Rospierre has brought his capital-heavy political/econimic ideals into several threads. They are interesting and different and I disagree with much of what he says.
So instead of letting them continue to derail the other threads, I thought I'd start one here for a Reasoned, Calm, Open debate free of name calling and screaming.
From what I understand of Rospierre's point of view, the Constitution and Society in general was created for one main purpose--to uphold property law.
Anything beyond that is wrong.
Any moral or ethical component of the Government is wrong.
It is wrong mainly because to fund that morality or ethics, requires money that comes from the pockets of the people.
To steal money and claim you are doing it for an ethical or moral reason is hypocrasy and ultimately self defeating.
Medical care, housing, food and clothing should only go for those who can afford it.
If you cannot afford it, get a job.
All regulations must be removed from all economic activities. If your car sends tons of poisons into the air, it is not your fault, but the fault of the people who buy the car. If they want clean air, they can buy cleaner cars. If the last remaining old growth forest is important to you, buy it before the lumber companies do. If you care about healthy foods, buy them.
If you want your children eductated, pay for thier schooling. If you can't afford their schooling, then give up your other luxuries, or put them to work until you can.
The sick and the poor will be cared for by spontaneously blossoming charities who will be financed by the money most of us would already be paying in taxes.
Please let me know, Rospierre, if I have any of this wrong.
My questions are many.
You insist that the removal of all regulation will allow Industry to grow.
I am sure it will create profits, but are you sure you mean all regulations?
Do you mean removing Building codes? Do you mean removing safety codes in the food we eat? Do you mean removing inspections at restaurants? Do you mean removing labeling requirements on things we buy?
Are there not rights of the consumer as well as the buyer? If I am buying chicken soup I need to know that there is more Chicken in the soup than bug larvae. Yet without FDA regulations, such assurances did not exist. Buyer be ware was the motto of the day, and it was not the best products that reached market, but the best marketing that allowed the cheapest made products to sell well beyond their value.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And he seems to forget that regulations are made after the fact because someone did things that were flat out wrong.
We have the FDA because folks were putting sawdust in sausages and selling snake-oils as cure alls.
We have Social Security not because someone one day said "We ought to have some security in our old age" but because during the Depression the elderly were left penniless, sick and starving. They should have invested their money and put away some savings, it's often argued. Well, when the Stock Market collapsed and banks went belly up left, right and center, those investments and savings were wiped out. Now, with rampant healthcare costs and the vile overextension of credit and usury, we're looking at that same beast all over again (not to mention pension and 401K shenanigans).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But folks are still hawking panaceas and raiding pensions. The difference is that folks think the regulators prevent this. Though I do agree that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to destroy the environment.
I submit that Robspierre merely applies the same moral standard to industry that many of us want to apply to our personal lives. As long as it doesn't kill anyone, have fun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The difference, of course, is that industries are not people, and deserve none of the benefits we extend to people.
[ January 23, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Except, of course, in prostitution, where the industry IS the people.
All industry should be run like a high quality bordello.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:the same moral standard to industry that many of us want to apply to our personal lives. As long as it doesn't kill anyone, have fun.
::scratches head::
That doesn't represent the moral viewpoint of anybody I know.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Industries are made up of people. Would you argue that an only child is more valuable that one of ten children, merely because the latter was produced through economies of scale? The idea the industry is not people is how integrity is lost. I'm not saying industries always have personal integrity, just that ideally they would.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Industries are partially made of people. They are not people.
My car is partially made of steel. It is not steel.
To keep this on an economic level, I'll point out that we have different tariffs and laws involving the importation of steel than we have involving the importation of cars.
[ January 23, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know the wording of that wiccan ethic that keeps coming up. Do what ye will, seeing that ye harm none or something like that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You mean "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Or, in the industry I listed above: "Do unto others for the agreed upon price."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think there is a difference between the two. But I will have to think about that in my personal boundaries ethic. I used to be a pathological people pleaser. I did things for other people's reasons and expected them to do things for my reasons. I was frustrated a lot of the time.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"An ye harm no one, do what thou wilt."
This isn't a bad little discussion of Robespierre's opinions, except for the fact that he hasn't come in to say whether they're accurate or not. Until he does, this is kind of an entire straw man thread, isn't it?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Rospierre
R O B E S P I E R R E Sorry, it is a common mistake lately.
quote: From what I understand of Rospierre's point of view, the Constitution and Society in general was created for one main purpose--to uphold property law.
Pretty much. I believe that civilization is the construct which allows persons to hold private property while delegating the use of force for its defense to the government. The first and most important property that everyone owns, is their own body.
quote: Anything beyond that is wrong.
If it violates the right of others to self determination and robs them of private property, it is wrong.
I have been limiting myself purely to the US constitution, as it is a real world document. There are certain responsibilities which go beyond merely protecting property rights which the government is granted by the constitution. Granting letters of Marque being one of these.
quote: Any moral or ethical component of the Government is wrong.
I do not agree with this at all. The protection of individual freedom is the highest of all morals. The constitution is the most moral document that I know of. It provides for a myriad of personal freedoms and protections from infringement thereof.
quote: It is wrong mainly because to fund that morality or ethics, requires money that comes from the pockets of the people.
What morality or ethic requires this? None that I subscribe to.
quote: To steal money and claim you are doing it for an ethical or moral reason is hypocrasy and ultimately self defeating.
Agreed.
quote: Medical care, housing, food and clothing should only go for those who can afford it.
There is no reason for government to say who it "should" go to. If I wish to give someone a home, it is my right. If I do not wish to pay for someone's health care, that is also my right.
quote: All regulations must be removed from all economic activities.
Only the ones that violate the concepts laid down in the constitution.
quote: If your car sends tons of poisons into the air, it is not your fault, but the fault of the people who buy the car. If they want clean air, they can buy cleaner cars.
The concept of protecting private property also covers this situation. How am I to enjoy private property if someone destorys the air? No one person may own the air, so no one person may fill it with pollutants.
quote: If the last remaining old growth forest is important to you, buy it before the lumber companies do.
I agree that there should be some limits on what a person may aquire as private property. And if the government has discovered that destroying old growth forest is destructive to everyone's environment, then it is welcome to pay the owners of the land they reside the fair market value for that land, and turn it into a preserve. I am not against government owned property, only government control of private property.
I look at environmental issues from much the same position as use of force issues. We delegate our use of force to the government, to protect us from criminals within our country and invader from without our country. We also delegate the responsibility of managing the environment. This is something that can be done in a moral way.
quote: If you care about healthy foods, buy them.
Agreed.
quote: If you want your children eductated, pay for thier schooling. If you can't afford their schooling, then give up your other luxuries, or put them to work until you can.
I am not quite sure where I stand on this issue. I understand the value of education. I also think that businesses understand it as well. If there was no qualified source of employees, they would certainly fail. But I don't know how I would handle this situation. I am open for debate here.
quote: The sick and the poor will be cared for by spontaneously blossoming charities who will be financed by the money most of us would already be paying in taxes.
To some extent. There would also be considerably fewer poor and sick. There will always be some poor people. However, if the opportunities for improvement exist, there will be fewer.
quote: My questions are many.
Ask away. I don't claim to know everything or have all the answers.
quote: Do you mean removing Building codes?
Yes. When you purchase a building, you do so with the understanding that it is to be used and lived in. If the builder defrauds the buyer by using cheap wood or unsafe methods, the builder is the criminal. Also, it is your own personal interest to buy a house or building which will last as long as possible and remain usable as long as possible with the least amount of upkeep as possible.
quote: Do you mean removing safety codes in the food we eat?
Yes. Again, if the seller is providing something intended for human consumption, it is understood that it will not be poisonous or cause illness. If such a thing occures, the producer or seller of the product in question are guilty of fraud. We already have laws to cover most of these situations.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: We have Social Security not because someone one day said "We ought to have some security in our old age" but because during the Depression the elderly were left penniless, sick and starving.
This is incorrect. The rate of poverty among the elderly in the depression was less than that of younger folk. There was no great clammor for social security.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I believe that civilization is the construct which allows persons to hold private property while delegating the use of force for its defense to the government.
This is probably the core of a lot of the disagreement. Why do you believe this?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm so glad you showed up, Ro. I was beginning to worry I was to be the star of your biography. Which goes against my Personal Boudary Ethic (TM).
I don't agree with the no building code thing. It requires people to be expert in design and engineering, which would be fine for me but not for most people. But maybe society needs to collapse so that ethical living doesn't require expertise in the arena of everything we wish to consume. Or this might be a good way to combat consumerism. Consumerism stinks.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:
I believe that civilization is the construct which allows persons to hold private property while delegating the use of force for its defense to the government. ------------------------- Why do you believe this?
Because I believe that the chaos caused by anarchy is counter-productive to reason. I am of the opinion that every person has the right of self determination and the right to act within a set of well defined codes that protect this right. Examples from history are appropriate. Everywhere that personal freedom is given a chance, it works. The countries which value personal freedom, even a little bit, are much better off than those that do not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There would also be considerably fewer poor and sick."
Um. I know what you're trying to say, here, but you might want to put it a different way. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:If the builder defrauds the buyer by using cheap wood or unsafe methods, the builder is the criminal.
How is he a crimminal?
He did not break any law, for there would be no law defining what is "unsafe methods".
Building Codes are used to define what is safe.
Or are you proposing that instead of building codes, the builder is responsible for the performance over his buildings, and can be sued for damages caused by failures in the materials he uses?
This means the onus is on the consumer to get fair compensation after the event, instead of on the producer to give fair value.
Meanwhile the onus is on the builder to determine what is safe if he wants to save himself from future lawsuits.
Such testing and experimentation is expensive for any single builder to determine. Indeed it will be more expensive than following the "regulations" that exist today.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I'm so glad you showed up, Ro. I was beginning to worry I was to be the star of your biography.
Thanks.
Yeah, I should probably apologize for causing so many topical discussions to be derailed into a discussion of this sort. Thanks for showing the way Dan.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:if the seller is providing something intended for human consumption, it is understood that it will not be poisonous or cause illness. If such a thing occures, the producer or seller of the product in question are guilty of fraud.
So Cigarette companies are all illegal.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: He did not break any law, for there would be no law defining what is "unsafe methods".
He has committed fraud. He sold someone a building, that person has a reasonable expectation that the building will be usable and safe. Providing an unsafe building is committing fraud.
I am not advocating the hiring of unqualified architects and engineers, quite the opposite. Put the responsibility of safety on their shoulders, not the government's.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On the other hand, a builder could offer a home with, say, a waiver absolving him of all liability for $25,000 cheaper than a home without such a waiver. And when the house fell down, it'd be nobody's problem.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: So Cigarette companies are all illegal.
Not at all. If I smoke a cigarette, I do not get sick or die. Also, if I eat Pizza Hut for dinner, I do not get sick or die(usually). However, if I were to eat pizza hut for dinner every night, I would get sick and die. Likewise, if I smoked a cigarette 10 times a day everyday, I would get sick and die.
Should unhealthy food be illegal?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I am not advocating the hiring of unqualified architects and engineers, quite the opposite. Put the responsibility of safety on their shoulders, not the government's.
In such a situation, who would decide and enforce the standards of quality and safety? Who would decide and enforce the qualifications for architects and engineers?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Robespierre,
quote:Pretty much. I believe that civilization is the construct which allows persons to hold private property while delegating the use of force for its defense to the government. The first and most important property that everyone owns, is their own body.
You're defining "civilization" in only the coldest and most practical terms. But along with civilization-because of and perhaps predating it-comes things like compassion for the less fortunate, protection of the weak, humanism, etc. These things provide motivation for many ideas that you now oppose.
quote:If it violates the right of others to self determination and robs them of private property, it is wrong.
What is robbery? I am taxed involuntarily. That could be robbery. Is it robbery when it goes to a program I don't like? Is taxation only legitimate when it goes to programs I like?
quote:What morality or ethic requires this? None that I subscribe to.
When it's purely an ethereal realm of academic discussion and philosophy, then none, really. But the application of all ethical systems, of all morality, requires the expenditure of some sort of resource which automatically has some sort of value. So you're wrong there.
quote:There is no reason for government to say who it "should" go to. If I wish to give someone a home, it is my right. If I do not wish to pay for someone's health care, that is also my right.
Incorrect. You agree, by remaining an American citizen, to certain rights as well as responsibilities. It isn't a buffet line of freedoms. You want the candy, eat your vegetables.
quote:Only the ones that violate the concepts laid down in the constitution.
Which one would that be? The ultimate concept of the Constitution is that of a republic-style government that can be changed by a sufficient majority and process at any time. All other concepts in the Constitution are secondary to that one, and thus it could be argued that every one of your points-which are in the minority so far-are as well. Morally and ethically, though, I understand what you mean.
quote:I look at environmental issues from much the same position as use of force issues. We delegate our use of force to the government, to protect us from criminals within our country and invader from without our country. We also delegate the responsibility of managing the environment. This is something that can be done in a moral way.
I agree.
quote:I am not quite sure where I stand on this issue. I understand the value of education. I also think that businesses understand it as well. If there was no qualified source of employees, they would certainly fail. But I don't know how I would handle this situation. I am open for debate here.
The problem here is that children have no say in how well they will be educated, or at least have no say in how many and how much resources will be applied to their education. I'm not saying you're saying this, but the idea that only the parents should be responsible for the resources of their child's education helps to taint the concept of social mobility.
And besides, a well-educated population benefits wealthy people as much if not more than the well-educated people themselves.
quote:To some extent. There would also be considerably fewer poor and sick. There will always be some poor people. However, if the opportunities for improvement exist, there will be fewer.
Is there a nation on earth that responds to poverty based on a system relying primarily on privately-sponsored charities? If so, I'd be glad of a comparison of benefits. Until you can provide such a comparison, past or present, to say what will or won't be is irresponsible surmise.
quote:Yes. When you purchase a building, you do so with the understanding that it is to be used and lived in. If the builder defrauds the buyer by using cheap wood or unsafe methods, the builder is the criminal. Also, it is your own personal interest to buy a house or building which will last as long as possible and remain usable as long as possible with the least amount of upkeep as possible.
But the kind of building you live or work in affects more than simply myself. If I decide to scrimp on safety issues when I build a home, I'm not only endangering myself, but everyone who ever comes in it. I also endanger my neighbors-things like fire and health hazards-but also damage their property values.
Enlightened self-interest doesn't always work when that interest is only concerned with short-term maximum profit and minimum expense.
quote:Yes. Again, if the seller is providing something intended for human consumption, it is understood that it will not be poisonous or cause illness. If such a thing occures, the producer or seller of the product in question are guilty of fraud. We already have laws to cover most of these situations.
But food codes are proactive, which is frankly a good thing. I want people in white lab coats to go checking out the Totino's Pizza Plant and checking to see if everything is up to spec, because I don't want to wait until after I've got dystentary or diarrhea or some food poisoning to correct the situation. Multiply that concern by millions for every mass-produced food, and you'll see the wisdom of having things like the FDA.
J4
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
If nobody bought the house, then yes, it'd be nobody's problem.
(sheesh, this thread is exploding)
[ January 23, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I know what you're trying to say, here, but you might want to put it a different way.
Freeing the economy of government adventurism would allow for much expansion and advancement. More employment would be available, and thusly, more money for healthcare.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Everywhere that personal freedom is given a chance, it works. The countries which value personal freedom, even a little bit, are much better off than those that do not.
Given your uniquely broad definition of personal freedom, what are these instances of countries where person freedom works?
And equally importantly, what do you mean by "works"? Do you mean maximizing standard of living - because studies have repeatedly shown certain European socialist countries have better standards of living than America and other more capitalist nations do.
[ January 23, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’d like to try to keep at least part of this discussion on basic assumptions, if I may.
quote:_______________
Robespierre said: I believe that civilization is the construct which allows persons to hold private property while delegating the use of force for its defense to the government. ------------------------- I asked: Why do you believe this? _________
Robespierre answered: Because I believe that the chaos caused by anarchy is counter-productive to reason. I am of the opinion that every person has the right of self determination and the right to act within a set of well defined codes that protect this right. Examples from history are appropriate. Everywhere that personal freedom is given a chance, it works. The countries which value personal freedom, even a little bit, are much better off than those that do not.
