The End of States Rights

[Pindar]

Because capatlism doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why the pursuit of wealth ought to be such a big part of a government style.

What you object to above is not something that fits under a standard capitalist model. Do you understand the basic tenets and differences between capitalism and socialism? If not, we can work on these if you would like.

I think that the governments job ought to be to look after the citizens that have bad living conditions, while having no say in personal morality and enforcing the most basic of laws (killing, stealing, rape, etc.)

You may want to consider again what you wrote above. You have basically given the government a moral charge: "looking after citizens" in a bad way. You then said government should stay out of personal morality and followed this with a basic enforcement provision which is itself a moral positioning: proscribing killing, rape etc. are moral stances. This seems sticky.

My guess is you wanted to say government should help people improve their lot, but not get tangled in their personal affairs. If I'm correct then I want to ask you: what do you think is the basic purpose of government? By this I mean: what is the fundamental charge or reason government exists. Once this is determined we could look again at what you wrote.

[Steppe Merc]

What you object to above is not something that fits under a standard capitalist model. Do you understand the basic tenets and differences between capitalism and socialism? If not, we can work on these if you would like.

I admit, that I have not taken any classes that have gave me any understandable deffinition of the two. Really, the only form of government I really get is feudalism...

You may want to consider again what you wrote above. You have basically given the government a moral charge: "looking after citizens" in a bad way. You then said government should stay out of personal morality and followed this with a basic enforcement provision which is itself a moral positioning: proscribing killing, rape etc. are moral stances. This seems sticky.

My guess is you wanted to say government should help people improve their lot, but not get tangled in their personal affairs. If I'm correct then I want to ask you: what do you think is the basic purpose of government? By this I mean: what is the fundamental charge or reason government exists. Once this is determined we could look again at what you wrote.

Right, that was what I was trying to say: improve people's lot, while not getting into their personal belief and life. Sorry for being so vague, I've been having trouble with that lately.

I believe the government exists to help those that need bettering do so, without telling those people how to act morally, as well as insuring the people are safe from outside harm (protect from murderers, but not from people harming only themselves).

Listen to Pindar. The man has good points.

I agree, Pindar does have excellent points. I may not always agree with them, or understand them, but they are good points.

And I can't explain socalism, as I'm not sure I understand it myself. I said "probably socialism" as I believe that is closest to what my views are from what little I understand, but I'm not sure.

[Hurin_Rules]

And I can't explain socalism, as I'm not sure I understand it myself. I said "probably socialism" as I believe that is closest to what my views are from what little I understand, but I'm not sure.

It all depends on how you define socialism. Is any government interference in the market socialism? Then the USA is a socialist country. The fed sets interest rates, the government takes in taxes and spends them on social programs, etc. All nations are socialist to some degree if one defines it as such, and I believe we should. The end of marxist socialism is of course the elimination of private property, but other forms of Socialism, such as the evolutionary forms one sees in many European countries, mix capitalism with socialism. I don't really see any country that has progressed beyond hunter/gatherer stage that is or has been wholly socialist or wholly capitalist, and I'm not even sure about the hunter/gatherers.

[Pindar]

I admit, that I have not taken any classes that have gave me any understandable deffinition of the two. Really, the only form of government I really get is feudalism...

OK, lets get some basic economic working definitions in play:

Capitalism: an economic system where the primary means of production and commerce are in private hands. This means the state is restrained in its involvement, though not entirely. The state functions as a regulatory body: enforcing the rule of law (i.e. contracts, fraud etc) and maintaining equal access to the market. The market is the general determiner of value via supply and demand. Success or failure is considered an individual concern not a state issue.

Capitalism supporters do so because it is seen as maximizing personal economic liberty (ala the entrepreneur), efficiency, flexibility and checks government, which is typically seen as embodying the opposite of the traits mentioned. Capitalists often see government as a necessary evil.

Socialism: an economic/political system where government oversight and/or control is found in major industries. The state partners with major industries to lessen the harsher realities of the market and enhance social organization. Socialism has a collectivist impulse and is also egalitarian in basic orientation. The state's role is seen as promoting a reasonable standard for its citizenry while working against excess on the periphery.

Socialism supporters do so because it is seen as providing security, reliability and a base equity.

Right, that was what I was trying to say: improve people's lot, while not getting into their personal belief and life. Sorry for being so vague, I've been having trouble with that lately.

