Funny you should mention that. I thought that everyone in the US has a right to an attorney but only the rich can get a capable one.

The law says everyone has a right to have one, but the law doesn't say that everyone has the right to a team of top lawyers. Under the law people who want to hire their own lawyers are perfectly capable of doing so. The law I proposed allows everyone to have 1 child, but if they want to have children beyond the first, regardless of why, they need to pay more tax money that would go towards supporting the damage to the world that extra person in the population would cause. Does it privilage the rich if they want more kids? sure, so long as they're willing to pay. But the rich are a very small percentage of the population, meaning that it would work to decrease population without telling anyone they cannot reproduce. It's not random and works well with the principle of freedom, as more children begin in impose a cost on the rest of society which needs to be repaid.

meaning not allowing those who are willing and able to pay the costs, and shouldering other people who cannot pay those costs with their burden;

Those willing an able more often than not started on a higher ground. This idea will at least make everyone start on an equal level.
Taxes happen now anyway.

It's better than just creating a pathway to start having dynasties again.

I like it, it's just like that right to have an attourney except only random people are allowed to have attournies.

Funny you should mention that. I thought that everyone in the US has a right to an attorney but only the rich can get a capable one.

Perfectly rational and more fair.

More fair, of course, meaning not allowing those who are willing and able to pay the costs, and shouldering other people who cannot pay those costs with their burden; I like it, it's just like that right to have an attourney except only random people are allowed to have attournies.

It is the definition exactly that is causing us problems and we must get our semantics synchronised before we can have an actual discussion that will get us anywhere.

Ok, give me one good way you can seperate self-interest from greed.

It every citizen is working towards the betterment of other citizens, it requires they be informed about the realitive workings of other industries demands and supplies

No. They only have to have a lifestyle that we have found creates the least problems. What this lifestyle might be is a matter of debate of course.
Supply and demand could just as well work in another way that does not facilitate greed.

As I said, my knowledge of Communism is not that great so I cannot really give you a solid argument on this point.

but I feel it's perfectly rational to allow those who can shoulder the cost of raising more children to do so, and to not allow those who cannot to do so; far more rational than doing so at random anyway, and far more rational than allowing unconstrained growth which will only worsen the problem.

Well, if we're going to talk about "perfectly rational" options I might as well give you another rational option that it more fair for everyone.
Random allowance of children. All cost of raising them burden the state. No allowance for parental gifts (so as not to give them an unfair advantage in life) and no inheritance.
Perfectly rational and more fair.

Dictionary.com begs to differ:

One can make equivocations and be perfectly accurate by the dictionary. It does not make them any less fallacious.
It is the definition exactly that is causing us problems and we must get our semantics synchronised before we can have an actual discussion that will get us anywhere.

It requires them to be informed yes, but not every single matter.

It every citizen is working towards the betterment of other citizens, it requires they be informed about the realitive workings of other industries demands and supplies. Under the capitalist system, this is reflected clearly as the price, and people don't need to go much farther than that (exceptions here being positive and negative externalities). With the lack of price, determining supply and demand relies on vast bodies of knowledge of many, many different industries that all citizens would need to know in order to be informed.

When the choice is to have kids or starve, then it is obvious what will happen.
The problem remains ethically. Poor people would not have as much freedom to have children as others.
And no, the fact that currently Rich people tend to have less children is not an argument.

And rights and freedoms are not fixed; we like to think they are but the course of history shows us otherwise. Rights need to be reevaluated from time to time (as the founding father's understood), and rights of one person inevitably bump up against the rights of another. It's unfortunate that we have this problem to deal with and that it means some people will not be having more than one child, or any children for that matter, but I feel it's perfectly rational to allow those who can shoulder the cost of raising more children to do so, and to not allow those who cannot to do so; far more rational than doing so at random anyway, and far more rational than allowing unconstrained growth which will only worsen the problem.

Insisting that we should argue if communism has errors in it's mechanics or conception is not the same as arguing that everyone should be perfect. Your question about how problem in supply and demand might work out for example is valid in this context. Ebonmuse's question on why all attempts at communism ended up as dictatorships is not.

As was mentioned before, pure capitalism and pure communism end with the same result; a perfect supply and demand. However, both rest on assumptions that do not match up to reality, keeping them from being perfect. The question of why every attempt at a communist country has ended in a dictatorship is certainly an interesting one, especially because not every capitalist ones has. People level the same claim at atheists that some atheist leaders have been Stalin, Mao, etc. Of course, we know this misses the point in that worst leaders have all been totaliarian dictators, religious or not, so to conflate the two is not a good argument. However, when every communist country has ended up a dictatorship, I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask why?