I agree with you about self determination and personal freedom. But why do you equate private property with personal freedom?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Who would decide and enforce the qualifications for architects and engineers?
Their peers and the marketplace.
quote: coldest and most practical terms.
Should I define it in the least practical terms?
quote: These things provide motivation for many ideas that you now oppose.
Which of my ideas?
quote: What is robbery?
Taking property which does not belong to you.
quote: I am taxed involuntarily. That could be robbery.
That's how I view high income taxes, robbery.
quote: Is it robbery when it goes to a program I don't like? Is taxation only legitimate when it goes to programs I like?
See above definition of robbery. If you willingly give the government your money, then no, they are not robbing you.
quote: But the application of all ethical systems, of all morality, requires the expenditure of some sort of resource which automatically has some sort of value. So you're wrong there.
Sure, but does it require one to expend the resources of others? Christianity is big on not stealing. As far I know, its not okay to loot people, then give that loot to the poor.
quote: Incorrect. You agree, by remaining an American citizen, to certain rights as well as responsibilities. It isn't a buffet line of freedoms. You want the candy, eat your vegetables.
What responsibilities are those? Are they written down or codified in any way? If so, which ones have I broken, or do I wish to break? Please provide an example.
quote: The ultimate concept of the Constitution is that of a republic-style government that can be changed by a sufficient majority and process at any time.
But only within the bounds of its responsibilities. The role of the government was specifically codified for this reason, so that the majority may not oppress the minority with laws that violate their rights. This is why we have judicial review of our laws.
quote: Is there a nation on earth that responds to poverty based on a system relying primarily on privately-sponsored charities?
Probably not. Also, I doubt there is a nation that has no poverty. But I don't think either of these points are terribly relevant.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Given your uniquely broad definition of personal freedom, what are these instances of countries where person freedom works?
The United States, UK, most of western Europe, Japan to some extent after 1945.
quote: And equally importantly, what do you mean by "works"? Do you mean maximizing standard of living
Thats a good definition. Progress, life expectancy, technological development, etc.
quote: because studies have repeatedly shown certain European socialist countries have better standards of living than America and other more capitalist nations do.
Firstly, a country like Sweeden, has many fewer people than we do. Secondly, what was it that made their countries great to begin with? I would say that a big part of it was personal freedom. They will not escape the excesses of socialism, they are about to find out why its a bad idea to pension people off at 50 and pay for their health care. These counties are facing a looming crisis with their shrinking populations and growing amount of retired persons.
quote: I agree with you about self determination and personal freedom. But why do you equate private property with personal freedom?
It seems logical to me as a basis for freedom. I did not create the idea, obviously. Locke and others have spoken in these terms since the 18th century. If I own something, who else should have some claim to it, or a say in what I do with it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Robespierre, my point is this:
We have demonstrably fewer starving people and demonstrably wealthier rich people since we initiated welfare programs in this country. How do you reconcile this with your philosophy?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So for you, private ownership of property is a basic assumption of civilization. How do you negotiate/debate/discuss policy with people for whom private property rights are not a basic assumption of civiliztion?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Who would decide and enforce the qualifications for architects and engineers?
------------------------------------------
Their peers and the marketplace.
In a truly competitive environment, what incentive do architects and engineers have to ensure that their competitors maintain a good level of technical competence?
Market pressures would probably even this out over the long term. However, the market has no way of immediately determining the competence of a newcomer. Over time, a new architect who demonstrated incompetence would not get many clients and would probably be forced out of business. But before that happens he has plenty of opportunity to damage people's property and even lives. The overall financial impact might not be huge, especially when averaged over time, but the loss of even a single human life is unacceptable. This is why we have licensing requirements for architects and engineers: to establish a minimum acceptable level of competence. Without the government setting such standards, it would be up to either the public to do so—practically speaking, this doesn't seem much different from having the government do it—or to hope that the engineering and architectural communities will set up their own standards communities. Both cases would require resources, which would end up being either some sort of tax or would be reflected in higher prices for engineering and architectural services, thus increasing the end market price for homes and other structures.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: We have demonstrably fewer starving people and demonstrably wealthier rich people since we initiated welfare programs in this country. How do you reconcile this with your philosophy?
Please demonstrate this. Social security began in the mid 30's and welfare in the mid 60's. Please show me that these programs have helped the poor, old, and wealthy alike.
quote: people for whom private property rights are not a basic assumption of civiliztion?
I couldn't say until I knew what their basis for morality was.
quote: what incentive do architects and engineers have to ensure that their competitors maintain a good level of technical competence?
Their incentive is to know and surpass the quality of their competitors, and in so doing, make a profit.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Their incentive is to know and surpass the quality of their competitors, and in so doing, make a profit.
Do you have a response to the rest of what I said? How do market pressures alone ensure quality in an untested architect or engineer? Is the loss of human life acceptable so long as free market principles reign free? Or do you just disagree that such loss would ever occur (or at least with any more frequency than it does now)?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: How do market pressures alone ensure quality in an untested architect or engineer?
Would you hire someone fresh out of college to be the sole designer and engineer on your home? I certainly wouldn't. But if you want to, I won't stop you.
Architects gain working knowledge in mostly the same way carpenters and plumbers do, by working in the field as an assistant to an architect who does have the proper knowledge.
quote: Is the loss of human life acceptable so long as free market principles reign free?
Are we going to make it illegal to make bad decisions? Should it be illegal to hire an architect whom you wish to hire? I would think that people would be concerned with the quality of the product they are buying. Visiting the buildings previously built by said architect is a good way of doing this. See above for architects that have no prior expirience and therefor no buildings to view.
quote: Or do you just disagree that such loss would ever occur (or at least with any more frequency than it does now)?
I don't think it would get worse. If people were forced to be solely responsible for their decisions, I think they would spend a lot more time making them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Robespierre,
quote:Should I define it in the least practical terms?
Warmer, actually.
quote:Which of my ideas?
Well, "high" income taxes (although even I would probably disagree with what is high. Things like building codes, government aid to the poor being wrong or at least impractical.
quote:See above definition of robbery. If you willingly give the government your money, then no, they are not robbing you.
You are mistaken. As an American, I agree to submit to the force of the government so long as that force is exercised legally. One of those forces is to tax me, whether I like it or not. If duly elected representatives agree legally to tax me, then I pay it and it is not robbery, because I give them broad powers that are not spelled out for every eventuality.
That's what I meant by buffet-line. When I came into this restaurant, I agreed to eat what they give me. I didn't agree to take what I like and ignore the rest. That's part of getting some of the best grub on the planet-I have to take some of the broccoli as well as help out in the kitchen.
quote:Sure, but does it require one to expend the resources of others? Christianity is big on not stealing. As far I know, its not okay to loot people, then give that loot to the poor.
It's not "looting", because to be an American is to have certain rights and responsibilities. It's not all me, me, me, I've gotta give up something to get a piece of that civilization action as well. My social contract with the governing groups is that I surrender a fraction of my absolute sovereignty of person.
So they can tax me, and I won't always like it.
quote:What responsibilities are those? Are they written down or codified in any way? If so, which ones have I broken, or do I wish to break? Please provide an example.
I don't know if you've broken any, or wish to break any, but clearly you think that high income taxes that siphon away some portion of wealth from the better-off and eventually siphons some too the less-well-off is robbery, because you don't personally agree with that policy. You wish to set aside your responsibility as an American to go along with what legally-elected representatives through a legal process decide is law.
Or at least you keep talking about things like high income taxes are robbery that you have no part of.
Republics and democracies mean that sometimes the individual is gonna get screwed. They're based on compromise, and compromise means everyone is still at least a little pissed.
quote:But only within the bounds of its responsibilities. The role of the government was specifically codified for this reason, so that the majority may not oppress the minority with laws that violate their rights. This is why we have judicial review of our laws.
You are mistaken. The majority can oppress the minority, if enough of the majority gets together and decides to, say, amend the Constitution. The Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is the ultimate law of the land, and if sufficient majorities of either citizens or representatives amended the Constitution, and it was consistent and correctly written, then even an amendment that oppresses the minority would be the law of the land. Sufficient majorities can change the rights and responsibilities as soon as they are a majority and push through the process.
quote:Probably not. Also, I doubt there is a nation that has no poverty. But I don't think either of these points are terribly relevant.
Well, you're the one who says that with a system of dealing with poverty based on private charities, we'd be better off as a whole. I was asking if there is a current or historical example you have to measure that claim.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Such a system of standards on products and services (or rather, a lack of standards) virtually ensures that anyone rich enough to afford better lawyers than any potential litigants can therefore make as shoddy a product as their advertising department can still sell. A completely free market rewards the unscrupulous much faster than it does the honest.
I urge you to look into the history of the Food and Drug Administration, especially the first couple of decades of the twentieth century: unsanitary conditions in meat-packing plants, the use of poisonous preservatives and dyes in foods, and cure-all claims for worthless and dangerous patent medicines.
Your claim seems to be that the manufacturers should self-police themselves and that the free market will keep them honest. I think it can be easily proven that while most manufacturers are honest and trustworthy, there will always be manufacturers that are not. You argue that manufacturers selling unwholesome food would be breaking a law and would get caught that way. Poisons are rarely so quick. Tainted food might only lessen someone's health over a long period of time so that it took decades for anyone to notice a pattern.
Laws punish the manufacturer after the damage is done. Regulations prevent the damage before it can happen. Somehow, knowing that the free market will bring down a crooked meat-packing plant a few years after my death from tainted beef doesn't have the comfort it probably should.
quote:Their incentive is to know and surpass the quality of their competitors, and in so doing, make a profit.
Actually it's a lot easier to make a slightly lesser quality product that you can then sell for much less than your competitor and thereby make a much higher profit in increased sales.
quote:This is incorrect. The rate of poverty among the elderly in the depression was less than that of younger folk. There was no great clammor for social security.
Just a few minor movements calling for a national pension, not many to speak of. Let's see, there was the "Every Man a King" movement, the Townsend Movement, the "Fire & Brimstone" movement, the "End Poverty in California" movement, the "Ham & Eggs" movement, the Bigelow Plan, General Welfare Federation of America, the "Technocracy" movement, and others.
Relying on faith-based, voluntary charity organizations means that when conditions change to overload those organizations, people will die. A completely unregulated free market does not respond quickly enough to economic changes, which is why Social Security came about in the first place. A quick history:
In the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth there were several big changes, all of which made a huge difference in the poverty level of America.
The Industrial Revolution. In an agricultural society, prosperity could be easily linked to one's labor and anyone willing to work could usually provide at least a bare subsistence for themselves and their family. But when economic income is primarily from wages, one's economic security can be threatened by factors outside one's control such as recessions, layoffs, failed businesses, etc.
America went urban. Americans moved from farms and small rural communities to large cities since that's where the industrial jobs were. By 1920, for the first time, more Americans lived in cities than farms.
This is also when the extended family began disappearing. The able-bodied left the family farm to come to the city for work, leaving parents and grandparents behind. And immigrants were most often the breadwinners of the family who came over to raise money to bring their families over when they could.
And human life expectancy grew, largely due to improved health and sanitation methods and the same regulations you have disdained. In three short decades, 1900-1930, average life spans increased by 10 years. This was the most rapid increase in life spans in recorded human history. The result was a rapid growth in the number of old people, to 7.8 million by 1935.
Within 50 years, all the traditional strategies for the provision of economic security were becoming increasingly fragile.
And then the stock market crashed.
Before three months had passed, the Stock Market lost 40% of its value; $26 billion of wealth disappeared. Great American corporations suffered huge financial losses. AT&T lost one-third of its value, General Electric lost half of its, and RCA's stock fell by three-fourths within a matter of months. Unemployment exceeded 25%, about 10,000 banks failed, the Gross National Product declined from $105 billion in 1929 to only $55 billion in 1932. Compared to pre-Depression levels, net new business investment was a minus $5.8 billion in 1932. Wages paid to workers declined from $50 billion in 1929 to only $30 billion in 1932.
Millions of people were unemployed, two million adult men wandered aimlessly around the country, banks and businesses failed and the majority of the elderly in America lived in dependency.
It was literally not possible for charity programs to help these people, people who were not unemployed because they didn't want to work.
Now it may be argued that from a pragmatic viewpoint, it might be better for society in general to let the weak and infirm die. It makes sense from a natural selection point of view, anyway.
But I would also like to point out that the vast bulk of crime, and virtually all violent crime, comes from people living in the poverty level. I think that eliminating all support except that which is given voluntarily will simply and quickly produce a healthy supply of criminals.
I do not argue that everyone deserves a living, a handout, or even free health care. I think that our social programs could use some serious reworking. But I also think that stripping them all away is unconscionable and inhuman, and not at all representative of this country's ideals.
Your system relies on people doing the right thing. Forgive me if I'm not that trusting.
[ January 23, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Warmer, actually.
I really don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you explain civilization in a "warmer" way. I will stick to the most logical way.
quote: Well, "high" income taxes (although even I would probably disagree with what is high. Things like building codes, government aid to the poor being wrong or at least impractical.
I don't understand what you are saying here. My original question was phrased this way:
quote: These things provide motivation for many ideas that you now oppose.
------------------------------
Which of my ideas?
Is high income taxes one of my ideas? Are building regulations? You are saying that my beliefs are inconsistant and that they rely on compassion, etc. Tell me which ones and why.
quote: As an American, I agree to submit to the force of the government so long as that force is exercised legally.
I agree with you so far..
quote: One of those forces is to tax me, whether I like it or not.
Income taxes were not included in the constitution originally. The 16th amendment gave the congress the right to levy income taxes in 1913.
quote: XVI Amendment The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I happen to believe that the majority had no right to foist this upon the country. Since this is in the constitution, I do not claim that income taxes are illegal, merely immoral.
And if there is an amendment to ban gay marriages, I will have the same view of that. I would deem it a preposterous overstepping of governmental authority and revokation of individual freedom. But it would be legal.
quote: It's not "looting", because to be an American is to have certain rights and responsibilities. It's not all me, me, me, I've gotta give up something to get a piece of that civilization action as well. My social contract with the governing groups is that I surrender a fraction of my absolute sovereignty of person.
Can you please show me a copy of this social contract? Is it objective in any way? Please enumerate for me, all the responsibilities I have. How can I be expected to act on these when I don't even know what they are or if they even exist?
quote: Or at least you keep talking about things like high income taxes are robbery that you have no part of.
What? No part of what? I have said that I believe high income taxes to be morally wrong. I have not said that I refuse to pay them.
quote: Republics and democracies mean that sometimes the individual is gonna get screwed.
This is interesting, I don't see why this must be true. Please give an example of how the government could screw me, while acting within its bounds?(realizing that I deem income taxes as outside the bounds of reasonable government)
quote: You are mistaken. The majority can oppress the minority
I am not mistaken. You keep saying that. I never said that it wasn't possible for the majority to oppress the minority, only that it is immoral.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How regulations work.
In December regulations required that random checks be made on meat packed in a meat plant.
They discovered food tainted with Mad Cow disease.
They checked the records that had been regulated to keep track of the cow, and discovered where it came from, where it had been bought, and which cattle it had been associated with.
the result was that after an initial wave of Mad-Cow panic, the meat industry has remained strong in the US.
Under your philosophies, if you have a cow that you know is diseased, you could sell it to a packing plant.
It has no need to track where it gets its beef from. It processes it.
The beef goes out to the market, where it is canned (you can't tell the age of the beef in a covered container. Easier to sell old stuff that way) or it is prettied up.
A restaurant buys the beef and serves it to its guests. It keeps no track of where which batch of beef comes from. Why should it?
The guests get ill, slowly.
They are unsure where they ate the beef?
They complain.
There is no FDA to coordinate the complaints, or no Health Board to track down where this tainted beef came from.
At best the police could try and determine where the bad food came from.
Or the individual could, if they were healthy enough to try.
Either way, all that will be discovered is that Mad Cow Disease infects American Beef.
Millions stop buying beef because its unsafe.
The beef industry as a whole suffers. Ranchers who run clean and good farms suffer because of the actions of one greedy man who wanted to get rid of a sick cow profitably.
And there is no way to track down who this one man is.
