TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Capitalism vs Socialism. Equality vs Inequality (deep philosophical stuff)
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Capitalism vs Socialism. Equality vs Inequality (deep philosophical stuff)

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N. Rothbard, 1973

For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and "idealism" on its side; the Conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the "impracticality" of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid "in theory," but that it cannot "work" in practical life. What the Conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the "ideal" to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the "ideal" from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of "impracticality" becomes less and less directly relevant. The Conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the "practical" (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as the status quo moves further in the left direction."(snip)

Never has the virus of "practicality" been more widespread than in the United States, for Americans consider themselves a "practical" people, and hence, the opposition to the Left, while originally stronger than elsewhere, has been perhaps the least firm at its foundation. It is now the advocates of the free market and the free society who have to meet the common charge of "impracticality."

In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal. So committed is everyone to this ideal that "impracticality" � that is, the weakening of economic incentives � has been virtually the only criticism against even the most bizarre egalitarian programs.

The unquestioned ethical status of "equality" may be seen in the common practice of economists. Economists are often caught in a value-judgment bind � eager to make political pronouncements. How can they do so while remaining "scientific" and value-free? In the area of egalitarianism, they have been able to make a flat value judgment on behalf of equality with remarkable impunity. Sometimes this judgment has been frankly personal; at other times, the economist has pretended to be the surrogate of "society" in the course of making its value judgment. The result, however, is the same. Consider, for example, the late Henry C. Simons. After properly criticizing various "scientific" arguments for progressive taxation, he came out flatly for progression as follows:

The case for drastic progression in taxation must be rested on the case against inequality � on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing distribution of wealth and income reveals a degree (and/or kind) of inequality which is distinctly evil or unlovely. 2

Another typical tactic may be culled from a standard text on public finance. According to Professor John F. Due, "[t]he strongest argument for progression is the fact that the consensus of opinion in society today regards progression as necessary for equity. This is, in turn, based on the principle that the pattern of income distribution, before taxes, involves excessive inequality." The latter "can be condemned on the basis of inherent unfairness in terms of the standards accepted by society."

Whether the economist boldly advances his own value judgments or whether he presumes to reflect the values of "society," his immunity from criticism has been remarkable nonetheless. While candor in proclaiming one's values may be admirable, it is surely not enough; in the quest for truth it is scarcely sufficient to proclaim one's value judgments as if they must be accepted as tablets from above that are not themselves subject to intellectual criticism and evaluation. Is there no requirement that these value judgments be in some sense valid, meaningful, cogent, true? To raise such considerations, of course, is to flout the modern canons of pure wertfreiheit in social science from Max Weber onward, as well as the still older philosophic tradition of the stern separation of "fact and value," but perhaps it is high time to raise such fundamental questions. Suppose, for example, that Professor Simons's ethical or aesthetic judgment was not on behalf of equality but of a very different social ideal. Suppose, for example, he had been in favor of the murder of all short people, of all adults under five feet, six inches in height. And suppose he had then written: "The case for the liquidation of all short people must be rested on the case against the existence of short people � on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing number of short adults is distinctly evil or unlovely." One wonders if the reception accorded to Professor Simons's remarks by his fellow economists or social scientists would have been quite the same. Or, we can ponder Professor Due writing similarly on behalf of the "opinion of society today" in the Germany of the 1930s with regard to the social treatment of Jews. The point is that in all these cases the logical status of Simons's or Due's remarks would have been precisely the same, even though their reception by the American intellectual community would have been strikingly different.

My point so far has been twofold: (1) that it is not enough for an intellectual or social scientist to proclaim his value judgments � that these judgments must be rationally defensible and must be demonstrable to be valid, cogent, and correct: in short, that they must no longer be treated as above intellectual criticism; and (2) that the goal of equality has for too long been treated uncritically and axiomatically as the ethical ideal. Thus, economists in favor of egalitarian programs have typically counterbalanced their uncriticized "ideal" against possible disincentive effects on economic productivity; but rarely has the ideal itself been questioned.

Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself � should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is "true in theory" but "not valid in practice." If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently "impractical," that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

Suppose, for example, that it has come to be adopted as a universal ethical goal that all men be able to fly by flapping their arms. Let us assume that "pro-flappers" have been generally conceded the beauty and goodness of their goal, but have been criticized as "impractical." But the result is unending social misery as society tries continually to move in the direction of arm-flying, and the preachers of arm-flapping make everyone's lives miserable for being either lax or sinful enough not to live up to the common ideal. The proper critique here is to challenge the "ideal" goal itself; to point out that the goal itself is impossible in view of the physical nature of man and the universe; and, therefore, to free mankind from its enslavement to an inherently impossible and, hence, evil goal. But this liberation could never occur so long as the anti-armfliers continued to be solely in the realm of the "practical" and to concede ethics and "idealism" to the high priests of arm-flying. The challenge must take place at the core � at the presumed ethical superiority of a nonsensical goal. The same, I hold, is true of the egalitarian ideal, except that its social consequences are far more pernicious than an endless quest for man's flying unaided. For the condition of equality would wreak far more damage upon mankind.

What, in fact, is "equality"? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are "equal" if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be "equal" in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are "equal," etc. There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be "equal" in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men � the egalitarian ideal � can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction � a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.

Indeed, it is precisely in horror fiction where the logical implications of an egalitarian world have been fully drawn. Professor Schoeck has resurrected for us the depiction of such a world in the British anti-Utopian novel Facial Justice, by L.P. Hartley, in which envy is institutionalized by the State's making sure that all girls' faces are equally pretty, with medical operations being performed on both beautiful and ugly girls to bring all of their faces up or down to the general common denominator. A short story by Kurt Vonnegut provides an even more comprehensive description of a fully egalitarian society. Thus, Vonnegut begins his story, "Harrison Bergeron":

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

The "handicapping" worked partly as follows: Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

The horror we all instinctively feel at these stories is the intuitive recognition that men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of an egalitarian society is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well."

--Murray M. Rothbard, 1973

.

I know most people here are from Europe, and I am certainly outnumbered, however I'm posting this for those who have a conservative/libertarian outlook on economic issues. I know many here have a good understanding of economics, and are able to debate leftists on the merits of free markets vs socialism, and low, flat rate taxes versus higher and progressive (Marxist) tax systems. Unfortunately I've noticed that many of these arguments against socialism rest on practical arguments. I often hear "It goes against human nature." or "It just doesn't work in the real world." statements...rather than the necessary MORAL arguments against socialism.

As the article points out, arguing the science and practicality of these issues is a huge mistake. Doing so concedes the moral high ground to the authoritarian left. Once you do this, you have accepted their assumptions and are working backwards, trying to find different methods to accomplish THEIR GOALS! It is time we stop doing this, and start questioning the bedrock principles they believe in. Is equality (of outcome) really a GOOD thing? Should we really be striving for it using government force and the threat of VIOLENCE for those who resist? Forget the fact that socialism doesn't work for a moment...The question should be: Is this the MORAL thing to do to a country?
Is equality really more valuable than freedom?

