U.S. Issues Answering TJ's Questions (Or: Why Direckshun Hates America) [Archive]

Direckshun

10-22-2009, 07:17 PM

A few answers. We'll see where this goes:

1. Do you believe the federal government has a constitutional role in regulating profit?

In certain circumstances that I would consider extreme at best, yes.

2. Do you agree that the regulation of profit is communistic?

I don't think I believe that it is exclusively communist, not sure about that though. But I will agree that communist governments engage in it.

3. Do you think Americans should be vigilant against communism, eager to maintain the doctrine of individualism and individual rights that the nation was founded on?

Yes.

4. If I'm providing a critical service (such as health care), and I manage to shave my costs down, do you think it's legitimate for me to maintain my profit margin and cash flow advantage over my competitors for as long as I can until my competitors catch up to me and force me to reduce my pricing?

I don't know what "legitimate" means here. I assume you mean "reasonable." Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes is the answer, if that's what you meant.

Taco John

10-23-2009, 02:55 AM

BucEyedPea

10-23-2009, 07:08 AM

A few answers. We'll see where this goes:

1. Do you believe the federal government has a constitutional role in regulating profit?

In certain circumstances that I would consider extreme at best, yes.
Since what is extreme is a relative term then yes you do agree with it.

2. Do you agree that the regulation of profit is communistic?

I don't think I believe that it is exclusively communist, not sure about that though. But I will agree that communist governments engage in it.
Who else or what other system regulates profits?

3. Do you think Americans should be vigilant against communism, eager to maintain the doctrine of individualism and individual rights that the nation was founded on?

Yes.

Does this individualism apply to entrepreneurs and business owners?

4. If I'm providing a critical service (such as health care), and I manage to shave my costs down, do you think it's legitimate for me to maintain my profit margin and cash flow advantage over my competitors for as long as I can until my competitors catch up to me and force me to reduce my pricing?

I don't know what "legitimate" means here. I assume you mean "reasonable." Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes is the answer, if that's what you meant.

Reasonable is another relative and subjective word. These are intellectual "outs".

Direckshun

10-23-2009, 08:47 AM

1. Do you believe the federal government has a constitutional role in regulating profit?

Direckshun: In certain circumstances that I would consider extreme at best, yes.

Extreme? So there's a threshold in your mind where communism is acceptable? Or, I'm sorry, you don't want the regulation of profit justified by the communal governmental investment into the power structure of an industry to be called "communist."

Hmmm... Given that all economics teter between the spectrum of individualistic capitalism and collectivist communism, I'm not sure what better term there is than "communism." So I'll invite you to offer a better word (or another economic spectral paradigm), and ask you to explain under what extreme circumstance you see the diversion of market forces in favor of regulating profit as constitutionally acceptable.

I think there are different shades of collectivism. I by no means embrace socialism, but I find certain aspects of it more attractive than most of anything provided by communism.

But like you said, it's a spectrum between that collectivism and individualism, not a binary state. Accepting certain collectivist concepts does not make automatically make one a collectivist if he is generally more oriented towards individualism.

To turn the tables real quick, I doubt any collectivist country that occasionally adopts individualist concepts here or there would immediately be branded "individualist" by you. But that's exactly what's happening the other way around when you call me a communist.

As for the extreme circumstances, we've just endured them. We almost went over a global economic cliff, so Congress is constitutionally empowered to somehow right the ship. One of the ways they decided to do that, one that you obviously despised and I have mixed feelings on, was TARP.

So a few of these businesses such as AIG and Citigroup, businesses that were at least partially, if not entirely, responsible for the crisis, take the public funds and start giving each other unjustified, gargantuan bonuses. For people in such crucial positions to the country's economic recovery to act in such irresponsible ways does seem to justify Congress, who gave them their money, to pull the strings and cap their profit until they get off TARP's payroll. If we are talking about public money that was invested to improve the financial system, it seems constitutional to me.

Taco John

10-23-2009, 09:43 AM

I think there are different shades of collectivism. I by no means embrace socialism, but I find certain aspects of it more attractive than most of anything provided by communism.

This comment is funny to me because Marx made it clear that Socialism is just a means to an end - that socialism would never last if it didn't convert to full blown communism. It's like saying, I don't like the traffic congested road to Disneyland, but there are some things about the trip that are actually

For what it's worth, I don't know what different shades of collectivism means. What is the spectral paradigm that you're suggesting that differentiates the different types of collectivists?

But like you said, it's a spectrum between that collectivism and individualism, not a binary state. Accepting certain collectivist concepts does not make automatically make one a collectivist if he is generally more oriented towards individualism.

I would love to see you start making arguments towards economic individualism in this forum. As far as I know, that would be a first. The bulk of your advocacy orbits around a collectivist nucleus.

To turn the tables real quick, I doubt any collectivist country that occasionally adopts individualist concepts here or there would immediately be branded "individualist" by you. But that's exactly what's happening the other way around when you call me a communist.

In the same way, when a collectivist poster suddenly makes the claim that they're individualist, I wouldn't rush to brand them an "individualist."

As for the extreme circumstances, we've just endured them. We almost went over a global economic cliff, so Congress is constitutionally empowered to somehow right the ship. One of the ways they decided to do that, one that you obviously despised and I have mixed feelings on, was TARP.

So you believe communism is good for emergencies - such as when the establishment status quo has taken us towards a cliff, and that status quo needs our collective resources to pull their bacon out of the proverbial fire. Or correct me where this statement is wrong.

So a few of these businesses such as AIG and Citigroup, businesses that were at least partially, if not entirely, responsible for the crisis, take the public funds and start giving each other unjustified, gargantuan bonuses. For people in such crucial positions to the country's economic recovery to act in such irresponsible ways does seem to justify Congress, who gave them their money, to pull the strings and cap their profit until they get off TARP's payroll. If we are talking about public money that was invested to improve the financial system, it seems constitutional to me.

Under which constitutional provision is this communism sanctioned?

Direckshun

10-23-2009, 11:26 AM

Well I don't particularly appreciate your selective appreciation of Karl Marx. Apparently Karl Marx was a fundamental fool for arguing for a collectivist economic system, but just bright enough to understand that socialism is essentially the bridge to communism. I don't accept that. Now, if you want to argue that that's the case, I'll respond, but if you're just going to weigh in by saying Karl Marx disagrees with me, as if I'm supposed to somehow be wowed by that, well, argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

"What are shades of collectivism?" We've already made this argument, TJ! Individualism vs. collectivism is not a binary state. They exist on a spectrum. Pure individualists exist on one end, pure collectivists on the other, and the rest of us are in between. Some of us more towards the individualist end, others towards the collectivist end, even a select few in the middle.

I'd put myself with most mainstream liberals, in that I support an individualist society with collectivist aspects such as welfare, social security, universal healthcare, etc.

You may perceive me as being more collectivist but that's because the arguments we have on this board are fundamentally about things I disagree with conservatives about, and will typically involve those select collectivist aspects. I don't argue with liberals too much here, mostly because I agree with them a ton more here. But it's not my job to moderate what I argue and where I argue it here. This is a leisure activity.

