The essence of Libertarianism is...

[Geo Patric]

i think libertarians (among others) conflate 'self interest' with 'self gratification'. we do not act in another's interest by merely satisfying their wants, we do not act in a child's 'interest' by allowing her to stay home from school because she does not want to go or feeding her Mickey D's fries and Dove bars at every meal because that is what she likes. we act in pursuit of her well being.

given the option of 'advantage to the self' or 'well being of the self' (webster), in making an ethical qualification, i would think that the latter is the only meaningful definition, for a quite simple reason: ethics, morality, justice... right and wrong only have meaning when other people are in the equation. in terms of any self as an isolated entity, virtue is meaningless.

again, i will present the view, known as 'enlightened self interest', that among social animals (like you and me) self interest and group interest are inextricable. self gratification may be pursued to the exclusion of (and possible harm to) others, but such actions i would argue are not truly in the actor's interest. consider this from John Ikerd, University of Missouri:

People will pursue their self-interest – it is an inherent aspect of being human. But, people, by nature, do not pursue only their narrow short-run individual self-interest. It is within the fundamental nature of people also to care about others and accept the responsibilities of humanity. Rethinking does not require that people deny their self-interest. Instead, it will require that we rise above the economics of greed to an economics of enlightenment. The invisible hand can still translate the pursuit of self-interests into the greatest good for society, but only if each person pursues an enlightened self-interest – a self-interest that values relationships and ethics as important dimensions of our individual well being.

Enlightened self-interests includes narrow self-interest (which focuses on individual possessions) but it includes also interests that are shared, in which one has only partial ownership (which focuses on relationships, community, and social values) and interests that are purely altruistic (which focuses on interests that are solely others’, which one pursues only out of a sense of stewardship, ethics, or morality). All three – self-interests, shared-interests, and altruistic-interests -- contribute to one’s well being or quality of life, but not in the same sense that greed might enhance one’s material success. Each contributes to a more enlightened sense of quality of life – which explicitly recognizes that each individual is but a part of the whole of society, which in turn must conform to some higher order of things or code of natural laws.

nicely put, i think.

aside from the anthropological and biological/ evolutionary and philosophical arguments already presented, lets look inside the brains of folks, shall we?

psychologists interested in the matter report that people will respond to pain in others with one of two emotions, distress, generating an 'escape' reflex or empathy, generating an 'assistance' reflex'.

interestingly, both 'escape' and 'empathy' are likely to result in our helping the one in distress. the second seems easy enough, but.. escape? how does that equate to sticking around to help?

simple. the most effective way to avoid distress is to eliminate it. our reflex is not to escape the condition causing the distress so much as to escape the distress itself... which we do by assisting those in distress.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

and.... finally, I think that contemporary capitalists abuse the notion of capitalism as much as libertarians abuse the notion of Liberty, taking the bits they like and rejecting those they dislike.

“There is no objection to be raised against the classical analysis of the manner in which private self-interest will determine what in particular is produced, in what proportions the factors of production will be combined to produce it, and how the value of the final product will be distributed between them. ”

good stout market capitalist thinking, innit?

Thus, apart from the necessity of central controls to bring about an adjustment between the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, there is no more reason to socialise economic life than there was before

and a refutation of socialism pleasing to the heart of any econmomic conservative. but, no, not Smith... Keynes But, Keynes did not see 'self interest' and 'group interest' as being incompatible, nor did Smith, really - remember, his opus was not titled 'The Wealth Of Individuals'.

Keynes realized that 'the market' is not really an infallible thing in itself. It is a metaphor for what people do. and one of the things that people do is maintain a pool of impoverished people. ya see... full employment does not allow for expansion. if everyone is employed, there is no one to hire to fill yer new factories, offices etc. so... a substantial body of unemployed and poor people is NEEDED to meet 'potential' demands on labor and provide labor as production expands as well as to keep salaries low (gotta consider the greedheads). but that is a cynical form of capitalism and capitalism need not operate that way.

it was Keynes, that good old fashioned free market capitalist that first suggested that deficit spending by the gummint to maintain employment was a justifiable policy... and a good idea. the benefit? we place upon those who depend on the constant availablility of a workforce the responsibility of maintaining that workforce while NOT obliging those that comprise that workforce to go hungry. win-win.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

four midterms this week... lotta studying to do, likely won't be back before next weekend. and so it goes....

geo.

 

[Ajay]

From my own experience (and I've attended many primary, secondary, and postsecondary schools), Howard Zinn and Chomsky were the role model historians.

I would strongly disagree that such philosophies are meaningless. We apply philosophical principles everyday.

And you still haven't responded about David Brudnoy. You dropped his name to prove a point, without explaining how it proves the point.

And btw, the left does have a megaphone. It's called the mainstream media.

The left has no voice. Considering Democrats, liberals or progressives as the left is disingenuous (there's that word again). The left, as in the right. The right had FOX and the WSJ and more. The left had Michael Moore (not a media guy or station). The left now has SOME of the MSNBC carrying their water, but NOT the whole of MSNBC. If you disagree, name what you consider a 'leftist' media. Names.

Philosophies like those of Zinn and Chomsky are meaningless in that very few people know and practice their philosophies.

I am one of the few people I knew back in Boston, who traveled in some pretty left circles (as a guest) that actually knew who Saul Alinsky was. I knew because I met some people who worked with him and his widow. I can tell you that most committed leftists I knew were told in my presence what ALinsky advocated and were totally perplexed and ignorant.

The Alinsky connection to American politics: Just one more myth repeated by the right wing noise machine. Creating a myth and turning it into a bogus fact for those to ignorant and lazy to actually do homework rather than fools poorly drawn analogies and suspect correlations presented on cable news shows (which is where most of America has heard Alinsky's name).

And I gave a link about David and made a few statements. What is it you failed to understand? Was I that unclear?

 

[Mensch]

oh, lord.... sohistries... ok, lemme rephrase that: "can you demonstrate any state that has employed anything near to a strict laissex faire capitalism that has had little or no poverty?"

That is certainly NOT a sophistry. You’re demanding that I come up with an absolutist example of a free market society which frankly does not exist. Nor does any state exist which has completely eliminated poverty. I would rather examine the real results of capitalistic systems and socialist systems (or mixed systems, if you prefer). I don’t intend to demand any strict, poverty-free mixed economy because I know it doesn’t exist. And there is no perfect capitalistic country either.

you can argue it? meaning you can show it through reasoning? then pray do not waste time telling me that you can. until such time as you formulate such an argument, i will assume that the answer to the question I asked is, apparently "No, I cannot show any strictly free market, capitalist state that had a negligible poverty rate because there is none and never has been".

Since the majority of the world exists under deplorable, absolute poverty conditions, I argue it is fair to compare the conditions of our own poverty to the conditions of the average person who may inhabit the globe. According to my standards, our own poverty rate is quite negligible compared to the average rate of global poverty. You may argue that we need only gauge poverty conditions based on some artificial, high-end standard. But in reality, comparisons should really come down to two or more parties involved. We should be comparing our poverty to the poverty in other countries rather than to degrade our own rate of poverty by using some pensive, theoretical standard.

i do not disagree. but... meaning? that there are a lotta rich folk? taken as a standard of "doing well", that there are a lotta poor folk would seem to prove that we are not really doing well at all. and since we have a butt load MORE poor than rich, i would modify that to "some of us are doing well".

Again, please compare the poorest individual in America to the AVERAGE living condition of the rest of the world. Most “poor” individuals (if poor is implied to mean impoverished), possess a shelter of some kind, air-conditioning, heating without having to burn cow dung, access to potable drinking water, and many also possess a car, have cable television, and own a cell phone (I know, because I grew up in many different poor communities). We are doing very well, as a whole, and all you have to do to determine the accuracy of that claim is to examine how people vote with their feet. We have trouble keeping people out of this country, which goes to show how much opportunity does, in fact, exist.

there is nothing "bogus" about my question. it is not necessary, even for those of us would deny 'absolutism', to effectively negate every assertion with relativist qualifiers. recall the context from which the phrase "true capitalist" was drawn - your own unsubstantiated claim that "The free market (or capitalism) is the only long-term solution to poverty".

I still stand by that statement, but I’ll add a caveat. There is no absolute cure for poverty, but there is a solution for developing opportunity for the most impoverished individuals, and the economic system that best defines such a solution is called capitalism. Please watch the following:

YouTube - Hernando De Soto - Capitalism at Crossroads

mixed economies, seemingly, do not qualify, thus the otherwise unnecessary qualifier.

Mixed Economies; You mean, a nation where state and corporate (or business) interests are merged? Don’t be afraid to call it what it is- corporatism. Good ol’ bank bailouts, auto bailouts, privatized gains, public losses.

you are making assumptions that have no validity. you will find me decrying capitalism nowhere in any of these posts. 'Capitalists', yes, but not capitalism... just as i can criticize christians in their actions and not christianity as a faith. I support capitalism. I do not support it as the sole means of determining how goods are distributed.

