Free Market vs Command Economy

Prompt

Topic originated by Chris Orser: 

Generally, these two ideas are at the very heart of politics (right-wing=free, left-wing=command), along with social issues. Free Marketers believe that the market will naturally work itself out, and the most efficient distribution of resources is the one acheived through no external regulation. Command economists think that the government is the most just means of distribution, and might argue that in some ways the Command Economy is more important.

99 percent of both modern economists and people believe in a Mixed Economy (the other one percent are libertarians and commies), meaning some government regulation. The real question of this thread is: exactly how much government regulation of the economy should there be?

Just as a frame of reference, here's the two political parties beliefs:

Republicans (correct me if I'm wrong) tend to believe in little regulation, except maybe in cases of national security and monopolies. Some Republicans also oppose the progressive income tax, which taxes more of a person's income if they're richer. Republicans tend to dislike unions, favoring efficiency over employee rights. Obviously, they also generally support lower taxes for everyone.

Democrats believe in more regulation, a progressive income tax, union rights, and higher taxes.

Discussion:

Sean Tou: I believe Poland has actually had success with a flat tax. Even France is starting to reduce its number of tax brackets.

Kevin Olcese: Well, I believe in an unregulated market, a graduated income tax, employee rights and labor unions, and in general, lower taxes. So I'm mixed, I guess.

Mike Baney: I fear big business, which seems to be the enemy to capitalism and the friend of temporary efficiencey. So I suppose I want to keep a closer eye on business because people generally don't care about others and either pollute the environment or dick over other people trying to create a better product.

Kyle Hartman: I personally believe in complete free markets; however, I feel the government still has a role in oversight of especially large businesses. I also don't believe in owning a business you don't run. THis is way out of control in our society, and it is both against a free market and capitalism to have these monopolies. I don't mind big businesses that can out compete any other businesses in a certain sector, but businesses like Walmart who utilize profit margins from one sector to help dominate another sector until they then raise their prices in that sector after they've eliminated the competition have to go. I also don't think one man or group of men have any right to buy out multiple businesses of different sectors. To clarify my ideas: a group of people who have enough money to buy multiple companies rarely do work directly linked to production of the good or service, instead they manage the many people who do the real work that leads to production. Adam Smith's original capatalist ideal didn't think of this occurance of monopolies. In this way, a successful business is not one that dominates a multitude of markets, but the one that can most efficiently produce. I feel that capatlism in this form is most beneficial to society.

Kyle Hartman: I just realized my post didn't necessarily address Orser's question. I feel that the inefficiency of government beauracracy lends itself to wasted resources, while usually the most efficient private enterprise survives the competition. Also, excessive govearnment regulation leads to unfair distribution of resources. Someone who earns money should be allowed to keep it. The government's job is to make sure the money earned was fairly earned. I'm for less government and thus less taxes, but still graduated income taxes are fair because the government infrastructure is most useful to the rich. Such as mail, highways, and other such things. I'm also against the liberal social programs because I feel that they are too impersonal, and I don't feel the government needs to act as a charity. I'm very much for private charity organizations. That should leave plenty to comment on.

Sean Tou: Yea, private charity orgs that have leaders that command high salaries from said charity. You know, because there's no way to regulate the charity.

Kyle Hartman): Ideally the government could check up on charities similar to the way they check up on businesses. I didn't embellish on private charities, clearly the government would have a substantially different role if charities were all private. And many charities are led and financed by churches whose leaders take very little of a salary. A few bad charities shouldn't ruin the institution.

Chris Orser: Well said Kyle.

I definitely agree with your statement about the government infrastructure helping out the rich the most-troops in foreign countries aren't helping out our poor. I would also like to add to the progressive thing that it does a better job of taxing what people have to give,

rather than what they make.

As for the impersonal thing, I think the government does a better job of protecting the poor than any other institution, and that's something the government should be doing.

Also, theoretically, the Command Economy could be more efficient than free market, as needs could be consciously addressed, and each person assigned to the job s/he does best.