I wouldn't argue that communism/socialism/collectivism is "good for emergencies," because that is too broad. I wouldn't necessarily say it's good, and not all emergencies warrant it. But in certain emergencies, I do believe it's warranted to, as you say, pull the bacon out of the fire.

I get that from Necessary and Proper, because I find certain decisions that you'd deem to be communist overreaches to be validly constitutional. It's the same part where, as you're aware, that Congress is empowered to provide for the general welfare of the country.

In egregious situations such as these, I would imagine that would include profit caps for reasons I've explained. Another example would be predatory lenders. These are folks who essentially trap people who don't know any better into 800% interest loans. I believe Congress does have the constitutional powre to act in such situations and to cap exactly how high we should allow that % to get. I think Congress recently capped it at 780%, although I would have capped it muuuuuuuuuuuch lower.

Taco John

10-23-2009, 11:32 AM

From that post, I am comfortable in the idea that you are a communist. At least you clearly skew in that direction.

Direckshun

10-23-2009, 12:50 PM

From that post, I am comfortable in the idea that you are a communist. At least you clearly skew in that direction.

Well then allow me to ask you a question, since we've now come to the comfortable conclusion that I hate America:

What is the difference between a liberal and a communist?

Edit: "Lipstick!" is not the answer.

BucEyedPea

10-23-2009, 01:25 PM

I get that from Necessary and Proper, because I find certain decisions that you'd deem to be communist overreaches to be validly constitutional. It's the same part where, as you're aware, that Congress is empowered to provide for the general welfare of the country.
Only problem with those from your camp using the Necessary and Proper clause is that they NEVER apply it to property. That's odd of them. :hmmm:

Taco John

10-23-2009, 01:36 PM

Well then allow me to ask you a question, since we've now come to the comfortable conclusion that I hate America:

What is the difference between a liberal and a communist?

I didn't say you hate America. I said you are communistic. I understand your tactic though. If you skew what I'm saying to make it sound more hyperbolic and extreme, you minimize the impact. Let me make it clear: I am not saying you hate America. I am saying that you are communistic - you skew towards communism. It's very easy for me to make this case. The post I'm referencing is a virtual gold mine for it.

With regards to the difference between a liberal and a communist, it depends on what context you're using the word "liberal." You're clearly not a classical liberal (which is what I am). Modern day liberals are class warfarists, not individual rights warriors. True, where abortion and gay rights are concerned, modern liberals are at the forefront, but modern liberals offer no such protection to what they would call "priviledged classes" or what I would call "productive people." This is because modern liberals see rights as relative, and not as absolute. Which is the seperation between modern liberals and classical liberals. I believe in the rights to life, liberty and property as absolute rights - not as relative rights that can be regulated to balance out society so that no one gets too far ahead or falls too far behind (also known as "collectivism"). I want people who can get ahead to get FAR ahead - as far ahead as they possibly can because no matter what, they're attached to society and will drag it up with them.

I think what too few people truly appreciate is that we are on the leading edge of a time/space reality and what this means in terms of our politics. My distinct appreciation for this is why I often feel like I'm playing chess while some of you are playing checkers. I hate to sound glib, but I also don't want to be dishonest. I think that maybe less than 3% of people understand the concept of being on the leading edge of a time/space reality, and the tremendous implications of this (and that number is probably high).

While you guys talk about progress and "progressivism," you're legislating the status quo and simultaneously dulling the leading-edge that I'm referencing (dulling progress). Society will progress beyond any legislation, leaving it to serve as an anchor to keep that progress anchored. Thus, we suffer real-time opportunity cost losses. Opportunity cost is the cost of communism as much as property and liberty. Modern day liberals do not have a vision for opportunity cost because they're too busy focused on the lack in society, and how to legislate to address that lack rather than how to innovate to address that lack.

You and I are not very different in what we'd like to see. I'm as strong an advocate for peace and prosperity on this board as there is here, as my long posting record clearly shows. The difference is that you believe those solutions come through government, regulation, and politicians, as where I believe the best solutions come through consumer advocacy, education, and industry thought-leaders (leaving government on the sidelines up until a contract dispute needs to be mediated or there is a loss of life, liberty, or property that needs to be corrected). We both say "power to the people," only I'm talking about empowering the individual, and you're talking about empowering the government in hopes that there is a trickle down empowerment effect on the people.

Direckshun

10-23-2009, 01:42 PM

I didn't say you hate America. I said you are communistic. I understand your tactic though. If you skew what I'm saying to make it sound more hyperbolic and extreme, you minimize the impact.

I'm going to reply to you later, but I want to highlight this part of your answer, because this is exactly what you and Pete have done in previous threads. I have turned your tactic against you.

Utter anything less than glorious praise for all aspects of capitalism, and do anything other than ignore any negative consequences there might be from the size of a certain company's earnings, and bam. You hate profit. You are a communist. You hate capitalism.

Hell, you might as well be saying I hate America. I'm guessing it was in your barrell, locked and loaded, until I stole your thunder. Look at this country, people make money, commerce is largely independent from the government -- how COULD that Direckshun guy do anything other than hate America?

I'll get to the rest of your post later, but remove the log from your OWN eye before you start criticizing me for jumping to extreme conclusions.

Direckshun

10-23-2009, 01:43 PM

modern liberals offer no such protection to what they would call "priviledged classes" or what I would call "productive people."

I'll also highlight this, because it makes you sound like a dumbass.

I'd like to know exactly what percentage of Americans you'd consider "productive people."

wild1

10-23-2009, 01:46 PM

I'll also highlight this, because it makes you sound like a dumbass.

I'd like to know exactly what percentage of Americans you'd consider "productive people."

The labor force is about 150 million.

Taco John

10-23-2009, 02:18 PM

I'm going to reply to you later, but I want to highlight this part of your answer, because this is exactly what you and Pete have done in previous threads. I have turned your tactic against you.

Utter anything less than glorious praise for all aspects of capitalism, and do anything other than ignore any negative consequences there might be from the size of a certain company's earnings, and bam. You hate profit. You are a communist. You hate capitalism.

Let's seperate the hyperbole from the actual essence. To my knowledge, I've never said that you hate anything. The word "hate" seems hyperbolic to me in the same way that the word "communist" seems hyperbolic to you. Only, I'm not being hyperbolic when I discuss the theory of communism, or when I see it applied in your posts. If advocating communist solutions doesn't make one a communist, then I'm at a loss here. Because when I advocate for libertarian free market solutions, I'm expecting that people are going to understand that I'm a libertarian.

I suppose that you could counter by saying that you're arguing in favor of a "mixed market." That's fine, but can you see what you're mixing into it?

Taco John

10-23-2009, 02:35 PM

I'd like to know exactly what percentage of Americans you'd consider "productive people."

What's the inverse of the employment rate? That's one way to look at it, and I think it's fair because money moving is money being produced. But there's another level to the onion here, and that's the idea producers - the real stars of the show. The idea producers are the ones pressing the leading edge of our time/space reality and creating new paradigms for us to exist in. These are the guys that I want to unleash. These are the guys that communism wants harness.

Ideas are the real currency of life. Money is just a by-product of an idea. Those without ideas will always be without money, because money is attracted to ideas. It's a simple law that anyone can understand: if you have no ideas, you will have no money. I would encourage anyone to apply this simple thought in your current situation right now and see if you are better off than you are right now in 90 days from now.