And why don’t you support it as the sole means of determining how goods are distributed? Even if we took the mixed economic model, what percentage do you think should be capitalistic and what percentage should be socialistic (or whatever term you wish to use)? 50/50? 75/25? How much far involved should the federal government be in managing the economy? If the government is managing the economy, then you have a top-down power structure where the upper echelons of society are managing human lives, not just human capital. Why not support bottom-up development?

you liked saying that, didn't you? but.. no, there is no contradiction. we have a lotta people who do not have the use of their legs in this country. we do not have a lotta people who cannot access public buildings though, despite the fact that they have no legs. we do not dismiss them as pitiable for their lack, we make up for their lack - we accommodate their leglessness with ramps.

Why not give the legless person in a wheelchair the desk job on the first floor, rather than requiring a small business to spend a quarter of a million dollars to install an expensive elevator? If you want to talk about the ADA specifically, or rather are just using it as an example to prove a point is an important distinction. Lawyers win only half the court cases involving the ADA, and that is because the law is so damn convoluted. If you’re using it as a metaphor, then I suppose I’ll disagree again, because a man without legs does not automatically become useless in a capitalistic (or free market) society. I don’t believe that capitalists despise and neglect those with physical disadvantages (we’ve labeled it, “disabled,” which begs people to think down on them), just like I don’t believe racism and sexism are the cornerstones of a free market society. Look at Coolidge’s administrative decisions regarding race relations.

i believe i addressed that. i think we CAN. i doubt that we will. You are stuck in the black and white competition vs cooperation mode. they are not mutually incompatible. see next post.

Let me repeat the question to make sure we’re on the same page. Do you ACTUALLY believe that we CAN eliminate poverty? Do you believe we can eliminate hatred and conflict? Sure, in the fairytale land of Oz. Did you forget that humans are animals and that scarcity is the first lesson of economics?

an "encouraging reaction"? a trifle nebulous, that phrase.... how about the reaction to not being hungry? i would think that proof enough.

No offense, but it’s interesting that an individual with such verbosity can have such poor grammar. I don’t think you’ve capitalized a single sentence in this debate, let alone the vast excess of other mistakes (though I agree, my grammar and punctuation are not perfect either). I used the term “encouraging reaction” for a lack of a better term. But if you think the point was so trivial, you could easily debase the argument by providing statistics regarding the result of these government programs. If you wish to look at welfare, then examine the RESULTS of the system, not the intentions. If you wish to look at bank bailouts, then examine the RESULTS of such a system. Does being bailed out by the government (and in essence, the forced acquisition of another person’s time and labor), whether you’re a large corporation or a single individual a good idea? Does it promote responsibility or carelessness?

perhaps you might want to provide a glossary of your personal definitions. it would help. you might want also to better qualify your assertion of an "attitude of dependency". sounds like more right wing socio-economic rhetoric to me.

‘Abuse?’ Are you kidding? Why does such a word have to be so particular in scope? ‘Abuse’ can be used generally speaking. I don’t think I ever actually said “attitude of dependency,” but I think it’s obvious that a corporatism system is a system that promotes personal irresponsibility. You don’t have to look too far to see that.

 

[Mensch]

that last bit is arguable, but we can belay that. the first part of the statement is eminently true and precisely what i have been attempting to get across. Capitalism and successful competition are not wholly incompatible with ensuring a decent standard of living for those less capable of competing. more, being 'innovative' has merit when there is a need for innovation. being competitive begs a need too. there is no objective merit in either in and of itself. feeding hungry people is self justifying.

Sure, just like you feed your hungry child. Capitalism manages to combine cooperation and competition. A market can no materialize without cooperation and it cannot spur development without competition. I don’t believe that innovation must be forced upon anyone, or that cooperation and competition should either. But certainly, an economic system that has demonstrated to be innovative is much more useful to us than one that has demonstrated to be stagnant.

i will overlook the gratuitous insult and merely repeat the lil bit you chose to ignore. did you note the asterisk accompanying my claim. look to the bottom of the post and you will see another with this comment "according to the IMF and the CIA Fact Book ". you could look it up.

I don’t think you really mean or even remember what you said. You claimed that these countries (mixed economies) have eliminated poverty, which the CIA or the IMF does not indicate.

i am familiar with the Cato institute. Libertarians ARE conservatives.

Ok, and you’re a pinko commie. Now, let’s move on to the real debate.

Both Cato and Heritage would affirm a couple central tenets:

"The Heritage Foundation is committed to rolling back the liberal welfare state and building an America where freedom, opportunity, and civil society flourish."

sound Libertarian to you? me too. how about "government is not the solution, government is the problem"? yep... they may not claim teh title but i can qualify them as such if they seem no different.

Ah, guilt by association. What a wonderfully overused logical fallacy. I’m sure we can find parallels between social democracy and socialism, but that doesn’t make Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders a communist. We can find parallels between people who support a viable independent Palestinian state and William Pierce, but that doesn’t make the former group of people neo-Nazis.

they all use tax monies to provide monetary relief in the form of welfare, housing and free medical care to those who lack income, all policies which you seem to think are not well deserved or justified in the pursuit of 'self interest'.

Again, you are looking strictly at the intentions of the programs and not the results. My opposition to such programs do not firstly come from a self-interest perspective (thought that reason does exist). Rather, I oppose the above programs because of their massive waste and inefficiency. Did the projects deter crime or promote greater crime? Does providing luxury health insurance for every government at the taxpayers expense a good idea? That’s a loaded question. I don’t even know where to begin. How about food, clothing, and shelter? Why isn’t there this large movement to have the government take over the food or housing industry? What about homeowners insurance? According to the socialist principle of the mixed economic system, it is necessary and even moral to provide such resources to everyone. If scarcity is the first rule of economics, then the first rule of politics is to neglect the first rule of economics. Compare the mismanaged healthcare system to the vision and dental systems (which largely don’t operate on an insurance system and are free from the red tape). Heck, there’s higher quality service in the veterinarian hospitals as opposed to the human hospitals! Also, check out Certificate of Need (CON) Laws.

yeah. and good for them. but... they still have no people sleeping in doorways. they still ensure that their citizens do not die from simple neglect. craft policy to meet need. that is what they did, by most appraisals.

Here we go again; Europe is somehow transformed into Disneyland. I think you need to do some serious research to prove that claim.

yeah... in a time of the largest economic expansion in our history... perhaps in the history of civilization. you do what makes sense to meet needs of any given time.

But according to the Keynesian economists, and those who think the government can do it better than the private sector, it wasn’t the time. And it’s never the time. The only answer from the current administration is to spend more of what we don’t have to finance inefficient programs. That’s more of the same. Also, what about the political snipping that Clinton faced from his own progressive party when he signed the Welfare Reform Act? Obviously, there’s never time to cut spending for a democrat or a progressive or a republican or a politician for that matter. You have to keep subsidizing the people through illegitimate and wasteful programs, or else you’ll lose the election. It’s not totally their fault. It’s also the cultural and social mindset in this country that needs to change.

and THAT is a fundamentally undemocratic (not to mention extremely cynical) assessment which i would emphatically deny.

Are you serious? Have you ever read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers? How is it fundamentally undemocratic to recognize the simple fact that the essence of government is coercion? You think a democratic government is automatically a beloved, coercion-free government? That’s how the government operates- through force. Sometimes, the truth is not as pleasant as you’d like it to be.

 

[Mensch]

The left has no voice. Considering Democrats, liberals or progressives as the left is disingenuous (there's that word again). The left, as in the right. The right had FOX and the WSJ and more. The left had Michael Moore (not a media guy or station). The left now has SOME of the MSNBC carrying their water, but NOT the whole of MSNBC.

If it's disingenous, then why do you do it?

If you disagree, name what you consider a 'leftist' media. Names.

NPR, Democracy NOW!, CNN, New York Times, etc.

Philosophies like those of Zinn and Chomsky are meaningless in that very few people know and practice their philosophies.

Isn't that your subjective opinion? Why not expand the claim with some evidence?

I am one of the few people I knew back in Boston, who traveled in some pretty left circles (as a guest) that actually knew who Saul Alinsky was. I knew because I met some people who worked with him and his widow. I can tell you that most committed leftists I knew were told in my presence what ALinsky advocated and were totally perplexed and ignorant.

What is your point? That people don't always follow the leaders of their own movements? Democrats love FDR, but totally neglect the executive order that placed more than a 100,000 Japanese Americans into isolation camps. But, that doesn't mean they can't consider themselves democrats.

