OK, I understand where you are coming from. Free market, no government, gold currency and guns will solve all the world's problems. Well, you will be right at home on these boards.
Definitely! I'm a stacker because I want freedom - especially freedom from anyone trying to control money. I don't stack for numismatic or speculative reasons but fully respect and understand those that do.
What? You want me to back off the Dogmatic labels but you're happy to ask Bordsilver to keep doing it? The EU may not have started off being about socialism but it sure took on an overbearing nature once the countries of Europe gave away their own sovereignty. I love how you went back in time there and predicted that Germany would dominate Europe or even that that is why the EU was really set up. Even so, is Germany not "dominating" Europe now anyway? If the WHOLE of the EU, barring Germany, were to vote tomorrow on another bailout deal for Greece and Germany stood fast against it, guess what no bailout deal! Alarmists like you bringing up holocaust visions are hurting the member states of the EU more than anything. Co-operation between countries on almost boundless amounts of issues can be achieved without setting up yet ANOTHER tier of government to suck even more capital out of the markers and peoples pockets, further slowing down their progress. Countries within the EU operate differently with different levels of government welfare for their citizens. Why would anyone want completely open borders? It is just plain stupid. Take the Arab uprising for a perfect example. Tunisians and Libyans flee to Italy in their thousands from the conflict. Once there Italy knows that they don't want the burden of all these refugees. So what do they do? Hand out visas so they can travel anywhere in Europe. No wonder my scandinavian friends were pissed when they heard this. What would I do? I would abolish the whole lot over night and rescind every and all laws made by the European Union. Countries that wish to do so can then form a simple trade union. The same can be done with freedom of movement if those countries so wish. Countries like Britain have absolutely no need to have a group of bureaucrats sitting in Brussels writing laws that they HAVE to follow. To even make reference of the gold standard and strong international trade in the preceding years of WW1 like they were major factors in WW1 happening is plain stupid. WTF was that chart about? It was suppose to add weight to what point exactly? Edit to add: Have you seen some of the utter horseshit laws that have been imposed on the EU by these muppets? The fact that a ban on straight bananas and bendy cucumbers actually had to be voted on to be defeated in parliament is a prime example. Oh but oh wait, a ban on Kiwi fruit below 62grams got through? So if a Kiwi grower in say Greece had a lean year and only got his fruit to 60grams he would be forbidden to sell them to a market in Britain and British MP's never even got to have a majority vote on the decision in their own parliament. Thats right, a majority in Brussels knew better.
You have so many nationalities in small amount of space. Will give you an example during ww2 in my home city it was not uncommon to have 3-4 different armies take control of the city in the same day; italians; germans bulgarians; different local militias based on ethnic groups and religions(some working for germans and others against and some changing sides throughout the war). If you lived in the city and you were a male adult you could be conscripted at any time by one of them but mainly germans. Europe will be unified one way or the other when that happens watch out. At the moment its only a union based on economy but i reckon soon it greece or any other country will be just one of the states like qld in oz. when that happens that will be dangerous i reckon
To you it is stupid, but only because you probably don't know enough about what happened in those fatal years of 1871 to 1914. How do you think WW1 came about? - National economic competition, empire building, patriotism - A gold standard that was dominated by a Germany that had reaped the wealth. How did they get they wealth? They took it from France as war reparations. German industry did the rest from that base. - Military arms race So what was your simplistic solution? - abolish the EU and form here it is pretty easy to predict what would flow on from your mind: - free the markets - introduce an "honest money" gold standard Congratulations, you've just recreated the factors that lead to WW1. Honestly, people need to read up on their history because what they suggest has been tried before and it reeked of failure. Or more precisely, it reeked of cordite in Northern France. The problem is that outside observers think if the execution is flawed, the whole project must be abolished. But if the EU was created, it was only out of a necessity on the part of the Europeans. The concept itself is a European necessity, despite the fact that poor management has led them into a bad corner.
France would not support such a form of Federalism. It goes against their political traditions and make up. To them, Federations are part of the Anglo-Saxon model. I don't ever think that Europe will become one mega-state like most dunderhead American ranters fear, but it does need a sensible form of integration. Having said that, the monetary union was a poor idea and most of the blame for the current situation should rest on Germany.
Laissez faire capitalism without nationalistic coercive governments controlled by power hungry sociopathic f***wits has not been tried (except in a range of good localised examples that were successful until yet another nationalistic government forced their people to attack conquer and destroy). Sound money used to exist (well, sort of) but not properly since the stupid banking laws three centuries ago.
Honestly, this is the same argument a communist can use: "True communism without power mad dictators that slaughter its citizens has never been tried!" After thinking long and hard about these problems, the answer I conclude is this: You can't plan this **** deliberately. You can try to guide it, but progress goes where it wants to go. Revolution and planning is no match for evolution and contingency. So this "dream" of deliberately implementing a laissez faire capitalism has just about as much a realistic chance of success as an implemented communism that doesn't send people to gulags.
I am with earthjade. It is not about socialism or capitalism, it is about an evolution of governance system that will eventually work for humans of the European continent. That form of government will never be pure socialism or capitalism, human nature is not built for these systems. Each scenario exists to illustrate the benefits of each system. Laisez Faire demonstrates utopian capitalism. Communism demonstrates utopian socialism. But neither is realistically reachable. Human nature in the way.
