Aeschines, what purpose do corporations (private business? Are you making a distinction between corporations and other forms of private business) play in the PDS system? You make statements such as this
That lead me to believe that you see some sort of correlation between more control and “stupid, counterproductive control”. However, this appears to be contridicted in the following section, “There is no fundamental difference between government and corporations.”
Here, the main point seems to be that corporations are as inefficent as government. You would agree that corporations tend not to have as much control as governments, if only due to the difference in scale, yes? Then, why are we not seeing the correlation mentioned earlier? Is there some distinction between stupid control and waste/inefficiency/assbackwardsness that I’m not seeing? If excess control does not lead to stupid control, what is the point of allowing coporations to exist? From you account, they appear to be inferior to governmental solutions (less democratic, can hide inefficiency behind profits). Perhaps you could explain why you believe that the regulation level in most industries should remain approximately what it is today.
I think the market mechanism for providing goods and services is the best most of the time. Corporations would continue to play the role that they do now. I semi- or fully nationalize certain sectors, such as health care and the airlines.
One main principle of this line of thought is that there should be less control and burdening of the individual and greater control and burdening of the organization. Forcing every American to fill out a 1040 turns most Americans into A) incompetent accountants or B) people who pay for competent service. This is big, dumb stupid control. The war on drugs is also. Our immigration policy is monumentally over-controlled and misguided.
So, first generalization: Greater control of the individual is usually bad control. People should basically be able to run their lives, obey some general moral principles (don’t kill, steal, etc.), and forget about the government.
As far as control of organizations goes (for-profits, not-for-profits, etc.), less is better, but sufficient control should be exerted where it is needed.
I wouldn’t call that the main point, just a very important point. The main point is that companies exert control over their employees just like a government governing its citizens. Many verge on totalitarian.
[quote]
You would agree that corporations tend not to have as much control as governments, if only due to the difference in scale, yes?
[quote]
They are lower on the power hierarchy. But they probably exert on average much more control over their employees than governments do over individuals. The government doesn’t tell me how much vacation I may take or whether I must wear a tie.
I think I’m losing the train of thought here. If I were to separate out the principles:
The market economy is basically a good thing.
Control should be applied to organizations and not individual persons whenever possible; this is more efficient.
Further, control always imposes a cost on the economy and a psychological burden without necessarily guaranteeing a value-add. Hence, ceteris paribus, the less control the better. At the same time, however, all necessarily controls (necessary for human health, environmental protection, economic stability, etc. etc.) should be imposed, and many controls that add value above their economic and psychological cost should also be imposed (I say “many” because controls also have a cumulative affect and interrelate. I personally would prefer freedom with a small loss than control with only a small gain.)
Corporations are, in essence, small (or even large) governments that control assets and persons.
Both governements and corporations have the potential for extreme waste and inefficiency. Simply because corporations are subject to market forces does not justify the waste they generate.
Additional point: Corporations should not be able to control every aspect of a person’s life simply because they exchange money for labor.
Basically because of point #1: The market economy is a good thing. It’s not an invention, it’s really the default system that has worked well in history. But we can’t be like the libertarians and define the good as whatever the market produces.
For example, I think the airlines should be put out of their misery and nationalized with the most efficient and beneficial network of routes being worked out and an appropriate but stringent security and maintenance system devised. A good, decent but no-frills package should be provided: Spotlessly clean planes, decent-sized seats, a sufficient number of friendly, polite attendants, and a brown bag (but high-quality and healthful) meal service. No marketing, no fancy plane livery, no Baroque restrictions on how and when you must purchase your fare. Fares would be based on actual demand for travel between destinations and would not be designed to pump demand or otherwise influence behavior. That is, if a route reaches natural capacity, fares would be raised so that demand equals the natural capacity. Where there is no limit on natural capacity, fares would be devised to cover costs plus provide a little leeway.
Our current system is a disaster. The hub system is not the most efficient overall system but is essentially the game theory result of competition. I could go on and on about quality and other categories in which the airlines aren’t getting the job done, but I won’t. This is merely an example of circumstances that practically cry out for central planning.