After reading this article, I hope you will conclude, absolutely NOT!

In Defense of Diversity

My oh my, where to begin?

That article is, from start to finish, a snowballing strawman that seems to be attacking a socio-economic philosophy far more extreme than even that of Marxism. How, for instance, did the author conflate egalitarianism with some totalitarianistic desire to enforce homogeneousness across all facets of society? Not even those to the furthest extremes of the totalitarian left would consider the doomsday scenario depicted at the end as being moral, much less necessary. Like most aspects of the objectivst "philosophy" (and I hesitate to use the word "philosophy" when discussing objectivism) this interpretation of Leftist economic ideals is nothing but a hyperbolic, paranoid delusion.

Secondly, the author seems to be using the blanket term "the Left" when - in actual fact - he appears to be referring to, as I said, a rather extreme interpretation of communism. Very, very few members of this rather mythical "the Left", for instance, would advocate the introduction of absolute economic equality, much less push for an absolutely homogeneous society. The egalitarianism of the socialists / liberals is of a far more moderate strain, that doesn't seek economic equality (or, to use a favourite phrase of the right, "wealth redistribution") it seeks only to ensure that even the poorest of those in our society have access to the most basic privileges available modern life (unemployment benefits, health coverage, education etc.). Now the author of the article - if he were able to stop jerking off to Atlas Shrugged for long enough to speak to us - would doubtless find reason to criticise the moral basis for such a perspective: "But providing access to these things would necessitate stealing from those who have earnt their money through hard work and initiative", he would say between strokes, "and this is a direct breach of their inherent right to accumulate wealth without obstacle. By breaching their inherent rights, you are impacting on their freedom and individualism and are on the slippery slope to a society of faceless men with hearing aids. It is a severe breach of man's inherent right to personal freedom to give his money away to another individual." Now I don't know much about these sorts of people, but I'd imagine that there I've captured the gist of what such an objectivist would would say.

The first problem with such a perspective - and this is something that many objectivists / libertarians / laissez-faire capitalists fail to understand - is that every "individual" exists within a "society". The concepts of individualism and functioning society, in this case, are not mutually exclusive, rather they are perfectly compatible. If, in the spirit of objectivism, one were to believe that nothing should be provided free of charge, then every individual who benefits from existing in a society has a moral and econonic responsibility to provide something back to it. Even the wealthiest men in the world would be paupers without that which society provides them, from the freedom to sell their products to the other individuals to the roads that take them to work every morning. These men didn't "earn" these privileges, they were provided them by the society functioning around them. The taxes they pay to the government can be seen as fees for existing within this beneficial framework and if you benefit more from society than the next man, then why should you have to complain about paying greater taxes? What, you think you're entitled to something at a proportionally lower cost than everyone else?

The apportionment of taxes to the government allows it the finances to perform its primary role - and what do you think that is? To build essential infrastructure? But why does it need to do that? To ensure economic growth and opportunity? An important responsibility, but why do we need a strong economy? To ensure a wealthy, prosperous citezenry? But why is that important? To ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants? Bingo. Now step back a bit further and consider the primary function of the government that ties all its roles - from economic management, to defense, to a strong legal system - together: put bluntly, the role of the government is to protect the wellbeing of its citizenry. We need a strong economy to ensure we can feed ourselves, we need a strong defense to protect us from other people and we need a strong legal system to protect us from ourselves. Thus, if we look at it from this perspective, it is a key role of the government to ensure that each of us are safe from the ravages of malnutrition and starvation (hence unemployment benefits), ill-health (hence health care coverage) and chronic poverty (hence access to education). Each preventable death from these causes is every bit as reprehnsible, in a society that can afford it, as a preventable death at the hands of terrorists. If 100 people died due to government inaction with regards to the funding implementable and affordable security measures then there'd be an uproar, so why should the uproar be any less when deaths occur due to government inaction with regards to the funding of implementable welfare, health care and education measures?

I know what you're going to say - we can't afford to fund these things and to a degree you are right. Especially with the imminent ageing of the post-war population glut, we simply may not be able to afford to provide the level of coverage we'd otherwise like to be able to provide. This, however, does not absolve the government from the responsibility to do what it can to protect the lives of its citizens from all identifiable threats be it poverty, war or terrorism. The fact that we cannot protect everyone from the ravages of these elements does not mean that we shouldn't make the effort to protect as many as possible.

Anyway, Individualism vs Society arguments aside, it's the moral haughtiness of the article that frustrates me the most. The notion that the "ethical" egoism proffered by objectivists is inherently more moral than the moderate egalitarianism offered by socialists and liberals flies in the face of the actual nature of morality. The fact is that morality only concerns groups of people, not individuals. An action committed by an individual that affects no-one else is neither moral nor immoral - it's inherently amoral by virtue of the fact that it cannot infringe on the rights of any other individual and if it cannot do this, then it - by definition - cannot be judged in a moral sense. Therefore, any morality that bases itself on the presumption that all ethical issues stem primarily from the natural right of the individual to act freely are essentially flawed - it is, afterall, those affected by an action (or inaction) that judge its moral worth, not the individual committing it. An individual acting independently, in a vacuum, cannot commit an action that is either moral or immoral. There is no morality of absolute individualism. An individual acting within a society, however, can and does commit actions that are moral and immoral but it is not he that is able to judge the morality of his actions, it's those affected by them that do - am I making any sense here?

Let's try a practical example:

Let me ask - is it right for a man to be able to dance? Self-evidently, yes. A man should be free to dance and no-one has the right to stop him. However, is it right for a man to dance wildly in a crowded room? In this case, probably not - if the load music hurts the ears of others and the man's flamboyant style results in the injuries of many more, how can his action still be said to be right? In the first instance, dancing on his own he is affecting no-one, the issue of morality is impertinent and he is free to make his own choice. The second his actions impact on others, however, then he may be judged for the actions he commits.

Say a man chooses not to act, however (afterall, inaction is as much a choice of action as any action is). Say a man chooses to stand around with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance. Again, there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about this action. This man is ultimately free to choose how he acts, or - in this case - doesn't act. However, let us say then that this man (still with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance) is standing on the side of a boat, watching as a young man drowns in the water in front of him. Is it still moral for this man to not act when he could easily throw a rope down to save the young man drowning? I would suggest not. Choosing to allow a man to die when you have the power to save him is every bit as immoral as pushing him into the water in the first place.

