Well, OK - I thought that by setting forth my position in a debates forum it would be understood that I am effectively asking questions about the opposing position, but so long as that’s all settled we can continue. And thank you very much for your kind words, perv - I thank you in return for your contributions here (without which they would simply be me asserting things willy nilly!)
Quite so, but what I am setting forth here is that capitalism can curtail a subset’s freedom just as much as any Communist state.
And thus the discussion devolves to whether “earned” is an accurate word for what is merely “accrued”. One wouldn’t say that the medieval lord earned his serfs’ lifelong contributions merely by owning that which the serf depended on for his continued existence. So can it be with capitalism without a democratic redistribution of what everybody, ultimately, owns (IMO).
Quite so, and that would be an interesting bifurcation. But I’d suggest here that unless either one of us is seriously suggesting abolishing democracy (and in all of these threads we have yet to encounter any such person), we stick to discussing each proposition on the basis of democracy. In this case, I consider Agreement with #53 to ultimately represent a threat to democracy from the subtle, dread spectre of plutocracy.
Well, that’s fair enough, and appreciated. Thanks, but…
It’s this kind of thing that I found both surprising and unfortunate:
This is another non sequitur. Local governments are just as involved in defending property rights as the feds. Police forces in general (in the US) are nearly always locally funded and administered organizations.
Equating “I prefer lower levels of decision-making” to “you are an anarchist” is pretty silly.
As I said, I found it surprising. Usually I enjoy these threads very much.
This one hasn’t really been up to your usual standard.
I don’t have a score handy but I do agree with the idea that charity is better than governement welfare and aid programs. HOWEVER, this is a qualitative statement in the sense that I do not think that private charity can do a completely effective job and that there is a role for the governement.
First of all, there are many reasons to prefer private charity:
it is a proper extension of individual freedom
it minimizes state control of these programs which usually includes all sorts of caveats and inefficiencies
the recipients of charity feel less entitled and may be better incented to improve their lots (not necessarily possible, of course)
there is greater accountability if charity monies are free to flow to the best resources
individual givers feel a greater responsibility to monitor and maintain successful charities
generally there is a greater connection between the the givers and the recievers of charity which improves community.
However, I do feel that there is some public good aspects to helping those who are struggling. In a democratic and free society is important that all citizens feel included and to some extent empowered. Disillusionment can lead to unrest, social disorder, crime etc. So with the public good element you get the free rider problem that has been mentioned. You almost certainly get a sub-optimal level of support from indivdual charity alone and so I think tere is a proper role for the governement to step in. But in my mind it is not as a substitute for charitable giving, but as a supplement to charity. Charity should be the main source of aid, but it cannot be te only one. THis is a difficult balance, it isn’t like there is some magical number, X% from private giving, 1-X% from the government. But in my mind the errors should be made in the direction of depending less on governement, because once government creeps in and claims bigger portions of the aid pie, it will never relinquish that role. Currently in the U.S. I think we do rely too much on the government to support people and it has created a society where there is separation and resentment on both sides of the economic coin.
Very well, duly retracted - I admit I was taking your statement to a conclusion you didn’t mean to suggest, which rather misrepresented you.
So let’s start again from this point. You prefer “decision making” to stay as close to the “individual” level as possible. My counterpoint is that your ownership of property can, if left unchecked, drastically affect the decisions of others who, hey, only want to make fair wage and not suffer or die of something entirely preventable in a land of plenty. Thus, democracy places those human rights above your right to all of what you call “yours”, thus averting outright plutocracy.
So local social security is less objectionable? Does this course not founder on the plain fact that entire regions might face severe economic difficulty?
Then you are using another meaning of the word freedom. Unfortunately for us that word has a very large number of contexts in which it means a great many different things. Perhaps you are suggesting that Capitalism can curtail some people’s freedom of movement by placing transportation beyond their means. Perhaps you are suggesting that capitalism curtails the political freedom of some people by placing the right to vote beyond thier means (but I don’t think there is any such system in place today poll taxes being illegal and all).
But I think we really do understand one another. You are claiming that capitalism curtails the freedom of some people to use that which is owned by someone else. Am I correct?
