The problem with socialism is that there are certain jobs people do only for money. For example, no one becomes a dentist because they are passionate about teeth. However, it makes sense to have a floor on earnings in the form of a UBI. I think that would be the best of both worlds.
That's a version of the main problem, which is lack of a proper feedback mechanism. Money provides feedback for how what we do gets valued, and lets us establish a complex dynamical system that otherwise is not controllable. There is no feedback like this in socialism, so at best you get shortages, at worst you end up violently enforcing some particular version of a system on people and a substitute for the communication channel that money provides.
I think the first step is acknowledging what you imply: Free markets and capitalism are just algorithms, not arbiters of truth or morality. (This is also the working title of an essay I am working on)
We can't have a rational discussion of the alternatives when so many people have bought into the notion that all forms of private property are an inalienable right and market-driven valuation of the worth of a person does represents what a person morally deserves. People also once bought into the notion of the divine right of kings. It took forever to shake that.
We can't evaluate algorithms unless we come to a shared value system on what we are after, what exactly we are trying to optimize. Aggregate material wealth, regardless of how it is distributed? Broad population well-being / happiness? Individual liberty? Greater good. Darwinian competition?
The problem with socialism is that it kills individual initiative and individual liberty. This has been demonstrated in all attempts to implement it.
Any system that does not accept and positively use the fact that individuals do things for their own benefits and have a built-in, evolved, sense of fairness in the sense that they are sensitive to each individual benefiting in fair proportion of the contribution they made is doomed to fail.
Point is, individual initiative and individual liberty don't matter when you don't have dignity, e.g. being homeless, drowning in debt, etc.
In all socialist experiences, the standard of living of the lower class skyrocketed in comparison to the respective previous regimes. This is a measurable, material fact. In comparison, what you and most liberalist thinkers label as "fairness" is not only abstract but also disconnected from the current reality.
Claiming that capitalism should be thrown away because of a tiny minority of homeless people, while overall people are massively better off than socialist states could ever dream of, shows the absolute bankruptcy of socialist ideology that ran out of any reasonable arguments decades ago.
This whole capitalism vs. socialism argument is ridiculous. Capitalism can't solve all problems, clearly. neither can socialism. so then you have to talk about what laws, regulations and taxes we should have. Not how many but what kind.
Also, your worried about economic freedom and individual choice. Most billionaires now have unelected bureaucrats running charitable foundations. we've abdicated so much power and decision making to the billionaires that we don't much choice. I guess if count what toppings you want on your pizza there's plenty of choices. as long as you don't mind toxic chemicals in there...I'm looking at you skittles.
10 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 31.7 ms ] threadWe can't have a rational discussion of the alternatives when so many people have bought into the notion that all forms of private property are an inalienable right and market-driven valuation of the worth of a person does represents what a person morally deserves. People also once bought into the notion of the divine right of kings. It took forever to shake that.
We can't evaluate algorithms unless we come to a shared value system on what we are after, what exactly we are trying to optimize. Aggregate material wealth, regardless of how it is distributed? Broad population well-being / happiness? Individual liberty? Greater good. Darwinian competition?
Any system that does not accept and positively use the fact that individuals do things for their own benefits and have a built-in, evolved, sense of fairness in the sense that they are sensitive to each individual benefiting in fair proportion of the contribution they made is doomed to fail.
In all socialist experiences, the standard of living of the lower class skyrocketed in comparison to the respective previous regimes. This is a measurable, material fact. In comparison, what you and most liberalist thinkers label as "fairness" is not only abstract but also disconnected from the current reality.
Also, your worried about economic freedom and individual choice. Most billionaires now have unelected bureaucrats running charitable foundations. we've abdicated so much power and decision making to the billionaires that we don't much choice. I guess if count what toppings you want on your pizza there's plenty of choices. as long as you don't mind toxic chemicals in there...I'm looking at you skittles.