Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Equality HAS to be imposed because you will never have agreement on what is "equal". And what do you do with those who don't agree? Off to the labor camps for them.

Even IF we were able to provide all material comfort easily, you would still have people who want more or want something that someone else has. I mean wouldn't we all want to live in the best house in Hawaii. How are you going to decide who gets that?

No, the simple fact is that there will always be divisions in humanity, and as Nietschze pointed out, the more "equal" things become the more resentment there will be for any perceived inequality. This is the true basis underlying communism. It is resentment empowered. So naturally this is going to end up in totalitarianism.

As for the Star Trek scenario. That is fantasy, we live in the world today. So we must base our opinions on what is achievable, not what we hope.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Well, the main difference with that and socialism is that the parent cannot force the kid to take care of the parent.

Otherwise you are correct, it is as much a type of slavery or bondage akin to socialism (in most instances).

Originally Posted by mulp

You are confusing equity with equality.

The only way everyone can be equal is to genetically change humans into asexual beings that reproduce by one of the several methods of natural cloning.

On the other hand, ensuring that each person's basic needs are met, whether housing, diet, healthcare, education, work is a matter of equity. The housing will certainly not be equal, with the form and cost of housing much more demanding for someone in North Dakota than in South Carolina.

Many nations achieve a very high level of equity without trying to impose equality.

Originally Posted by mulp

So, isn't forcing an insurance company to provide the services that you paid premiums for akin to socialism? Shouldn't the insurance company be allowed to disown you, repaying the premiums you paid in paying for medical bills, and then call it even? That would be more than a kid who disowns his parents at 21 after they put him through college.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Are you implying that the government owns these things?

Your argument is not valid. Imposing certain regulation does not necessary impede free markets or Capitalism under nathan's definition and more than traffic laws do.

Originally Posted by mulp

Who is the government? Isn't the government, the collective of all the people, (unless it is some corporate body like a military dictatorship)?

Some argue that ownership by everyone is ownership by no one, but I argue that ownership by no one is ownership by all of society, society's agent is government.

And I hear and read self described conservatives and libertarians condemning all government regulation as infringements on their liberty and property rights.

But let's be clear, air, water, etc. are all absolutely necessary for any economic activity to occur, so those are absolutely critical inputs into any production. If they are taken away from you, your will fail to produce anything.

So, if capitalism means that private parties own the means of production, who owns the air and water?

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

No. It is a fair trade. For them to renege is theft. Raising children is different both because the child had no say in being born, and also because a child is incapable of entering into a contract. Hence the parent has no claim on the kid.

Now this does not apply to the insurance company. They are capable of entering into a contract, and if you pay them they have to honor the terms of their committment.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Is George Bush the government? After all he was duly elected. So should you believe in everything he does?

Of course not. So why do you apply the same principle to economics?

The answer is no one. The issue isn't water, per se, or air, per se, but rather that it moves from place to place. If I never discharged water off of my property, I could do what I wanted with the water on my property or the air on my property. However, if the water flows down to my neighbors property, then we have an issue. That is the reason the government can regulate air, water, etc.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Okay, fair enough. Equity. Same things apply, who gets to decide what is equitable, what do you do with those who disagree?

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Of course there have been communist countries. Try to disown them all you want, but anyone with half a brain knows that totalitarianism is the natural conclusion to any attempt at communism.

How else to impose equality, how else to decide what is "equal". Is communism as defined by Marx a pretty illusion, yes of course. But so is the Islamic heaven. There is nothing more dangerous than people who believe in illusions and try to make them real.

As for the rest. Ideas are worthy infinitely more than workers. Sorry, but that is why all the factory jobs are leaving this country.