I don't know much about the world bank, other then they don't like protesters. Do you think that it is a form of effective capitalism or third world help?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was an effective form of third-world help, and continues to be important in many ways. This is a good article on the changing role of the WB
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dr. Paul said it about as well as it could be said. The creation of state controlled corporate capitalism (sic) is what's given capitalism a bad name. Here in the US, if you ask people for an example of capitalism being bad, they almost always cite the "robber barons" and their railroads. If you tell them that the robber barons were only able to perpetrate their abuses with government support, they simply won't believe you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you tell them that the robber barons were only able to perpetrate their abuses with government support, they simply won't believe you."
Lisa, I know you're not stupid, so I'm not going to mention that good public education for everyone is the best way to keep people from the kind of closed-minded race/gender/class-based cronyism that marked the robber-baron era, as well as the corruption going on today. IMHO. Did you have a better solution?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So steven, since you didn't tell the truth about what you weren't going to mention, does that also mean that you don't realize I'm not stupid?
"Good public education" is an oxymoron. You assume that the only way to be sure that children get an education is for the government to run schools. That's ridiculous.
And the best way to prevent the cronyism of the robber-baron era is simply to disallow government meddling in such things. Had the railroad owners been forced to make it or break it on their own, without government help, only the ones who were honest would have succeeded.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Good public education" is an oxymoron. You assume that the only way to be sure that children get an education is for the government to run schools. That's ridiculous.
While in many cases the public education system is very much not what most people would consider "good" to imply that public education is never good is simply untrue. I went to the local public high school, coming out of it I got into a top-30 university and have felt extremely well prepared the entire time I have been here. Better than many of the people who came out of private school for that matter. The fact that there are many poor public schools does not mean that "good public education" does not exist.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And the best way to prevent the cronyism of the robber-baron era is simply to disallow government meddling in such things. Had the railroad owners been forced to make it or break it on their own, without government help, only the ones who were honest would have succeeded.
Seriously? I would think that government deregulation (that is to say preventing the government's involvement, or "meddling" in a given industry) is probably the best way to ensure that the DIShonest people will come out ahead. True corrupt government intervention hurts, but no regulation hardly favors the honest people.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Good public education" is an oxymoron. You assume that the only way to be sure that children get an education is for the government to run schools. That's ridiculous.
While in many cases the public education system is very much not what most people would consider "good" to imply that public education is never good is simply untrue. I went to the local public high school, coming out of it I got into a top-30 university and have felt extremely well prepared the entire time I have been here. Better than many of the people who came out of private school for that matter. The fact that there are many poor public schools does not mean that "good public education" does not exist.
I disagree with you. You can learn well anywhere. But public education, by definition, is going to indoctrinate you in ways the government wants. That's the little "extra" you got along with the reading, writing and arithmetic.
quote:Originally posted by xtownaga:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And the best way to prevent the cronyism of the robber-baron era is simply to disallow government meddling in such things. Had the railroad owners been forced to make it or break it on their own, without government help, only the ones who were honest would have succeeded.
Seriously? I would think that government deregulation (that is to say preventing the government's involvement, or "meddling" in a given industry) is probably the best way to ensure that the DIShonest people will come out ahead. True corrupt government intervention hurts, but no regulation hardly favors the honest people.
What you don't understand, because the big corporations do their best to hide it from you, is that what allows them to misbehave and get away with it is government aid. They get bailed out. They get tax perks. They get favored status and they get government contracts. The regulation is a minor inconvenience to them, and it's more than worth it to them if they get to keep having their state-given goodies.
The only monopolies that really last are those that have government propping them up. The power companies could never have gotten as out of hand as they have without their government-granted monopoly status. If they'd had to compete like everyone else, power would be a helluva lot cheaper. And if people were able to switch to another power company when one of them spilled chemicals in their backyards (in addition to suing them), I guarantee you that the companies would be a lot more careful.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: I don't consider it government meddling to place limits on emissions and such from factories. If I point a gun out of my window and shoot someone across the street, I can hardly claim that I'm within my rights because I pulled the trigger on my property. Spewing filth into the air is fine, so long as it stays on the property of the spewer. But it doesn't work that way. Oozing poison into the ground is everyone's right, so long as it stays within the bounds of the oozer's property. But until someone figures out how to do that, it's legitimate to punish someone who oozes out of their boundaries or spews out of their boundaries, just as it's proper to punish me from shooting outside of mine.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, being a Jew, I hardly see how you can be against good public education. How else can people learn not to hate other religions and races? Private education won't do it, at least not always. I agree government meddling makes a mess, but...it also, I'd have to say, reduces bloodshed in the long run. When unions and employers go at it unchecked, the results are often ugly. Conflicts over class and race don't always resolve themselves, sometimes blood gets shed. The answer? Education.