Now let's tie this all back to the matter at hand: both you, Capitalizt, and the author of the article contend that egalitarianism is immoral becauses it compromises the essential freedom of every individual to choose as he pleases. My argument, however, is that is far less immoral to compel an individual, unwillingly, to help a man in need than it is for the individual to not help the man in the first place. Furthermore, I contend that it is the responsibility (if you want to learn some real philosophy I suggest you look into Sartre's writings on the correlation between individual freedom and individual responsibility) of those who exist in a society to repay back to it but a small fraction of that which they have gained from living within it. If you can find any reason why either of these perspectives run contrary to what could be said to be "the MORAL thing to do to a country" then I'd like to hear them.

(Note: I'm not a liberal - in the morern American sense at least - or a socialist, so don't bother attempting another strawman approach.)

Although I cannot disagree that the above article is an obvious straw man, I�m afraid that your critique of �laissez-faire� economics is, at best, in need of further development.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The first problem with such a perspective - and this is something that many objectivists / libertarians / laissez-faire capitalists fail to understand - is that every "individual" exists within a "society". The concepts of individualism and functioning society, in this case, are not mutually exclusive, rather they are perfectly compatible. If, in the spirit of objectivism, one were to believe that nothing should be provided free of charge, then every individual who benefits from existing in a society has a moral and econonic responsibility to provide something back to it. Even the wealthiest men in the world would be paupers without that which society provides them, from the freedom to sell their products to the other individuals to the roads that take them to work every morning. These men didn't "earn" these privileges, they were provided them by the society functioning around them. The taxes they pay to the government can be seen as fees for existing within this beneficial framework and if you benefit more from society than the next man, then why should you have to complain about paying greater taxes? What, you think you're entitled to something at a proportionally lower cost than everyone else?

Taxes are paid to support a government, not a society � you seem to equivocate the two. An anarchistic society is still a society. It does not follow that one should pay for a greater proportion of the costs of one object based on one�s greater proportion of the benefits from another object. If this reasoning were to be properly carried out, then one would have to know how much each individual benefits from the government (not from society) in order to determine what proportion they ought to owe to support it. The costs of society, however, are not currency: they are organization, resources, labor, and ingenuity. It so happens that those individuals who contribute the most to the costs of society are in fact typically those who also receive the largest share of its benefits.

quote:

The apportionment of taxes to the government allows it the finances to perform its primary role - and what do you think that is? To build essential infrastructure? But why does it need to do that? To ensure economic growth and opportunity? An important responsibility, but why do we need a strong economy? To ensure a wealthy, prosperous citezenry? But why is that important? To ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants? Bingo.

I�m afraid that I must disagree entirely. In order to correctly ascertain the primary role of government one should look no farther than to the problem it was created to solve. In other words: what was wrong with our anarchistic society such that the existence of government is desirable? It is not to build essential infrastructure � infrastructure would still be constructed by those with the resources to create it who also stood to benefit from it: an individual or organization in need of a road would construct one if they had sufficient resources, for example. On the contrary, the function of government is to prevent the accumulation of wealth and resources by means of immoral means, such as violence or deception which contribute nothing to society. Such practices harm, rather than benefit society, and therefore it is desirable to eliminate them, even if some cost must be incurred in order to pay for the government which (theoretically) prevents them.

Government doesn�t (and cannot) �ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants.� This is because no matter what a person has, there will always be something else that they want. And if they are able to obtain that as well, there will be something else. No matter what, there will always be some unsatisfied desire. Furthermore, the accumulation of wealth amongst the citizenry fails to genuinely address the most profound and important desires that people have. What can the government or any amount of wealth do for the gay boy who wishes for nothing more than his father�s acceptance, but will never receive it? Or for the young woman who would gladly sell her soul to be the next big pop singer, but simply does not have the aptitude? Or for the millions of broken hearts young and old who just want another chance to do things right, but can never erase the mistakes of their past? I suppose there is no need for me to belabor the point: the proposed role of government cannot be its actual role, since it is a function that government cannot perform. I submit that my description of government as a tool to enforce order and preserve society�s natural efficacy is a more accurate description of the primary role of government.

It strikes me that it would be pointless for me to address your post any further until we�ve had the chance to further explore the more fundamental disagreements I�ve addressed in this post. If you can find the time, I would be glad to hear you explain your point of view more thoroughly.

First, thanks for the reply Renegade. I disagree with almost everything you said but at least you don't emote like most lefties, who just seem to "feel" their way through the issues rather than thinking clearly. You have logically backed up your positions so you deserve credit for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade My oh my, where to begin? That article is, from start to finish, a snowballing strawman that seems to be attacking a socio-economic philosophy far more extreme than even that of Marxism. How, for instance, did the author conflate egalitarianism with some totalitarianistic desire to enforce homogeneousness across all facets of society? Not even those to the furthest extremes of the totalitarian left would consider the doomsday scenario depicted at the end as being moral, much less necessary.

Of course the author went a bit extreme to get his point across, but sometimes that is necessary to highlight the disturbing nature of where the desire for forced equality ultimately leads. Of course, nobody on the left has proposed something outrageous like physically disfiguring the beautiful to bring them down to a "normal" level of beauty, but I have seen time and time again, both on these forums and elsewhere, the desire of the left to HURT people financially...with quotes like "Oooh I'd like to see them lose everything they have, so they can see what it is to be poor.". You may be able to sympathize with this attitude but I can not. To me, this is an evil belief...a desire to see someone destroyed...to have the fruits of their labor confiscated by force. When one doesn't have the right to earn property and dispose of it as they please, by definition, they are a SLAVE...and for people on the left to demand higher and higher tax burdens on a certain class of people is to demand they be ENSLAVED for an ever longer portion of the year they work. This belief...the desire to harm another, I find disgusting, and nearly on the same level as the desire to disfigure someone because they are too beautiful.

quote:

If, in the spirit of objectivism, one were to believe that nothing should be provided free of charge, then every individual who benefits from existing in a society has a moral and econonic responsibility to provide something back to it. Even the wealthiest men in the world would be paupers without that which society provides them, from the freedom to sell their products to the other individuals to the roads that take them to work every morning. These men didn't "earn" these privileges, they were provided them by the society functioning around them. The taxes they pay to the government can be seen as fees for existing within this beneficial framework and if you benefit more from society than the next man, then why should you have to complain about paying greater taxes? What, you think you're entitled to something at a proportionally lower cost than everyone else?

I don't believe the wealthy should be forced to pay a "proportionally lower" cost than anyone else. The moral thing to do would be to impose an equal burden on everyone who contributes to society, with a flat rate tax on every dollar earned above the poverty level. Millionaires would still pay millions in taxes, while someone making $20k would pay only a few hundred dollars. When you look at it, the system would still be "progressive", but flat at the same time so not to discourage productive activity at the top. The fact that millionaires are millionaires at all says something about the amount they have "contributed" to society already. Through their actions, and through VOLUNTARY transactions with other individuals in the free market, businessmen in the private sector create more wealth and more jobs each year than our government has since it's inception. By virtue of making money, they have already given society more than the most compassionate socialist government could ever hope to achieve. These people should not be singled out for a greater punishment because of their success...They should not be scorned and punished for it, nor should they be rewarded. They should be forced to pay an equal burden...a flat percentage of their earnings to the government.