The Alinsky connection to American politics: Just one more myth repeated by the right wing noise machine. Creating a myth and turning it into a bogus fact for those to ignorant and lazy to actually do homework rather than fools poorly drawn analogies and suspect correlations presented on cable news shows (which is where most of America has heard Alinsky's name).

Why is it ok for you to utilize the left-right binary, but when I do it, it's disingenious?

And I gave a link about David and made a few statements. What is it you failed to understand? Was I that unclear?

Yes, you were. You dropped his name as an example of a libertarian who didn't follow through with his libertarian principles when death began knocking on his door. HOW? All you did was provide a link to wikipedia which did not help to prove that claim.

 

[Geo Patric]

You’re demanding that I come up with an absolutist example of a free market society which frankly does not exist.

no, i was asking that you demonstrate that the free market is the ONLY method for eliminating (ameliorating, lessening...) poverty. to do that, of course, would oblige a free market that had actually DONE so or to demonstrate through the use of reason how an economic system based on personal acquisition benefits others... an even HARDER proof, i would think.

Nor does any state exist which has completely eliminated poverty.

look again. you may not like the state(s) in question but certainly there are states where there are no people who go without the essential necessities of life.

I would rather examine the real results of capitalistic systems and socialist systems (or mixed systems, if you prefer).

and i would rather have a double-double from In 'N Out and Baskin Robbins.... afterward. but, YOU were the one that made the claim.

There is no absolute cure for poverty, ....

well, there is but we will never do it. what there is that we can do is ameliorate the effects of poverty. feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless.

we CAN do that.

Mixed Economies; You mean, a nation where state and corporate (or business) interests are merged?

no, i mean mixed economies where competitive (capitalist) and cooperative (socialist) methodologies are both employed as needed to provide the best for the most.... as most of the fine minds that Libertarians try to appropriate have suggested.

gotta run, a beautiful woman awaits me... come back to this later.

geo.

 

[Mensch]

no, i was asking that you demonstrate that the free market is the ONLY method for eliminating (ameliorating, lessening...) poverty. to do that, of course, would oblige a free market that had actually DONE so or to demonstrate through the use of reason how an economic system based on personal acquisition benefits others... an even HARDER proof, i would think.

How far must you look? There's a big difference between eliminating poverty and lessening poverty. In places where you have a free enterprise system, poverty is significantly lower than in places where no such system exists.

look again. you may not like the state(s) in question but certainly there are states where there are no people who go without the essential necessities of life.

Again, you're living in a fairytale world. If essential necessities of life include everything on the Food Pyramid, housing, etc. then there are plenty of individuals who go without these necessities in the state(s) you have mentioned. Also, I think it is wise to note that the majority of the welfare states that have so inspired the left in this country cut their welfare programs by a significant measure. Iceland, Denmark, UK, France, New Zealand, and Canada have all made drastic cuts to their welfare programs and have privatized many industries. A welfare state is simply unsustainable- see first lesson of economics.

and i would rather have a double-double from In 'N Out and Baskin Robbins.... afterward. but, YOU were the one that made the claim.

Given that I work for In-N-Out Burger part-time, I may be able to arrange that. Anyway, I forgot my original claim. I simply do not want to compare the real to the theoretical. I'd rather compare two real examples.

well, there is but we will never do it. what there is that we can do is ameliorate the effects of poverty. feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless.

You can eliminate poverty just as soon as you can eliminate hatred, envy, conflict, scarcity, etc. I have no problem feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or housing the homeless. But the government is not the end-all solution to providing these needs.

no, i mean mixed economies where competitive (capitalist) and cooperative (socialist) methodologies are both employed as needed to provide the best for the most.... as most of the fine minds that Libertarians try to appropriate have suggested.

First tell me HOW a socialistic system is based on cooperation. If we look at extreme socialism in practice (the kind that doesn't mix with capitalism), then we'd have to look at the oppressive regimes of Cuba, North Korea, USSR, etc. These states were not based on cooperation. Capitalism is based on cooperation. Capitalism is about people spontaneously coming together to freely engage in trade. When you sign up to work for a company, that is cooperation. When a mutual transaction is made between two parties, that is cooperation. Forcing individuals to conform to a certain degree of statist policy is not cooperation. The socialism aspect of the mixed market economy is one based on statist policy, where individual liberty is minimized for the exchange of maximized collectivism. In a collectivist, statist society, the individual has only the rights given to him by the majority. Always remember that the individual is the smallest minority.

Let's go back to the point about corporatism. If we define corporatism in the way that Herman Goerring defined it, then a mixed economy would effectively qualify as a corporatist system.

 

[Geo Patric]

Q

In places where you have a free enterprise system, poverty is significantly lower than in places where no such system exists.

you seem to think that I am opposed to free enterprise. i am not. i have said so many times.

Again, you're living in a fairytale world.

i don't believe you believe that.

If essential necessities of life include everything on the Food Pyramid, housing, etc. then there are plenty of individuals who go without these necessities in the state(s) you have mentioned.

enough food to avoid going hungry, shelter from the elements, the option of seeing a doctor when you get sick or injured. that is what ANY developed nation can provide. and many do.

Also, I think it is wise to note that the majority of the welfare states that have so inspired the left in this country

oh, lord.... the "dummy lefties sucked in by the commies in europe" monologue?

cut their welfare programs by a significant measure. Iceland, Denmark, UK, France, New Zealand, and Canada have all made drastic cuts to their welfare programs and have privatized many industries. A welfare state is simply unsustainable- see first lesson of economics.

thanks for the lesson. and no, the first lesson of economics is NOT that welfare systems are unsustainable. and, by "economics" you mean the economics that YOU have been indoctrinated in.... there is no body of economic law. 'economics' is simply a term for what people (and other animals) do to meet their material needs. YOU mean the first law of restrictive capitalism.

there ARE other models and they all have their own sets of rules.

nations change their systems all the time. but, buy a ticket to Ireland, fall down in the airport. they will take you to a doctor and he will fix you up. if you do not have insurance that covers you overseas, the people of Ireland will pay for it.

yes, there are changes made all the time. that is precisely what I am talking about. no economic model meets all the needs of all the people all the time. so, don't select one and get so ideologically bound to it that you cannot adapt. formal economics, the accumulation of surplus and the exchange of goods is, itself, a cultural adaptation to respond to changes in environment... changes WE made ourselves.

we have not always done these things. we existed for tens of thousands of years as self sufficient units, either as individuals or small kin groups without any such practices. we invented our economic systems and we can continue to modify and refine them. it is ridiculous to think that capitalism or socialism or mercantilism or any "ism' is an absolute, concrete thing it itself.

Given that I work for In-N-Out Burger part-time, I may be able to arrange that.

only chain burger that is worth a damn. and they are, as you doubtless know, held up as icons of just and fair business and employee practices by just such liberals as I am.

I simply do not want to compare the real to the theoretical. I'd rather compare two real examples.

that's grand. theory is all very good but what actual people actually do is a lot better as a subject of inquiry.

You can eliminate poverty just as soon as you can eliminate hatred, envy, conflict, scarcity, etc.

no... hatred is an expression of what is inside, poverty is oppression from outside.

I have no problem feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or housing the homeless. But the government is not the end-all solution to providing these needs.

in a democracy, john, the government is just a term for collective action. or if it isn't it is because we have given away our sovereignty to politicians. their job is to seek our wants. we are not subjects. we are citizens.

First tell me HOW a socialistic system is based on cooperation.

how do you qualify a system in which people work together to achieve whatever they wish to achieve? use whatever term you like. "co-operate" means precisely that and that is the term that i use. to compete is to do precisely the opposite.

systems aside, people are, by nature, both of those things. we function best when we employ both modes of behavior, tailoring our actions to suit the demands of whatever we have to overcome to achieve whatever it is we want to achieve.

basketball teams compete. they also cooperate. they have to or there is no game. "the game" IS the rules they agree to even more than the activity itself. if there are rules that seem to defeat the very premise of competition (and there certainly are) it is because pure competition eliminates. THAT is the object of competition... to eliminate competition. Mc Donalds works the same way. what they would want more than anything is to put Jack in the Box and In 'N Out outta business.

one of the purposes of the rules that we employ to restrict competition is, in fact, to maintain and strengthen competition.

If we look at extreme socialism in practice (the kind that doesn't mix with capitalism), then we'd have to look at the oppressive regimes of Cuba, North Korea, USSR, etc.

i am reminded (again) of the old vaudeville joke. a guy goes into see the doctor, makes an odd wiggling gesture with his shoulders and throws his left arm up in the air, says "Docta! Docta! everytime I do dis, it HOITS".

the doctors says "Nu? Ve haff no proplem, don't DO that".

i would suggest that if your are looking for an example of cooperative economics that you don't look at the USSR or Cuba or...