The same thing happens with chicken and pork and fish.
Soon the only food you can really trust is the food you grow yourself.
Or organizations gather round to enforce their standards on their industry.
Ranchers demand the same regulations on meat packers as the Government demands now, just to keep people confident in their purchases.
Architects set up guilds to validate their building practices.
There is no fundamental change between the Regulations the government offers now, and the self-regulations imposed by industrial guilds
except for two:
1) It is easier to abandon those regulations, to the endangerment of the rest of us people, and not get caught doing so.
(You build ten houses cheaply. Sell them. Leave town for the next city where you can make a profit and run just the same).
2) Those guilds will allow for the growth of Monopolistic like powers. If all the architects meat packers belong to the Meat Packing Guild they can set prices as a unit, cut out competitors, and demand unreasonable discounts or favors from suppliers. If the chief of police wants a house, he'll have to obey the dictates of the Architect guild or never find a person to build it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It's not "looting", because to be an American is to have certain rights and responsibilities. It's not all me, me, me, I've gotta give up something to get a piece of that civilization action as well. My social contract with the governing groups is that I surrender a fraction of my absolute sovereignty of person.
Can you please show me a copy of this social contract?
"If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms:
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."
"At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision."
From "The Social Contract" by Jean Jacques Rousseau. An author and book highly respected by your namesake, by the way.
[ January 23, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So the status quo hasn't resulted in the loss of a single human life? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Social security began in the mid 30's and welfare in the mid 60's. Please show me that these programs have helped the poor, old, and wealthy alike."
By every measurable standard, Robespierre, all three groups are better off than they were in both the '30s and '60s. Can you find even one standard to which this truism does not apply?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:These things provide motivation for many ideas that you now oppose.
------------------------------
Which of my ideas?
Robespierre, I'm reasonably certain that he wasn't talking about your ideas. Rather, he was saying that compassion and humanism provide the basis for things that are the opposite of what you believe, the things that you are against. Rakeesh, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:So the status quo hasn't resulted in the loss of a single human life?
Allow me to rephrase: The loss of a single human life caused by removing regulations that would have prevented such a loss is unacceptable.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Despite the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations? That's extraordinary.
I figured out what is bothering me, Tom. You have accused conservatives of assuming that humans are inherently sinful. I am accusing you of assuming that any two or more people, combined into a business, will engage in ruthless cost cutting practices, preferrably at the expense of their customers lives.
If only the mad cow scare really illustrated the virtue of regulation and not the gluteal-covering cowardice of bureaucracy.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
This is a fascinating thread! (although I do wish Dan would change the title to represent the proper spelling of Robespierre's name)
So are we saying that Robespierre is a Libertarian?
FG
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
It's interesting to me that you seem to disapprove of anarchy, because many of your problems with the government are directly in line with anarchist sociopolitical doctrine.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Any two? No. As has been mentioned, the vast majority of people would not use corrupt business practices. The regulations are there to stop the few who do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am accusing you of assuming that any two or more people, combined into a business, will engage in ruthless cost cutting practices..."
Having worked for major, publicly-owned corporations, let me state this as clearly as I can:
Not only is this the case, but it is freely admitted by the directors of these corporations that it is the case. Additionally, major stockholders in these corporations expect these corporations to behave as if it were the case, and will in fact punish the corporations by acting to change management if they ever suspect it is not the case.
I suspect, based on your statements, that you have never worked for a corporation. By definition, in the modern world, a corporation exists to maximize the profit of its shareholders by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
While small businesses may still behave in an ethical manner, provided they remain small enough, it is actually impossible for a publicly-traded corporation to do so and still attract investment.
[ January 23, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Such a system of standards on products and services (or rather, a lack of standards) virtually ensures that anyone rich enough to afford better lawyers than any potential litigants can therefore make as shoddy a product as their advertising department can still sell.
Understand that I do not claim capitalism to create a utopian society. I merely put forth that it is the most moral way to govern.
I would not want a legal system where the price of a lawyer is the sole determinant of legal satisfaction. There must be some objective standard by which cases are judged.
quote: A completely free market rewards the unscrupulous much faster than it does the honest.
In the short run, this may be true, but over the long run, no other method can compete with free market forces for producing the safest and highest quality products.
I would assume that China has some stong standards on food and health issues, being a communist country and all (if I am wrong, let me know). However, I would rather eat at a chinese restaurant in America than an American restaurant in China. Regulations cannot garantee safety. People try to avoid regulations and trick the overseers in the same manner as they might try to defraud the public in a capitalist society.
quote: urge you to look into the history of the Food and Drug Administration, especially the first couple of decades of the twentieth century: unsanitary conditions in meat-packing plants, the use of poisonous preservatives and dyes in foods
I understand you point here, but part of that is due to the fact that people were just discovering what exactly sanitary meant. Science was driving that. With an educated population, issues like this are less of a problem.
quote: I think it can be easily proven that while most manufacturers are honest and trustworthy, there will always be manufacturers that are not.
I agree with you. The problem then becomes, what is the best way of dealing with it. Do we subject the ones that are honest to unnecessary regulation, which the dishonest ones will ignore anyway?
quote: Actually it's a lot easier to make a slightly lesser quality product that you can then sell for much less than your competitor and thereby make a much higher profit in increased sales.
This assumes that people will always purchase the cheapest item. I think luxury car sales prove this premise to be incorrect. Companies produce products for the whole range of tastes and budgets. If something is so shoddy that it doesn't meet the need it was intended to, it is unlikely someone will purchase a product from that company again.
quote: Relying on faith-based, voluntary charity organizations means that when conditions change to overload those organizations, people will die.
What causes those conditions to change?
quote: And human life expectancy grew, largely due to improved health and sanitation methods and the same regulations you have disdained.
I reject this premise. The reason life expectancies increased was not because of regulations, which those with political pull can avoid anyway, it was due to scientific advancement.
quote: And then the stock market crashed.
This is its own discussion, but be assured, it didn't just crash, it was destroyed by bad policy.
quote: the majority of the elderly in America lived in dependency.
I would like to see some numbers on this.
quote: It was literally not possible for charity programs to help these people, people who were not unemployed because they didn't want to work.
The depth and severity of the great depression was the result of FDR's wreckless policies.
quote: But I would also like to point out that the vast bulk of crime, and virtually all violent crime, comes from people living in the poverty level.
I am not arguing that poverty is good, acceptible, or desirable. I merely disagree with you on how to best handle the situation.
quote: But I also think that stripping them all away is unconscionable and inhuman, and not at all representative of this country's ideals.
In so much as I have already payed much of my money into the social security program and payed much income tax, I agree. I would not be completely satisfied if these things just went away and my money was gone forever. But I think I will have to compromise on that, and accept that the money is gone, and move on and try to do what i can to fix it from here on out.
quote: Your system relies on people doing the right thing. Forgive me if I'm not that trusting.
All systems do. The current system relies on the wrong people to do the right thing, mainly, government employees.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Hi FG!
quote: So are we saying that Robespierre is a Libertarian?
Pretty much. Although I don't like to describe myself as being a memeber of any political party, I like to think that I come to independent conclusions on all of the issues. It just so happens that the libertarians are fairly close to my beliefs.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: It is easier to abandon those regulations, to the endangerment of the rest of us people, and not get caught doing so.
I don't see why this must be so. We merely shift the responsibility to the government inspectors.
quote: Those guilds will allow for the growth of Monopolistic like powers. If all the architects meat packers belong to the Meat Packing Guild they can set prices as a unit, cut out competitors, and demand unreasonable discounts or favors from suppliers. If the chief of police wants a house, he'll have to obey the dictates of the Architect guild or never find a person to build it. [quote] Sounds like unionism to me. However, in the capitalist system, the solution to monopolies behaving badly is competition. If there is enough anger at a group of businesses, another business may come into the market and take advantage of that anger and make a profit.
[quote] From "The Social Contract" by Jean Jacques Rousseau. An author and book highly respected by your namesake, by the way.
I know of Rousseau, my point was that his book is not our law. If I have some responsibilities that are not written in the constitution or state and local laws, I would like to know what those are any why I haven't seen anyone charged with the crime of violating them.
quote: By every measurable standard, Robespierre, all three groups are better off than they were in both the '30s and '60s. Can you find even one standard to which this truism does not apply?
What percentage of the population was below the poverty level before these programs, and after them. Please provide some numbers. I will not grant it as a given that the poor are better of because of Welfare and social-security or even that they are better of at all.
quote: Rather, he was saying that compassion and humanism provide the basis for things that are the opposite of what you believe, the things that you are against.
I think you are missing something here. I don't find it very compassionate to enslave the poor with the welfare mentality. I don't think its humane to teach people that they cannot survive without the help of the government.
quote: Allow me to rephrase: The loss of a single human life caused by removing regulations that would have prevented such a loss is unacceptable.
So in this case, the ends totally justify the means. What about another case? What about healthy foods? We could save people's lives if we were to require them to eat healthy food and exercise. Would this be a moral thing to do?
quote: It's interesting to me that you seem to disapprove of anarchy, because many of your problems with the government are directly in line with anarchist sociopolitical doctrine.
I am relatively certain that anarchists don't wish to delegate the use of force to the government.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Dan, you once told me to remind you to describe your ideas on capitalism. I know that have sort-of been doing that here, but could you describe your beliefs? At least the ones you wanted me to ask you about.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:What about healthy foods? We could save people's lives if we were to require them to eat healthy food and exercise. Would this be a moral thing to do?
Personally I would say no, although it's most likely for selfish reasons. But I think there's a difference between regulating business practices and regulating personal behavior.
quote:I am relatively certain that anarchists don't wish to delegate the use of force to the government.
Oh, I'm not saying you are an anarchist. I'm just saying that many of your beliefs seem to line up pretty well with theirs.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But I think there's a difference between regulating business practices and regulating personal behavior.
All business is the result of some individual's behavior. Where do you draw the line? I think the freedom of association covers the right to form groups in whatever way one wishes, so long as they do not violate the enumerated rights of others in so doing.
quote: Oh, I'm not saying you are an anarchist.
And feel free to continue not saying it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Understand that I do not claim capitalism to create a utopian society. I merely put forth that it is the most moral way to govern.
That could be my problem, I don't think we should govern on morals. Just ethics.
By removing regulations and relying on law and market forces to police companies, you are condemning more people to suffer as test cases.
You dismiss regulations by saying that some people will avoid them anyway. This is true. But I submit that a smaller percentage of people will avoid them than would comply to vaguely-stated standards without immediate consequence. My way is not perfect either, but it is safer overall.
quote:I would not want a legal system where the price of a lawyer is the sole determinant of legal satisfaction. There must be some objective standard by which cases are judged.
Sigh. Me, too. Until we get it, and an administration that isn't hellbent on weakening the individual's ability to redress corporate malfeasance, we'll have to make do.
quote:In the short run, this may be true, but over the long run, no other method can compete with free market forces for producing the safest and highest quality products.
Even if I grant that, the short run and the long run are measured here in human lives. Humans who buy food, who buy houses, who buy cars, who deserve to have some minimal guarantee that the products they purchase are safe.
quote:I would assume that China has some stong standards on food and health issues, being a communist country and all (if I am wrong, let me know).
I don't have point-for-point comparisons, but by googling "China food regulations" I find that some of the measures they're just now putting into practice seem to be way behind our own. Example: this story on licensing basic food suppliers.
quote:I understand you point here, but part of that is due to the fact that people were just discovering what exactly sanitary meant. Science was driving that. With an educated population, issues like this are less of a problem.
I submit that rat feces and maggots in unprocessed red meat were probably things people knew to avoid before 1906, but there was nothing preventing meat packers from letting them slide by.
quote:I agree with you. The problem then becomes, what is the best way of dealing with it. Do we subject the ones that are honest to unnecessary regulation, which the dishonest ones will ignore anyway?
We subject all of them to the minimal regulation necessary to ensure safe, wholesome product, and we use the laws enforcing these regulations to go after the dishonest ones. Which can be tracked more easily due to the regulation, as Dan pointed out.
quote:This assumes that people will always purchase the cheapest item.
No, it assumes that enough people will purchase the cheaper item. I see just about everything that has to do with humans on a scale. You seem to be arguing every case as an either/or.
quote:I reject this premise. The reason life expectancies increased was not because of regulations, which those with political pull can avoid anyway, it was due to scientific advancement.
And how was this scientific advancement made common knowledge?
quote:the majority of the elderly in America lived in dependency.
I would like to see some numbers on this.
Best I could find -- actual figures are tough, since before the programs began there was no need to categorize such numbers -- but here's a CATO study on it. Note that the percentage of elderly on any sort of welfare was very low before 1930. The people in need of help during the Depression were, by and large, people who were not ready to handle any sort of interruption in their earnings.
quote:The depth and severity of the great depression was the result of FDR's wreckless policies.
Whatever he did, he got people fed. I have problems faulting him for this.
quote:In so much as I have already payed much of my money into the social security program and payed much income tax, I agree. I would not be completely satisfied if these things just went away and my money was gone forever. But I think I will have to compromise on that, and accept that the money is gone, and move on and try to do what i can to fix it from here on out.
So all that matters in these programs is how they affect you personally?
quote:Your system relies on people doing the right thing. Forgive me if I'm not that trusting.
All systems do. The current system relies on the wrong people to do the right thing, mainly, government employees.
The current system relies on a series of checks and balances throughout the entire system, instead of any one faction. Imperfect though it is, it's still better than nothing.
[ January 23, 2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: That could be my problem, I don't think we should govern on morals. Just ethics.
I don't claim to be an expert on philosophy, and as such, I don't understand the distinction between ethics and morals. Please explain, and include what ethics you would govern by.
quote: My way is not perfect either, but it is safer overall.
I disagree. I think the current system gives people a false sense of securty. If they were required to see to their own safety, they would be more vigelant. However, there is really no way of comparing the two. So I will conceed that you could be right.
quote: Even if I grant that, the short run and the long run are measured here in human lives. Humans who buy food, who buy houses, who buy cars, who deserve to have some minimal guarantee that the products they purchase are safe.
So a few deaths over a short time is less acceptible than more deaths over a longer period?
[ January 23, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:All business is the result of some individual's behavior. Where do you draw the line? I think the freedom of association covers the right to form groups in whatever way one wishes, so long as they do not violate the enumerated rights of others in so doing.
I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between businesses and not-businesses.
quote:And feel free to continue not saying it.
Is there any particular reason that you are so hostile toward me? I'm not trying to be antagonistic toward you.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I submit that rat feces and maggots in unprocessed red meat were probably things people knew to avoid before 1906, but there was nothing preventing meat packers from letting them slide by.
Certainly it was known that consuming rat feces was a bad idea. But was it known that simply wiping a surface with one's hand to remove the rat feces was not enough to make said surface suitable for meat preparation?
quote: And how was this scientific advancement made common knowledge?
Liturature, popular culture of all sorts..
quote: So all that matters in these programs is how they affect you personally?
Thats certainly a big part of it, yes. Then there's the negative effect they have on those they claim to help.
quote: I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between businesses and not-businesses.
Of course it is, but why should my actions as a producer be treated by a different standard than when I am a consumer?
quote: Is there any particular reason that you are so hostile toward me? I'm not trying to be antagonistic toward you.
I apologize if I seemed hostile, it was not my intent. I reacted too strongly to your likening me to an anarchist, which is a group I dislike very much.
[ January 23, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Of course it is, but why should my actions as a producer be treated by a different standard than when I am a consumer?
Because those are two fundamentally different actions.
quote:I apologize if I seemed hostile, it was not my intent. I reacted too strongly to your likening me to an anarchist, which is a group I dislike very much.
Fair enough.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Because those are two fundamentally different actions.
Sleeping and mowing the lawn are also two fundementally different actions, why are there not two sets of laws governing these two actions?
I understand that there's a difference between producing and consuming. But by what right may we impose a different set of standards on producers than we do on consumers?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I don't claim to be an expert on philosophy, and as such, I don't understand the distinction between ethics and morals. Please explain, and include what ethics you would govern by.
That would be several other whole threads, and has been. Short and inadequate answer: I don't believe in laws based on solely religious sources.
quote:I think the current system gives people a false sense of securty. If they were required to see to their own safety, they would be more vigelant.
In a small community that would work. When every product you consume is sold by a different company, one that has no connection to you beyond your next purchase, You would have to become omnivorous in your tracking of consumer reports and business news. What if the company you've come to trust was bought out and the new owners go for the quick buck? Do you know offhand whether or not you can build a deck with 2x10s twelve inches apart? What color is good veal?
I agree that too much regulation is bad for businese and the economy. I suggest that removing all regulations and allowing market forces to define "safe" would result in a less stable economy, as consumers would tend to panic more easily to rumors of unsafe foods and improperly-made materials. I know that if safety regulations were made entirely voluntary I would never again buy a new car made from that point on.
Is there a medium ground?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I don't believe in laws based on solely religious sources.
As an atheist, I point out to you that I do not believe my morality to be based on any religion, merely logic.
quote: Is there a medium ground?
I am certain that there is. As I said before, I don't claim to have all the answers or even all the questions. All I can do is operate on the ideas which I see as the best for our current situation.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Sleeping and mowing the lawn are also two fundementally different actions, why are there not two sets of laws governing these two actions?
I think it's in large part because there are no laws governing either action. No big ones, anyway. I think a better comparison would be something like, why are there two sets of laws covering murder and moving violations. Is there any reason they should be considered the same?
quote:I understand that there's a difference between producing and consuming. But by what right may we impose a different set of standards on producers than we do on consumers?
I don't think it has anything to do with rights. It has to do with the fact that it makes very little objective sense to use the same set of standards to judge two fundamentally different things. It's like comparing apples to 17th-century furniture.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I think a better comparison would be something like, why are there two sets of laws covering murder and moving violations. Is there any reason they should be considered the same?
Well, murder is the ultimate crime against personal property. A moving violation is an action which has not harmed anyone or anyone's property.
quote: I don't think it has anything to do with rights.
What then, is the basis of our laws?
quote: It has to do with the fact that it makes very little objective sense to use the same set of standards to judge two fundamentally different things.
Both consuming and producing are activities which the constitution gives me the right to undertake. By what right may the government treat my pursuit of happiness at work any differently that my pursuit of happiness at home?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I understand that there's a difference between producing and consuming. But by what right may we impose a different set of standards on producers than we do on consumers?
I apologize, but that may be the first actual stupid thing I've heard you say (as opposed to just saying something I disagree with).
We don't impose a different set of standards, we impose standards appropriate to the action, standards that make the person, producer or consumer, accountable and responsible for their actions.
Producers may not produce their goods in unsafe conditions or in manners that result in unsafe products, or they can be fined and/or imprisoned. Consumers must pay for what they consume with valid currency and may not steal products, or they can be fined and/or imprisoned.
[ January 23, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I don't think it has anything to do with rights. It has to do with the fact that it makes very little objective sense to use the same set of standards to judge two fundamentally different things.
The government exists solely to secure and maintain our rights. Activities outside that realm should not be allowed.
Comparing apples and 17th century furniture is not the government's job.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I apologize, but that may be the first actual stupid thing I've heard you say
Man, this thing is remaining relatively civil, but this kind of stuff can derail that in a hurry.
quote: Producers may not produce their goods in unsafe conditions or in manners that result in unsafe products, or they can be fined and/or imprisoned.
If a producer committs fraud, he/she should be punished according to the law.
quote: Consumers must pay for what they consume with valid currency and may not steal products, or they can be fined and/or imprisoned.
If the consumer committs fraud, he/she should be punished according to the law.
Why do we need an extra set of punative laws and regulations for the producer?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Both consuming and producing are activities which the constitution gives me the right to undertake. By what right may the government treat my pursuit of happiness at work any differently that my pursuit of happiness at home?
The pursuit of happiness is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. At no time in the history of the United States has the pursuit of happiness been a protected right. I also don't think the Constitution explicitly speaks about your right to produce or consume, but that's rather immaterial, as it'd be pretty much impossible to avoid doing either while living.
quote:Comparing apples and 17th century furniture is not the government's job.
Analogies are, if imperfect, still a widely used analytical tool.
quote:Why do we need an extra set of punative laws and regulations for the producer?
In order to function effectively, laws must be specific. Vague laws allow increased opportunity for people to take advantage of them and therefore infringe on the rights of others.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If you struck down all the punitive laws and regulations, how, exactly, would a producer know how to produce something of good quality?
You said peer review. What would they use? Records, manuals, lists of safe practices? If a producer did something unsafe and someone was hurt, would that unsafe practice get added to the laws on fraud? How would officials know it was fraud unless there was a list of unsafe practices to check against?
That list is the minimum amount of regulation necessary.
Or take that out, too. A producer makes a harmful product, they get sued by the consumer, they're out of business. Another producer comes along and does the same thing - since it's not written down anywhere - and someone gets hurt and sues and they're out of business, too. Gradually word might spread not to do that, but in the meantime people are being hurt that didn't have to be.
I apologize for "stupid." Ill-thought? Am I to take my life in my hands every time I try a new medicine, a new car?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If you struck down all the punitive laws and regulations, how, exactly, would a producer know how to produce something of good quality?
By their own expirience and expertise... Is the government the sole source or quality?
quote: Another producer comes along and does the same thing
It is in that producer's best interest to review such cases as are appropriate to their own products.
quote: Am I to take my life in my hands every time I try a new medicine, a new car?
Absolutely, just as you do right now. Are there any deaths as a result of the auto-industry making mistakes and producing unsafe cars? I would say, without a doubt. Since the auto industry is such a huge political mover and shaker, they get to bend the regulations in their favor. What incentive do people have to study the safety of their purchase when we have these regulations? Would this incentive not be there if the regulations went away, or would it increase?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The government exists solely to secure and maintain our rights."
The thing is, you have yet to back up this premise. Since you're operating FROM this premise, you're going to have to convince us of this tenet -- rather than trying to argue from your conclusion.
WHY should the government do nothing?
Posted by lauraah (Member # 1930) on :
I found this thread interesting and I thought I'd add my two cents. I greatly agree with much of what Robespierre has said.
In response to: "When every product you consume is sold by a different company, one that has no connection to you beyond your next purchase, You would have to become omnivorous in your tracking of consumer reports and business news. What if the company you've come to trust was bought out and the new owners go for the quick buck? Do you know offhand whether or not you can build a deck with 2x10s twelve inches apart? What color is good veal?"
I say, this isn't that different from the way it is now in lesser areas. For example, government regulations on video cameras are far less than on cars. And while cheap video cameras that don't work well and break easily are still produced, for the most part people find companies they can trust. People who want to buy a quality product do their homework. They spend 3 or 4 dollars on a copy of Consumer Reports or a similar magazine and find out which product will best suit their needs. Currently, these objective sources review the vast majority of products and would clearly become more popular and have an even greater breadth if there were no regulations. I argue that if government regulations were repealed, then people would not have to "become omnivorous in tracking", but instead would buy from companies with good reputations (which provides an incredible incentive for companies to maintain and create good reputations) and listen to objective sources about new products and companies.
This shifts the responsiblity of making sure there are quality products from the government to the consumer. If some consumers refuse to buy quality products and instead purchase the cheapest most defective product, this is a stupid choice, but it is their choice to make. The government should not exist to protect us from bad choices we could make for our own lives (as people in this boards seemed to agree with when concerning government regulation of eating healthy food), but to protect us from force and fraud from other people.
:-) Laura :-)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For example, government regulations on video cameras are far less than on cars..."
This is because a shoddy video camera will probably not kill you. If a shoddy video camera COULD kill you, I guarantee that there would be laws governing that situation.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's not enough for freedom to be protected; freedom must be promoted.
You can be liberated from any overarching powers, foreign and domestic, but still not be free. The homeless and the poor have liberty, but not too much freedom. The uneducated and inarticulate have liberty, but I don't think they are free. Freedom is inextricably tied to the ability to conduct public business: banks and government programs promote freedom by offering mortgages and assistance to individuals and small business. Schools promote freedom, not liberty, by helping the young citizens better prepare for public life. (btw, Robespierre, that's why "askance" is on the SAT while "hoopty" isn't.)
The government not only must protect individual liberty, but it must promote individual freedom, or else we'd all live in liberty and misery, beholden to the few who would own and control everything. This principle extents to the economic market. The virtue of a free market society resides on an easy entrance and exit into any one field in the market, the interested entreprenuer makes the free market viable. That's why the government dedicates so many resources to stave away monopolies or any corporate hegemony that would preclude the entrance of any competent individual, and furthermore, that's why the government goes out of the way the promote individual freedom and assist this entreprenuer into getting into that industry.
[ January 25, 2004, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Irami, nice post. You've pretty much summarized my own position as well as your own.
The mistake I see libertarians making is viewing the free-market system as a natural or hands-off economic order that needs to be protected in order for freedom to exist. In fact, no economic system is natural. By nature, consent and government oversight are required to impose any economic order: money must be printed, fraud and theft must be defined and punished, etc. Without these artificial, manmade institutions, not even the most laissez-faire system of trade can exist. So the question is not whether we will restrict the free market -- markets by definition must be restricted. The question is what sort of market we will construct for ourselves, with what sort of rewards and benefits. This is a matter of consensus, in this country and other democracies. People agree on which economic system will benefit the society best, and they elect leaders who will impose the economic order that they want. How could any system be freer than this?
[ January 25, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: WHY should the government do nothing?
Because it is not the government's job to baby-sit its citizens. Not only does such intervention run counter to what the founders of the government intended it to do, it is also immoral and limiting of liberty.
quote: The homeless and the poor have liberty, but not too much freedom.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Freedom of action, does not imply ease of action. I am free to purchase a $10 Million bar of gold, yet I would find this action difficult, as I do not currently have $10 Million.
Our government does not insure equal outcomes in life, nor should it ever attempt to. In order to make people "free" according to your definition, the government first has to limit the freedom of others by confiscating their property.
quote: banks and government programs promote freedom by offering mortgages and assistance to individuals and small business.
Banks offer mortgages and other loans to individuals and businesses to make a profit. They do not loan out money to promote your brand of freedom.
quote: beholden to the few who would own and control everything.
Capitalism is the only form of economics that prevents this from happening. In communism and socialism, you have a central government agency directing the entire economy, a few controlling the many. In facism, you have government agencies setting up a few industry leaders as state enforced monopolies.
In an open capitalist society, it is in the best interest of rich and poor alike that everyone be as rich and productive as is possible. This natural order can be disturbed by government meddling. When the government decides to support certain industries with subsidies and tariffs, it helps a few at the expense of the many.
quote: That's why the government dedicates so many resources to stave away monopolies
The only true monopolies are those enforced by the government. Labor Unions are a big example of a government backed monopoly.
quote: In fact, no economic system is natural.
Does being natural confer some legitimacy to something?
quote: People agree on which economic system will benefit the society best, and they elect leaders who will impose the economic order that they want. How could any system be freer than this?
The problem in this solution is that the people do not always make the most moral decision. If there were a vote right now, the american people might vote to ban abortion and make the US a christian democracy. The fact that people might vote to make those things happen, does not make them more legitimate. There must be a balance between fundamental rights and mob rule.
Lets look at government corruption. I think we can all agree that corporate influence in Washington is a major problem aflicting our country. Just what is at the root of this? What do corporations expect to get in return for massive campaign contributions, and what is the best way to stop this from happening?
I would say that corporations and groups that lobby washington with cash, are expecting government favor, tax incentives, price controls, import/export considerations, relaxing of regulations, etc. The common strain in all of these things which corporations are trying to purchase is government control on our liberties.
If there were not massive restrictions on electricity providers and energy companies, would Enron have been driving dumptruck loads of cash to washington? Companies are asking the government to step in and either lessen the restrictions on themselves or to restrict their competitors. Would the tobacco industry be showering washington with cash if they were not taxed and regulated to the point of serfdom?
If Washington were not in the business of restricting personal freedom as they are, companies would have no reason to corrupt them. Would the labor unions donate millions to political campaigns merely to support constitutionally protected liberties? I say, no. They only give to continue government support of their monopoly on labor.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Rob, doesn't your argument assume that there is already something seriously wrong with the corporations who are trying to bribe officials? If I stole some money from you, then tried to bribe the judge and jury to let me off the hook, would that demonstrate that there should be no law against theft because it causes bribes?
I actually agree with you that (some, not all) companies are overregulated and that the nation would benefit from removal of certain restrictions. But other restrictions are necessary, even if they cause problems.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Rob, doesn't your argument assume that there is already something seriously wrong with the corporations who are trying to bribe officials?
Personally, I think it does imply that those corporations who lobby washington to pass laws to restrict their competitors are wrong. However, they are acting within a system where the government is given the power to regulate them out of existence. I don't blame many of them for trying to lift the oppression of the government off their own backs.
In my view, the source of the problem is the immorality of the government control of private businesses. I won't tell you they should revolt or break the laws to change the system because I would rather see it done in a peaceful lawful way, with reason and morality at its core. However, the original problem that causes corruption, in my view, is the government control.
quote: If I stole some money from you, then tried to bribe the judge and jury to let me off the hook, would that demonstrate that there should be no law against theft because it causes bribes?
I am not saying that we should alter our morality in order to eliminate crime. The basis for my deeming the government control of industry as wrong is the moral of private property sovereignty. No matter what laws there are, it is not okay to steal from someone, remove their private property without their consent. I am not asking for murder to be declared legal to eliminate bribery or corruption in our courts. I am asking that legalized theft be made illegal once again. The basis of the government controls that companies are trying to alter with their corrupting money, is the problem.
I look at it as a similar issue to drugs. I don't believe that its the government's job to prevent people from smoking pot, shooting up with heroin, or drinking paint thinner. Yes, technically people who smoke pot are committing a crime, but I maintain that they have not done anything immoral. So when we have problems with drug related crime, crimes that result from drugs being outlawed, I see a problem that doesn't need to exist.
quote: But other restrictions are necessary, even if they cause problems.
Which ones are necessary? Where does the government gain the right to make such restrictions? The activities which the government may do are laid out in a specific way in the constitution.
[ January 25, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Does being natural confer some legitimacy to something?
Your position is that the particular economic system you support is the "free" one, which implies that this system is natural in the sense that it requires no restriction of liberty in order to implement it. This isn't how I see economics. Economics is an artificial system we create to serve various social goals.
To say that one economic system is "freer" than another is like saying that Go Fish is a freer card game than Bridge, because it has fewer rules. The language we use to talk about economics is deceptive, because it creates the perception that the Western market economy is more free than the Soviet planned economy was. In fact, both are socially constructed systems of rules that govern the exchange of possessions (and, indeed, define what it is for someone to possess something -- without some form of economics the very idea of property is nonsensical). The Western system works better and leads to greater prosperity than the Soviet system did, so in that sense the people living under market economics are freer than those living under Communism. But neither of these two economic systems is something to be protected in itself.
quote:Not only does such intervention run counter to what the founders of the government intended it to do, it is also immoral and limiting of liberty.
Jefferson and Madison et al were great people, I won't deny, but I must say I find it strange when people claim that a bunch of 18th-Century patriots knew all the solutions to the problems of 21st-Century government.
quote:This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Freedom of action, does not imply ease of action. I am free to purchase a $10 Million bar of gold, yet I would find this action difficult, as I do not currently have $10 Million.
The trouble here is that you're defining actions in a very nonintuitive way. Irami, as I see it, is saying that you are not free under our current economic system to take possession of the gold bar. Your position is that you are free to purchase it, since you could easily do so if you had $10 million. But purchasing is a socially constructed concept, and one that presumes an economic system in which private property exists and is protected. If you individuate actions this way, presuming a capitalist system or something close to it, of course capitalism will seem to be a freer system. But in fact, you are not free to take the gold bar, not unless you have $10 million, whereas if you were living in some tribe of African bushmen who lack a concept of ownership, you would be free to take the gold bar.
I feel like my explanation here includes a lot of philosophical jargon, so please feel free to ask for clarifications.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Because it is not the government's job to baby-sit its citizens. Not only does such intervention run counter to what the founders of the government intended it to do, it is also immoral and limiting of liberty."
Again, this is not a premise on which we are agreed. It is your conclusion.
Can you explain WHY this is the case, and why government intervention is always immoral?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Your position is that the particular economic system you support is the "free" one, which implies that this system is natural in the sense that it requires no restriction of liberty in order to implement it.
As far as I know, the most natural state is one of anarchy. I would put forth that anarchy is not really a free system in that the tyranny of unrestricted use of force supplants reason as the guiding force of the economy.
quote: Economics is an artificial system we create to serve various social goals.
I would argue that economics is any system(or lack thereof), naturally occuring or otherwise, of exchanging goods and services among individuals, corporations, and nations.
quote: To say that one economic system is "freer" than another is like saying that Go Fish is a freer card game than Bridge, because it has fewer rules.
If the individual cards were intelligent beings, I would agree with this statement.
I say that Laissez Faire capitalism is more free than communism because the individual's right to own private property is one of the bases of freedom. A communist government can claim that its people are free, but in reality their freedoms are limited. They may not choose to open a factory, as they have no property on which to do so, and no possible way to gain such property. In addition, the government controls all production and pricing, so individuals lack the freedom to compete with one another. The system of communism requires that individuals have little or no personal freedom.
quote: The language we use to talk about economics is deceptive, because it creates the perception that the Western market economy is more free than the Soviet planned economy was.
By what measure to you judge freedom? I like the measure of personal freedom, which the soviets clearly lacked.
quote: In fact, both are socially constructed systems of rules that govern the exchange of possessions
This fact does not make them equal. Christianity and shintoism are both socially constructed systems of rules, yet they are very different.
quote: without some form of economics the very idea of property is nonsensical
You are backwards on this. Our system of economics arose from the idea of property. Not t'other way round. I cannot trade something that I do not have.
quote: Western system works better and leads to greater prosperity than the Soviet system did,
Since you admitt this, I am curious to ask, why you think the western system worked better?
quote: But neither of these two economic systems is something to be protected in itself.
Thats kind of what the whole thread is about i guess. I believe that Laissez Faire economics is something to protect and to strive for, as it results in the most moral way for a group of humans to live in a society together.
quote: I must say I find it strange when people claim that a bunch of 18th-Century patriots knew all the solutions to the problems of 21st-Century government.
Perhaps you are thinking of someone else, I have not claimed that the forefathers had the solutions to all problems under the sun. When I speak of the constitution, I speak of the legal base of our society. Something which runs counter to the constitution is deemed to be illegal or unpermissable.
I do, however, happen to agree with them that less government means more liberty. I am also of the opinion that the most moral way to operate is one which allows the most personal freedom.
quote: The trouble here is that you're defining actions in a very nonintuitive way.
Please parse this out a bit.
quote: But purchasing is a socially constructed concept, and one that presumes an economic system in which private property exists and is protected.
I agree that purchasing is a socially constructed concept. I also agree that the concept of private property is a prerequisite to the concept of purchasing. What does this imply?
quote: If you individuate actions this way, presuming a capitalist system or something close to it, of course capitalism will seem to be a freer system.
I see that you are very clearly picking apart our social system, which is a good thing. Its important that we understand how all our mechanisms work and what they are predicated on.
quote: But in fact, you are not free to take the gold bar, not unless you have $10 million, whereas if you were living in some tribe of African bushmen who lack a concept of ownership, you would be free to take the gold bar.
I would say then that the bushmen are not as free as we are. If they lack the concept of ownership, they cannot have a free and profitable system of economics. I am fairly certain that the bushmen have no effective system of private property, and thus have little or no personal freedom.
This also goes quite well with my discussion on historical reasons to support capitalism. The bushmen have not even developed the concept of agriculture(as far as I know). They certainly would not be considered as having a high standard of life. They lack medicines, any understanding of weather, etc etc.
Would you suggest that their concept of reality, so far as property is concerned, is as free as, or as valid as ours? Should we consider the possibility that no one can own anything?
quote: I feel like my explanation here includes a lot of philosophical jargon, so please feel free to ask for clarifications.
Feel free to expound on anything you like, I am here to learn from you guys. I can think about this stuff all I want, but the true test comes in discussing it with other thoughtful and intelligent people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If they lack the concept of ownership, they cannot have a free and profitable system of economics."
I find this intriguing. Is it your position that freedom relies on a sense of personal property? That a truly altruistic society cannot, by definition, be a free one?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Can you explain WHY this is the case, and why government intervention is always immoral?
The fundamental moral basis of my belief is the inviolable right to own private property. When the government chooses to intervene, it must violate these rights.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: That a truly altruistic society cannot, by definition, be a free one?
I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean by an altruistic society?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I mean a society that literally has no concept of personal property.
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
They wouldn't be human
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, we have one claim that personal property is an essential component of freedom; we also have a second claim that personal property is an essential component of humanity. Is this true?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The fundamental moral basis of my belief is the inviolable right to own private property. When the government chooses to intervene, it must violate these rights.
Here, I think, is the fundamental difference between the broadly libertarian view of rights you support and the one that I believe in. According to you the primitive quantity of moral goodness, which must be preserved at all costs, is the rightful possession of private property. Moral wrong comes from violation of someone's right to ownership.
My view is that the fundamental moral right is the right to free action. What is wrong, other things being equal, is preventing someone from doing what he wants to do. It is much more complicated to create a system which protects the right to free action insofar as possible, because it is normally impossible to allow everyone to act perfectly freely. People have conflicting desires -- I want to play with the jump rope, and so does my brother. So the right way for people to live is to generate a society (composed of an economic system, a political system, and other institutions) which maximizes the extent to which people can act on their desires.
As I mentioned above, a good economic system is one way to foster freedom of action. People have a lot of desires which relate to objects. When goods are limited, a system in which people own property can prevent conflict while allowing people to make use of objects in the way that they want without a large amount of interference from others. There will still be some interference -- for example, my brother might tell me I can't play with his jump rope -- but overall the benefits may outweigh the costs, making such a system worthwhile for most people. This is why Western capitalism worked better than Soviet communism. But sometimes things get out of hand, and people end up with less money than they need to live. This is a moral evil. If someone is poor enough in a pure capitalist system, he doesn't even have the freedom to eat the food he needs to live. So under my definition of liberty as freedom of action, a welfare state can be conducive to freedom, removing a small amount of wealthy people's freedom to act in order to foster greater freedom for the very poor.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
By the way, Robespierre, I've been really impressed with your debating style. I felt like in the other thread where your economic views first came up, people were jumping on you for no good reason. Anyway, I'm very much enjoying this thread, which reminds me of a number of discussions I've had with my libertarian uncle.
[ January 26, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I mean a society that literally has no concept of personal property.
I would say that such a society would not be free, it would be in a state of anarchy.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Anyway, I'm very much enjoying this thread
I am enjoying it very much as well. Please excuse me for the evening though, I will respond to your posts tomorrow.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I wanted to throw some points in, but I feel a little chessy doing it, because I'm not going to get involved in the debate. I don't have the time.
The idea that property rights is the only fundamental purpose of government has come up quite a few times over the past 15 centuries or so. Each time, it's run into three fundamental problems.
1) There is no moral basis for the origins of property ownership. That is, the historical basis for ownership is either taking it by force or be bestowed it by authority, either divine or secular. Since the theoretical property-protecting governments only role is to prevent these specific cases of activities, it is inconsistent for them to defend property gained this way. Thus, most systems have incorporated a degree of the social contract (i.e. "Ok, starting now people can't obtain property by killing or stealing.") Otherwise, for example, no one in America could rightfully own anything, as it was almost all stolen from it's owners, who, most likely stole it from other people.
2) There is a class of activities that are either necessary or at least highly advantageous for a group of people to live that, for various reasons, individuals either can't or won't do. What these actually are differ from thinker to thinker, but their existence is never in doubt. One of the most common is providing for the common defense. In modern times, the classic example is a coherent system of roads and highways.
3) There is a class of goods that are can be classified only as common goods. The most fundamental of these is the air that people breathe. Impossible to own, it still needs to be of a certain level of quality for people to use. Another subset of this class is new types of things not traditionally owned. For example, contemporary law holds that radio and television frequencies belong collectively to the people.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I think I see where Rob is going...
In order to actually do anything, one needs something to do it with, a place to do it, and so on. Without these things, one is not free to act. In this sense, one could say that property and freedom are the same.
That what you mean, Rob?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: So, to clarify, we have one claim that personal property is an essential component of freedom
Yes. Personal property beginning with one's own body.
quote: we also have a second claim that personal property is an essential component of humanity.
This one, I don't know about. It may be possible to be a human, and have no concept of property. It would seem to me to be something that must inevitably come up in any gathering of homo sapiens, but I can't say for sure.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: According to you the primitive quantity of moral goodness, which must be preserved at all costs, is the rightful possession of private property. Moral wrong comes from violation of someone's right to ownership.
Sounds good to me.
quote: My view is that the fundamental moral right is the right to free action.
I certainly like the idea of free action. The only problem with making it the base of one's morality is how do you define its boundaries? You addressed this with your jump-rope example, but didn't really settle the issue.
The concept of private property must also include the free exercise of business relating to said property, so some of the free action concpet may have a place in the system I am advocating.
quote: But sometimes things get out of hand, and people end up with less money than they need to live. This is a moral evil
Who is committing the evil? Is it the person who doesn't have the money, or is it the collective group of people who do have money?
quote: If someone is poor enough in a pure capitalist system, he doesn't even have the freedom to eat the food he needs to live. So under my definition of liberty as freedom of action, a welfare state can be conducive to freedom, removing a small amount of wealthy people's freedom to act in order to foster greater freedom for the very poor.
You seem to imply that there is a certain level of poverty from which one can never escape. I disagree with this premise.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you disagree that there is a level of poverty that someone would not be able to escape before they starved or died in some other way?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: There is no moral basis for the origins of property ownership.
I think in our current society, in America, there is a moral basis to property ownership. The person from whom I purchased my house, was the lawful owner of that property. I offered this person what I deemed a fair price for his property, he concented, and we transacted the trade. I am the moral owner of my house.
quote: That is, the historical basis for ownership is either taking it by force or be bestowed it by authority, either divine or secular.
This can be the case, but in the example of America, these actions were taken many generations ago. I am not here to gloss over the crimes of the past. However, I am living in the present, where no one has a claim on my property but myself.
quote: One of the most common is providing for the common defense. In modern times, the classic example is a coherent system of roads and highways. ... There is a class of goods that are can be classified only as common goods.
I don't disagree with these points.
quote: In order to actually do anything, one needs something to do it with, a place to do it, and so on. Without these things, one is not free to act. In this sense, one could say that property and freedom are the same.
In a sense. I am free to do what I want with myself, eat whatever food I wish, pierce whatever flap of skin I wish, because my body is my own property. If it belonged to the congress of the united states, I would likely need their permission to eat certain foods, to smoke, etc.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Do you disagree that there is a level of poverty that someone would not be able to escape before they starved or died in some other way?
Yes, I disagree that in the United States there exists such a level. I think that it is possible for someone to own nothing but his own body, and still recover under his/her own power.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think that it is possible for someone to own nothing but his own body, and still recover under his/her own power."
I agree that it is theoretically possible. Of course, enough people -- even in our society -- still die of starvation and other poverty-related ills every year that this implies it's not necessarily EASY for people.
So the next question is this: how many deaths do we have to suffer before the cost of this "opportunity" exceeds its benefit? As long as it's possible for, say, a single person to rise above his circumstances, do we sentence hundreds or thousands of others to misery while telling them that it's for their good?
This is why I generally describe Ayn Randers as the kind of people who'll step over the starving but tell them to "buck up" and "work harder;" it becomes necessary to ignore the plight of those who cannot or will not improve themselves, which inevitably requires someone to turn a blind eye to his own communal humanity.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
As a side note, I would like to point out that the book that OSC refers to in his "OSC Reviews Everything" column: " FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression " is a worth while read. I agree with OSC's criticism that Powel's what-if propositions are no better supported than those of others. However, as someone with a limited understanding of the nation at tha time, being that I am not 80 years old, this book did a good job at explaining just what was driving the population and the president himself.
Powel clearly disagrees with the policy decisions of FDR. However, I think he provides enough information to support his many and varied claims that FDR's programs did nothing to improve the economy, and in fact, kept any real recovery from happening.
Anyways, I'm just glad that OSC mentioned the book, its something that everyone should read, especially those of you involved in this discussion.
[ January 26, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Of course, enough people -- even in our society -- still die of starvation and other poverty-related ills every year that this implies it's not necessarily EASY for people.
How many people die of starvation each year, in the United States? I honestly don't know, and am interested in finding out.
quote: As long as it's possible for, say, a single person to rise above his circumstances, do we sentence hundreds or thousands of others to misery while telling them that it's for their good?
Here's the problem. You have returned to the previous argument that those with my view point don't care enough. As per your claim, people are currently starving to death in the united states. How can this be when we have such programs as welfare, social security, medicare, etc etc?
The problem is not one of caring. If caring could solve the problem, it would no longer be an issue. The problem is one of results. Which system offers the best results for the poor and sick. I would suggest that the current set of entitlements are a dismal failure.
We disagree on how to solve the problem. I say that the increase in economic activity and private charity will improve the state of the poor in the US much better than increased tax burden and redistribution of wealth.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
But how can anyone spend time giving time or money to a charity when they are too busy researching what THEY need to do to keep from being taken advantage of by "The Market"?
Despite you saying so, you haven't made a compelling choice that people won't be neglectful of altruistic causes, and one could make the case that you have implicitly made the argument that they will, by arguing that a fundamentally selfish concept, personal private property, ought to be the sole basis of the government.
Which isn't to say that self-interest isn't a fundamental instinct in humans. I'd agree, but go one step further and say it isn't the only one, and that humans are also a communitarian species, and have some fundamental instincts in that direction too. What you propose is to hang all of our society, legalistically, politically, economically on the frame of one of these instincts, which will lead to more consequences than you have been willing to admit in this discussion, I think.
Human beings need some mixture of authority and liberty. Thinkers and idealists tend not to think that way because it is hard to abstract out and keep clean. I mean look at Kant, he actually tried to devise a metaphysical framework that explains limits of humanity (mostly in the realms of knowledge), and it was so dense and confusing (not to mention took at least a decade of writing) that he actually wrote his own "Cliff Notes" (the Prolegomena (sp)) to his system.
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But how can anyone spend time giving time or money to a charity when they are too busy researching what THEY need to do to keep from being taken advantage of by "The Market"?
"The Market" is not an entity that can take advantage of someone or any other such action. The market is a conglomeration of human activity. It cannot decide to take advantage of someone, only an individual can do that. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "take advantage", keeping in mind that I do not advocate anarchy.
However, the government, can and does take advantage of people. It can decide to punish those who make money in the stock market, or say, those who use imported steel.
quote: I'd agree, but go one step further and say it isn't the only one, and that humans are also a communitarian species, and have some fundamental instincts in that direction too.
The argument I make for personal property rights is not one that is based on some sense of what is natural and what is not. As I have stated, the natural state of affairs for people would seem to be anarchy. Stating that something is a fundamental instinct does not make it moral or even the best solution to a problem. If I see a man harrassing my girlfriend, my natural instinct is to break his neck. However, this is not acceptible in a civilized society or moral by any reasonable standard.
quote: which will lead to more consequences than you have been willing to admit in this discussion, I think.
I am willing to admitt any consequences which may arrise due to the policies which I advocate. Please present some examples. As stated before, I do not claim to have all the answers, only my personal belief on what is moral, and how to best implement that morality.
quote: Human beings need some mixture of authority and liberty.
I agree. However, we disagree on what size and scope that authority should be. The government should not be an antedote to the economic failure of an individual. If we never let businesses or businessmen fail, we will all eventually fail. This isn't to say we want those who fail to die, this merely says that we do a dis-service to the rest when we artificially support those who have failed.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Who is committing the evil? Is it the person who doesn't have the money, or is it the collective group of people who do have money?
I would say that anyone who makes a decision which contributes to the bad situation or does not prevent it is partially culpable. This is not to say that you're a bad person if, for instance, you don't give a beggar a handout. At most there is a very small amount of moral culpability there, and in fact there may be none, since you may be doing a small amount of good by not supporting the practice of street begging (if it does, as some people say, lead to social harm).
But like you said, it is hard to iron out the freedom of action principle in a precise way so that it can be applied to real-life situations. Still, it seems like the right principle to me, and I think we can do a better job of fulfilling it in some situations, especially by giving the poor some extra upward mobility.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I think we can do a better job of fulfilling it in some situations, especially by giving the poor some extra upward mobility.
The means with which we do this is important. I maintain that it can be done without government interferance. Those that wish to help, be they motivated by religious belief or pure altruism, are allowed to. Those that choose not to donate money to charity are not forced to. I have a fairly high opinion of the citizens of the United States. I don't think the poor will be worse off in the hands of private charity.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rob, the thing is, there were plenty of charities, and a much freer market pre-Great Society/New Deal, and there were as many, or more poor people.
As for "taking advantage", subjectively speaking, if you don't do due diligence in your ideal system, the other "partner" in the exchange is free, and perhaps even morally obliged, to take as much advantage of you as possible. I mean, it happens even today, in the car market, for instance. Have this happen to you enough, and you will be fairly impoverished quickly. So, obviously, the defense is to put effort into avoiding being caught flat-footed. This effort, on the other hand, is time/money/energy that cannot be spent helping private charities.
--- If you don't care where this right of private property stems from, are you assuming it a priori? If so, we will NEVER be able to change your mind. It is an assumption, not a policy. Where does this morality of private policy stem from, if I may ask?
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: and there were as many, or more poor people.
Please show this with numbers.
quote: If you don't care where this right of private property stems from
I have already covered this issue. If you are willing to suggest that all of the land in the United States today cannot be considered as morally owned by anyone, I would ask you how we would conduct our lives. How far in the past are we to look for injustice in the conduct of our government? Most of the world consists of property that was once conquered in some war or another. Most likely even the Native Americans fought amongst themselves over land and its usage. Does this make all land ownership in the US and much of the world immoral?
quote: Where does this morality of private policy stem from, if I may ask?
It comes from my belief that personal liberty in the confines of a legal system is the most moral way to conduct society. The reason it is the most moral way, in my opinion, is that it places the most resposibility on the individual and creates the best possible environment for advancing reason. Perhaps I have not answered this question to your liking, but I am still working it out myself. If you have any more specifc questions, ask away.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The reason it is the most moral way, in my opinion, is that it places the most resposibility on the individual and creates the best possible environment for advancing reason."
But, again, this is a premise of yours, not a conclusion. Can you demonstrate this to be the case, or are you just hoping?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Can you demonstrate this to be the case
I'm not sure what form you would like to see such a demonstration take. Would a historical corrolation of personal and economic freedom with wealth and quality of life be sufficient?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Only if you'll agree that wealth has increased in the last 50 years since the New Deal, which would kind of invalidate the whole point of the argument. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Only if you'll agree that wealth has increased in the last 50 years since the New Deal, which would kind of invalidate the whole point of the argument.
Of course I would agree that wealth has increased despite the New Deal and Johnson's War on Poverty. Are you claiming that the New Deal had any part in creating that wealth?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the issue, though: if you're going to claim that the New Deal did NOT have a part in creating that wealth, I don't see how you're going to successfully argue that an increase in freedom over any given historical period DID increase wealth. Surely, if factors other than the New Deal -- i.e. freedom -- affected wealth dramatically during this period, those same factors can affect wealth in other periods.
It would appear to make proving a correlation difficult.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I don't see how you're going to successfully argue that an increase in freedom over any given historical period DID increase wealth.
I think the United States is a good example of that. Look at pre-revolution growth and trade, then compare to that 10, 20 and 100 years after the revolution and a significant increase in economic freedom.
quote: Surely, if factors other than the New Deal -- i.e. freedom -- affected wealth dramatically during this period, those same factors can affect wealth in other periods.
The New Deal certainly decreased the overall amount of freedom. However, since the USA had a large amount of freedom to begin with, we were still able to grow, despite the effects of the New Deal. You seem to argue that since the New Deal decreased freedom, it proves that freedom had no part in the growth of the United States.
Lets take a look at New Deal policies played out to their extreme, the Soviet Economy. The extreme lack of freedom caused technological stagnation and an economic disconnect from the rest of the world. The same can be seen in Maoist China, Communist Eastern Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Dan_Raven, you once told me to ask you about your thoughts on "radical capitalism" or some such phrase. If you recall what I am talking about, hook me up. I want to hear about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You seem to argue that since the New Deal decreased freedom, it proves that freedom had no part in the growth of the United States."
Here's the deal, though: the growth of wealth in the United States accelerated rapidly following the New Deal -- at a time when you argue that freedom was decreased. What other factors accounted for this acceleration, then, despite the loss of freedom?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: What other factors accounted for this acceleration, then, despite the loss of freedom?
The increase in population, productivity, capital investment per worker going up, scientific advancement, and release of WWII rationing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So how many of those factors are necessary in order to counteract -- and overcompensate for -- a loss of freedom?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Perhaps if you could provide more than 1 or 2 line responses, and tell me just what point of view you are arguing from, we could make some headway here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, you'll probably never get more than a two or three line response from me. I don't discuss that way, because long-winded responses frankly make my eyes glaze over.
That said, I'm hoping to demonstrate to you that your claimed correlation between freedom and wealth is not necessary a one-to-one issue, and that a society can exist with considerably less liberty than your ideal and still increase in wealth.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Like ancient Egypt!
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Freedom doesn't have to be the only way to achieve wealth for me to be correct. I am saying that Laissez-Faire Capitalism yields the best and most moral system for growing wealth and reason.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
See, you keep saying that, without providing any justification. Which is fine, but it really just makes it your own opinion (which is shared with many others). Likewise, your statements that ultimately private organizations would step in and be more effective is not a fact, it's projection. I could see how it may follow, but I could see how it may not follow.
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I think a good example is the Southern USA before the civil war. Compare the relative wealth of the south with that of the north, the level of industrialization, etc were all higher in the north. The existance of slave labor in the south meant that there were little or no opportunities for low skilled but independent persons to work. Their entire economy was hampered by dependency on slaves.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: without providing any justification
What kind of justification would satisfy you?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Honestly? I don't know. You keep responding with the morality of private property being "best" and "most moral", and I just don't see it. I could see it as more efficient in many areas, and it is certainly elegant from my intellectual POV, but that's it. It doesn't seem moral to me. But I've always had (one might say an unhealthy) ambivialence to "stuff".
Maybe I should bow out.
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Maybe I should bow out.
No way man, if my ideas don't add up, I want to know, and to know why.
Here's something interesting I have found. The Index of Economic Freedom, 2004 . This is a report published by the Heritage Foundation, obviously a conservative source. I cannot get my hands directly on the report itself, as it costs $17 and all. However, this article in the New Republic Online is an interesting peek into the statistics held there-in.
quote: From the article above mentioned: Among countries dubbed "Repressed," the Index found average per-capita income in 2001 at $3,316. For "Mostly Unfree" states, the equivalent figure was $3,535. Per-capita incomes rocketed to $13,027 for "Mostly Free" nations, then nearly doubled to $26,036 for the 16 countries the Index calls "Free."
And by "free" they refer to economic freedom.
quote: Also from the article: The Index rates economic, not political, freedom. Thus, for instance, laissez-faire Hong Kong fares spectacularly even though its Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, is Beijing's unelected stooge.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It's just that we have different assumptions, that we aren't really going to be able to argue effectively, I think, because we accept them almost without thinking at this point (not that you didn't arrive at it without thinking, mind you).
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Another option, Robespierre: that wealthy nations have the luxury of freedom.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: wealthy nations have the luxury of freedom.
How do you propose they got wealthy to begin with?
Thanks for spelling my name correctly, BTW.
[ January 26, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exploiting people, causing many many deaths along the way, both directly and indirectly.
I don't think wealth is the single most important goal for a nation.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject lately. Here is one of the articles I have come across, which I would say does a good job in advocating Laissez Faire economics .
quote: Laissez Faire VS Interventionism by Ludwig Von Mises
In eighteenth-century France the saying laissez faire, laissez passer was the formula into which some of the champions of the cause of liberty compressed their program. Their aim was the establishment of the unhampered market society. In order to attain this end they advocated the abolition of all laws preventing more industrious and more efficient people from outdoing less industrious and less efficient competitors and restricting the mobility of commodities and of men. It was this that the famous maxim was designed to express.
In our age of passionate longing for government omnipotence the formula laissez faire is in disrepute. Public opinion now considers it a manifestation both of moral depravity and of the utmost ignorance.
As the interventionist sees things, the alternative is "automatic forces" or "conscious planning." It is obvious, he implies, that to rely upon automatic processes is sheer stupidity. No reasonable man can seriously recommend doing nothing and letting things go as they do without interference on the part of purposive action. A plan, by the very fact that it is a display of conscious action, is incomparably superior to the absence of any planning. Laissez faire is said to mean: Let the evils last, do not try to improve the lot of mankind by reasonable action.
This is utterly fallacious talk. The argument advanced for planning is entirely derived from an impermissible interpretation of a metaphor. It has no foundation other than the connotations implied in the term "automatic" which it is customary to apply in a metaphorical sense for the description of the market process. Automatic, says the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means "unconscious, unintelligent, merely mechanical." Automatic, says Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, means "not subject to the control of the will, ... performed without active thought and without conscious intention or direction." What a triumph for the champion of planning to play this trump card!
The truth is that the alternative is not between a dead mechanism or a rigid automatism on one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.
Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion.
Under laissez faire, says the planner, it is not those goods which people "really" need that are produced, but those goods from the sale of which the highest returns are expected. It is the objective of planning to direct production toward the satisfaction of the "true" needs. But who is to decide what the "true" needs are?
Thus, for instance, Professor Harold Laski, the former chairman of the British Labor Party, would determine as the objective of the planned direction of investment "that the use of the investor's savings will be in housing rather than in cinemas." It is beside the point whether or not one agrees with the professor's view that better houses are more important than moving pictures. It is a fact that the consumers, in spending part of their money for admission to the movies, have made another choice. If the masses of Great Britain, the same people whose votes swept the Labor Party into power, were to stop patronizing the moving pictures and to spend more for comfortable homes and apartments, profit-seeking business would be forced to invest more in building homes and apartment houses and less in the production of expensive pictures. It was Mr. Laski's desire to defy the wishes of the consumers and to substitute his own will for that of the consumers. He wanted to do away with the democracy of the market and to establish the absolute rule of the production tsar. Perhaps he believed that he was right from a higher point of view, and that as a superman he was called upon to impose his own valuations on the masses of inferior men. But then he ought to have been frank enough to say so plainly.
All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionist's self-deification. The great god State is a great god only because it is expected to do exclusively what the individual advocate of interventionism wants to see achieved. Only that plan is genuine which the individual planner fully approves. All other plans are simply counterfeit. In saying "plan" what the author of a book on the benefits of planning has in mind is, of course, his own plan alone. He does not take into account the possibility that the plan which the government puts into practice may differ from his own plan. The various planners agree only with regard to their rejection of laissez faire, i.e., the individuals' discretion to choose and to act. They entirely disagree with regard to the choice of the unique plan to be adopted. To every exposure of the manifest and incontestable defects of interventionist policies the champions of interventionism react in the same way. These faults, they say, were the results of spurious interventionism; what we are advocating is good interventionism, not bad interventionism. And, of course, good interventionism is the professor's own brand.
Laissez faire means: Let the individual choose and act; do not force him to yield to a dictator.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
quote:Exploiting people, causing many many deaths along the way, both directly and indirectly.
If it has not been established that increased economic freedom causes wealth, that is doubly true for the idea that exploitation causes wealth. Look at Stalin's 5 year plan or Mao's Great Leap Forward. They are both some of the most exploitive policies ever, and yet they failed to significantly enrich their respective states. (I personally find Stalin's plans ironic, in a grim way, simply because he did explicitly what Marxists have been accusing capitalists of doing.) Beyond that, I haven't read any good theory about how expoitation will make a nation wealthy. It may make a particular person wealthy, but that is a very different thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Did I say it caused wealth? No, it was just what happened. Without the exploitation there would not have been nearly as much wealth.
History doesn't change to fit theoreticals, as much as some people would like it to.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:How many people die of starvation each year, in the United States? I honestly don't know, and am interested in finding out.
Robespierre, this doesn't directly address your question, but it may give you a rough idea of where to go:
I think -- though I am far from sure -- that the majority of people dying of starvation in the US are children (and even moreso) nursing home or other extended care facility residents (i.e., the eldery and/or those persons with quite disabling conditions). It seems that those unable to access structured (government/charity) assistance as well as those with little power are most vulnerable.
quote:The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all?
We allow a benevolent government to "plan" whether we engage in street-fighting, whether we commit murder or rape. That's because these are forms of behavior that risk death or harm to others. Death and harm are also at risk in economic activity. Why the double standard?
Edit to mention that I am accepting Robes's invitation to restart this thread.
[ February 16, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Right on! Sorry I didn't notice this sooner.
quote: We allow a benevolent government to "plan" whether we engage in street-fighting, whether we commit murder or rape. That's because these are forms of behavior that risk death or harm to others. Death and harm are also at risk in economic activity.
Government's sole interest should be preserving private property rights. A government cannot protect these rights by confiscating private property, that goes against its fundamental mission.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Government's sole interest should be preserving private property rights."
I see no way to prevent a government with this stated goal from being fully owned by those with the most property within mere decades. How would you do it?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I disagree, Robespierre. I just sat in front of my keyboard for ten minutes trying to come up with an articulated response, but it's just not cohesive enough to cover all these topics. In short, I think freedom is great, but man, I get the willies when I think of unregulated markets.
Edit to add: I want to hear the answer to TomD's question. How would you craft such a system? What rules would it be based on? Specifics, please.
[ February 16, 2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Tstorm ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I see no way to prevent a government with this stated goal from being fully owned by those with the most property within mere decades. How would you do it?
I can't say, exactly. Our current government started off good, but when people figured out that they could vote themselves benefits at the expense of others, they quickly did.
I am not sure how to enforce such principles as are enumerated in the US constitution. As we all can see, they are almost completely ignored. Perhaps a smaller land area is required for such a government, I really don't know the answer.
quote: What rules would it be based on? Specifics, please.
A good start, as stated above, would be the US constitution, and vigorous enforcment. Perhaps the system of checks and balances has become too skewed too properly protect our private property rights.
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
I like the idea of each citizen deciding for themselves the direction in which they should move, rather than having it chosen for them by the government. But I also think that government by the people and for the people is necessary in some cases. Individuals can only do so much. Sometimes the concerted action of thousands or millions is necessary to achieve goals that are important to everyone in the society. How would these goals be treated in a society where the sole function of the State is to protect private property rights?
[ February 16, 2004, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: TimeTim ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Sometimes the concerted action of thousands or millions is necessary to achieve goals that are important to everyone in the society.
The problem is one of the greater good. Who decides what the greater good is? Should it be found by a majority vote? Inevitably there comes a situation where we are told that something is to be accepted at the cost of personal freedom, for the greater good. My only response to such a generality, is :
Who decides what is important to everyone in the society?
What if 10% of the people don't agree?
What if .01% don't agree?
quote: How would these goals be treated in a society where the sole function of the State is to protect private property rights?
What is an example of a goal that requires everyone in society to loose some portion of their rights to private property(however small)?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Dan_Raven, do you, or mod, have the ability to fix the spelling of my name in the title of this thread? If so, it would be much appreciated.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
It would seem that the Pope is also firmly in my camp on this issue.
quote: From the article On the question of ethics, John Paul II indicates the social context of the entrepreneurialism. The individual, the entrepreneur, satisfies societal needs. Building on that, the free market is the most effective way to use society's resources. In Centesimus Annus, the Pope refers to it either as business economy, market economy or free economy. The free market, he writes, is the best way to promote the welfare of families. But the Pope also criticizes materialism and consumerism - alien values to Christianity. He argues that profit is not the only economic goal. Company growth is the primary indicator of good business conditions, he says, but the human individual should be the most important element in economic activity.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I like the idea of each citizen deciding for themselves the direction in which they should move, rather than having it chosen for them by the government.
Earlier in this thread I argued that individual freedom of choice and property rights are quite distinct. In fact, I don't think protecting property rights is always the best way to protect freedom of choice.
If a government enforces the rules of a market system (legal tender currency, absolute possession with no provisions for taking property from citizens, anti-fraud regulations) it is limiting the decisions available to its citizens. Everyone, especially the poor, loses some amount of freedom by being forced to conform to the rules of the market.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: limiting the decisions available to its citizens.
Society is forced to restrict some actions. Theft is one of those actions. A society will not survive without some protection of private property.
Going the rout of private property seems to me, to be the least repugnant way to group people. It requires that no one do harm to others or their property. Anything more than that, limits the freedom of the individual. What other guiding principle would you propose to base a society off of?
quote: ...rules of a market system (legal tender currency, absolute possession with no provisions for taking property from citizens, anti-fraud regulations)
What do you mean by legal tender? I am totally against the use of Fiat money and Fractional Reserve banking. A Central Bank is no more desirable than any other centrally controlled sector of the economy.
quote: forced to conform to the rules of the market.
What rules? The only one I can think of is no more a rule than gravity is, is the law of supply and demand. No matter what a government wants to do to try and get around it, the law of supply and demand will not be cheated.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hm, I typed in a response on this thread yesterday, but it seems not to have been recorded. Here we go again...
quote:Going the rout of private property seems to me, to be the least repugnant way to group people. It requires that no one do harm to others or their property. Anything more than that, limits the freedom of the individual.
Or rather, anything more than that limits the freedom of the individual to own property. I'm not particularly worried about this freedom, which I believe is socially constructed anyway. I'm more concerned with the freedom of the individual to do what he wants with his life.
quote:What other guiding principle would you propose to base a society off of?
Part of our disagreement is that I don't believe we can give a one-sentence, catch-all description of a government's proper function. I do believe that we can give a simple description of the ethical principle govt should be based on: Protect individual freedom of choice, insofar as possible.
quote:What rules? The only one I can think of is no more a rule than gravity is, is the law of supply and demand.
Supply and demand is (obviously, I think) less of a fundamental law than gravity. The "law" of supply and demand applies only to those societies which accept the convention of private possession.
And besides, there are plenty of other rules in the market besides supply and demand. For instance, the rule that you can't consume or make use of any objects which don't "belong to you."
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Protect individual freedom of choice, insofar as possible.
I agree with this goal. I believe that the concept of private property allows the most possible freedom while restricting the initiation of force. Obviously anarchy allows the most "freedom of choice", yet the results of this system are obvious, and I would say not to be strived for.
quote: The "law" of supply and demand applies only to those societies which accept the convention of private possession.
This is not true. Consider an example. Suppose an African nomadic goat herding tribe has no concept of possession(which I find very hard to believe). Then consider a situation of scarcity. Say they find a bottle of soda which was fallen from an airplane(I know, its from the movie). When one of these tribesmen find the bottle and shows it to his friends, perhaps even tasting it and allowing the others to taste, we have a situation when a resource, the soda, is scarce.
How is the problem to be solved? The tribesman who wants this soda the most will likely take it and attempt to drink it. If another claims the soda, they are likely to fight over the soda. Yet if there were a crate of 10,000 bottles of soda, you can assume that the conflict over soda would be rare, as each tribesman would drink what he/she pleases.
Thus the law of supply and demand exists, although it is acted out in different ways. The whole concept of evolution is one huge consequence of supply and demand.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I believe that the concept of private property allows the most possible freedom while restricting the initiation of force.
So your primary moral goal is to restrict the initiation of force. Why is that more fundamental than free choice?
I also see a difficulty in defining what it is to use force on someone. Thievery, if done carefully, doesn't exactly match that description. And I would argue that in many situations normal economic activity amounts to the use of force. Contracts bring others under your power to varying degrees. If someone has no option but to sign a contract -- for instance, if he will be unable to buy food without a loan -- you can exert force on him by dictating the terms of the contract. It's the same as if you were threatening him with a gun. Either way, the consequence of disobeying you is death.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Why is that more fundamental than free choice?
I don't think one can have freedom of choice without protection from random usage of force.
quote: Contracts bring others under your power to varying degrees.
This idea is a big problem facing us right now. The concept that one can somehow be a victim of business, while having entered into a contract knowing all its consequences, is absurd.
quote: If someone has no option but to sign a contract -- for instance, if he will be unable to buy food without a loan -- you can exert force on him by dictating the terms of the contract.
The situation which might require such actions is the responsibility of the person who needs food. By your logic, if a store were very close to going bankrupt, and you chose to go to another store because they had a bigger selection, you are responsible for that store's failure. It is clear that in that situation and the previous that the entity which finds itself backed against the wall is the one with the responsibility to fix that situation.
quote: It's the same as if you were threatening him with a gun.
So you value freedom of choice? Does this include the choice to not do business with someone, even if it means that said person will be worse off because of it?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don't think one can have freedom of choice without protection from random usage of force.
But we're not talking about random usage of force, we're talking about directed, controlled, law-governed use of force to transfer wealth.
quote:This idea is a big problem facing us right now. The concept that one can somehow be a victim of business, while having entered into a contract knowing all its consequences, is absurd.
Don't just say it's absurd, prove it.
What's the disanalogy between the contract and other situations in which you set down harmful consequences for others? I might say to you, "If you walk out that door I'll shoot you." You know all the consequences your action will have, and you can choose to go out the door or not, but I have still infringed on your freedom.
quote:The situation which might require such actions is the responsibility of the person who needs food.
I can think up examples in which it is not their responsibility, e.g. if everything they own was destroyed by a random lightning strike, but who cares? We're not talking about responsibility, we're talking about freedom. If you think responsibility is the most morally important notion, don't pretend that freedom is your ultimate goal.
Suppose the starving guy wasted all his money on drugs. Who cares? He's still freer if he has the food he needs to live.
quote:Does this include the choice to not do business with someone, even if it means that said person will be worse off because of it?
Sure, I value that freedom. I also value the freedom of the other person to choose to do business with you, and more broadly speaking to better his own life. When a conflict comes up between your freedom and his, a compromise is needed, rather than allowing your freedom to trump his because of economic conventions.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But we're not talking about random usage of force, we're talking about directed, controlled, law-governed use of force to transfer wealth.
Which I would think is clear by now that I do not sanction.
quote: prove it.
Entering into a contract must be voluntary. If its not by choice, its not a contract. And I mean literally. I don't accept that if someone is starving in the street and they want a loan, that they are "forced" into that contract. They still have a choice, no matter how bleak the options, which no one has imposed on them.
However, you holding a gun to my head and telling me not to leave the room imposes your choice on me. That is an act of coercion.
quote: We're not talking about responsibility, we're talking about freedom. If you think responsibility is the most morally important notion, don't pretend that freedom is your ultimate goal.
This is not logical. The very concept of freedom implys responsibility. Not in the form of the expectations of others, but in the form of ultimate answerability of one's own actions. If you have the freedom to do as you please, it is not my responsibility to consider your well being when I transact my business. With freedom comes responsibility for one's self. They are co-dependent. Without responsibility for one's own actions, one has not freedom.
quote: Suppose the starving guy wasted all his money on drugs. Who cares? He's still freer if he has the food he needs to live.
But feeding himself is his OWN responsibility. Once you demand that someone else take care of him, you restrict that other person's freedom, and remove responsibility from the bum to the person who fed him.
quote: When a conflict comes up between your freedom and his, a compromise is needed, rather than allowing your freedom to trump his because of economic conventions.
If people are free to enter into contracts as they please, how could someone's freedom ever be placed at a premium above someone else's?
You seem to want freedom of action and freedom from the consequences of those actions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:However, you holding a gun to my head and telling me not to leave the room imposes your choice on me. That is an act of coercion.
No more so than the example of the starving debtor. In both cases you have only one option if you want to live. How could you be freer in the starvation case than you are in the gun-to-the-head case, if the consequences of your actions are exactly the same?
Let me expand on this example a bit. Suppose I have a contract that I want you to sign. Let me go through three ways I could compel you to sign it:
1. I hold a gun to your head and say, "Sign it or I pull the trigger." Your choice: sign or die.
2. I find you hanging over the edge of a canyon by one hand. I say, "Sign the contract and I'll help you up." Your choice: sign or die.
3. I find you starving on a street with no one else around. I say, "Sign the contract and I'll give you some food." Your choice: sign or die.
How could it be that you're any freer in case 2 or 3 than you are in case 1? Your options are exactly the same. In all three cases, you are under my power.
quote:This is not logical. The very concept of freedom implys responsibility. Not in the form of the expectations of others, but in the form of ultimate answerability of one's own actions.
Not so. If I am under a contract to you -- say I have agreed to work 6 hours a day -- I am less free than I would be if the contract didn't exist. My responsibility to you limits my options to do what I want with my time.
The only way for an action to be truly free is if it has no unintended consequences. This is why we view the gun-to-the-head example as coercion: the consequences of your act are being dictated to you by others.
Think about it. What actions am I not free to take in our society right now? I'm not free to steal. Why? Because stealing has the government-imposed consequence that I will be fined or put in jail. I'm not free to murder someone. Why? Because murder has the government-imposed consequence of life in prison. We are free to do something if we will not be punished for doing it. Freedom just is freedom from consequences.
quote:If people are free to enter into contracts as they please, how could someone's freedom ever be placed at a premium above someone else's?
People are not free to enter into contracts as they please. If you need to mortgage your house in order to pay for your meals, you are not free to opt out of the mortgage. You have no other option.
quote:You seem to want freedom of action and freedom from the consequences of those actions.
I would go further than that and say that you are completely free to take an action only if that action has no bad consequences. So freedom to act is nothing more than freedom from consequences.
[ February 19, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If you need to mortgage your house in order to pay for your meals, you are not free to opt out of the mortgage. You have no other option.
Man, you are way off the reservation here. You need to lay down the ground work to what it is that you base this concept of freedom on, and why it is contingent on the charity of others. Please explain how someone's failure to provide for themselves, gives them a right to claim the wealth of another. Please explain how the transfer of wealth to those who did not generate it can happen in a free society.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I would go further than that and say that you are completely free to take an action only if that action has no bad consequences.
Bad to who? To the person taking the action? Who is to decide what is bad? This is very shakey ground here, which requires the subject to have perfect knowledge of all consequences.
I have no desire to protect people from the consequences of their actions, this is a sure fire way of destroying civilization.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:You need to lay down the ground work to what it is that you base this concept of freedom on, and why it is contingent on the charity of others.
I think I have laid the groundwork for my view, as anyone reading this thread can plainly see. Freedom is the ability to do what you want, to take what actions you wish to take. If you desire to go to Wisconsin, freedom is the ability to go to Wisconsin; if you desire a cupcake, freedom is the opportunity to eat a cupcake.
quote:Please explain how someone's failure to provide for themselves, gives them a right to claim the wealth of another.
I don't see wealth as something important or worthy of protection, not compared with opportunities for people to act freely. Of course, given the way our society is set up, wealth is very much requisite for freedom to act, so I would consider the destruction of wealth to be wrong. Too much redistribution of wealth can lead to the destruction of wealth, and so I am against an excessive (e.g. USSR) or poorly run (e.g. USA) welfare state.
quote:Please explain how the transfer of wealth to those who did not generate it can happen in a free society.
There's no such thing as a purely free society; every society involves compromise unless either there is no scarcity or all of the people have compatible desires. But I would certainly say that one society can be freer than another, if its citizens have more opportunities to act as they please. I society with transfer of wealth can be freer than a pure capitalist society if the capitalist society contains many people who have few opportunities to make lifestyle choices because of their poverty, while most people in the welfare state have enough money to do what they want.
quote:Bad to who? To the person taking the action? Who is to decide what is bad?
I would define a "bad" consequence as a consequence that would dissuade you from taking the action. A consideration that would prevent you from doing something that you would otherwise want to do.
quote:I have no desire to protect people from the consequences of their actions, this is a sure fire way of destroying civilization.
So you say. I would say one of the great things about our society is that it does a pretty good job of protecting people from the harmful consequences that their actions would have if they were living out in nature.
It might be a good idea to resume making arguments against the specific points I've raised, rather than just stating your positions without giving the rationale for them. What is your opinion of my argument about the three cases of coercion?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: if you desire a cupcake, freedom is the opportunity to eat a cupcake.
You seem to equate freedom of action with ease of action. One can be free to go to Wisconsin without having enough money to buy a plane ticket. This causes the action to be difficult, it may require that the person walk, rent a car, etc. In order to have a society which allows your brand of freedom would be to require the airline to operate at a loss by accepting the man with no money as a passenger to Wisconsin.
You are not speaking about the freedom to act, but the ease of action. You have uncovered the difference between rights and wishes. You have a right to speak freely. You do NOT have a right to healthcare, you have wish to purchase healthcare. A right makes no impositions on others. I am not required to fund your right to speak freely.
quote: I don't see wealth as something important or worthy of protection, not compared with opportunities for people to act freely.
The concept of private property, or wealth, is the only equitable non-violent way to resolve issues of scarcity.
I will return with more comments later.
Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
I have been wandering elsewhere for a bit - Unfortunately I haven't taken the time to read this thread completely, but got quite a good feel for it so far.
Hello again Robes - I have to throw a little Voltaire in here.
In past conversations I have noted some particular concerns I have with Robes' form of federalism. The two pages of this very interesting (and quite entertaining) thread does little to make me think it has changed - not that I would ever accuse Robes of being wishy-washy
I have a few concerns:
1) Regardless of protestations to the contrary, this particular brand of Federalism is secularly favorable to the wealthy. Unfortunately, it is not new that wealth focused Federalism falls prey to revolution as the wealth becomes more inherited than earned. There becomes more concern for protecting the wealthiest and less concern for the low end of the 'personal property' scale.
2) Very early in implementation of this system, a 'Country Club' segregation begins. As the legal system begins to decipher the nuances for applying reason to determine punishable offenses, the more wealthy are very influential. Laws begin to have a 'not us' quality. Those laws will have a tendancy (as is the case in any fledgling judicial system) to perpetuate their existence through continuous passing of muster through repeated rulings. A judgement by 'peers' is by those that 'qualify' to serve as peers.
3) This is a bit of a carry on from the above. It is more of a question than a contrary comment - How does the judicial system retain its simple purity when addressing the grey areas? How is the purity of 'personal property' maintained while circumstances introduce ethical delimmas that contrast with the commonly stated simple truth of personal responsibility? And in turn, how is precedent managed so that is does not eventually dilute original intent?
4) I foresee an interesting delimma in dealing with a variety of 'not like us' other governments. It is always interesting to see how a secular government approaches the possibility of conflict - it tends to lean toward one of two extremes. Withdrawal into a cocoon of protectionism or expansion in search of adding to the wealth.
Don't get me wrong - I enjoy Robes' intellectual approach to his beliefs. However, it is very easy to succomb to the trappings of evangelistic logic if you work mainly with the top layers of an intricately complex ocean.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
HenryW, without doubt, yours is the most interesting response I have yet received. You have basically laid out my concerns for our current system. I see all of the points you mentioned having happened here in the USA. From the start the US system has been corrupted by those in power. Laws have been bent to aid those with political pull. It was later understood by the two parties that benefits could be extracted not just from business wanting subsidies or other special favors, but from whole segments of the population, at the expense of others. People realized that they could vote themselves huge benefits, and quickly did.
As mentioned earlier, I wish I had a more perfect form of government to propose which would rule out such problems, but I have no suggestions. I certainly agree that the law must apply equally to all involved, and the government must not intervene on the behalf of the wealthy, to shield them from competition(think late 1800's).
I should explain that the largest base of my thought comes from the Austrian Economic school, consisting primarily of Ludwig Von Mises and Fredrich Hayek. While I consider myself a Libertarian, that is a very big tent. The label "Classic Liberal" is likely to be the closest to the mark.
