how in the hell was that foggy? I thought it was pretty clear…we can trust people to run the government but not to govern their own lives? This is not a contradiction? Should I study modern economic theory more, hmmm…
“Under the anti-trust laws a man becomes a criminal the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. If he complies with on of these laws, he faces prosecution under several others. For instance, if he charges prices which some beurocrats feel was too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly, or, rather, ‘successful intent to monopolize’; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for ‘unfair competition’ or ‘restraint of trade’; and if he charges the same price as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for ‘collusion’ or ‘conspiracy.’” {Ayn Rand, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal}
And I was being murky? Tell me how a businessman can operate legally at all? Instead, as I mentioned, he is merely tolerated.
Nonsense. It is simply a limit on trade which you are personally comfortable with. There is no universally agreed upon moral code for the human species. Some folks might think, for instance, that indentured servitude is immoral and thus outlaw the pratice. This is a restriction on free trade.
[quote]
What I did, then, was overstate your position, but not mistake it. Remember, as well, that though you might not feel this way, rest assured there are those who do and in the eyes of the government, you would be on their side favoring more controls.
[quote]
It appears that you do indeed mistake my position. I have nowhere argued for the banning of any group. I do favor policies to mitigate certain market practices. So do you, since you have devried the initiation of force. We simply disagree on where to draw the line.
You also mistake me in stating that I favor more controls. I have said no such thing. I have said that I do not favor the absence of any control. Those positions are not identical, despite your apparent desire to reduce all questions to polar dichotomy.
I speak for myself quite well, thank you. I see no reason to allow extremeists to define my position for me. That includes, by the way, you.
This particular line of discusison was beguin by your charge that I was “ignoring the obvious” if I did not agree that any regulation would lead o more regulation and that regulated economies always result in socialism.
That statement is at odds with history. Restrictions on marets can take many forms. Not all of them, or even most of them, are representative of socialism.
It is also at odds with current events. Today’s world is rife with examples both of increased regulation of markets and increased openness of markets.
If you remove stability, what good is freedom? Exhalting freedom as if it were the only thing necessary for a person to thrive is absurd. Accepting that other values must be balanced with, and against, liberty is the first step toward escaping dogmatic extremism.
I did not say that. I said that people in governmental positions of authority use the same general principal in deciding whether to use coercive force that business owners do. Sometimes, they decide coercion is necessary/justified. You said, if you recall, “The businessman, while he may resort to coercion (much like the union workers you are so proud of) does not find it necessary to do so.” In the first place, that statement is incorrect since businessmen have indeed used coercion. Either they “found it necessary” to do so, or they “found it ok to use force for personal gain.”
Either way, my point is that there is no justification for exhalting the superior morality of either businessmen or bureaucrats. People are people.
This is patently false. We can invest in government the authority to take many actions which we do not grant the private citizen: incarcerate criminals, regulate commerce, create binding laws, etc.
I said nothing about mob rule. I said that those rights which you are unable to secure by your individual action can only be secured by the consent or action of others.
I also said that those others had the right to withhold their action or consent. Unless, of course, they are unable to secure that right through individual action or the action/consent of the community.
It is an easy thing to say that, “people have the right to live free of coercion.” However, if the armed band next door does not agree, then your assertion is insufficient to secure that right.
You seem quite fond of declaring certain things “moral”. Please do not lose sight of the fact that not all people share your view of morality. Please also remember that, by your own principle of noncoercion, you may not force them to accept your morality.
You envision government as an “enforcer of morality”. since morality is not universally agreed upon, I will simply note that this activity is every bit as involuntary for some as welfare programs are for you.
I was quite specific in mentioning the coercive powers of government.
No, but the full ammendment guarantees that he right to bear arms may not legally be infringed to the extent that the states cannot maintain well-regulated militia. But really, the wisdom and efficacy of the founding fathers in protecting certain rights from government restriction is a separate issue.
I brought up the concept simply as an illustration that even 220 years ago people understood that rights must be secured by more than individual effort and innate “morality”.
This was all, of course, in response to your assertion that others have no “right” to trade away your liberty. I simply pointed out that others have the same “right” to not sanction your liberty as you have to demand sanction for it. Liberty, after all, demands that each be allowed to find his own morality.
**All of this, of course, is a wide divergence from the questions I first asked you.
What forms of collectivism do you find objectionable and what forms are acceptable?
Do you base your suport for unfetterd markets on an acceptance of the types of historic abuses such markets have allowed, an aacceptance of social upheaval, or a belief that the invisible hand will correct any such abuses without social upheaval?
Do you have support for your assertion that capitalism is antithetical to slavery?
Do you accept any concept of implicit contract or social contract?
Do you consider all forms of market regulation to be “socialism”. If not, how do you draw the line?
**
That’s your problem.
Government is people running their lives, through delegated authority. Since any human group larger than ONE will involve compromises and giving up some free action in return for gains in other area, there is never going to be perfect freedom of action. But this is all rather trivially simple.
And now for this piece of wild exageration:
You’re quoting Ayn Rand as modern economic theory? Are you serious? Forgive me, I have to go laugh out loud.
Rubbish, I’m not going to argue with someone whose mind is evidently closed, but I suggest reading some actual modern economics, not the ranting of a half-baked pseudo-philosopher.
What? Your arguments have been much clearer than mine, but this one really hit me. That isn’t a restriction on free trade and has nothing to do with what I am saying.
Indentured servent n.- a person who binds himself by indentures to work for another for a specified period of time in return for payment of his travel expenses and maintenance.
Where do you find a lack of freedom here? This person chose to be in that position, and no one has to outlaw anything. It is, basically, a primitive contract payed in goods and services instead of money for the purpose of self-maintenance. Why is there something wrong with this if it is agreeable to both parties involved? To outlaw this is obviously restricting trade.
mitigate v.-to make less severe. Make?–Make how?–Make who?–Make what?–less severe. As I said, I overstated your position. You do not favor outright banning of a group or practice, merely its control. And this still leaves me saying: two sides to the issue, control or no control. Everything else is a matter of degree.
