Economies are made of economic actors, which includes ALL people as well as other entities like public institutions, companies, charities...
> some of whom do not make resource allocation decisions (because they are unable to or prohibited)
Every single person in the world is an economic actor. Every single person in the world has the ability to make resource allocation decisions, even if they are only using the labor of their own mind. The incarcerated are economic actors, even literal slaves would still be economic actors.
> most forms of socialism (theoretically, anyway) are democratic, in which allocation decision making is given to the people
A theoretical “democratic socialist” country (theoretical because people have voted socialism in, but never in history have they been allowed the privilege of voting it out) would be a country where the people surrender their natural rights to make their own resource allocation decisions (or at least a significant portion of those rights) to the government.
> The "ultimate free market" very clearly has a "system"
It doesn’t at all. It’s just the way humans (and really all animals) behave in absence of governance that prevents them from doing so. Ancient people most certainly had private property, even if it was shared within the tribe or family or whatever other format of social organisation. It would also pay for you to remember that Marx thought familiar or tribal affiliation was a source of evil, as families tend to care for each other, which he considered to be terribly unfair to anybody who didn’t have a family to care for them.
I would very highly recommend that you at least learn some basic economic concepts (what an economy actually is would be a good starting point) before you go around promoting the abolition of private property.
>Economies are made of economic actors, which includes ALL people as well as other entities like public institutions, companies, charities...
But if we're applying hyper-reductionism, as in the case when the economists talk about individual actions and choices, all of those things can be further divided into individual actors. Why stop at the level of "economic actors"? Is there any basis for considering society as "economic actors" rather than individuals? But let's say that we can talk in terms of "economic actors" - how is it any less valid to talk about "class"? After all, the company and the property-owning class are both composed of individuals.
>Every single person in the world has the ability to make resource allocation decisions
Many disabled people (mentally, or maybe even otherwise) do not, and many prisoners are forced to operate in more or less a closed system. If "economic actor" really just means "person", why not say that?
>but never in history have they been allowed the privilege of voting it out
The irony here of course is that socialism is not merely a change in leader, but a qualitative change in the structure of society and the economy. It makes no sense to say that socialism is voted in (or out), since if it is voted out, it follows that there is a system of class and property structure in place. The mistake is to think that socilaism is a set of laws or policies, but nobody informed on socialsim would say that.
>where the people surrender their natural rights to make their own resource allocation decisions to the government.
I am skeptical of the "natural rights" hypothesis, and surrendering to the government (or some other authority) has taken place in every society, from property rights to taxes, even to speech (note the many restrictions on speech in the US, for instance). Why, if I have the natural right to withdraw my labour, do companies and governments engage in union busting, for example? And whose resources are allocated? The prisoner, for instance, has involuntarily surrendered some portion of their resource allocation rights, but not all of them. Laws against hiring a hitman or bribery mean that I have surrendered some of my resource allocation rights. And what use is a right when one cannot take advantage of it? Many people employed today do have resource allocation rights, but they cannot take full advantage of that: they could starve. When I am employed, I do not have full allocation rights of my labour product (instead, they are appropriated at the end of the production cycle to be sold).
I haven't received your plan to monetize HN comments, or your resource allocation timetable for today. You're beginning to make me think you haven't calculated the opportunity costs of posting on HN without pay.
Hi Claudia, I saw a comment of yours that had to do with on-line sexuality. I would really love to quote you on it for a manual for a tarot deck I'm creating. If you can could you reply here for find @outsidertarot on instagram and shoot me a message? Thanks!
Economies are made of economic actors, which includes ALL people as well as other entities like public institutions, companies, charities...
> some of whom do not make resource allocation decisions (because they are unable to or prohibited)
Every single person in the world is an economic actor. Every single person in the world has the ability to make resource allocation decisions, even if they are only using the labor of their own mind. The incarcerated are economic actors, even literal slaves would still be economic actors.
> most forms of socialism (theoretically, anyway) are democratic, in which allocation decision making is given to the people
A theoretical “democratic socialist” country (theoretical because people have voted socialism in, but never in history have they been allowed the privilege of voting it out) would be a country where the people surrender their natural rights to make their own resource allocation decisions (or at least a significant portion of those rights) to the government.
> The "ultimate free market" very clearly has a "system"
It doesn’t at all. It’s just the way humans (and really all animals) behave in absence of governance that prevents them from doing so. Ancient people most certainly had private property, even if it was shared within the tribe or family or whatever other format of social organisation. It would also pay for you to remember that Marx thought familiar or tribal affiliation was a source of evil, as families tend to care for each other, which he considered to be terribly unfair to anybody who didn’t have a family to care for them.
I would very highly recommend that you at least learn some basic economic concepts (what an economy actually is would be a good starting point) before you go around promoting the abolition of private property.