On Sep 17, 2:42 am, Ron Allen
bellsouth.net> wrote:> Ron Allen wrote:
>> But please do not feel it necessary to clarify
>> your words. I'm sure it's nothing important,
>> nothing interesting.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> Yes you think anything you don't agree with is
>> uninteresting and everything you don't
>> understand is unimportant.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
>> No, I just don't find your nay-saying pessimism
>> and misanthropy to be either all that
>> interesting or important.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> As I've pointed out before unless you deal with
>> the problems I've detailed your utopia will be a
>> hell of starvation.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
>> Your problems are concocted in some cases, and
>> exaggerated in other cases.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> Then demonstrate that these things will not be a
>> problem. Start with economic risk, how will it
>> be handled.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
>> Risk in a democratic socialist economy is very
>> different from risk in a liberal capitalist
>> economy. There is one kind of risk when
>> producing to supply human needs, and there is
>> another kind of risk when producing to maximize
>> private profits. There is one kind of risk when
>> people compete, and there is another kind of
>> risk when people cooperate.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> And how will that risk be handled?
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> How are risks to be handled in the anarcho-
> capitalism you advocate?
By entrepeneurs estimating and taking on those
risks they think worthwhile and being rewarded or
punished by the profit/loss mechanism. How the
hell else could it happen in a capitalist system?
> Perhaps this can help
> us see how risks might be handled in a social-
> democratic commonwealth republic.
>
Of course it fucking can't you moron because, as you
already said and I've already agreed, risk will be handled
differently in democratic socialism than under capitalism.
If risk were handled the same under democratic socialism
as under anarcho-capitalism so much of the democratic
socalism would have to change that it would be in effect
anarcho-capitalism.
> Michael Price wrote:
>> That's what I'm asking. You keep answering the
>> question "Will risk be handled differently in a
>> democratic socialist economy than in a
>> capitalist one?", a question I never asked and
>> for which I always knew the answer. How about
>> an answer to the question I asked?
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> The risks that you like to impute to a social-
> democratic economy are risks that are integral
> to a liberal-capitalist economy, risks that are
> implicit to a competitive economy, risks that
> are intrinsic to a proprietarian-profiteering
> economy, risks that are implied and inherent in
> a commodity-producing and commodity-exchange
> economy.
>
No they are intrinsic to any production processes
that don't include flawless knowledge of the future.
Ships run aground, crops fail, new products are produced
that result in less people wanting the old ones, tastes
change. All this happens regardless of the economic
system. To pretend that economic risk will disappear
because capitalism does it delusional.
> Ron Allen wrote:
>> Most, if not all, of the problems you like to
>> detail are problems not just of socialist
>> democracy, but are also problems of anarchist
>> capitalism.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> No they're not because anarchist capitalism has
>> a mechanism to deal with economic risk. It also
>> has a way to get people to produce. They're
>> called the market, moron.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
>> The market is not instrumental in getting people
>> to produce.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> Of course it is as any look at trip to the
>> supermarket will tell you.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Human need is the "eternal/natural" reason why
> people engage in productive work. In a capitalist
> economy, this "eternal/natural" reason is
> restricted and restrained by exclusive private
> property, by the commodification of labor, and by
> the artificial dependence of productive labor on
> the necessity to maximize profits and to valorize
> capital.
Yeah I'm sure all those people who make oranges would
still make them if nobody paid them. Moron.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> But I wasn't saying that the market was
>> instrument in getting people to produce I was
>> saying it was instrumental in handling economic
>> risk, which it is.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> OK, so then, you do not believe that the free
> market is instrumental in getting people to
> produce.
Actually I do, see above.
> What, then, did you mean when you wrote
> above that "the market" is a way that anarcho-
> capitalism gets people to produce?
Exactly what I said.
> If the market
> "gets people to produce", then this would seem to
> mean that the market is embedded in, implanted in
> what Karl Marx called "the realm of necessity";
Non sequitur, some production would happen without the
market.
> and this would imply that the market is not a
> fixture or feature of "the realm of freedom";
Of course it is a feature of the realm of freedom because
it's where people make free economic choices.
> and, therefore, all the talk about "free markets" is
> just illusory and misleading talk, fictional and
> fallacious talk.
Facious reasoning leading to a stuid conclusion.
> If the market is a facet of the
> realm of necessity, then the very expression "free
> market" is simply as oxymoronic as the expressions
> "unfaithful faith" or "falsely true".
What you mean be "realm of necessity" is something
we need, but we need freedom, so by your logic
freedom is unfree.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>> No they're not because anarchist capitalism has
>> a mechanism to deal with economic risk.
>
> Ron Allen answers/asks:
> What is this mechanism that anarcho-capitalism has
> for dealing with economic risk?
>
The market you moron, I said it higher up in the post.
Try to concentrate.
> When you talk about "economic risk", are you
> talking about investment risk -- i.e., the
> practice of investing private money in a private
> enterprise business?
I am talking about economic risk, the risk that value
will be lost in economic activity.
> If so, then be advised that
> a democratic socialist commonwealth economy is not
> about private enterprise investments in productive
> cooperatives, such as cooperative farms and
> factories. In a social-democratic commonwealth,
> public investments of mat