~~favor controls
~~not favor no control
Those are not logically equivalent? I add the “more” in simply: the discussion is between me (no controls) and thee (some controls). Some is “more” than none. For you to favore more controls than me is to favor more socialism than me. See below for this.
I can see that since
and I would be happy to point out some things that have been banned even though you didn’t stand for it. Although, this is a technicality, because I said things and you said groups. So I suppose we’ll get into that next…unless you really did like thoe “robber barons” you spoke of with such distaste, or the employers of children? Those groups are not banned?
socialism n.- a system in which the means of production are controlled and owned by the state.
So anything which acts to put more of production or the producers(which then control production) in government control would, rightly, be considered as heading toward socialism? Or am I not reading the dictionary correctly?
Plenty good if one is inclined to think for one’s self. However, if we consider this to be a teeter totter with stability on one end and freedom on the other, many people would, can, and do feel that a balance between the two is best. Not me, as you may have guessed. But since we begin our reasoning from different views correlation between fundamental ideas are impossible. I feel maximizing freedom is best. your position I’m not sure of, but it seems to me to be that freedom without restriction is impractical and therefore undesirable. I don’t know though. My opinion is that controls breed contempt for those controlled, but hey, I’m no psychology major.
Wow, you’ve just about used the most PC insult I can think of there. “Dogmatic extremism.” Indeed. As I said, we begin from fundamentally different viewpoints. Its like Athiests arguing with Mormon’s: the initial assumptions are different. In believing that freedom of commerce is paramount, implicitly it is understood that man is both capable and trustworthy. Believing that controls of some sort are necessary, obviously, is to conclude the opposite. So while you may not find me to be pragmatic or practical, I’m certainly not insulting anyone by wishing for a free economy. It is a shame most seem to think so.
However, that isn’t much of an argument, is it?
You go on to say that this does not mean what I said it means, which was:
Perhaps I fail to see the difference you are hoping to eliminate. Force is acceptable when people feel it is necessary? Whether initiated or retaliatory? Again, we must start from different assumptions. I find that force in relationships creates one thing: people as servants. In the marketplace, it is always the worker’s choice to stay or leave an employer, much as it is the employer’s choice to keep or fire the worker. Some might make the case that the government is the same: it is the choice of the individual to shoose to follow or break laws, much as it is the government’s choice to enforce or ignore(tolerate) infractions. I don’t see the similarity, and so I can’t equate economic with physical power. When we give the government both we open ourselves up for tyranny.
Individuals can and have incarcerated criminals. Every time an individual invests capital, makes a purchase, or refuses a certian person/company their business that individual has regulated commerce. Each mutually agreed upon contract that holds two individuals to mutual benefit is a binding “law,” so far as the parties are concerned. Having a government there to protct it, and act as arbiter should one end fail to hold up the agreement is fine, but it is not a necessary condition to agreements.
I do so agree with you, which is why I say you do not have the right to initiate force, not to bar its use altogether. If a person is clearly violating your rights you certianly are not bound to treat him any better. What would there be to gain from that? That isn’t even a static relationship. People who deal with my mind shall receive my mind in return; people who chose otherwise shall receive otherwise. A patent is only a piece of paper without an agreement of others to uphold it. Similarly, the mind that thought up the idea for the patent is just a lump of tissue without the freedom of expression. You cannot force an internal combustion engine from a lump of flesh.
I’m sorry, but whether or not you think that’s what it is (subjective realities aside) that is what the government is. Perhaps you may have noticed the huge numbers of new “rights” which more and more people are shouting for. Right to an education, right to health care, etc etc. This is because the government regulates health care and education, and therefore, must be moral to demand things from those institutions. It doesn’t even matter that they are privately owned operations, well, health care anyway, because once something is regulated free enterprise itself is illegal but tolerated. One may begin to demand anything from a regulated entity lest the entity become further regulated.
Now I know this topic can never lead anywhere because morality is arbitrary. Every man woman and child has a blank check held over every other man woman and child. All they need to do is get together to form their own morality through legislation, right? After all, 4 million Red Chinese can’t be wrong.
Now, onto your questions. Collectivism, a system marked by collective control of production and distribution. I guess this leads into how big something has to be to have it considered “collective.” Are two baseball cards a collection? Are two people who form a mutually beneficial contract to pool their resources collective? Strictly speaking, I am not against collectivism at all so long as all parties are willing. It is not my business. This is why churches can exist in a free (or semi-free) economy. A businessman finds it hard to squeeze in to a collective society that was forced upon him. So, again, any collectivism where all parties are not agreed to participate is pretty raunchy.
Boy, hmm, lemme see…I hesitate to even answer this by using the options given to me. Instead, I will say I place my support on these unfettered markets because they are voluntary; in other words, on principle. I know, not practical at all, I am ignoring reality, and whatever other insults have been hurled at me since this topic began. this social upheaval, you see, can very well be part of the invisible hand. If a businessman is such a prick that he thinks he can buy off all the police or dominate an entire area, he is clearly in violation of the freedom he enjoys and in fact required to obtain such a lofty position. I don’t understand how else to put it. You can’t charge a million dollars for lemonade, even if it’s the last glass in town.
Industrial north had little or no slavery while rural south thrived on it. Even if the civil war was not fought, originally, over slavery, this is how it works anyway. When you ask a man to perform his best, you do not lower him to the level of animal or slave. The only way to successfully accomplish this is theoretical and requires a 1984 society where there can be no external comparison to another mode of living. Otherwise, a slave is not a good worker. Fear is not a useful tool for obedience in the presence of an alternative, or did you notice that crime hasn’t disappeared even with more laws?
Eh? Give me an example of an implicit contract or a social contract.
“All” being emphasized, of course. You are assuming that morality is subjective, I am not. Without moral subjectivity law is very static and crimes are obvious. With moral subjectivity laws need to be fluid or arbitrary to be able to keep up with consensus. Under moral subjectivity and fluid law all forms of market control must be on a path to socialism because the ideas behind use of wealth, ownership, and rights shift with the public’s whim. Since the government acts on the public’s whim, this means the state can control anything at any time, regardless of whether or not it does at any one instant. Private property takes on a very transparent meaning when it is defined and enforced by a body politic that can change its mind. With non-subjective morals, criminality is absolute and the market can remain free without controls.