No, it does not. You have not shown that any portion of any person’s income is merely accrued.
No, not any more. But I would point out that the reason the lord was not entitled to the serf’s products is exactly the same reason that you are not entitled to mine (even if all you want to do is give them to someone else). He is not entitled to the serfs labor because he did not aquire it through consent. The lord of the manor had legal and coercive means to compel through force the labor of the serf.
This, I’m afraid is a non sequitor. There is only a passing resemblance between a Robor Baron and medieval lords. (Just in case, they are both rich. All the other comparisons break down along the lines of how they got rich.)
Ok, I can work with this. As long as you realize that you have no other basis for promoting democracy besides our arbitrary agreement.
This is, I think, another non sequitor. There was nothing in the question about plutocracy.
Is this only in cases of extreme poverty, or as a general principle?
What I am looking for is some general statement of limits on government, and so far I don’t see much.
Suppose I live in a society where, by and large, starvation is extremely rare, most people have some minimum level of health care, and otherwise some minimum standard has been met. The government, nonetheless, wants to confiscate my property and redistribute it. Do I have any right to object?
Yes, because of the greater level of implied or actual consent. I have more influence over my local government, and even more over my family. Thus I am more likely to go along if someone suggests some charitable relief for the needy. Simply announcing that you are going to take most of what I own because I am too hard-hearted to do anything for the poor.
And it seems to be taken for granted that the government is always motivated by the best impulses on earth, and would never grab my goodies just because they wanted it. And the history of government for the last five hundred years or so does not always bear this out.
So can countries, so can individuals.
Put it this way - I doubt anyone would dispute that North Korea is poorer than South Korea. Indeed, many of them are even starving up there. It sounds to me like you would argue that North Korea would be justified in invading South Korea and taking whatever they like. After all, South Korea is richer than the North, and although South Koreans send a good deal of money to the Northerners, it is not enough to prevent famine.
So - would you say that an invasion of South Korea by the North Korean army is OK?
It’s the other way around. This test was written by Europeans, and aimed at an international audience. If they actually did mean social security as being defined as the retirement/income protection variety such as the American Social Security system, the question is bad because very few people outside the US knows what the US “Social Security” system is. The phrasing of that question will likely cause problems only with people in the US taking the test.
I dont have much time, but the gist of the argument is that State administered Social Security is much more effective at raising resources to maintain a civil society than private donations ever would.
I disagree (albeit mildly) with the statement and would like to reflect on one aspect. The basic problem of the welfare state is not that it sacrifices some freedom for equality, but that it tends to sacrifice freedom and equality for welfare.
Oh. That argument I understand. I disagree, but I understand. I thought you said that you would somehow be disadvantaged by giving to a charity based social safety net if others did not.
The threat of plutocracy? That is a general principle, of a rich person wielding hugely disproportionately more power such that the human rights of those with vastly less bargaining power are ignored in favour of one single kind of right: that of property. Plutocracy can perhaps be characterised as “property rights uber alles.”
I have stated in this thread and others that retardation of progress can occur if the government is not limited enough. At the same time, I always ask what use is progress if it largely benefits only those who can afford it?
You can object, of course - your free speech is unaffected. But has this minimum standard been met literally universally? Given that welfare economics in much of the industrialised democratic world has shown that it can be met universally, then if the consequence of you witholding that property was a drop below that minimum standard somehwere, then I say that that portion you withold is not your property in the first place: it is the rent you pay to everyone else to allow you to own everything you think you do.
Agreed, which is why a true democracy requires an educated an vigilant electorate.
I’d suggest we put aside countries for now and consider the regions or individuals within the sphere of our democratic influence. Yes, I would prefer the UN to be a more democratic entity towards a democratic world government, but that is another debate entirely.
I have apologised for misrepresenting you - please afford me a similar curtesy. Like I said, we are debating how things should be within a democracy: South Korea are not employing North Koreans at starvation wages or the like - it is the undemocratic North Korean government who are effectively starving their own people, and I would certainly advocate that the NK people met such force with similar force, revolting in order to bring about a new democratic government in which a portion of everybody’s output was redistributed for purposes of welfare, social security, and immediate human rights above property rights.
