other way around.



Thankfully, there's an organisation that compiles this kind of information and translates it into easy-to-read charts. Like this one. Hopefully, that link leads to the OECD 'Better Life Index', which allows to to place a certain level of importance on 11 different topics, and then it rates the countries against one another. If you crank every topic up to full, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden lead the pack, though the US ranks a respectable 7th place. If we look at just the 'Life Satisfaction' category, the Nordic countries come up on top again, alongside Canada. Income is the US's only #1 spot, ahead of Switzerland by a large margin, though when you read the details on Income in the US it ranks #3 in income inequality, behind Chile and Mexico.

So all of that suggests that though the US generates a pretty huge amount of wealth, largely through a history of technical and social innovation, the benefits of that wealth are not passed on to a large percentage of citizens. 

Innovation is important, but it isn't everything. Hell, it's essentially last on the list of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is a fairly uncontroversial theory of human motivation. We tend not to attempt to assert ourselves until after we're fed, sheltered, established within a peer group, and generally happy. Communism / socialism has been found not to create that environment, but it doesn't mean that social policies within democratic systems can't provide everything that the average person needs.

Obviously, opinion winds up playing a huge role in any conversation on standards of living. Hell, Melbourne keeps topping a list of the world's most liveable cities, but the high rent prices, poor public transport services in the outer suburbs, and a general dislike of wasting time in traffic / at bus stops convinced me to move back to my hometown. But if we're genuinely trying to be objective, let's not equate social services with socialism, and let's not assume that a strong economy automatically leads to high levels of innovation and high standards of living.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 27, 2015)

You all have a lot of good points.

My point stands, though, that economically, the data is not there to support the idea that socialism is better than capitalism.

We can argue of the minutiae, and you can all side with whomever you feel is more appropriate; however, I, personally, trust the data above other people's personal opinions. I also believe in the principle of personal freedom by limiting the role of government.

If the USA is highest in terms of income, and Switzerland is second highest, I'd say that's data to support that capitalism is a good model for economic growth.

Where people are the "happiest" is going to be related to several factors outside of economic considerations. As an extreme example, we could make a new society where everyone just gets high and eats government subsidized Doritos all day. I bet you'd score pretty high on the happiness level as long as it was sustainable.


----------



## ferret (Mar 27, 2015)

bostjan said:


> If the USA is highest in terms of income, and Switzerland is second highest, I'd say that's data to support that capitalism is a good model for economic growth.



This is an interesting figure to look in. I know you said "income", but let's switch to GDP per capita.

Switzerland's GDP Per Capita is ranked #4 in the world. The US is ranked #9. Also above the US: Denmark (#6), Sweden (#7) and Norway (#2). Norway is nearly double the GDP per capita of the US (100k versus 53k).

While I used the IMF figures here, the same story is told by the figures from the World Bank, CIA Fact Book, and United Nations.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 27, 2015)

ferret said:


> This is an interesting figure to look in. I know you said "income", but let's switch to GDP per capita.
> 
> Switzerland's GDP Per Capita is ranked #4 in the world. The US is ranked #9. Also above the US: Denmark (#6), Sweden (#7) and Norway (#2). Norway is nearly double the GDP per capita of the US (100k versus 53k).
> 
> While I used the IMF figures here, the same story is told by the figures from the World Bank, CIA Fact Book, and United Nations.



Source?

Norway does have a high GDP/capita, no doubt, but I believe that Qatar has the highest GDP/capita. Being that it is a capitalistic economy, that just proves my point that socialist economies are not necessarily better than capitalistic economies, using your own methodology.

Overall, though USA is still #1 in overall GDP.


----------



## ferret (Mar 27, 2015)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

The list is well enough sourced. Qatar is indeed high, but only passes Norway on the CIA Factbook figures.

The interesting thing to note about the GDP (without per capita) is that the US is indeed number 1 in raw GDP..... unless you group the European Union together as a single entity. The EU as a whole is higher than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


----------



## bostjan (Mar 27, 2015)

Even better for my point, Monaco and Luxembourg have very free economies, and appear at the top of the lists you posted. They are certainly structured by capitalism.

