The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Does government regulation kill jobs?

These are 'human conditions' and are not unique to Capitalism, but these human conditions prevent Capitalism from becoming a meritocracy. Your claim that "Capitalism sans X, Y, Z is a meritocracy" is not a valid argument, since "sans X, Y, Z" will never happen outside of very controlled conditions controlling for 'human conditions'.

If you are trying to have a rational/logical debate, please stick to the statements/claims I actually made.

Holy cow sinij, it is just difficult when you pile up 1000 inaccurate assumptions to take time to dispel every single one.

First of all, I did not confuse them. You do not apparently understand their relevance is the problem. You cannot prove that society must be present, because you cannot prove that other people will even necessarily be around.

Plus just because other people WISH to interfere with you in a violent manner, does not make them capable of doing so. Please Think your arguments through please.

You cannot prove that a society is needed for wealth creation unless you can clear the following hurdles:

1) That other people are inherently needed. This is patently false, and self-evident.

2) That other people are even present. Unless you can prove that a guy hidden away in the mountains cannot create wealth for himself, your argument falls apart.

I understand what you are trying to say in a general sense, but the fine points of what you are trying to pass for logic just does not hold up. You can say a cat is a dog if you want, but it doesnt make it true.

Also, how have I dismissed the negative effects of human interaction? I addressed that. Read closer.

You try to say "Your confusion seems to be based on the fact that you seem to completely dismiss negative effects of human interaction. You argue that since individual can create wealth in perfect isolation (I do not dispute this), you can scale it up to any size and proportionally scale wealth creation (I dispute this part) without any regards to interaction of these individuals."

When the previous quotes from me

a)"However, you should have also noted before sticking on this point that I also clarified that greater wealth can be created by group co-operation. This was defining a fine point of terminology and usage so we were on the same page."

b) "A well ordered society can in fact provide a beneficial ENVIRONMENT that is more suited to creating additional wealth. You would be correct to say that it is more conducive to create certain types of wealth in the USA than in say, Somalia."

c) "I will give you a hint: to go anywhere with this line of reasoning you appear to be pursuing, you need to re-arrange your budding argument away from the "society is needed to create wealth" to "most of the wealth we currently enjoy is created in the context of a modern society"."

These quotes and others prove that I had not dismissed the negative effects of human interaction, and you either are simply not reading what I wrote or are trying to call a cat a dog.

Additionally your admission thus : "You argue that since individual can create wealth in perfect isolation (I do not dispute this)" is also an admission that you can create wealth in a vaccum.

And lastly, in your statement : "In very simplified terms, if multiple individuals are present, they need to show basic level of cooperation in order for any of them to create any wealth." you are technically correct. HOWEVER: It is important to identify and separate types of co-operation. The issue you seem to be getting at is security co-operation. Security co-operation does not imply a greater economic co-operation. Also, co-operation can be coerced.

So are you ever going to lay out a clear argument in favor of your policies? So far all you have done is try (unsuccessfully ) to nitpick semantics.

You have also focused on this particular point without addressing the other ways I debunked your thought train as well. A thought train that, I might add, has yet to even leave the station.

You did not clearly make them, but you were obviously trying to imply them. It should have been self-evident that these conditions applied universally, thus pointing it out in direct response to Capitalism can and should be taken the way it was taken.

Since we are comparing system of govt, all comparisons are relative to the types of govt being discussed. The burden lies on you to make a case that these human conditions are a greater detrimental effect on society under Capitalism than other forms of governance.. which is a difficult proposition because history has shown the opposite to be true time and again. Much better tactical tack to throw out an allusion while trying to retain plausible deniability and hope you dont get called on it, as you did.

Compared to a centrally planned system, Capitalism is indeed a meritocracy. The human traits you describe have been overcome by budding Capitalists again and again, because incidental cases of human failings have nowhere near the negative effect that a govt that acts in a large scale organized fashion to repress individuals has.

It should be self evident that an individual has a better chance to flourish in a system where the govt is small, accountable and focused on protecting his individual rights than in a system where the govt is large, unaccountable, and focused on centrally managing the lives of everyone.

So, I entreat you - please make your case. I recommend doing it in a separate thread but that of course is up to you.

So far the only point you have made is that in the presence of multiple individuals, some degree of security co-operation is required. A point which, contrary to some of your previous statements I have never disagreed with.

What I disagreed with was you trying to use that to make a case for govt programs and interference that had not previously existed (because trying to make such a link is evidently false, as evidenced immediately by the presence of the PC you are presumably typing on. ) But you somehow took this point and turned it into multiple posts worth of Red Herring.

So I ask again, make a case.

My case is, as always, was :

Nobody exists in a vacuum, every one is part of society. Your contributions, be it wealth creation or something else, are also product of the society as a whole. Functional society requires outlays for all individuals in order to continue functioning. As such existence of these outlays, be it in form of taxes, social programs or else is what enables society that enables individuals to be productive.

TL;DR version - if you cut social spending, society that allow you to create wealth will cease to exist in a massive wave of riots and anarchy. You can create wealth only because you are willing (or forced to) share portion of it in order to maintain this society.



Current lifestyle is a result of greater degree of cooperation within population, direct result of more equal and more protected societies we have built. Capitalism isn't new and existed long before our present level of prosperity and quality of life became possible.

Read this - Budget Cuts and Riots

Good luck living on an island, creating wealth and not paying for any social programs, Mr. Derid Crusoe.



I have about 7 billion reasons why this line of thinking is laughable.

Heheh getting snippy I see


You should have just taken my tip and argued from the position of "society having enabled higher degrees of wealth" as opposed to arguing semantics from an incorrect position. I never even wanted to get into the semantics debate, I just wanted to clarify the vernacular and force you to use more precision with your wording. Was hoping you would be precise and produce a logically consistent argument that would be interesting to pick apart.

It appears to have backfired though, since you seem to want to obsess over it and refuse to see the difference between "usually is" and "has to be".

So, you are saying that restraining entitlements to Clinton-era levels and halting the rapid expansion of govt and halting the centralization of control over health and other systems in the hands of the Federal Govt will turn the USA into a no-mans land?

Clarify this for me so I can be sure I am not swinging at a straw man here.

Also, even if it did result in social unrest - your position seems to imply (by virtue of it being the one you are pushing for) that you believe it to be the most correct one. I would also take issue with this. It is arguing that the threat of mob violence should take the place of rational decision making. I would also call it immoral if the argument you make above as I described it is actually the argument you are making.

It is one thing to provide a system that provides as much fairness of opportunity ( not equality of results) as humanly possible, it is quite another to bow to extortion.

I don't have to argue point you suggested, while it would present more interesting debate I detest conceding semantic fight, especially one where assertions are so illogical.

You argument that:

a) other people are not needed
b) other people might not be around

Ignores that a) other people can help and impede , and you don't get to pick and choose and
b) we live in a world where overpopulation is a problem, where anyone, least all 7 billion of us, will find such place to hide and create wealth?

I can't see how you can be intellectually honest and not concede this point.



This is not how I read your responses. Way I read it - "Lets take this idea to illogical and impossible extreme, see it doesn't work there, so whole concept is flawed".

P.S. How would you engage in political debates over internet if you are stuck on deserted island by yourself? Perhaps this entire debate is product of your approaching insanity? or maybe that coconut milk went bad and you should have thrown it away instead of drinking it?

As shocking as it may sound, I too believe in rationing of social programs. I 100% agree with you that it is possible to have too many social programs, but my "too many" probably well into "communists are here!" territory for you.

How, why and what is necessary as far as social program - that is all up to debate. How about we talk Unemployment Insurance and recent practice of extending it?