Kyle Hartman: Currently the government does the best job helping the poor because they facilitate most of the charity organizatitions. I think the government is effective at sympathizing with the poor, but i don't feel the same result has occured when an impersonal government gives you money vs. a person. I think people begin to rely on the government and don't see what they get as a gift. I personally see welfare as a gift from the government, i'm not saying it isn't good, but being poor doesn't mean you deserve the money. I just prefer the mentality of private charities' recipients.

And a command economy is more efficient at evenly distributing resources, but i feel that the free market creates a fairer distribution. In a free market with equal oppurtunity, the amount of work you do, coupled with intelligence and luck determine your pay. I would rather encourage working in a free market, than have a government decide what I've earned.

Chris Orser: I can see your argument that poor people could see it as a gift, which is why you should make them work to get welfare. However, the job hours should be reasonable. As for the deserving part, I really think that a lot of the wealth of the upper classes is based on (historical) exploitation (slavery, fucks in the turn of the century, racism) so I kind of think that the lower classes do deserve some sort of compensation.

Anyway, I think a Command economy does a better job of catering to the needs of the people, and gives people a chance to do what they're best at. I guess I just think that's the way things should be. Quite honestly, the reason I don't really trust the free market is rich people, who I see as dominating the social, political, and (obviously) economic structure of our country, often in quite negative ways somewhat reminiscent of the fing aristocracies of the past.

Kyle Hartman: Even if historical events render the current playing field uneven, who are we to say what was originally fair and unfair. Besides that only means that your ancestors deserved that money not neccessarily you now. Either way it doesn't matter, we need to work off of where we are now. And i disagree about command economies providing the most oppurtunity to do what you want, I feel that people should be encouraged to do what they are best at, usually you will succeed at what you're best at in a free market, and if you don't it's usually because society doesn't need what you are currently providing so you must try something else. I will definitely agree that we are missing a few checks and balances on the rich people which is a line I feel the government must set. Once again with the keeping ownership to one industry and keeping the free market and what not. I just feel that freedoms are the way to go, What could be more fair than a free world?

Chris Orser: Another thing I dislike about the free market is the philosophy behind business. As Kyle was saying in another thread, businesses will do anything for profit, (often) regardless of morals and the greater good. This includes infiltrating and influencing our political system. You can argue right and wrong, but the fact is most people should be concerned about this, because they lose political power. Businesses make a country less able to respond to new challenges (If America had the ability to control all business, how easily would New Orleans be rebuilt, in a better location no less?). We end up spending shit to on things that no one really wants-outrageous contracts, foreign policy, military spending. I really believe business is driving us right down the path of destruction (global warming) and servitude (a corporate controlled oligarchical America).

Chris Orser: Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:

Even if historical events render the current playing field uneven, who are we to say what was originally fair and unfair. Besides that only means that your ancestors deserved that money not neccessarily you now. Either way it doesn't matter, we need to work off of where we are now.

I disagree. In a society where much of a person's belongings, both material and mental, are inherited, the descendants of the exploited would seem to deserve some sort of compensation. Not to mention the whole family values thing: people tend to work for their children's future, I think that work also extends to their grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. And I think we can safely call slavery, 12 hour work days, and f-ing cancer from mines "exploitation".

Kyle Hartman: But why dwell on the problems of the past. I prefer to look to the future. Wouldn't you rather try to make tomorrow better than create a greater controversy over what happened yesterday? I feel this is a bad policy to get into, btw there are countless exploitations at every level. No level of society is without blame. A lot of times the strongest racist are the poorest of people.

Chris Orser: Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:

But why dwell on the problems of the past.

Because those problems extend to today.

Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:

I prefer to look to the future.

As do I. I look forward to a future with no poverty (or at least, no poverty brought on by anyone other than yourself), and no, I don't mean through mass murders (Kevin!).

Kyle Hartman: How would you determine who deserves compensation, and where from? Is it fair to take money unbiasedly from all rich, not all rich people became rich through exploitation, and many poor didn't become poor through exploitation. Everyone can claim some kind of injustice somehow. Who would decide this new allocation of wealth?

Kevin Olcese: How would you determine who deserves compensation, and where from? Is it fair to take money unbiasedly from all rich, not all rich people became rich through exploitation, and many poor didn't become poor through exploitation. Everyone can claim some kind of injustice somehow. Who would decide this new allocation of wealth?