My problem is that contradictions don’t make sense? My, that IS subjective. I’ll remember to tell that to the next architect I see. Perhaps he will quit his job and do something meaningful, like go into politics.
Yes, but what you seem to feel is ok is that some men have the ability to chose for other men what these compromises entail under your system. I do not feel that is correct. Perhaps you could explain to me the criteria I use to define men who can hold my fate in their hands?
I was hoping that would set you off. Instead, now, I will quote from a Judge commenting on the US vs ALCOA case in 1945. “It was not inevitable that [ALCOA] should always anticipate increses in demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections, and the elite of personnel.” hmm, we’re not punishing success, are we? We’re not discouraging growth, are we? However, to quote a british economist in discussing the same case, “It is of some interest to note that the main ground on which economic writers have condemned the aluminum monopoly has been presicely that ALCOA consistently failed to embrace opportunities for expansion and so underestimated the demand for the metal that the United States was woefully short of productive capacity at the outset of both world wars.” {Neale, the antitrust laws of the united states of america; cambidge england} So tell me who’s talking rubbish? Ayn? Our judges? Foriegn authors? Or perhaps all three and you don’t support any one of them…but then wouldn’t that put you in my league? Perhaps you could enlighten me how economic commentators can view the laws entirely different than judges and still have this law be non-contradictory, because it seems to me the law is pretty dishonest in this case. Shall I do more research for you? Also, can you give me a list of people I may quote that will make you happy for future reference? I would hate to waste either of our time typing unneccesary remarks.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
**
What? Your arguments have been much clearer than mine, but this one really hit me. That is a restriction on free trade…
arl: Indentured servent n.- a person who binds himself by indentures to work for another for a specified period of time in return for payment of his travel expenses and maintenance. Where do you find a lack of freedom here?
Spiritus was using this as an example of the lack of universality in moral codes. You don’t think that indentured servitude is immoral, but somebody else might (particularly somebody who doesn’t agree that the mere existence of a contract necessarily guarantees that the parties had a truly free choice).
- [Spiritus:] Restrictions on mar[k]ets can take many forms. Not all of them, or even most of them, are representative of socialism
socialism n.- a system in which the means of production are controlled and owned by the state.
So anything which acts to put more of production or the producers(which then control production) in government control would, rightly, be considered as heading toward socialism? Or am I not reading the dictionary correctly? *
It’s not how you read the dictionary that’s a problem, it’s how you extrapolate from it. “Heading towards socialism” is not a usefully descriptive term for an economic system. There are socialist systems that operate as your definition states. There are (or could be) unregulated capitalist systems in which the state controls or owns nothing. There are also many mixed systems which are driven by variously state-restricted markets. A mixed system is, as Spiritus stated, not a socialist system, and calling it “heading towards socialism” or “nearly socialist” or “kinda socialist” or “more socialist than mine” doesn’t really tell us anything useful about it.
I feel maximizing freedom is best.
I don’t think that what you describe as “maximizing freedom” would really end up providing more people with more freedom in real life. My suspicion is that there would be a small elite that would indeed have enviable amounts of liberty and autonomy, balanced on the backs of a majority for whom economic compulsion would make their nominal “freedom” largely meaningless in practice.
My opinion is that controls breed contempt for those controlled
My opinion is that there are lots of things in all human societies that breed contempt for certain groups of others. Damn near everything that humans do sometimes creates undesirable psychological reactions, and I think we’d be fools to consider that our society therefore should abandon everything that has such an effect.
*In believing that freedom of commerce is paramount, implicitly it is understood that man is both capable and trustworthy. Believing that controls of some sort are necessary, obviously, is to conclude the opposite. So while you may not find me to be pragmatic or practical, I’m certainly not insulting anyone by wishing for a free economy. It is a shame most seem to think so. However, that isn’t much of an argument, is it? *
Sure isn’t. As I said above, I think it’s foolish to require that an economic or social system be based on whatever assumptions create the most flattering self-image of our society or our species. In real life, we notice that some people are capable and trustworthy and some are not, and many exhibit varying levels of capability and trustworthiness over the course of their lives. This implies that it’s most sensible to have both some freedom of commerce and also controls of some sort, and if anybody is insulted by that, I’m afraid that’s just too bad.
In the marketplace, it is always the worker’s choice to stay or leave an employer, much as it is the employer’s choice to keep or fire the worker.
This is that “nominal freedom” I was talking about above. Sometimes workers (or consumers) do indeed have meaningful choices in the marketplace. Sometimes, due to economic compulsion, they just get a Hobson’s choice. It is not very meaningful to have the “freedom” to leave your employer if the only realistic consequence of exercising that freedom is to starve to death. I’m not impressed by that sort of empty liberty.
Instead, I will say I place my support on these unfettered markets because they are voluntary; in other words, on principle. I know, not practical at all, I am ignoring reality, and whatever other insults have been hurled at me since this topic began.
Right. (And people say liberals are suicidally idealistic!)
*this social upheaval, you see, can very well be part of the invisible hand. If a businessman is such a prick that he thinks he can buy off all the police or dominate an entire area, he is clearly in violation of the freedom he enjoys and in fact required to obtain such a lofty position. I don’t understand how else to put it. You can’t charge a million dollars for lemonade, even if it’s the last glass in town. *
Can you explain this more clearly? By “social upheaval”, do you mean things including massive unrest and violence to shake off the power of some “prick businessman” who abuses his freedom by dominating areas and buying off police? Is this supposed to be “part of the invisible hand,” i.e., the natural self-regulation of market capitalism? Is this the sort of thing we’re supposed to prefer to the “tyranny” of having some government control? Pass, thanks.
Industrial north had little or no slavery while rural south thrived on it.
But what Spiritus asked you for was evidence that capitalism was antithetical to slavery. The North may have been more industrialized than the South, but are you saying that the South was not capitalist? Why?
*Eh? Give me an example of an implicit contract or a social contract. *
You’re born a citizen. You didn’t sign an explicit contract, but you incurred the obligations of a citizen. That is, unless you voluntarily renounce your citizenship, you have to obey the laws, pay taxes, etc.