And this is your error. Greed does not equal self-interest. To attempt to argue as if it does is a form of equivocation and what is why you keep considering greed as neutral. In short, you are basing your argument on a logical fallacy.

Dictionary.com begs to differ:

Greed: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed

Self-interest: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-interest

regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others

taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others

If you want to split hairs, we can talk about the definition of greed and how it differs from self-interest, which it hardly seems to unless you want to make greed merely an exaggerated form of self-interest, but it's just semantics.

Nevertheless, you being a student of economics gives me an insight on why you are so steadfast in your defense of capitalism. Take care not to be dogmatic about it.

Oh, I'm hardly in favor of pure capitalism; I perfer a mixture of free-market with certain socialist policies to regulate the failures of pure capitalism (like tradgies of the commons, natural monopolies, or externalities for instance) and to work as a social safety net for the lower class of society upon which we all depend. Of course, I'm also not warning about failures to heed my advice, I just feel we can do better than we are doing now, given what we have to work with, and I don't see any benefits to communism in either the ideal world or the real one.

Those are all questions of equal rights

You say this now and of course in our current age, it seems obvious and natural. But it was not always that way.
In the same way that you rationalise the concept of various human rights, one person from a possible future might consider non-greed as natural.

Communism, pure communism, requires every citizen be a part of and be informed about every single matter nationally; It's simply impossible.

It requires them to be informed yes, but not every single matter.

Also, as I mentioned before, this hardly stops poor people from having kids, just requires they pay more money if they want to; more kids equal more cutbacks in their life, which is what I would consider taking the full responsibilty of bringing more children into an overpopulated world facing a realization about it's limits.

When the choice is to have kids or starve, then it is obvious what will happen.
The problem remains ethically. Poor people would not have as much freedom to have children as others.
And no, the fact that currently Rich people tend to have less children is not an argument.

No, but you insist that I argue about how communism WOULD work if it was working as envisioned for the best of everyone; that's essentially the same thing.

Insisting that we should argue if communism has errors in it's mechanics or conception is not the same as arguing that everyone should be perfect. Your question about how problem in supply and demand might work out for example is valid in this context. Ebonmuse's question on why all attempts at communism ended up as dictatorships is not.

Desires are the basic drives; greed, love, hate, envy, jealously

My response is here if you wish to discuss this concept.

Other than this, this is totally beyond the scope of this article so I won't be responding any more to it here.

There are varying levels of greed (self-interest),

And this is your error. Greed does not equal self-interest. To attempt to argue as if it does is a form of equivocation and what is why you keep considering greed as neutral. In short, you are basing your argument on a logical fallacy.

My understanding of greed is a bit deeper than you realize; I'm a student of evolution and economics, both of which focus around self-interest.

And if greed meant self-interest I would give more wight to your credentials. However it doesn't.
Nevertheless, you being a student of economics gives me an insight on why you are so steadfast in your defense of capitalism. Take care not to be dogmatic about it.

200 years ago: If women suffrage could have happened, it would have somewhere on a large scale. But it hasn't happened for thousands of years.
400 years ago: If abolition of slavery could have happened, it would have somewhere on a large scale.
500 years ago: If Democracy could have happened, it would have on a large scale but it happened only on one city aeons ago and it failed.

Those are all questions of equal rights; people can have equal rights of course, it's what I would expect to happen because they don't require anything out of people that people cannot provide on the scale of the individual. However, communism involves reforming the way just about every member of society thinks and acts and involves removing some basic aspects of humanity from people on top of requring them to keep track of incredible amounts of information that we simply cannot do and keep up too many responsibilities that no living person has time for.

Communism, pure communism, requires every citizen be a part of and be informed about every single matter nationally; It's simply impossible.

That's pretty much social darwinism. It does not need to be violent.
Rich people can afford to have (more) children while poor cannot. Thus the rich people's genes/family replaces the poor.

Rich people tend to have fewer kids; if you want to curb population you should start where it grows the quickest, likely due to factors like lack of access to affordable birth control and good information on how to use it, on top of social pressure to have kids (ala religion).
Also, as I mentioned before, this hardly stops poor people from having kids, just requires they pay more money if they want to; more kids equal more cutbacks in their life, which is what I would consider taking the full responsibilty of bringing more children into an overpopulated world facing a realization about it's limits.