Watch what happens when you start producing ideas. Watch them try to harness you. Anyone here can experience this and observe it, and observe their reasons for wanting to harness you. And then take it to the next phase and observe what it does to your human spirit. You'll either catalyze against them and take a "me against the world" stance, or you acquiese and return to the 'get through another day' routines that are easy to fall into. Which of these is better for progress?

Power to the people, man.

Iowanian

10-23-2009, 04:27 PM

Direction's compass is broken.

banyon

10-24-2009, 08:39 AM

Perfect illustration of the black-or-white thinking that gets thrown around in this forum on a daily basis.

It's really no better than Bush's "You're with us or the terrorists" brand of logic.

you're with the ultra free market Ron Paul underoos Austrian Zealot club or you're not. They don't like nuance or context. Especially don't ask them to define the gibberish labels they throw around at people. They hate that.

Taco John

10-24-2009, 01:42 PM

Ask me to define any "label" that you want. I don't hate that at all. A label is nothing more than a tag for a collection of thoughts. I'm not sure why anybody would be afraid of a label.

Direckshun

10-26-2009, 01:31 PM

You and I are not very different in what we'd like to see. I'm as strong an advocate for peace and prosperity on this board as there is here, as my long posting record clearly shows. The difference is that you believe those solutions come through government, regulation, and politicians, as where I believe the best solutions come through consumer advocacy, education, and industry thought-leaders (leaving government on the sidelines up until a contract dispute needs to be mediated or there is a loss of life, liberty, or property that needs to be corrected). We both say "power to the people," only I'm talking about empowering the individual, and you're talking about empowering the government in hopes that there is a trickle down empowerment effect on the people.

Wrong. When I say power to the people, I say I want power to be in the hands of the people and keep it there. When you say power to the people, you say you want power to be in the hands of the people and "oh well" if it inevitably gets hijacked by a select few. Because that's what necessarily happens without the regulation you demonize: the few powerful get all the power, and the massive many get table scraps.

But by the goodwill of the privately powerful, you no doubt believe, power will trickle down. See, it's not me that believes in trickle-down empowerment. That's the philosophy of deregulators like yourself, and we saw where that led us, and it wasn't to a stronger, brighter, powerful middle class. It was a further solidification of power around a select few. Power to the people... sure, for those who can afford it.

I'm not for empowering the government just for the hell of it. I want the people to have the power, not for everything to be gobbled up by a select few.

And that's what (modern) liberalism is all about. You can't even define it, which is telling of how warped your point of view may be. Your definition is that it's a shadowy mass of statists who cherish absolute relativism and were indoctrinated to believe in "government for the sake of government." Hell I might as well be debating Mark Levin.

Here's an additional question that might be telling: is there any political point of view that you'd consider to the left of your own that isn't communism?

Amnorix

10-26-2009, 02:19 PM

Here's an additional question that might be telling: is there any political point of view that you'd consider to the left of your own that isn't communism?

Good question. I'll be interested in hearing the answer.

Amnorix

10-26-2009, 02:21 PM

I wonder if TJ and BEP get that unfettered capitalism has (a) never existed anywhere in the world, and (b) is a brutally harsh economic system that would inevitably result in the complete aggregation of wealth into the hands of a very, very, very select few individuals. 1% owning 99% of everything, pretty much.

Taco John

10-26-2009, 02:36 PM

Wrong. When I say power to the people, I say I want power to be in the hands of the people and keep it there.

What does that even mean? It's nice that you wrote a full couple paragraphs, but your opening sentence says absolutely nothing practical or even the slightest bit illuminating.

Are you talking about empowering government czars, or are you talking about empowering people? I'm talking about the idea drivers in society, and allowing them to transact on their ideas without government interference. You're talking about this airy "people" concept, as a collective.

When you say power to the people, you say you want power to be in the hands of the people and "oh well" if it inevitably gets hijacked by a select few.

Hijacked? What are you talking about? Personal empowerment cannot be hijacked. You cannot hijack my sense of personal empowerment. It's impossible for you to do.

Because that's what necessarily happens without the regulation you demonize: the few powerful get all the power, and the massive many get table scraps.

How can you talk like a communist, and then be appalled when someone calls you a communist? I don't get it.

Ideas are what drives society forward. People witness the contrast of our existence, and come up with ideas to improve our condition, and then market their ideas to the rest of the world. Money is attracted to these ideas, and obviously power. Ideas = money = power.

OF COURSE only a few people are going to get all the power - the few who have the ideas. Someone without ideas not only deserves no power, but they wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. This can be observed first hand with professional athletes who go broke after having millions of dollars run through their fingers.

Nobody is served table scraps. Table scraps are what people take for themselves by virtue of their ideas. You get what your ideas attract. Some ideas attract great fortunes. Other ideas attract meager existences.

Empowerment is about people realizing that their ideas are their golden ticket. So when I talk "power to the people," I'm talking about individual people - not some collective idea that needs to be embodied by a czar somewhere. I'm talking about people transacting on the strength of their ideas.

But by the goodwill of the privately powerful, you no doubt believe, power will trickle down.

Goodwill of the privately powerful? You might as well go ahead and use the traditional term, Bourgeois. And if I man, **** goodwill. I don't want their good will at all.

I'm talking about ideas. Ideas trickle down, because an idea that has no merit attacts no money. Ideas that have merit attract money. It's as simple as that. Every time you make a purchase, you're buying the ideas that someone (or some group of someones) has had. Take my cell phone as a great example. Goodwill isn't what brought the empowerment that I get from my cell phone to me. Ideas are what brought it to me.

See, it's not me that believes in trickle-down empowerment.

No, it is you. You want to empower the government and hope that there is a trickle down empowerment effect on the people. You want to take power away from the people with the ideas, and hope that this "levelling of the playing field" will result in more ideas coming from people who haven't been producing them. And then when you see it doesn't work, while the people with the ideas use their ideas to get around the government, you want to give even more power to the government, and distribute the wealth generated by these ideas.

You definitely believe in trickle-down empowerment.

Here's an additional question that might be telling: is there any political point of view that you'd consider to the left of your own that isn't communism?

Communism is a frequency of thoughts. Same with Libertarianism. Look at them like they're points on a radio. I wouldn't be able to tune into Communism at 94.5 FM and expect to hear Libertarianism. If I tuned to Libertarianism being broadcast on 99.9 FM, I wouldn't expect to hear Communism. If I tuned somewhere in between them, I might be able to hear both frequencies on my radio, but they would be garbled and incoherent.

If you start at the very dead center of these two frequencies, what you're going to get is garbled societal strife because of all the discongruity that exists where the frequency isn't clear in one direction or the other. How do you tune to one or the other of these frequencies from this point? You either add socialism, and move the dial leftwards, or you add individualism, and move the dial rightwards.

The solutions that you offer are always socialist solutions. I'd feel safe in saying that it's near 100%. You don't want the market, and the people acting as individuals within a market to regulate. You want centralized power points in government to regulate, and call that "power to the people." Well, you can market it how you want, but power to the people it is not.

