HIVE

@Nyctaeus, there's more to life than just Warcraft, y'know? Anyone can discuss whatever they want without restraint (A.K.A. freedom of speech), as long as the rules are being followed.

"That is what I'm saying, producing for the sake of profit does not entail rational use. Simply because someone wants something doesn't make it useful. Now, if someone needs something, then we're on the right track."
But how would you judge if someone "really" needs something? Who should judge it? Nobody has better knowledge about what one needs than this person.

"Christianity is all about socialism->sharing, giving, self-sacrifice etc. I think people don't really understand the notion of socialism and confuse it with a bad dream."
It's a veeeeery wide definition of socialism. Concepts you're naming are much wider and older than socialism as an ideology, so calling them socialism is very confusing. If they are socialism, then how would you call socialism as an ideology, when the state forcefully prohibits market transactions, limits economical freedom, prosecutes private ownership, spends money it forcefully took from the taxpayers or tries to eradicate money and market at all? Because that's socialism in history. USSR, PRC, Cuba, Venezuela. That's socialism put into practise. Virtues you named are perfectly compatible with the market, but they require people to have their own property and be free to decide what to do with it. It's not a good will if you are forced to help someone.

"Might not be called corruption on the free market but it's definitely swindling or the like in many cases."
Yeah, there are cheaters, swindlers etc. in every system. The answer to them is justice system, courts, police, political pluralism and free media. And of course a proper social culture that respects individual rights, private property and honoring contracts. The problem is when swindlers are in good touch with the state, then all these mechanisms can be used against you.

"What I mean by being able to use your own money, you should not be allowed to spend it recklessly IMO, especially if it endangers others or the environment."
That's where I agreed there need to be environmental laws. And when someone spends money in a way that harms me, I should be allowed to sue this person, but I have to prove that he harmed me. What other rule do you propose to decide what is "reckless"?

"I'm referring to a system based on educated people's perspective through voting and a balance of power between the private and public sectors as well as between "classes", although I am not referring to economic but rather intellectual "classes". I don't want and we don't need authoritarianism, nor anarchy. We need a proper balance at whose core civic responsibility should lie."
So basically liberal democracy and meritocracy, not socialism .

While I'm in favour of democracy as a system of canalising social emotions and keeping balance between political parties, democracy is often against meritocracy, because majority of the voters make their decisions emotionally, lack political and economical knowledge and fall victim to systematic errors. Social media keeping everyone in their own information bubble made this problem more evident than ever. That's why economic decisions, if possible, shouldn't be made collectively by voting (forcing minority to subject), but individually by each producer and consumer on the market.

I'm now reading a brilliant book about it which I recommend: Amazon.com

Again, I'm not referring to a totalitarian regime, but a democracy of people who vote representatives that make social laws, no forcing without the people's vote, no centralized power. Places in history you were referring to were not socialist democracies but authoritarian socialism.
Exactly my point. For instance, the law worked better during Ceaușescu but of course it didn't affect the higher ups while nowadays, mostly anyone who's rich enough can get meager punishment by pumping money and influence. We need a balance between the two so we can have the least corruption.
A rule against reckless spending could mean not being allowed to spend more than x amount in casinos per year or something. Just an example.
Well, socialism can definitely incorporate those. Why do you only consider socialism as authoritarian? As I implied, just a focus on social stuff, not letting everyone just live for themselves, carpe diem.

That's why, not simply just anyone should be allowed to vote. Like you need to know the driving laws and then get the know-how to drive a vehicle, so should people know the political laws of their country (what a parliament is, what the president and/or the prime minister does/do etc.).
There is no true meritocracy. Who decides if someone deserves something, that person or others? Both? Right now, it's others depending on specific criteria which are quite clouded by subjectivity enough times, hence democracy.