As for the other issues you brought up (health care, food stamps, etc etc.). I do not disagree with you on those goals. It is the MEANS to the ends that I have a problem with. The poverty rate today stands exactly where it stood in 1960, after more than 40 years and $7 trillion spent on the war on poverty. Using direct transfer payments and welfare programs, we have tried fighting it the left's way for four decades. And instead of lifting people out of poverty, we have institutionalized it...creating entire generations of families dependent on these payments for survival. We have also created a massive bureaucratic class who's survival depends on finding new ways to EXPAND the welfare state. The intentions of these programs were good...I don't deny the sincerity of those who started them...but the practical results of this method have been disasterous. The fact is, the government took on an unachievable goal, and only made a bad situation worse.

Not only is it worse for the average welfare recepient (who is actually penalized for seeking productive work), but society as a whole has lost it's common bond with the poor. We no longer feel connected to our neighbors, or our elderly parents because "the government" takes care of them now. We feel no obligation to personally help the poor because "thats what our taxes are for". When you work five months of the year to pay your taxes, you feel (perhaps justifiably) that you've "done your part" for the poor and needy, and that you need to take no personal interest in their well-being. In the most generous welfare states in Europe, private charity is the lowest per capita in the world. I believe this says something profound about socialism. It crushes the human spirit.

This discussion reminds me of a quote:

"Government does not grow by seizing our freedoms, but by assuming our responsibilities." � Michael Cloud

In America, we have tried helping people the left's way for 70 years now...Our government has grown massively, and has assumed more and more of our responsibilities each year, making our society worse for it. It is time for a radical approach. We need a leader that truly believes in the power of liberty (unlike George W.) who will radically reduce the size, scope, and BURDEN of government across the board. With people free to enjoy the vast majority of their earnings, buying essentials like food and medicine will be much easier. Those who fall through the cracks will have access to abundant charity from their fellow citizens, who now realize it is not the government's role to care for us...but it is our role to care for each other.

quote:

Say a man chooses not to act, however (afterall, inaction is as much a choice of action as any action is). Say a man chooses to stand around with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance. Again, there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about this action. This man is ultimately free to choose how he acts, or - in this case - doesn't act. However, let us say then that this man (still with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance) is standing on the side of a boat, watching as a young man drowns in the water in front of him. Is it still moral for this man to not act when he could easily throw a rope down to save the young man drowning?

If the act of saving the man will cause him to be pulled over as well, then yes it is a moral decision. Chances are however, if a rope is present, anyone would do their best to save the drowning man. This becomes immoral under any circumstances however when I point a gun at your head and demand that you save him or DIE. This is what everything we've been talking about boils down to...voluntary action (markets) vs coercion and the threat of violence (government).

quote:

My argument, however, is that is far less immoral to compel an individual, unwillingly, to help a man in need than it is for the individual to not help the man in the first place.

I believe anyone able to help who denies assistance to the man should be condemned. It is immoral to let an innocent person die. I disagree with you however because it is ALSO immoral to threaten violence, prison, or death against those who refuse to help...and the only entity on this planet that can threaten those punishments is the state. Two wrongs don't make a right. The reality is...Individuals, no matter how rich...and corporations, no matter how large, can NEVER use the threat of jail, violence, or death against another person for disobeying orders like this. That privilege belongs exclusively to the government. For this reason alone, you (and every leftist) should be questioning your government's power, rather than the power gained by individuals acting as equals, through voluntarily exchange on the free market.

Great debate that will go on until the end of time, or until a socialist system arises that actually works and I don't like the odds of the later ever being a reality.

I agree with the vast majority of what Capitalizt is saying, so I won't reiterate what he has said so well. However, I do disaggree with him on the situation of welfare in the United States.

quote:

instead of lifting people out of poverty, we have institutionalized it...creating entire generations of families dependent on these payments for survival. We have also created a massive bureaucratic class who's survival depends on finding new ways to EXPAND the welfare state.

As I am sure you know Congress reformed the welfare system in 1996 to change what they felt (correctly and as you pointed out) was a system that was not working. TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families) arose, placing time limits of no more than 2 consecutive years of recieving aid, and no more than 5 total years in a lifetime. Therefore, because of these very short time restrictions a family could not possibly base their survival on government food stamps, etc.

One of the dysfunctions of our capitalist society is that groups of people tend to get stuck in certain positions. Wealthy Americans ( I don't mean to take anything away from the hard work that is required to maintain their status) are "stuck" in their high social position, especially as we move further into a postindustrial economy. More and more service jobs will arise in the postindustrial economy that will require more skill. While it is not impossible for a poor person to become skilled at say computer programming, it is far more easy for a wealthy person, brought up with good schooling and money to invest in training and university level education. Yes, the wealthy people need to be motivated to become skilled, but it is our capitalist system, and all social systems, that provide sufficient motivation to do the job (whether in the forms of rewards, capitalism, or in norms, socialism).

As for those living in poverty, it would be unrational to think that a family that is in poverty could have both parents in the work force, as they obviously need. Poor families cannot afford childcare, therefore who is going to look after the family's children if both parents need to go out and work. This goes without saying that the vast majority of families that are below the poverty line in our country are headed by a single mother. In addition, even as these single mothers work to support their family they are brought down further by our system, as women earn less than men. Clearly, this system is a vicious cycle as 70% of people living in poverty are women.

Now, you may be thinking I am leaning towards the left here, but in fact I am not. The flaws in our capitalist system arise not from capitalism, but from norms that our society has held. Using my explanation of the plight of poor women above, its not surprising to realize that for a long time in our society and in almost all societies women have been marginalized by men. The norm for a long time was that men work, because they are best suited for work, while women raise the family, because they are best suited for nurturing. However, it is our capitalism that broke down these norms, always in search of whatever edge can be had to turn a larger profit. To exemplify my point; Alan Greenspan used to head a financial firm in the 70s, at that time women were just begining to truly enter the workforce. Greenspan saw that women were completely capable of doing the same jobs (in the finance industry) that men were. Therefore, he began hiring large numbers of women to work at his firm, and although he did pay them less (hence giving him an edge) he did open up opportunities to them. Overtime, as women become highly skilled, the gap between earnings of men and women will increasingly shrink, as capitalists seek out the most skilled person for the job.

