Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[LPMan59]

Others have aptly addressed the fallacy of that. So can you address the actual argument, that socialism requires force while capitalism does not? The more elements of socialism you have, the more systemic reasons there are for uniformed, armed agents of the government to visit you. Under capitalism the only circumstances under which uniformed, armed agents of the government might visit you is because you harmed someone else.

If you're advocating that America votes to adopt more socialist policies, you're advocating force against me. I place more value on individual autonomy than I do on "equality" or sharing other people's wealth.

I don't consent to participate in such a system. But I'm given no choice. It should not be possible for 50% of the people + 1 to vote away the individual autonomy I have now. Other people shouldn't have a vote on what happens with what I earn. That is immoral.

But people like Sanders believe that theirs is the moral position, that trying to create a system of equal outcomes is moral. Well, I'll tell you what. If you think you'd ("you" means proponents of socialism) like to help someone equal out their outcome, how about YOU help them out, instead of voting to relieve your conscience with someone else's resources. As a non-religious person, I don't throw the word "evil" around often, but it fits socialism. Rather than having a morally superior position, Sanders and the socialists are immoral and their goals are evil.

I am interested in subscribing to your newsletter

 

[jamil]

It's absolutely true that socialism relies on force, whereas in capitalism it's optional. But capitalism without force is merely an ideal implementation, not a realistic one. Just because money now buys political influence instead of thugs doesn't mean force isn't still applied, it just means the people who can buy force are smarter about how they go about it.

If we're going to make fun of communists for idealizing communism instead of looking at how it's actually turned out in practice, then shouldn't we also look at capitalism in practice instead of an ideal implementation that never existed?

That's a fair point. Self interested people exist in both systems and some people's self-interests outweighs their morality, whether socialist or capitalist. Corruption exists in both systems because of self-interested but immoral people. In socialism that corruption manifests itself within a powerful government with the power that a state wields. That kind of power is potentially far more dangerous than the kind of power a company has over people.

In the US we insist on this social alchemy between these two disparate systems, and that has produced a very high level of cronyism and essentially makes us an oligarchy. But as we add more socialism to the alchemy, we cede even more power of the state to the oligarchy. Unless everyone's brainwashed into obedient compliance, it's impossible to remove force from socialism. It's at least possible to reduce the prevalence of force in capitalism. It's possible to make rules and provide a system to redress harm done. So why not just start with that? Let's end all this silly, immoral socialist nonsense and focus attention on ending the crony oligarchy.

 

[Hardscrable]

Ok. I'm weak on this part because I am not a farmer. I will admit that.
But, if a subsidy across the US is discontinued, and the farmers then refuse to sell at the stated price (as mentioned) nationwide, what will happen to the price on the market?
Nationwide, no selling of produce. I'm pretty sure (but I'll admit I can be wrong) the cost of food will go up.

Oil is also traded as a commodity. If a refinery hiccups, the price is reflected in the market. Why not food since it is also traded as a commodity?

Subsidiy being discontinued really does not come into play in in such an instance...no direct subsidies on crop prices. Very complicated and much too long of a discussion for me here. Briefly, in general, & simplified - subsidies do not enter into selling price. They come into play in ways such as discussed upthread...Renewable Fuel Mandate causes more corn to be used for ethanol production expands demand for corn. As long as supply is elastic enough no real change in price. As corn supply gets tighter and demand grows, price increases. The opposite is also true...more corn planted and grown to meet demand ( and rising prices ) but remove mandate, demand drops, supply increases, prices go down. This unfolds over time. Add in a sudden, severe "hiccup" such as massive drought across corn belt reduces this year's crop by 50%, change in supply is greatly accelerated and price change is much more severe...also greatly magnified by speculation on Board of Trade. Same happens in reverse.

Farmers cannot really refuse to sell for very long. Commodities spoil. Last year's crop in the bin must be moved before this year's harvest to make space. Bankers require turning crops into $$ to repay operating debt whether prices are good or not. Taxes have to be paid. Family living expenses continue. $$ are required ( whether your $$ or borrowed from bank ) to plant again this year. In today's world if not satisfied with price, eventually you sell and "buy back" on paper if you wish to speculate on better prices down the road. Market still gets the physical commodity at the offered price and you hold paper. Not enough farmers in total and no organization binding them together to as you question act in unison to hold off market and refuse to sell until raising prices. Markets - supply & demand - are worldwide. Commodity markets are world markets. Prices are dependent on world wide weather, production/yields, demand, governmental policies, embargoes, economies, currency relationships, etc., etc. US used to be the VERY BIG dog in this fight...not so much any more - still dominate but greatly diminished. What a few farmers here need or want for a selling price and their actions pertaining to it is like spitting into the ocean.