I do not assume perfection.

No, but you insist that I argue about how communism WOULD work if it was working as envisioned for the best of everyone; that's essentially the same thing.

You cannot separate desires from intentions that easily.

I just did. Desires are the basic drives; greed, love, hate, envy, jealously, etc that motivate human behavior (one could be motivated to do any number of things from those). Intentions are the desired effects one wishes their actions to have; whether to help or harm. Actions are the results of intentions, and may or may not live up to their intentions. You can judge actions and intentions all you want, but desires encompass all human behavior.

Sorry but I can only surmise that you have no idea what "greed" means even though I went into great lengths to explain it.

I saw your definition, I looked it up myself. By you possessing something, simply as a logical step, you prevent everyone else from possessing that same thing. There are varying levels of greed (self-interest), but surely we almost all live with more than we need to stay alive, more than what's needed and what other people would want for themselves. We value having more for ourselves of any number of things; free time to do what you want, nice clothes, good food, comfortable living situations, transportation beyond what's actually required, fun little entertainment devices, the esteem of our peers, sexual oppertunties, just plain money, you name it. My understanding of greed is a bit deeper than you realize; I'm a student of evolution and economics, both of which focus around self-interest.

If it could have happened without organization, it would have somewhere on a large scale, or even a medium sized scale, but that hasn't happened.

This argument is, basicaly, inane.

200 years ago: If women suffrage could have happened, it would have somewhere on a large scale. But it hasn't happened for thousands of years.
400 years ago: If abolition of slavery could have happened, it would have somewhere on a large scale.
500 years ago: If Democracy could have happened, it would have on a large scale but it happened only on one city aeons ago and it failed.

etc.

But cannot suggest any viable alternatives in terms of the world we live in, or how they would come about from the world we live in.

I can but I won't do so in the comment section of a random article. I may do so on my own site once I get my thoughts organised.

Intentions do not equal desires. There is nothing inherently wrong with desires, greed in this case; intetions to cause harm or help can be judged, and the results of those actions in actually causing harm and good can also be judged. You're trying to paint greed as bad by maligning the intentions of people, even though greed can and does create the vast majority of intentions and actions, good and bad.

You cannot separate desires from intentions that easily.

As for communism, the fesiability of it is certainly something to debate; As I've mentioned before, once you assume one or two things, Capitalism essentially becomes communism, as both in a perfect world settle on the same end results. But if you assume perfection in the system from the get go, then yes, communism would indeed be a wonderful idea if the world worked in whatever way it would need to. However, it doesn't, so the fesiability argument is a fine one against communism. Same way if you want to argue against the idea of god you don't need to start by assuming god exists; you can make arguments against the probabilty of such a being's existance as well.

I do not assume perfection.

Social Darwinism, hardly; [...] it just so happens rich people can better shoulder the cost of having another child. Not that excludes anyone from having kids, it just means they would need to make more cutbacks in their lifestyle.

That's pretty much social darwinism. It does not need to be violent.
Rich people can afford to have (more) children while poor cannot. Thus the rich people's genes/family replaces the poor.

Sounds kind of silly when you say things like

I don't presume to convince people on online arguments. I do it for my own benefit usually and hopefully to plant some seeds of doubt.

Free software is not a good example

Free software is a great example of decentralised organisation. Just because it's not an exact example does not mean we cannot learn from it.

Your two thoughts are out of synch with each other. You claim to not be concerned with greed and gain, yet then state you'd rather work less so you could have more personal time that you wanted.
[...]
That sounds like greed to me, plain and simple.

Sorry but I can only surmise that you have no idea what "greed" means even though I went into great lengths to explain it.
You're equivocating horribly.

Or you can simply stop doing business with the guy who cheats you and smear his reputation - I've done this before and sent the fucker out of town due to the lack of clientel.

And when that guy becomes the owner of a monopoly and you don't have any choice I'm sure that'll work. If the history of unconstrained capitalism has shown us anything, it's that things like that will happen.

Or maybe the government just has no real interest in solving those problems to begin with - just the desire to plausibly claim that they're being "responsible leaders" (an oxymoron) whilst putting forth the minimun effort towards actually doing something about those problems. It's a great vote-buying scam.

If the public doesn't see results, they'll elect someone else.

It doesn't actually "solve" those problems (it is neither capable nor interested in doing so), but it does provide the saavy consumer with an alternative source of goods and services - as well as work for those who are left unemployed by outsourcing and so-called "free trade" agreements. Unlike our present economic system, there is significant opportunity for what we once knew as "The American Dream" in alternative economies - provided you can keep the tax man away...