Amnorix

10-26-2009, 02:47 PM

What does that even mean? It's nice that you wrote a full couple paragraphs, but your opening sentence says absolutely nothing practical or even the slightest bit illuminating.

Are you talking about empowering government czars, or are you talking about empowering people? I'm talking about the idea drivers in society, and allowing them to transact on their ideas without government interference. You're talking about this airy "people" concept, as a collective.

Hijacked? What are you talking about? Personal empowerment cannot be hijacked. You cannot hijack my sense of personal empowerment. It's impossible for you to do.

How can you talk like a communist, and then be appalled when someone calls you a communist? I don't get it.

Ideas are what drives society forward. People witness the contrast of our existence, and come up with ideas to improve our condition, and then market their ideas to the rest of the world. Money is attracted to these ideas, and obviously power. Ideas = money = power.

OF COURSE only a few people are going to get all the power - the few who have the ideas. Someone without ideas not only deserves no power, but they wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. This can be observed first hand with professional athletes who go broke after having millions of dollars run through their fingers.

Nobody is served table scraps. Table scraps are what people take for themselves by virtue of their ideas. You get what your ideas attract. Some ideas attract great fortunes. Other ideas attract meager existences.

Empowerment is about people realizing that their ideas are their golden ticket. So when I talk "power to the people," I'm talking about individual people - not some collective idea that needs to be embodied by a czar somewhere. I'm talking about people transacting on the strength of their ideas.

Goodwill of the privately powerful? You might as well go ahead and use the traditional term, Bourgeois. And if I man, **** goodwill. I don't want their good will at all.

I'm talking about ideas. Ideas trickle down, because an idea that has no merit attacts no money. Ideas that have merit attract money. It's as simple as that. Every time you make a purchase, you're buying the ideas that someone (or some group of someones) has had. Take my cell phone as a great example. Goodwill isn't what brought the empowerment that I get from my cell phone to me. Ideas are what brought it to me.

No, it is you. You want to empower the government and hope that there is a trickle down empowerment effect on the people. You want to take power away from the people with the ideas, and hope that this "levelling of the playing field" will result in more ideas coming from people who haven't been producing them. And then when you see it doesn't work, while the people with the ideas use their ideas to get around the government, you want to give even more power to the government, and distribute the wealth generated by these ideas.

You definitely believe in trickle-down empowerment.

Communism is a frequency of thoughts. Same with Libertarianism. Look at them like they're points on a radio. I wouldn't be able to tune into Communism at 94.5 FM and expect to hear Libertarianism. If I tuned to Libertarianism being broadcast on 99.9 FM, I wouldn't expect to hear Communism. If I tuned somewhere in between them, I might be able to hear both frequencies on my radio, but they would be garbled and incoherent.

If you start at the very dead center of these two frequencies, what you're going to get is garbled societal strife because of all the discongruity that exists where the frequency isn't clear in one direction or the other. How do you tune to one or the other of these frequencies from this point? You either add socialism, and move the dial leftwards, or you add individualism, and move the dial rightwards.

The solutions that you offer are always socialist solutions. I'd feel safe in saying that it's near 100%. You don't want the market, and the people acting as individuals within a market to regulate. You want centralized power points in government to regulate, and call that "power to the people." Well, you can market it how you want, but power to the people it is not.

I commend you. You use alot of very large words to say alot of really ridiculous things. Nonetheless, your completely impractical-in-the-real-world absolutist beliefs are just that -- impractical.

And I don't mean impractical in terms of "difficult to implement". I mean impractical as in "can't work in the real world". Your misguided thought is that true, absolute capitalism will free everyone to maximize their economic worth and that the idea producers will reap the riches of their thoughts is just starry-eyed wishful thinking.

And the overwhelming concentration of wealth into the hands of a VERY select few is really pretty inevitable.

Not only is it not politically acceptable in any real world situation, it's also not even desirable. Yours isn't even quite the model that started with slavery and ended with robber barons and the abject servitude of the coal miner. It's worse, suggesting no limitations on aggregation of wealth, and a feeble government dominated by an elitist oligarchy.

No thanks.

Amnorix

10-26-2009, 02:53 PM

Jenson71

10-26-2009, 02:55 PM

Jenson71

10-26-2009, 03:01 PM

Communism is a frequency of thoughts. Same with Libertarianism. Look at them like they're points on a radio. I wouldn't be able to tune into Communism at 94.5 FM and expect to hear Libertarianism. If I tuned to Libertarianism being broadcast on 99.9 FM, I wouldn't expect to hear Communism. If I tuned somewhere in between them, I might be able to hear both frequencies on my radio, but they would be garbled and incoherent.

If you start at the very dead center of these two frequencies, what you're going to get is garbled societal strife because of all the discongruity that exists where the frequency isn't clear in one direction or the other. How do you tune to one or the other of these frequencies from this point? You either add socialism, and move the dial leftwards, or you add individualism, and move the dial rightwards.

Very good, Margaret Thatcher! If on one side, we have death, and on the other side, we have torture, but in the middle we have neither death nor torture, we have garbled, well then I'll take garbled!

Any other fuzzy logic to play with?

Taco John

10-26-2009, 03:23 PM

A question for you, TJ. What is the goal of a country's economic system? When choosing one economic system over another, what factors would be the primary determinants for choosing one system over another?

The protection of life, liberty, and property. Personal liberty should be the goal of any American economic system.

Taco John

10-26-2009, 03:28 PM

I commend you. You use alot of very large words to say alot of really ridiculous things. Nonetheless, your completely impractical-in-the-real-world absolutist beliefs are just that -- impractical.

And I don't mean impractical in terms of "difficult to implement". I mean impractical as in "can't work in the real world". Your misguided thought is that true, absolute capitalism will free everyone to maximize their economic worth and that the idea producers will reap the riches of their thoughts is just starry-eyed wishful thinking.

And the overwhelming concentration of wealth into the hands of a VERY select few is really pretty inevitable.

Not only is it not politically acceptable in any real world situation, it's also not even desirable. Yours isn't even quite the model that started with slavery and ended with robber barons and the abject servitude of the coal miner. It's worse, suggesting no limitations on aggregation of wealth, and a feeble government dominated by an elitist oligarchy.

No thanks.

I commend you on your hyperventilating. You use a lot of passion to say almost nothing. But it sounded cool, so there's that.

Taco John

10-26-2009, 03:30 PM

Very good, Margaret Thatcher! If on one side, we have death, and on the other side, we have torture, but in the middle we have neither death nor torture, we have garbled, well then I'll take garbled!

You have a way of unwittingly proving my points.

Amnorix

10-26-2009, 03:36 PM

The protection of life, liberty, and property. Personal liberty should be the goal of any American economic system.

There are no other goals?

Of course, your goals are so broadly stated that it could mean nearly anything so let me follow up

I guess you'd argue that slavery is contrary to the protection of liberty, though at least BEP has argued that slavery should not have been tampered with by the feds. Your thoughts?

Child labor laws?

Environmental laws?

Food and drug laws?

What are your positions on those?

Amnorix

10-26-2009, 03:37 PM

I commend you on your hyperventilating. You use a lot of passion to say almost nothing. But it sounded cool, so there's that.

Trust me when I say I'm hardly hyperventilating. Amused, perhaps...

