On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:24:03 +1300, "John B"
<me@anywherenearthere.com> wrote:

"penny" <penny@pen.rhys> wrote in message
news:83orv1dtgbb8iv2kduf5m41knglriu2dor@4ax.com...

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:46:56 +1300, "Scuzza"
<someone@somewhere.co.nz>
wrote:

"penny" <penny@pen.rhys> wrote in message
news:i1nnv1hslokbdmp9qsgtqiel8sjbvb5pco@4ax.com...

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:34:47 GMT, 10x@teluös.net wrote:

snip

Human nature will defeat communism every time.

True! But the Kibbutzim seem to have survived in Israel.

The difference is they're voluntary, not compulsory.

And it does indeed make a difference.

Numbers have nothing (much) to do with it.

Compulsion is a euphemism for slavery. Humans naturally rebel
against such things. It's who we are.

When do rules, which are an absolute necessity for order in a
society, become compulsion?

Penny, it depends *what" the rules are and how they are
formulated.

It also depends on how people and particularly different
political
systems interpret those rules.

The only real rules are those that state you may not violate
anyone else's rights. While you are free to do what you like
with
your own life, body and property, you aren't free to do what
you
like with someone else's life, body or property without their
consent. If you are involving other people with what you want
to
do, you can only do it with their permission.

Rules against r "Violating anyone else's rights" is the basis
of most
of the rules in society . Unfortunately, the interpretation
of that
phrase is a moot point. For example Harperites interpret it
far
differently than liberals. Harper seriously wants to bring
back the
"spanking" of children. And he is also a libertarian. I guess
he
doesn't believe he's violating children's rights. In fact
there is a
quote of his which he says he doesn't believe children have
rights.
.

So ANY rules that violate someone else, or imposes YOUR will
upon
them without their permission, are wrong.

All societal laws impose their will upon people but it's
accepted by
people as being a necessity for an ordered society. We
must have
drivers' licenses and drivers' tests whether we think we should
or
not. We must stop at a stop sign for a very good reason. We
submit
to taxes for very good reasons. etc. etc.

It's more complex than you state in your assertion above. When
you
live in a society individual rights are not the sole arbiter of
behaviour in that society. There are also group rights to
consider.

For example , ownership of guns by the general population is a
violation of non-gun owners' safety,

articularly the safety of women
and children who are the most vulnerable people in society .
Since
non-gun owners represent the vast majority then in a democracy
they
should properly be banned. .

For example: you have no right to compel anyone to do anything
against their will, such as to NOT smoke dope, or have sex with
a
prostitute, or to hand over money.. no matter how "noble" you
think your cause is.

Any time other people are involved with what you are doing to
enact your freedom, you must have their permission. You can't
be
free to compel others to do what you want them to do
(regardless
of why)... you are taking away their freedom. You can't have
some
people more free than others. That's wrong.

There is always compulsion when there are laws, but people
recognize
the need for those laws and therefore have no problem with
being
compelled to renew their car licenses, stop at red lights, pay
their
taxes, drive on the proper side of the street, etc. etc.

No one else can vote your rights away to someone else either.
E.g. Voting. No one can vote for YOU to be governed, or
compelled
to obey someone else, without your permission. You cannot give
away that which is not yours to give.

It's impossible to live in a society of separate individuals
who all
want to go their own way and keep their own vote.

As John Donne said so wisely hundreds of years ago:


No man is an island ...

We all depend upon each other for our survival in this hostile
world
and our dependence leads us to living in societies which cannot
function in an orderly fashion without "lotsa" laws. .
Anyone who
says otherwise has become too cushioned by the very comfortable
advanced democracies in which we live, and fail to see the
reality
beneath the facade. Caring for others often involves doing
things for
them without asking permission .

PS: We seem to have differing ideas of exactly what 'capitalism' might
be. There are some in this thread who seem to consider it to be a political
system - and it is not.

Here's a quick definition that coincides with my understanding of
'Capitalism':

"capitalism Definition
Economic system characterized by the following: private property
ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for
their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of
goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating
the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are
efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role
of the state is to regulate and protect."

"penny" <penny@pen.rhys> wrote in message
news:h2jqv11gkoh62gkocp1p50stkkkf9485v7@4ax.com...

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:40:25 +1300, "John B"
<me@anywherenearthere.com> wrote:

"penny" <penny@pen.rhys> wrote in message
news:t82qv1h6s4j2tnq56mlp0kpjqbcvvfb5ol@4ax.com...

You are so right. In order to be effective capitalism has to
be highly regulated and there must be a strong social
safety net
so that every single person in a country benefits from the
system -- not only the rich.

That's not capitalism... it's socialism.

It depends how you interpret capitalism and socialism.

OK.

Capitalism... Individual rights and freedom. Can only operate
through free and willing exchange between consenting adults.

Socialism... individual rights are igmored and subjugated to the
will of the mob and authoritarian dictarors. Socialism can only
operate through the violation of individual rights via force or
coercion.

Capitalism is the engine that fuels the economy. It's not a
complete societal system. Canada has a mixed economy - both private and
public, or state owned (or controlled) enterprise

Unless there is a social safety net within a capitalist economy
there is no balance between workers, government and business.

Ever heard of charity?

Essential services, which Maud Barlow calls "The Commons'
should never be privatized and/or commodified.

Socialism again.

You are using a "dark age" interpretation of socialism. Many
of today's democracies are "mixed economies"

It is still socialism. Just a more sohpisticated version is all.
It still depends on violation of individual rights. Hence it is
socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Elements_of_a_mixed_economy

We saw the results of unregulated capital -- laissez-faire
capitalism in the age of the robber barons when the gap
between rich and poor became obscene. We are seeing it once again in
corporate globalization where the gap between poor and wealthy is
steadily increasing, where workers' rights are trampled on,
and environmental protection is ignored by many transnationals.
Penny

No such thing as "workers' rights", that's just a euphemism for
socialism.

Are you saying that a worker doesn't have a right to safety in
the work place, or to have a decent wage for a decent day's work,
or the > right to an established work week, etc. etc.

Exactly. The only rights are individual rights. That's it.
Protect individual rights and EVERYONE's rights are protected.

You are saying people have different sets of rights. That's not
right.

Perhaps you should read the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights,
Article 23.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Hocus-pocus bogus specious stuff that denies reality.

It is a sad state of affairs when one transnational
corporation in this world in which we live (WalMart) has an economy
that is larger than the economies of 178 countries in this world.
Penny

Well, just goes to show capitalism works while sopcialism
doesn't.

How does it work when Walmart pauperizes every neighbourhood
where it > sets down roots?

Oh really.