EDIT: To continue to be clear, I am not saying that a capitalist economy is better than a socialist one, I'm merely saying a socialist economy is not *necessarily* better than a capitalist one. As I said, I place freedom as a plus on my list, personally. If you guys do not, and you are going to go down the road to say that a socialist economy with high taxes and large amounts of social welfare benefits is necessarily better in terms of productivity, I think you'll have a tough time supporting that with data - whether it's true or not, the data tell a rather convoluted story due to the large number of other variables involved in economics.


----------



## asher (Mar 27, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Hmm. The first assumption of that statement is that the form of economy has a specific bearing on standard of living.



No, it's not. My statement is just as true for feudal serfs, Stalinist factory workers, Wal-Mart employees, etc. It's a much smaller scale version of how ancient civilizations didn't develop nearly any technology or basic forms of writing before they developed stable enough agricultural bases that it wasn't *necessary* for every person to be engaged in food production (or they'd all die).



> The second thing is that standard of living correlates somehow to innovation.



Not really. And I'm fairly sure our absurd levels of income inequality disprove this anyhow.


----------



## asher (Mar 27, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Even better for my point, Monaco and Luxembourg have very free economies, and appear at the top of the lists you posted. They are certainly structured by capitalism.
> 
> EDIT: To continue to be clear, I am not saying that a capitalist economy is better than a socialist one, I'm merely saying a socialist economy is not *necessarily* better than a capitalist one. As I said, I place freedom as a plus on my list, personally. If you guys do not, and you are going to go down the road to say that a socialist economy with high taxes and large amounts of social welfare benefits is necessarily better in terms of productivity, I think you'll have a tough time supporting that with data - whether it's true or not, the data tell a rather convoluted story due to the large number of other variables involved in economics.



To be clear, nobody is arguing for an actually socialist economy here 

I think you're mixing levels of regulation of capitalist/free market economies with suddenly becoming state owned socialist industries.

The problem with lightly regulated economies like that are... well, what we're seeing now, or going back to the wonderful Gilded Age. Extreme income inequality, poor to abysmal treatment of workers, rampant environmental destruction, etcetcetc.

Where do you draw your personal freedoms line? I do mean you, not the general you  I'm curious.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 27, 2015)

I'll just say- both the article and the discussion are thoroughly thought-provoking. I say that because I've always wrestled with the question of where to find the balance between individual liberty and the oversight of a central power.

The article certainly offers a compelling perspective calling for the later.


----------



## ferret (Mar 27, 2015)

I think, unless you are a hard liner who literally believes taxation is an infringement on your freedoms (I disagree but you are entitled to your viewpoint I suppose), the idea of personal freedoms is NOT incompatible with social safety nets, universal healthcare, or universal education, programs that are generally labelled as "socialist" and "evil" in modern US political theater.

Of course, if you're against taxation in general... well, then anything the government does is by definition an infringement, I guess.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 27, 2015)

JPhoenix19 said:


> I say that because I've always wrestled with the question of where to find the balance between individual liberty and the oversight of a central power.



That's the thing right there - where to draw the line, because all the way to either side will fail.

I like the libertarian approach as a general, idealistic philosophy, but I've also been around the block enough times to realize that it won't work in a practical, real world implementation. Take free markets, for example. The concept relies upon multiple sellers competing within a category offering variations on their products, whether variations in the product itself or different price points, etc., along with the freedom of buyers to choose the item most suited to their needs. But without regulation, what occurs is one (monopoly) or a small handful (oligopoly) of wealthy, powerful competitor(s) ends up controlling the market, standardizing prices in their favor. And since they have money and power, they are able to keep smaller competitors and new entrants out. So those innovative companies never have a chance to compete because they lack the resources to even get in the game to begin with.

The same applies to healthcare and all the other hot button issues.

So - where do we draw the line so that we can maximize personal freedom, but ensure an equal playing field so that everyone has the opportunity to get in the game if they so desire (from that point, it's a matter of survival of the fittest, but only once everyone has the same opportunity).


