Ah, sorry tomndebb. Yes, as I explained in my previous post I felt sorry not to let Sam know. I’m sorry–I feel I’ve been ridiculously mysterious and now I’ve inadvertently broken a rule.
Let me assure you that I was not asked to leave–just became too busy.
I will email tubadiver if I decide to register permanently.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind using this space to say if it would be okay to register under this new name but perhaps to put the old one in my profile or something like that?
Sorry for the hijack here as well as the other problems.
Dorothea: Ok, perhaps I was just misreading the argument you were making. However, I would still argue that it’s generally confusing to refer to your examples in Post #111 as “central planning.” Certainly the words can be made to fit, but that kind of central planning tends to present problems and benefits which are very different from those presented by “central planning” as traditionally defined.
I’m a Utilitarian as well, and like RickJay I’d argue that freedom for it’s own sake has significant (often overwhelming) utilitarian value. I’d also argue that acting to enforce coercive associations at the expense of voluntary ones in order to make people more free is, at all times, playing with fire.
Anyway, it’s perfectly reasonable for Sam to decry Universal Health Care without presenting an alternative. I don’t have a plan for improving the fuel efficiency of automobiles, but I know I don’t want the government to take over the design and production of hybrid cars. Likewise, I don’t have many ideas about how to address people without health insurance – I’m neither an economist nor a health professional; it would be almost irresponsible of me to have a strong opinion about a specific proposal – but I’m still skeptical about the state’s ability to improve upon the status quo, on balance.
Well I’m not sure what you base this on but in all my years as a liberal I’ve never known this to be a hot-button issue. IIRC rent control was eliminated about 10 years ago in Manhattan, arguably a very liberal place!
2. Libertarians believe freedom has its own independent, intrinsic value. I think, really, that that’s the REAL difference; a libertarian places greater utility on freedom itself. My impression of most liberals (and most conservatives, actually, and most people in general) is that if government intrusion into freedom generates a measurable benefit that outweighs the measurable drawbacks, it’s worth it; the loss of freedom by itself is not part of the equation. To Sam, and myself I might add, it is. Freedom is immensely valuable to me; I would give up at least some positive impact to retain more freedom.
[/QUOTE]
I understand this reasoning but as I see it the difference isn’t the greater emphasis on freedom but the definition of freedom at play. Liberals care a great deal about what I’ve called positive liberty; although they also value negative liberty (especially in the terrain of civil liberties) they recognize its limits in delivering true freedom in a society that depends on maintaining the various capacities (e.g., good health, education, ability to participate in a democracy) required for choosing how one lives one’s life in a meaningful way.
I sometimes get the impression that libertarians think they have a monopoly on freedom–which among other things is not very liberal ;).
Of course, he would assume that a guest is a stranger to him. That’s why I let him know.
A bit of background: When I registered as a guest I did so thinking I was making a quick visit–on a thread about cooking, no less!. I don’t think I could have done that using my old posting name which I’m not sure even exists any more (I know I don’t remember my password, don’t use the same email address, etc.) Since I ended up sticking around for a few days in a serious forum and debating with someone I felt I knew from the past I wanted to let him know, out of respect to him, that we had debated five years ago. Although I understand the need for rules of this sort (though I had not realized that I was breaking any) in my own conscience I felt that by letting Sam know we had debated in the past that I wasn’t hiding anything of any consequence to him or anyone else. That is, I don’t believe that knowing who I posted as five years ago would change a word that Sam or any one else said to me on this thread or any other. I argued in earnest then as I do now. My positions have not changed dramatically and I am not adopting any to deceive. I post in earnest and without the desire to waste anyone’s time, including mine.
I have very personal reasons for not wanting to resume the old name; but if I need to do so or to do something else in order to register then I will either do what’s asked or I will cease to post.
I think that a card-carrying libertarian might safely indulge me that degree of freedom, no?
Because there isn’t a significant difference between the two when it comes to necessities, which is what she was talking about. It’s no different, and no less effective or oppressive than being forced with a gun to the face.
Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t; sometimes it actively creates inefficiency. When dumping pollution into the air or water is cheaper, or turning out inferior products is more profitable, for example; both common.
No. They don’t want freedom; they want license. They have no problem with coercion, as long as it’s not the government doing the coercion; notice VarlosZ attempt to pretend that there’s some sort of difference between government and corporate coercion; that, for example, being shot to death by the government and being starved to death by a corporation are somehow different. People can and have used economic coercion to cripple and kill those less powerful whenever they could get away with it, and libertarians have no problem at all with that because the victims are “freely consenting”, by their twisted definition of consent.
I am not a “card-carrying libertarian”, having left the party many years ago because it was infested with statists, Constitutionalists, and recidivists. I hardly even participate in these discussions anymore because I frankly don’t care, especially since defining such terms as “freedom” is wasted on crackpot responses that equivocate over the term. I’m merely asking about inconsistencies in your claims with respect to your relationship Sam because you yourself have voluntarily raised the issue. It is, for example, remarkable that knowing all you seem to know about **Sam ** and his policies (not to mention me and mine), you did not know **TubaDiva ** and her policies.
Liberal, Today’s a working day for me and I must run but wanted to post a brief word to apologize if I’ve given you reason to believe that I know anything about you beyond what you’ve posted in this thread. I don’t recall that we ever debated in any prolonged way five years ago though I do recall your posting name of course. It’s only because Sam and I engaged in a few long threads like this one that I remember him as well as I do.
As to TubaDiva’s policies in this situation I had no reason to know them. I’ve always assumed that if you were kicked off the board you couldn’t return by pretending to be someone else. I didn’t know that there was a policy for people who have been away for five years, I didn’t intend to do more than visit, and as soon as soon as I became involved in debate with someone from the past I let him know that we’d debated previously. What I’ll do from this point on depends on what I learn about my situation–I’m probably too busy to post more than once in a blue moon and, as I said, I doubt anyone even remembers me anyway. Must run…
Libertarianism defines “freedom” as “the absence of coercion”, and it defines “coercion” as “initial force or deception”. If you can discuss the classical liberal philosophies using those terms as the philosophy defines them — just as you would use the term “synthetic” as Kant defines it when discussing Kantian philosophy — then have at it. But if you want to use “freedom” to mean somehow constraining someone or stepping on the rights of someone else, then you should use it in a discussion of authoritarianism or statism.
Your argument is incorrect on the face of it. How much does healthcare cost that you can magically decide that it’s 4% of someone’s income? Costs vary depending on what your medical history is. Never mind that they (insurance companies) can just deny you coverage at any cost.
Also many people in the US have healthcare coverage that is laughable, (with, for instance, $7500 deductibles and huge care restrictions because it’s all they can afford). So counting them as “covered” is a little hinky.
What keeps the government from doing the same thing?
(No, it’s not “the will of the people”. If that worked, we wouldn’t still be in Iraq.)
Really, the basic problem with your arguments is that they depend on creating an artificial division between “corporations” and “government” and assuming that only the former is capable of evil behavior.
Governments certainly are capable of evil behavior as history teaches us. OTOH, only corporations are expressly and essentially designed for evil (that is to say, profitable, it’s the same thing for the purposes under discussion) behavior.
An interesting paradox. Der Trihs has apparently been cursed by being placed in a world of ethically inferior degenerates… and yet how could a being of such uniquely perfect virtue have possibly done anything to deserve such a punishment?
I guess that’s one for the philosophers. :rolleyes:
How is it evil to provide goods and services that people want (the only way to make a profit, outside of using the government to force people to buy your produt)? Is serving your friends, neighbors, and strangers and catering to their desires evil?