Let's make a distinction between liberal democracy with a social spending (socialdemocracy, socialliberalism etc.) and (democratic/authoritarian) socialism (where the state or collective tries to eradicate the market at all). The former - which as I understand you are close to - is generally acceptable, although it can function only as long as there is free enough capitalist system to produce wealth to "redistribute" and the "social" element will still be slowing you down, like in Greece, Italy or Spain which are far behind USA, Ireland or Switzerland. Even the Scandinavians, although wealthy, are rather in stagnation, e.g. almost all of their biggest companies were formed more than 40-50 years ago. Besides, Sweden had been capitalist throughout the majority of the 19th century before it began building a welfare state as late as in the 30s, when it already had lots of wealth accumulated. In the meantime it earned shitloads of money by supplying world wars' participants with steel etc. while staying neutral in them.

So, it's the "social", not the "market" element that has to be kept in check in the first place in order not to ruin the country's economic growth. Dangers or even side effects of having too much wealth and economic freedom seem to be radically exaggerated. The biggest threat in capitalism is when private corporations get in touch with the state to uphold their position by regulating and taxing the others.

I really can't see the point of any limits like the casino one you mentioned. For each of them you have to pass a proper law and have the state beaurocracy execute it at the expense of taxpayers. People would simply omit it via black market and the mafia would rise to make money from it. Just look at US prohibition in the 20s or from the recent times the American War on Drugs. Also, it's the laws like those that create room for corruption. There's no place for corruption when you just have to pay for something on the free market.

Why do I associate socialism with authoritarianism? Because the former may easily lead to the latter. Venezuela was a model of "democratic socialism" funded with oil money, commonly praised in left-wing western press. Well, until its economy collapsed and Maduro went straight to dictatorship to stay in power. At the other end of the spectrum, introducing more market in authoritarian Chile, Spain or Portugal created a strong pressure towards political liberalization. A causation is very clear here (unlike correlation, if any, the opposite way) and is well described by e.g. Milton Friedman.

Well, you mentioned meritocracy, so I referred to it. While it exists in liberal democracy thanks to media, pluralism and separation of powers, people have the tendency to be rational in terms of their own expenses (as if they make a mistake, they'll pay for it) and very irrational when they vote collectively - in the latter case they like to follow the others, join the emotional reaction of the crowd, be afraid to raise their concerns against majority and shift responsibility for bad decision making for the others. It's not just lack of knowledge, it's the quite well analyzed collective decision-making. So we should allow people to make individual choices by default, whenever there are no really strong reasons against it.

Define slow down. If you mean fast progress for the sake of it without considering human well being, then yes, social action will slow that down but do we want to step on cadavers to reach the first Dyson sphere?
And no, everything has to be kept in check and balanced, the market as well.
I disagree. Then why not let every drugged or drunk person drive? By reducing exposure to harmful things you reduce consequences. Before drugs became a thing here in Romania in the last 10 years, we only had alcohol full drivers and conflicts to deal with. Before 89 we didn't even have that often. Making everything free doesn't mean you'll make a better society. Maybe corruption will be lower in those regards but the side effects of drug consumption will increase to compensate that.

Any regime can lead to a tyranny, even a democracy. Just look at the passive aggressive laws and stuff going on in the USA where minorities (be they racial, sexual or whatever) start acting as the majority. Let's not forget the COVID-19 measures either which were not democratic except for the fact that the law makers pushed or voted them but there was no referendum but a really drastic limiting of freedom for those unvaccinated.
Well sure but there's no full individual choice. It's not like you can commit murder and say, I don't agree with the current law. I do things my way because I have freedom of choice.
That's why there should be a balance between what people want individually and as a whole but too much of anything like freedom will not be the better or saving option.

The problem is, the socialdemocratic "slowdown" is often harmful for human well being in the long run. I mean, in short term we can pay the unemployed not to starve, but in the long term they will get used to it and refuse to change their lives for the better and remain passive, living in "near-poverty" and raising their children in it so they'll also rely on social benefits instead of their own hard work and ingenuity. Social care is okay as long as it helps people get out of e.g. depression, alcoholism or domestic violence, but when you get the state to do it, taking away any social programs, no matter how harmful and ineffective, will be politically costly. In Poland previous government introduced 500 PLN for every child, this year it's gonna be raised to 800 PLN and no major political party has the guts to oppose it. That's what happened in Greece to.

