Agreed—I’m not trying to argue for anarchism here. I just find it interesting. There’s a fairly frequent belief that certain things won’t happen without government, but it’s usually a lot more complex than that.
That said, I’m a believer in Chesterton’s Fence. We changed to governmental libraries for a reason, and we shouldn’t be gung-ho about changing back until we can explain why.
Be very careful phrasing things like that as general rules. Go look up how societal food distribution worked in communist nations. As an example, whenever a defector left the Soviet bloc, the thing that usually impressed them most was a grocery store that we’d find perfectly ordinary—shelves full of food, good variety, attractive displays, cheap prices. Apparently, quite a lot of them assumed it was a fake just to impress them, because the idea of an A+P was literally not believable to them.
I do think some things should be publicly provided—I am not the absolutist libertarian I was at age 17. But capitalism blows communism out of the water in every meaningful way. There’s still a big, big role for the private sector in the economy.
We were talking about libraries, roads, and other such things. You are quite right. Food distribution cannot be centrally managed. In that way the natural economy works far better. However, in the whole basis of this discussion that will be (in the near future) handled by machines and certainly that will be done by the private market and I agree with that. I think we need some heavy modifications to capitalism. Things like a flat tax and a strong societal focus on community and the members of that community is what needs to change. Perhaps these new technologies will encourage that. In recent memory we have been too focused on corporate welfare at a great expense to society. It is time that we change that.
I think we need some heavy modifications to capitalism. Things like a flat tax and a strong societal focus on community and the members of that community is what needs to change.
Neither the particulars of a tax system, nor the degree of social cohesion (or lack of it) in a community are features of capitalism. You can have capitalism with many different kinds of tax systems and with loose or tight societies.
By the way, what does a “strong societal focus on community” imply about asocial people who would tell the community to get lost..?
Truly, capitalism does not feature any of those things which is partly why, thanks to globalization, we don’t have them anymore. Of course you can have free markets with many kinds of tax systems and loose or tight societies but what we have found is that countries that protect their industries and protect the flow of capital coming and going have more stable economies and more stable employment than those that don’t. Think of the Asian Financial crisis. Malaysia controlled capital and their economy recovered faster. Others took the IMF route with more open markets and less restrictions and look longer. This is the culmination of a pattern in history that simply has to stop. A flat tax of 15% on all incomes with sales and property taxes as necessary is a far better system than the graduated system that we have in most developed countries now.
As far as a strong societal focus on community, those asocial people that would not choose to participate do not have to participate. They don’t have to be involved although they will benefit. However, that does not mean that we should not have the services available and the economic policies in place to create strong communities economically and culturally. Humans are tribal and we need to support our tribes. The current economic environment has broken that system apart and we are suffering in many ways besides our pocket books. If you want stronger wages then you need to stop in the inflow of cheap labor and the outflow of jobs. In order to do that you have to control trade policy. In the modern environment of globalization those things simply do not exist anymore. Capital can move freely all over the globe and be put to use wherever its managers wish with a complete disregard to the local conditions or how well the community in the area may respond to a project. I think we need to strongly adopt the principle of thinking globally and acting locally. It has fallen out of use and it needs to be brought back. If we think of that economically big changes that would benefit everyone would soon occur.
why, thanks to globalization, we don’t have them anymore.
We don’t have what any more? Tax systems..?
we have found is that countries that protect their industries and protect the flow of capital coming and going have more stable economies and more stable employment than those that don’t.
We have found no such thing. That’s, ahem, bullshit.
A flat tax of 15% on all incomes with sales and property taxes as necessary is a far better system
You do realize it’s going to be HUGELY less progressive than all current Western systems, right?
If you want stronger wages then you need to stop in the inflow of cheap labor and the outflow of jobs.
We were talking about libraries, roads, and other such things.
I’m not sure we need classical libraries anymore. Building buildings to house paper books isn’t necessary.
The real problem is finding good models for society to pay for people who actually write the book. Afterwards the distribution of the books is better done via the internet.
I think we need them as places for community, for information, and many people still prefer to read paper books so I think we need for the time being. It is also a free secular place for people to gather and that is very important. The internet is not the solution for every problem. Paying writers to write books is an ongoing and difficult problem to solve because the price of living is rising and the wages for almost everything is falling. Our society does not value certain things and art is certainly one of those.
At risk of getting grossly off-topic, I’ll simply say that I disagree with your last point(though much of the rest is unobjectionable), and leave it at that.
I can’t see how you can endorse a society such as the American civilization that has been literally built since 1945 for the benefit of the corporation and the wealth. That boggles the mind. If corporations want to meaningfully join the whole society rather than becoming leeches upon everyone else I would welcome that. I do not like the future where corporations run around the world going to whatever country agrees to be raped the most leaving everyone else in the dust or forcing people to try to find jobs/employment in an increasingly shrinking environment. Even if you account for the fact that many jobs don’t require a physical human presence that post-nation state future is not a pleasant one. The economy should work for everyone not just a few.
I was trying to avoid getting off-topic, but if you’d rather embrace it, that’s fine too.
Your time period is arbitrary—the Gilded Age falls outside your era of “America being built for corporations”, and the 50s and 60s of New Deal dominance, strong unions, and the only electable Republican being so far left that Democrats look to him longingly today falls inside that era.
Corporations are thoroughly embedded in society—their biggest owners are mutual funds and pension funds, which are solidly middle-class investments.
“Rape” implies taking what you want by force—the Luxembourgs and Irelands of the world are benefiting massively from their tax structure. Yes, you collect less tax, but that’s hardly their problem. And the higher-tax countries are still getting theirs—the US can collect tax on your company’s US operations, just not their international ones, which seems eminently fair to me.