In a socialist system, however it is my opinion that inequalities generated by society are upheld. I was getting at earlier the idea of motivation to work. Everyone needs motivation to work, and in the socialist system motivation needs to be provided in the form of norms. Socialism cannot provide rewards for work, because this would require different levels of rewards, for if you have the same level of rewards why would one man like to pick up trash while one man writes articles if they both recieve the same reward. If he does it is only because it is his role to, and these roles arise from the norms that are created by society. Norms naturally create inequality, however, as they group people into specific roles and regulations that they may or may not be suited for. In a socialist system you would probably want the strongest members of your society as the ones who do manual labor. However, not all strong people are best suited for manual labor. There can be strong people with highly developed creative minds, which would obviously be best used for entertainment or other form of culture creation. And hence the inequality. Although the whole benefits and the stability of society is maintained, people cannot fulfill their true potential. This inequality is rigidly enforced, however, because the system is based on norms, and unlike the capitalist system based on rewards, if you norms are changed or thrown out all together, society is thrown out of balance, is no longer stable, and can no longer function.

I apologize that I wrote a lot, if I had more time... I hope this discussion will continue.

Sorry for the late response. I've spent most of the past few days either drunk, recovering from being drunk or at work.

Anyway:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Although I cannot disagree that the above article is an obvious straw man, I�m afraid that your critique of �laissez-faire� economics is, at best, in need of further development.

Although I consider the laissez-faire conception of capitalism to be intrinsically flawed (for reasons that I may or may not get into later on depending on the direction this post takes), my above post was not a critique of laissez-faire capitalism per-se, but rather a critique of the Randian notion that such an economic system is the most "moral" available to us. My point is that absolute egoism is, by definition, inherently amoral and no degree of objectivist apologetics or runaway strawman arguments (such as those employed by the author of the original article) can change that.

quote:

Taxes are paid to support a government, not a society � you seem to equivocate the two. An anarchistic society is still a society.

But what is the government, in a democratic society, other than officials elected by the society to govern its finances and affairs? I understand that this is a fairly idealistic portrayal of the role of government (and I do, for this reason, wholeheartedly support restrictions on the size and scope of government, both in economic and civil affairs), but even an anarchic society requires some form of organisation to be classed as a "society" rather than as a mere "loose collection of individuals living in close geographic proximity". Whether you wish to call this organisation "government" or something else entirely, essentially every society requires some form of governance to function. While the flaws in our respective democracies are indeed glaring, in theory at least, those responsible for administering society (and - in this case - the taxes it pays) are chosen from the society and by the society. As imperfect a system as it may be, a democratic society does support itself, only through the proxy of organised government. Aside from bureaucratic protocol, the lines between society and the government are indeed far less well defined than you contend.

quote:

It does not follow that one should pay for a greater proportion of the costs of one object based on one�s greater proportion of the benefits from another object.

In a moral sense, why would it not follow? If you want access to society's resources and you benefit from and utilise them more readily than the next man, why shouldn't you pay a higher fee for their employment?

It all comes back to social contract theory. Every man is born with nothing (in a state of financial tabla rasa if you like) and unless you can provide a moral defense of the a priori right of man to free or disproportionately cheap employment of a society's resources, then I'm afraid it does follow that every man who benefits from the employment of society's resources recompensates it proportionally. Moral arguments aside, even from an egoistic perspective, I would have thought it to be in that man's interests to fund the sustainment and progress of the society that has allowed him to amass such wealth in the first place.

quote:

If this reasoning were to be properly carried out, then one would have to know how much each individual benefits from the government (not from society) in order to determine what proportion they ought to owe to support it.

As I said, the government and society in a truly democratic society (which rules Australia and America out I guess ) should be largely indistiguishable. If this is not the case, then it's a failure of society, not of the government or the rationale.

Thus, if we argue that the government is merely the bureaucratic organisation that society elects to govern itself, then the system you're talking about is already in place. Declaration of income on tax statements, if what I'm saying is accurate, is a numerical figure signifying the degree of one's indebtedness to the society one inhabits and thus signifies the degree of indebtedness owed by one to the government elected by the society to manage such affairs.

quote:

The costs of society, however, are not currency: they are organization, resources, labor, and ingenuity.

Society provides resources and infrastructure, man provides labour and ingenuity. Man amasses wealth by exchanging his labour and ingenuity in exchange for currency, part of which is then reinvested back into society in exchange for the resources and infrastructure it has provided to allow man to utilise his labour and ingenuity for currency in the first place. Labour and ingenuity are man's gifts to society and he should rightly profit from them. Man, however, has absolutely no a priori right to profit from the gifts provided to him by the society around him, hence the necessity of proportional taxation. In a system of proportional taxation, the millionaire that has worked hard and invested in good ideas will still be allowed to amass a wealth far greater than those unwilling to work hard or to develop and invest in ideas, but the taxes he pays are representative of costs incurred by society to allow him to freely amass this wealth in the first place (primarily access to resources and infrastructure).

quote:

It so happens that those individuals who contribute the most to the costs of society are in fact typically those who also receive the largest share of its benefits.

Perhaps, but how many of the hardest workers (I'm thinking single mothers working two jobs just to keep their family alive here) are amongst the most poor in our respective societies? How many of the laziest people (I'm thinking George Bush jnr here) are amongst the wealthiest?

There is a fine line between aristocracy and capitalism and the laissez-faire approach, I fear, crosses it. Capitalism is only moral if everyone has access to a certain standard of opportunities and this necessitates - through taxation - investment into public welfare, education and health care. How can capitalism be morally defensible if some people are provided opportunities on a silver platter, where others struggle to feed themselves, gain access to a quality education or stay healthy enough to see out that education?

Man should be rewarded for the labour and ingenuity he invests, of this there should be no argument. Man, however, does not have an automatic entitlement to the gifts provided to him by society. He should pay for these in accordance with the degree to which he has benfitted from them: the rich, in all cases, have utilised more of society's gifts than the poor, hence the necessity of proportional taxation.

quote:

I�m afraid that I must disagree entirely. In order to correctly ascertain the primary role of government one should look no farther than to the problem it was created to solve. In other words: what was wrong with our anarchistic society such that the existence of government is desirable?

As I said, every role of government - even in it's most minimal "necessary evil" form - can be traced back to one essential "goal", through differing degrees of directness: the protection of the interests of its citizens. Any instance of government that acts beyond this essential goal is an instance of government that has grown too large and that is acting beyond its ideal scope. Find me an instance of government acting as a "necessary evil" and an instance of a government acting as an "unnecessary evil" and I can guarantee you that it can be tied back to, alternatively, either fulfillment or transcendence of this single, all-encompassing goal.

quote:

It is not to build essential infrastructure � infrastructure would still be constructed by those with the resources to create it who also stood to benefit from it: an individual or organization in need of a road would construct one if they had sufficient resources, for example.

Roads can cost up to hundreds of millions of dollars to build: no single individual and very few corporations would have the resources or the inclination to fund such a project. In the event that the responsibility for all infrastructure construction were in the hands of the private sector, we would end up with one of two scenarios.

The first is that the infrastructure would be constructed with a profit-motive in mind: that is, the infrastructure would be created for the express purpose of charging the user for its use. In the case of roads, this would make the transportation of good prohibitively expensive to all but the biggest of companies. Smaller companies simply couldn't afford to utilise the infrastructure and still make a profit.

