# I must say I adhere to this definition of liberal. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2003, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099 "2003-11-30T19:45:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/201 "2003-12-19T18:31:28Z")
More Randian propoganda, **pervert**. I don’t resent businessmen. But I’ll take a look if I have time tonight. (I’ll look eventually, of course, just maybe later is all. 🙂 ) > [@](#): > > “The question is, whose incentives? As you hopefully noted, my desire is to encourage better incentives for the overwhelming majority of the population. I feel the flaw in current policies stem from seeing an economic floor as The Right Thing to Do as a Civilized People. Hogwash. We’re not one step up from cavemen except in our aggregate ability to create better and better survival mechanisms.” > > I don’t seem to be able to grok this paragraph at all. Are you suggesting that an economic floor is not the right thing to do? You are proposing that we should have one for what reason then? This simply returns to my argument against compassion. If compassion were such a great motivator, charity would fit the bill. Since it doesn’t, if we are to affect change then there must be some other justification than social duty based in compassion. Give a man a fish, and you’ve got him for a day. Teach a man to fish, then loan the rod to him at a certain interest rate for the privilege of merely existing in the warm glow of entrepreneurial ability, and you’ve got him for life. Hell, he’ll fish for you. 😉 > [@](#): > > Especially that capitalism has produced massive wealth for the masses. I absolutely agree and have never said otherwise ever. Even a 13% poverty rate means an 87% non-poverty rate, eh? As I’ve also indicated, I find it the economic system most likely to match intrinsic human activity. I love capitalism. I love the wealth I live in and around. Don’t let me every convince you otherwise. > [@](#): > > If you would like to point to any resources which bolster your claim that capitalism creates poverty, I’d be interested in reading them. _Everything_ creates poverty. The better question is what we will do to minimize it, and which regulated economic systems better lend themselves to this task. ---
**Author:** ![Julien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71e660/32.png) [@Julien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Julien)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/202 "2003-12-19T19:07:39Z")
I don’t think that’s an adequate definition of a ‘liberal,’ I think the most befitting definition would have to be “Somebody with an unsteady policy that shifts from day to day according to what the base man seems to want more of today.” That sounds a little more appropriate. And a good definition for conservative would be “Someone who would prefer to spend their money persuing a pipe-dream of ‘national security,’ than actually use the money we have for something practical and beneficial.” Yes-yes. That suits them perfectly. Centrists are the good ones–trust me. ---
**Author:** ![HayekHeyst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/45deac/32.png) [@HayekHeyst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HayekHeyst)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/203 "2003-12-19T19:27:38Z")
All right! Now we’ve slipped into a 3-way mexican standoff! BTW, to get into the gushy sentimenalism of the season, I’ve enjoyed corresponding with both of you. In regards to **pervert’s** remarks, > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, HayekHeyst, but I must point this out. This cannot be true. While it is certainly true that there are no more (or very few) “wilds” that you could go to and be away from civilization, it is just as true that without private property these wilds exist because the population levels decrease to the point where we can survive in a hunter gatherer system. Systems of property are precisely why we do not rely on migrating bison to make it through the winter. In other words, while the indigent cannot go hunt bison, its a good thing that they do not have to. A good majority of the current population would not be here if they did. I think it’s debatable whether private property per se is responsible for the increase in population density. Lots of cultures (Oriental Despotism, anyone? Incas? Maoist China?) that didn’t have private property have had dense and growing populations. But that’s a quibble, really. I guess my real response would be something more along these lines: “So what if I wouldn’t have ever been born except for the institution of private property emerging in aeons past? I’m alive now, and I have rights. After all, you wouldn’t say to me that ‘well, you’re alive now, so that’s better than being non-existent, so I’m justified in enslaving you, because existence under slavery is better than non-existence’ right? The institution of private property has deprived me of the chance to exist in the State of Nature of primitive subsistence. Primitive subsistence is my endowment. It’s what I’m entitled to. So gimme!” Let me be explicit, **pervert**. I don’t believe that capitalism creates poverty–at least not on net, in the long run. I would even take issue with **erislover** asserting that everything creates poverty. 100% poverty (or close to it) is the State of Nature. If Post-Industrial Capitalism has a poverty rate of 13 percent, I think it would be rather strange to say that capitalism has created 13% poverty. Saying capitalism creates that 13% is like saying that modern medicine has caused infant mortality to be 0.5% when it has caused infant mortality to go from 20% (state of nature) instead of 0.5%. I would disagree that ‘Everything creates poverty’. I would agree that “No economic system (so far) has completely eliminated poverty.” I’d agree that eventually capitalism will morph into something else, if only because it’s a truism that nothing lasts forever. I’ll lay even odds on regression to a stagnant statist/collectivist regulated capitalism vs. progression to some Knowledge-Economy that radically alters the existing relations between factors of production. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/204 "2003-12-19T20:34:26Z")
My point is that there are types of poverty that can only exist under various economic systems. Though I must admit that supporting that point will require people to distinguish between causes and not ends, something I seem to have trouble with here. > [@](#): > > 100% poverty (or close to it) is the State of Nature. Like, no wealth under anarchy, or do you mean pre-technological individuals scavaging for food without any social groups? > [@](#): > > Saying capitalism creates that 13% is like saying that modern medicine has caused infant mortality to be 0.5% when it has caused infant mortality to go from 20% (state of nature) instead of 0.5%. No, but it is hard to die from surgical sponges being left in the body before surgery, eh? > [@](#): > > I’ll lay even odds on regression to a stagnant statist/collectivist regulated capitalism vs. progression to some Knowledge-Economy that radically alters the existing relations between factors of production. I’d hope for the latter but I really, really doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/205 "2003-12-19T21:39:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **More Randian propoganda, pervert. I don’t resent businessmen.** Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you resented businessmen. I appologize for not being more clear on that. I know that you have different reasons for confiscatory policies. The quote I included was merely the tail end of a long argument intended to show that capitalism will not survive. Specifically it addressed an issue you and I touched on earlier. That the labor unrest of the early parts of this century was due to a failure of capitalism to meet people’s needs. The point of the quote was, on the contrary, capitalism met peoples needs better than anything we have ever tried. There may be an entirely different reason for the common impression that “capitalism failed” in the late 1800s. > [@](#): > > **This simply returns to my argument against compassion. If compassion were such a great motivator, charity would fit the bill. Since it doesn’t, if we are to affect change then there must be some other justification than social duty based in compassion.** This is exactly why I have trouble understanding you. If you are not motivated by compassion for poor people, what exactly motivates you? Are you saying that the best excuse [sorry, deliberatley inflamatory term there :)] for welfare is that it increases GDP growth? > [@](#): > > **Give a man a fish, and you’ve got him for a day. Teach a man to fish, then loan the rod to him at a certain interest rate for the privilege of merely existing in the warm glow of entrepreneurial ability, and you’ve got him for life. Hell, he’ll fish for you. 😉** Yes, but steal half his catch year after year, imply that he must give up more of it for his neighbors who did not maintain their nets, and he may just decide that begging is easier. 😉 > [@](#): > > **I love capitalism. I love the wealth I live in and around. Don’t let me every convince you otherwise.** You have absolutely not convinced me otherwise. If you had I would not have been drawn to this thread so often. I simply find many of your ideas incompatible with this statement. It is a conundrum for me. 😉 > [@](#): > > \*\* > _Everything_ creates poverty. The better question is what we will do to minimize it, and which regulated economic systems better lend themselves to this task. \*\* Indeed. Which is why I am constantly harping on minimizing the drag to our economic engine. It seems self evident to me that little can be done about poverty without creating more wealth. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the creation of more wealth producing opportunities. The difficulty is that these are almost impossible to create by fiat. Mostly they can only be encouraged and not interfered with. Perhaps our difficulty is in defining poverty. I think we are agreed that relative measures are not particularly useful. I also understand that an absolute number is equally useless. You have been throwing around accusations of starvation and genocide, but I don’t think you’ve seriously suggested that we have a significant number of people in imminent danger of starvation, in the US at least. Also, I think I remember you indicating that poor people should be given assistence for transportation to and from work, at least, which is significantly higher than subsistance. Is there some measure of purchasing power that we can assign a minimum level of reasonable existence to? Some measure of cost of living for instance? Perhaps some sort of minimum transportation range combined with a minimum housing and food budget? In order to minimize encouraging people to move around, we might have to comprimise on a national average. But it still seems reasonable to discuss what this might go into calculating this lower safety limit. Once we have an idea about a working lower limit, we could add to it a reasonable upper limit of confiscation. Something like a certain percentage of GDP. All we would have to do then was determine how much of the minimum we can support with that level of confiscation. Comprimise would be just a few short rhetorical cat fights away! 🙂 Of course, all we would have to do is give up our respictive sacred cows. ---
**Author:** ![HayekHeyst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/45deac/32.png) [@HayekHeyst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HayekHeyst)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/206 "2003-12-19T21:44:18Z")
When I refer to State of Nature, I mean the whole shebang. Paleolithic technology and social structure. Almost a 100% of people living in those conditions are living in conditions of primitive subsistence. Slightly better in a good year, slightly worse in a bad year. I’d be the last to deny that causal reasons should be ignored and all emphasis be placed on states alone. But we are going to get into some debate over **proximate** vs. **ultimate** causes. The surgical sponge may be the proximate cause of death, but the ultimate cause was the medical condition which necessitated the surgery. If, without surgery, that medical condition would have caused me to die with greater probability than that medical condition would have caused me to die with surgery, then the ultimate cause of my death is the medical condition. My being in state S1 (poverty) instead of S2 (non-poverty) can only be said to be caused by ultimate cause C (capitalism) if I would have be more likely to be in S1 than S2 if C had not ocurred. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/207 "2003-12-19T22:12:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by HayekHeyst \* > \*\* BTW, to get into the gushy sentimenalism of the season, I’ve enjoyed corresponding with both of you._\* Happy season as well! > [@](#): > > **I think it’s debatable whether private property per se is responsible for the increase in population density.** Yea. I did not mean this explicitly. I meant capitalism in general and only used private property in stead of that word due to referencing your comment. I’m not as familiar with Chinese history as I could be. [This is a link to chinese population.](http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_21_m.htm) [And this is a link to world historical population growth.](http://www.futuresedge.org/World_Population_Issues/wp_details.html) It certainly seems that the population curve changed recently. > [@](#): > > **After all, you wouldn’t say to me that 'well, you’re alive now, so that’s better than being non-existent, so I’m justified in enslaving you,** No, not at all. But at the same time, I wouldn’t listen when you told me “My ancestors used to be able to hunt bison, so I am now going to enslave you.”😉 > [@](#): > > **I would agree that "No economic system (so far) has completely eliminated poverty."** I agree with this as well. [QUTOE]\*\*I’d agree that eventually capitalism will morph into something else, if only because it’s a truism that nothing lasts forever. I’ll lay even odds on regression to a stagnant statist/collectivist regulated capitalism vs. progression to some Knowledge-Economy that radically alters the existing relations between factors of production. \*\* [/QUOTE] I agree here, as well. I maintain, however that our decent[my characterization] into statist socialism is due more to a misunderstanding of capitalism than it is to a failure of capitalism. Eventually the desire to plunder will overwhelm our system. The only possible defence against it is to “fight the ignorance” as it were. If we accept that capitalism was responsible for the abject poverty of the disaffected workers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we accept that it must be “fixed”. I’m just not sure this is true. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/208 "2003-12-19T22:24:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HayekHeyst \* > \*\*My being in state S1 (poverty) instead of S2 (non-poverty) can only be said to be caused by ultimate cause C (capitalism) if I would have be more likely to be in S1 than S2 if C had not ocurred. \*\* Or perhaps if another state C1(socialism) exists as a choice which would have altered the state S1. Of course, some of this entails differing definitions of poverty. Everyone is employed in Cuba. But would they be in S1 or S2? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/209 "2003-12-20T02:32:26Z")
> [@](#): > > **pervert** > The point of the quote was, on the contrary, capitalism met peoples needs better than anything we have ever tried. In that I am in absolute agreement. > [@](#): > > If you are not motivated by compassion for poor people, what exactly motivates you? The same thing that motivates me to purchase insurance, personally. In any system we will face compromises since idealized goals are often conflicting. If you wanted me to sum up this debate, it would be a discussion about just what compromises are reasonable on our goals. > [@](#): > > It seems self evident to me that little can be done about poverty without creating more wealth. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the creation of more wealth producing opportunities. The difficulty is that these are almost impossible to create by fiat. Mostly they can only be encouraged and not interfered with. They can indeed be created by fiat. Witness the patent and the corporation, both of which are man-made designs there to encourage the creation of more opportunities. > [@](#): > > I think we are agreed that relative measures are not particularly useful. They are as useful as any other measure, the matter is more of being able to settle on one. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Is there some measure of purchasing power that we can assign a minimum level of reasonable existence to? Unambiguously? No, because each person is different in need and ability. This is similarly why I think “absolute poverty” is a difficult bar to set, as well, without a degree of arbitrariness. > [@](#): > > Once we have an idea about a working lower limit, we could add to it a reasonable upper limit of confiscation. Honestly, I don’t think either is possible and you likely already know why. Every action we take in either end will affect the other. Because the economy is not static, this limit is only as good as any snapshot. What is more important is to strike a balance between the competing goals. What is an acceptable _range_ of people in poverty? What is an acceptable _range_ of diminished incentives? It is your contention, and **Hayek** ’s, _and_ mine, that we cannot seperate the two questions. So then the final question becomes, can we dance around a point through intelligent action to ensure we stay within these ranges? > [@](#): > > **Hayek** > The surgical sponge may be the proximate cause of death, but the ultimate cause was the medical condition which necessitated the surgery. If, without surgery, that medical condition would have caused me to die with greater probability than that medical condition would have caused me to die with surgery, then the ultimate cause of my death is the medical condition. On the level of local choices this is probably a pretty useful distinction. As we widen our net the ultimate cause of death becomes life itself, so I think we begin to lose coherence of the principle. Furthermore, capitalism has been around for quite some time. Being born into it, it isn’t like I actually have a standard of comparison in anything other than an academic sense. The greatness of its benefit is relative to how well it can live up to its own promises of opportunity, increase of wealth, and so on. Historical perspectives might indicate we don’t want to abandon capitalism in favor of previously tried systems, but if capitalism depends on subjective value, and the value of capitalism to someone _in_ capitalism is lower than it could be in a more mixed economy, then have we reached a paradox? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/210 "2003-12-20T08:11:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by pervert \* > > It seems self evident to me that little can be done about poverty without creating more wealth. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the creation of more wealth producing opportunities. The difficulty is that these are almost impossible to create by fiat. Mostly they can only be encouraged and not interfered with. > > **They can indeed be created by fiat. Witness the patent and the corporation, both of which are man-made designs there to encourage the creation of more opportunities.** But this proves my point exactly. Patents and coporations _encourage_ wealth creation. They do not create wealth themselves. The government can provide a stable legal environment. It can provide a certain infrastructure. It cannot create wealth. Which is one reason I continue to harp on limiting the power of government to muck with wealth creation. ---
**Author:** ![HayekHeyst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/45deac/32.png) [@HayekHeyst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HayekHeyst)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/211 "2003-12-20T19:42:34Z")
I think the government can create wealth (Hoover Dam, interstate highway system, human capital via school), but it’s just not particularly good at it relative to the private sector, esp. in cases that aren’t public goods of one kind or another. Hell, even Soviet-style central planning can create wealth–they did have economic growth, after all–just very inefficiently. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/212 "2003-12-20T23:02:58Z")
I suppose my rhetoric was a little over the top. Obviously, the government is just a group of people. As such it can engage in the same activity a corporation engages in. The problem, as you allude to, is that the government is unique in its ability to aquire revunue by force. However, I think that the dams, roads, and schools are more of infrastructure which encourage wealth creation. Although they can be said to represent assets, I’m not sure they act in the same way that produce does in terms of trade. If I make widgets and sell them for a profit, while you need widgets to make widgetty gadgets which you sell for a profit, the road we use to transport our goods will increase this profit potentiality (by reducing transportation costs). But I’m not sure that the road without our trade is as useful. Dams are another matter, perhaps, because they produce electricity. But if I am not mistaken, they are operated by quasi private groups. I guess what I am saying is that governments start with expropriated wealth to begin with. So, unless the asset they build repays this wealth, any economic activity governments engage in starts with a net loss. You get an asset, but nobody owns it. I may be rambling again. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099/213 "2003-12-21T17:50:37Z")
I pretty much don’t think I have anything more to add. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-must-say-i-adhere-to-this-definition-of-liberal/216099.md?page=10)