Peter
If I can add, capitalism like any system is not perfect, it is what human beings do with it, that can be for better or worse.

Capitalism like any ideology/system either works for the betterment of the people within a democratic framework, or it can be the unfettered capitalism version which serves only a small elite. What we are experiencing is a growing influence of corporations in government policy decisions.

This is not a discussion about socialism vs capitalism. Socialism can also be easily subverted away from the collective good if there are no checks in the system, and where there is a growing and controlling elite. In some cases it is a different package but with similar outcomes. Ideally IMO a system should seek the best balance of collective and individual good/rights, albeit in that process a consensus is not always easy to come by.

I do not advocate a socialist Australia but some of the principles inherent in socialism can be adapted for best use within a capitalist framework. The issue is unfettered capitalism, lack of appropriate regulation and failure to etend democracy to the grass roots.

Thinker 2
I am glad that you understand that on one level coercive socialism is not better.

I hope you understand that it’s not even possible, not even in theory. The reason is because the whole purpose of socialism is to abolish the market for capital goods. In doing so it abolishes prices on capital goods, which in turn abolishes the possibility of economic calculation. The *necessary* result is economic chaos – in other words, misplaced priorities.

This problem applies *always and necessarily* applies whenever government overrides private property in favour of common property and forced redistributions; regardless whether it’s called “democracy”.

For example, in NSW, on the basis of your belief that everyone should have a right to an equal say in “the environment”, government assumes control of minerals and aquifers. They licence mining companies – for a fee of course - to explore and mine, on government's terms. They forbid private interests from owning the aquifers.

Now remember, you are in favour of this.

Socialism means the public ownership and control of the means of production, so you are in favour of minerals-and-aquifers-socialism.

But then you look at the resulting misplaced priorities, and instead of blaming your own support of socialism, you blame “unfettered capitalism”. BUT THE CAPITALISM ISN’T UNFETTERED, THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT.

If it was unfettered, mining companies wouldn’t have a right to explore or mine anyone else’s land without the owner’s consent, because capitalism means *private property*. And instead of the groundwaters being protected by bureaucrats who have no financial interest in a successful outcome, and who suffer no negative consequences for making wrong, even very wrong decisions, aquifers would be aggressively defended by private owners with an interest in maintaining their value, just as land is.

So while on the one hand you can see that a voluntary society would be better, on the other you keeping thinking that coercive socialism must provide a better solution. But the problems you’re looking at aren’t caused by unfettered capitalism, they’re caused by unfettered SOCIALISM. And calling it “democracy” MAKES NO ECONOMIC DIFFERENCE.

Pelican

“Ideally … a system should seek the best balance of collective and individual good/rights”

You assume that there is an intrinsic conflict of interest between voluntary individual action, and society in general. Prove it?

Voluntary relations are mutually advantageous, otherwise they wouldn’t take place. On the other hand, violence-based relations – the ones you are in favour of - are a zero-sum game – the stronger takes from the weaker and value is destroyed.

You assume that government represents the people more and better than the people represent themselves. There is no evidence or reason for this brainwashed belief.

You have said in the past that the problem is “unregulated markets”. Yet when I asked you to name ONE market that was unregulated, you couldn’t. Still waiting. So it is dishonest of you to persist in saying that the problem is “unfettered capitalism”.

“I do not advocate a socialist Australia”

Yes you do. You constantly advocate big government and criticize capitalism on the basis of socialist assumptions that have no basis in evidence or reason.

You think the government should direct labour, capital, interest, profits, mining, aquifers, farming, forests, health, roads, railways, electricity, people’s personal preferences, housing, lands, waters, air, all manufacturing, foreign investment, etc. etc. etc. . You think everyone in the population should be compulsorily indoctrinated by government.

So are you confused or just dishonest?

“ Socialism can also be easily subverted away from the collective good if there are no checks in the system, and where there is a growing and controlling elite.”

Socialism is not possible in theory or practice, so it is *completely wrong* to believe that socialism is in any way consistent with the collective good.

Attempts to bring about socialism *cause* elitist society and economic wrongdoing. The problems you are looking at are caused by YOU AND PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOU.

“but some of the principles inherent in socialism can be adapted for best use within a capitalist framework.”

Your economic ignorance is no excuse for your unethical belief that society is improved by institutionalized violence and stealing.

The capacity to mobilise power should not direct our society.

Be it electoral, military or economic, restraint is recommended.

Too many people know how to debase our society by merely "illegal" activity. The redirection of money by drug production, the capacity to undermine military might by biological or chemical means, to undermine electoral power by founding yet another trumped-up religion directing a voting block. To generate fear by terrorism.

If those with a capacity to undermine use it, those with alternate means might oppose.

We do not want such a war. There are more people able to make war gases than there are pastors to misinform their flock.

Democracy works when people use their electoral capacity with due regard for more than their own issues. Particularly those as trivial as mere religion, over which many wars have been fought.

Rusty.

"The capacity to mobilise power should not direct our society."

Well that rules out politics as a way of directing society, doesn't it?

And wouldn't it be nice if politics were more about principles and policies rather than just whatever it takes to satisfy identifiable voting or funding blocs sufficient to be elected?

Rusty