Kyle Hartman: Kevin, if you want to go around killing those who do injustice, and being a Robin Hood of sorts go right ahead. Many people are extremely lame to their workers, but I really think that command economies and the government aren't fit to determine who owes who what. Kevin'll do it.

Chris Orser: Tax the upper-income brackets to give money back to descendants of poor people in the past. Almost no one will go for that, but that's my idea.

Kevin Olcese: I think the wealthy should be taxed more because quite frankly, they can afford it. You don't need millions of dollars to live even a luxurious life, let alone billions.

Kyle Hartman: I said something very similar to that earlier, but I think Chris is talking about a much steeper tax on the wealthy. Problems are you are indiscriminately taxing people on the amount of money they have and saying you're doing it to fix some great wrong. To me it sounds completely unjustified. Poor commit most of the crimes, but we don't levy a tax on all of them for the damages that a few have brought. I think you, you being chris now, see the wealthy as too much of a collective. There a good people at all levels of society, and bad people at all levels of society.

Kyle Hartman: I've recently been thinking about the problems with poverty, and I'm starting to agree that private charitees aren't as effective as taxation because of people's lack of generosity, but I'm still against taxation for government spending on poverty for a few principles. Firstly, I believe that people have a right to choose where their money goes. Also, I feel that it isn't the government's role to act in this manner (I'm for smaller govt). I think the main reason really is the view of government handouts. When working for a service project, many individuals refuse help because of pride, but I have to think that many of these same people still receive govt checks or welfare in some way. I'm not saying they don't need it, but I don't think they understand where the money comes from, this is why I feel the govt is too impersonal for charity. I don't want the poor too beg or anything rediculous, but I do feel they should understand who the people are that help them out. I think it's much easier to accept money from the government rather than help from neighbors because you must first accept you need this help. While lots of people are not characterized this way, and I should mention I don't want to stop welfare in any way, I'd like to see changes for the way welfare is done. This will never happen, but I like this idea anyway because it requires everyone see the problems of poverty first hand.

This idea is simply mandatory community service, while focused more in areas of poverty and such, environmental especially sanitary cleanup could count too. I personally don't care if this impedes political freedoms or whatever, If someone doesn't want to help others than something is wrong. This wouldn't be extensive or anything, and I would think that the rich would just refuse, so I'd say just tax them for whatever they make during a similar amount of time. This is an extremely impractical idea that isn't really developed, but it just seemed to make sense that best way to handle poverty is to make people confront it rather than raise taxes on something they don't see. This has little to do with the topic, except as an alternative idea. If enough people care about this topic of poverty, we should probably start a new thread and I'll just cut and paste cause I'm noob like that.

Kevin Olcese: I essentially agree with you on the more general stuff. I, too, am for smaller governments (more emphasis on local rather than federal), though I'm leaning away from a flat income tax. I'm for a graduated system whereby the wealthy are taxed more; as I've said before, they can afford. Taxing a man who makes a regular income of 100 dollars $20 each pay period is different than taxing a man who makes 100000 dollars $20000. Sure, it's the same rate, but the income is so spread. A man can do a whole lot more with eighty thousand as opposed to eight dollars. I may think a progressive income tax is at its very base immoral, but I still support because you can't rely on the wealthy to be generous, as you've stated with private charities.

Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:

This idea is simply mandatory community service

That sounds dangerously close to the bungling "Welfare to Work" program, which was a tremendous failure. I mean, it sounds like a good idea, making the paupers work for what they take from the state on welfare, but realistically it just doesn't work. How long would this community service last? Not everyone on poverty is a unabomber; some have families to care for, or something to that extent. If they're gone for all hours of the day, how can they provide for these people?

Kyle Hartman: You completely misunderstood, the community service is mandatory for everyone, sry if that wan't clear. I think it would be harder to sweep the poor under the rug so to speak, if we all spent a little time helping them out. For instance building shelters and food drives or cleaning a trashed neighborhood. Many people think this work beneath them, or would rather pay others to do it, but I think it's important that everyone actually does the work. Like I said earlier though, if you refuse, than the money you would make in the hours supposed to be for community service could be taxed. I'm sure this hasn't been done before because no one likes being forced to do work so they wouldn't vote for it. That is the idea I was looking for comments on.