You may not remember it now, but you used to be much more of a mainstream liberal before you became a hardcore libertarian.

banyon

10-26-2009, 03:48 PM

Ask me to define any "label" that you want. I don't hate that at all. A label is nothing more than a tag for a collection of thoughts. I'm not sure why anybody would be afraid of a label.

Yes, you most certainly do.

This was your last ridiculous attempt:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5821290&highlight=circular+definition#post5821290

You haven't once defined it in any way except to use the same word in the defintion (or a close synonym) for the word you are trying to define. Whatever you do, you sure don't want to draw any specific lines around the term that could possibly prevent you from haphazardly tossing the term around.

Taco John

10-26-2009, 04:11 PM

There are no other goals?

Goals? Whose goals are you speaking of? I can tell you what a goal of any given individual is: to do whatever makes them feel better. It doesn't matter who you are - this is the universal common denominator. Everybody is out there doing whatever they are doing in an effort to make themselves feel better. Every conscious being. Every moment. Every day. "How do I feel now? What can I do to make myself feel better?" This is the human condition. It's the point in the spectrum of time and space where we all intersect (past, present, and future).

This intersection point is what Misean free market economics is about: the individual who is faced with these questions every moment of their existence, and what they do to transact around these two questions. Moreover, it's about protecting these individuals from the tyranny of men (in whatever form that tyranny takes, including, but not limited to overbearing government).

So when you ask me what the goal is of an economy, I want to know whose goals you're speaking of. I speak only to the goals of an individual and his rightful liberty to pursue those goals. And by "rightful liberty," I refer to the eloquent Jeffersonian that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

So whose goals are you speaking of?

Taco John

10-26-2009, 04:25 PM

Trust me when I say I'm hardly hyperventilating. Amused, perhaps...

You may not remember it now, but you used to be much more of a mainstream liberal before you became a hardcore libertarian.

Hmmm... It must have been before I started earning a paycheck, and trying to raise a family.

But you're right. I was definitely conditioned in public schooling to hold a lot of liberal views that conflicted with my libertarian core beliefs. I didn't understand how conflicted I was until I was introduced to the econmics of personal liberty: austrian economics.

I have to say that I love the characterization of me as a "hardcore" libertarian. "He's hardcore in his beliefs that individuals should be free beings who act freely within the rights of others around them." It's a great compliment that gives me a sense of pride every time I hear it.

I'm not just a "libertarian" (who apparently just sort of believe in the rights of others), I'm a "hardcore libertarian" (who believes in them unconditionally).

Frickin' great!

Taco John

10-26-2009, 04:32 PM

Yes, you most certainly do.

This was your last ridiculous attempt:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5821290&highlight=circular+definition#post5821290

You haven't once defined it in any way except to use the same word in the defintion (or a close synonym) for the word you are trying to define. Whatever you do, you sure don't want to draw any specific lines around the term that could possibly prevent you from haphazardly tossing the term around.

You want me to spoon feed you an actual definition? Like merriam websters?

so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Socialism

I think that's a fair definitnion, except that I think "goods" is a weak word, and would replace it with "wealth" or "capital".

But frankly, I like Jenson's definition better.

Calcountry

10-26-2009, 04:35 PM

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 05:55 PM

I know when Taco is doing his job when I see banyon all riled up. Ditto for Amnorix. It brings out the hard-core statists.

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 06:00 PM

Hey amnorix, no one here has advocated for unfettered capitalism because a free-market is not defined by absolutely no regulation whatsoever. That doesn't make it un-free. Besides you overlook the natural restrictions of the market aka the people when they don't like a product or it's too expensive.

It's a red herring and a fallacy.

A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. The terminology is used by economists and in popular culture. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

It's just not mercantilism, faacism, socialism ( aka state communism).

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 06:03 PM

That being said, the early days of the Republic were the closest thing to a free-market except when the Federalists ( wealthy elites using govt to create their wealth) were trying to make hay out of it. Ya' know the Hamiltons who you and banyon hold so dear to your hearts.

Taco John

10-26-2009, 06:41 PM

'Norix, where'd you go?

I have another question for you. Which of these sounds more like communism to you?

1. Bailing out (aka funding) entire industries with public money and then using that bailout money as an impetus for restructuring the target bailout industry, all done under the guise of the collective common good.

2. Letting the companies in these industries fail, and letting new ones rise in their place to meet demands for these types of products and services in the market.

(I'd offer a moderate "in between" option for the people who are uncomfortable talking about these merely theoretical things in "absolute" terms. I can't seem to come up with one though)

So that's my set-up question. Here is my real question: whose goals get to determine which of these directions the government should take?

Whose goals are you speaking of Amnorix?

Amnorix

10-27-2009, 06:19 AM

'Norix, where'd you go?

Home? Life? Family? I don't just hang out here all day. I'll revisit this later. I also work...

Amnorix

11-12-2009, 07:34 PM

Goals? Whose goals are you speaking of? I can tell you what a goal of any given individual is: to do whatever makes them feel better. It doesn't matter who you are - this is the universal common denominator. Everybody is out there doing whatever they are doing in an effort to make themselves feel better. Every conscious being. Every moment. Every day. "How do I feel now? What can I do to make myself feel better?" This is the human condition. It's the point in the spectrum of time and space where we all intersect (past, present, and future).

Sure, that's kind of obvious on one level, but can't be taken too far. It's not like the entire world is full of hedonists.

But the goal of an economic system isn't just making people feel better. That's so abstract as to be meaningless.

This intersection point is what Misean free market economics is about: the individual who is faced with these questions every moment of their existence, and what they do to transact around these two questions. Moreover, it's about protecting these individuals from the tyranny of men (in whatever form that tyranny takes, including, but not limited to overbearing government).

So when you ask me what the goal is of an economy, I want to know whose goals you're speaking of. I speak only to the goals of an individual and his rightful liberty to pursue those goals. And by "rightful liberty," I refer to the eloquent Jeffersonian that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

So whose goals are you speaking of?

Right, I see where you're going. I forgot that you reject the concept of the broader society to begin with. Not going to be any ground for fruitful argument here.

Amnorix

11-12-2009, 07:35 PM

I know when Taco is doing his job when I see banyon all riled up. Ditto for Amnorix. It brings out the hard-core statists.

Believe me, I'm not riled. Never was. No really. If it excites you to think so, then whatever makes you happy.

Amnorix

11-12-2009, 07:39 PM

Hey amnorix, no one here has advocated for unfettered capitalism because a free-market is not defined by absolutely no regulation whatsoever. That doesn't make it un-free. Besides you overlook the natural restrictions of the market aka the people when they don't like a product or it's too expensive.

It's a red herring and a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

It's just not mercantilism, faacism, socialism ( aka state communism).

If there is a regulation that you don't despise, I haven't yet run into it.

The "natural restrictions of the market" didn't stop the numerous abuses of the late 19th and early 20th century in the areas of product safety, abuse of labor (child labor, absurd working conditions), etc. ad infinitum.

And there is a long spectrum between what I would call true capitalism and communism. So far as I can tell, to you and TJ it's more like an on/off switch.

irishjayhawk

11-12-2009, 07:40 PM

Sure, that's kind of obvious on one level, but can't be taken too far. It's not like the entire world is full of hedonists.