Right, so externaties can be accumlated, common-pool resources will be oeverrun and over-exploited until they're gone (fisheries are a fine example, as well as pollution on the global scale, or lead in the gas, or acid rain, or toxic materials in products or food). Again, black markets do nothing about outsourcing either; if anything they fully encourage it so long as it gets profits up; you're peeing on your feet with that argument.

1. One doesn't need to go to a "black market" to get chemical weapons: one with the proper knowledge could mix them in his basement using common household items - the rich would have no monopoly on the stuff if this knowledge was distributed openly.

Note: I myself don't mix chemical weapons in my basement, but if I was in a situation where the knowledge was called for (ex. a massive incursion of Mexican troops over the U.S. border - not unthinkable as they've already made several smaller ones) I could produce a batch and teach others to do the same.

2. The powerful are already unaccountable to anyone other than their wealthy puppetmasters - I don't see how a "black market" will change that.

Yeah, I'm sure people can cook up small-pox in their basement or assemble a nuke no problem. I think the world would be a better place with those on the open market to protect us from the hordes of mexican invaders.

As for this idea that government is some evil organization trying to rule us and managing to do so effectively, it's a nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't hold any water (much like our public water system wouldn't without them). All a blackmarket will do is encourage and make worse the very problems you want to blame our government for, as well as others problems our government have actually managed to get under control, while at the same time making everyone worse off.

No they don't, they have to answer to their puppeteers - "the people" lost their voice in mainstream politics a long time ago...

The people didn't lose anything; they gave it up themselves. The moment they feel like getting it back it'll be waiting there for them.

I dispute that greed is the onle desire that does it and that it cannot be replaced.

But cannot suggest any viable alternatives in terms of the world we live in, or how they would come about from the world we live in.

You can only judge the actions by the desires that led to them. Otherwise you just judge them on-the-fly and subjectively.

In any case, this is getting too off topic. If you really want to argue that greed is not a vice or immoral, then I invite you to discuss it on the post I made for specifically that reason.

As for communism, it is my understanding that communism requires people to not be greedy. I do not think that this is a criticism of communism but only a criticism of the feasibility of communism.

If the idea of communism has merit however (regardless of the feasibility), we can, and should discuss the feasibility to see how it can be achieved. This is what I am talking about when asserting that "greed can be replaced".

Intentions do not equal desires. There is nothing inherently wrong with desires, greed in this case; intetions to cause harm or help can be judged, and the results of those actions in actually causing harm and good can also be judged. You're trying to paint greed as bad by maligning the intentions of people, even though greed can and does create the vast majority of intentions and actions, good and bad.

As for communism, the fesiability of it is certainly something to debate; As I've mentioned before, once you assume one or two things, Capitalism essentially becomes communism, as both in a perfect world settle on the same end results. But if you assume perfection in the system from the get go, then yes, communism would indeed be a wonderful idea if the world worked in whatever way it would need to. However, it doesn't, so the fesiability argument is a fine one against communism. Same way if you want to argue against the idea of god you don't need to start by assuming god exists; you can make arguments against the probabilty of such a being's existance as well.

Have you considered that this idea leads to social darwinism where only the rich can make as many children as they want?

Social Darwinism, hardly; more that people need to be able to fully support the costs of bringing more children into the world that's already overpopulated. There's nothing special about 'rich' people or 'poor' people - they're just people, and thus it's not social darwinism. It's unfortunate that some people wouldn't be able to reproduce to the level they want to, but at some point we would need to decide who gets to and who doesn't beyond a child (so as to reduce the population below dangerously high levels); it just so happens rich people can better shoulder the cost of having another child. Not that excludes anyone from having kids, it just means they would need to make more cutbacks in their lifestyle.

In short: Africa is not starving because we are under producing food. Africa is starving because the richer nations are buying excess food in large quantities in order to drop overall costs for their people. This excessive demand while helping the bulk buyes, raises the overall cost of food for everyone in the world which leads to more starvation for the Africans (and other poor nations). Ethanol just compounds the problem (albeit to a large degree).
The fact that the excess food is wasted when not consumed is just icing on the cake.

I'm not saying that we should support people (although your socialist capitalism ideas should really extend beyond your national borders) but rather that we should be aware of the harm we are doing because of the way capitalism works.