Kevin Olcese: Oh. That's actually a wonderful sounding idea. I can't speak for the generally snobby wealthy elite, but I rather enjoy working construction (i.e., manual labor). It's far better than working at a cubicle. Admittedly, I would not enjoy being forced to work at all, and then being subsequently taxed for my lackadaisical attitude. But, seriously, what else would I do in my spare time? I do assume you mean some kind of weekly hour quota or something in regards to the community service, where everyone can still keep a day job? So long as not doing your required work doesn't deduct pay in any way from your other income, I can see it being a successful institution. Otherwise, it gets dangerously close to socialism.

Kyle Hartman: I was thinking more of a monthly hourly quota, the idea is really just to teach about poverty in hopes of understanding rather than the work actually done. With everyone working a lot could be done mind you, it might even create new jobs for people to train and manage this organization/institution. The practicality isn't great but I at least like the idea.

Kevin Olcese: Well, if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, I think private contractors could probably be knocked out of business.

Kyle Hartman: How many private contractors make a living by repairing homes of people with no income? Saving jobs is not the role of the government, and yeah it kinda sucks for them, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Loss of jobs just produce new workers for greater production. The production possibilities curve moves out for those taking noob economics with me.

What do other people think, or do you people not understand because I wasn't clear?

Kevin Olcese: Hey now, don't go utilitarian on me. You sound like some crazy Marxist or something saying 'the good of the many outweigh the good of the few'.

Kyle Hartman: One: I'm still looking for other opinions (Olcese is no longer an other)

Two: Everyone knows this fact about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. Thus the government can take your house to make a highway. Communism is when the government takes your house and your life and makes you work on a commune.

Also, these jobs would be lost in the course of progress, why slow down to save a few jobs. We made a "Don't call list", even though it supposedly cost the jobs of telemarketers. Natural progression, an improvement to aid all, not the government like in Marxism.

Chris Orser: Wouldn't it be nice if there was no private property, allowing you to go almost anywhere you like? And wouldn't it be great if necessities like medicine and food were free? Technology sold by the government at a cheap price, and with all the bugs fixed? A pharmaceutical industry who's major expense isn't marketing? Free tertiary education? No lobbyists? Oh, and, of course, no huge income divide? I'm just throwing some ideas out there that I think a command economy could acheive.

Kevin Olcese: Yes, those things are indeed wonderful. I'm all for free healthcare and education. However, what of those who don't necessarily benefit from all those point, like people who don't go to college? Is it right to tax them the exorbitant amounts needed to achieve the goals you layed out?

Kyle Hartman: If everything is free than whats the point of work? Whats keeping those who want to try to stay competitive in the United States. If a local government wanted to try this thats fine by me, but on a national scale I think the idea is insanity. I don't think those methods bring fiscal responsibility either, why wouldn't I just choose the most expensive drug everytime even if it's only a little better. Supply and demand is what defines who gets what based on how people make their decisions. What right does the government have to make those decisions for the populace? People have the right to make their own decisions with money. Capitalism is what occurs naturally in the marketplace, and divides resources fairly based on natural principles. If a man spends his life working as hard as possible to create something utterly useless, what value is he to society? None, that is why even if you work hard you can be unsuccessful. This is the fairest way. While problems clearly exist in capatilism, the role of the government should be to fix these problems, not force insane changes in the system.

One could argue the poor need more money and oppurtunity, but does simply giving them money solve this problem? Personally, I feel that it doesn't and is unjustified to take it. I'm all for systems to help the poor with healthcare and all, but really, what right does the government have to impose such socialist reforms and force people to submit?

I think that the idea of a government doing everything sounds a lot better than it is. What do you think makes the government qualified to make decisions about all those things? For instance, why does the government get to choose where to go next in technology, I feel that's the right of the consumer. And not only is it impractical to vote on every single issue, if thats how you would choose to handle what the government should do, but the way people talk and the way they spend their money are different. For instance, everyone says we need to lessen dependance on foreign oil, but how many people are willing to carpool or bike? Consumers have the right to make those decisions. If it's a serious enough problem than the government can put a tax on the oil, but a command economy would have the government control the amount purchased, and the price. I think large scale command economies were proven flawed by the fall of the soviet union, and China switching to a more capitalist economy.

