myconv: I just said that. Look to the quote.
Good, so we're on the same page. It's a utopian fantasy.
How is WHAT funded, keeping the value of your work? That doesn't make any sense. If you cook some brownies and then sell them, who is funding you keeping the profit of you selling the brownies if not taxes? This is how your dumb question looks in any specific scenario.
See, the problem is, you define that you get to keep the value your labor, but to keep the system of government around, there needs to be some degree of value transfer, which is theft, which means you don't get to keep the value of your labor. Taxation is a method of funding, however taxation also means you don't get to keep the value of your labor. Unless, of course, you wish to redefine that as well.
How does a society decide what laws to pass to protect citizens from harm, you ask. Geez. Um, are you saying you live in a completely lawless area? Sorry, I can't educate you on this very complicated deep subject that is rather off topic too.
Oh, so it's constantly arbitrary, and thus no rights are guaranteed protected from government corruption. Good to know.
I was asked for my definition, and I gave it. Remember earlier when you asked if it was an ideal while quoting me saying it was an ideal? Well it's an ideal. So don't talk about means, as you inanely pick apart my definition, as that's a separate topic.
Also when trying to figure out how to accomplish anything, you must never let perfection become the enemy of the good. This means just because you can't get everything you could ever dream of, doesn't mean nothings better than something. And yeah, we live in a world post scarcity, if resources were distributed evenly there would be more than enough space and material to house everyone on Earth, more than enough food to feed everyone etc. But even not everyone can get enough basic food and housing etc to survive even though the resources are there, doesn't mean that we shouldn't provide more people with the basics of living, rather than less.
The means are inevitably a part of a definition of that which is actually defining means, but, then again, we left the territory of means and went into ideal for some reason. We're already using conflicting definitions, but we can continue on this route. As for post scarcity, that's not true. Until scarcity is removed without human effort, we do not live in post-scarcity. Moreover, that requires that certain resourcs (such as time) become non-scarce, which requires the ability to extend one's life indefinitely, which is, of course, not even remotely tenable at the current time. If you want to get more technical, that also requires infinites of resources (such as human beings themselves) which is even more untenable. We could pretend that "there's enough in the world for everyone," but that's not post-scarcity. Post-scarcity implies that all resourcs are indefinitely (time) infinite (amount).
You thought what was a definition?
What you posted. Examples do not make a definition, especially in the negative.
No, I didn't.
But you certainly did: you said that people can keep the fruits of their labor: that is a method. You also implied some protection of harm. This is a method to your ideal world, not a description. A description would be something like "everyone's got what they earned" and so forth. By saying that they are freedoms, you are suggesting that there is some method of guarantee. Also, you say it's an ideal for society and government, which mentions said enforcer. Ok, maybe this one thing is a little stretchy.
Well North Korea promised democracy, but when the rubber hit the road, things in reality didn't turn out as they do on paper. See, they even hold elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_North_Korea But reality just doesn't hold up. I guess this means democracy is a failure and not that there wasn't any real attempt at democracy in the first place, yep that can't be it.[/sarcasm]
They weren't promised things you state, that you get to keep your labor and be protected from undue harm?
There is no difference between your landlord charging you $100 more in rent verses the government charging you $100 more in taxes, except that with a democratic government maybe you might get a tiny bit of say in how that money is spent. There is no difference between a government taxing you 25% of your wages and you getting 25% less wages because the business knows you got no other choice to survive.
And i can give the landlord the proverbial middle finger and move out. See, i can refuse to work for someone or exchange goods with someone. Government doesn't exactly give me an "opt out," let alone an "opt in" like non-governmental business. GOG didn't take my money and give me a game. I have the power to choose not to give my labor to a company that asks more than i'm willing to give. There's a huge difference in terms of obligation. Also, that doesn't actually address what i said.
Oh, sorry. I thought you knew what capitalism was. Since you aren't familiar with capitalism or alternatives to it, I guess you're new to earth. Welcome.
Pardon, it seems your examples of capitalism imposing obligation have been lost in the transfer of your typed text to the server. Could you try resending them?
FFS, you misquote me while partially quoting me. Can you live in capitalism without a job or welfare from state or friends/family?
Yes. There's multiple ways, but the amish would love to have a word with you. They've discovered this thing called "farming" where they can grow their own food without having and employer. They actually manage to sell their excess in exchange for currency to be used in paying the "protection fee" of government.
Are you free to disobey your boss at work, even when your instructed to do something unethical?
Absolutely. You can loose your job, but, well, that's part of how it works. Meanwhile, you can actuall expose what your boss had instructed you to do to the customer base which could result in fewer people doing business with your boss.
If your boss tells you to work extra hours for free so they don't have to pay you overtime, I'm sure you're free to just walk away, go home and starve, any family that's depending on you too.
Well, you see, you could also find other ways of generating value. You could start your own business, gamble, etc. I've had the plesure of meeting such mythical people.
And if you don't pay your rent, your free to sleep on a bench, wait no the police will kick you off or the city will design benches that can't be slept on (called hostile design) They might even put cement spikes under bridges so the homeless can't find shelter there, because homeless people are the scum of the earth.[/sarcasm] Because if the alternative to obedience is death or near death, I'm sure that's the definition of freedom. [/sarcasm]
Oh, i thought we were talking about capitalism. I mean, if you want to add government (like police) to the mix, there's actually alot of other options for your questions above.
That's not how reality in capitalism works. Plenty of times the greed incentive is that to discourage innovation and quality. I guess you've never heard of planned obsolescence. Oh right, I forgot you're new to Earth. Again, Welcome.
Because money never motivated people to invent the computer or other device that you're using to communicate this to me. I'm sure we could come up with plenty of other examples, as well.
I am adding to a part of the definition that some hold, yes. And no, it is not a "circular definition", that is a dumb question.
You should probably separate that, so we know where the definition ends and the non-definitional part begins. If that were to be added to the definition itself, the definition would thus be circular.
I said they were vague words from the beginning, my definitions included. Still, my vague definitions are still much more specific then Scientiaes "socialism is society being valued at the cost of individuals" and "libertarian is individuals being valued at the cost of society" or whatever half assed definition I had to drag out of them. Remember, I asked Scientiae for their definition, and it was Scientiae who countered with a request of my definitions while still not giving me theirs.
That actually turned out to be pretty close to the official and standard definition. It's actually not vague, because it's descriptive and specific to a fundamental level. The problem was, your example of why it was a problem was simply wrong, because it implied that individualism had no interest in incarceration policies for one's own protection. Individualism does not exclude society or government, but merely implies priority of the individual over those institutions.
I say this to you too Kolrak. Give me your definitions. I have responded in length as you pick apart my definitions, give me your own then. Or are you just a troll?
Also as I said before, we don't need to use either word as they are both extremely flawed and ill defined words where the vague definitions absolutely split along ideological lines.
The conservative definition for socialism would be "The theft of one's labor to provide another with said labor." The conservative definition of capitalism would be "The freedom for individuals to do business with one another unhindered by anything short of agreement." Of course, I could expand on these quite a bit, but GOG post size limits prohibit me.