You are assuming that morality is subjective, I am not. Without moral subjectivity law is very static and crimes are obvious. With moral subjectivity laws need to be fluid or arbitrary to be able to keep up with consensus. Under moral subjectivity and fluid law all forms of market control must be on a path to socialism because the ideas behind use of wealth, ownership, and rights shift with the public’s whim.
Gevalt!! So all that’s required to make an unregulated market work perfectly is a universal and permanent consensus about moral choices, eh? Even if this were remotely possible in a month of Sundays, what on earth makes you think that it counts as maximizing freedom?
With non-subjective morals, criminality is absolute and the market can remain free without controls.
Oh, nifty. First I’m promised that even if I have to give up some security by abandoning all government control, it’ll be worth it because I’ll have maximized my freedom, which is a much more noble and worthy thing to have. Then I find out that what my “freedom” means is adopting a code of “non-subjective morals” that eliminates the possibility of diverse moral beliefs. 'Scuse me, Comrade, would you point me in the direction of the nearest border and give me a shove? I think I’ll head home to my flawed fluid mixed economy of messy social compromises where a person at least has sufficient freedom to breathe.
Sure, you are welcome to try China or Cuba. I’m afraid the USSR fell recently and East Germany went with it. Perhaps I can interest you in a nice subjective rule of dictatorship? There is no fee, of course. how could we possibly charge a fee for this service when no one could agree on a price?
People are very happy to have the objectivity of laws on their side in a jam. Perhaps you are not one of them.
ahem
I see. So economic systems, or changes thereof, happen all at once? Poof!, like magic? If an economic system was to stop being capitalistic in some way, what would you call it then? It’s so hard to argue with subjectivists. Are you saying that when an economic system is changing it really isn’t an economic system or it just has no name? Or that it is impossible to tell toward which extreme it is heading? I suppose if restrictions are lifted off the economy we aren’t actually “heading toward a free market” either. Makes [no] sense to me.
Calling it “more socialist than mine” when mine is described does in fact tell you something about it. Try it on something more simple first to see if you get the idea. “See my glass with water in it? Now, see your glass with air and water in it? Your glass is more empty of water than mine.”
So we might as well just regulate anyway, since we’re all screwed. I’m starting to understand now. What I need to do is get off this dogmatic objectivist kick and embrace a little nihlism.
Wait, we’re discussing communism, right? Or our current government? I get so lost in these long threads.
I see. So, again, since we’re fucked already, just toss in the towel? I mean, don’t punish people who are dishonest or not trustworthy, just regulate everyone. I guess we’re both extremists. Huh.
A social upheaval need not be violent Kimstu, as I’m sure you might be able to figure out. If the power a businessman holds over you is money, fail to recognise his dollar. You cannot do that with a gun. Choice between not working and starving? HAHAHA. Uh, lesse…mixed economy eliminated poverty? Nope. Socialism eliminated poverty? Nope. communism eliminated poverty? Nope. I know! Just because capitalism can’t do it let’s condemn it!
As far as the slavery issue goes, you might note I said slavery was possible under capitalism, but completely undesireable under a technological system. You cannot force a mind to do much of anything but respond automatically to pain and the further advanced a society becomes the more of its citizens it requires to think. That is, a rational mind. You can get a subjective mind to do whatever you want if you pump enough tv, movies, and books into it. How is it unrealistic to believe in reality? How is it that I am wrong to a subjective person, can’t I form my own opinions and be just as right since right doesn’t exist anyway? From reading the case against me, one would assume not and that’s an argument in itself.
As far as an implicit contract goes, it depends on what that contract entails. As far as citizenship goes, what does it matter if I honor it or not? If it is given to me simply because I was born how the hell could I avoid it in the first place?
And Kimstu, I’m not promising you anything. You obviously would not like a free market economy, you wouldn’t want to live in it, and so it wouldn’t provide you with anything anyway because you’d get out as fast as you could.
Since I’ve answered a million fucking questions perhaps some of you could answer mine. ah, nevermind…there are no real answers anyway, right? Now I’m starting to get it.
No, that’s what’s required for anarcho-capitalistic society. If everything works perfectly there’s no need for a government. Hardly the point I was making.
Your problem is that your contradictions exist only when you set up your idiosyncratic definitions. You confuse inherently different categories. I get the sense from your rrather unclear argumentation that you have confused economics with morality. Pity that. They’re not the same. It would also be helpful to know some economics – that would not mean you’d agree with us, but you’d certainly stop making some ridiculous analyses.
As a practical matter, in order for a society larger than one to exist, one has to delegate decision making power. No different than a business. Am I, a department head, losing some kind of economic freedom or other kind of nonesense because I don’t make all the decisions relating to my work? Absolutely not, I can’t possibly do so, delegation and compromises, not all of which can I explicitely agree to as a matter of reality (yes there is such a thing outside of the “objectivist” fantasy world). It’s neither efficient nor effective. Your bizzaro world scenario makes no sense.
Instead of hoping to set people off, how about getting a grip on reality? Ayn Rand is not economic theory. Ayn Rand is inverted Leninist ranting dressed up as 'philosophy" – Please, get a grip.
On trusts and monopoly, it may escape you but in order to gain advantages from free markets you have to have competition. Elimination of competition is a market failure insofar as the ultimate results will be lost efficiency and transfer of surplus to the monopolist. Use of market power (meaning power to influence prices, exclude competitors etc.) is bad for the efficient operation of markets (at least at a theoretically ideal level).
No, the inverse. Next question?
Being unfamiliar with the specifics of the case (by the way, do try to provide complete citations) I can’t really comment but Ayn is certainly talking rubbish, in fact she clearly has no clue. The facts of the monopoly have to be emperically examined. I imagine the case revolved around ALCOA systematicaly taking measures to exclude competition (tactical price cuts etc. or expansions in areas solely to kill of competition). From an economic point of view, you lose efficiency through the lack of competition. The judges comments are of course structured around the law and the legal arguments actually presented which will not necessarily match the economic analysis – utterly different frames of refernce. The important part is the result --breaking up a monopoly to create greater competition and long run efficienies.