US drug consumption is high as hell despite, or maybe thanks to the War on Drugs. When investment return is so high, mafia will put lots of effort to persuade people to smuggle, sell and use drugs. Plus the taste of the "forbidden fruit" is encouraging, especially for young people. I am not in favour of fully legalising ALL drugs, but e.g. a nation-wide legal and safe marihuana would create an alternative for lots of people for taking stronger drugs from uncertain sources. And of course, making it legal doesn't mean we can't have it taxed, prohibited for children or having educational campaigns about it.

Yes, a democracy can become a tyranny, and I completely agree that lots of COVID restrictons and anti-discrimination laws were and are outrageous limitations of personal freedom, but there are factors in democracy that make it likely to shift towards authoritarism. Any form of crisis is always an opportunity for the government to increase its power. But economic policy is also an important factor. Basically it's Maslov's piramid - when people have their basic needs fulfilled, they are more aware of their higher needs, like political liberty.

Simply saying that we shouldn't help starving people because they might not work anymore is ludicrous and again radical. As I implied several times, balance is needed. You don't give money to people who after x amount of time have shown no compliance to getting a job and stuff.
Of course that's why everyone should have the equal rights to benefit from anything so that there won't be the ruling aristocrats who already made it and want to keep their view on the world while the newcomers in the form of new generations and/or poor people in general are left to only think of basic needs.

I didn't say we (you mean the state) shouldn't help starving people at all, I said giving them taxpayers' money for nothing is harmful, also to them in the long term. At the local level it is okay to offer them help in finding a job, raising their qualifications, directing them to a proper doctor or getting them out of a pathological relationship. It should be task-oriented. However, too often the state just introduces mass social transfers, a radical example of which is a concept of Universal Basic Income.

As I said, today's highest class is nothing like aristocracy because mobility between upper/middle class and the top of the richest people in the world is very high. Lots of people become rich and lots of people lose their wealth as a result of their mistakes or just bad luck. Also, passing a rich man's fortune to his children also ends up with this fortune being lost, divided or significantly reduced in most cases.

Actually most obstacles to the newscomers on the markets are also related to the government, not the rich. Newcomers are already paying income taxes and social security fees, the minimum wage makes it difficult for unqualified workers to find their first jobs, absurd patent laws (at least in US) are cementing positions of old corporations and central banks print money to fund the banks and the government expenditures at the expense of higher inflation (e.g. salaries and savings of the lower and middle-class).

States introduce such policies because of populism, to get the vote again. Universal Basic Income won't be a bad idea in an utopia where people are responsible and educated.
Those rich who practice political influence don't spend their money all in one place and they make sure not to have their money simply worn out by their heirs.
Well, it's still the rich who don't suffer, regardless. The low and middle classes should not take most of the burden, that's where taxing the rich could bring some balance.

Well, we don't live in a utopia, most people are NOT responsible or educated, but that alone could be solvable. The problem is, they are irrational and they are VERY irrational collectively. They SYSTEMICALLY make bad decisions when doing it collectively. Bryan Caplan descibes this mechanics quite thoroughly, so it's not just word against word.
Also, UBI creates tons of other problems, like pumping up consumption at the expense of investments, stimulating inflation, discouraging people from work. And it would be politically impossible to abandon or limit it until the economy ends up in ruin, so it's one way road. I'm talking from experience - Poland has in fact introduced a partial UBI for people with kids, so we're experimental guinea pigs in a way. It didn't increase birthrate, but caused all the negative effects I mentioned above.

About the rich's inheritance and fortune preservation, as I said, so far it wasn't the case. Most inherited fortunes just didn't survive. We shall see if that trend continues.

Sounds good in theory, but there are plenty of ways to avoid taxation. Deducting costs by real or fake investments, passing wealth to one's family, tax heavens. In a globalized and computerized world state laws and tax administrations would always be miles behind people trying to protect their wealth from being taxed. Instead it's best to have low and simple taxes people simply don't need to avoid.
Plus there are more important reasons of growing inequalities, the most important one is central banking which can basically drain the economy's wealth by printing money and passing it to the government, banks, corporations and those in touch with the state. It's clearly visible when looking at the American worker's purchasing power over the last decades.