Not all farmers can raise any crop. Land, climate, infrastructure, etc. supports certain production. If the price of wheat is below cost of production but corn is profitable, farmers in Washington, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc who normally grow wheat , probably cannot switch to corn. They either raise wheat or nothing. Raising a crop that is red ink today but puts bushels in the bin is probably a better gamble ( less projected loss ) than saving the $$ to grow and harvest, leave the land idle/ unplanted for a year, and hope for a better outlook next year. If I milk cows and the price of milk is in the red but pork prices are extreemly profitable, I cannot pivot on a dime and switch from milking cows to raising hogs.

Contrary to what many people would believe, the price of any commodity can be below break even for multiple years. Also the break even varies greatly from farm to farm, year to year - an acceptable/ profitable corn price today for me in northern IN may be red ink for a farmer in southern Nebraska ( another reason never get all producers nation wide to agree to hold for a certain price ). I may be able to sell this year's soybeans for a good profit but my corn or wheat is losing money. Choices are to go on and do the best possible to make it all work or get out.

As as to your refinery hiccup, that price increase is not world wide as the supply issue is not world wide. It changes prices for the markets it supplies. Same for commodities. If the eastern corn belt ( IN, Ohio, etc. ) has a drought and reduced supply but Rest of country has good yields and over all supply is adequate, the local price will increase to buy product. The national price will not but local price will rise enough to buy bushels then retract. That increase in basis ( premium paid over normal price ) will be to cover increased transportation costs to ship from other states to here. If IN & Ohio farmers had yields reduced 50%, their break even cost per bu. doubles. The increase in local price will never rise that much, only enough to cover the extra cost involved to buy miles away and ship. IN & Ohio farmers could refuse to sell and demand more but as long as total supply is adequate, local end users will bump basis up & buy more bushels from a farther distance...market will only pay minimum required to obtain supply. In essence, same thing happens on a global basis.

I have rambled enough. Hope you get the idea. Very complicated to envision/understand especially if you have not lived the life.

 

[Hohn]

It's absolutely true that socialism relies on force, whereas in capitalism it's optional. But capitalism without force is merely an ideal implementation, not a realistic one. Just because money now buys political influence instead of thugs doesn't mean force isn't still applied, it just means the people who can buy force are smarter about how they go about it.

If we're going to make fun of communists for idealizing communism instead of looking at how it's actually turned out in practice, then shouldn't we also look at capitalism in practice instead of an ideal implementation that never existed?

Capitalism without force being unrealistic? I'm guessing you have some pretty vaugue definitions of "force." And if you are including in that definition the 'force' of the State in having police power, then that's not applicable. The absence of force in how transactions are made is THE key and only germane element here. When the government is controlling the terms of a deal-- whether setting a minimum or maximum price, manipulating supply or demand, etc-- then that is NOT capitalist, but socialist.

Money buying influence is NOT the equivalent of buying some Pinkertons. Having airtime on TV or full page ads in a magazine are not the same as having union thugs threatening you for actually trying to work for a wage you find acceptable.

The essence of capitalism is mutual consent. Which of course means you are not under duress when you consent.

 

[jamil]

Capitalism without force being unrealistic? I'm guessing you have some pretty vaugue definitions of "force." And if you are including in that definition the 'force' of the State in having police power, then that's not applicable. The absence of force in how transactions are made is THE key and only germane element here. When the government is controlling the terms of a deal-- whether setting a minimum or maximum price, manipulating supply or demand, etc-- then that is NOT capitalist, but socialist.

Money buying influence is NOT the equivalent of buying some Pinkertons. Having airtime on TV or full page ads in a magazine are not the same as having union thugs threatening you for actually trying to work for a wage you find acceptable.

The essence of capitalism is mutual consent. Which of course means you are not under duress when you consent.