How is BP still in business?

[z05DSL3A]

Bertrand Russell wrote:

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

Winston Churchill wrote:

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

I kind of agree with the polish proverb:

“Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true”

[Disch]

kempofighter wrote:

By the way, the government regulators approved BPs plan. How would more government have prevented this problem?

The MMS approved BP's plan because they were in BP's pocket and weren't doing their job. This was caused by an overemphasis on money (ie: capitalism) and not enough emphasis on actually doing what you should.

Capitalism doesn't reward doing things that are right. It rewards doing things that are greedy, which is why:

1) Our government is so corrupt
2) The general view of large corporations is that they're "evil"
3) All our workforce is outsourced and our economy is in the shitter

I really don't think that people know what they are saying when they suggest that we need more socialism.

I really don't think that people know what they are saying when they suggest that socialism is as bad as you're depicting it. I just seem to be hearing echoed scare tactic nonsense spread by the far right.

Capitalism in its true form would be a better solution for current problems

We came as close to true capitalism as we ever will during the industrial revolution. And it didn't work. In fact it was probably the worst era in our nation's history that one could've lived in.

Besides, I don't even see how you could think this. Without governmental regulations there's no consequences. No company would ever do anything that isn't profitable. BP could (and most likely would) have just abandoned the leak and started drilling elsewhere. Then they could have paid off the media not to do reports on it.

True capitalism and true free trade results in a small handful of profiteers and widespread poverty. Governmental regulation is absolutly necessary.

[filipe]

hamsterman wrote:

Socialism does not imply more government (Again, a misconception. If something was a part of USSR it's not necessarily a part of socialism). It only implies government that cares about the people.

The problem with socialism is that government has to care for people. Adult human beings shouldn't be babysat by their government; I don't see another legitimate reason for governments to even exist than to keep law and order, as long as the law protects freedom, of course.

The very idea of socialism is directly opposite to individual liberty. It assumes government officials know what's good for you better than yourself, and it provides them with power to interfere in your personal life. They might decide, for instance, that smoking is bad for you, and thus banish cigarettes, even though you might want to take the risk and smoke anyway (I don't smoke, by the way, it's just a simple example). The existence of government is bad as it is, socialism just makes it much worse, justifying every kind of interference, and taking away from citizens the freedom to do what they want with a much bigger part of their income.

Notice that respect to individual liberty should mean people and organizations have to pay for their own mistakes. That means no "bail outs". Of course, banks and such organizations usually work under the assumption that government will bail them out should the worst happen, because they're so central to the economy. Some regulation might be needed to keep them from dragging entire societies with them.

[Disch]

filipe wrote:

I don't see another legitimate reason for governments to even exist than to keep law and order, as long as the law protects freedom, of course.

You're speaking in hyperboles, so allow me to join in:

By its very definition, law restricts freedom. The whole point of a law is to say you can't or must do a specific thing. That is the exact opposite of being free. Saying a law "protects freedom" is a contradiction.

It assumes government officials know what's good for you better than yourself, and it provides them with power to interfere in your personal life.

But in a democratic society, you would control which officials make the decisions. If they make decisions you don't like, you put in different people who undo what was done and make it the way you want.

Democracy doesn't work well with capitalism because it's too susceptible to corruption. When the actual citizens are making the decisions instead of special interest groups, then the system might actually work.

As it is in the US now, nearly everybody is upset with the government because the government doesn't represent the people's interests. That's a direct result of capitalistic influence. It's not about what people want, it's about which politicians are in which company's pockets.

There are statistics that illustrate that money spent on campaigning has a direct correlation to your odds of getting elected. I find such an idea extremely disturbing. If it's true, it pretty much means that what the politician stands for means absolutly nothing, and all that matters is how good they are at fundraising.

That's the bane that's eating away at the US. And the real scarey thing about it is there's no cure. There's no way to reform our political system short of trashing it and staring over from scratch, which would be impossible.

It's also the reason why the US simply won't be able to sustain itself. The people being put in office aren't representatives, they're fundraisers. Fundraisers don't know how to properly run a country.

They might decide, for instance, that smoking is bad for you, and thus banish cigarettes, even though you might want to take the risk and smoke anyway (I don't smoke, by the way, it's just a simple example).

If your politician pushes that, then vote him out and elect someone that has a different platform. If you're too late and it's already happened, then put someone in office who will change it back.

Ideally that's how it should work. The problem with the current system is that in the face of such a law, special interest groups come out of the woodwork and finance politicians who support their views, and it essentially comes down to "whoever has the biggest wallet wins".

The existence of government is bad as it is

That's a rather ridiculous statement.

Pure anarchy only works if you have an extremely small group of people (like 10 or less), and all 10 of those people happen to get along. If there are any more than that, or if there are any conflicts, then you need some kind of hierachial structure to maintain order.

That's the flaw with Communism and Anarchism. They simply don't work on large scales because they're too extreme. They do, however, work wonderfully in very very small scales amongst groups of people that all get along.

socialism just makes it much worse, justifying every kind of interference, and taking away from citizens the freedom to do what they want with a much bigger part of their income.

