Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[wufwugy]

Well there are some historical examples where this argument is demonstrably untrue. In the war of 1812 for example, there didn't exist a centralized command structure in the US that could draw on resources (generally, soldiers and guns) to defend the interests of the country as a whole. So you had states like VA saying 'this war with the British and Canada doesn't concern us why should we send soldiers to fight it? They're no threat to us.' Meanwhile the Brits could draw soldiers from every corner of their Empire to fight over N. America. And arguably that is the only reason the US doesn't own Canada today.

Conversely, had the power been centralized, the US gov't could have drafted 300k soldiers and sent them off to take Canada from the British. That it didn't happen that way is wholly because there wasn't a sufficiently strong central gov't in the US with the right to exercise power over individual states.

The bold is an important premise.

I'm focusing on people's interests. A country's best interest probably include tax and focus on war. But the people in a country are not the same as the country, and those peoples' interests are not the same as the state's interest.

[Poopadoop]

The bold is an important premise.

I'm focusing on people's interests. A country's best interest probably include tax and focus on war. But the people in a country are not the same as the country, and those peoples' interests are not the same as the state's interest.

My first thought is that the people's interests are inextricably linked with those of the nation. Otherwise there is no reason for nations to exist and we would all live as families independent of any higher order. Thoughts?

[wufwugy]

My first thought is that the people's interests are inextricably linked with those of the nation. Otherwise there is no reason for nations to exist and we would all live as families independent of any higher order. Thoughts?

Yes, they absolutely are. Though not entirely so. As you know, nation is different than state. You can have a nation without a state. A person that interacts with others in a sufficiently large society depends a good deal on the nation, and the same is true if that person has a state that sets laws by decree and executes them through taxes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But the people in a country are not the same as the country, and those peoples' interests are not the same as the state's interest.

Except in America, where it is the people who are the state.

[wufwugy]

Except in America, where it is the people who are the state.

While the state is supposed to depend ultimately on the aggregation of persons (if a democracy), the person and the state are in many ways different entities with different preferences.

[wufwugy]

One thing I will say is that The Bernank is smarter than this. But The Krug. Man the Krug. He's something else. He'd find a way to rationalize this. It's just what The Krug does.