Capitalism is based on cooperation. Capitalism is about people spontaneously coming together to freely engage in trade. When you sign up to work for a company, that is cooperation.

NOW who is telling fairytales? that is not capitalism. capitalism is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods. . . and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market "

the only cooperation that capitalism demands is that of lender and borrower.

Forcing individuals to conform to a certain degree of statist policy is not cooperation. The socialism aspect of the mixed market economy is one based on statist policy, where individual liberty is minimized for the exchange of maximized collectivism. In a collectivist, statist society, the individual has only the rights given to him by the majority.

there is a second part of that joke that people never seem to remember.

a week or so later, the guy comes back in to see the doctor, makes the same peculiar gestures and says ""Docta! Docta! everytime I do dis, it HOITS... an' I can't stop doin' it!"

doctors says "ah, zo... NOW already ve haff a PROPLEM"".

firstly, 'statism" is not an economic but a political quantity. oppression by the state is a political act. we are not a statist state, we are a democratic state. that stalin presented authoritarianism as 'socialism' does not oblige you to do so.

secondly, you are assuming that i am promoting something along those lines. i am not and i have said so many times. i am promoting that we take a look at our needs and set our policies to meet them and damn the propaganda from both sides.

pure unalduterated laissaz faire capitalism does not work. we know that because there has never been one. pure unadulterated marxist communism doesn't work, we know that because every attempt at creating such a state has led to misery and failure.

they don't work because, even in the best, most honest and moral attempts, they try to take ONE aspect of human interaction and make an absolute of it. we are not such simple beings. and generally, they are neither honest nor moral. generally, one group gains all the economic power (and really, that is the only kind that counts) and pushes everyone else around.

Always remember that the individual is the smallest minority.

sorry... but that is trite.

and i would ask that you remember that the two things that you seem to advocate, individualism and little or no government are both approaches that human cultures have employed. the significant factor is that they would seem to be diametrically opposed in that as one increases the other always decreases. the cultures that have had the least (or no) government were the least individualist.

Let's go back to the point about corporatism. If we define corporatism in the way that Herman Goerring defined it, then a mixed economy would effectively qualify as a corporatist system.

i have no idea where you are heading with this. i am enjoying the discussion, though.

geo.

 

[Mensch]

Re: Q

you seem to think that I am opposed to free enterprise. i am not. i have said so many times.

Since you wish to mix free enterprise with socialism as much as possible to alleviate the effects of poverty and inequality, then I assume you’re not really for free enterprise but restricted enterprise (or limited enterprise).

enough food to avoid going hungry, shelter from the elements, the option of seeing a doctor when you get sick or injured. that is what ANY developed nation can provide. and many do.

Hungry people have options here. Homeless people have options. A capitalist society, similar to the one we have here, does not automatically mean human compassion disappears. Though there are hungry people in this country, the real big problem we have is poor people eating too much (ironically). I’ve been to the E.R. twice in the past year and my wife, once. We have no health insurance, and we live in a modest town. The community hospital has a charity program that will pay for the hospital bill. We still had to pay the doctor’s bill, but that’s only $300 (compared to $1100+ for the hospital and technical bills- all of which were completely paid for by charity). I know $300 is a lot for someone with little or no assets. But I’ve witnessed too many people who couldn’t “afford” health insurance (and the cheapest, catastrophic insurance only goes for $100/mo) go instead with other “necessities” (ie cell phone, Internet, cable, television, a mortgage, fancy clothes, etc). I’ve grown up in various poor communities, so I know what I’m talking about.

And what exactly happens when a state promises every necessity to every individual (including every human being on the planet)? The treasury goes bankrupt. Shortages, rationing, and price controls all come into play in these societies. The higher fiscal spending also facilitates a growing inflation rate. The programs aren’t free. The Europeans pay for them dearly.

oh, lord.... the "dummy lefties sucked in by the commies in europe" monologue?

I was just noting a dated observation that liberal democrats support welfare models of many European countries (as well as Canada). I’m not resorting to empty insults and hyperbole.

thanks for the lesson. and no, the first lesson of economics is NOT that welfare systems are unsustainable.

Actually, the first lesson of economics is scarcity. But I thought that was implied.

and, by "economics" you mean the economics that YOU have been indoctrinated in.... there is no body of economic law. 'economics' is simply a term for what people (and other animals) do to meet their material needs. YOU mean the first law of restrictive capitalism.

As the old saying goes: “The first rule of economics is scarcity: there are never enough resources to provide for every human. The first rule of politics is to disregard the first rule of economics.”

there ARE other models and they all have their own sets of rules.

Sure, for Keynesians, it’s SPEND, BABY SPEND! I never could fathom how putting yourself way into the red is somehow going to generate prosperity. Investments are one thing. But governmental investments come strictly from the acquisition of resources out of the private sector. So, the public sector uses the private sector’s money to invest in what the public sector believes will generate prosperity. And the private sector has no choice in the matter, though they might have a slight say in what investments are made (but again, the bottom line is that they’re forced to invest in the government’s job-making schemes). When the Keynesian model is used, cuts in public spending are never an option. This is because the government must have the highest paid wages, an untouchable tenure system, a wonderful pension program, and various other expensive accommodations. To pay anything less to public employees would be greedy (or to any worker, for that matter).

nations change their systems all the time. but, buy a ticket to Ireland, fall down in the airport. they will take you to a doctor and he will fix you up. if you do not have insurance that covers you overseas, the people of Ireland will pay for it.

That’s really sweet, but how sustainable is such a program? If one government (or one region of governments) decided to promise to pay all operations, all procedures, all checkups, all drugs for ALL humans on the globe, the system would quickly collapse. Again, see the first lesson of economics.

yes, there are changes made all the time. that is precisely what I am talking about. no economic model meets all the needs of all the people all the time. so, don't select one and get so ideologically bound to it that you cannot adapt. formal economics, the accumulation of surplus and the exchange of goods is, itself, a cultural adaptation to respond to changes in environment... changes WE made ourselves.

But, how could you charge poor people for food, shelter, and all other necessities (things that you believe should be free or freely available)? It seems, on the one hand, you’re arguing that should be our ultimate goal. On the other hand, you realize it’s totally impossible.

we have not always done these things. we existed for tens of thousands of years as self sufficient units, either as individuals or small kin groups without any such practices. we invented our economic systems and we can continue to modify and refine them. it is ridiculous to think that capitalism or socialism or mercantilism or any "ism' is an absolute, concrete thing it itself.

As many economists have said, free enterprise capitalism is the best system to date. Or, as PJ O’Rourke put it: “the worst economic system in the world, except for all the others.” We can change things, but it would be wise to try a system that worked and was truly fair. Not one that is geared towards pleasing the emotional sensors of certain groups.

only chain burger that is worth a damn. and they are, as you doubtless know, held up as icons of just and fair business and employee practices by just such liberals as I am.

I’m SO glad you brought it up. I’ll play Devil’s Advocate for a moment. How on Earth are you able to defend such a large business? In-N-Out Burger pays me a below-poverty wage and only offers me dental and vision. I do not get health insurance from the company because I am not full-time, and INO limits the number of full-time staff. Their owners are making hundreds of millions of dollars each year and are flying around in their own personal jets while we workers scratch by, paycheck to paycheck. According to the social democratic rational of equality for all, how can you pick and choose which greedy big businesses to defend? Why are In-N-Out, GE, Google, and Apple magnificent companies that have done wonders for the world, when they truly perpetuate the same monetary inequality that McDonalds, Chevron, and Microsoft have become infamous for. According to the social liberal worldview, why isn’t In-N-Out paying me a sustainable wage? Why aren’t they offering me health insurance and full-time status? Couldn’t the greedy bastards at the top give just a little bit more? After all, they can afford it.

To return to my normal self, I would argue that if you want to know how well the workers are reacting to their respective professions, check out the supply and demand of each individual profession. People WANT to work at In-N-Out, not because the owners are making a fortune at the expense of poor, uninsured people, but because the benefits and wages are highly competitive within that field. Hence, our one store receives roughly a hundred applications EACH WEEK.

no... hatred is an expression of what is inside, poverty is oppression from outside.

I can’t believe you’re still arguing that poverty can be eliminated. And btw, that is a horrible characterization of poverty. Poverty is not unavoidable. By making it seem like a result of oppression, you’re implying that poverty will exist so long as the oppressing force exists. What is this oppressing force? From my own experience and observation, poverty is almost always a result of personal experiences. And the majority of these experiences can be argued as self-made or from an outside source (government, racism, etc). Drug and alcohol abuse are the number one and number two causes of poverty, and I believe that is self-made. Regardless of the genetic predisposition or what have you, taking drugs and alcohol and then becoming addicted to drugs and alcohol is the fault of the individual. It is the responsibility of the individual to take care of his/her own body. Impoverished people who came into poverty because of drugs and alcohol always had a choice to refuse the toxins and they continue to have a choice to get clean. They are not victims of oppression, IMHO. Likewise, being irresponsible and having lots of babies does not equal being a victim of oppression. Not caring about your schooling or your occupation (getting fired a lot for your own personal mistakes) does not make you a victim of oppression. The victims of oppression number a small minority within the impoverished community. Most of the true victims are the children of irresponsible parents.