I believe the government exists to help those that need bettering do so, without telling those people how to act morally, as well as insuring the people are safe from outside harm (protect from murderers, but not from people harming only themselves).

Alright, it sounds like you agree that government has a charge towards its citizenry. In fact, you list this as the fundamental purpose of government: government exists to help. Government therefore has a moral onus. You also restrict government from impinging on personal liberties even self harm. Now what if these two conflict? What if the moral minimalism runs counter to the state's role in bettering lives?

We also need to define what this bettering entails. Is this an economic standard? If so, is this measured by state performance i.e. GDP, national unemployment etc. or does it operate along some personal line: personal per capita income or buying potential etc?

I agree, Pindar does have excellent points. I may not always agree with them, or understand them, but they are good points.

[Steppe Merc]

Thank you for the economics lesson. I get it a lot more now.

I'll try and break it down, and say my views on each thing.

an economic/political system where government oversight and/or control is found in major industries.

Yes, I am strongly for this. I believe that the government has to control the industries to protect the workers and the enviromnet. Unless the government controls the big buisnesses, it will continue to screw the workers and destroy our enviornment.

The state partners with major industries to lessen the harsher realities of the market and enhance social organization.

Not quite sure what the social organization means, or the harsh realities of the market...

Socialism has a collectivist impulse and is also egalitarian in basic orientation.

Well I don't think that money can or ought to be outlawed, nor do I think that all land should be taken and redistributed by force. I would never advocate the forced reallacation of wealth through violence, which is why I would not consider myself a Communist.

The state's role is seen as promoting a reasonable standard for its citizenry while working against excess on the periphery.

Not sure what a periphery is, but I do think that the state should better the living and economic conditions of the people.
Now about the morals. It is a difficult thing for me to explain, and it does have serious limiting effects on how much the government can help the poor. For example, how does the gov't help a junkie who just wants to spend the money on herion?
I believe that if someone wants to spend their money of pot, or acid or whatever, and do so in their own house, the government should not intervene. When the drug user (or whatever) starts to harm others or put others at risk (by driving under the influence for example), then the government ought to step in.
As for helping people, I believe that if a person is poor, the government ought to insure that that person has a good living condition and enough money in order to find a job. As I mentioned, I'm not sure when the government can or ought to say "This guy is hopeless, he wastes all of our money, sorry guy, you're on you're own."
I'd probably have to say that if the person wants to ruin their life, they have that perogitive, and that overides the governments purpose to try and better them. Not sure how that would fit in legally and all, however.

As for bettering, I think it would be personal. National is all well and good, but for example, America may be rich, but the poor are still poor. If the government just focuses on raising the national average, than the people who really need to be helped will not be. The goverment should focus on allowing the individual poor people to get homes and steady jobs, as opposed to just trying to keep the national quota good. Again, I don't see how this would be practical or possible, but it's what I think.

And I'd like to thank you for causing me to write perhaps the longest post I've ever written, and challenging me to try and put my thoughts into intellegible words.

[Divinus Arma]

MJ = Marijuana

Not Michael Jackson, AKA Michael "wishing tree" Jackson

[Pindar]

MJ = Marijuana

Not Michael Jackson, AKA Michael "wishing tree" Jackson

I know, I just couldn't resist referencing a former black man turned white woman who pursues hispanic boys.

[Pindar]

Thank you for the economics lesson. I get it a lot more now....

And I'd like to thank you for causing me to write perhaps the longest post I've ever written, and challenging me to try and put my thoughts into intellegible words.

Is this interesting to you? Would you like me to help you flush out some of your ideas and challenge them a little or are you content? Regardless, I'll answer some of the questions you asked below.



Social organization: socialism can be defined in economic terms but the notion is part of a larger body of thought that has socio-political overtones. Social organization refers to the attempt to reinforce man's part in the larger community and thus avoid any kind of atomization.

Harsh realities: capitalism is often seen by its opponents as giving place to the jungle were only the strong survive and the weak get eaten. In economic terms this refers to seemingly arbitrary firings, lay offs, job displacement or any other situations were one may be the odd man out.

Periphery: the extreme economic ends of the scale: the very poor and very rich. Both are seen as relative negatives.

If you wish to continue then I will focus on what you wrote concerning the moral element of government.

[Papewaio]

With regards to the USAs less then sterling success at free trade (steel tariffs, lamb quotas, other primary industries).

Does that make it a Capitalist internal economy and a Socialist external economy as the USA buffers the internal industries from the harsher economics reality of free trade?