(For someone literally worshiping free markets you seem strangly unacquainted with this issue.)
It’s not about “succcess” on an individual level and your confusion of morality with this is at best misplaced.
I’m not an anti-trust lawyer so frankly I don’t see any purpose in commenting on it. Laws attempt to achieve specific results, i.e. preventing monopolies. Economic commentators may differ with the specific legal arguments which are of course structured around the text of the law: the overriding issue is what are the effects of monopoly. Different game, quite simply. I frankly don’t understand your confusion.
Krugman to start with. Why not Mansfield? Or why not learn some economic theory to start with.
.
You know, aynrandlover, I may not know jackshit about Ayn Rand and her theories but I do know about history. The fact is, children were still starving even during child labor.
And you could make the argument that child starvation vs. communism? Ever wonder why communism is so popular in Cuba?
The people aren’t starving, like they were before, when Machiavellian capitalism was at it’s height.
What’s the point of being “free” if you have nothing to eat?
Besides, the most obvious point: a society, with almost no government control, where there is no law, or no government, will lead to anarchy-which leads to a dictator, whether he be a Fascist Hitler or a Marxist Lenin. Remember-the scum always rises to the top.
(I personally think the best way to learn about life and philosophy is to study history-study what happened and WHY it happened…find out what caused what…how to avoid it…)
Coll, I find “The more successful you are the more we’ll take your success away” to be a punishment. Could you please, intead of saying something like “No, it’s the opposite,” explain this to me? How is removing the wealth gained through effort a reward? The next time you intend to make a point, please elaborate. Merely negating a statement is a rather useless way to discuss things.
Complete citations? I gave you the year, the name of the judge, and the court case. For someone who insists I do research into a subject you feel I know nothing about, perhaps you should do the same.
A monopoly forms because it gains enough capital through business to dominate a market. It gets this money from the customers. So, is is the fault of the company who did good business, or is it the fault fo the consumer who, in hating monopolies as so many seem to do, continue to support it on its way to the top? Then, when the public has realized its “mistake,” instead of punishing itself it punishes the company. I am not, anywhere, stating that a monoply is inherently good, more productive, or fair. I am simply stating that perhaps you should find a more viable means of trust-busting than punishing success. I’m sure a resourceful chap such as yourself could postulate a means of competition that doesn’t involve taking property and capital from people who earned it. Until then, please do not criticize me for pointing out an injustice and suggesting change. Its the democratic thing to do.
Perhaps your knowledge on monopolies in incomplete. Monopolies are sometimes desirable, as the government-sanctioned monopoly of phone companies and power providers may attest to. Or was this just an oversight?
The laws governing monopolies are currently very arbitrary. That, in case you missed it, was my point. It is not possible for a business to operate without fear of being prosecuted for something perfectly legal ex post facto. The anti-trust laws create this situation by being unclear as to how to objectively define situations. Consider a hypothetical corner store, being the only one in the local area. This, clearly, is a monopoly in the economics-endorsed definition of the word and should be dissolved. However, it is not dissolved but tolerated.
[pulls economics book off shelf]
[source: “Economics: Principals, Problems, and Policies”, Campell R. McConnel] sigh So, perhaps, this is a matter of dicussion and not the open and shut case you claim it to be.
Thank you for explaining your stance on why government needs to exist. However, I never disagreed with that. The points you raise are almost something I would have said myself. However, they do not justify government in the economy. Please elaborate more.
Guin: Machiavellian capitalism is fascism, my friend. To again quote my economics book, “For example, the fascism of Hitler’s Nazi Germany has been dubbed authoritarian capitalism because the economy was subject to a high degree of governmental control and direction, but property was privately owned.” Unless the implicit reference to “The Prince” was not implying government action, in which case I suggest you be more clear.
“What’s the point of being ‘free’ if there is nothing to eat?” Ask every revolutionary throughout history who has sacrificed himself to throw off oppression. Food, you might guess, is not life.
Perhaps I missed the part where I said I was actively for no government. I was, you might note, an advocate of no government in the economy. I know how everyone likes to equate economic and political power, so I can see how I might be misunderstood. My utopian society is without government, but that was on the condition that everyone agrees on all morality. Otherwise, a government needs to be formed to protect the morals that people do agree on.
I wholeheartedly agree. I have found that tyrranical governments, like fascism, dictatorship, and absolute rule monarchy have been very destructive to all involved. Socialism eats up the surplus needed to maintain strong growth. Communism has created more starvation than it has eliminated in two out of three cases, and it has certainly caused many people to want to flee it.
When England and America came to allow greater freedom in both political and economic sectors, rapid growth and incredible inventions corresponding to fantastic leaps in science and technology was the result.
Not to be bitter, but should I quote some history books too, Collun? Or can we all discuss this as we see it, since this is a debate between us and not the people we read literature from? I do not debate topics to prove others wrong, I debate to test my convictions and perhaps modify them. I apologize to everyone involved for “putting words in your mouth,” but I will not conclude that just because three people disagree with me that I am automatically and catagorically stupid, dogmatic, or wrong.
I’m not talking about revolutionaries-I’m talking about the poor peasants in Russia and Cuba. Wanna know why Castro’s so damn popular? He fed the people. If you’re dead, you ain’t gonna be able to enjoy your freedom. Not that I’m saying that’s what I would choose, but you have to look at it from someone else’s perspective. Also, they hated the US for constantly interfering, with their “laissez faire” capitalist approach. Please! Did you ever work in a 19th century factory where you work 19 hours a day with no bathroom or lunch breaks?
Also, another thing: no government control in economy? Perhaps I should have said laissez faire capitalism, the capitalism of the Industrial Revolution, when there were almost NO government regulations involved.
I work at Kmart, and frankly, I’d like to see a little more government regulation in the work place.
I’m probably the last person who would defend Bolshevism and Lenin. But I do see the need for government regulations in the economy. Corporate pigs suck ass, honey. Been there, done that, gotten screwed by them.