If there isn't enough food for the population there, the simple thing to do is stop reproducing (which of course isn't the easiest thing to do without access to birth control and such, so perhaps distributing birth control is more humane and useful than distributing food to a certain degree).
As for the fuel part, oil for transportation is going away piece by piece, and many lives are very dependant on it. The biofuels burn cleaner, invigorate economies, and while they are far from the full solution, are a large piece of it.
The long and short of it is that the world cannot maintain it's current population of people that is growing without the use of other fuel sources. Instead of focusing on maintaining and supporting that growing population, it may well be the case that working to control that population and it's consumption could end up being the key to really helping people in the long term.

Imho, the world is just not ready for it.

And short of reforming the entire human race, what would make the world 'ready' for it?

Strive to change that ;)

As for convincing you, I couldn't care less.

Sounds kind of silly when you say things like

It does not need to be totally unorganised. Only as organised as required to handle this and with enough control to avoid corruption. Once again, the Free Software movement can be seen as an example.

Free software is not a good example of national organization of millions of autonomous people all of which are in charge of being informed about all issues and communicating with the reast of the population with no centralized source of power or organization. If it could have happened without organization, it would have somewhere on a large scale, or even a medium sized scale, but that hasn't happened.

This is a philosophical issue. I claim that people can train themselves to require (note: "require" is the key word) only the bare necessities for their life. Once they reach this level, they can use their spare time to do what they love (art, science whatever) and not concern themselves about "gain".

If I had the choice to be able to achieve my bare necessities (food & shelter) with minimal cost (2 hours of work a day for example) I would take it in an instant. This would allow me to have every day 14 hours free for personal projects that I love, instead of 8.

Your two thoughts are out of synch with each other. You claim to not be concerned with greed and gain, yet then state you'd rather work less so you could have more personal time that you wanted. How about you'd rather work less on personal things so you could work more supporting other people? I'm sure you could move to a smaller apartment, eat less/cheaper food, and spend your extra time working to help other people. Of course, that would reduce your standard of living substainally and vastly lower your amount of free time, and I can tell from you not having already done it that the idea doesn't tickle your fancy.

A fine example of the world not being ready for communism.

I was talking about my personal pain, not others.

In your example above, I would do so only if it would save me from a greater pain.

So you'd do something you didn't want to do, not because it would help someone else, but if you could avoid something else you didn't want. That sounds like greed to me, plain and simple.

"Pure capitalism and black markets face similiar issues, namely those of common pool resources being over-exploited, no control over the safety of products, and black markets especially have no real way of settling disputes outside of violence."

Or you can simply stop doing business with the guy who cheats you and smear his reputation - I've done this before and sent the fucker out of town due to the lack of clientel.

"However, all government involvement should be aimed at effectively reducing these problems, and many programs so far have failed to do it, normally because of bad data, bad opinions, or general industry involvement in government (what many, including myself, would call corruption)."

Or maybe the government just has no real interest in solving those problems to begin with - just the desire to plausibly claim that they're being "responsible leaders" (an oxymoron) whilst putting forth the minimun effort towards actually doing something about those problems. It's a great vote-buying scam.

"How does the black market solve, or even make better, any of those problems?"

It doesn't actually "solve" those problems (it is neither capable nor interested in doing so), but it does provide the saavy consumer with an alternative source of goods and services - as well as work for those who are left unemployed by outsourcing and so-called "free trade" agreements. Unlike our present economic system, there is significant opportunity for what we once knew as "The American Dream" in alternative economies - provided you can keep the tax man away...

"In some cases, like let's say drugs, should be legally available because making them illegal only imprisons non-violent offenders. When things like chemical weapons go up for sale to the highest bidder you put all the power solely in the hands of rich, leading to even furthering the problems you see with captialism as it already exists, the only difference being that the people with the power would be accountable to no one and don't have to get elected."

1. One doesn't need to go to a "black market" to get chemical weapons: one with the proper knowledge could mix them in his basement using common household items - the rich would have no monopoly on the stuff if this knowledge was distributed openly.

Note: I myself don't mix chemical weapons in my basement, but if I was in a situation where the knowledge was called for (ex. a massive incursion of Mexican troops over the U.S. border - not unthinkable as they've already made several smaller ones) I could produce a batch and teach others to do the same.

2. The powerful are already unaccountable to anyone other than their wealthy puppetmasters - I don't see how a "black market" will change that.

"I know you may complain that something similiar to that is already happening, but the situation is far different in that the government needs to answer to the people."

No they don't, they have to answer to their puppeteers - "the people" lost their voice in mainstream politics a long time ago...