We could rejuvenate the dilapidated cities by making them business-friendly. That would give people jobs. And with jobs comes a level of security and identity. But I’m not sure how far you’ll go with me in this direction.

in a democracy, john, the government is just a term for collective action. or if it isn't it is because we have given away our sovereignty to politicians. their job is to seek our wants. we are not subjects. we are citizens.

True, but isn’t a democracy a place where renters control the land? In a monarchy, you have one owner of the land ruling it with supreme force. In a democracy, you have renters of the land who rule it with majority force. Though I’m not against a republican democracy, I do feel individual liberty supersedes democracy in virtue. Democracy, as you know, is too often a system of mob rule. Democracy killed Socrates. It destroyed Greece. Democracy is not the system we can rely on to improve the country of India. Individual liberty is more righteous than democracy. We can have two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, and we can call that a democracy. A democracy allowed slavery to exist in this country for almost a hundred years, and segregation for almost another hundred years after that. Had we valued individual liberty as the cornerstone of our society, slavery could not have existed.

how do you qualify a system in which people work together to achieve whatever they wish to achieve? use whatever term you like. "co-operate" means precisely that and that is the term that i use. to compete is to do precisely the opposite.

Believe me, if we wanted to name a list of systems that could qualify as simply people working together to achieve “whatever they wish to achieve,” I think you’d be greatly disappointed. Socialism is not a state of cooperation. Socialism is a system where the resources are controlled by the state, and the state is controlled by a dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat are cooperating, but the FREEDOM to cooperate doesn’t exist for individuals. If all businesses and resources are run by the state, then an individual will be forced to cooperate with the state to achieve his/her means. Forced cooperation with the state is not something I would want to defend.

By the way, I don’t believe cooperate is necessarily an antonym for compete. As you’ve mentioned below, sports teams cooperate in order to compete.

 

[Mensch]

Re: Q

systems aside, people are, by nature, both of those things. we function best when we employ both modes of behavior, tailoring our actions to suit the demands of whatever we have to overcome to achieve whatever it is we want to achieve.

You have just made a great defense for free enterprise capitalism.

basketball teams compete. they also cooperate. they have to or there is no game. "the game" IS the rules they agree to even more than the activity itself. if there are rules that seem to defeat the very premise of competition (and there certainly are) it is because pure competition eliminates. THAT is the object of competition... to eliminate competition. Mc Donalds works the same way. what they would want more than anything is to put Jack in the Box and In 'N Out outta business.

I think you’re mixing two arguments together. On the one hand, capitalism is a system based on cooperation AND competition. On the other hand, monopolies are almost always made by government action. No businessman or woman will ever be able to permanently corner the market. It’s impossible without government support.

one of the purposes of the rules that we employ to restrict competition is, in fact, to maintain and strengthen competition.

Regulation does not strengthen competition. It kills it. Tariffs and subsidies and loan guarantees and bailouts do not strengthen competition. The best way to strengthen competition is to liberalize trade among and between nations. Globalization of trade is the strongest source of competition imaginable.

i am reminded (again) of the old vaudeville joke. a guy goes into see the doctor, makes an odd wiggling gesture with his shoulders and throws his left arm up in the air, says "Docta! Docta! everytime I do dis, it HOITS".

the doctors says "Nu? Ve haff no proplem, don't DO that".

i would suggest that if your are looking for an example of cooperative economics that you don't look at the USSR or Cuba or...

Oh, I haven’t heard that one before. I suppose then, you win the argument by default. If I’m supposed to look at a socialistic system that doesn’t mix with capitalism, I would then be restricted from using one of many historical examples of state socialism. Can you provide a socialistic state, not mixed with capitalism that was based on cooperation (cooperation that obviously did not define the USSR or Cuba or…)?

NOW who is telling fairytales? that is not capitalism. capitalism is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods. . . and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market "

We were talking about cooperation. How can you deny that capitalism promotes cooperation between individuals (and organizations and states)? How can you deny that working for a company is not a form of cooperation? How can you deny that making a market transaction based on mutual decisions is not a form of cooperation?

the only cooperation that capitalism demands is that of lender and borrower.

What about the lenders cooperating with other lenders, or the borrowers cooperating with other borrowers (all in the name of the profit motive- a key ingredient of capitalism)? Again, how is signing up for a job not a form of cooperation? The basis of trade is cooperation.

firstly, 'statism" is not an economic but a political quantity. oppression by the state is a political act. we are not a statist state, we are a democratic state. that stalin presented authoritarianism as 'socialism' does not oblige you to do so.

From Wikipedia:

Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.
Statism is broad term, I’ll admit. In that case, our country could be defined as statist because the state (or government) is commonly used to achieve goals. For others, statism often refers to central planning (a cornerstone principle of the socialistic ideology).

secondly, you are assuming that i am promoting something along those lines. i am not and i have said so many times. i am promoting that we take a look at our needs and set our policies to meet them and damn the propaganda from both sides.

Ok, but first we have to agree on a few things. First of all, a mixed economy (what you are outspokenly defending) is a an economic system with a blend of capitalism and socialism. Again from Wikipedia:

A mixed economy is an economy that includes a variety of private and government control, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism

So, we first must agree that is what a mixed economy is all about. Second, we must define socialism. Socialism’s economic platform is central planning- central planning by the state in all economic affairs. Individuals, the majority of those who are not at the center of politics conducting the planning, have little say in their economic decisions. They are not free to pursue their own capitalistic gains, because the state has planned it for them (or they have allocated the necessary needs to them). Behind all the rhetoric, this is basically what socialism boils down to.

Ok, if you’re with me thus far, then we can clear up the confusion. You believe in mixing capitalism with socialism, meaning you believe in mixing private market freedom with state central economic planning. The former sees maximized individual liberty and minimized collectivist control whereas the latter is the reverse. Since you don’t want a free market economy, how much freedom of the individual should be limited? As I’ve said before, having the state presume control over economic decisions ultimately means allowing them the control over human beings.

pure unalduterated laissaz faire capitalism does not work. we know that because there has never been one. pure unadulterated marxist communism doesn't work, we know that because every attempt at creating such a state has led to misery and failure.

No one is a purist here, not even me. But I would argue that a government which promoted the economic and personal liberties of individuals saw the greatest prosperity. It worked well for the Europeans and the Canadians and the New Zealanders after they made massive cuts to unfunded entitlement programs. It works well for the people of Hong Kong and Singapore. It worked well for the U.S. during the late 19th century and for Japan after the Meiji restoration. It continues to work well for the U.S., though we have increasingly tolerated a corporatist takeover since the progressives decided it would be a good idea to get government and businesses closer together. The Chinese are experimenting with a form of capitalism that we haven’t seen in decades. Capitalism builds the middle class; socialism doesn’t. Capitalism produces invention and innovation at a rate far exceeding any socialistic system. The more you wish to fuse government with business to promote the welfare of the common man, the more you end up hurting the common man by not allowing him the tools to succeed. Mixing politics with business is never a good idea.

they don't work because, even in the best, most honest and moral attempts, they try to take ONE aspect of human interaction and make an absolute of it. we are not such simple beings. and generally, they are neither honest nor moral. generally, one group gains all the economic power (and really, that is the only kind that counts) and pushes everyone else around.

Complicated systems developed by top-heavy bureaucrats and politicians have been around for centuries. Simplification is a relatively new idea.

and i would ask that you remember that the two things that you seem to advocate, individualism and little or no government are both approaches that human cultures have employed. the significant factor is that they would seem to be diametrically opposed in that as one increases the other always decreases. the cultures that have had the least (or no) government were the least individualist.

I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. Since governments have been the biggest oppressors of human rights, I would have to disagree. Not even Somalia counts as a no-government state, because it is made up of many territories ruled by different warlords- all of whom administer the political process like any other governmental entity. A warlord is still a dictator, and a dictator is still a governmental entity.

i have no idea where you are heading with this. i am enjoying the discussion, though.

Like I’ve been saying, corporatism is the merger of state and corporate (or business) power; in other words a mixed economy. When you develop a political system that seeks to control economic decisions, you promote a fusion between governmental controllers and owners of capital. Regulating the railroads did not inspire the corporations to be more generous to their workers and customers. It instead catered to the corporate owners by providing them with the means to squeeze more out of the consumer, with price controls installed by the regulatory agency. Regulatory capture is all too common in such a mixed economic society.