I think that was terrible in light of present circumstances, and I never said government was terrible for the ends gained in stopping such things. I question the means. I would also point out that no one forced these people to work at a factory. “But they would starve! A choice between hard labor and death is surely not a choice at all.” Perhaps; I lean toward agreement on this. They would starve if the factories didn’t allow people to work there. But that is not the factories’ fault. As well, labor movements are what brought much of this to a head. The government originally stepped in to protect private property of the businessman, rightly so. Upon finding such poor treatments that the workers were subject to it was outraged. I don’t feel that government intervention was entirely necessary other than to prevent outright violence and destruction of private property. The workers could very easily have peacefully presented their demands for better treatment. This is negotiation.
The reason such government interference was deemed necessary was because if the workers were to peacefully demonstrate there were still a backlog of workers eager to replace them and such demonstrations were not given to a crippled factory but a functioning one and were, as such, useless. Thus they couldn’t peacefully demonstrate and had to bar the unemployed from replacing them. It was a tough situation.
The solution of forcing the company to acceed to the demands of the workers was not right even if it was justifiable. I feel that the workers should have continued negotiations as best as possible, or pool money together to create their own industry, or some other tactic that doesn’t involve the threat of physical force or government’s use of coercion which was, in this case, an initiation of force against a citizen. I never, ever said that living together peacefully was easy.
It was a tough time because industry was very new and society had yet to balance itself out in such matters. The government does not need to intercede just because things are difficult and force things to be easy. I think within a small amount of time things will have evened out.
Finally, all of America wasn’t industrial at once. Why were only the people around where the factories were starving? Or was everyone starving and the businesses were mean for providing any money or jobs at all? We agree on what atrocity is, but disagree on how to handle it.
If you read the entire response you would have your answer. Standard economic theory regarding monopolies. You’re either weasaling or you’re being deliberatly dense.
Complete citation to the quoted work, not to the court case. I’m not a lawyer so I could care less about the case.
Such as:
Morality and fault have nothing to do with this. Your continued mistake is to make an illogical mix out of these questions. The issue is economic efficiency and maintaining the characteristics of free markets which are advantageous. Monopolies largely under most circumstances undermine that.
There’s nothing unviable about the process, other than perhaps if the anti-monopoly law is poorly written. Since laws are rarely perfect, I am sure there are things to complain about, but so long as they work reasonably well… It’s an imperfect world all around. Markets are imperfect, people are imperfect so you’ll just have to live with a non-utopia.
I am unaware of any nationalizations of any monopolies in the United States, as such “taking” is irrelevant. Divesting or breaking up a company, or restraining it from undertaking illegal under established law --the sort of contractually agreed on ground rules which help maintain the viability of the market-- isn’t taking capital. Indeed as I recall most monopoly breakups created value so other than the ego factor --evidentally non-trivial-- breakups might actually be looker forward to by the owners.
Don’t be a hypocritical whiner. You put your idea out there, I critiqued it. It;s not my fault that your grasp of the issues at hand seems to be limited to the rantings of a pseudo-philosopher.
Oversight? You were whinging on about breakups, so I focused on that. Certainly some monopolies may be beneficial and indeed will be sanctioned by society/government. That depends on the situation involved. In instances where the service provided given a certain technology (stress on this) is not economical in a multi-firm environment (e.g. the initial investments in telephone networks given the technology at the time) monopolies or government service are the proper options.
There’s no one size fits all answer. But that seems to escape you.
Rubbish. There’s a nice little body of case law and legal opinion to go with. For those few firms who have the market share and power to worry about being hit with the rare anti-trust suit, good lawyers keep you out of trouble. E.g. Intel as compared with those idjets at MS. Lawsuits are part of the business environment and indeed are how a libertarian society --as I seem to have read-- solves its problems. My company sues on IP issues all the time, for example. Anyone too stupid to understand this deserves to get whacked.
Guess what, life is unclear. Objective definitions are often unattainable given subjective interpretations of what’s around us. Not limited to law. That’s why we have such things are risk analysis and other things which keep me employed. My firm has a nice little passel of lawyers keeping track of case law. Keeps us out of trouble, not only with govmints but also other firms as well as customers.
Example is ridiculous. Local area implies other markets firstly, secondly there is no way using standard business practices that the corner store can keep out competition. That’s the key buckaroo, keeping out competition with anti-competitive practices. If our store is playing by the rules, i.e. not preventing other stores from opening up, then soon it will face competition as competitors will be attracted by the profits to be had.
I have no idea where you’re getting this “dissovled” bullshit. It’s utterly irrel. If the store was excluding competition the legal remedies typically available would be to enjoin it from using such methods, perhaps forcing the owner to sell --hey you gotta play by the rules otherwise the game breaks down bud and we’re all poorer for it, or otherwise opening up the town to more competition. If dingbat store owner don’t like it, he can lump it.
Full citations are often useful, but let me not harry you. Why not read on and look at the specifics? The vague generality does not in any way address the sitution. You’ll see the discussion will make more or less the points I’ve made here. Generally speaking, monopolies are not good for the reasons stated and unless they are “natural monopolies” will only be able to be maintained (in a free market situation) through anti-competitive practices.
Government in the economy? How on earth does one divorce goverment from the economy. All actors in a society will be in the economy. If you mean regulation, well its really quite simple, to make sure everyone obeys the rules. You see, in the real world people cheat, play dirty etc. and while some actions may be individually rationale, they will result in group loss. Dat’s what Game Theory is all about. In order to avoid this, we have rules. And we government to enforce the rules for the dingdongs who ruin things, who do include your Galts from time to time cause in the real world they are not saints.
When you’re pulling stuff out of your ass, its not terribly convincing. Normally it is useful to have a framework of concepts and facts upon which to build on. Historical experience rather than assertion can be quite useful. Emprical verification as it were.
Perhaps only the latter two. Suggestion, when debating, setting up strawmen is both obvious and unconvincing. Deal with the actual statements.
Guess it’s my turn again.
First:
On indentured servitude: This was a reasponse to, “By outlawing something considered to be immoral, such as initiation of force you are not limiting free trade.”
Some people consider indentured servitude immoral.
Outlawing indentured servitude is a restriction on free trade.
