If I understand correctly, apart from the criticism that jah's argument fails to take into account that, if every society ever has been socialist, it seems odd to state confidently either that no socialist society can survive or that all socialist societies end in starvation.
You are not understanding correctly.
Not every society has been socialist. There have been feudalist societies, etc, and there are many different varieties and extremes of socialism. They end in differing degrees of devestation and collapse.
More generally, jah is preaching Leaptopianism - an ideology made famous by our own beloved Leap, a similarly excitable young man who was also rather too fond of the pointless ad hominem. In Leaptopian society, humans operate essentially at the village level.
I am preaching nothing of the sort, and I ain't excited, son.
Humans operate at the individual level. Villages have nothing to do with it any more than “society” or “nations” do.
People like Leap, who combine innate ethical sense with a mastery of woodcrafts, are respected for their ability to catch food.
Again, I said nothing of the sort. I said that I personally would be happy to live in the woods by myself, not that this is “ best for society”. I could care less if you respect me.
In general, order is maintained through the judicious application of melee weapons, although grannies are allowed shotguns.
Again, I said nothing like this. I said it may be very appropriate to have a very limited constititutional republic to protect private property rights. The U.S. Constitution tried to limit the destructive role of a centralized government by putting power in the hands of the states but built in too many loopholes (Jefferson realized this and recommended an overthrow of the government every couple decades). Others like Patrick Henry hated the constitution from the start and favored the even more decentralized articles of confederation.
In essence, it's an anarcho-syndicalist utopia in which no process of trade beyond barter exists.
No, I’m saying nothing of the sort. You’re putting words in my mouth. The most marketable commodity (usually gold, silver) with suitable money-like characteristics will be used as a medium of exchange, thus elevating society beyond simple barter. Read the Theory of Money and Credit
The two questions that tend to be raised at this point are: 1) how does one obtain the things that a social model based around individuals interacting with individuals doesn't do very well, like roads, national defence, health care?
The general class of economic problem you are referring to is a “public good” in economics speak (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_6.pdf), a familiar example taught in schools is the lighthouse, and I have rarely seen an example of an economic “public good” that is legitimate. Others have shown why markets do a better job of providing such goods than governments do. I can give you a few quick links.
For instance, individuals interacting with individuals do an excellent job of providing healthcare. I would like you to back up your assertion that government does it better, since I specialize in the healthcare industry and I can't point to a single example. The government tampering with healthcare, or anything else, tends to fuck things up. You can look back to the history of the AMA and the use of government to artificially limit the supply of doctors, plus the smear campaign aimed at homeopaths etc., as the start of the inflationary spiral in health care costs. (http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002110.asp) If you’re interested I can provide links on medicare, Medicaid, and socialized medicine.
Ditto for roads and lighthouses (read Coase’s history) and railroads and national defense(http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf).
and 2) although many of the thjngs the government uses our money for are not things we agree with - for example, war in Iraq -are unwelcome, how do we get rid of that without alos getting rid of things we do like - for example, financial support to people at the bottom of the heap?
1) capitalism by its very nature supports people at the bottom by lowering prices for them
2) This assumes that there are no charitable people in a capitalist society. Are there church groups? Will some people use the money they aren’t paying in taxes to donate to help others? If I wasn’t paying such ridiculous amounts in taxes would I be more charitable?
The Leaptopian solution is that the virtuous poor would be supported by acts of individual charity. This highlights what for me is a bit of a problem with Leaptopian society: those with resources to spare get to decide who is or is not deserving.
As opposed to socialism, where those WITHOUT resources get to decide who to plunder resources FROM, and who is or is not deserving of receiving this plundered wealth?
If a very small number of people in an area have resources to spare, or prioritise kindness to the needy as a desirable commodity for them to purchase, then the ranks of people who get to choose who is deserving is equally small.
No, again, the whole point is to make things cheaper (positive-sum game) as opposed to socialism which has to make someone else worse off to make someone else better off (zero-sum game). Under capitalism prices have a tendency to fall (making goods and services more affordable). Which is why a poor man’s clothes and sneakers and food and shelter and healthcare today are better than a King’s 400 years ago, despite government attempts to hamper this progress.
So... I'd suggest that one of the aims of government bureaucracy is to prevent these sort of personal, moral judgements being applied to issues like the care of the poor. The bureaucracy's facelessness is annoying, and expensive to maintain, but it means that those who set policy have no vested interest or moral animus towards those who seek to benefit from it
No vested interest? Are you kidding me? This is the very definition of vested interest.
In the absence of an incontestably even-handed arbiter, this is represented as the best way to get around the issue. Can individual charity perform in the same way?
Again, it’s not charity that is making people better off (although that helps also). It’s that prices for goods and services are falling, making them more accessible to everyone. |