 

[Geo Patric]

Re: Q

By the way, I don’t believe cooperate is necessarily an antonym for compete. As you’ve mentioned below, sports teams cooperate in order to compete.

read more closely. taken alone, they are, but as methods for acheiving, they may be employed together - note the basketball analogy.

between classes and have to run... come back to this later, but no, I do not want to "mix free enterprise with socialism as much as possible" for any purpose, though i do not care if that is how it is seen. i want to craft policy that sustains all individuals without denying anyone anything except, possibly, gross excess. yeah, i know that begs further qualification and i will be happy to take it apart as time permits.

maybe friday,
geo.

 

[Mensch]

Re: Q

read more closely. taken alone, they are, but as methods for acheiving, they may be employed together - note the basketball analogy.

between classes and have to run... come back to this later, but no, I do not want to "mix free enterprise with socialism as much as possible" for any purpose, though i do not care if that is how it is seen. i want to craft policy that sustains all individuals without denying anyone anything except, possibly, gross excess. yeah, i know that begs further qualification and i will be happy to take it apart as time permits.

maybe friday,
geo.

Again, I think that is a very idealistic mindset. I feel I'm a little more pragmatic. I think the government shouldn't obstruct any individual from pursuing such basic necessities, and I also think it should punish the citizens that attempt to obstruct others from pursuing such necessities. I do not, however, believe it should be in the business of distributing largesse for a number of reasons. I'm sure I've already listed the reasons why, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Geo Patric]

You have just made a great defense for free enterprise capitalism.

i realize that and i am good with it. again, you continue to think that I am anticapitalist. i am not. and i may have made a good case for 'socialism', too, depending on how you choose to use the term. both capitalism and socialism are badly misunderstood, as you yourself demonstrate in insisting that any form of trade is 'capitalist'. it isn't. trade is just trade. and, no, it does no good to insist that the Soviet Union is the only alternative to unregulated capitalism, overlooking the fact the 'EuroSocialism' has NONE of the authoritarianism of Stalinism, no gulags, no state control of the means of production. In addition OUR economic model need not be derived from any others living or dead. we can look at our resources and at our wants and needs and come up with a model that suits them and us.

it is NOT impossible to gain monopoly except with government support. it is ONLY government that suppresses monopolism. Microsoft has not tried to 'corner the market'? and been accused of monopolism in the process, keeping in mind that monopolism is not the epitome but the antithesis of competition? and gotten enormously rich and powerful in the attempt? and what has kept them from succeeding? i would ask Bill but he is busy with his lawyer sorting through the various antitrust suits that have kept Microsoft from crushing competition through monopolism.

you may be confusing 'cooperation' and 'collusion' - capitalists may cooperate when doing so benefits them, just as lions and hyenas may, but they do not work toward like ends to benefit each other. nor am i suggesting that they should.

regulation does not kill competition or competition would be dead here and it quite obviously is not. this is simply more capitalist myth. the merits (or lack) of government intervention in business is, at the very least, arguable. more importantly, you are supposing 'competition' (and innovation and a lot of other abstracts) to have objective value in and of itself. it does not. it has value only in so far as it produces positive effects. what are positive effects is pretty subjective. what is good for GM is NOT necessarily good for the U.S., though, sometimes it may be.

i have not denied that cooperation may result in a capitalist economy. it is fundamental to human behavior so we can expect that it likely will as long as it is not restricted. but it is not an element of capitalism. capitalism gets along quite well without it. a man giving you a job is not 'cooperating' with you, he is taking advantage of your abilities. that is not a denigration. there is no profit in having abilities that are not taken advantage of. but that does not change the nature of the interaction.

I could argue that working for someone is not a form of cooperation, but why bother? working for a company is not capitalism. not all market transactions are capitalism. those that are may produce mutual benefit but that is not the objective. any capitalist that chose NOT to take the sucker for all he could get would certainly lose investors and it is investment for profit, not exchange, that defines capitalism.

we are stumbling around in the dark here.... lemme try and see if i can switch on a light. here is the dogma that you seem to be propagating:

"Capitalist competition is the one of the most economically practical forms of social cooperation, where every producer competes to see who can best cooperate with each other, and with the consumer. Such is the nature of capitalist competition."
- capitalism.org

read it out loud and tell me that the phrase "every producer competes to see who can best cooperate " is not Orwellian. he does make an excellent point which you seem to be happy to overlook - producers and marketers do not compete only with each other but with consumers as well. they do not cooperate with you. they compete with your other interests.

let us look at another view:

Let’s accept the fact that needs are unlimited, but resources are scarce. In a primitive state of nature each person is another person’s deadly enemy, competing for scarce resources. One man’s healthy diet means another man’s starvation.

Competition for scarce resources is inherent in nature—an iron law of reality. Fortunately, humans discovered a solution that allows its members an opportunity to not only survive, but to thrive. In fact, it allows for the positive feelings of love, compassion and empathy. It generates friends instead of enemies. It allows for harmonious relationships. It is the higher productivity that results from the division of labor.

- libertarianway.com

sounds fine, dunnit? except that, as science, it is simple bunk.

firstly, human 'primitivism' was not dog-eat-dog. in fact, it was anything but. According to the best science we have available to us, human hunter-gatherer groups shared everything. they had to. no one individual could provide and secure his own well being by himself - the well being of the individual was intimately tied to the well being of the group. one produced to his or her capability and all the product was shared equally. Am i advocating this as an modern economic model? no, nor am i advocating a return to chasing deer across the savanna. i am merely pointing out that the foundation for this particular version of the capitalist myth is, itself, myth.

secondly. higher productivity was not, initially, the result of the division of labor, it was the cause. the division of labor was only possible when the extant division produced surplus, allowing for some to produce less (as in less essential) through specialization. only when the amount being produced was more than sufficient to sustain the needs of the group, for instance, could one be spared to make tools - otherwise, that task was undertaken collectively as well.

those H&G folks did not discover the benefits of cooperation, they were born with them. they inherited them from prior generations and prior species that also cooperated within and competed outside of their own group.

Hunter-gatherer societies have non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. ....Mutual exchange and sharing of resources (I.e. meat gained from hunting) are important in the economic systems of Hunter gatherer societies.

- Thomas M. Kiefer - Subsistence, Ecology and Food production. Harvard University.
in short, what we have from our friends over at Libertarian Way is self serving mythology.

no, we are not statist because the state and the people are NOT different things. We ARE the government.

if you are going to insist on a mixed economy as "a mixture of capitalism and socialism" and that "Socialism’s economic platform is central planning", then we need either a new definition or a new word. none of the developed nations that could rationally be qualified as having a 'mixed economy" includes this sort of communism, period. i have repeatedly said that i do not advocate any such thing and you know that.

again, i have never said that that i do not favor a free market. in fact, i have expressed exactly the opposite. i do not support an unregulated free market economy any more that i support unregulated prostitution, though i do support legal prostitution. a people have a right to regulate those things that directly affect them even when it impinges on a minority's absolute freedom. my fist, your face.

If you are not a 'purist' you do a damn fine impersonation of one. we do not need a "government which promote the economic and personal liberties of individuals" - no one does, we are given to Liberty by nature. what we need is a government that does not restrict freedoms.

but that does not mean that we do not have laws that keep us from doing some things. some things are not good to do. how you can preach unrestricted free market capitalism and decry corportatism is a real puzzle to me. they are the same thing.

you cannot separate business and politics. politics is the means for coordinating human behavior, materialism is at the root of human behavior, economics is the organization of materialism. you are always going to have either political control of economics or economic control of politics.

yes.a dictator is still a governmental entity and not the best which is why we have democratic governance so there is no dictator, WE are what governs us.

i can give you a link to a good economic glossary if you like... several in fact. corporatism is not "the merger of state and corporate (or business) power" but usurpation of political power by capitalist entities. i think that what constitutes a 'mixed economy' we could discuss separately at some length.

regulating human behavior, including the exchange of goods and the distribution of goods, is what governments do... what they have always done, all governments. "how" is the only question and the only good answer is "by agreement through democratic means". no ideology trumps the will of the people.and yeah, that is idealism - I am an idealist but not an ideologue.

idealism is not a weakness, it gets its value from the same place as all abstracts - it is good to the extent that it benefits people, it is bad to the extent that it harms people. this is simple secular humanist morality.

geo.

 

[Elutherian]

The expectation that people are far more moral than they actually are.

The essence of anti-libertarianism, that is statism, is the expectation that people in government are far more moral than they actually are.

 

[Elutherian]

The essence of libertarianism is liberty.

The opposite of liberty is violence.