Therefore your statement is false.
You, clearly, do not consider the practice immoral. But your morality, thankfully, is not universal. As far as I can tell, the only thing you find immoral is the intiation of force. Fine, that example works, too.
Initiation of force, in and of itself, is not a violation of a completely free market. “Free market” does not mean every choice was made without coercion. In fact, the “corrective principle” that free market advocates rely upon is at heart a coercive force. It is simply an economically (or socially) coercive force as opposed to a physically coercive force. Therefore, outlawing the initiation of physical force is a restriction on the market.
But really, shouldn’t this really be intuitively obvious? Any law, even a hypothetically “universally moral” law represents a restriction of choice. Therefore, every law is a restriction on a hypothetical “completely free” market.
mitigate and ban: No, these are not synonyms. That you feel they are speaks volumes.
True. Alive or dead, everything else is a matter of degree.
But there is a difference between living as a slave and living as a free man, wouldn’t you agree?
Sometimes the degree is important.
What possible relevance can this have to our discussion? Is your case weakened because people who are not you take actions you do not necessarily agree with?
No. The definition requires control and ownership. Control alone actually is closer to fascism. Not every restriction on trade is “socialist”. For instance, outlawing murder for hire is a restriction on trade. It “controls” a certain market quite rigidly. It does not, however, establish a foothold for socialism.
Maximizing one good thing at the cost of all others can be foolish. I like oxygen in my air. I need oxygen in the air to survive. I do not want to live in an atmosphere of pure oxygen (nor would I survive in one for long).
All or nothing is too simplistic an approach to complex societies, no matter how appealing the rhetoric is to some.
Close enough, though I would call it unsustainable and devoid of empathy rather than impratical. Caveat emptor is fine advice, but I would prefer not to make it the guiding principal of our society.
Kimtsu covered this admirably. Let me simply add that contempt can take many forms, sometimes it is even disguised as respect or compassion (from both sides of the political spectrum).
On whether people find initiation of force “ok”:
- When I say people use force it does not mean they “generally find it ok to use force for personal gain.”
- It is extremely obvious that people use force.
- (2) does not imply that I personally find initiation of force to be “acceptable”.
- Please try to keep clear the difference between what is and what I (or you) would prefer to be. I will sometimes point to reality as a caution that an idealistic proposal has a flaw. That does not mean I feel reality is ideal.
- A contract does not guarantee a lack of coecion. See “Hobson’s Choice”. [sub]thanks again, Kimtsu[/sub]
- Again, this began because you stated that businessmen do not find it necessary to use coercion. Do you have any justification for making that statement?
on individuals and government
Your examples are strained. An individual who finds you guilty on his own authority and imprisons you is guilty of kidnapping. A businessman can make decisions for his own company, but he may not (in our system) regulate the trade of others. A law is binding to all, a contract is not. Even if your examples were not flawed, they would be irrelevant. You said: “We can not give the government any “rights” that we do not have ourselves since it is a government of men.”
That statement is untrue. Humans can, and have invariably, given their government rights beyond those of individual citizens. Now, you may argue that they should not, if you choose. But to say they can not is incorrect.
On how rights are secured
You are missing the point. What you say is irrelevant. What I say is irrelevant. Rights are not secured by stating they exist. Rights are not secured by morality. Rights are secured by the actions or consent of people. Therefore, your statement that people do not have the right to stop acting or consenting to the rights you wish to have secured is specious. People have the same right to trade their consent to your rights as you do to not recognize their right to “employment” or “edication” or any of the other rights which you assert do not really exist.
On the government as moral enforcer
You have misunderstood me. I simply point out that where the government acts as “moral enforcer” it does not have unanimous consent of the citizenry. You object to participation in welfare because it is “involuntary”. I simply observe that the same is true for those actions of government of which you seem to approve.
On the subjectivity of morality
Again, you prefer ideals to reality. The clear fact is that no universally agreed upon morality exists. People disagree. I have not argued that morality is subjective, nor have I argued that “4 million Red Chinese can’t be wrong”. I have observed that not everyone agrees with your standard of morality.
Do you disagree?
If not, then how do you propose to attain their compliance to be governed according to your understanding of morality if you do not coerce them?
ANSWERS!
collectivism
I am glad you do not object to voluntary collectivism. You confused me with statements like, “I find collectivism in any form distressing.”
support for free markets
“I place my support on these unfettered markets because they are voluntary; in other words, on principle. I know, not practical at all, I am ignoring reality”
Agreed.
This is quite a bit like saying one favors pure pacifism because it is loving.
Why not? If an unfettered market is the overriding value why should profiteering be restricted?
on slavery
As Kimtsu mentioned, the South practiced capitalism. Your resonse that slavery is, “completely undesireable under a technological system” seems to ignore the fact that even technologically advanced societies have a requirement for unskilled labor. You made a very strong statement which I asked you to support. Simply saying it again is not providing support.
This is another strong statement. Do you have any support for it? For that matter, do you have a definition for “subjective mind”?
It is not. It is, however, unreasonable to believe in a false reality simply because it is more pleasant to do so. Note: that does not make it “wrong”, only not reasonable.
To recognize the subjectivity of human experience is not the same as denying an objective reality. You again are trying to force those who disagree with your position into boxes of your own construction.
on implicit and social contracts
Kimtsu gave you an example. Another example would be the understanding that elected officials should represent the interests of their constituents.
The question was whether you agreed such contracts exist. Since you argue for an absolute morality of freedom and voluntary participation, I wondered whether you denied the morality of such “contracts”.
on whether all market restricion are socialism
I have made no such assumption, nor would it be relevant to this question if I had.
This is unrelated to market restrictions or socialism.
This comes close to answering the question, but it is poor logic. Historically, markets have been controlled in many ways under many forms of government. Very few have been socialistic. How do you get from ideas of wealth, ownership and rights shifting to socialism?
Asserting it does not make it so.
Can? As in has the capability to do so? Or as in has the legal ability to do so?
If the former, then no code of laws or constitutional protections can ever guard against it. If the latter, then any number of laws and constitutional protections can guard against it.