And I’d like to repeat a couple of previous questions to you: Why is any appeal to the welfare, the suffering, the* plight* of our fellows seemingly dismissed out of hand as “emotive” - why the reluctance to even discuss it? And what is the point of progress if it only comes about by vast millions having limited or no access to its benefits?
Yes. More accurately, it can curtail the freedom to use that which someone else demands monopolistic use of, even though it could be used by more than only he.
We debate whether it is “earned” or “accrued”: you contend the former, I the later. Neither of us has strictly shown anything except a reasoned argument.
Only insofar as the serf would starve if he did not work - after all, he could have upped sticks and left at any time, but would merely find another feudal lord offering an identical deal. Such an economically coercive situation can arise whenever property rights are asserted above all others, even in our own industrialised democracies.
I have no other basis for speaking to you logically, or indeed in English, than such an agreement.
Hmm, I’m not sure how I can explain why I believe that coercion follows unchecked capitalism, or suffering and plutocratic influences can follow agreement with #53 than I did in my OP: I can perhaps only ask that you read it again and that you criticise specific parts of it. I am suggesting negative consequences of unchecked capitalism. If you disagree that they follow, so be it.
Here you seem to be limiting the right of government to seize property and disregard property rights only in cases of “hugely disproportionate” or “vastly less” power. Yet below, you seem to be saying that any instance of an individual not receiving as much as you think he should is enough to trigger the seizure.
If you are advocating such a procedure in the US, ISTM that you are saying that the US is a country where people are starving in the streets, which AFAICT they are not, or that the principle of “rob the rich and give to the poor” applies generally.
It depends on how many can afford it, I suppose.
The technological advances of the 20th century, ISTM, are generally available among the US population. Practically everyone has indoor plumbing, vaccination is widespread, almost all dwellings have hot and cold running water, TVs, suffrage is universal, etc., etc. And all this has happened in a society which is largely free-market capitalist and does not share your horror of plutocracy.
And the history of the US, especially during the post-industrial era, tends to reinforce this notion of a “rising tide lifting all boats”. This is especially true when contrasted with the threadbare poverty of societies like the USSR who alleged themselves to be dedicated to equality.
No. But there has never been a society where this mimimum is universally met. There are always poor people. And, in my opinion, always will be.
No, I have to decline this offer.
I am looking for general principles here. Unless you can come up with some reason to limit examples, I would prefer to apply the principles in a variety of cases, and see what results.
As below:
Certainly not my intention, and I apologize if I have done so.
Ah, but why?
On what principle do you state that the North Koreans can’t invade? Is it because there is not a huge disparity in economic power? But there is. Is it because the rich South Koreans don’t consent to the invasion? Neither do rich people around the world necessarily want to have the fruits of their labors confiscated for the alleged benefit of strangers. Is it because an invasion would violate the property rights of South Korea? We have already established that need makes right, and it is OK to disregard property rights if anyone anywhere is poor.
In which case, what difference does it make if I am robbed by my own government, or by some other government? In principle, mind you.
I thought Marxists and so forth were all in favor of the universal brotherhood of the proletariat, and all that. If the North Korean government is stealing from its own people in aid of some abstract principle of equality, how is that different from my government stealing from me in accord with the same principle?
The point is that although only limited people may be able to receive the benefit of such progress, that eventually everyone will, or have a chance to experience the benefits of that progress. If progress and development is limited, no one will ever experience the benefits.
This is demonstrated by the majority of technological developments over the last couple hundred years in this country. For example, the automobile was probably very expensive when was first invented, but today they are much more affordable. Commercial flight used to be much more expensive, and now not as much so.
Well, yes, I propose my threshold, you propose yours, and we accept the decision of the electorate in whose proposal is enacted.
Not starving perhaps, no, but I would suggest that other conditions which are just as preventable as marasmus are ultimately being left unaddressed because the victim of the economic coercion cannot afford it. However, like I said, I’m a little loathe to explore sepcific countries in these threads, and would prefer to stick with the principles.