 

[Mensch]

i realize that and i am good with it. again, you continue to think that I am anticapitalist. i am not. and i may have made a good case for 'socialism', too, depending on how you choose to use the term. both capitalism and socialism are badly misunderstood, as you yourself demonstrate in insisting that any form of trade is 'capitalist'.

I insisted no such thing. But capitalism has often been used interchangeably with a free-market system. I think that is quite accurate, but certainly there are some distinctions.

it isn't. trade is just trade. and, no, it does no good to insist that the Soviet Union is the only alternative to unregulated capitalism,

Again, I never insisted that. I do, however, insist that the Soviet Union and all the others are the best historical examples available to illustrate the attempt to fully centralize of state power, which often leads to another debate- the closeness between fascism and communism. I’m outspoken on DP about comparing the two systems and arguing that they are more alike in their fundamental structure than they are different. Anyway, the above mentioned states are the best examples of command economies in action (which is quite different than the nonexistent theoretical systems of which many would like to pin as the only reliable expression of Marxism).

overlooking the fact the 'EuroSocialism' has NONE of the authoritarianism of Stalinism, no gulags,

First of all, I don’t think gulags should really be considered. The broader issue you may wish to consider is political repression, which certainly does exist in western European countries (as it exists in America, as well). This is especially true in regards to immigrants from Africa and the Near East and their families. There are plenty of horrible violations of these people’s civil and human liberties, on a daily basis. There is also plenty of restrictions on economic liberties.

no state control of the means of production.

Are you serious? In Western Europe there was a massive nationalization throughout the 20th century, especially after World War II to ensure government control over natural monopolies and to some extent industry. Typical sectors included telecommunications, power, petroleum, railways, airports, airlines, public transport, health care, postal services and sometimes banks. Many large industrial corporations were also nationalized or created as government corporations, including among many British Steel, Statoil and Irish Sugar. Starting in the late 1970s and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s many of these corporations were privatized, though many still remain wholly or partially owned by the respective governments.

In addition OUR economic model need not be derived from any others living or dead. we can look at our resources and at our wants and needs and come up with a model that suits them and us.

Trade, Baby, Trade! The liberalization of trade in the past twenty years has given us enough evidence to prove which model works best for all involved.

it is NOT impossible to gain monopoly except with government support. it is ONLY government that suppresses monopolism.

You have an EXTREMELY positive view of government, as if politicians were Gods in their own right. But first, let’s wait for you to list a single monopoly that was not natural and did not come from any governmental source. I strongly suggest reading the definition and encyclopedia article on monopoly before listing the monopolies in question. You’ll come up always finding a monopoly that was created, or taken over, by the state. A monopoly is also slightly different than simply violating an antitrust law.

Microsoft has not tried to 'corner the market'?

I said that no businessman or woman has ever been able to permanently corner the market. I never said they will never try.

For entertainment, let me compare the circumstances revolved around U.S. v. Microsoft and your typical restrictive agreement between restaurants and soda manufacturers. Is it a monopoly for KFC to ONLY offer Pepsi instead of Coke Cola? I know it might sound like a dumb question, but where’s the merit to denying the manufacturer’s right to make agreements with wholesalers, retailers, and other manufacturers? Sure, you can stir up a lot of scare about forming a cartel or a monopoly, but so long as it’s not government-protected, a private restricted licensing agreement is a rightful freedom of the individuals involved in the negotiations, and the consumer always has other options.

and been accused of monopolism in the process, keeping in mind that monopolism is not the epitome but the antithesis of competition?

Are you really afraid of monopoly? Then maximize the liberation of trade between and within nations. When billions of companies are competing for your attention and dollars, across the globe, what better way to ensure no monopoly will ever reign supreme? Again, so long as government soldiers aren’t standing by the resources and industries with loaded assault rifles.

But you can’t promote competition in the market place by regulating, taxing, subsidizing, and restricting trade. Do you believe tariffs promote competition? Subsidizing GE to spur some sort of fantasy energy solution does not promote competition. Taxing the resources of the private businesses does not promote competition. Regulating all of an industry, while the big businesses remain the only businesses wealthy enough to afford the loopholes, hurts small businesses and does not promote competition. You never responded to my comment about the railroad corporations and the ICC.

and gotten enormously rich and powerful in the attempt?

Is there anything immoral or unjustified about getting enormously rich by your own success (and the help of your friends and family)?

and what has kept them from succeeding? i would ask Bill but he is busy with his lawyer sorting through the various antitrust suits that have kept Microsoft from crushing competition through monopolism.

Antitrust laws, in this fast-paced globalizing economy, are really bad for American companies. They do wonders, however, for other global firms competing against American companies that are restrained by these laws. Look at the effects of the fairly recent, Sarbanes-Oxley Act on our American businesses and their ability to compete with foreign firms. And nothing has really kept Microsoft from succeeding, because the company was developed in a free society. The reason it remains successful is because PEOPLE (you know, the same people that elect those magician politicians) have decided that Microsoft works better than the alternative. People buy Microsoft because it correlates with their individual tastes and needs. Mac has also survived by this measure. Lennox only recently became popular with computer users after it changed its complicated interface. Microsoft gives to people what people want, for that they continue to succeed.

you may be confusing 'cooperation' and 'collusion' - capitalists may cooperate when doing so benefits them, just as lions and hyenas may, but they do not work toward like ends to benefit each other. nor am i suggesting that they should.

Cooperation is an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit. So, when company managers are working or acting together for a common purpose with company employees, there is cooperation. When company managers, employees, owners, and their consumers, wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers are all acting together for a common purpose, there is cooperation.

regulation does not kill competition or competition would be dead here and it quite obviously is not.

I believe the importance is of quantity. Of course, the government could regulate to a very minimal degree, something even I support. Regulating too much definitely stifles competition and the ability of businesses to grow.

this is simply more capitalist myth. the merits (or lack) of government intervention in business is, at the very least, arguable. more importantly, you are supposing 'competition' (and innovation and a lot of other abstracts) to have objective value in and of itself. it does not. it has value only in so far as it produces positive effects. what are positive effects is pretty subjective. what is good for GM is NOT necessarily good for the U.S., though, sometimes it may be.

Am I actually agreeing with you? I’d say I do, but perhaps you may draw the line farther away. You may say Americans should all be taxed higher in order to save ten thousand jobs in Detroit, but I do not support such measures. It is wrong to use the government to bail out businesses for the same reason it is wrong to subsidize businesses. How competitive is the market when certain companies are bailed out by the taxpayer and others are nationalized by the government?

i have not denied that cooperation may result in a capitalist economy. it is fundamental to human behavior so we can expect that it likely will as long as it is not restricted. but it is not an element of capitalism. capitalism gets along quite well without it. a man giving you a job is not 'cooperating' with you, he is taking advantage of your abilities. that is not a denigration. there is no profit in having abilities that are not taken advantage of. but that does not change the nature of the interaction.

I believe you need to look up the simple definition of cooperation and then reread what you wrote here. Are you taking advantage of the employer when you go to the job interview? There’s mutual advantage taking place, and mutual consent. That should be enough to move on to the next topic.

I could argue that working for someone is not a form of cooperation, but why bother? working for a company is not capitalism. not all market transactions are capitalism. those that are may produce mutual benefit but that is not the objective. any capitalist that chose NOT to take the sucker for all he could get would certainly lose investors and it is investment for profit, not exchange, that defines capitalism.

Is that so? So, consumers like to buy from dishonest sellers? And is that why ALL companies are so dishonest, because they can be? Free market transactions are capitalistic, would you agree? If further exchange = higher profits, then what is the result and what is the cause? So how could a company invest in profit by not investing in what makes profit?

read it out loud and tell me that the phrase "every producer competes to see who can best cooperate " is not Orwellian. he does make an excellent point which you seem to be happy to overlook - producers and marketers do not compete only with each other but with consumers as well. they do not cooperate with you. they compete with your other interests.

Again, look up the definition of cooperation. You seem to be stretching the term to some philosophical degree.

 

[Mensch]

firstly, human 'primitivism' was not dog-eat-dog. in fact, it was anything but. According to the best science we have available to us, human hunter-gatherer groups shared everything. they had to. no one individual could provide and secure his own well being by himself - the well being of the individual was intimately tied to the well being of the group. one produced to his or her capability and all the product was shared equally. Am i advocating this as an modern economic model? no, nor am i advocating a return to chasing deer across the savanna. i am merely pointing out that the foundation for this particular version of the capitalist myth is, itself, myth.

“Dog-eat-dog” might be a little subjective in this particular instance. If you consider homo sapien tribes killing other homo sapien tribes for territory, resources, and females, then “dog-eat-dog” sounds quite fitting.

secondly. higher productivity was not, initially, the result of the division of labor, it was the cause. the division of labor was only possible when the extant division produced surplus, allowing for some to produce less (as in less essential) through specialization. only when the amount being produced was more than sufficient to sustain the needs of the group, for instance, could one be spared to make tools - otherwise, that task was undertaken collectively as well.