If the environment is “shrinking”, you may wish to figure out why. Also, why it seems to be shrinking so much more slowly in areas run by smaller governments.
It became the realm of the public so that more people could benefit from it and it has been fairly successful in some ways and not in others.
Agreed—I’m not trying to argue for anarchism here. I just find it interesting. There’s a fairly frequent belief that certain things won’t happen without government, but it’s usually a lot more complex than that.
That said, I’m a believer in Chesterton’s Fence. We changed to governmental libraries for a reason, and we shouldn’t be gung-ho about changing back until we can explain why.
I think providing things via society paying for them is generally a better system then a privately funded system.
Be very careful phrasing things like that as general rules. Go look up how societal food distribution worked in communist nations. As an example, whenever a defector left the Soviet bloc, the thing that usually impressed them most was a grocery store that we’d find perfectly ordinary—shelves full of food, good variety, attractive displays, cheap prices. Apparently, quite a lot of them assumed it was a fake just to impress them, because the idea of an A+P was literally not believable to them.
I do think some things should be publicly provided—I am not the absolutist libertarian I was at age 17. But capitalism blows communism out of the water in every meaningful way. There’s still a big, big role for the private sector in the economy.
We were talking about libraries, roads, and other such things. You are quite right. Food distribution cannot be centrally managed. In that way the natural economy works far better. However, in the whole basis of this discussion that will be (in the near future) handled by machines and certainly that will be done by the private market and I agree with that. I think we need some heavy modifications to capitalism. Things like a flat tax and a strong societal focus on community and the members of that community is what needs to change. Perhaps these new technologies will encourage that. In recent memory we have been too focused on corporate welfare at a great expense to society. It is time that we change that.
Neither the particulars of a tax system, nor the degree of social cohesion (or lack of it) in a community are features of capitalism. You can have capitalism with many different kinds of tax systems and with loose or tight societies.
By the way, what does a “strong societal focus on community” imply about asocial people who would tell the community to get lost..?
Truly, capitalism does not feature any of those things which is partly why, thanks to globalization, we don’t have them anymore. Of course you can have free markets with many kinds of tax systems and loose or tight societies but what we have found is that countries that protect their industries and protect the flow of capital coming and going have more stable economies and more stable employment than those that don’t. Think of the Asian Financial crisis. Malaysia controlled capital and their economy recovered faster. Others took the IMF route with more open markets and less restrictions and look longer. This is the culmination of a pattern in history that simply has to stop. A flat tax of 15% on all incomes with sales and property taxes as necessary is a far better system than the graduated system that we have in most developed countries now.
As far as a strong societal focus on community, those asocial people that would not choose to participate do not have to participate. They don’t have to be involved although they will benefit. However, that does not mean that we should not have the services available and the economic policies in place to create strong communities economically and culturally. Humans are tribal and we need to support our tribes. The current economic environment has broken that system apart and we are suffering in many ways besides our pocket books. If you want stronger wages then you need to stop in the inflow of cheap labor and the outflow of jobs. In order to do that you have to control trade policy. In the modern environment of globalization those things simply do not exist anymore. Capital can move freely all over the globe and be put to use wherever its managers wish with a complete disregard to the local conditions or how well the community in the area may respond to a project. I think we need to strongly adopt the principle of thinking globally and acting locally. It has fallen out of use and it needs to be brought back. If we think of that economically big changes that would benefit everyone would soon occur.
We don’t have what any more? Tax systems..?
We have found no such thing. That’s, ahem, bullshit.
You do realize it’s going to be HUGELY less progressive than all current Western systems, right?
/facepalm
I’m not sure we need classical libraries anymore. Building buildings to house paper books isn’t necessary. The real problem is finding good models for society to pay for people who actually write the book. Afterwards the distribution of the books is better done via the internet.
I think we need them as places for community, for information, and many people still prefer to read paper books so I think we need for the time being. It is also a free secular place for people to gather and that is very important. The internet is not the solution for every problem. Paying writers to write books is an ongoing and difficult problem to solve because the price of living is rising and the wages for almost everything is falling. Our society does not value certain things and art is certainly one of those.
What do you think the term “flat tax” means?
A constant tax rate that is applied to all incomes with no deductions.
At risk of getting grossly off-topic, I’ll simply say that I disagree with your last point(though much of the rest is unobjectionable), and leave it at that.
I can’t see how you can endorse a society such as the American civilization that has been literally built since 1945 for the benefit of the corporation and the wealth. That boggles the mind. If corporations want to meaningfully join the whole society rather than becoming leeches upon everyone else I would welcome that. I do not like the future where corporations run around the world going to whatever country agrees to be raped the most leaving everyone else in the dust or forcing people to try to find jobs/employment in an increasingly shrinking environment. Even if you account for the fact that many jobs don’t require a physical human presence that post-nation state future is not a pleasant one. The economy should work for everyone not just a few.
I was trying to avoid getting off-topic, but if you’d rather embrace it, that’s fine too.
Your time period is arbitrary—the Gilded Age falls outside your era of “America being built for corporations”, and the 50s and 60s of New Deal dominance, strong unions, and the only electable Republican being so far left that Democrats look to him longingly today falls inside that era.
Corporations are thoroughly embedded in society—their biggest owners are mutual funds and pension funds, which are solidly middle-class investments.
“Rape” implies taking what you want by force—the Luxembourgs and Irelands of the world are benefiting massively from their tax structure. Yes, you collect less tax, but that’s hardly their problem. And the higher-tax countries are still getting theirs—the US can collect tax on your company’s US operations, just not their international ones, which seems eminently fair to me.
If the environment is “shrinking”, you may wish to figure out why. Also, why it seems to be shrinking so much more slowly in areas run by smaller governments.