Pogroms and the Holocaust were the direct result of ignorance, the kind of ignorance that only public education is designed to decisively weaken. Or did I miss something?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Lisa, being a Jew, I hardly see how you can be against good public education. How else can people learn not to hate other religions and races?
<shudder> That's terrifying. Steven, do you get that if the government is allowed to teach your children not to hate, it's also allowed to teach them to hate? That's Pandora's Box, Steven. You can't grant that kind of power and think you can control it.
This is not the role of government. If someone hates me, that's their right. If they do something to me because of it, that's not. Maybe you feel comfortable with a government that's about controlling how people think. But as you pointed out, I'm a Jew. I have relatively recent proof of how well that works.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Private education won't do it, at least not always. I agree government meddling makes a mess, but...it also, I'd have to say, reduces bloodshed in the long run. When unions and employers go at it unchecked, the results are often ugly.
Government should punish crimes. Not tell people how to act in the absence of crimes. Allowing employers to blow up unionizers is wrong. Allowing unionizers to blow up scabs is wrong. Legislating protection for unions so that employers can't fire who they want to is wrong. This is not what government is for. We are not meant to be ruled, Steven. Government is to protect us from violence, fraud and theft, and to mediate disputes.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Conflicts over class and race don't always resolve themselves, sometimes blood gets shed. The answer? Education.
The answer? Persuasion. Not coercion.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Pogroms and the Holocaust were the direct result of ignorance, the kind of ignorance that only public education is designed to decisively weaken. Or did I miss something?
Pogroms and the Holocaust were the direct result of the government establishing its own moral rules and enforcing them at the point of a gun. So... yeah, I guess you must have missed something.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Government should punish crimes. Not tell people how to act in the absence of crimes. Allowing employers to blow up unionizers is wrong. Allowing unionizers to blow up scabs is wrong. Legislating protection for unions so that employers can't fire who they want to is wrong. This is not what government is for. We are not meant to be ruled, Steven. Government is to protect us from violence, fraud and theft, and to mediate disputes.
You're taking as a given a lot of things here that are really just a matter of opinion, obviously.
By the reasoning you're using, power that can be misused should never be granted in the first place. Well, the truth is, all power can be misused. The government should have the power to protect us from violence, you say? Well then, that surely means the government should have the power to ban boxing, for example, or drinking to excess in public, etc.
As for your talk about unions...well, the pendulum swings. For hundreds of years in this country, employers have had almost all of the power in their dealings with the employed. Do you imagine that they would have yielded that power up without some form of government coercion?
Which, by the way, was a foregone conclusion in a democratic society. There are more workers than employers, and so given a long enough time span, the workers will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the question, Lisa, is...where do you get all these enlightened people to run the government? More to the point, where do you get the voters who will elect them? You have to educate them out of hate. It's easier to educate a young child away from hate, than to wait until he's an adult, and have to kill him. IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: By the reasoning you're using, power that can be misused should never be granted in the first place. Well, the truth is, all power can be misused. The government should have the power to protect us from violence, you say? Well then, that surely means the government should have the power to ban boxing, for example, or drinking to excess in public, etc.
That doesn't follow. Boxing, as distasteful as it is, is voluntary. Yes, the government should stop boxers from hitting people who don't want to be hit. But boxing is something that the two people agree on. It's their brains that are getting pounded, so it's their business. And drinking to excess? It isn't the place of government to protect people from themselves. But if you drink, its your choice. And anything you do under the influence should be considered as though it were premeditated.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for your talk about unions...well, the pendulum swings. For hundreds of years in this country, employers have had almost all of the power in their dealings with the employed. Do you imagine that they would have yielded that power up without some form of government coercion?
