5 ms·

It is a role of the state to prevent creating fortunes by stealing. Guarantying fair rules of making business, prevent cheating and stealing is a prerequisite f

by michas 13y ago

It is a role of the state to prevent creating fortunes by stealing. Guarantying fair rules of making business, prevent cheating and stealing is a prerequisite for capitalist market to even exist. That's a government role to provide such conditions by creating and enforcing the law. That's also the only thing that money from taxes should be used for. Capitalist markets are good because they allow people to have a vote in everything that concerns them. But instead of putting their vote in a ballot box they vote with their money, which has much more power.

rbanffy 13y ago
> It is a role of the state to prevent creating fortunes by stealing. If you can point to even one single state that has successfully done so, it would be of immense help to this discussion. > But instead of putting their vote in a ballot box they vote with their money, which has much more power. This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage.
- michas 13y ago
  > If you can point to even one single state that has successfully done so, it would be of immense help to this discussion. http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/ will be helpfull > This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage. Yes, and that's the point, because it immediately cures main deficency of the democracy: decisions about country's major issuess would be made by people who are smart, successfull and have experience leading big organizations or companies, instead of being made by every idiot that happens to be of the legal age.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > decisions about country's major issuess would be made by people who are smart, successfull and have experience leading big organizations or companies, instead of being made by every idiot that happens to be of the legal age. You then confuse financial success with competence or intelligence. Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them?
    - michas 13y ago
      > You then confuse financial success with competence or intelligence. I stated from the beginning that I consider ruling out any possibility of stealing and cheating to be prerequisite for existence of the capitalism. Given that,the only remaining ways to become rich are to be competent and intelligent. > Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them? Funny thing is that they do not need to be oppressed at all. Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them, they are totally happy with explanations like "it has always been like that. It has to be like that". They even like being told what to do because it is easier and gives them sense of security. And those few who are brave enough to question rules are welcomed to be successful, earn a lot of money and join the class of "rulers". Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment. This is basically how US politics works these days :)
      - rbanffy 13y ago
        > Given that,the only remaining ways to become rich are to be competent and intelligent. Inheritance is another possibility. Do you intend to rule that out too? And, again, if the "smart, successful" are the ones making the rules, you can bet none of them will ever be caught cheating. > Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them > Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment. Sigh...
chii 13y ago
While i understand your argument (and i wish the world really worked that way too), the problem with determining "vote" by money is that not everyone started off with equal vote in the beginning. Some people got rich thru schemes that was only available to them, and thru either luck, force of coercion, or trickery/deceit. Thus, the honest poor will remain poor, and any influence their vote has will be crowded out by the ill gotten gains by the dishonest ones. Which is what we have today, ala lobby money, political campaign money, transnational corporations which pay way less tax than they "should" be, yet enjoy the same rights as a tax paying citizen (e.g., property rights protection).
- michas 13y ago
  When I was talking about "voting with money" i didn't mean any political vote. I just meant that if you are in capitalist market and all services are provided by private companies then you have power over that companies because you can decide not to buy their products or services. That's something that gives you a freedom of choice. Lobby money, political campaign money and other things you mentioned can only matter if government rules most of fields in our lives. If you limit goverment's powers to minimum then bribing politicians has just no incentive to a person giving a bribe.
  - chii 13y ago
    Things that tend to have a natural monopoly (for example, water pipes) don't work very well in a truly capitalistic market where everything is privatized. Unless you start with everyone being on equal footing, the incumbents can employ a strategy where they force new entrants to the market to pay exponentially more and thus snuff them out before they become a threat, and therefore can set their price to whatever the market will beare. Imagine you have to spend the majority of your income on potable water, simply because you can't get it anywhere else! You will pay it, because its your life, and it has infinite value if you can't get enough of it. Therefore, whoever controls the water can control others thru this power.

by michas 13y ago

rbanffy 13y ago

> It is a role of the state to prevent creating fortunes by stealing. If you can point to even one single state that has successfully done so, it would be of immense help to this discussion. > But instead of putting their vote in a ballot box they vote with their money, which has much more power. This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage.

michas 13y ago
> If you can point to even one single state that has successfully done so, it would be of immense help to this discussion. http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/ will be helpfull > This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage. Yes, and that's the point, because it immediately cures main deficency of the democracy: decisions about country's major issuess would be made by people who are smart, successfull and have experience leading big organizations or companies, instead of being made by every idiot that happens to be of the legal age.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > decisions about country's major issuess would be made by people who are smart, successfull and have experience leading big organizations or companies, instead of being made by every idiot that happens to be of the legal age. You then confuse financial success with competence or intelligence. Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them?
  - michas 13y ago
    > You then confuse financial success with competence or intelligence. I stated from the beginning that I consider ruling out any possibility of stealing and cheating to be prerequisite for existence of the capitalism. Given that,the only remaining ways to become rich are to be competent and intelligent. > Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them? Funny thing is that they do not need to be oppressed at all. Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them, they are totally happy with explanations like "it has always been like that. It has to be like that". They even like being told what to do because it is easier and gives them sense of security. And those few who are brave enough to question rules are welcomed to be successful, earn a lot of money and join the class of "rulers". Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment. This is basically how US politics works these days :)
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      > Given that,the only remaining ways to become rich are to be competent and intelligent. Inheritance is another possibility. Do you intend to rule that out too? And, again, if the "smart, successful" are the ones making the rules, you can bet none of them will ever be caught cheating. > Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them > Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment. Sigh...

chii 13y ago

While i understand your argument (and i wish the world really worked that way too), the problem with determining "vote" by money is that not everyone started off with equal vote in the beginning. Some people got rich thru schemes that was only available to them, and thru either luck, force of coercion, or trickery/deceit. Thus, the honest poor will remain poor, and any influence their vote has will be crowded out by the ill gotten gains by the dishonest ones. Which is what we have today, ala lobby money, political campaign money, transnational corporations which pay way less tax than they "should" be, yet enjoy the same rights as a tax paying citizen (e.g., property rights protection).

michas 13y ago
When I was talking about "voting with money" i didn't mean any political vote. I just meant that if you are in capitalist market and all services are provided by private companies then you have power over that companies because you can decide not to buy their products or services. That's something that gives you a freedom of choice. Lobby money, political campaign money and other things you mentioned can only matter if government rules most of fields in our lives. If you limit goverment's powers to minimum then bribing politicians has just no incentive to a person giving a bribe.
- chii 13y ago
  Things that tend to have a natural monopoly (for example, water pipes) don't work very well in a truly capitalistic market where everything is privatized. Unless you start with everyone being on equal footing, the incumbents can employ a strategy where they force new entrants to the market to pay exponentially more and thus snuff them out before they become a threat, and therefore can set their price to whatever the market will beare. Imagine you have to spend the majority of your income on potable water, simply because you can't get it anywhere else! You will pay it, because its your life, and it has infinite value if you can't get enough of it. Therefore, whoever controls the water can control others thru this power.