Don't get me wrong if a small local government gets support for free healthcare for a local citizens because they all like each other than fine because it's such a small scale, and I think it's small enough to manage effectively. Seriously though, I think national healthcare is rediculous. I'd prefer to hear more counterpoints to what I said earlier before continuing into that though, in fact I'll make a new topic for healthcare.

Mike Baney: I see a lot of potential in your idea Kyle. With that much free labor, a lot could get done. To tell the truth, the standard of living would go up so fast, that the system would not have to be implemented very long. If everyone was required an hour a week, that's 300 million work hours a week that weren't there before. Let's say the top 30% don't work, that's still 210 million (err I think, mental math), and opt for the tax. Well, an hour of work for a rich person would come out to say $50. 90 million people paying $50 is $4.5 billion dollars. That's each week. With that much money and work hours going purely into community needs (building housing, community structures like YMCA's, restoring delapitated roads), a lot of places could get fixed really quickly. I forgot to factor in the percentage of the population that is children, but you get the idea. I think an hour a week is very very reasonable. However, you would need some way to organize it. Maybe local government would do a better job of this because they know the needs of the people in theory. Hopefully the work would be possible for untrained people. Ideas?

Kyle Hartman: Yeah thats pretty much what I was thinking when I came up with it, but implementation would be near impossible. People would have to be a lot less jerk like, if people agreed that it was a good idea, than getting the idea into action would only be a manner of time. I have a secret plan to get the action going. On a related note, I think everyone that agrees with this idea should by an automatic gun while still legal.

Chris Orser: I'm kinda sick of hearing about how "capitalism" is the natural outcome of economies. First off, just because something is natural doesn't make it good. Its natural for a farmer to be jealous of his neighbor's cows and want to take them, but that doesn't make that right. War seems pretty natural to me, too. Anyway, the natural end product of a free economy is a monopoly, which quickly takes over the government, forming an oligarchy. You argue that the government has no right to infringe on how people spend their money, yet a completely unfair and corrupt system is the end product of that idea.

Concerning the free labor idea, its called the corvee and it tended not to work, because of a)Anyone with an ounce of power was exempt, and b) the poor quality of work. If you spend your whole life working for money, I think its pretty hard to be forced to work for nothing. In fact, your idea sounds an awful lot like our graduation project, which is complete BS. It would be a lot easier just to tax people a little more and hire professionals to do the same job faster and better; although, on the other hand, some people might appreciate the alternative to taxation, and it might foster some actual community spirit.

As for your idea that free economics is a human right, I would argue that healthcare, freedom from huge companies controlling our government, and a half-decent life not spent working two jobs are more important rights.

Your last idea about small governments implementing free healthcare actually sounds a lot like the original idea of Communism, hence the name (Commune=jointly-owned land where people work together). I actually kind of like that idea, because it seems less vulnerable to the USSR-type of power corruption and upper-class.

As for the reason to work, I think if you can make the work that you do related to social status/prestige, as well as have certain monetary benefits (to buy luxury goods), you might just be able to give people motivation.

On an unrelated note, it clearly says in the Constitution that people have the right to own guns, but I don't think we should allow people to have damn assault rifles.

Sean Tou: The thing about communism, in my opinion, is that it's particularly unsuitable for the human race on a large scale for a few reasons. First, you always have a few people that are apt to rebel against authority, no matter if it's good for them or not. Putting them all together = shit, we have an underground movement on our hands. Second, you're always going have corrupt people, and chances are they're going to be the ones in power. Humanity seems to be a race particularly unsuited to working as a single mind without at least a few people turning their minds to themselves and inciting others to revolt, if you will.