The idea is that all the income you get is disposable income. The government provides everything you need and keeps you safe, so even if you make less after taxes, your quality of life isn't really lower because more is provided by the government.

Money still has value, but isn't as critical. So there's still incentive to work, but less incentive for greed.

Would it eliminate greed and corruption? Of course not. But with higher govermental regulations and increased government financing, corruption would be less common.

[filipe]

Disch wrote:

By its very definition, law restricts freedom. The whole point of a law is to say you can't or must do a specific thing. That is the exact opposite of being free. Saying a law "protects freedom" is a contradiction.

Freedom to do harm or steal from other people isn't applicable to all citizens unless we just give up on civilization. Law exists to keep things fair for all, so, it should provide as much freedom as possible, especially when it comes to individual decisions that only affect an individual.

But in a democratic society, you would control which officials make the decisions. If they make decisions you don't like, you put in different people who undo what was done and make it the way you want.

One problem with that is that democracies must always keep mechanisms to keep the majority from oppressing the minority. I think some things should simply not be allowed ever, even if all politicians and most citizens would like it so. Think Hitler's Germany (which was a democracy until he was elected). It's an extreme example, of course, but it illustrates how dangerous it is to simply allow the majority to have its way.

Pure anarchy only works if you have an extremely small group of people (like 10 or less), and all 10 of those people happen to get along.

I'm not advocating pure anarchy. I tend to see the existence of government a necessary evil.

The idea is that all the income you get is disposable income.

If you work for it, then it's yours. You should decide whether it's disposable or not. Otherwise you don't really own the outcome of your efforts. You might even decide it's not worth it to work for it at all. That's one of the reasons productivity tends to go down in communist societies.

[Disch]

filipe wrote:

Law exists to keep things fair for all, so, it should provide as much freedom as possible, especially when it comes to individual decisions that only affect an individual.

I agree completley.

I guess I was confused by your earlier wording. To me there's a difference between laws that are limited not to impose too much and laws that "protect freedom".

One problem with that is that democracies must always keep mechanisms to keep the majority from oppressing the minority.

I agree. Although you could change definitions around. A majority might not necessarily mean over 50%... maybe it would mean 75%.

Plus there should be things that are never turned into laws. The US constitution has a lot of strong points there, although some are arguably dated (*cough*2nd amendment*cough*)

I tend to see the existence of government a necessary evil.

I guess I'm an idealist, and I don't see government as evil so much as I see bad government (or "poorly run" government) as evil.

Although in reality it seems like all government is bad government, so I see your point.

If you work for it, then it's yours. You should decide whether it's disposable or not.

To take that to extreme, this could be used as an argument to dispose of taxes, or make taxes optional. After all, if I work for my money, I should decide which government programs I want to pay for, right? So should I be able to not give any money to the police if I have a gun and can protect myself?

I see it more as a middle ground. You don't get as big of a paycheck, but instead you get a home, food, healthcare, etc, etc.

You might even decide it's not worth it to work for it at all.

This could approached in the implementation. For example you could say that things like food, shelter, etc are only provided so long as you're working. But in order for that to work, the government would need to ensure that there are always enough jobs available.

Think of it like "every job is a government job"... only not that extreme. There would still be private companies, but they would be government supported.

It would be hard to pull off but it really could work, and I think it could really do wonders for stabalizing the economy and keeping the jobs in-house.

I'd like to get more into it but I'm out of break time and have to get back to work! =(


PS: I'm enjoying the convo filipe. I really have fun with back and forths like these. It's fun to share ideas with someone of opposing views that actually has a brain and can remain civil. I find that rather rare on the internet!

[chrisname]

I really have fun with back and forths like these. It's fun to share ideas with someone of opposing views that actually has a brain and can remain civil. I find that rather rare on the internet!

It is rare. People find it hard not to come to insults, and when they do, it's even harder not to throw insults back.

A good debate like this is actually quite interesting to read as well. At the moment I feel more on Disch's side.

[kempofighter]

By its very definition, law restricts freedom.

No it doesn't. Bastiat gives a very good definition of the purpose of law.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Humans never have a right to initiate harm against one another. Therefore laws that allow prosecution for murder, theft, rape, and so forth do not restrict freedom in any way whatsoever. Bastiat is much better explaining that.

[m4ster r0shi]

As long as nobody can constrain another individual's thought process, and bearing in mind that (according to the observer-observed interaction) what one thinks matters (literally...), freedom deprivation for a specific individual can only be truly caused by the limitations he, himself, places upon his own thought process.

[chrisname]

Laws inherently restrict freedom because they tell you or someone else not to do something.

Give me an example of a law that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom in any way.

[kempofighter]

The MMS approved BP's plan because they were in BP's pocket and weren't doing their job. This was caused by an overemphasis on money (ie: capitalism) and not enough emphasis on actually doing what you should.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with corrupt government. Under a socialist government there would be even more corruption. Socialism has been tried many times and always degrades into military dictatorship. There are no checks and balances in a socialist system therefore socialism will always result in tyranny. Do you think that bribes won't occur in a socialist government? Where will all of those impeccable people come from that could run such an organization without ever succumbing to the temptation of bribery?