I don't know what kind of power you're talking about. The government should always have prevented employers from killing unionizers. That has nothing to do with business and trade; it's a matter of law. That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Which, by the way, was a foregone conclusion in a democratic society. There are more workers than employers, and so given a long enough time span, the workers will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
There are more Christians than non-Christians in the US. So given a long enough time span, the Christians will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Just paraphrasing. Except that we have the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents that. There should be the same sort of Constitutional separation of the government from the economy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I guess the question, Lisa, is...where do you get all these enlightened people to run the government? More to the point, where do you get the voters who will elect them? You have to educate them out of hate. It's easier to educate a young child away from hate, than to wait until he's an adult, and have to kill him. IMHO.
So because persuasion is harder, we should resort to coercion? I don't think that stands up ethically. Morally bad shortcuts aren't better because you like the results. The ends do not justify the means.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That doesn't follow. Boxing, as distasteful as it is, is voluntary. Yes, the government should stop boxers from hitting people who don't want to be hit. But boxing is something that the two people agree on. It's their brains that are getting pounded, so it's their business. And drinking to excess? It isn't the place of government to protect people from themselves. But if you drink, its your choice. And anything you do under the influence should be considered as though it were premeditated.
I know it's voluntary, I was just wondering if your thinking on this was as absolute as your statement. So, we've got a qualifier. That's good.
As for drinking to excess, arguably it doesn't just hurt the people doing it. Families, friends, the health-care system, all are negatively impacted when someone goes to the hospital for a failing liver, or any other of a host of alcohol-related problems (such as drunk driving, for example).
I guess there shouldn't be seatbelt or helmet laws, either? For that matter, why should there be restrictions on firearm ownership? In fact, shouldn't I be able to own biochemical weapons (assuming I could make them), so long as I don't actually use them on anybody?
quote:I don't know what kind of power you're talking about. The government should always have prevented employers from killing unionizers. That has nothing to do with business and trade; it's a matter of law. That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
I think you would probably know what kind of power I'm talking about if you gave it some further consideration. Power to hire, fire, dock wages or raise them for any reason at all. Power to change working conditions for better or worse at whim. Power to compel extra hours at regular pay, or even at no pay as a condition of employment. Power to compel employees to live in your own housing, to buy your own merchandise, etc. etc.
These things are why unions got started in the first place. They didn't just up and decide, "Hey, workers, time to get uppity! Let's seize advantage wherever we can!"
quote:That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
This does not prove in and of itself that government should not be involved with employer-employee business relations.
quote:As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
*shrug* The place of government is where the governed says it is, ultimately. Unless we're talking about some abstract moral concept here, in which case why are you arguing as though you're reasoning from facts?
Not having the government involved resulted in some pretty crappy situations, Lisa. Monopolies, strike-breakers, poorly paid workers, etc. etc. Now it could be plausibly argued that we've gone too far, but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that anything is too far.
quote:There are more Christians than non-Christians in the US. So given a long enough time span, the Christians will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Just paraphrasing. Except that we have the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents that. There should be the same sort of Constitutional separation of the government from the economy.
Eh, except that's not happening. In fact the trend is quite the opposite, despite the demographic majority of Christians in the USA, so your paraphrasing doesn't wash.
The relationship between employers and workers is quite different, and doesn't really make a reasonable comparison anyway.
Why should there be a 'First Amendmant' regarding the economy? All of your posts on this subject have seemed to be reasoning from this as a given. It's not.
quote:So because persuasion is harder, we should resort to coercion? I don't think that stands up ethically. Morally bad shortcuts aren't better because you like the results. The ends do not justify the means.
Coercion is always more ethical than persuasion, once the stakes get high enough. At least if you widen your scope past the individual.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That doesn't follow. Boxing, as distasteful as it is, is voluntary. Yes, the government should stop boxers from hitting people who don't want to be hit. But boxing is something that the two people agree on. It's their brains that are getting pounded, so it's their business. And drinking to excess? It isn't the place of government to protect people from themselves. But if you drink, its your choice. And anything you do under the influence should be considered as though it were premeditated.
I know it's voluntary, I was just wondering if your thinking on this was as absolute as your statement. So, we've got a qualifier. That's good.
You could simply have asked. Or would that have been less fun?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for drinking to excess, arguably it doesn't just hurt the people doing it. Families, friends, the health-care system, all are negatively impacted when someone goes to the hospital for a failing liver, or any other of a host of alcohol-related problems (such as drunk driving, for example).