Ideas painted with the broadest possible brush, not so much because I cannot provide details, but to spare you an undeserved death by boredom.
All political systems are hogwash. They are, like theology, attempts to impose rational order where rational order is impossible, nailing jello to wall, chasing butterflys with a hammer. Liberalism is silly, communism laughable, and fascism dark with horror. The only people I can trust with power are precisely those most reluctant to seek it, but it is absurd to trust an ideology. I have known people to advance the notion - in complete seriousness! - that Stalin was preferable to Hitler because his ideology was superior. I gape at such people with stunned regret.
Evolve the people, and the people will evolve the system. A generous, educated and willingly involved people can operate ideally regardless of “system”. An unfettered capitalism that would cause Ayn Rand triple orgasms could operate as the framework of a just and healthy society, if that is the consensus of the people. Equally, a Marxist system. All such systems are perfectly innocent until they become the means to power. And all are equally corrupt once that happens. The ambitious apparatchik commissar is not noticeably different from a grasping, hustling entrepeneur. As Mark Twain remarked: A man will do many things to be loved, he will do anything to be envied.
Hence, the “pragmatic” approach: the radical approach, is to experiment and seek new means of human interaction. cooperation and liberation. The “worker ownership” notion I’ve already suggested here, just for an instance. We try it, keep what works, chuck the rest, replace as necessary; as a species, we are marvelously inventive, there’s always something else to try.
It is important to change our laws and our governance to more truly reflect such principles as economic justice, but it is not as important as our wanting to do so. So long as we are committed to that direction, we can keep experimenting with schemes until we get it right.
That this involves cultural and personal changes so profound that they might just as well be thought of as spiritual…this has not escaped my attention. But leave that be, your eyes have glazed over, your pulse is dropping. I am satisfied you are to some risk.
I can’t say as I buy your argument. All you’re saying is that because the government has more laws dealing with the flow of money in society than it did 100 years ago, we are socialists, and thus must end the war on drugs…
Utilitarianism is the general preference of the majority of democratic governments and political philosophers these days, though by no means ‘watertight’. Negative utilitarianism seeks to minimise suffering since it is rather easier to detect when a human is in, say, immediate need of direct medical assistance (brought on by starvation, exposure, cancer or the like) than when a human isn’t as happy as they could be. I consider that minimising the worst suffering (according to, say, a medical metric) universally is possible via taxation without unduly retarding that progress which allows future sufferers of currently untreatable conditions to find similar respite.
You’re too late. They split in '96 between the Constitutionalists (Harry Browne) and the anti-statists. Meanwhile, do you have any bets on the Native Vespuccians? Surely, their population status of a mere 0.8% combined with their political impotency qualifies them as targets for a clever wit.
The practical in me sees that all institutions are capable of excess if allowed to run unchecked. Government bodies and corporations are different but both are capable of causing problems. So are individuals and non-business associations. All of these entities are also, of course, capable of contributing to the good of society. So what is needed is a balance of power between them so that they all have the opportunity to contribute while having a check on them when they go too far in the wrong direction.
It sounds to me like your political philosophy is based on the idea of economic justice. But what exactly is economic justice-- ie, how do we know when we’ve gotten it right? How do we even know that economic justice is or should be the goal? Is that not just as inherently arbitrary, as you seem to be saying, as declaring that freedom is the goal of governance?
An excellent question, John. Suppose you give Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones equal amounts of money. Mr. Smith invests his and doubles it, while Mr. Jones squanders his on gambling. Is it then economic justice to give Mr. Smith’s earnings to Mr. Jones?
John: I don’t know perzackly, but I imagine it will be dependent on a generalized consensus. I don’t seek to project definitions onto the future. This is precisely that failure of political sciences in general, they end up trying to slam the square peg of current cirucmstances into the round hole of predetermined goals. Today’s doctrinaire Marxist is hard pressed to find an industrial proletariat, never mind finding a revolutionary cadre to lead them.