The second is that the infrastructure is created with only private use in mind: that is, only the companies that build the infrastructure would be permitted to use it. In the case of roads, this would mean that the transportation of goods would be restricted to the companies already large enough to afford to build roads. Smaller companies simply would not be able to afford to build the infrastructure and still make a profit.

In either case, both are instances of capitalism tending towards monopoly. Just as there is a fine line, on a social level, between the notions of capitalism and aristocracy, so to there is a fine line on a commercial level between the notions of capitalism and monopoly / oligarchy. Aristocracy and monopoly are inherently antithetical to the mechanics necessary to allow capitalistic societies to function, but these are the directions to which increasingly laissez-faire capitalist economies must tend.

It is in the best interests of the capitalistic doctrine, then, for each member of society to provide, proportionally, to the centralised development of infrastructure (which each citizen, then, has access to in order to maximise the return from the employment of their own labour and ingenuity) than it is to leave it to the private sector, where only a select few can benefit from it. Ultimately, while I don't want to go off topic, I feel that this is the best one of the best practial arguments there is against the form of libertarian economics you seem to subscribe to.

quote:

On the contrary, the function of government is to prevent the accumulation of wealth and resources by means of immoral means, such as violence or deception which contribute nothing to society. Such practices harm, rather than benefit society, and therefore it is desirable to eliminate them, even if some cost must be incurred in order to pay for the government which (theoretically) prevents them.

No, that's merely one of the roles of government covered under the blanket philosophy I stated above: namely, the protection of the interests of the citizens of the society it governs.

quote:

Government doesn�t (and cannot) �ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants.� This is because no matter what a person has, there will always be something else that they want. And if they are able to obtain that as well, there will be something else. No matter what, there will always be some unsatisfied desire.

Perfectly true, my wording was clumsy there. What I should have said was:

quote:

To ensure that people are able to maximise their ability to satisfy their needs and wants? Bingo.

The first rule of economics is that needs and wants are infinite where resources are not. Economics in any form would not exist without this golden rule and I should have made it more clear that I understand this point. Ultimately, the government is not responsible for satisfying all the needs and wants of its citizenry as this is, by definition, impossible. It is, however, responsible for creating the framework that would allow the maximum possible number of needs and wants to be satisfied within a society.

quote:

Furthermore, the accumulation of wealth amongst the citizenry fails to genuinely address the most profound and important desires that people have. What can the government or any amount of wealth do for the gay boy who wishes for nothing more than his father�s acceptance, but will never receive it? Or for the young woman who would gladly sell her soul to be the next big pop singer, but simply does not have the aptitude? Or for the millions of broken hearts young and old who just want another chance to do things right, but can never erase the mistakes of their past? I suppose there is no need for me to belabor the point: the proposed role of government cannot be its actual role, since it is a function that government cannot perform. I submit that my description of government as a tool to enforce order and preserve society�s natural efficacy is a more accurate description of the primary role of government.

Again, you're absolutely right here, but I'm not sure what all this has to do with the economic argument at hand (namely the proposed morality of the objectivist / libertarian / laissez-faire philosophy). It is the government's role to ensure that the homosexuals, the untalented females and the broken-hearted have the same essential rights as every other human being, but it is not the government's role to intrude on the human psyche, nor should it be. I would see no harm in the funding of counselling programs to assist such people through their mental anguish (mental health is, afterall, as important as physical health) but the government, ultimately, has no right to intrude on the internal lives of any of its citizens, functional or disfunctional as they may be.

quote:

It strikes me that it would be pointless for me to address your post any further until we�ve had the chance to further explore the more fundamental disagreements I�ve addressed in this post. If you can find the time, I would be glad to hear you explain your point of view more thoroughly.

Hope I've succeeded in this regard. Sorry for the quote / reply format of the post, but it was the easiest way of keeping my still poisoned mind on track... :-/

EDIT: Sorry, Capitalizt. I'll try to respond to your post in about 6 hours after I've had some sleep.

this is going to take about an hour to read. sighh. guess ill get started

renegade..

On your post above, I see what you are saying, but we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "proportional" taxation. To me, a flat tax imposed on anyone above the poverty line is truly proportional (It is in fact, the definition of proportional).

Anything other than a flat rate would be unfair and oppressive. This is just a fundamental disagreement between our two sides, and I'm certain that no amount of debate can resolve it.

i think we have a few presidents on TA ...

jebus..

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 i think we have a few presidents on TA ... jebus..

this is a forum rivalling that of ancient athens.

HA yeah there are good topics covered in here, but not nearly enough. Keep posting responses, this is a great topic.

link

I found quite a nice collection of quotes I thought I would tack on to this post. I invite every lefty on the board to visit the site below and read through them. Plenty of wisdom to be gained.

Libertarian Quotes

quote:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -John Kenneth Galbraith

quote:

"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead." Leo C. Rosten

quote:

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear. -William Gladstone

quote:

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. -FDR

quote:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" -Abraham Lincoln

quote:

Democracy [is] when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.-Aristotle

quote:

'The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one, or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages.' -Aristotle

quote:

"From the get-go, the strategy has always been we're going to spend what's left." -Tom "The Hammer" Delay on social security in 1995

quote:

# Where morality is present, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable. � Anonymous

so whom informs the libertarian of what a worldly 'morality' is?


how is this remedied?

cheers on the post wolverine, and i agree with most of the Libertarian quotes too...but why must libertarian mean 'right-leaning' when all that means is bootlicking the powers that be. means nothing to any sort of power struggle.

seems most politicking in the US goes that way...unless you have money and control.

et tu|

EDIT: on simple history lessons, is it not curious how some of the most radically different personalities have suddenly appeared on a quote sheet together? (Capitalizt's post). the quotes look good on paper, but considering the multitude of people attribute...strange stuff...

Libertarian doesn't mean right-leaning. I think that is a common misperception. Sometimes I make that mistake because I agree with the Libertarians on all economic issues. I think they have incredible insights into human nature/behavior in this area, but they can also be very left wing on social issues. The traditional right/left paradigm really doesn't fit them well, because they advocate less government across the board. A better way to describe them would be to say they are "UP-leaning" on the up/down Libertarian/Totalitarian scale.

And wolverine, "Liberalism" as used in the quotes at the site refers to classical liberalism, back when the word still meant "liberty"...rather than today's liberals who advocate a huge, coercive, paternalistic government (just like the conservatives)

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt And wolverine, "Liberalism" as used in the quotes at the site refers to classical liberalism, back when the word still meant "liberty"...rather than today's liberals who advocate a huge, coercive, paternalistic government (just like the conservatives)

Out of curiosity, where would you place former President Clinton, considering he successfully shrunk the government to levels not seen in over 20 years at that time?