No, no, no. The "emotional harm" to families is not the business of government. The health care system can only be impacted by it if you start with a bad health care system that makes other people pay for the drinker's idiocy. And drunk driving is something I already talked about. Any action taken while willingly under the influence of alcohol should be treated as premeditated. You choose to drink, you're guilty. You cause any harm by drunk driving, you should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I guess there shouldn't be seatbelt or helmet laws, either?
Good. I'm glad we can at least agree on that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For that matter, why should there be restrictions on firearm ownership? In fact, shouldn't I be able to own biochemical weapons (assuming I could make them), so long as I don't actually use them on anybody?
What's your point?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I don't know what kind of power you're talking about. The government should always have prevented employers from killing unionizers. That has nothing to do with business and trade; it's a matter of law. That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
I think you would probably know what kind of power I'm talking about if you gave it some further consideration. Power to hire, fire, dock wages or raise them for any reason at all.
And that's problematic exactly why? A job isn't a right. It's not some sort of natural resource that anyone has a right to. It's an agreement to trade money for work. Employers should be able to choose what labor they buy and from whom exactly as I'm able to choose what breakfast cereal I want to buy.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Power to change working conditions for better or worse at whim.
That's what contracts are for. Changing working conditions in breach of a signed contract is something the government should deal with. But if someone chooses to work without a contract, that's just foolish.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Power to compel extra hours at regular pay, or even at no pay as a condition of employment. Power to compel employees to live in your own housing, to buy your own merchandise, etc. etc.
Again, it's a matter of value for value. If someone doesn't want to work under X conditions, they don't have to. They can go elsewhere. Employment is not a right. Employment as you want it is certainly not a right.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: These things are why unions got started in the first place. They didn't just up and decide, "Hey, workers, time to get uppity! Let's seize advantage wherever we can!"
I have absolutely no problem with unions. And boycotts. And other economic pressure. I have a problem with the government being involved.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
This does not prove in and of itself that government should not be involved with employer-employee business relations.
No, it doesn't. But the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that a third party (government or otherwise) is entitled to interfere in agreements between individuals, whether the individual is an employer or otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
*shrug* The place of government is where the governed says it is, ultimately.
Might makes right. Nice.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unless we're talking about some abstract moral concept here, in which case why are you arguing as though you're reasoning from facts?
Because morals are a matter of fact.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not having the government involved resulted in some pretty crappy situations, Lisa. Monopolies, strike-breakers, poorly paid workers, etc. etc. Now it could be plausibly argued that we've gone too far, but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that anything is too far.
Correct. And you're entirely incorrect. Those situations were not ones in which there was no government involvement. On the contrary, there was ample government involvement. Without it, monopolies would never have been able to exist (except to the benefit of everyone).
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:There are more Christians than non-Christians in the US. So given a long enough time span, the Christians will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Just paraphrasing. Except that we have the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents that. There should be the same sort of Constitutional separation of the government from the economy.
Eh, except that's not happening. In fact the trend is quite the opposite, despite the demographic majority of Christians in the USA, so your paraphrasing doesn't wash.
My point is that if it weren't for the First Amendment, it most certainly would happen. The First Amendment is under constant attack by one Christian group or another. You're claiming that since there are more employees than employers, there will always be government interference. I'm saying "not if it were to be barred in the same way government interference in religion is barred".
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The relationship between employers and workers is quite different, and doesn't really make a reasonable comparison anyway.
Why should there be a 'First Amendmant' regarding the economy? All of your posts on this subject have seemed to be reasoning from this as a given. It's not.
Because it's an area where people, by their observable nature, cannot be trusted to leave others alone. As you pointed out yourself, without a Constitutional bar, people will use political power to get their way over others in the realm of economics, just as they would in the area of religion. It was for that reason that the First Amendment was created. The Founders knew better than to trust Congress to stay out of religion, so they took it out of their hands. But if you read what they wrote, they did think that the government would stay out of people's business. Not very foresighted of them, but no one is perfect.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So because persuasion is harder, we should resort to coercion? I don't think that stands up ethically. Morally bad shortcuts aren't better because you like the results. The ends do not justify the means.
Coercion is always more ethical than persuasion, once the stakes get high enough. At least if you widen your scope past the individual.
There is no scope past the individual. And short of protecting individuals from the initiation of force against them and their possessions, there is no legitimate purpose of government.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You could simply have asked. Or would that have been less fun?