For that matter, the governement of your idealized free market state, which protects citizens from the initiation of force (fraud?) and enforces agreement to contracts is also “acting on teh public’s whim”. Unless, of course, said government was not created by free and voluntary action of the citizenry.
Ideas of property have always been defined and enforced by the body politic. What other possible means of enforcement do you envision? What other manner of definition would you prefer?
- This has nothing to do with the question.
- This is yet another assertion without any supporting evidence. How do you propose that this code of “non-subjective morals” be enforced?
It seems to me, really, that you are saying:
Restrictions which I like (non-subjective moral codes) shouldn’t be counted as restrictions. That way I can argue that the market should be totally free without actually having a totally free market.
Pardon me if I find this argument uncompelling.
other matters
Apparently not. It seems you have no real understanding of epistemology, nihilism, phenomenology, etc.
However, if you have asked questions of me which I have ignored, I apologize. Please restate them and I will do my best to answer.
Can you possibly refrain from insulting me in a single post? In every other post, and in this one, when a case brought against me makes sense I am happy to accept the fact that I am wrong. Using personal attacks will not make me see your issue any more clearly and only makes me want to do the same. It clouds the issue. PLEASE.
To continue.
I have. Just because I didn’t quote more doesn’t mean I never read it.
Laws, while they may sometimes not be absolutely objective, have absolute effects regardless of the created morals of the one being prosecuted. I argue for clearly stated laws and morals. You feel this is impossible. I do not. If a law has to be wishy-washy and subject to interpretation I find that a correction should be made. I am arguing theory, and you are arguing existence. I am not debating that current laws are murky, I am stating that they should be, and can be, clearer. I am not stating crime is possible to eliminate, I am suggesting there are better ways to deal with it. This is not dogmatic. This is not wrong. It cannot be wrong or right when it has not been tested. A thread like this is a drawn out thought experiment. We can use specific examples and cite a thousand books but in the end it is still possible that we will disagree. This is not stupid.
I am an adamant reader of non-fiction. I have two sets of encyclopedias and a slew of philosophical works for my personal reference. I have books from college psychology and economics classes which I have read. I have amalgamated my philosophy based presominantly on Kant and Rand (much to many objectivist’s disamy) though I find Descartes and Hume have made valid points.
The case for government control is strong because nothing else was ever tried, EVER. Thus, you will always find history on your side. This is not shocking to me. What is shocking to me is that you feel that that automatically reduces my arguments to bullshit. This cannot be the case. Countless times throughout history new forms of governments have been devised, new economic structures, and definitely new ways of considering the human animal. To you, none are more true or false than any other because there cannot be absolute agreement. Then I ask you to leave of calling me stupid for offering a new one.
Economic theory is always evolving and there are still, to this day, economists that agree with my side of the arguemnt which favors less control. Some economists from otehr countries view America’s actions and laws to be overly-confusing, and some find it downright disgusting. There are econmists that favor huge government control, as you might find in Cuba or China. You may tell me to read more economics all day and in the end I will still find arguments to back my side and you will find arguments to back your side.
If I understand your accusation of setting up strawmen, that means I am incorrectly defining your positions and then attacking those ill-conceived ideas. When you tell me some men are dishonest and will lie and cheat, so we need a government, I am asking you what makes you think the liars and cheaters won’t go into government. Surely history bearsthis out. That is not setting up a strawman. I may have done it with reference to other arguments. I can’t see where.
When you accuse me of comparing different things, like government and economy, then yell at me for thinking I can seperate the two, you are clearly not in a position to argue one point or the other. Either they are seperate and can be treated seperately, or they are intertwined and I am able to link the two together as I have. If they are seperate, then I am correct in stating it is possible to keep one out of the other. If they are intertwined, then I am correct in showing that to trust or distrust one is to trust or distrust the other. My point was not to argue both, just the former. You brought in the latter, and I was using your own stand to defeat you. Standard debate tactic, and mathematically equivalent to reductio ad absurdum.
When caught in something you either see is leading to that, or completely in one, you simpy back away and again resort to “We can never know for sure; morals are not absolute,” and other similar negations. When morals are not absolute, every government is the largest criminal. If we don’t know for sure, then you can’t tell me I’m wrong. Which would you prefer?
All in all, I have found the topic of game theory to be most enlightening and I plan to find more info on that. Thanks. Perhaps then we can yell at each other some more.
I would also like to make one more point.
A monopoly to economists need not be large. The store truly does have a monopoly. Microsoft has a monopoly, though there is competition, becuse it controls such a large portion of trade it its field. Anyway, the corner store can clearly keep out competition: it already has all the customers in an area. Many small markets as such do not have room for competition because both businesses will go bust. It has a monopoly by default. It is maintaining its monopoly through honest business practices. Were it to not do this and charge exorbitant prices or treat all customers poorly, any competition can quickly gain a foothold and quite possibly drive the other out of business. This is not “intent to monopolize” as most would see it, they would find prosecuting this new competition unnecessary. But under the law, it could be prosecuted for such an act. Thus, I find the laws to be arbitrary, and arbitrary law is closer to dictatorship than democracy. We, as a society, stuggle to clarify laws, not accept them as unclear because it is impossible to make clear laws. It is not; there are many laws which are very clear. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume I might, in the interests of matters involving freeedom, desire to make laws clear cut to avoid the huge legal battles than ensue in cases like these. That is efficiency, you see, not merely accepting a bromide that “stuff sucks, deal with it.” I am dealing with it.
I give the author, the publisher, and the title of the book. What more would you like? Page numbers? Date of publishing? Number of reprints? The bookstore I found it at? I provide enough information for someone to successfully follow up on a cite if they chose. I doubt that, were my citations any more complete, you would suddenly become wrought with desire to confirm my quote. Either you will get it with the information I provided, or you won’t. Providing more information isn’t going to change that. This is not a term paper or a piece submitted to a board of phDs for subission into a relevant magazine. It’s a quote, and I sourced it.
When quoting, as you might have learned in college, one should give page numbers. Date of publication can be important also.
It’s not a matter of confirming your quote, just pointing out your defective practice. Direct quotes should give the page number as a matter of standard practice.