I appreciate this, of course: in many of these threads I argue the benefits of capitalism. But only democratically checked capitalism: to elevate property rights above all others is to discard this essential redistributive checking mechanism.
Welfare economics in most of the industrialised democratic world has shown that the plight of the poorest portion can attain some civilised minimum via tax-funded social security. Again, I consider that something can be done by governments about the immediate lives and human rights of the poorest portion which charity misses, except by the actions of magical elves.
Very well. I offer the principle that democracy is the least worst system of government.
Because it is not a democracy.
Nor do the poor want the rich to deny them the basic health and wage which they could have if the government lowered porperty rights from their elevated level.
I objected to anywhere because we can only act within our democratic spheres of influence, and would amend your final word in that sentence to not merely “poor” but “suffering”.
I say you’re not being robbed by either, remember.
I didn’t say the NK government was stealing from its people, I said it was denying them democracy.
That is only if development and progress stops completely, and is not merely “limited”. I’d suggest that it is perfectly possible for those millions to benefit from progress while it still continued apace, via taxation.
Ok, then what is it about being in a democracy that means your property rights can be overruled - but not from outside? And on what is that principle based?
You also seem to be moving between a standard of gross inadequacy, and one where anytime the government could do more, it has to, and to hell with those whose property gets ripped off. At what point do we call “Enough!”? Is there such a point?
And, of course, why are we able to trust government so completely? I can’t remember who said it, but the quote ran something like:
How do we avoid confiscation based, not on noble ideas of equality, but simple greed for what he has and I want?
How, in other words, do you address the main problem of redistributive socialism - killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?
You have a society, IOW, where there are a few rich, a few poor, and a giant middle class. You want to grab what the rich have, and give it to the poor. But then you have no more rich to grab from - what do the poor do then?
You don’t even have to do it all at once - the rich, who aren’t stupid, realize that they are going to go thru all the effort of amassing wealth, but then it will be taken and redistributed. Suppose then that you still haven’t eliminated poverty and inequality. Aren’t you then screwed by winding up with the worst of both worlds - no rich to grab from, and still the poor clamor for more?
In a democracy, or more accurately in a representational democracy, we debate what are the legitimate interests of society and what benefits to those interests justify what costs to individual rights. The principle is that there is some level of benefit that justifies some level of cost and we trust our informed elected representatives to make that cost benefit analysis on our behalfs and vote them out if we disagree with their decisions too much.
In the United States we traditionally tend to put the burden of proof on the side that says the benefits will outweigh the costs and place a high value on individual freedoms. In that analysis we have decided that the limitation upon individual freedoms imposed by a certain level of taxation are offset by the benefits to society obtained by various programs to help the poorest among us. We are most comfortable with this if we know that we are all doing our fair share according to our means to do so. It is continually debated as to what level we should be helping the poorest and what level of imposition via taxation is justifiable. But that some level is justified is agreed upon by most and that we can elect others to more adequately represents our views are accepted principles.
Re “redistributive socialism” - in a democracy it doesn’t generally happen mainly because we all see ourselves as the soon to be rich. We want that dream, we like that dream, and we’d prefer to keep it a possibility.
No, you have a fundemental misunderstanding of what a serf is. A serf cannot leave the land or the service of his lord. By virtue of being born to serfs, he was legally bound to serve the lord of the fiefdom in which he lived. He did not have any rights whatsoever to leave.
A serf is a laborer who is bound to the land. Serfs differ from slaves in that serfs cannot be sold apart from the land which they work. Typically, when serfdom prevailed, the land itself could not be sold because it was associated with political powers (just as the Queen of Great Britain cannot sell Great Britain). Instead, the land was transferred via war, marriage, and the like.
No, they cannot. Serfdom requires, as I said, legal powers which the Robor Barons did not have. Wage earners in the late 19th century had enough trouble without you confusing them with serfs.
Might I suggest that you have a slanted view of “unchecked capitalism”. If you confuse “wage slaves” (the existence of which we could debate) with serfs then you might be confusing many other things. The fact that some people end up in unfortunate circumstances does not mean that the system under which it happened is flawed. And the proposal that some people might end up in such circumstances is less of a reason to believe so.