----------



## bostjan (Mar 27, 2015)

asher said:


> Where do you draw your personal freedoms line? I do mean you, not the general you  I'm curious.



Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want to do, so long as you are capable, and so long as it does not impose on another person's freedom.

Economically, corporations have to be regulated on a different level, because they are not people, even if they are made of people. A company should not have the same rights as a human being. However, companies should be treated equally as well as each other.

If Joe Schmo wants to start a business, he should have the right to do so, and then the government's regulation of Joe Schmo's business should not interfere with Joe's personal rights, and the business should not infringe upon anyone else's rights.


----------



## ferret (Mar 27, 2015)

So, to propose a modern day example based on current US political issues:

Should the government be involved in stopping work place discrimination, such as a business firing someone for being gay, muslim, black, whatever, because of the personal beliefs of the majority owner of said business?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 27, 2015)

Personal freedom is a tricky thing because most freedoms do have an impact on other peoples freedom one way or another.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 27, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Personal freedom is a tricky thing because most freedoms do have an impact on others peoples freedom one way or another.



Exactly.

Reading through this discussion makes me think about America. I'm not really patriotic, but I do appreciate many of the benefits of American society. At the same time, in many ways I'm also dissatisfied. I guess to sum it up, I feel like America (and its people) gets some things right, but some other things very very wrong.

Bringing all of that into this discussion's context- while I find myself quite in the center of many issues I find myself leaning toward more economic regulation. I don't mind being taxed- even heavily, if I know it's going toward a strong and just central power with its people's benefit and protection as its priority.

True and utter freedom is actually chaos. Chaos cannot last for long, as when people congregate they tend toward law and order. Perhaps its a facet of human nature. And even if chaos did last and the 'vacuum' of regulation remained- it would be far from an ideal state. It would become, in many ways, like nature- survival of the fittest.

So "actual" freedom (as I'm defining it) is a "space" of safety created by regulation. Another way to say it is "The same cage that keeps the bird in, keeps the cat out".


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 28, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want to do, so long as you are capable, and so long as it does not impose on another person's freedom.



I promise this post will be shorter than the last. Check out Amartya Sen on 'The Capabilities Approach', and then if you feel like it, check out Martha Nussbaum's 'List of Human Capabilities'. Sen won the Nobel prize in Economics for his work on welfare economics, essentially making the argument (I'm paraphrasing the next bit to simplify) that individuals must actually be capable of acting in their own interests, not just given the right to act in their own interests. For example...



bostjan said:


> If Joe Schmo wants to start a business, he should have the right to do so



Absolutely. But having the right to do so does not necessarily provide an environment in which Joe might be able to establish a business. Is Joe already independently wealthy? If not, he'll have to gain funding to start the business. Will the banks offer him a fair deal on a business loan? How do we define 'fair'? How will other business owners react to Joe's presence? For example, if Joe is opening "Bicycles R Us" and the owner of the nearby "Bicycle Warehouse" decides he doesn't want the competition, are there laws in place to stop Mr Bicycle Warehouse from putting up billboards claiming the Joe is a convicted criminal that buys all his products from China and only hires illegal immigrants? At a certain point, somebody has to intervene to protect Joe's interests. We call these interventions laws, and we call the intervenors government, and both are essential to protecting Joe's interests, because in a truly competitive market, Walmart (insert whatever powerful body you prefer to Walmart) would own everything.

Phoenix phrased the dilemma very well: 



JPhoenix19 said:


> So "actual" freedom (as I'm defining it) is a "space" of safety created by regulation. Another way to say it is "The same cage that keeps the bird in, keeps the cat out".



At the personal level, on an international scale, the space of safety is created by welfare. The best method we've come up with to create a 'fair' welfare system is through social democratic policies, as donations from the super-rich don't remotely hit the figures required to provide food and shelter to the least fortunate. *Freedom is a useless gift if you don't have the means (capital) to take advantage of it*. If the private sector isn't willing to increase wages to allow more people to enact their freedoms, then the public sector will fulfil the need in the only way it knows how: taxes and welfare.


----------