I dunno, you tell me. You've used similar rhetoric before.
quote:No, no, no. The "emotional harm" to families is not the business of government. The health care system can only be impacted by it if you start with a bad health care system that makes other people pay for the drinker's idiocy. And drunk driving is something I already talked about. Any action taken while willingly under the influence of alcohol should be treated as premeditated. You choose to drink, you're guilty. You cause any harm by drunk driving, you should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
OK, so now we need to take a step further. We need to not only radically restructure government, but also radically restructure the health care system (on a fundamental level). Just to be clear here.
Also, having an alcoholic family member is often not just a matter of 'emotional distress', you know. But that goes back to this health care system which somehow has only the sick individual paying for his own health care, or is that only with drinkers and other self-inflicted maladies?
quote:Good. I'm glad we can at least agree on that.
No, we don't agree on that (and nice rhetorical technique, btw! *points up*). And frankly it's obvious there should be helmet and seatbelt laws, and I can justify it without even bringing in auto and health insurance costs: accidents involving serious injuries or even fatalities cost more for our law enforcement and emergency service people to handle. They put both those responders and passersby at greater risk, for example, interstate accidents.
Even if we assume that accident on a 70mph road has zero impact on health care and auto insurance costs, it still impacts everyone badly.
quote:What's your point?
My point is pretty clear: the line has to be drawn somewhere.
quote:And that's problematic exactly why? A job isn't a right. It's not some sort of natural resource that anyone has a right to. It's an agreement to trade money for work. Employers should be able to choose what labor they buy and from whom exactly as I'm able to choose what breakfast cereal I want to buy.
The government is not, nor should it be, (nor is it, according to the Constitution), in the business of solely protecting the rights of its citizens. Scope out the Preamble if you don't believe me.
The ability to switch jobs is not always as absurdly easy as it is to switch cereal brands, Lisa.
quote:That's what contracts are for. Changing working conditions in breach of a signed contract is something the government should deal with. But if someone chooses to work without a contract, that's just foolish.
Some people lack the means to effectively demand a contract, Lisa. Their children certainly can't compel their parent's employers to demand a fair contract. But those kids probably shouldn't have been foolish enough to be born to low-wage workers, or else we'll need to radically redesign another massive government system to your idea of survival of the fittest as governing principle.
quote:Again, it's a matter of value for value. If someone doesn't want to work under X conditions, they don't have to. They can go elsewhere. Employment is not a right. Employment as you want it is certainly not a right.
This is just wrong once you venture just a little bit out of the abstract. Johnny Workinman and Rosie Riveter, paying a mortgage and supporting two children, one with asthma, do not effectively have the choice to just pick up stakes and move elsewhere. I'm not advocating employment as a right, either.
I'm advocating a system which does not demand workers have access to high-powered attorneys to negotiate contracts on their behalf while being opposed by the attorneys of their employers. Who do you think gets routinely screwed in that fight, Lisa? Maria Lopez or Wal-Mart?
quote:I have absolutely no problem with unions. And boycotts. And other economic pressure. I have a problem with the government being involved.
Government involvement was only necessary because of a history of government involvement for employers.
quote:No, it doesn't. But the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that a third party (government or otherwise) is entitled to interfere in agreements between individuals, whether the individual is an employer or otherwise.
It's a good thing I've got the Constitution on my side. Because it's not just about the individuals involved. Whadda you got?
quote:Might makes right. Nice.
Dude, that is precisely the system you're advocating.
quote:Because morals are a matter of fact.
Your morals, obviously. *rolleyes*
quote:Correct. And you're entirely incorrect. Those situations were not ones in which there was no government involvement. On the contrary, there was ample government involvement. Without it, monopolies would never have been able to exist (except to the benefit of everyone).
Pardon me, I was imprecise. I meant, "Not having government involvement with support towards the workers."
There are no privately owned businesses which I would trust to own and operate a monopoly of anything even approaching necessities.
quote:My point is that if it weren't for the First Amendment, it most certainly would happen. The First Amendment is under constant attack by one Christian group or another. You're claiming that since there are more employees than employers, there will always be government interference. I'm saying "not if it were to be barred in the same way government interference in religion is barred".