Clinton really didn't shrink government at all (other than military reductions.). He was a lefty who tried to socialize our healthcare system early in his term. Thankfully the American people didn't like that and gave us a mini-revolution in 94 when the Republicans swept more than 200 democratic seats in congress. Both parties were in absolute gridlock over many issues, so spending growth was held to a respectable level. I credit gridlock for the 90's boom more than anything else.

One party control is always a bad thing. America's supposedly "conservative" party has proved this again over the past few years. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Clinton really didn't shrink government at all (other than military reductions.). He was a lefty who tried to socialize our healthcare system early in his term. Thankfully the American people didn't like that and gave us a mini-revolution in 94 when the Republicans swept more than 200 democratic seats in congress. Both parties were in absolute gridlock over many issues, so spending growth was held to a respectable level. I credit gridlock for the 90's boom more than anything else.

Clinton cut more than 100,000 federal government jobs before the 94 takeover and without a single Republican vote for Clinton's budget, then later balanced the budget, created a social security surplus without raising payroll taxes, presided over welfare reform limiting people to a maximum of less than 5 years lifetime in TANF programs, regardless of prolonged needs and also passed NAFTA. With the DLC movement in the Democratic party, he was a centrist. I realized before my post you also disagree with much of what the Republicans do as well, but often you frame your opposition to progressives and Democrats, when they seem to be offering more fiscally responsible government, though I did throw in the Delay item just in case. Libertarians are on the right though, they are just further to the right. I would say that universal healthcare as Clinton proposed it would have helped business greatly, as rising health insurance costs affect business even more than people. The reality is that defense overspending far outweighs social programs. A flat tax, if it were to be within a balanced budget, could never be put into effect without massive cuts in the military.

quote:

One party control is always a bad thing. America's supposedly "conservative" party has proved this again over the past few years. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I couldn't agree with you more here. I wouldn't want even the politicians I favor having a vast majority and it is neccessary to have opposition that can critique proposed policies by the majority. Though I dislike a number of provisions in the welfare reform bill, relevant Republican opposition was neccessary in providing a number of successes in the late 90s. I just wish they wouldn't have made such a big deal out of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones to provide opposition near the end.

Can't say I agree with the quote in your signature though

I would like to know how many of those 100k government jobs came from. As I recall Clinton called for a 1.5% reduction in military spending when he was elected, and I have a feeling the majority of the "shrinkage" government saw before 1994 was due to base closings and cutbacks in military civilian employees. I'm not saying this was a bad thing, but he certainly didn't cut in areas that needed to be cut.

Yes, I give Clinton and the democrats full credit for raising taxes, though I believe the surpluses would have been created anyway in the 90's due to the explosion of the internet and a high tech boom around the globe. If anything, those tax hikes reduced the growth that we would have seen in the coming years. Raising taxes is always a disincentive to investment, and lowering them always encourages it. You forgot Clinton also signed a big capital gains tax cut against the wishes of his party. Despite the doom and gloom scenarios and the typical "it only helps the rich" BS from the left, capital gains revenue SOARED when the rate was slashed. The money came pouring in as people began churning their investments and moving their money out of tax shelters and into the economy (boosting the stock market). This more than anything else contributed to the (projected) surpluses created under Clinton.

I do give him credit for reducing capital gains tax, signing NAFTA and signing welfare reform (of course, he only did so after two vetos...when he feared the GOP had enough support to override a third). Those things did help the economy but they certainly would not have happened under democratic dominance of government. If anything, we would have seen an ideology pushing the OPPOSITE of all three policies...higher taxes for "the investor class", trade protectionism pushed by big labor, and a more "compassionate" expansion of the traditional welfare state, with no 'harsh' work requirements for the able-bodied.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I would like to know how many of those 100k government jobs came from. As I recall Clinton called for a 1.5% reduction in military spending when he was elected, and I have a feeling the majority of the "shrinkage" government saw before 1994 was due to base closings and cutbacks in military civilian employees. I'm not saying this was a bad thing, but he certainly didn't cut in areas that needed to be cut.

Most jobs cut were civilian defense positions from an extremely bloated budget (MUCH larger than spending on means tested programs). Social program employment hiring did increase, but overall from all aspects, Clinton's 8 years brought a net 300,000 job cut, bringing the federal government to its lowest total number since JFK.

quote:

Yes, I give Clinton and the democrats full credit for raising taxes, though I believe the surpluses would have been created anyway in the 90's due to the explosion of the internet and a high tech boom around the globe. If anything, those tax hikes reduced the growth that we would have seen in the coming years. Raising taxes is always a disincentive to investment, and lowering them always encourages it. You forgot Clinton also signed a big capital gains tax cut against the wishes of his party. Despite the doom and gloom scenarios and the typical "it only helps the rich" BS from the left, capital gains revenue SOARED when the rate was slashed. The money came pouring in as people began churning their investments and moving their money out of tax shelters and into the economy (boosting the stock market). This more than anything else contributed to the (projected) surpluses created under Clinton. I do give him credit for reducing capital gains tax, signing NAFTA and signing welfare reform (of course, he only did so after two vetos...when he feared the GOP had enough support to override a third). Those things did help the economy but they certainly would not have happened under democratic dominance of government. If anything, we would have seen an ideology pushing the OPPOSITE of all three policies...higher taxes for "the investor class", trade protectionism pushed by big labor, and a more "compassionate" expansion of the traditional welfare state, with no 'harsh' work requirements for the able-bodied.

So how was Clinton a "big lefty"? He both cut and raised certain taxes for every segment of the population, like many presidents from both sides have done, even Reagan. I don't think the "investor class" did too bad overall in the 90s. I'll leave your overgeneralizations of liberals aside, err maybe I'm just not a progressive after all, but I do have a question: Say you got the exact scenario you want, where you had a free market economy with little to no government regulation and a minimal flat tax, doing away with any progressive taxation and no public service programs. Wouldn't that not only have a negative effect on most all workers and their families and also threaten to turn a democratic country into essentially an oligarchy? It would clearly enhance the possibilities of monopolies to form, which run counterproductive to competition, in both markets and government representation. This was actually the original intent of the estate tax, for example, as the founding fathers did not wish for dynasties to form, rather than intending to declare class warfare. I would point to the late 1800s/early 1900s as an example of where this would head the country towards, rather than seeking to find a balance between government regulation and free commerce that encourages greater productivity and subsequent American benefits.

quote:

I do have a question: Say you got the exact scenario you want, where you had a free market economy with little to no government regulation and a minimal flat tax, doing away with any progressive taxation and no public service programs. Wouldn't that not only have a negative effect on most all workers and their families and also threaten to turn a democratic country into essentially an oligarchy? It would clearly enhance the possibilities of monopolies to form, which run counterproductive to competition, in both markets and government representation. This was actually the original intent of the estate tax, for example, as the founding fathers did not wish for dynasties to form, rather than intending to declare class warfare. I would point to the late 1800s/early 1900s as an example of where this would head the country towards, rather than seeking to find a balance between government regulation and free commerce that encourages greater productivity and subsequent American benefits.