I know where you guys are coming from but the whole point is that you DON'T force your plan on others. People naturally plan. Many people naturally plan over long time frames. People naturally cooperate. People are naturally fallible. Some people are naturally better at things than others. Some people are sociopaths who try to destroy the hard work of others and therefore need to be managed/dealt with appropriately. Disputes naturally happen and you need a form of justice, arbitration and policing. Sometimes, for ideological/religious or cultural reasons a bunch of people will choose to follow a murderous leader (or group) of some sort and will try to steal and kill on a massive scale and force their power on others. Some people will naturally fight back while some will "go with the flow" because it seems the best way of saving their life and limbs for another day. Some will form a collective to fight against the oppressors. Sometimes this collective will be called a "government" which is granted certain powers beyond the norm. As I said earlier, I'm comfortable with you opting for a democratically elected government being the least evil of any coercive institution that forces it's will on the people to enable free markets to function. In many respects this is as natural as all of the above. However, I am NOT comfortable with you allowing that coercive institution to overstep it's bounds into any random area of people's lives that it sees fit. Although this may be a natural result of the existence of the powers of the coercive entity it must be always be remembered that the original entity was created by a society as a cheap tool to protect the society in certain circumstances. But is NOT what society really wanted and what it does is NOT natural. A beast may be beneficial to an owner but it needs to be actively controlled/leashed so that it does not turn on its owner. Democracy was shown to be an effective leash but unless we rail at our current system the leash will NOT be tightened. You need to know which direction utopia lies before you can hope to step in the right direction. True, you may never get there (I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime), but if you don't know the way the beast will lead you to hell.
Actually, I'm sure many have tried (particularly a range of religious sects) but it always failed within a relatively short period of time.
BS! socialism is what prevents the middle class from expanding in the first place. an economy free of government meddling and theft of private property = an economy where people will thrive and where hard work is rewarded.
Right, so the one thing keeping people (with bigger guns and army) from taking your possession away from you is .... police and army, paid and funded by ... government, adhering to law that is enforced upon everyone (without their approval of course). So, let's remove their enforced law since it is very meddlesome. While we are at it, let us remove police as well, because as you know it, they serve no purpose than to beat the crap out of nice citizens and enforce fear. Oh and in the odd chance that there are some really disabled person that have lost their family, they are fair game for everyone since there is no law and no social net to provide any sort of help or prevent abuse on said person.
^^^ C'mon JP. See the earlier 'beast' post towards the top. And in case you didn't see it I'll repost part of a discussion on another thread: ...you are simply falling victim to the dogma surrounding what we have grown up with and that we all think is normal. I have no doubt that our current policing and judicial system does not provide the best valUue for money (note this is not saying that they don't do a good job - I have a lot of respect for our current system, but I can still believe that it is not the best use of resources and there are improvements that can be made). In the absence of religious, genocidal or political wars (which are a significantly different thing) Mad Max style lawless badlands is a myth. The vast majority of people do not want to run around smashing stuff up arbitrarily (if they did we would need a significantly larger police force right now). If we did leave the west to its own devices they would probably be better off with better justice systems. There has been a lot of good research that shows that in the absence of any Government mandated policing and judicial system people will naturally devise their own emergent, self-ordering arrangements. Taking the Hollywood "Wild West" as an example, it turns out it wasn't ever the lawless place we have been led to believe: The way farmers deal with each other, typically without recourse to the courts in the first instance, has been extensively analysed by economists and legal practitioners. A particularly well known study was conducted by Robert C Ellickson in 1991. In Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle Disputes, Ellickson provides a detailed account of how farmers establish and manage property rights with virtually no formal legal actions. Ellickson's analysis is based on observations of cattle farmers in California but most farmers in Australia will endorse the conclusions drawn by Ellickson. The approach described by Ellickson can be categorised as follows:
Your stance and YKY is very different. And in regards to how if left alone they will be fine. Sure, but only if everyone is risking equal amount. Back then, if you cause a problem, it is not like you can escape to another country in 48 hours. You need to travel slowly carrying lots of ration in a massive caravan. So, everyone was operating within the rule that a complete escape from consequence is hard to achieve. Nowadays? You know this is running rampant. Internet, Intelectual property laws (supposedly protects IP but is used to subdue IP e.g. apple vs android) and many more that I can't remember. Pure capitalism and communism was created back when these issues did not exist. Anyway, developing country is where capitalism runs rampant, although the government preaches socialism all the time. The capitalists invests, bends the rule, re writes the law and is a public figure. They are not even dictators, just business person. At the end of the day, the business elite creates a socialism safety net to keep their millions of employees happy while capitalising at every opportunity under the sun without any sort of prohibition. Pure capitalism does exist in small pockets of society, but it is definitely not for the benefit of the middle class. Moving forward a few decades, robotics will enter into the picture and once again change the landscape of business. If robotics ever reach its promised potential (it definitely will), then most jobs will vaporise. Leaving a huge chunk of humans unemployed and in serious need of re think how they can be valuable to society. Not everyone can just switch to high tech engineering jobs immediately (even these jobs will dissapear too). By then, the issue of capitalism and socialism would be irrelevant.
^^^ Okay. I'll agree to disagree. I think can see why you're raising these as issues but they really aren't. When you have time to read up on what capitalism and libertarianism really are I suggest you do so. You'll no doubt think about all these things in a different light. Maybe start with Bastiat "That which is seen and that which is not seen", or Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson" to gain a better understanding of markets are really about and how Government intervention inevitably leads to a reduction in total welfare. One sophism is that robots will take all our jobs. This is rubbish simply because jobs are not the end but the means. We all have to work because we want far more services/goods than the market can provide. Increasing the amount of goods produced from one industry (say, cars) through the use of robots will simply enable that labour to move to another (generally new) industry to provide even more goods/services. Human labour (and stored labour in the form of capital) is arguably the most scarce factor and will always be in demand while ever the human race has unmet desires. If we are ever born having every single desire met without the use of labour THEN labour will be superfluous and we won't NEED to work - but that day is far, far, far off.