Attacks on the First Amendment are hardly limited to Christians. Also, you take it as a given that private religion is equivalent to employer-employee relations, which is, again, not remotely a given.
quote:Because it's an area where people, by their observable nature, cannot be trusted to leave others alone. As you pointed out yourself, without a Constitutional bar, people will use political power to get their way over others in the realm of economics, just as they would in the area of religion. It was for that reason that the First Amendment was created. The Founders knew better than to trust Congress to stay out of religion, so they took it out of their hands. But if you read what they wrote, they did think that the government would stay out of people's business. Not very foresighted of them, but no one is perfect.
Pretty simplistic analysis, Lisa. It was hardly only to prevent government interference that the First Amendment was created.
quote:There is no scope past the individual. And short of protecting individuals from the initiation of force against them and their possessions, there is no legitimate purpose of government.
In a community, there is often (perhaps even always) a scope past the individual. And you can state as fact your own philosophy on government all you want, it doesn't for a minute make it true. I think the purposes outlined in the Preamble to our Constitution are pretty damned legitimate, and they go further than protection against theft by force.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
"Natural monopoly" is a term invented as a justification for government sponsored monopolies. There's no such thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, violence is a part of life. You cannot breed this out of humans. Given this, the only way to beat the problem (that I yet am aware of) is to educate people fully. Since our world is yet populated, to some degree, by the ignorant/hate-filled...public education has it's place.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
"Natural monopoly" is a term invented as a justification for government sponsored monopolies. There's no such thing.
Wow. You know I"m a Ph.D student in economics, right? You've just lost any credibility I might have given you in the realm of economics.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Lisa, violence is a part of life. You cannot breed this out of humans. Given this, the only way to beat the problem (that I yet am aware of) is to educate people fully. Since our world is yet populated, to some degree, by the ignorant/hate-filled...public education has it's place.
No, it doesn't. Education, yes. Government run, no.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
"Natural monopoly" is a term invented as a justification for government sponsored monopolies. There's no such thing.
Wow. You know I"m a Ph.D student in economics, right? You've just lost any credibility I might have given you in the realm of economics.
And I'm a mere B.A. in economics, I know. What's your point? If you want to give an example, rather than use your degree program as a bludgeon, I'm happy to hear it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms—that is, there are economies of scale in social costs. Unlike in the ordinary understanding of a monopoly, a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficient (more costly to a nation or economy) than would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. There may, or may not be, a single supplier in such an industry. This is a normative claim which is used to justify the creation of statutory monopolies, where government prohibits competition by law. Examples of claimed natural monopolies include railways, telecommunications, water services, electricity, mail delivery and computer software. Some claim that the theory is a flawed rationale for state prohibition of competition.
The very fact that you consider the concept of "natural monopolies" as so beyond question as to make anyone suggesting otherwise lose all credibility in your eyes tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the Ph.D. program you're in. Question your assumptions, Jhai.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, it doesn't. Education, yes. Government run, no."
Tell you what, I'll pay for your daughter's college, assuming you'll send her to either Bob Jones, Pensacola Christian College, or Liberty University. I mean goodness, Lisa, really. Do you want to be taken seriously or not?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "No, it doesn't. Education, yes. Government run, no."
Tell you what, I'll pay for your daughter's college, assuming you'll send her to either Bob Jones, Pensacola Christian College, or Liberty University. I mean goodness, Lisa, really. Do you want to be taken seriously or not?
That's an odd comment for you to make, Steven. What does Bob Jones and Co. have to do with anything?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't DiLorenzo that guy who keeps saying that the Confederacy should rise again and secede from the union?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. Does it matter? He certainly didn't say anything like that in the article I linked. Did you read it, or is it just easier to make ad hominem attacks?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the government is not running education in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to insure even the lowest level of education in that case. Without basic literacy, voting becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental principals of a democracy.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms—that is, there are economies of scale in social costs. Unlike in the ordinary understanding of a monopoly, a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficient (more costly to a nation or economy) than would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. There may, or may not be, a single supplier in such an industry. This is a normative claim which is used to justify the creation of statutory monopolies, where government prohibits competition by law. Examples of claimed natural monopolies include railways, telecommunications, water services, electricity, mail delivery and computer software. Some claim that the theory is a flawed rationale for state prohibition of competition.
The very fact that you consider the concept of "natural monopolies" as so beyond question as to make anyone suggesting otherwise lose all credibility in your eyes tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the Ph.D. program you're in. Question your assumptions, Jhai.