[kempofighter]

Chrisname, I already gave numerous examples. Do you think that you are entitled to the freedom to murder, rape, and steal? I'm not sure if you were referring to my post or if we posted at the same time.

In bastiat's words,

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

[m4ster r0shi]

I think chris was talking to me... Patience, I'm currently writing an answer.

[chrisname]

Well, no. But that's irrelevant. The law still stops me from doing those things.

I may not be entitled to them but I still have the freedom to do them. On the other hand, like m4ster r0shi said, only you can truly restrict yourself. The law can only do so superficially.

However, laws do inherently restrict freedom.

[m4ster r0shi]

Well, the existence of the law that says "if you steal you'll go to prison" doesn't remove from you the option to act as a thief. It just says that if you're caught, you'll go to prison. Also, nobody restricts you from going out in the streets and start slaying people.I guess, what you want to say is that you can't just do it and then get away with it. True. But you can do it. You have that option.

And, let's say that you kill someone and you get caught and put in prison. What consequences would this have to your daily life? Of course you'd lose your job, but then again, since you're in prison, sustaining your body with food and water wouldn't be an issue. Other people take care of this now. And if you feel no guilt for what you've done, because (according to your reasoning) it was perfectly justified, how will being put in prison stop you from coming up with new ideas for solving difficult problems, writing new algorithms, optimizing known algorithms, etc...

You'd actually be a prisoner if-f you felt like one.

EDIT:

chrisname wrote:

On the other hand, like m4ster r0shi said, only you can truly restrict yourself. The law can only do so superficially.

Ah... I saw that only after having submitted the current post.

[kempofighter]

Socialism is public ownership of wealth. It is totalitarianism as is communism for the same reasons. Socialism is the first step towards communism. Please explain to me how you can have a socialist state but not a communist state. I don't see any practical difference. You can use different combinations of words to describe the two but I don't see how they are functionally different. What happens when 10% of the population doesn't want to be socialist anymore? Do you imprison them? Murder them? Kick them out of the country? This problem of forced taxation exists in our current state to some degree however one can move to a state with lower taxes and more freedom. One can find ways to reduce taxable income and so forth. We can always vote to reduce taxes or eliminate certain kinds of taxes. Once a socialst government is in place this is highly unlikely to matter since technically the socialist government owns all wealth, property, and resources in the first place!

[Disch]

kempofighter wrote:

Humans never have a right to initiate harm against one another. Therefore laws that allow prosecution for murder, theft, rape, and so forth do not restrict freedom in any way whatsoever.

That first sentence is purely subjective.

In a lawless society you can do whatever you want, including harm other people. Nature is strikingly cruel.

And what about situations where violence is arguably justified (ie: war). Do you suggest that soldiers don't have the right to fight?

Admittedly I didn't read that link you posted. I'll try to check it when I get home.

kempofighter wrote:

Under a socialist government there would be even more corruption.

Corruption stems from people putting their individual desire for something of value over their responsibilities/obligations. Typically "something of value" is either power or money.

I don't have a good way to reduce desire for power (other than redistributing power so that it's more evenly distributed over a larger group, but that's another topic entirely).

As for reducing desire for money, the only way to do that would be to place less emphasis on the importance of money, which is my entire point with this discussion.

Obviously corruptions can't be eliminated, but reducing the causing factors would make it less likely, right?

Socialism has been tried many times and always degrades into military dictatorship.

I'm tempted to bring up Sweden as a counterpoint, but it seems too obvious. I'll have to research it more.

I don't mean to say Sweden is perfect, in fact I'm not convinced it's any better than (as as good as) the present US, but it certainly didn't degrade to a military dictatorship.

[kempofighter]

I kind of agree with the polish proverb:
“Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true”

If that is a polish proverb, perhaps that is why there are so many polish jokes. The statement is sheer nonsense. There is nothing inherently evil about either the theory of capitalism or of socialism. I can appreciate the "definition of" socialism. Some people exploit others regardless of the form of government you have in place. The question is which form of government and/or economic system better suits our ability to protect ourselves from that exploitation. The practical problem with socialism is that individuals cannot own anything. Therefore how do you hold a fair election under a socialist system when the government owns the media, all land, all wealth, and so forth? Without private ownership there are no checks and balances. Any government can become destructive of liberty, regardless of the philosophy or the underlying economic system. That is why I think that a democratic government in combination with a capitalist economic philosophy is best. We have the means to fight back because we have a court system that sometimes sides with individuals over government, an independent media, and citizens who have the right and the ability to build wealth, buy property, start a business and so forth. It isn't perfect but it is better than any alternative that I have ever heard of. Anarchy won't work either which is why I am not an anarcho-capitalist. The theory of capitalism doesn't say that individuals have a right to harm or exploit each other.

[chrisname]

Why is it "sheer nonsense"? It means that man exploits man regardless of politcal agenda, which is true.

[kempofighter]

No chrisname. read it again. It said, "“Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true”. It states that only under capitalism does man exploit man which is sheer nonsense. It also states that somehow under socialism man never exploits man which is equally nonsensical.