Well I disagree with virtually all of your conclusions, but since this is a hypothetical argument, there is no way to prove them wrong. I guess it is just a matter of "faith" for me. Liberals seem to have "faith" that an elite group of people (bureaucrats) can have the wisdom and good judgement to coordinate the activities of millions...to "fairly" distribute wealth, to regulate prices and wages, and to basically restrict many forms of voluntary exchange between consenting adults. This is done in the name of the "common good" in hopes of increasing the general prosperity of hundreds of millions.

I believe nobody is smart enough to do this. Nobody on earth has that amount of wisdom, so our best hope as humans to increase the general prosperity is to empower INDIVIDUALS...to give everyone more choices and more control over their own lives (including their money). The free market is the best institution ever created to suit this purpose. If a monopoly arises there, it will have done so through voluntary transactions between free individuals acting in their own interests. If a company offers a product or service at a better price than anyone can match, who is to say they don't deserve the top position? This decision to grant that monopoly was made freely by the people. Businesses make money by pleasing people...and the only monopolies without using force is to "out-please" your competitors...to persuade (or politely beg) the citizens to your products instead of your competitors.

Contrast this with the coercive power of government, which can't easily be held accountable for it's failures, and faces no competition for the services it provides. The left seems very concerned that a private monpoly may arise, yet they ignore the ultimate monopoly that already exists today...our $2,600,000,000,000.00 federal government...a bureaucracy that makes thousands of decisions for us each day, forcibly taking our earnings and wasting them under the guise of taking care of us. We have no say in these decisions, and this makes government the ultimate source of monpoly in the real-world.

A fair and just government would exist to protect the citizens from outside threats, and to enforce two simple laws:

#1. No theft.
#2. No violence.

Other than that, leave people free to live their lives as they choose.
Yep, I'm a radical.


"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." � Thomas Jefferson

"People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us." � Joseph Sobran May 13, 1998 (commenting on US vs Microsoft)

"Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. . . . Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable." - Ludwig Von Mises

"Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it." � David Friedman"

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt

Well neither of us will likely change each other's ideology, though I will say my concept of what a liberal view of government is difers greatly from yours. Mine is not that government should provide for all, thus deterring the will to work, it is ensuring that those who do work hard receive wages that provide at least near the amount to provide the basic necessities of life. Much of this belief comes from your quote of Ludwig Von Mises, as it is indeed consumers who decide what has to be produced, the vast majority of which are not of the "investor class." The more people at the lower end able to be consumers active in trade, rather than struggling to make ends meet, the better the economy's strength.

The potential outcome of completely free trade I mentioned before comes from evidence of past historical events. It would be hard to see how the conditions of the industrial revolution workforce waspositive for consumers. Government regulations regarding child labor, work limits and safety came not simply from "elite bureacrats", but from representative government responding to the petition of constituents. I think just as you mentioned the power of parties in government must be checked, so must that of those with the greatest amounts of power in the private sector. Minimal protections, such as safety standards of OSHA increase the ability of workers to be productive and do not set standards too high for business to meet.

As far as monopolies,I believe in reforming government to a great degree to makeitmore reponsive to citizens, such as term limits, public funding and favoring a multi-party system. My suggestion that completely free markets could lead to oligrchy over democracy is still very relevant though I believe, as media consolidation already exists to large degree and further deregulation could lead to even fewer voices being heard and fewer perspectives. Just my 2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt A fair and just government would exist to protect the citizens from outside threats, and to enforce two simple laws: #1. No theft. #2. No violence. Other than that, leave people free to live their lives as they choose. Yep, I'm a radical.

Radical you are, but there is definately some method in your madness.. Now, a government is definately needed for the two points I've just quoted from you (which you could generalise into saying that the government is required for law and order) but their role in society has a slightly broader scope. Other than law and order (which includes national defense), the government should be one to correct market failures.. even if these market failures are a result of a pure market economy.. I'll use the following quote to explain:

quote:

If a monopoly arises there, it will have done so through voluntary transactions between free individuals acting in their own interests. If a company offers a product or service at a better price than anyone can match, who is to say they don't deserve the top position? This decision to grant that monopoly was made freely by the people. Businesses make money by pleasing people...and the only monopolies without using force is to "out-please" your competitors...to persuade (or politely beg) the citizens to your products instead of your competitors.

Not all... actually... hardly any monopolies are created through voluntary transactions between free individuals. Most monopolies are indeed natural monopolies, in that the market cannot sustain a perfectly competitive market.. not through the wit and cunning of any particular entity, but through natural forces. The best example of such occurances are utilities like water/gas/electricty industries. Such markets arise basically because set-up costs (in terms of setting up networks and infrastructure) are infeasible. Now why should society suffer from this natural occurance when the entire society can benefit from a simple intervention that can create competitive / near-competitive environments? In the end, everyone is better off.. including consumers AND those natural monopoly companies who are now more efficient progressive (yes, the government is actually doing them a favour). It's a win-win.


So basically, a government exists for more reasons than just to maintain law and order, but to also counter the effects of natural market failures... and that's it..

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz Radical you are, but there is definately some method in your madness.. Now, a government is definately needed for the two points I've just quoted from you (which you could generalise into saying that the government is required for law and order) but their role in society has a slightly broader scope. Other than law and order (which includes national defense), the government should be one to correct market failures.. even if these market failures are a result of a pure market economy.. I'll use the following quote to explain: Not all... actually... hardly any monopolies are created through voluntary transactions between free individuals. Most monopolies are indeed natural monopolies, in that the market cannot sustain a perfectly competitive market.. not through the wit and cunning of any particular entity, but through natural forces. The best example of such occurances are utilities like water/gas/electricty industries. Such markets arise basically because set-up costs (in terms of setting up networks and infrastructure) are infeasible. Now why should society suffer from this natural occurance when the entire society can benefit from a simple intervention that can create competitive / near-competitive environments? In the end, everyone is better off.. including consumers AND those natural monopoly companies who are now more efficient progressive (yes, the government is actually doing them a favour). It's a win-win. So basically, a government exists for more reasons than just to maintain law and order, but to also counter the effects of natural market failures... and that's it..

Thanks for the reply. You raise some good points about natural monopolies...I'll need to think about it a while and see if I can counter it with anything. My immediate thought is that most utilities are state/private hybrids already. The government controls and subsidizes energy prices in most states, and this alone guarantees a natural monopoly in the industry. When a single company is tied to the government and carrying all the political clout, it becomes nearly impossible for other players to join the game. Obviously I'd suggest eliminating the role of government in that industry and to dramatically reduce the barriers to new enterprises being formed. Once the red tape is slashed, more investors will see the energy business as a lucrative opportunity, and over time this should result in more choices available for consumers (coal, gas, electric, etc).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.