Some people claim that communism works on the large scale, or that the earth is flat. They're free to say whatever they want, but making those claims means that I will no longer grant them much in the area of economics or science. Claiming that natural monopolies simply don't exist means you have a fundamental lack of understanding of key parts of microeconomics.
I'm reasonably open to your general positions, Lisa. I think the Austrian school has added value to mainstream economics, and there's a number of GMU economists I admire. But natural monopolies, as commonly defined, exist, and to claim otherwise is foolish. This isn't something my (mainstream) economics program has taught me, it's something I can read the literature on and decide for myself.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, the government is not running education in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to insure even the lowest level of education in that case. Without basic literacy, voting becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental principals of a democracy.
Apparently that would be either the child's fault, or the parent's fault, in either case the child being screwed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms—that is, there are economies of scale in social costs. Unlike in the ordinary understanding of a monopoly, a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficient (more costly to a nation or economy) than would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. There may, or may not be, a single supplier in such an industry. This is a normative claim which is used to justify the creation of statutory monopolies, where government prohibits competition by law. Examples of claimed natural monopolies include railways, telecommunications, water services, electricity, mail delivery and computer software. Some claim that the theory is a flawed rationale for state prohibition of competition.
The very fact that you consider the concept of "natural monopolies" as so beyond question as to make anyone suggesting otherwise lose all credibility in your eyes tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the Ph.D. program you're in. Question your assumptions, Jhai.
Some people claim that communism works on the large scale, or that the earth is flat. They're free to say whatever they want, but making those claims means that I will no longer grant them much in the area of economics or science. Claiming that natural monopolies simply don't exist means you have a fundamental lack of understanding of key parts of microeconomics.
Did you even bother reading it? It's not that long, and it's quite well sourced. Microeconomics does not mean that theory takes precedence over actual facts. The theory of natural monopolies was never established; it was simply maintained. And not by economists, either. It was a political maneuver, and economists have simply adopted it as a given.
In actual fact, every time competition has been introduced into a so-called "natural monopoly" situation, the result has been lowered prices and increased benefits for consumers. It's documented. Cognizant as I am of the fact that "voodoo economics" is often a bit of a redundancy, the field does not have to be detached from actual evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm reasonably open to your general positions, Lisa. I think the Austrian school has added value to mainstream economics, and there's a number of GMU economists I admire. But natural monopolies, as commonly defined, exist, and to claim otherwise is foolish.
It's foolish because... it is? Why is it foolish? If it fits the evidence in the real world, it's a good theory. If it doesn't, it's a bad theory. Can you give some examples of the theory of "natural monopolies" being borne out in the real world? Failing that, can you explain away the counter-examples in that paper? Assuming that you've read it, that is.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: This isn't something my (mainstream) economics program has taught me, it's something I can read the literature on and decide for myself.
I've offered you some literature. You've offered me your unsupported statement that natural monopolies simply must exist, otherwise microeconomics would be overturned, or something.
What's an example of a natural monopoly, in your view? If I can show you cases of competition in the area of your example that do not bear out the gloom and doom scenarios promised by mainstream economics, would you reconsider it? Would you at the very least offer up cases of competition in those areas that were disastrous, as a counter-example to my claims, or would you simply stick with, "Natural monopolies exist because they do"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: So, the government is not running education in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to insure even the lowest level of education in that case. Without basic literacy, voting becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental principals of a democracy.
So, the government is not running meals in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to ensure even the lowest level of nutrition in that case. Without basic nutrition, healthy living becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental needs of human beings.
And before you poo-poo the analogy, I suggest that you take a good hard look at it, because it's as close as analogies come to being good.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I do not feed my child, the state will come and take her away. If I do not educate my child, will the state come and take her away? Does increasing the reasons for the state to take my child increase the state's power more than providing an education?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That's an odd comment for you to make, Steven. What does Bob Jones and Co. have to do with anything?"
They are certainly private schools. Doesn't that make them automatically better than any public college?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When monopoly did appear,it was solely because of government intervention.For example,in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company ]of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly. This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers,and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues.This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.