I think communism is a great idea to work for, and I think it would be pretty awesome if people weren't, well, people. I think Marx had something going when he said "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Kyle Hartman: Understandly natural does not equal good. But you seem to think that the consequence of this system is monopolies. If monopolies are the problem to fix then thats what we must work on. Btw, the natural end product of forming a complete command economy is essentially the similar to what you described as the natural end of capitalism being a total monopoly. Either way a few people with a huge amount of power decide everything for the nation, except in a complete command economy we still maintain the illusion of democracy. With such power over commerce, a politicians could easily say "vote for me or be punished". I would also like to say it is power that currupts not capitalism,, any system is equally threatened by curruption which in the case of capitalism is monopolies. Once again I think that should be our focus, to keep true to original capitalism which does not include monopolies or mass ownership in that fashion.

I did say that those with power who would exempt themselves would pay for the time in taxes. The idea was not the raw production either, it was simply getting to understand ostricized members of our society. Raising taxes for someone you've seen for essentially an unknown part of society is not something anyone wants to do.

And I still haven't recieved an answer for what makes the government qualified to decide who gets what resources. Once again, not having money is not a reason that you deserve money. Needing money doesn't mean that you deserve it.

Houser should post in here because he is extremely conservative on such ideas, I don't think people relatively moderate most of my ideas are. But until he does I will have to play a role as a pseudo Houser and say that people who are poor have the ability to move in society. Statistics for homelessness show that most people remain homeless for less than a year, and others take their place showing social mobility. We will always have a lower class, what we want is the ability to move up in the world. With enough iniative, anyone can move up to an acceptible state of living. This is hard, but they must try hard to do this, the hardest place to move up from is the bottem, but if they don't take the iniative to move, then why help them? We should focus on helping the people try to move up in society.

Sean Tou: So like you yourself said, the root of the problem is corruption, not any form of economy. In the case of capitalism, corruption leads to what we have right now. In communism, corruption leads to what you described. It's not a very good argument against communism, that a politician could say vote for me or be punished. Just by saying that, he would alienate the voting bloc.

Kyle Hartman: I don't think a command economy can ever work for a large country such as the United States. Sweden, the most successful socialist country is a lot smaller in population. Can anyone name a succesful command economy for a large country? I just don't see how a government could possible make the many decisions for the wants and needs of almost 300 million Americans. I also think capitalism has been our tradition, and if we see problems we should focus on how to fix them rather than overhaul the system to implement a system that hasn't been proven, such as a command economy.

It should also be noted that I'm not for total capitalism, but I do feel that it is the economic structure we should build off of. It has been proven to work, and the problems that arise are manageable. My idea earlier clearly shows that I support government intervention into this system of free market. I think that we should focus on dividing businesses down to one market to prevent monopolies, and vertical and horizontal integration should both be stopped. Business deals should be held more to the transaction level rather than making deals that will limit free trade. I feel that if we bring about capitalism in this fashion, than we should see a distribution of wealth based on the wants and needs of society which is the fairest distribution. The government is still resonsible for providing a safety net and basic needs for life to those who can't get them.

Chris Orser (Ursinus): There's only one country significantly larger than Sweden that has a comparable economic strength, so its not really fair to say that command economies never work on a large scale...

Okay, I really should've seen this coming, but the fact is that no industrialized country has ever adopted a command economy. With the possible exception of Czechoslovakia, no country with a half-decent economy has ever adopted a command economy. This despite the fact that the major commandist (yeah I made up a word), Karl Marx, believed that democracy and capitalism was necessary for the transition between peasant life and urban life.

Anyway, I really think we have the resources to create a near-utopia, or at least a place a hell of a lot better than it is now. Yeah, we might take a few economic hits, but the economy is merely a means to an end. Marx had a lot of things wrong, as did most other people born before 1940, including Adam Smith. I really think we can form some sort of system in which the state controls the economy, but the state is controlled by democracy. The major problem with command-economies is the lack of motivation (I think democracy can largely defeat the other problem, corruption). But I think we can give the workers motivation. We just have to help people realize that material things, beyond necessities, aren't the number one ingredient of happiness.

Sean Tou: I think he just means that of the major example we have, being the late USSR, it was an abject failure. I suppose we would need a larger sample size to actually determine if a large-scale command economy could be competently run.

Chris Orser: Kyle Hartman wrote:

And I still haven't recieved an answer for what makes the government qualified to decide who gets what resources. Once again, not having money is not a reason that you deserve money. Needing money doesn't mean that you deserve it.