But the goal of an economic system isn't just making people feel better. That's so abstract as to be meaningless.

Right, I see where you're going. I forgot that you reject the concept of the broader society to begin with. Not going to be any ground for fruitful argument here.

That's precisely what I've come to realize. And that's why we always disagree.

Taco John

11-12-2009, 07:43 PM

Sure, that's kind of obvious on one level, but can't be taken too far. It's not like the entire world is full of hedonists.

I would say the word "hedonist" is too strong. But at the core, that's exactly what the world is full of. (but I'm not talking in the sexual way that hedonist is known as)

But the goal of an economic system isn't just making people feel better. That's so abstract as to be meaningless.

Not at all. You assume that the "goal of the economic system" has some sort of precedent over the goal of an individual. Your way of looking at things makes the entity "economic system" a soverign to the serf individuals. My way of looking at things makes individuals the soverign entities for the serf "economics" to serve.

Right, I see where you're going. I forgot that you reject the concept of the broader society to begin with. Not going to be any ground for fruitful argument here.

Society exists sure. But the entity "society" has no rights. Individuals, on the other hand, do.

Amnorix

11-12-2009, 07:47 PM

'Norix, where'd you go?

Spare me the suggestion that I'm running from a fight. I'd like to think that I've sufficiently established around here that I don't do that. That said, I have my priorities pretty straight in life, which sometimes means this place gets little of my attention for protracted periods of time.

I have another question for you. Which of these sounds more like communism to you?

1. Bailing out (aka funding) entire industries with public money and then using that bailout money as an impetus for restructuring the target bailout industry, all done under the guise of the collective common good.

2. Letting the companies in these industries fail, and letting new ones rise in their place to meet demands for these types of products and services in the market.

(I'd offer a moderate "in between" option for the people who are uncomfortable talking about these merely theoretical things in "absolute" terms. I can't seem to come up with one though)

So that's my set-up question. Here is my real question: whose goals get to determine which of these directions the government should take?

Whose goals are you speaking of Amnorix?

Your first hypothetical -- and it is a hypothetical because it's not entirely factually accurate, certainly comes closer to socialism/communism than the latter. Obviously.

I'm not sure that anyone's "goals" gets to determine which action the government takes. The government does, however, have a serious interest in preserving the integrity and stability of the country's economic system.

Amnorix

11-12-2009, 07:48 PM

That's precisely what I've come to realize. And that's why we always disagree.

Yeah, I've run into this brick wall before. I always forget that they don't even really believe in the very concept of a broader society.

Amnorix

11-12-2009, 07:55 PM

I would say the word "hedonist" is too strong. But at the core, that's exactly what the world is full of. (but I'm not talking in the sexual way that hedonist is known as)

Right, sure, we can ignore the sexual overtones that the phrase employs.

I do agree that people are GENERALLY constantly motivated by a desire to improve their enjoyment of their lives. Obviously, different people have different concepts of what that means, but generally people don't act in a manner that is contrary to their short/medium/long term happiness.

Not at all. You assume that the "goal of the economic system" has some sort of precedent over the goal of an individual. Your way of looking at things makes the entity "economic system" a soverign to the serf individuals. My way of looking at things makes individuals the soverign entities for the serf "economics" to serve.

An interesting way to look at it. Possibly even true, though I haven't given it much thought. The issue, however, is that we were heading down that road in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, saw where relatively unfettered capitalism was taking us, and realized that it was not a place we wanted to go.

Society exists sure. But the entity "society" has no rights. Individuals, on the other hand, do.

You're absolutely correct that society has no rights. It does have interests and concerns, however.

Taco John

11-12-2009, 08:09 PM

You're absolutely correct that society has no rights. It does have interests and concerns, however.

My dog has interests and concerns, and as a coincidence, has the same constitutional rights as the entity "society."

Taco John

11-12-2009, 08:14 PM

Taco John

11-12-2009, 08:15 PM

Heh... leg up... I didn't mean it like you might have thought I meant that. But that's funny.

BucEyedPea

11-12-2009, 08:16 PM

society argument=basis for collectivist ideas

irishjayhawk

11-12-2009, 08:17 PM

society argument=basis for collectivist ideas

When it's an on/off switch rather than a dimmer, yeah.

Taco John

11-12-2009, 08:23 PM

When it's an on/off switch rather than a dimmer, yeah.

If I steal your spare tire in order that the poor family down the road can get to work, did I "sort of" steal your tire, or did I "definitely" steal your tire. I don't see where your "dimmer switch" has any application here, outside of the volume of the theft taking place.

How does the dimmer apply?

irishjayhawk

11-12-2009, 08:29 PM

If I steal your spare tire in order that the poor family down the road can get to work, did I "sort of" steal your tire, or did I "definitely" steal your tire. I don't see where your "dimmer switch" has any application here, outside of the volume of the theft taking place.

How does the dimmer apply?

Because one socialistic part of a society doesn't equal an entire socialistic society.

Lights full on = socialism. Lights off = capitalism. Dimmed doesn't mean full on.

Taco John

11-12-2009, 08:44 PM

Because one socialistic part of a society doesn't equal an entire socialistic society.

Lights full on = socialism. Lights off = capitalism. Dimmed doesn't mean full on.

I don't see the value in the distinctions that you're trying to make.

"Oh sure, XYZ is socialistic, but you can't call it socialism until we're all in breadlines."

Light full on, lights off, blah blah blah... Dimmed doesn't mean full on?

I don't care about lights full on or whatever meaningless point you're trying to make. I care about the liberty of individuals. So when you talk about "dimming" what you're really talking about is a minority of individuals having their liberty infringed - so small that nobody hardly notices.

Except that was what we were talking about in 1901. It's 2009, and we have a socialist social security system, a socialist medicare system, a effectively nationalized auto industry, a central socialist central planning bank, an entire banking industry that has been effectively nationalized, and more. I don't know what it's going to take for some of you to wake up and smell the socialism, but if you're not smelling it by now, you really shouldn't be in political discussions about it because you're clearly in over your head.

Dimmer switch...

Here's the metaphor that I prefer:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9189/etcfrogboiling.jpg

NewPhin

11-12-2009, 08:48 PM

I don't see the value in the distinctions that you're trying to make.

"Oh sure, XYZ is socialistic, but you can't call it socialism until we're all in breadlines."

Light full on, lights off, blah blah blah... Dimmed doesn't mean full on?

I don't care about lights full on or whatever meaningless point you're trying to make. I care about the liberty of individuals. So when you talk about "dimming" what you're really talking about is a minority of individuals having their liberty infringed - so small that nobody hardly notices.

Except that was what we were talking about in 1901. It's 2009, and we have a socialist social security system, a socialist medicare system, a effectively nationalized auto industry, a central socialist central planning bank, an entire banking industry that has been effectively nationalized, and more. I don't know what it's going to take for some of you to wake up and smell the socialism, but if you're not smelling it by now, you really shouldn't be in political discussions about it because you're clearly in over your head.

Dimmer switch...

Here's the metaphor that I prefer:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9189/etcfrogboiling.jpg

Just out of curiosity, I would like you or BEP to recommend one book that you think will illustrate adequately your vision of where we need to go in the future and what society will look like if we go there. I don't want a bunch of analysis of the founding fathers and bullshit like that. I want realistic depiction that shows us how we get from where we are right now to where you think we should be and what we're going to look like when we get there. Make it as utopic and Pollyanna toward your political system as you like, but I'd honestly like to see what your ideal society looks like.

BucEyedPea

11-12-2009, 08:49 PM

I assure you it won't be utopic but it won't be dystopic either.

KC native

11-12-2009, 08:53 PM

Cannibal

11-12-2009, 09:07 PM

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/CIA_Maps/Somalia_19881.gif

So true.

BucEyedPea

11-12-2009, 09:11 PM

So false! America became an economic juggernaught faster than any other nation before we had Keynesian garbagola that benefits the political classes and people in KCnative's industry. He works for the crooks that are robbing this country.

Taco John

11-12-2009, 10:18 PM

Just out of curiosity, I would like you or BEP to recommend one book that you think will illustrate adequately your vision of where we need to go in the future and what society will look like if we go there. I don't want a bunch of analysis of the founding fathers and bullshit like that. I want realistic depiction that shows us how we get from where we are right now to where you think we should be and what we're going to look like when we get there. Make it as utopic and Pollyanna toward your political system as you like, but I'd honestly like to see what your ideal society looks like.

If, as you'd say, you'd like an honest glimpse of a libertarian society, read these books:

The Revolution: A Manifesto (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258089311&sr=8-1) by Ron Paul (audio book (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/160024355X/ref=tmm_abk_title_0))

Followed by:

End the Fed (http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258089385&sr=1-1) by Ron Paul (audiobook (http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/1600248667/ref=tmm_abk_title_0))

Taco John

11-12-2009, 10:20 PM

Fair warning though. You'll also get the contrasting honest look at the society we live in today, and it might frighten you a little.

BucEyedPea

11-13-2009, 02:56 AM

I haven't read those yet but will. I figure it covers things I already have read earlier though.

Phin, if you want something simple to start there's a pdf you can download of the book: Economics for Real People. It's an introduction to the Austrian School and it's not written in complicated prose.

Here's a Review of the Book
http://mises.org/store/Economics-for-Real-People-P116.aspx

Pdf to download here.
http://search.mises.org/search?q=Economics%20for%20Real%20People&site=default_collection

Economics in One Lesson-Hazlitt, Henry
Here with review
http://mises.org/store/product.aspx?ProductId=33

You can browse through the store but these are simpler to start off with.

If you want a fast simple reader at HS level Whatever Happened to Penny Candy is pretty darn good. Comes with a workbook that has additional reading in it.
The guy is from the Foundation of Economic Education but the Mises Institute sells it too. Or you can get it used at Amazon for a lot less.

Amnorix

11-13-2009, 06:28 AM

I will note that "society" does not have interests and concerns because it's an abstraction, not an actual thinking being. To have "interests" and "concerns" you have to be an actual being capable of thought, not an abstraction. My dog actually has a leg up on it in that regard.

Obviously it's an abstraction, but there's nothing to fear from the word which simply refers to the populace as a whole. Your Gods, the Founding Fathers, also seem to disagree with you, referring to society's duties (Hamilton)(I realize you reject this particular god in this pantheon), rights (Jefferson), will (Jefferson) and demands (Adams).

"promote the general welfare" United States Constitution

"The safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed." James Madison

“I think the first duty of society is justice” Alexander Hamilton

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of
its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they
contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and
involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go
somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and
still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may
exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with
disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

"We exist, and are quoted, as standing proofs that a government,
so modeled as to rest continually on the will of the whole
society, is a practicable government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Richard Rush, 1820.

“Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams

tiptap

11-13-2009, 09:15 AM

My dog has interests and concerns, and as a coincidence, has the same constitutional rights as the entity "society."

Does this argument extend to a repudiation of Corporation Rights. Is limited liability concept anti Austrian School? How about Churches?

Where is the proof that individual action, driven by self interest, leads to proper allocation of resources. If you mean a market can represent a fair price. Yeah I get that. But any market had prescriptive arrangements that facilitate setting of price. Some choices are not prescribed by wealth accumulation as the discriminator of value.

Taco John

11-13-2009, 10:04 AM

Obviously it's an abstraction, but there's nothing to fear from the word which simply refers to the populace as a whole. Your Gods, the Founding Fathers, also seem to disagree with you, referring to society's duties (Hamilton)(I realize you reject this particular god in this pantheon), rights (Jefferson), will (Jefferson) and demands (Adams).

"promote the general welfare" United States Constitution

"The safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed." James Madison

“I think the first duty of society is justice” Alexander Hamilton

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of
its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they
contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and
involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go
somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and
still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may
exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with
disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

"We exist, and are quoted, as standing proofs that a government,
so modeled as to rest continually on the will of the whole
society, is a practicable government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Richard Rush, 1820.

“Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams

Saying the word "society" a lot doesn't give this abstraction any more rights in the Constitution. There's nothing wrong with the abstraction until you start giving it rights that it doesn't have, and removing individuals of their rights through the means of 'might makes right' democracy.

Taco John

11-13-2009, 10:05 AM

Does this argument extend to a repudiation of Corporation Rights. Is limited liability concept anti Austrian School? How about Churches?

Where is the proof that individual action, driven by self interest, leads to proper allocation of resources. If you mean a market can represent a fair price. Yeah I get that. But any market had prescriptive arrangements that facilitate setting of price. Some choices are not prescribed by wealth accumulation as the discriminator of value.

Define "proper allocation of resources." Who gets to define such a loose idea?

NewPhin

11-13-2009, 10:31 AM

If, as you'd say, you'd like an honest glimpse of a libertarian society, read these books:

The Revolution: A Manifesto (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258089311&sr=8-1) by Ron Paul (audio book (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/160024355X/ref=tmm_abk_title_0))

Followed by:

End the Fed (http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258089385&sr=1-1) by Ron Paul (audiobook (http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/1600248667/ref=tmm_abk_title_0))

I'll probably check out the Manifesto when I go to the public library next time.

Amnorix

11-13-2009, 10:34 AM

Saying the word "society" a lot doesn't give this abstraction any more rights in the Constitution. There's nothing wrong with the abstraction until you start giving it rights that it doesn't have, and removing individuals of their rights through the means of 'might makes right' democracy.

Societies don't have "rights", at least not in the way I generally use that word, which is an enforceable right under the law.

But it does have interests and concerns, in the same way that your Gods, the Founding Fathers, referred to their will, duty, choices and demands. And the concerns and interests of the society -- meaning the populace as a whole, is voiced through the acts of our elected officials.

When Congess passes a law to prohibit, say, dumping toxic waste into rivers, that definitely does curb the individual liberties of a selected few -- the people doing the dumping, who save money, time and effort by doing it that way instead of disposing it properly -- for the benefit of society at large.

Jenson71

11-13-2009, 10:55 AM

Taco John

11-13-2009, 12:54 PM

When Congess passes a law to prohibit, say, dumping toxic waste into rivers, that definitely does curb the individual liberties of a selected few -- the people doing the dumping, who save money, time and effort by doing it that way instead of disposing it properly -- for the benefit of society at large.