Legislative "regulation"of gas and electric companies produced the predictable result of monopoly prices,which the public complained bitterly about.--p6
Those lucky industries that were able to be politically designated as "public utilities"also used the public utility concept to keep out the competition.--p7
In one of the first statistical studies of the effects of rate regulation in the electric utilities industry,published in 1962,George Stigler and Claire Friedland found no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions from 1917 to 1932.Early rate regulators did not benefit the consumer,but were rather "captured" by the industry,as happened in so many other industries,from trucking to airlines to cable television.--p8
from Lisa's artcle, bolds mine. If there were "no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions" (the conclusion of a study the author uses to support his argument, even though it doesn't), how were public utilities "gouging" consumers and "sharing the loot" with fatcat politicians? And how would that be different in the author's radical arguement that all city streets should be privately owned? Wouldn't all that loot just go to rich private owners instead of local governments?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: When monopoly did appear,it was solely because of government intervention.For example,in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company ]of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly. This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers,and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues.This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.
Legislative "regulation"of gas and electric companies produced the predictable result of monopoly prices,which the public complained bitterly about.--p6
Those lucky industries that were able to be politically designated as "public utilities"also used the public utility concept to keep out the competition.--p7
In one of the first statistical studies of the effects of rate regulation in the electric utilities industry,published in 1962,George Stigler and Claire Friedland found no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions from 1917 to 1932.Early rate regulators did not benefit the consumer,but were rather "captured" by the industry,as happened in so many other industries,from trucking to airlines to cable television.--p8
from Lisa's artcle, bolds mine. If there were "no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions" (the conclusion of a study the author uses to support his argument, even though it doesn't), how were public utilities "gouging" consumers and "sharing the loot" with fatcat politicians? And how would that be different in the author's radical arguement that all city streets should be privately owned? Wouldn't all that loot just go to rich private owners instead of local governments?
Did you read it, or just cherry pick quotes? The process is private enterprise agreeing to pay a big chunk of change to the government for the privilege of being labeled a "natural monopoly". A payment which they pass on to the consumers. Net result: they don't have to worry about competition, and the consumers pay through the nose.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No. There are a ton of private colleges. You're just playing games."
Ahh, so good judgment comes into play. Yes. You neglected to mention the need for common sense, and I felt I had to find out if you believed in the need for it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "No. There are a ton of private colleges. You're just playing games."
Ahh, so good judgment comes into play. Yes. You neglected to mention the need for common sense, and I felt I had to find out if you believed in the need for it.
Like I said, playing games. People who want to send their kids to Bob Jones, steven, have that choice. What you want is to deny people that choice. Force them to send their children to government run schools, or if they choose to send them to private schools, pay for the public ones anyway.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like I said, playing games. People who want to send their kids to Bob Jones, steven, have that choice. What you want is to deny people that choice. Force them to send their children to government run schools, or if they choose to send them to private schools, pay for the public ones anyway.
As much as steven is playing games (not that you don't), you're not answering a fundamental question about what it appears you're suggesting: by what mechanism do you ensure children obtain an education?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's determined that an education is necessary for children, something I'd agree with, but something that isn't necessarily a given, I wouldn't have a problem requiring parents to provide an education for their children. In the same way that parents are required to provide food and other necessities to their children.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think it's a given that government exists only for the purposes you outlined above, but it's not a given that education is necessary for children? That's a very puzzling disconnect to me.
quote:In the same way that parents are required to provide food and other necessities to their children.
How do you do this without the kind of government meddling you clearly despise? And what about really poor parents?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You think it's a given that government exists only for the purposes you outlined above, but it's not a given that education is necessary for children? That's a very puzzling disconnect to me.
Why? I know of people who did quite well without much formal education. It's not a given that withholding education is abusive. That said, I would probably be on the side claiming that it should be a parental obligation. Probably.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:In the same way that parents are required to provide food and other necessities to their children.
How do you do this without the kind of government meddling you clearly despise? And what about really poor parents?
If I choose to bring a child into this world, I'm accepting responsibility for this person's well-being. It's voluntary. A child isn't a possession, like a shoe. It's a person. And it didn't ask to be born. I'm responsible for my choices. So is every parent.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yet you trust government? The biggest, baddest monopoly of them all? Who can raise what you pay for their "services" without your consent? Who can order you into combat? Who can take your kids? Who can decide what you eat? What you smoke? What you can drive? Can thrust you into prison? Can destroy your life through accident, malice or incompetence?
Wow. But at least they protect us from other monopolies.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You know I"m a Ph.D student in economics, right? You've just lost any credibility I might have given you in the realm of economics.