I think needing money does mean that you deserve it. I really think that has a lot more basis than having money because your parents had money (from which you get not just inheritance, but education, too). I can't really go by a lot of logic on this one, other than that the money of the past was based on exploitation of Native Americans (you can't argue with that), black people, and the rest of the minority gang; I guess its just a point of view type of thing.

Why should the government be able to redistribute money? Because the government is what enables us to earn money in the first place. They provide the environment for us to succeed in. Its pretty easy to take that for granted, but we could easily be living in Somalia (aka Civil Wars 'R Us). They protect us from foreign invasion (damn Canadians), protect us from economic collapse, and give us jobs (the civil service). Without the government, we'd be screwed. That's why I think the government has the "right" to redistribute wealth; all of that wealth is a by-product of government competence.

Kyle Hartman: Clearly it is a point of view type thing, and it's also a values type thing. Economically, I value total fairness (note I didn't say absolute equality), wealth based on help to society, and globalization. I think command economies move backwards by placing restrictions on global trade, and forcing absolute equality despite how hard on what the worker works on. I don't think people will work just for the benefit of society. I believe that private ownership is necessary to keep competition high. These are obviously just personal views, but that capitalism is the most effective economic system and that we should just work on fixing the problems with it rather than using a system never proven to work.

Chris Orser wrote:

I can't really go by a lot of logic on this one, other than that the money of the past was based on exploitation of Native Americans (you can't argue with that), black people, and the rest of the minority gang; I guess its just a point of view type of thing.

I don't think we should dwell on the problems of the past, yes it was unfair, but it's over now. I think focusing on what should have happened yesterday just creates problems today. Many people got screwed over, but I do believe that America has a certain level of social mobility, and in a long time people will be able to move up.

Chris Orser wrote:

Why should the government be able to redistribute money? Because the government is what enables us to earn money in the first place.

By that same logic, all the social freedoms we have wouldn't exist without the government, so they should be able to nullify those as well. Personal property is a freedom protected by the United States, and wouldn't exist without the government, but the same goes for the freedoms of speech and religion. Without the government protecting the rights of the press, people could just go in and shut down the press because they don't like what they hear. On that same note, I don't think the government can chans basge the news because they are the ones who protect the news in the first place. Our government is a government by the people, all the people, by the government seizing private property without offering a fair price and needing it the public interest, this is the same as the people stealing from the successful who worked for their wealth. If they personally gained this wealth through unfair or illegitimate methods and can be proven, then yes they can be punished. But they shouldn't have to pay for the crimes of their ancestors. If a family member commits a crime or owes debt after they die, we don't pass it on to the children, and arrest them.

Chris Orser: "I don't think we should dwell on the problems of the past, yes it was unfair, but it's over now. I think focusing on what should have happened yesterday just creates problems today."

Well, as I've been saying, the problems of the past continue to affect the present. I think when we address these issues, we're trying to solve problems, not create them. Its just that, until we address those issues, we don't notice the problems, so when the issues come along, we're awakened from our nice, blissful, ignorant sleep.

The thing about your other argument is that you said the government should nullify all of our freedoms (by what you felt was my logic). But the thing is, we already limit social and political freedoms to a reasonable extent, for the public good of the nation. Similarly, I seek to limit economic freedoms to a reasonable extent, in the public interest of the nation. I'd also like to point out that I think a lot of rich people don't give due credit to the government; they feel like they earned the money all on their own. But they only had the chance due to our government, and were often greatly helped out by the government on the way.

Kyle Hartman: You can't solve all the problems of the past though. There are just way too many of them. Exploitation goes back since our race began. I think when we try to fix these problems we just create new problems. We feel bad about the holocaust and make the Israeli state for instance. I'm not saying it was wrong, but it certainly caused more problems. Poor people of today might of had ancestors that exploited people too. While I do agree that rich people have a poor view on how they deserve their money, I think the government aquiring all private property isn't a reasonable extent of economic freedoms. I think the way to fix the problems of the past is to create equality of oppurtunity, but absolute equality just isn't fair to those who do the most benefit to society. A doctor is far more important than a Giant associate for instance, and there pay should reflect that.