How so? There's no right to polluting rivers. There is no liberty that exists to infringe on property that doesn't belong to you with pollution that will infringe on the lives of others.

Of course, government gives companies these rights, so long as the lobbies scratch the right backs. But the liberty you are imagining is not one that exists.

There is no right to pollution. It's not a liberty that exists.

Taco John

11-13-2009, 01:13 PM

Taco John

11-13-2009, 01:16 PM

Do you disagree with James Madison that society can have happiness?

I think "society" as an abstraction could abstractly "have anything" that one (or as it were, millions, even billions of ones) could care to abstract upon it.

tiptap

11-13-2009, 02:10 PM

Define "proper allocation of resources." Who gets to define such a loose idea?

Well my point is that you think that the invisible hand of the market does just so, properly allocates resources, without assessment, without definition. The aggregate effect from individual decision in the market somehow "knows" just how and which materials are allocated and who should gain in such activity.

Now I don't really think you go that far but you ignore all of the machinery, man chosen, that supports a market and in large measure defines and sets the scope and breath of that market. That is a priori in determining the look and sense of a market. Someone has defined goals. The market helps to set supply and demand under those goals. It is reasonable for a people to elect a government to shepherd goals set by their election.

Amnorix

11-13-2009, 02:27 PM

You don't just get to do whatever you want, and call it liberty.

Wait a minute...

Is THAT what you think of liberty? That it's just whatever, do what you want, no worries man...

Is that what you think of it?

In its broadest sense, liberty is the right to act and think as one chooses free from restriction.

And I don't think that is at all an unusual definition of the term.

Jenson71

11-13-2009, 02:39 PM

I think "society" as an abstraction could abstractly "have anything" that one (or as it were, millions, even billions of ones) could care to abstract upon it.

Sounds good to me. Society can have happiness. It can have justice. It can have progress. It can have concerns.

Taco John

11-13-2009, 02:40 PM

In its broadest sense, liberty is the right to act and think as one chooses free from restriction.

And I don't think that is at all an unusual definition of the term.

If by broadest you mean, so easy a caveman can do it, then yeah. But that's not libertarianism. It's certainly not what the founders had in mind when they spoke of liberty.

Well, that explains a lot. Apparently you view the concept of liberty much like one might think of Mad Max's Thunderdome. Hell, I'd be scared to death of liberty to if that was my view of it!

No, I'm talking about the liberty that those dopey founding fathers philosophized about, where everybody has their rights drawn around them, and government serves to protect those rights, not figure out how to mold public opinion enough to give up a few more.

You guys might claim not be socialists, but one thing is for sure. You sure don't have much of a grasp on the libertarian philosophies that made the American Revolution so significant. Liberty is not anarchy. Even if the television tells you so.

Taco John

11-13-2009, 02:41 PM

Sounds good to me. Society can have happiness. It can have justice. It can have progress. It can have concerns.

And polka dots!

Jenson71

11-13-2009, 02:43 PM

And polka dots!

Polka dots are not abstract. But sure, why not?

Amnorix

11-13-2009, 03:21 PM

If by broadest you mean, so easy a caveman can do it, then yeah. But that's not libertarianism. It's certainly not what the founders had in mind when they spoke of liberty.

Well, that explains a lot. Apparently you view the concept of liberty much like one might think of Mad Max's Thunderdome. Hell, I'd be scared to death of liberty to if that was my view of it!

No, I'm talking about the liberty that those dopey founding fathers philosophized about, where everybody has their rights drawn around them, and government serves to protect those rights, not figure out how to mold public opinion enough to give up a few more.

You guys might claim not be socialists, but one thing is for sure. You sure don't have much of a grasp on the libertarian philosophies that made the American Revolution so significant. Liberty is not anarchy. Even if the television tells you so.

*sigh*

Obviously, when they shouted Give me Liberty or Give me Death, they didn't mean in a Mad Max kind of way. Much like taking a single welfare program and saying that the country is, as a result, communist, you have a tremendous gift for hyperbole.

Amnorix

11-13-2009, 03:28 PM

I stated that anti-pollution laws curtail individual liberties. Which is true in the sense that, ABSENT A LAW, there is no reason a person or corporation couldn't do this. And in fact, that is EXACTLY WHAT ACTUAL PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS DID FOR YEARS.

I did not say that they had some kind of Constitutional right to dump toxic waste in the Monangahela. I don't think you or anyone else would argue that they did. And yet, when they passed a law prohibiting it, what had once been lawful suddenly became unlawful.

If you want a more difficult, but similar issue in the same context, you could analyze water rights laws in the Western states. At one point in time, anyone upstream from you could divert an entire river that ran through their land. Those downstream, especially if they had gotten there first, were a bit miffed about this as you can imagine.

Individual liberties, even property rights (the river is part of MY LAND), are not absolutes. I believe Kotter has an entire thread going on this.

Taco John

11-13-2009, 03:41 PM

Well, this is what I think is hyperbole:

"In its broadest sense, liberty is the right to act and think as one chooses free from restriction."

Taco John

11-13-2009, 03:55 PM

I stated that anti-pollution laws curtail individual liberties. Which is true in the sense that, ABSENT A LAW, there is no reason a person or corporation couldn't do this. And in fact, that is EXACTLY WHAT ACTUAL PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS DID FOR YEARS.

So who gets the blame when government doesn't protect individual and property rights? Of course! Liberty gets the blame!

Liberty is not doing what you want regardless if it hurts other people. It's unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

It's not "do what you want, and if there's no law, there's no crime." Justice can always be discerned by who had their liberties infringed, and to what degree. That's what a "justice" system is for: determining where individual liberties have been infringed, and bringing justice to the degree that the infringement has happend.

KC native

11-14-2009, 02:24 AM

So who gets the blame when government doesn't protect individual and property rights? Of course! Liberty gets the blame!

Liberty is not doing what you want regardless if it hurts other people. It's unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

It's not "do what you want, and if there's no law, there's no crime." Justice can always be discerned by who had their liberties infringed, and to what degree. That's what a "justice" system is for: determining where individual liberties have been infringed, and bringing justice to the degree that the infringement has happend.

ROFL

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0TZ_9-rbslo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0TZ_9-rbslo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Joe Seahawk

11-14-2009, 12:32 PM

This looks like a very interesting program it's on our local PBS station tomorrow, I'm definitely tivoing it, (it starts at 12:59 PM)

Check it out.

The Power of the Poor" tells the story of how a small group of economists helped defeat Peru's brutal Shining Path terrorists, pressured the government into making legal reforms that have lifted millions out of poverty and, in the process, became repeated targets for bombing and assassinations. It is a look at the vital role that efficient, inclusive laws and private property play in prosperity and social peace. Filmed on location and featuring Peruvian economist and author Hernando de Soto, the program relates how corruption and bureaucracy have locked two thirds of the world's population out of national and global economies. Forced to operate outside the rule of law, they have created their own parallel, but extremely limited, extralegal systems. Facing the growing violence of the Sendero Luminoso, de Soto and his team were able to pass legal reforms that helped lead to the defeat of the Shining Path, and set the stage for Peru's economic resurgence.

http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/production/power_poor/index.php