I expect us to screw up, and then try again. There probably is no end point, no goal, process is all, but a process governed by a commonly held determination to strive for justice and equality. The process changes the circumstances, the circumstances alter the process.
Lib: Depends, doesn’t it? Did person A achieve his investment success by investing in Joe Camel’s Cyanide Snacks for Kiddies? Did person B have a reasonable expectation of success for his gambling venture, was he playing table stakes hold 'em with a band of Carmelite nuns?
Your question appears more akin to a gross oversimplification posited for the sake of ridicule. Knowing that you would never stoop to such, I am content that your unfortunate construction is the result of some time constraint, the press of urgent business, that sort of thing.
But to give an oversimplified answer to an oversimplified question: I don’t know. Perhaps person A will be content if person B is pressed to attend therapy for his gambling addiction. Perhaps B will have his forehead tattooed with a red “D” for dumfuk, and be cast naked into the streets to wander forlorn and scorned. Perhaps A will gather a militia of the like-minded, and lead a Galtist revolution from the desert.
Is my answer silly? Well, yes. So’s your question.
I appreciate the straightforward answer. I know you often think I’m laying a trap for you so that I can spring it and say “Aha! I knew you were a commie”. But I’m not. The only way I can understand a person’s position is to ask questions. You often make very sweeping statements that are, frankly, hard to understand. I also think this board would be much better served if posters spent more times asking questions, and less time advocating positions.
Anyway, I’m still pretty confused as to what exactly you’re advocating, but perhaps we’ll have to wait until you open a thread dedicated you expounding on your political philosphy. At least I now have some sense of where you’re coming from.
Funnily enough, I don’t remember that sort of reaction from you when I fielded questions about Giant Squids and Mean Old Men Who Own All The Water On Earth. But if you think it is silly that one man might invest his money wisely while another might squander his money, then I don’t know what you and I might possibly talk about.
I’m unlikely to do so, Big John, my brand of political agnosticism doesn’t lend itself to exposition. Asked "OK, smartass, then what’s your plan " I have to admit, even confirm, that I haven’t one. Indeed, that’s almost it in a nutshell: the will to strive for justice, to progress, is crucial, fundamental. Plans and political philosophies are irrelevent. Change the people, and the people will change the system, when the people lead, the leaders will follow.
I have pretty much always been a radical. Tom Paine is my main man, above Tom Jefferson, and that little bitch Al Hamilton, well…the less said, the better. Over the course of the long, strange trip that’s been, I’ve turned against the notion of tearing down The System and starting over. Sudden, extreme change offers too much opportunity for heartless and ambitious men. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler…revolutionaries, each and every one and blood stained monsters to a man.
It isn’t the System that needs changing, it’s us, we, the people. If the American governance was comprised of enthusiastic progressives on the left and cautious, prudent progressives on the right, the Shining City may well be within our grasp, or our grandchildren’s. But so long as we foster a culture of competition for loud, shiny crap, we will get what we deserve, barring the divine intervention of the Goddess.
(Do I kiss up to feminists? You bet I do, said I was radical, didn’t say stupid!)
Friend Aeschines, in his youthful enthusiasm, has a Plan. Perhaps your critiques are better directed there? I have already hogged far too much of your generous attention.
…but not the strength to answer the question, I reckon. Would or would not giving Mr. Smith’s income to Mr. Jones in my example constitute what you are calling economic justice?
If Mr. Smith got a colossal income by manipulating the political system to squeeze money from a lot of Mr. Joneses who only have small or modest incomes, it is certainly reasonable to expect Mr. Smith to give at least some of it back, yes. If Mr. Smith and his small circle of friends own 80% of the wealth, it might be an excellent idea to place some severe restrictions on their wealth and power lest they abuse it. You don’t have to be some kind of ranting, cockeyed radical to believe that extreme imbalances of wealth will create serious problems and perhaps even destroy society altogether.
At least I now have some sense of where you’re coming from.