Originally posted by semperfortis
Looks good on it's face, however....
1. Who defines what are "bare Necessities?"
2. Who again, sets the amount determined to be an "equal share."'
We're talking about mathematics here, it's hardly subjective. Average residential electricity use is X. Cost of a power plant and grid to supply X
to the population (P) is Y. Y/P= Taxes due, for which the taxpayer is entitled to X. If the taxpayer uses less than X, he recieves the market price of
the unused electricity. Those who use more than X (thus using the surplus created by the previous taxpayer) are billed at the same market price that
the saver was paid.
The private sector provides for industrial and commercial use, and the government also buys from them with the fee paid by over-consumers to prevent
an enegy deficit. The prices set by the market in the private sector are the same prices at which the government repays those who don't use their
owned share of the power or who use more than their share.
Socialism in all of its many forms "looks" enticing and on paper creates a system that would benefit all. On Paper.
I assume you don't dispute that when what is on paper is math, rather than philosophy, that it necessarily translates into reality. We're not
dealing with progressive notions of fairness but with a simple matter of equal numbers.
Socialism demands a large government entity to regulate any and all of the many systems that would need to be in place just to enforce the
system, not counting the everyday running and crunching of numbers.
There is no reason that a government organization for handling these transactions need be any larger than the private organizations which handle them
at present. Meter-reader for meter-reader and accountant for accountant, there is no reason that there should be any disparity. Meanwhile you're
still saving in other areas, because the consumer is providing the capital and needs no interest returned on his money, only for the service he is
paying for to be provided.
Socialism, even in the limited form that you are describing, is anti-capitalism by it's very nature. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
the human need to succeed.
The only significant change that I am suggesting is that the average person invest capital in the things which he needs. He is still making an
investment in expectation of a return, only that return takes the form of a savings to him rather than a payment to him.
In what way does the example remove an opportunity to succeed from our society? It does not. Ot merely opens that opportunity up to a new class of
investor. Where before only those of certain financial means were able to invest, in this case the people are able to form a unique type of
corporation, which by virtue of gaining its capital through their payment of an existing expense makes them able to invest.
The current system essentially requires that the consumers take a loan to pay for something that they together could pay for out of pocket instead.
Why should the people rely on those who control large amounts of capital and who demand high returns on that capital, when the people themselves have
enough capital together to fund what they need flat out, and indebt themselves to no one?
Also is the fear of the ever expanding government that would quite simply be more inherent in that kind of society.
Do you suggest that the federal reserve system which has facilitated our capitalist system is an example of small government?
If you want a small government, forbid the government from issuing any money, from keeping reserves, from loaning or borrowing, or taking any other
economic measure. Just let anyone who pleases mint coin in precious metal and really let the market do what it wants, for real. We'll all get raped
six ways from sunday at the cash register, but at least we'll be free to aspire
to acquiring wealth in this wonderful dystopia of unbridled
government- a basic level of democratic redress- is vital regardless of our economic system. If the government has no say in the trade of
the necessities of life, then the government has no true say in anything.
In the capitalism we now practice, that has been the federal reserve, which attempts to regulate the supply of worthless paper in order to control the
flow of real goods.
I suggest that in market conscious socialism, the government could accomplish the same thing in a more tangible and beneficial way by providing a
venue for the citizenry to directly influence the supply of the real goods themselves.
This is only a portion of the supply, and only in certain core industries, and the effect is to be similar to the manipulation of interest rates, but
in a more direct, certain, and beneficial form. A vast realm remains for individual ambition, even within the industries which will be partially