Yeah, just like the companies that supply food. They have jacked up the prices so that only Donald Trump and his buddies can afford it. Wow, you know so well the mind of a businessman. :rolleyes:
Actually, while we do have a variety of very high-end food, we also have companies that supply very inexpensive food. You fail to understand that companies target different segments of the market. Not everyone goes after the rich. Many companies (such as Wal Mart) actually target lower income people and try to reduce prices to attract their business. But in your world, I guess, these companies don’t exist. It’s too bad that reality contradicts you.
Again, it’s unfortunate that you have no support in reality for this view. That simply is not how businesses work. Competition – unless retarded by the government – gives people an incentive to improve upon products and services currently offered. The idea that people would come together like you describe is only viable in a system where people are prevented from competing by the government. The history of a variety of deregulated industries, such as telecommunications, cable TV, and the airlines, illustrates this. The dynamic nature of the market belies your facile assertions at every turn.
While I would disagree with BrainGlutton that corporations are “designed for evil”, there are certainly ways other than the providing of good and services to make a profit. Profit isn’t income, it’s income over expenditure, and profit may be made by decreasing manufacturing costs or employee benefits, moving to a cheaper location, cutting back on material quality or quality assurance, for just some examples.
And providing goods and services most certainly can be evil at times, though i’m unsure if you’re arguing that it can never be here.
OK, but how are those things “evil”? They may be amoral, but are they immoral? Why should I pay an employee a certain wage if someone else will work for less? If the person who will work for less wants a job and freely accepts it, is it evil if I agree to give him one? Or if someone wants to supply me the same parts at a lower price, why should I refuse to buy from him? To reward the more inefficient supplier? And if I cut quality and people still buy it, that certainly seems that I am still catering to the demands of my customers.
Sure, I’ll say that some desires of people can be “evil.” There are certainly businessmen who cater to providing the shadier things in life. But that certainly does not mean all businesses are “evil.”
It IS “the will of the people”; just because it doesn’t always work doesn’t mean that it never works. The difference is, first that we have more influence over the government than a corporation, and second governments have one less motive to harm people. Corporations have every motive for malice that governments do, plus the profit motive.
No, that’s the libertarian argument; that the government and the government alone is capable of tyranny. That either non-governmental organizations and the rich either won’t engage in tyranny, or that it just doesn’t count when they do it.
They haven’t been allowed to merge and form a monopoly. And, in the good old unregulated days, they DID starve people, even burning food during the Depression rather than giving it away.
Only if it’s profitable. if producing inferior products is more profitable, that’s what they do. For example, it’s standard practice to make products that are grossly inferior in durability to what could be made, because it’s more profitable to sell them again and again.
Ah, yes, the deregulated industries, where prices go up, accidents increase, and services go down. And where the only thing preventing monopolies is the government occasionally getting the anti-trust bug and breaking them up.
Because it’s immoral to starve someone, no matter how profitable it is. And because you are setting the stage for either the election of those evil, evil socialists, or for being murdered by your own starving workers.
The topic of corporations was treated brilliantly in the 2003 Canadian documentary, The Corporation. The idea was that while corporations need not necessarily be “evil” current laws all but mandate that executives do all in their power to increase profits–in part by offsetting costs onto the public and the environment. Part of the problem is that since the late nineteenth century, corporations have been granted the same rights as individuals even though they enjoy powers far greater than any individual. This means, according to the filmmakers, that corporations are all but destined to behave like sociopaths with suprahman powers. (And that’s quite apart from the question of CEO greed which tends to operate at the expense of shareholders as well as the public.)
All of that said, I don’t conclude from this either that corporations always and necessarily will be “evil,” and still less that they should be replaced by a government controlled economy. But–to return the topic of this thread–what’s clear is that any libertarian analysis that ignores the extent to which corporations need oversight fails to recognize not only how much harm unregulated corporations can do (to their employees, the environment, consumers) but also how unstable unregulated capitalism is (viz. the Great Depression and, more recently, the savings and loan crises of the late 80s, Enron, and the current mortgage crisis).
I can’t imagine that libertarians are in love with the idea of picking up the tab for these fiascos as has tended to happen in the age of corporate welfare, no?
