You call it "market socialism", but I wouldn't call it socialism at all, a
better name would be "democracy tempered market", if such a thing is
possible.
> >
> >Call it what you like, what are the classes when all able bodied people
>are both producers and owners, and no one is a wage worker?
>
>I explained that.
But you have not said why or in what sense it is a class society, since all have the same relations to the means of production and to their labor power (that is, they own the former collectively and the latter individually).
>
>I'll concede that buyers and sellers are not classes, I got carried away.
>But rulers and ruled certainly are.
No they are not. Ruling is a relation to the governmental apparatus, not to the means of production. In a certain sort of society--Stalinism--the two tend to coincide, but that;s not the usual case. It's certaibly not the case under capitalism, least of all in capitalist democracy.
>No, I made it clear Justin, this is "in the context of a socialist
>society", where there would be no contracts.
A contract is just a legally enforceable promise. So no promises would be enforceable? What's the point if making democratic decisions if they can't be enforced?
though I think appointed judiciaries make for better law);
>
>Indeed it does. It is appalling to think of judges currying favour and
>fearing disapproval, while trying to administer the law without fear or
>favour. Only a moral bankrupt would even contemplate such a career in the
>US.
Oh, there are a lot of excellent elected state court judges. It leads to judges being tough on criminal defendants and being nice to civil plaintiffs, on average. The latter effect leftists cannot decry.
>Decisions about *things* would be enforceable, but not contracts between
>people.
>
Give me an example I can understand. Say it is democratically decided by--what, the works council? the planning board?--that firm A will make 8000 valves for kidney dialysis machines by such a date. They fail to do so: they're late, and half the valves are no good. How can the promise or decisions about things be enforced without enforcing it against someone, that is, against people.
we have given the contract breachers no incentive whatsoever to behave
better.
>
>But anyhow, they also have no incentive to behave badly Justin. I would
>invite you to consider the implications of that. They do their work in an
>entirely voluntary capacity, why would they bother to make bad widgets that
>they know are just going to be scrapped? If you were in their position,
>would you do that?
People are careless, sometimes they are lazy or incompetent, they face competing demands and may not be able to satisfy them all--these are just facts, So people don't need an incentive to behave badly in this way, they just will. ANd that can lead to real problems.
>it would be quite irrational behaviour, since the incentive is lacking.
>
Even supposing that no one would intentionally screw up, that's not enough, since there are no incentives in your story to avoid uninintentional screwups.
> > Multiply thsi idae by every industry in the country,a nd you have (as
>Mises and Hayek predicted) no plan, nop predictability, no incentives to be
>efficient, you have al great balls-up, is what you have.
>
>You also have no incentive to be inefficient. That's a big step forward.
Sure you do: you might not want to work so hard.
>You would have a plan though and as much predictability as voluntary
>compliance permits. You are basically arguing that the only way to get
>people to comply with a plan, or to be efficient, is to coerce them.
No, mostly people comply voluntraily even under capitalism. Most contracts are in fact fulfilled. But there are significant number that are not, and then you need recourse. Moreover, one reason that a most are voluntraily fulfilled is the background awareness that there are possible consequences if you don't, such as having to pay damages.
>Consider that coercion is also counter-productive. People sometimes resent
>it. Being part of the plan, "ownership" of the plan, is a great incentive.
>
You neglect the free rider problem here. Why would I work to bring about a benefit that will accrue to me even if I don't work to bring it about? Particularly if my own contribution is infinitesmally small, also my say on in the decision.
>
>Contract law is solely about compensation for personal loss suffered
>Justin, you know that. If there are no personal risk or losses, there is no
>need for a contract.
Contract law is about a lot more than compensation. It's mainly about incentives. It's intended to raise the costs of breaking your promise. If there are costs to doing so, people will be a lot less inclined to keep their promises. And all losses are personal. The people who do not get their dialysis machines will die as individuals,
>No. But of course the dead person cannot benefit from any compensation for
>breach of contract either. It is hardly a solution to the problem.
Well, his family may get some benefit. But if the risk of legal consequences encourages people to keep their promises, there will be fewer such problems.
The point of socialsim the means of production is to prevent concentrations
of power,
>
>Not in my book Justin. The point of socialism in my book is to eliminate
>poverty and want. The prevention of concentrations of power is far too
>modest an objective, it is an objective that can be achieved by simpler and
>more modest strategies, such as political democracy and anti-trust laws.
We see things quite differently. Poverty can be abolishged by social democracy, and has been in the davanced European countries. What has not been attained, and cannot be attained in class society, is a roughly equal political say in decisionmaking.
>Your premise is that government is solely about giving orders. Government
>is also about managing. Managing is more than giving orders to subordinates
>to achieve certain objectives, it involves the more demanding work of
>co-ordinating all the various factors and inputs.
>
I expressly disavowed the order theory in a recent post, citing HLA Hart, who observed that the law is mainly about enabling people to do things, and only peripherally about giving orders.
>
> >>But I fail to see what would be served by attempting to coerce workers
>at a plant to do something they aren't willing to do freely.
> >>
I'm a fan of worker self-management, so I wouldn't want that. But I am in favor of giving workers incentives to achieve desired outcomes, such as keeping their promises.
>
>You are assuming that most people would negligently damage life-saving
>equipment except only for the negative consequences of doing so.
Hell no. Most people wouldn't. But it only takes a fair minority who would to cause real problems.
Perhaps the idea that they might kill someone is a sufficient negative
consequence in itself? It would be enough to motivate me to be careful. What
about you?
>
And still there are faulty dialysis machines and important parts come in late. But this is an extreme example. In most contracts it's not life and limb that is at stake. What'[s the incentive to get promised electronics to a store? I need a mic for a disc recorder for my wife's birthday present. Sony promised it, but hasn't shipped it and it won't arrive in tome. So, I'll have to give her a card. What's their incentive?
>
>First things first Justin, first let's think about removing the incentives
>to behave badly. . . . The real problem in our current society though, I
>suggest, is that there are strong incentives to behave badly. Economic
>insecurity is the primary incentive to be selfish, dishonest and cruel.
I'm in favor of eliminating it, although (as we have established in previous discussions) you would not regard my idea of eliminating as doing so. But I don't think that's enough. Making people too comfortable, eliminating all costs--I don't speak of starvationa nd destitution--is also an incentive to behave badly. Tell me, Bill, do you have kids? Don't you think they have to learn that their selishness and laziness has costs fot them?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx