posted
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."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