I must also say, that upon further inspection of the specific beliefs of the federalists, I must say that their morals do not match mine very closely. While they may have understood the idea of private property, they seemed to apply it in strange ways. They were very nostalgic for the British system, wanting merely to place themselves in the positions of power, rather than the crown and other bigwigs in London. I guess the main concepts I take from their camp are those regarding the federal protection of certain rights, judicial review, etc.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: freer than a pure capitalist society if the capitalist society contains many people who have few opportunities to make lifestyle choices because of their poverty, while most people in the welfare state have enough money to do what they want.
The ultimate problem with this logic is that the welfare state never lasts. Eventually it will destroy itself or transform its policies.
The mechanism which allows most welfare states to exist is their central bank. This allows these governments to tax people very heavily but without their knowledge. I qualify that to mean without most people realizing its happening, some are able to understand how inflation shifts wealth from those who save, to the government. However, the central bank is the main cause of the boom and bust cycle which many attribute to free markets. To those who are interested in such matters, I refer you to an article by Alan Greenspan. Please note that he wrote this in 1966, before he become the mouthpiece of satan.
In every welfare state, there will always come a point when the policies are no longer sustainable, or the people revolt against them. These are societies which may have many freedoms, even the United States qualifies as a welfare state. However, in the long run, these freedoms gradually get side-tracked in favor of the "greater good".
quote: A consideration that would prevent you from doing something that you would otherwise want to do.
Does not the nature of our existence already eliminate a large chunk of freedom, by this definition? I want to fly to the moon in my car. However, the laws of physics prevent me from doing so. This comes back the law of supply and demand as I was saying earlier. Resources do not occure in infinite number for the human race to use. This causes scarcity, which can never be avoided. There will always be a limit to either physical resources, energy, or labor put in by others, which will cause there to always be a price for things. The more scarce, the more pricy. This cannot be avoided.
My definition of freedom is one which is possible to achieve here on earth, in this universe. Freedom of action, within a framework of property law, is in my opinion, the most free a society can be. All actions which do not violate the property of thers are allowed. Some or most actions which are allowed, will not be easy. One may be the construction of a sky scraper. I may own some land, and want an office tower very much, but I will find this task difficult at best, yet I am still free to do this.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
More questions, this time from a slightly different tack.
Would your proposed form of government sponsor the creation of corporations, limited partnerships, etc.? These entities are legal fictions with certain contractual statuses conferred upon them by a governing power. They provide great flexibility to a capitalist society, but at a cost to the ultimate law of private property since their owners cannot be liable for debts and obligations incurred by the firm.
Would your proposed form of government enforce patents, copyrights, and trademarks? These are also fictional constructs regulated by the governing power that have proven beneficial to capitalism. However, they place severe limits on the usage of certain kinds of private property, and moreover directly encourage the production of creative works that fall out of private hands into the public domain.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I certainly agree that the law must apply equally to all involved, and the government must not intervene on the behalf of the wealthy, to shield them from competition(think late 1800's).
Yeah, think late 1800's, where small business owners were put into bankruptcy. Where child labor flourished and became commonplace. Where of the entire wealthy of the country, about a dozen private citizens held more than 80% of it. Where immigrants were basically working for the equivalent pay of indentured servitude. Where the large "trusts" (steel, railroad, and banking monopolies, among others) housed their workers in cramped apartments, with rent being most of the paycheck for the workers—think sharecropping with factory work. Where the average life span was 35-40... and dropping. Where STDs began spreading like wildfire. Where the civil rights of the freedmen was intentionally ignored in favor of the pocketbooks of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Where there was no such thing as a middle class—you were either upper class or piss-poor.
You know, despite what they teach in grade school social studies class, the Industrial Revolution was only helpful for those who either already had wealth or who were willing to be supremely ruthless. It wasn't until the labor movements that the boom of the Industrial Revolution began to affect almost 90% of the American population in a positive manner. Anyone who thinks the late 1800's was some kind of "sunshine and roses" time for the majority of American citizens is seriously fooling themselves or ultimately uninformed about real history.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Where the civil rights of the freedmen was intentionally ignored in favor of the pocketbooks of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Where there was no such thing as a middle class—you were either upper class or piss-poor.
I totally agree with you. The government decided who would be rich and who not. Those with cash were able to influence the system and corrupt it by getting subsidies and punishing their competition with tarrifs and regulations.
As is obvious, in a free market system such abuses are impossible. In a system were the individual is allowed to choose where he/she works, and at what rate, such problems cannot arise. Those companies which "exploit" their workers quickly go out of business. It is only with government support that these conditions can be maintained.
quote: the Industrial Revolution was only helpful for those who either already had wealth or who were willing to be supremely ruthless.
This is were we part company. "Only" is a very strong word. Perhaps you ment "mainly"? Would you have us revert to a totally agrarian society, without modern medicine? Would you have us give up science and technology? Perhaps subsistance farming is better for people. But then, what happens when your crops fail? Do you just go to the store which isn't there and buy food with money you don't have?
quote: It wasn't until the labor movements that the boom of the Industrial Revolution began to affect almost 90% of the American population in a positive manner.
Labor Unions are wonderful, so long as they are not backed by government guns. Perhaps you should read about the atrocities committed by labor barons in the first half of this past century. But then, they were working for the "greater good", right?
[ February 21, 2004, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Richard, you have posed some great questions here. I need to do some more reading and get back to you on them in a week or so.
quote: Would your proposed form of government sponsor the creation of corporations, limited partnerships, etc.?
---
Would your proposed form of government enforce patents, copyrights, and trademarks?
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I totally agree with you. The government decided who would be rich and who not.
No, they kept strictly "hands-off" in order to allow the "Captains of Industry" (also known as the "Robber Barons") to decide who made money and who did not. Most notable is Rockefeller's "horizontal integration" and hostile takeover of multiple oil organizations, but he's the most well-known example—there were many others. The government's policy of letting the "trusts" (monopolies) decide not only who was rich or poor, but also where people lived, what medical care they got, and the conditions they worked under, that was what resulted in the gross disparity between the two (upper and lower) classes in the US.
quote:As is obvious, in a free market system such abuses are impossible.
There was nothing "free" about it. The market was run by "trusts."
quote:In a system were the individual is allowed to choose where he/she works, and at what rate, such problems cannot arise.
And the error of your statement about the late 1800's is that this was not an environment where people could choose where to work. There was little education, and people who had trade skills either had the option of working for the robber barons or going bankrupt trying to compete.
quote:Those companies which "exploit" their workers quickly go out of business.
I have a hard time figuring out what fantasy you're living in, since the companies that exploited their workers were the ones who were biggest from the 1880's to the 1910's. Even Carnegie, who gave back to "the people" later in life (libraries, trust funds, etc.), kept his steel factories under questionable conditions, had child workers, and anything under a 10-12 hour day was unheard of.
quote:It is only with government support that these conditions can be maintained.
This is the most puzzling statement of all, since the late 1800's was the truest example of "lassez-faire" economics, where the government intervened little, if at all, during this time.
quote:This is were we part company. "Only" is a very strong word. Perhaps you ment "mainly"? Would you have us revert to a totally agrarian society, without modern medicine? Would you have us give up science and technology? Perhaps subsistance farming is better for people. But then, what happens when your crops fail? Do you just go to the store which isn't there and buy food with money you don't have?
Nice try, but you're side-stepping the problem that I was pointing out wasn't the Industrial Revolution, it was the conditions and "hands-off" policy of economics. Considering the 20th century has seen far more advances in science, technology, and medicine than the late 1800's, your accusation is made of straw.
quote:Labor Unions are wonderful, so long as they are not backed by government guns. Perhaps you should read about the atrocities committed by labor barons in the first half of this century. But then, they were working for the "greater good", right?
Actually, most of the atrocities were comitted by the numerous anarchist (bombings) and communist (rioting) groups. Additionally, the People's Party was also another of the more radical groups that are thankfully no longer as prevalent. However, groups like the AFL (the AFL-CIO today) not only encouraged a reformed capitalism, but are responsible for getting workers better working (and living) conditions, whereas the other radical groups were little more than troublemakers. So, unless you're going to be more specific who you're calling "labor barons," because your attempt to give me a history lesson is severely underestimating either how much you think you know or how little you think I know.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: No, they kept strictly "hands-off" in order to allow the "Captains of Industry" (also known as the "Robber Barons") to decide who made money and who did not.
False. There was horrible corruption of the government by those very captains. Without government help, they could not have captured so much of the market.
quote: The government's policy of letting the "trusts" (monopolies) decide not only who was rich or poor, but also where people lived, what medical care they got, and the conditions they worked under, that was what resulted in the gross disparity between the two (upper and lower) classes in the US.
Care to explain how a non-coercive monopoly can force peopel to do ANYTHING?
quote: There was nothing "free" about it. The market was run by "trusts."
Exactly my point, government supported trusts. A free market would not allow such problems.
quote: this was not an environment where people could choose where to work. There was little education, and people who had trade skills either had the option of working for the robber barons or going bankrupt trying to compete.
Wow, those don't sound like very appealing options. Why then did so many companies open during this time? Why did so many many people improve their standard of life? You fail to explain how people were "forced" to do anything at all.
quote: kept his steel factories under questionable conditions, had child workers, and anything under a 10-12 hour day was unheard of.
So why did people work for him then?
quote: Considering the 20th century has seen far more advances in science, technology, and medicine than the late 1800's, your accusation is made of straw.
That's good to know. Since government regulations and intervention cause advances in science, technology and medicine, why don't we just create more regulations and intervention to improve even more?
quote: However, groups like the AFL (the AFL-CIO today) not only encouraged a reformed capitalism, but are responsible for getting workers better working (and living) conditions,
Actually, they incited labor riots and forcibly took over factories. They smashed equipment and killed dissenters.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:False. There was horrible corruption of the government by those very captains. Without government help, they could not have captured so much of the market.
No, you're dead wrong. They captured the market long before the government began jumping in the middle of disputes. Care to give a historical example—using real names and real instances in history—where the government actually helped these robber barons gain control? I know of many instances where the government used its power to maintain the status quo by putting down any dissent to poor woring conditions and such, but I'd like you to provide salient proof where the government actually helped these monopolies gain their monopolies.
quote:Care to explain how a non-coercive monopoly can force peopel to do ANYTHING?
Non-coercive, my ass. The huge factories were competing directly with small, family-run trade shops. As the factory could produce faster and cheaper (never mind the lower quality), the shops are put out of business. The families of these trades have two choices: work for the factory or starve. Sure, I suppose they could have chosem to starve to death, but I hardly call death a reasonable choice. Since education was far inferior to today's standards, and illiteracy was common, it's not like these people could have changed trades simply by willing it so. They were tied to the work they had done their whole lives, and could either work for the factories or die.
Or would you have preferred they all went south and strengthened the agrarian sector? That situation wasn't any better—instead of factories, there were sharecropping plantations.
quote:Exactly my point, government supported trusts. A free market would not allow such problems.
You are seriously deluded. The government did not make these trusts. The monopolies did, and they did it to keep government attention off their harsh behavior to competitors (and to pay off lower officials). This was as "free" as the market has ever been in history, and is why your claims about how a "free market" will solve all the world's problems sounds like uninformed dogma than factually-based reasoning. You basically say you want conditions exactly like the Gilded Age, but then you say that they won't be like the Gilded Age. You contradict yourself, then blame government for the failure of the "lassez-faire" economic system of that time.
quote:Wow, those don't sound like very appealing options. Why then did so many companies open during this time? Why did so many many people improve their standard of life? You fail to explain how people were "forced" to do anything at all.
Wow, more baloney. Do you have figures on average literacy? Life expectancy? Average income versus cost of living? You're making some heavy claims, when history seems to disagree. More companies closed than ever opened during this time, and most companies were bought out by the bigger companies (forming "trusts") as well. Your rosy outlook os the time ignores the low educational standards, the complete and utter lack of health care for anyone but the richest 2% in the nation, the rise of disease like syphilis and influenza (the flu) and smallpox, along with issues stemming from the filthy living conditions of what may as well have been social ghettos. And you're claiming these people had a choice, yet you can't name a realistic choice they would have had. Immigrants had nothing when they came over, and had no choice but to work. People who lived here already had two choices: work for the factory or find a trade that required no education, no training, and no practice, and try their hand at that. Too bad the latter never existed.
Where the hell else would they work? Can you show any proof that these factories didn't have child labor, working upwards of ten hours a day, with few (if any) safety precautions? If you can, perhaps you'd like to take this proof to every history department of every university in the country, because all historical societies seem to show evidence of what I said.
quote:Since government regulations and intervention cause advances in science, technology and medicine, why don't we just create more regulations and intervention to improve even more?
This is why you are annoying as hell to debate something with, Robes. I did not say it was a result of government regulation. I said that you cannot just claim technical advance as your reason to make excuses for that time period (the late 1800's) or for the Industrial Revolution's beginnings. The reform that came later increased people's working conditions while not stopping production and innovation. Just because you can't accept that, and demand that the policy be a black-and-white, all there or none there policy, it does not change the fact that advancement and standard of living has flourished more under a balance of the two than it would under either extreme. Stop arguing against things I never said.
However, groups like the AFL (the AFL-CIO today) not only encouraged a reformed capitalism, but are responsible for getting workers better working (and living) conditions,
Actually, they incited labor riots and forcibly took over factories. They smashed equipment and killed dissenters.
Examples? Can you show proof this wasn't one of the more radical groups, like the Knights of Labor (who fell because of that behavior)? Considering the AFL was the group who demanded 3rd-party arbitration to begin with, and exists to this day, I'm curious as to where you get your information.
And before you decide to twist what I say into something I did not, I don't support all unions. In fact, most of them are so corrupt as to be totally useless for their members. However, to disregard the achievements that labor movements got for the working class is simply asinine on your part. I'm really curious as to where you are getting your indoctrination from, as it sounds like a very biased source. Maybe it was written by Rockefeller himself? Or William Sumner? Your social darwinism fits closely to his. "Millionaires are a product of natural selection..." riiiiiiiight.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hi Robes. Sorry to skip out on this one for a few days.
quote:You have a right to speak freely. You do NOT have a right to healthcare, you have wish to purchase healthcare. A right makes no impositions on others.
I actually agree with this, insofar as I think the only freedoms that the government can guarantee as inalienable rights are the ones that make no impositions on others -- if you take impositions to mean prevention or preemption of others' inalienable freedoms.
So I don't believe anyone has a right to healthcare. You can only have a right to something which is not scarce (for instance, we have a right to oxygen). But a country with guaranteed health care is, I think, freer than one without (unless the price paid for health care in terms of taxes badly offsets the benefit).
quote:In every welfare state, there will always come a point when the policies are no longer sustainable, or the people revolt against them.
That sounds surprisingly reminiscent of Marx. You claim that societies of a certain type will always collapse. First of all, I am not so fatalist about politics -- I think all sorts of systems can be made to work. Second, I see no proof of your claim, except insofar as any society (even, eg, post-Revolution France) can be expected to lose its cohesion as time goes on. There are many welfare states in operation now, many of which are very healthy nations. You are making an empirical claim, and the proof for it is pretty slim.
quote:Does not the nature of our existence already eliminate a large chunk of freedom, by this definition? I want to fly to the moon in my car. However, the laws of physics prevent me from doing so.
This is true. In fact, I believe that the freedom of human beings has increased greatly over the past few centuries just by virtue of technological development.
But for the purposes of government, which can only influence people and not physics, a good working definition of liberty might be the ability to do whatever would be in your power if no other people could stop you.
quote:My definition of freedom is one which is possible to achieve here on earth, in this universe.
Mine too, to a degree. Your contention seems to be that there can be a perfectly free system of government. I will concede that that is impossible given my definition of freedom. But I think my sort of freedom is what people naturally desire, what they rightly see as beneficial, and so it is what they should and will seek in forming a government. They will never be perfectly free, but perhaps they can have as much freedom as possible.
quote:All actions which do not violate the property of thers are allowed.
I don't see where you've put forth a good definition of "allowed." If something is allowed, does that mean no one can use coercive force to stop you from doing it? In that case, I maintain that economic activity in a free market is by nature coercive. If you want to convince me otherwise, answer my argument about the three types of coercion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Just selfishly bumping this thread so it doesn't evaporate... this might be the most fun I've ever had in a political argument here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
After 3.5 years, don't you think it deserves to die?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)