Open Side Menu Go to the Top

04-20-2009 , 02:32 AM
if I am understanding you correctly Freakdaddy, you think a free society will be a bad outcome since people are inherently greedy and will act too selfish. Is this correct?

The reply to that is that those who are AC believe that morals, values, etc are included in preferences. It's not only money and/or greed that motivates.
If you are correct, and men are truly that selfish, than what makes the men in charge immune to that trait of selfishness? In a world where men are bad, why would we want to give some men monopolistic power over security, police, courts, etc?
Are you going to read the Hugo Chavez propaganda book?
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Are you going to read the Hugo Chavez propaganda book?
04-20-2009 , 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane S
Interesting that you cite Taoism, a fundamentally libertarian ideology.

"The best governors do not govern."
Ah, so libertarians want to denounce worldly positions and put others before themselves? Cool... I didn't know that.

I know which section you're talking about in the Tao te Ching, but that's not an exact quote of course. The point was a little larger then perhaps what you are intending.

Quote:
From a spiritual perspective, I don't see how you could be satisfied with a political system that is based on force.
I guess forcing people to eat bubble gum ice cream is pretty cruel. What about rocky road instead?
04-20-2009 , 02:41 AM
What are you then?

I can't distinguish most of what you are writing from really super standard, anti-capitalist, socialist rhetoric. Maybe I am missing something because I don't know a ton about philosophy.

Did you read any of Mises? He claims that:

Quote:
There are two ways of treating the problems which Socialism sets to Science.


The cultural philosopher may deal with Socialism by trying to place it in order among all other cultural phenomena. He inquires into its intellectual derivation, he examines its relation to other forms of social life, he looks for its hidden sources in the soul of the individual, he tries to understand it as a mass phenomena. He examines its effects on religion and philosophy, on art and literature. He tries to show the relation in which it stands to the natural and mental sciences of the time. He studies it as a style of life, as an utterance of the psyche, as an expression of ethical and aesthetic beliefs. This is the cultural-historical-psychological way. Ever trodden and retrodden, it is the way of a thousand books and essays.

We must never judge a scientific method in advance. There is only one touchstone for its ability to achieve results: success.
It is quite possible that the cultural-historical-psychological method will also contribute much towards a solution of the problems which Socialism has set to Science. That its results have been so unsatisfactory is to be ascribed not only to the incompetence and political prejudices of those who have undertaken the work, but above all to the fact that the sociological-economical treatment of the problems must precede the cultural-historical-psychological. For Socialism is a programme for transforming the economic life and constitution of society according to a defined ideal. To understand its effects in other fields of mental and cultural life one must first have seen clearly its social and economic significance. As long as one is still in doubt about this it is unwise to risk a cultural-historical-psychological interpretation. One cannot speak of the ethics of Socialism before one has cleared up its relation to other moral standards. A relevant analysis of its reactions on religion and public life is impossible when one has only an obscure conception of its essential reality. It is impossible to discuss Socialism at all without having first and foremost examined the mechanism of an economic order based on public ownership of the means of production.
So you seem to be making a huge leap by talking about the ego and such.

Your statements about the cause and proper remedy for the recent bubble seem so blatantly wrong that I can't tell if you understand what Austrian economics is or how the science of economics should be approached.

I need to find a really good piece on epistemology tomorrow, so hang tight. I am curious how you feel about this section from Mises' introduction and this short piece by Block.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mises
Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person. Few have been able to withstand such tactics. Few indeed have been courageous enough to oppose Socialism with that remorseless criticism which it is the duty of the scientific thinker to apply to every subject of inquiry. Only thus is to be explained the fact that supporters and opponents of Socialism have unquestioningly obeyed the prohibition which Marxism has laid on any closer discussion of the economic and social conditions of the socialist community. Marxism declares on the one hand that the socialization of the means of production is the end towards which economic evolution leads with the inevitability of a natural law; on the other hand it represents such socialization as the aim of its political effort. In this way he expounded the first principle of socialist organization. The purpose of the prohibition to study the working of a socialist community, which was justified by a series of threadbare arguments, was really intended to prevent the weaknesses of Marxist doctrines from coming clearly to light in discussions regarding the creation of a practicable socialist society. A clear exposition of the nature of socialist society might have damped the enthusiasm of the masses, who sought in Socialism salvation from all earthly ills. The successful suppression of these dangerous inquiries, which had brought about the downfall of all earlier socialistic theories, was one of Marx's most skillful tactical moves. Only because people were not allowed to talk or to think about the nature of the socialist community was Socialism able to become the dominant political movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Block
For zillions of years, the human race lived in small groups of 25–50 people or so. We became hard wired to appreciate explicit cooperation: I scratch your back, you scratch mine; I'll feed you when you're hungry and/or sick; you reciprocate. Those who wouldn’t or couldn't do this didn't tend to leave their genes to the next generation. That is one of the reasons why the family is even today such a powerful institution.


However, in an economy of 6 billion, we can't all cooperate this way. Rather, we can only cooperate through markets. That is, implicitly, not explicitly.


To illustrate this point, take the recent history of New Orleans. When Katrina struck, prices of oil, gas, milk, water, orange juice, batteries, candles and other such items catapulted. This was implicit cooperation in action. How so? Higher prices means that those first in line at the grocery don't get everything on the shelves. Elevated prices have a rationing function; at normal costs, people would tend to stock up; if the prices are very much higher, they will in effect if not by benevolent intention leave something for others This is part and parcel of Adam Smith’s "Invisible Hand" at work. Also, higher prices in post Katrina New Orleans would encourage, through greater profit margins, businessmen from outside of the struck area to bring these goods to those here who needed them the most. This embodies yet another aspect of Adam Smith’s "Invisible Hand."


But were people in NO satisfied with these salutary rising prices? Did they understand their economic function? To ask this is to answer it: they were not happy campers. Flesh and blood politicians also biased against markets by their biology, sensed this; they lambasted entrepreneurs as price gougers, and threatened stiff legal penalties.


Charging higher prices during emergencies is good implicit cooperation. But we're not hard wired, biologically, to accept any such thing. Unless we know a bit of economics, we recoil in horror from such goings on. We characterize them as ruthless, uncaring, selfish, callous, etc. We are not biologically situated in a way so as to welcome such behavior. Rather, we, in our gut, expect our fellow creatures to cooperate with us explicitly, the way family members treat each other.


Appreciation of the finer points of economic cooperation simply conferred no biological advantage all those zillions of years ago. Nor are university students and even faculty members exempt from these irrational (in the modern context) feelings. Unless you are reasonably cognizant of economic theory, higher prices in such situations will seem like greed run amuck.


Let us consider another example. Some 40,000 people die on our nation’s roadways each year. Most people – innocent of economic reasoning – think this is ordained by some Higher Power if they think about this at all. Or, they attribute it to things like speed, drunkenness, vehicle malfunction or other driver error.


But these are merely proximate causes; the ultimate cause is of course poor roadway management. And who is in overall charge of vehicular traffic? Why, government, of course. The problem is that in this sector of the economy, there is no automatic negative feedback mechanism. Those responsible for not satisfactorily dealing with the proximate causes of our dying like flies on the highways continue in business. Ditto for the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the post office, the FDA, indeed, all government agencies.

In sharp contrast, the reason we have no national crises concerning pizza, rubber bands, computers, Disney World, WalMart etc., is that these enterprises are in the private sector. There, fail to satisfy consumers, and you are history.

The obvious solution to massive highway deaths is to privatize this amenity. But such a turn away from highway socialism will appear anathema to most of us, who are victimized by our biology, and simply unable to appreciate the rather subtle economic reasoning underlying such a proposal.

Last edited by zan nen; 04-20-2009 at 02:49 AM. Reason: stupid italics won't go away =(
04-20-2009 , 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakDaddy

I guess forcing people to eat bubble gum ice cream is pretty cruel. What about rocky road instead?

Why must you force people to do anything?
04-20-2009 , 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsqr
So Hugo Chavez gave a book to President Obama, a nice little gift, and it has jumped from obscurity to #2 on the Amazon best selling list.

Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent
by Eduardo Galeano

Should we all run out and read it now? and get a little of the "Latin America is the victim of US and European imperialism" propaganda injected into us?

I want to read my copy to see if it changes my world view.

How about you?
I can dismiss this book with a few simple facts.

There is one colony left in South America (Fr. Guiana). All other countries are independent.

Guess which country has the highest per capita GDP ($17,336 in 2006) on the continent? Right. Imperialism, it seems, has been good for at least one place in South America.
04-20-2009 , 03:37 AM
What!?! Socialist/authoritarian/whatever ruler Chavez would try to spread ideas that fly in the face of simple logic for his own benefit? Que estupido cabron EMO.
04-20-2009 , 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakDaddy
Ah, so libertarians want to denounce worldly positions and put others before themselves? Cool... I didn't know that.
1.) I'm sure many libertarians do want to do those things. There is no conflict. I certainly don't see how imposing your beliefs on others through force has anything to do with putting others before yourself.

2.) That said, "denouncing worldly positions and putting others before yourself" is a very poor summary of Taoist philosophy. There are many many passages in the Tao Te Ching to the effect of: "if you are a rich man, find the Tao as a rich man; if you are a poor man, find the Tao as a poor man". I also can't recall any passage that specifically recommends putting others before oneself (or oneself before others for that matter). Imo Lao Tse would view such a question as entirely beside the point.

Quote:
I know which section you're talking about in the Tao te Ching, but that's not an exact quote of course. The point was a little larger then perhaps what you are intending.
Unless you can read ancient Chinese (and even if you can, really), there are no exact quotes, so let's not bother with all that, but feel free to elaborate on the significance of the context. I agree there is much more to it than just that line. Of course, there are many many more passages that exhibit a libertarian philosophy, both in direct political terms like in the passage I quoted, and in terms that advise nonviolence on more of a spiritual level. Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to me that someone could give Lao Tse a fair reading and not notice his generally hands off, nonviolent, libertarian-oriented approach to life, including political life, even if that isn't the reader's political persuasion.

Quote:
I guess forcing people to eat bubble gum ice cream is pretty cruel. What about rocky road instead?
Shall we come up with lame jokes or have a real discussion?
04-20-2009 , 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsqr
There is more to it than has there ever been any imperialism conducted against this area?

The bigger questions raised are, Are world powers responsible for current day poverty, crime, corrupt governments etc. in Latin American countries?

How have the events of the past helped shape the status of the present? That is not a simple question.
It isnt? I dont know much about South American history, but it seems pretty clear to me that our war on drugs, support of dictators and coup d'etats of democratically elected leaders have made South America a much worse place to live.
04-20-2009 , 04:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakDaddy
I guess forcing people to eat bubble gum ice cream is pretty cruel. What about rocky road instead?
I'm lactose intolerant, I find this post offensive!
04-20-2009 , 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakDaddy
We don't have an example. What we have is a within a relatively short period of time, an economic model that every time it's moved further and further towards de-regulation it's come to the brink of collapse, and socialistic principles have had to save it.
Please cite.

Quote:
I think you're a little confused by your monopoly statement. Capitalism will always lead to monopolies.
Why? Government-sponsored corporate cronyism is what tends to promote monopoly. Monopolies in a free market could only come about through a partnership out-competing all rivals, which would require that they operate extremely efficiently and that their goods or services sell extremely well.

Quote:
Philosophically, this is basically what it comes down to - You can either believe that a free market will create monopolies and you will "vote" with your dollar about how these monopolies function, or you create a system that distributes it's resources to the whole of society to benefit the whole because of the interconnection that exists between all humans, and you vote through a democracy to effect the policies, and how those resources get allocated.
Why are these the alternatives? What the hell does "because of the interconnection that exists between all humans" mean? Why does the voting system need to be a democracy? Could you try actually explaining your position with respect to socialism rather than making blanket statements and setting up false binaries?

Quote:
The propaganda machine has spent a lot of time and money trying to confuse you about the meaning of socialism, and from what I can tell, get you to believe that it's a system that's basically looking to control your life. I'd invite you to actually read some of the philosophy and critically think about the real implications of capitalism and free markets long term on the health of our collective psyche, and the planet.
This is just insulting. I used to be a big government socialist, dude. Then I realized it was inconsistent with my own values to use the state to violently and coercively force others to do what I want. I still agree with the traditional left's ends on almost all social issues, I just do not believe violence and coercion are morally acceptable, or that it is acceptable for 51% of people to take away the rights of the other 49%.
04-20-2009 , 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen
What are you then?

I can't distinguish most of what you are writing from really super standard, anti-capitalist, socialist rhetoric. Maybe I am missing something because I don't know a ton about philosophy.
C'mon man, he's spelled it out for you already. FreakDaddy is a religious mystic. That's why you're not going to get anything satisfactory out of a discussion with him. He's on a higher plane of existence, you see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
04-20-2009 , 11:20 AM
I find it unfair that the libertarians/ conservatives on this board can so easily label Obama a socialist. His brand of socialism is just as much corporatist socialist as it is free market corporatist. Perhaps socialism is corporatist in nature but it is still an unfair to label only rightist reforms as corporatist. Not to mention these acts of leftist reform which you view as world slipping further into chaos, from a historical perspective, aren't that far left.

As for the book I was thinking about buying it. The subject matter is definitely interesting to both ends of the spectrum. I believe Latin America to be a truly interesting case study on corporatist reforms. Just because you privatize resources doesn't imply that you allow for free market reform. The government simply uses these reforms as corporate handouts meanwhile increasing poverty and unemployment. Thus allowing a guy like Chavez to come back into power and enable socialist reforms.

The questions I still have that has kept me from jumping the liberal/libertarian fence is: given central planning as a horribly inefficient system is CP more effective for growth of developing nations then corporate exploitation? Or as applied to advanced nations given a forever expanding government would i prefer to promote socialist or corporatist ideals? When choosing between these forms of coercion(perhaps unfair but realistic) I believe the answer is easy.
04-20-2009 , 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin
I find it unfair that the libertarians/ conservatives on this board can so easily label Obama a socialist. His brand of socialism is just as much corporatist socialist as it is free market corporatist.

yeah hes on the fascist side of socialism. State control of corporations for the common good etc.
04-20-2009 , 11:30 AM
Quote:
free market corporatist
wat
04-20-2009 , 11:32 AM
Quote:
When choosing between these forms of coercion(perhaps unfair but realistic) I believe the answer is easy.
Yes, reject both.
04-20-2009 , 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
I feel like complete free market capitalism is like communism as its great on paper but when you put it in place and add people it doesn't work. Can anyone show me an example of free market capitalism ever being instituted and it working? Or has it never happened and people just think it will work?

/hijack
Look around the world. Which countries are better off? Those with the most free enterprise or those without?

The more free enteprise; the more tolerant, wealthy, free, equal and prosperous the people.

Countries like Sweden aren't exceptions. They went through periods of almost laissez-faire capitalism which accounts for much of their current prosperity.
04-20-2009 , 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zasterguava
Look around the world. Which countries are better off? Those with the most free enterprise or those without?

The more free enteprise; the more tolerant, wealthy, free, equal and prosperous the people.

Countries like Sweden aren't exceptions. They went through periods of almost laissez-faire capitalism which accounts for much of their current prosperity.
One striking thing about poor countries around the world is just how many of them have burdensome regulations and requirements on the books from socialist eras of yore.

To be fair to socialism, many countries that were officially communist or socialist were little more than kleptocracies that used communism as a means to expand power, and the kleptocracies were their real downfall (Southern & Central Africa come to mind). Then again, the ability for the all-powerful, violent monopoly it requires to be so easily bastardized is a significant drawback to socialism.

Last edited by T50_Omaha8; 04-20-2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason: .
04-20-2009 , 01:08 PM
Meh. Too busy reading Jeff Hwang's Omaha book.
04-20-2009 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikTheDread
Meh. Too busy reading Jeff Hwang's Omaha book.
what's the 8/b section like?
04-20-2009 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin
I find it unfair that the libertarians/ conservatives on this board can so easily label Obama a socialist. His brand of socialism is just as much corporatist socialist as it is free market corporatist. Perhaps socialism is corporatist in nature but it is still unfair to label only rightist reforms as corporatist. Not to mention these acts of leftist reform which you view as world slipping further into chaos, from a historical perspective, aren't that far left.
I believe I speak for all the libertarians here when I say that I hate corporatism, too. We are advocating a free market, not crony capitalism, and most if not all of us oppose limited liability corporate form.

Quote:
The questions I still have that has kept me from jumping the liberal/libertarian fence is: given central planning as a horribly inefficient system is CP more effective for growth of developing nations then corporate exploitation? Or as applied to advanced nations given a forever expanding government would i prefer to promote socialist or corporatist ideals? When choosing between these forms of coercion (perhaps unfair but realistic) I believe the answer is easy.
Again, none of the libertarians here are defending corporatism. What most of us would advocate for developing nations would be free market anarchy with no corporate form. Given only the false binary option between corporatism and central planning (kind of weird since the two usually go hand-in-hand), I don't know how I come out. Some might say the former is probably preferable since it at least allows the market to kind-of sort-of function, but again, neither of those alternatives is what any libertarian here would call for.
04-20-2009 , 01:49 PM
"free market corporatist "

Perhaps i was viewing corporatism as the same thing as Neo-Corporatism. By Corporatism I mean the relationship between government, labor and capital. Socialist policies such as protectionism and wage laws fall in line with the government- labor relationship. "Free market" policies such as free trade agreements and limited deregulation fall in line with government-capital relationship. To conclude that these "free market" reforms are truly representative of the free market is naive. It is simply a way for government to better chose the winner. Latin America serves this example. Limited free market reforms along side a government-capital skewed relationship, what i refer to as free market corporatism, has led to exploitation not growth for much of Latin America.

Hope that makes it somewhat clearer. As for the reject both ideologically that fine but it's currently unrealistic



edit: read your post Dr modern and I understand that libertarians hate both sides. However, I believe we have an obligation to abandon our ideology and try to chose the better of both sides. Perhaps I'm wrong though because after using such logic to vote for Obama I feel disgusted with every step the government takes to bankrupt the nation.

Last edited by justin; 04-20-2009 at 01:58 PM.
04-20-2009 , 01:51 PM
Justin,

Why is rejecting corporatism and central planning unrealistic?
04-20-2009 , 02:05 PM
Quote:
Why is rejecting corporatism and central planning unrealistic?
because people believe government is necessary. People are sheep and like to be led. It's been this way for thousands of years. The idea of the state as the ultimate defender of the people is too widely believed. Possibly if the state implodes upon itself then people may realize how unnecessary it is. Even then however I believe some entity will step up be is fascist or socialist and fill the power void by blaming the other side. Latin America is a perfect example of this as they are now all turning leftist again after the debt crisis that was formed from the corporatist agenda. America as well with our new deal II program
04-20-2009 , 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin
because people believe government is necessary. People are sheep and like to be led. It's been this way for thousands of years. The idea of the state as the ultimate defender of the people is too widely believed. Possibly if the state implodes upon itself then people may realize how unnecessary it is. Even then however I believe some entity will step up be is fascist or socialist and fill the power void by blaming the other side. Latin America is a perfect example of this as they are now all turning leftist again after the debt crisis that was formed from the corporatist agenda. America as well with our new deal II program
This is just an is-ought fallacy. "Atheism is unrealistic because most people are religious."
04-20-2009 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerbobo
To FreakDaddy's surprise, I will not read the bush book either. He seems to be under some spell where anyone who is anti-obama is somehow pro-GWB.
Yes yes, just don't pretend that dissing GWB means anything. That's the typical Republican propoganda line these days.. oh GWB was bad sure, and Obama is awful too!!

Lol @ your 'what party is that' comment, when you pop in with the Republican 'Obama and Chavez are dirty socialists' comment. Why not read the book, you might learn something besides what you see on FoxNews and LGF.
Are you going to read the Hugo Chavez propaganda book?
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Are you going to read the Hugo Chavez propaganda book?

      
m