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond might help in this phase of the debate. The location of resources and a group of people’s geographical location determined the extent of their surplus, and thus, their division and specialization of trade. Hence, the Europeans conquered the Americans and not the other way around. Geography leads to surplus which leads to the division of labor which leads to higher productivity. That’s the progression of humankind, but things are remarkably different in this day and age. People can inhabit a rock island with little resources and succeed farther than their closest neighbor state which might possess a wealth of resources. The difference today is how a society nurtures its own specialization.

those H&G folks did not discover the benefits of cooperation, they were born with them. they inherited them from prior generations and prior species that also cooperated within and competed outside of their own group.
- Thomas M. Kiefer - Subsistence, Ecology and Food production. Harvard University.
in short, what we have from our friends over at Libertarian Way is self serving mythology.

This is the argument of nature or nurture. Frankly, I would have to argue that cooperation is learned and is not genetic. Or perhaps it is a mix of both.

no, we are not statist because the state and the people are NOT different things. We ARE the government.

In what way do you mean? Were the millions of slaves in this country a part of the democracy that created them? Were the millions of women and African-Americans who could not vote- were they a part of the government? The only reason they became absorbed into the government was because the majority allowed it. Our democratic government is nothing more than mob rule. When the majority says it ok, then we, as individuals, will finally have the freedom of self-ownership.

if you are going to insist on a mixed economy as "a mixture of capitalism and socialism" and that "Socialism’s economic platform is central planning", then we need either a new definition or a new word. none of the developed nations that could rationally be qualified as having a 'mixed economy" includes this sort of communism, period. i have repeatedly said that i do not advocate any such thing and you know that.

Of course the European Keynesians and labor parties are not advocating for Soviet-style gulags, but they’re certainly influenced by the same original idealist, Marx and Engels. The ideology known as social democracy or democratic socialism is merely a revision of Marxist ideology. That’s what it’s been called, at least. I beg to differ, however, that such a label is inappropriate. Social democrats have in fact merely reiterated Marx’s original ideas regarding the difference between socialism and communism. For Marx and Lenin, socialism was the phase before communism and after capitalism. Years after Lenin took power, he would never refer to Russia as a communist entity, but a socialist entity. His idea was to mix a free-enterprise and command economy in the attempt to pave the way for communist utopia. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to tweak capitalism in order to develop socialism. And if you don’t believe me, here’s proof: Socialist International - Progressive Politics For A Fairer World

again, i have never said that that i do not favor a free market. in fact, i have expressed exactly the opposite. i do not support an unregulated free market economy any more that i support unregulated prostitution, though i do support legal prostitution. a people have a right to regulate those things that directly affect them even when it impinges on a minority's absolute freedom. my fist, your face.

Whenever there’s a threat of violence or fraud, a libertarian will (or should) stand by your side to condemn it. But to regulate in order to promote an idyllic view of public safety is damaging. Individuals are free to own their own bodies, but must also take 100% responsibility for their own bodies. So, if prostitution is legal as it should be, then it is the responsibility of the prostitute and the john to ensure their safety. Otherwise, why would motorcycles be legal? You probably have a higher chance of dying as a motorcyclist than as a habitual solicitor of prostitution.

If you are not a 'purist' you do a damn fine impersonation of one. we do not need a "government which promote the economic and personal liberties of individuals" - no one does, we are given to Liberty by nature. what we need is a government that does not restrict freedoms.

No one “promotes” the economic and personal liberties of individuals, as in Amnesty International doesn’t promote human rights in regions of the world where human rights are violated? Technically, we are not given liberty by nature. Just ask any political refugee from North Korea. We are endowed with certain human RIGHTS at birth, not liberty. Liberty is only possible under a minimalist government.

but that does not mean that we do not have laws that keep us from doing some things.

And what you consider good may what an evangelical Christian may consider evil, and both of you will try to exert your political influence to ensuring such activities are liberated or restricted based on your (or their) narrow view of morality. You might argue we should liberate the prostitution market, but then deny that we should do the same thing in the drug market, or in the organ trade. I say, if it doesn’t break your leg or pick your pocket, then I should be free to do it.

some things are not good to do. how you can preach unrestricted free market capitalism and decry corportatism is a real puzzle to me. they are the same thing.

How so? In a free market, there are no subsidies of any kind, no tariffs of any kind, no regulations except the bare minimum, no bailouts, no stimulus, no loan guarantees, no grants, no preferential tax treatment, and no excessive taxation. So then, what reason is left for the business to influence government? If we instituted some sort of second bill of rights that declared certain amendments which refrained government from intervening with business, then business would have absolutely no reason to cooperate with government. If there’s no government feeding tube, what other reason would they have to spend on political advertisements and lobbying?

you cannot separate business and politics. politics is the means for coordinating human behavior, materialism is at the root of human behavior, economics is the organization of materialism. you are always going to have either political control of economics or economic control of politics.

In that case, why doesn’t the political apparatus organize the materialism for the whole country? If it’s only one or the other, then how come it isn’t?

yes.a dictator is still a governmental entity and not the best which is why we have democratic governance so there is no dictator, WE are what governs us.

We’ve had our fair share of benevolent dictators, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. You might argue that such absolutism in power was necessary. And you could be right. But you shouldn’t get so worked up about democracy. Democracy, in and of itself, is not righteous. Freedom is righteous.

i can give you a link to a good economic glossary if you like... several in fact. corporatism is not "the merger of state and corporate (or business) power" but usurpation of political power by capitalist entities. i think that what constitutes a 'mixed economy' we could discuss separately at some length.

Guess who wrote that? To me, the two definitions are nearly identical. The only difference is that the latter views the capitalist entities as the monsters who usurped the political power and the former views it a little bit more objectively. If the capitalists became heads of the political structure, then the first definition would still apply. Whether you believe it was the politicians or the capitalists who initiated the merger is irrelevant. The point is that it took place, and it can take place through peaceful regulation or a violent coup d’état

regulating human behavior, including the exchange of goods and the distribution of goods, is what governments do... what they have always done, all governments. "how" is the only question and the only good answer is "by agreement through democratic means". no ideology trumps the will of the people.and yeah, that is idealism - I am an idealist but not an ideologue.

Wow, you have way too much enthusiasm for simple majority rule. Again, slavery existed for nearly a hundred years BECAUSE of our democratic system, not in spite of it. And the same is true of segregation and the suppression of political, economic, and personal freedoms. Gay marriage will only be legal once the majority says it is ok. African-Americans are only human beings with liberties because the majority finally said it was ok. Forget about the collective good of the majority for a second and start thinking about the freedom of the individual. And yes, I agree that distributing goods and coming up with complicated political systems is what governments have always done. Simplification is the new idea.

idealism is not a weakness, it gets its value from the same place as all abstracts - it is good to the extent that it benefits people, it is bad to the extent that it harms people. this is simple secular humanist morality.

geo.

Idealism and abstract thinking are great if you spend your life in the ivory tower, but on the ground, pragmatic solutions work best.

 

[haymarket]

Why is it that there is a high probability that when somebody uses the term STATIST they are most likely a libertarian and have strong reasons to justify their own selfishness above all others in society?

I have encountered lots of people who proudly wear all kinds of labels they place upon themselves to identify their political or ideological affiliations or leanings. Not one used the term STATIST. It is always a pejorative used to demean and ridicule when one tries lamely to prop up and rationalize their own selfishness.

 

[Elutherian]

Why is it that there is a high probability that when somebody uses the term STATIST they are most likely a libertarian and have strong reasons to justify their own selfishness above all others in society?

I have encountered lots of people who proudly wear all kinds of labels they place upon themselves to identify their political or ideological affiliations or leanings. Not one used the term STATIST. It is always a pejorative used to demean and ridicule when one tries lamely to prop up and rationalize their own selfishness.

I suppose the label of selfish is the opposite of a pejorative and less demeaning or ridiculous.

 

[Mensch]

Why is it that there is a high probability that when somebody uses the term STATIST they are most likely a libertarian and have strong reasons to justify their own selfishness above all others in society?

I have encountered lots of people who proudly wear all kinds of labels they place upon themselves to identify their political or ideological affiliations or leanings. Not one used the term STATIST. It is always a pejorative used to demean and ridicule when one tries lamely to prop up and rationalize their own selfishness.

Selfishness above all others? Where do you get this crap? If you'd like to have a reasonable debate about anything mentioned above, I'd be glad to have it. But there is no probability that libertarians mostly use the term statism to illustrate government regimes or ideological movements. In truth, I'm sure any fascist or socialist would be glad to use the term to qualify their ideology, just as long as statism meant maximized collectivist supremacy and minimized individual liberty.